A lot of what Obama has done has been a big disappointment, to me no less than to other liberals. I constantly hear people saying that Obama is no different from Bush, or from what McCain would have been if he’d been elected.

Today we have more proof that these claims are just wrong.

As of today, the Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

Andrew Cohen reports in Politics Daily:

In announcing the surprise move, Attorney General Holder wrote: “After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Part of our job as progressive activists is to push our elected officials farther than they want to go.

They deserve credit when they get a big decision like this right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WGDR Radio (91.1 FM, Plainfield, Vermont) plans to preempt their usual programming in the afternoon on Wednesday (February 23rd) for some local coverage concerning homelessness and related matters within Vermont.

Live blog coverage, via CoverItLive, is scheduled to begin when WGDR does so at or around 2:30 PM (EST) and is planned to go until 6:00 PM (EST), which should be available on the WGDR Website and is also posted on Vermont Watch, here (Update: due to technical difficulties, the live blog player could not be directly embedded on the WGDR Website).

Word is Governor Peter Shumlin is planning on calling into WGDR sometime around or after 2:30 PM or so 3:05 PM (Updated).

It is also reported that Agency of Human Services (AHS) Secretary Doug Racine will be at the WGDR studio sometime during the day as well.

In addition, information has it that state Senator Anthony Pollina also plans to call into WGDR during its homelessness related broadcast.

Excerpts of information from sidebar of WGDR Website:

The Homelessness Marathon is an annual 14-hour radio broadcast featuring the voices and stories of homeless people from around the United States. The Homelessness Marathon features live call-ins all night long via a national toll-free number. WGDR invites everyone to come down to the station during the marathon. We are a “listening station” where people can gather in solidarity around the issue of homelessness. The station is on the Campus of Goddard College, Plainfield, Vermont.

[…]

Call Ruth Wilder at the station for more information about the special program, or if you want to participate. 802-322-1720

Listen to WGDR in the Central Vermont area on 91.1 FM or stream the station live, here.

Afterwards, live blogging of WGDR’s coverage during the 2011 Homelessness Marathon broadcast originating from Kansas City, Missouri will begin at 7:00 PM (EST) on Wednesday, February 23rd and, barring any technical difficulties or falling asleep, will continue until 9:00 AM (EST) on Thursday, February 24th, 2011.

The Homelessness Marathon’s mission is to raise consciousness about homelessness and poverty in America and around the world. We operate on a shoestring budget and the dedication of volunteers, so your contribution will really make a difference.

Elsewhere within Vermont, WVEW – 107.7 FM – Brattleboro Community Radio will also be airing the Homelessness Marathon as well as preempting their usual programming to provide hour-long local coverage beginning at 6:00 PM (EST).

Read an article about it (via The Commons), here.

One can also view the entire broadcast of the Homelessness Marathon, whose Website will have an embedded player streaming live video feed via Free Speech TV.

In the meantime, to learn more about this consciousness raising event, view a brief promo, here and, a short clip from a 2009 interview of Jeremy Alderson aka Nobody, here (via YouTube).

I went to the rally at the Statehouse today for solidarity with the workers in Wisconsin and other places that are under attack. It was cold as hell, but the sky was clear, and in my guesstimate, there were 4 to 5 hundred people. I arrived right after Governor Shumlin spoke, so I didn’t catch that, but there were many other speakers… Speaker Smith, Senator Pollina, someone from Sanders’ office, as well as several union/labor activists (I was moving around a lot and didn’t get names… sorry). Spirits were high and people were fired up.

Perhaps as a good measure of the popularity of the teabaggers in Vermont, there was one person standing there with a sign that said “Union Greed is Hurting America”. Musta been confused.

All in all, it was a good vibe. These actions over the last week (still unfolding, of course) are some of the most inspiring things I can remember happening in this country in a very long time. Too long.

forever or at all?  

Vermont State Senate Pro Tempore John Campbell quoted in Vt.buzz

Would Vermont legislators ever consider flight?

“No,” Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell, D-Windsor, said Monday. “I hate to see any legislator walk off the job like that,” he said. “The legislative process is about discourse and about coming up with solutions.”

I don’t know exactly how the question might have been phrased but how about say ‘maybe‘ at least.  

Republican Leader Senator Bill Doyle agreed and said no also to a walk-out.  

In regards to the recent controversy revolving around the ‘Anonymous’ issue, I must say I never expected the issue to become so inflammatory. The possibility of the misuse of GMD’s website & blog for outside or nefarious purposes & any resultant negative consequences is a fair issue. The GMD owner(s) have a legitimate concern as to how GMD is recognized, percieved & what information is allowed to be distributed using its platform.

When I added comment to the Anonymous post, it was never meant to violate WBC rights. All speech is not protected. Unless one is versed in all legal challenges, up on what is & is not protected or constitutional law, issue can be difficult to navigate. There is such a thing as ‘fighting words’, threats & harassment, as well as many other limitations to ‘free speech’. My intention was to recognize ‘Anonymous’ voice on behalf of those who have been subjected to WBC actions in curtailing this activity. Though Anonymous uses strong language, it appears to be sending the message that WBC tactics will be met with the same. Though WBC does not use the same language verbatim, their actions speak much louder than words.

Picketing & shouting at grief-stricken families & friends attending funerals is so far, far beyond the pale there appears to be no laws on the books to deal with this. This is a form of terrorism & should be treated as such. Families of servicemen & women, those whose lifestyles they disagree with, including a young gay man Mathhew Shepherd, slain in an unspeakable manner. The rights of those victimized by reprehensible behavior of WBC & their perverted ‘gospel’ message deserve protection, they also have rights. WBC also targeted the funeral of the nine year old killed by Loughner.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/201…

Free speech & the freedom of the press comes with reponsibilities. Although I do recognize those I disagree with have a right to voice their opinions, as it is necessary to maintain our rights & freedom, I also recognize there are those who dwell among us, from no particular segment of society, religion or politics who exist solely to game everything & everyone as well as every system known to the planet for their own selfish destructive purposes & interests. They do not use, but abuse our rights, privileges & freedom as well as the systems in place to protect them. Sole purpose is promoting the detriment of others, to inflict misery, suffering & pain upon those they consider unacceptable to their personal belief system. When it is no longer isolated individuals but an established group that collectively share & use this deviant behavior which motivates & administers these hideous actions on others, they bring upon themselves also the collective backlash which invariably results. Because they swaddle themselves in the constitution & use it as a guise for their activist form of hatred changes nothing. Sad to say those who do not respect the personhood, rights or freedom of others certainly do have the same rights as well.

Wisdom is justified by its children. Not quite the same as ‘end justifies the means’. Since WBC & their ilk use all methods & means at their disposal to conduct their reprehensible campaign of hatred, the opposition often chooses to use the tactical means & methods available also. Though it has been said fire cannot be fought with fire, I disagree. There is a method of firefighting in which back burning is used to isolate & contain the fire from spreading.

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Friedrich Nietzsche

Blogging, says the New York Times, is on the wane. Facebook and Twitter reports the Times are now the preferred online choice for the younger generation.  

The Internet and American Life Project at the Pew Research Center found that from 2006 to 2009, blogging among children ages 12 to 17 fell by half; now 14 percent of children those ages who use the Internet have blogs. Among 18-to-33-year-olds, the project said in a report last year, blogging dropped two percentage points in 2010 from two years earlier.

It seems like only yesterday, but it was way back in 2004 that Merriam-Webster declared “blog” the word of the year.  So many people began blogging — to share dieting stories, rant about politics and celebrate their love of cats — that Merriam-Webster declared “blog” the word of the year in 2004.  The article leaves the impression there is little between cat blogs and the Huffington Post.  

Newspapers may be feeling a little gleeful at this waning development because for some newspaper people blogs are the handy target for their own complex reasons of decline. However its just evolution as one expert says of the Facebook,Twitter and blog situation.

“Rather than being competitors, they are complementary […]“There is a lot of fragmentation ,but at this point, anyone who is taking blogging seriously — they’re using several mediums to get a large amount of their traffic.”

 

There is a distinguished touch of gray showing around blog banners. A 2010 study showed an increase of 16%, six points in a two year period with 34 to 45 year olds who use the internet to blog.  

( – promoted by odum)

Preface: This is my first diary here, and my first real writing since I left college almost 10 years ago. I apologize if this is overly convoluted. If I write more, it’ll probably get better. I wrote this after reading JulieWater’s post as I thought a rough background on the group Anonymous might prove interesting. My goal is to start a conversation on the ethics of protesting. I am not sure I succeeded in the following. I will not take offense if one of the admins deletes this. That having been said, through the rabbit hole we go.

On December 7th 2010, a group known as Anonymous burst into political consciousness with brazen attacks on Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and Swiss internet bank PostFinance in retaliation for shutting down payments or other services to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Wikileaks had just days earlier released a plethora of US diplomatic cables and various governmental and non-governmental organizations were learning on corporations to cease providing support and services to wikileaks. While these attacks gained breathless coverage in the American media, this was not by far the first time Anonymous had made its presence known.

Over the past few years, Anonymous has been involved in anti-scientologist protest organization and information dissemination, fighting porn filters in Australia, and even bringing down Gene Simmons’ (of KISS fame) website over anti-file sharing comments he made. For most people these battles flew under the radar, but for those paying attention it showed the clear signs indicating the creation of a new form of activism.

Anonymous describes itself as a decentralized group of concerned citizens of the world. If their beliefs can be generalized, it would best be expressed as a form of digital libertarianism. They have in general expressed their interest in the freedom of information (for example, information on the inner workings and perceived deficiencies of Scientology) and their belief that the laws of countries should have no place on the internet (filesharing/”piracy”, restrictions on porn, etc). However, since anonymous (at least publicly) has no formal leadership structure or organization, actions undertaken in their name occasionally seem to deviate from these generalities. Statements on their purpose have stated that they do it “for the lulz.” Their activities have been called hactivism by some, the combination of the words activism and hacking.

Their only known physical protest by the group took place in 2008 during Anonymous’ attack on scientology. After several days of intermittent distributed denial of service attacks against scientology websites, Anonymous organized protests at scientology offices in 93 cities worldwide. Usually Anonymous has kept to the internet. Their modus operendi has been to use a combination of exploiting security flaws, social engineering, and brute force distributed denial of service attacks to convey their “message.” Typically, a press release style announcement will be released in advance of the action to give a general warning, ultimatum, or reason behind their pending actions. Since Anonymous is a collective rather than an organized group, some of these announcements are never actually acted upon. Projects are undertaken by volunteers. If not enough people (or not enough people with the required skills) are involved, the projects fizzle as they would in any community. In this way, Anonymous represents something akin to the organization in grassroots political or revolutionary groups.

The fundamental ideas behind the organization and activity of anonymous have been around for quite some time. Ever since computers became commonplace home appliances, disgruntled people have been exploring vulnerabilities in systems for various purposes, some claimed noble. For example, many people attempted (and occasionally succeeded) over the years of obtaining unauthorized access to corporate servers with the intent on “freeing” proprietary information to the masses. Where anonymous has revolutionized the concept has been in taking on various larger societal issues and applying a decentralized organizational structure to ensure that the organization cannot be taken down by removing any known key player.

This has not stopped people from trying. Notably, over the past month, a story has developed around one security researcher’s attempt to unveil the leadership behind anonymous. Aaron Barr, CEO of HBGary Federal attempted to discover the identity of several people involved in the organization of attacks on wikileaks who he identified by following conversations in an IRC (internet relay chat) channel. He leveraged several social media websites, mostly facebook and twitter, to correlate login times between, IRC and the social media sites as well as comment contents to determine real world names behind digital handles. Whether or not he succeeded is a question we may never know the answer to. For whatever reason, Mr. Barr decided to contact a member of Anonymous to tell them what he had done. This resulted in an immediate and harsh retaliatory action. Through social engineering, a member of Anonymous managed to get “root” access to a server related to HBGary Federal and through several fairly common techniques managed to escalate their access to the point where they were able to retrieve 40,000 emails, delete 1 terabyte of backup data, compromise the HBGary Federal website, and obtain control over Aaron Barr’s twitter account.

So what is Anonymous? That depends largely on your point of view. Some would likely qualify them as digital vigilantes. Others would call them bored technologists. Their actions have thus far primarily been targeted at corporations and large organizations and their techniques have mostly been attempting to send a message via blocking access to websites. This activity is illegal in several countries, including the United States, but is it a morally justifiable form of protest?  

Further Reading:

Anonymous’ Wikipedia Entry

Anon News Network

ArsTechnica covers the HBGary-Anonymous clash

There’s a piece that has been posted all over the damned place, as well as here on Green Mountain Daily.  It starts with:

TO THE CONGREGANTS OF WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH:

It continues with a long litany about WBC, none of which I disagree with.  Then it gets to the meat of the matter:

  ANONYMOUS cannot abide this behavior any longer. The time for us to be idle spectators in your inhumane treatment of fellow Man has reached its apex, and we shall now be moved to action. Thus, we give you a warning: Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011, return to your homes in Kansas, & close your public Web sites.

  Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines.

This is unacceptable.

No matter how hateful, bigoted, pathetic and disgusting the behavior of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, they have the right to be bigoted.  They have the right to be vile, sad, disturbed people with a twisted view of their own sense of purpose.  They have the right to believe that gay people deserve to die and the right to say so, provided they do not cross over the line into violence or threat of violence.

This is Democracy at work.  Even the people we find most disgusting have the right to their opinions.  

And the minute we find anonymous attacks on those rights to be acceptable, even to the point where some of us may cheer them on, we forfeit part of our right to engage in discourse.  The minute we decide that silencing our opposition is of more value than even simply shunning them?  At that point, we are no better than the members of the tea party who would rather shout down their opposition than allow them a voice.

I do not know who “anonymous” is.  I don’t really care.  Nor do i care about Phelps or his group of thuggish degenerates.  

I care about what we do.  And we have an obligation to oppose systemic DOS attacks on those whom we dislike.  We have a moral imperative to allow those who would speak against us and our rights to do so.

It’s really that simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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