I don’t have time to get much up about this right now, so this is an invitation to the other front pagers to expand on this piece throughout the day.  The Rutland Herald has the story, which boils down to an agreement having been settled for the current budget year, but the administration insisting on some very serious cuts for future budget years that the union was unwilling to make.  Specifically:

Finding savings in this fiscal year 2010 wasn’t the problem – officials from both parties agreed to achieve the necessary cuts via a combination of furlough days, unpaid holidays and medical-plan savings.

Secretary of Administration Neale Lunderville, however, insisted the union stipulate to an additional $20 million in labor cuts in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, a condition the Vermont State Employees Association ultimately rejected.

[…]

Jes Kraus, executive director of the 6,000-member VSEA, said union officials were unable to agree to the severe cuts Lunderville sought. He said the union, at significant financial expense to its members, helped the administration solve the $7.4 million hole in the current budget. Financial problems in 2011 and 2012, Kraus said, should be solved with the collective bargaining process, already under way, that will set labor agreements for the next two fiscal years.

This is pretty much bad for everybody.

Per The Burlington Free Press:

Lawmakers targeted the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for this financial sanction because of a series of recent allegations of fraud and deception. The most talked- about has been the allegation of illegal activity that grew from videos showing two people posing as a prostitute and a pimp receiving advice from ACORN staff about how to avoid taxes, falsify documents and hide illegal child workers.

On the surface, this seems kind of reasonable.  Except, with most of these things, the surface doesn’t tell you much.

As both Sanders and Leahy have noted, there is an actual process for determining which organizations get funding of the kind that ACORN gets.  To use the legislative process to specifically target one organization makes this process needlessly political.  It sets the precedent for us to allow right-wing groups to hound us into defunding a group not on the merits of its case but on political fearmongering and the fostering of racial hatred.

It’s not a shock, or even any sort of surprise to me that this vote played out the way it did.  

It is, however, a great disappointment to me that Welch supported it.

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

Geez, Shay Totten’s love affair with Congressman Peter Welch is the blogging gift that keeps giving this week. Less than forty-eight hours after his fawning print piece on Welch hit the newsstands, Totten went to the Seven Days blog to make sure that we all know that his journalistic pimpmanship will be there for the good congressman whenever he calls (or issues a news release).

Totten’s blog piece was little more than a full-throated rehash of the news release that Welch’s office issued regarding the education bill that the House voted to past last week. But what’s not mentioned in the blog entry is that the education bill in question also contained the amendment to de-fund ACORN – an amendment that – unlike Leahy and Sanders – Welch voted in favor of. Yes, Welch voted with the rightwing lunatics and wishy-washy middle to de-fund ACORN based on the very serious (and well-publicized) allegations of wrongdoing by its staff members. Again, Totten didn’t do his homework. Because while the rest of the media across the nation focused on the very newsworthy ACORN section of the education bill, Totten completely ignored it. Instead, letting Welch all but hijack his keyboard so that lines like this could be delivered to his Vermont readers:

Vermont students will receive $60 million more in Pell Grants, and an additional 2,985 students will be eligible over the next 10 years, according to figures released by US Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT). Welch successfully amended the bill Thursday morning to ensure that non-profit lenders like VSAC can continue providing ancillary services such as college counseling, career placement, financial aid and financial literacy. It also ensures that borrower services – for example, delinquency prevention and default aversion – are allowed uses of the new State Innovation Completion Grants. “I am pleased that my amendment will help VSAC continue its critical outreach services, which have helped so many Vermonters take advantage of higher education and the opportunities that come with it,” said Welch in a statement.

Great. But what about the ACORN part of the bill? It wasn’t even mentioned. I guess that can happened when you’re too dizzy from all that spin, huh Shay?

Interestingly, Totten made quite the story out of the fact that Vermont’s Senators Leahy and Sanders did the right thing earlier in the week by voting against the Senate version of the bill to de-fund ACORN. So, in case you’re keeping track at home, Totten’s rules on covering Vermont incumbents goes something like this: Promote, promote, promote. And never criticize.

While going back to check Totten’s story about the Leahy/Sanders “no” votes, I noticed that he had gone back to “update” it to include the news of the Welch ACORN vote. Thus, buried deep down below several other blog posts and at the bottom of that particular post was this “update:”

After several requests from Seven Days, Rep. Peter Welch today explained his vote to ban the low-income advocacy group ACORN from receiving federal funds. “The actions taken by ACORN employees reveal a disturbing and intolerable pattern of abuse of taxpayer dollars. The organization must be held accountable – and Congress must get back to work on reforming our health care system so that all Americans have access to quality and affordable health care.”

And that’s it. No further comment from Totten on the matter. Sorry, but this is getting weird. If Totten and Seven Days are going to get all fawning over Leahy and Sanders’ votes to stop the de-funding of ACORN, one would expect a finely honed jab or two toward Welch for his completely wrong-headed opposite vote. Instead, all we get is a reprint of a Welch statement. Worse, it’s a statement that would be about as easy as watching the weather change in Vermont to pick apart.

Here, let me show you: If Welch believes that “a disturbing and intolerable pattern of abuse of taxpayer dollars” is reason to cut off federal funding to an organization without even a hearing, why doesn’t Welch cut off funding for the Abu Ghraib-occupying Department of Defense? Just saying.

And why let Welch get away with his topic-changing nonsense about getting “back to work on reforming health care”? Ever chew gum and walk at the same time, Congressman? Besides, Welch has already announced that he’s not going to fight for single-payer or universal health care coverage, so why let him get away with a statement that pretends he’s in favor of full “access to quality and affordable health care”? Because supporting a health insurance corporation reform plan – which he’s hinted at doing – is anything but accessible or affordable. Been there, done that.

If Totten and Seven Days had any alternative gumption left in them, the headline today should have been: Welch Sides with Glenn Beck Nation, Votes to De-fund ACORN. Shame on them all.

[Addendum: A reader wrote in earlier today to Broadsides to draw attention to a story by Anne Galloway at VTDigger.org regarding Welch’s propensity to secure military contracts for Vermont businesses. It is, indeed, a great story. In fact, it’s a great contrast to Totten’s fawning coverage of Welch. Read it.]

I think something has to be said here regarding the ACORN vote.  Our Vermont Senators are going to take a thumping on this, come re-election time.  We need to come out strongly in support of their vote, and absolutely on-message.

The vote was not a referendum on the legitimacy of ACORN’S agenda.  It was to determine whether the conventional non-partisan review process that is applied to all applicants for federal funding could be selectively overridden in a political way.  We should be asking why the remaining Senators did not have the wisdom (or integrity?) of our two Vermont representatives in recognizing the threat such action would represent to the First Amendment rights and best interests of the American people.

It is no surprise that the target of this organized attempt at financial censure is an entity that represents the interests of the poorest and least powerful members of society.  It is perhaps beside the point that the allegations of wrong-doing by ACORN workers are largely unproven; and even if fully supported by evidence, are extremely few considering the size and scope of ACORN’s workforce and the importance of their efforts on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised.

Instead of pointing the finger at Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy and asking why they voted their conscience when faced with a politically inhospitable situation, we should be celebrating their courage and commitment to the value of independence that Vermont has long cherished.

When Right-Wing Radio Talkmeister Said ‘We Need Segregated Buses’ After Incident on an Illinois School Bus, He Not Only Told His ‘Dittohead’ Listeners a Bald-Faced Lie About What Happened, He Also Crossed a Red Line By Openly Advocating the Direct Flouting of More Than 50 Years of Federal Laws and Court Rulings That Ban Racial Segregation

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Monday, September 21, 2009)

==================================

A ‘SKEETER BITES REPORT EDITORIAL

==================================

Rush Limbaugh has gone too far.

The right-wing radio talk-show host has been sounding increasingly belligerent in the past year toward liberals, Democrats, women and racial and ethnic minorities. But last week, he crossed a legal “red line” he should not have crossed when he called for publicly-owned school buses to be racially segregated.

“We need segregated buses,” he said, commentating on an incident aboard a school bus in which a white teenager was attacked by two black teens.

Seizing upon the incident to fire yet another slam at President Obama, Limbaugh said, “I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson that we’re being taught here today. [The] kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and so forth. This is Obama’s America.”

Limbaugh — never once referring to the president by his official title, or even by his first name — continued, “In Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, ‘Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on!'”

But Limbaugh told his “Dittohead” listeners a bald-faced lie  — and the proof that he lied is on videotape.

ATTACK ON TEEN CAPTURED ON SECURITY VIDEO

In the incident, which was captured by an on-board security camera, two black high school students pummeled a white student while on their way to school last Monday morning in the St. Louis suburb of Belleville, Illinois.

The attack was initially labeled as racially motivated, but local police later backed away from that assessment.

According to a Fox News report fed to local Fox network affiliates, Belleville police said kids on the bus repeatedly told the 17-year-old victim he could not sit beside them, so he finally pushed aside a backpack and sat anyway.

The network quoted Belleville Police Captain Don Sax as saying that the incident was “an extreme case of kids behaving poorly.”

After the white student sat down, “Pretty soon the kid who he sat next to is pushing him, trying to push him out of the seat and the next thing you know he starts punching him and choking him and punching him some more,” Sax said. “It’s ridiculous.”

Four minutes after the first attack, the victim was pummeled again by a second student.

Neither the 17-year-old victim nor his alleged attackers, aged 14 and 15, were identified, but his assailants were expected to be charged in Juvenile Court with assault.

Sax told Fox News that because the victim was white and his attackers black, “It’s a strong suggestion that it was race-related.” But after examining the videotape, police ruled out a racial motive for the assault.

VIDEO CLEARLY SHOWS OTHER WHITE KIDS CHEERING ON ATTACKERS

In his Tuesday broadcast, Limbaugh claimed that the black students aboard the bus chanted “‘Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on!'” while the white student was being pummeled.

But a close examination of the audio portion of the video — which is available for viewing on YouTube and other Web sites, including Limbaugh’s — shows that Limbaugh lied. There was no “Right on!” chant — although it did pick up one student yelling “Kick his ass!” just prior to the initial attack and shouts of “Get off the bus!” during it.

More importantly, the video clearly shows other white kids cheering on the victim’s attackers, as the driver shouted frantically at the teenagers to return to their seats. Other students seated at the front of the bus — black and white alike — can be seen reacting with shock at what was going on.

LIMBAUGH: ‘THIS IS OBAMA’S AMERICA — WHITE KIDS GETTING BEAT UP ON SCHOOL BUSES’

Limbaugh point-blank used the Belleville incident to engage in deliberate race-baiting. According to a transcript of his Tuesday broadcast posted on his own Web site, the right-wing commentator said:

“Hey, look, folks, the white kid on that bus in Belleville, Illinois, he deserved to be beat up.  You don’t know about this story?  Oh, there’s video of this.  The school bus filled with mostly black students beat up a white student a couple of times with all the black students cheering.

“Of course the white student on the bus deserved the beating,” Limbaugh continued.  “He was born a racist.  That’s what Newsweek magazine told us in its most recent cover.

Limbaugh’s rant continues: “It’s Obama’s America, is it not?  Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now.  You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, “Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,” and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white.”

When a caller reminded Limbaugh that Sax “did not comment on anything other than he said more investigations shows that [the incident] was not racially motivated,” the right-wing talkmeister replied, ” I think the guy [Sax] is wrong. I think not only was it racism, it’s justifiable racism.”

Then came Limbaugh’s stunner: “I mean, that’s the lesson that we’re being taught here today. [The] kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses. It was invading of space and so forth. This is Obama’s America.”

DEAN COMPARES LIMBAUGH TO 1930S RADIO DEMAGOGUE FATHER COUGHLIN

Reaction to Limbaugh’s rant was swift and furious. Appearing Thursday night on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” former Democratic national chairman Howard Dean compared Limbaugh to another notorious right-wing radio demagogue: Father Charles Coughlin, a Roman Catholic priest who in the 1930s used his radio program to issue blatantly anti-Semitic commentary and to rationalize the policies of Hitler and Mussolini.

“There’s a lot of money to be made in passing out hate of the kind that Rush Limbaugh is just doing,” Dean said.  “He’s always an entertainer, but he’s way over the line.  And this is a long — there’s a long, unfortunate American tradition of this, going back to Father Coughlin and people before that. They appeal to the very worst in people.”

On the same program, Mark Potok, a spokesman for the anti-racism Southern Poverty Law Center, said by arguing that school buses be segregated, as far as Limbaugh was concerned, “this is the only way, I suppose, that white people can be protected from black people.

“I think when we have characters like Limbaugh saying that on the air to millions of Americans — many of whom actually revere the man — it’s not surprising that people feel that ‘the race wars around the corner’ and that we’re allowed to say these kinds of things,” Potok said.

LIMBAUGH CLAIMS HIS ‘BUSES’ REMARK IS A ‘JOKE’ — BUT THAT’S A CROCK OF BULL—-!

Not surprisingly, Limbaugh fired back on Friday. “This whole race tumult is being orchestrated and run out of the White House straight out of [chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel and [senior advisor David] Axelrod’s office.  They are promoting it; they are encouraging it.  Isn’t it amazing? You have black kids who beat up a white kid on a school bus. That’s not racism. You have half the country criticizing a socialist health care plan, and that is racism.”

Limbaugh took dead aim at Potok: “So I’m doing a total parodic rant. I mean, the sarcasm is dripping — and this bottom-feeder at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mark Potok, is putting it out there that I made a call for segregated buses.  You know what this is like?”

“Parody,” my ass. Pardon me for using blunt language, but Limbaugh’s claim that his call for “segregated buses” was a sarcastic “parody” is a crock of pure, unadulterated bull—-. He knew what he was doing when he said it.

I’ve never bought Limbaugh’s namby-pamby excuse that he’s “just an entertainer.” Bull—-! He’s a demagogue. He meant what he said.

RIGHT-WING TALKMEISTER CALLED FOR OPENLY FLOUTING HALF-CENTURY OF COURT RULINGS, LAWS

By calling for “segregated buses,” Limbaugh has used his radio platform to openly advocate the re-imposition of racial segregation in a public accommodation — which has been illegal under a host of court rulings and a passel of federal and state laws for more than half a century.

Rosa Parks — whose refusal to yield a front seat to a white man in 1955 led to the Montgomery bus boycott that kicked off the civil rights movement — must be turning over in her grave. Ditto Dr. Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Ralph David Abernathy, Roy Wilkins, Bayard Rustin and scores of others who devoted — and in many cases, sacrificed — their lives to bring an end to the evil of America’s apartheid based on race.

Limbaugh has the unmitigated gall to employ reverse psychology again and again and again to not only deflect longstanding complaints against him as a demagogue, but to accuse his critics of being demagogues themselves.

But this time, Limbaugh has gone too far. He has called for the open flouting of the law.

The First Amendment bars the Federal Communications Commission from taking punitive action against Limbaugh for violating its rules that strongly condemn the use of the airwaves to promote illegal activity. But that does not mean that Limbaugh cannot be held accountable.

ADVERTISER BOYCOTT AGAINST GLENN BECK SHOULD EXPAND TO INCLUDE LIMBAUGH

Not by the FCC, but by the advertisers who buy time on his show to air their spots — a fact that Fox News host Glenn Beck has learned the hard way after his blatantly slanderous and defamatory attack on President Obama as a “racist who hates white people” without providing a scintilla of evidence to prove it.

Now he’s costing Fox News hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost advertising revenue — despite a big spike in Beck’s ratings — thanks to a advertiser boycott of his show.

Money talks and bull—- walks. It took an advertiser boycott to bring down Don Imus after he made a highly inflammatory remark about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. The multimillionaire Limbaugh can be hit where it really hurts — in his massive bank account.

Limbaugh’s show is syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, which is owned by Clear Channel Communications. Premiere also syndicates Glenn Beck’s radio show, as well as that of Sean Hannity.

I see no reason why the advertiser boycott of Beck’s TV show should not spread to his radio show as well. Nor do I see any reason why there shouldn’t be an advertiser boycott of Limbaugh. He’s a demagogue who’s called for the deliberate flouting of laws banning race segregation.

If I were an advertising executive, I’d think twice before having my client’s product associated with race-baiting demagogues like Limbaugh and Beck.

Sincerely,

Skeeter Sanders

Editor & Publisher

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report

Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. all rights reserved.

Yesterday was an exciting day for me as I had the opportunity to participate in my first healthfair since moving to Miami to start medical school.  Our student organization DOCS (department of community service) puts on 6 major fairs a year in low-income areas, providing free service to thousands; additionally, other student interest groups will be asked to participate in healthfairs organized mostly by churches throughout the year.  I went to the Church of the Open Door with the opthamology interest group yesterday to work the eye station, testing visual acuity, peripheral vision and intraocular pressure/cornea thickness for about sixty patients, needless to say, each one of whom was Black.  

During my break I walked to the lively sign-in area where there was music playing, food served, information about the different health stations available, and interestingly enough, many booths advertising political agendas with a plethora of material to distribute.  “Okay,” I thought, given the times and since people go to gun shows, anti-abortion demonstrations, and other meetings that fall within the political spectrum with information about candidates, I suppose this event is fair game too.  What disturbed me however, were the large posters displayed and being handed out, which as a background had a picture of Obama, then the writing was all these facts comparing Black people’s health to White people’s health, and the conclusion was that everyone needed to rally behind Obama’s healthcare plan.  More specifically, the information stated facts like: “Black babies are 2 times more likely to die before their first birthday than White Babies,” “Black women are 3 times more likely to die from breast cancer than White women,” “Black men are 1.5 times more likely to die from prostate cancer than White men,” etc.  The conclusion, to reiterate, was that these folks need Obama’s plan.  

Without a doubt I acknowledge that facts like these are true, though there are probably other societal factors that contribute outside the realm of healthcare.  Regardless, I can’t help but wonder how it would be perceived if at an all white community event, let’s say the Burlington farmer’s market, there was an anti-government healthcare table distributing flyers that said: “White babies are half as likely to die as Black babies before their first birthday,” “White women are a third as likely to die from breast cancer as Black women,” conclusion: don’t support Obama’s plan.

Now, I’m no believer in reverse-racism, White people have had a slight head-start over Blacks in our society and these facts, no matter which way you state them, highlight the economic disparities.  In fact, though it may be irrational, I’m actually comfortable with the first way those facts are phrased and uneasy with the second, and would work to distinguish myself from anyone who truly subscribed to that thought process.  We would certainly agree in our opposition, but mine comes from economic arguments and a feeling that the plan will ultimately hurt those it intends to help, while I would dismiss the person with the other argument as a racist.  I would also truly hope that because of these people, a few narrow minds were not convinced that everyone who is opposed to government healthcare is also a racist and targets Black people, because that would not accurately represent me.  

To elaborate further on the misguidance of generalized racism, I recommend the following short video.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Twenty years ago, stories were common about drunken USSR conscript soldiers in Afghanistan prior to their defeat. Afghanistan has a long history of defeating armies from far off lands on long and ill defined missions.  In 2001 a popular movie in Kabul which played to packed crowds was a tale about the mojahedin fighters defeating drunken Russian soldiers in the mountains of the Panjshir valley.

History doesn’t repeat itself but it does have a tendency to rhyme. All courses can be altered and nothing is certain, to state the obvious, but the war in Afghanistan  is rhyming historically as it enters in eighth year and a most deadly spell for US and NATO forces. In Afghanistan now as in Vietnam we are supporting a government lead by a president with questionable support from the population that controls only the Capitol and small patches of the country. US and NATO troops on a long mission with no clear end point are surrounded by a potentially hostile populace and suffer the stress.James Galloway in an article recalling the Powell doctrine writes

the national treasure we’ve invested in that effort, has propped up an ineffective and corrupt Kabul regime. Its only economic success has been the restoration of the opium trade. Afghanistan is now the world’s leading producer of opium and heroin, whereas under the Taliban government that was a death penalty offense.

In early September after a bombing raid (a precision raid) by NATO forces killed 125 civilians it was reported that ….

The head of the international forces in Afghanistan has banned alcohol at its headquarters after troops were found to be too drunk or hung-over to respond quickly to news of a deadly air strike.

A group of Macedonian guards were sent home this year because they were discovered drunk on duty, while protecting the back gate.

The problem became so acute that military police started breathalysing drivers and pedestrians around the base.

Vermont National Guard will soon deploy approximately 1,500 troops to Afghanistan on a mission that has evolved from training and mentoring into potentially broader security tasks. Maj. Gen. Michael Dubie, head of the Vermont National Guard said clarity on what the troops will be doing “hasn’t improved much in the last couple days.” “It’s still changing. The reorganization of some structures in Afghanistan is still being worked out,”Also this past Thursday the president of Macedonia was in Vermont to announce joint training of 80 troops with the Vermont National Guard.

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…

http://original.antiwar.com/ga…

As a new source, McClatchy is one of the best I read.  I like them a lot, and their facts are generally solid.  They, however, sometimes they kind of screw it up:

But to Texas separatists like Miller and Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry Kilgore of Mansfield, secession is no laughing matter. Nor is it exclusive to the nation’s second-largest state.

Fanned by angry contempt for Washington, secession movements have sprouted up in perhaps more than a dozen states in recent years. In Vermont, retired economics professor Thomas Naylor leads the Second Vermont Republic, a self-styled citizens network dedicated to extracting the sparsely populated New England state from “the American Empire.”

A few things that McClatchy’s editors should know:

1. the Second Vermont Republic has been widely discredited in Vermont, due to its ties to white supremacists;


2. SVR is basically a waning group.  In its heyday, it had relatively small numbers, and these days, these its numbers are dwindling.

Texas has a fairly active secession movement.  It’s got over half the Republicans in the state supporting it.  It scary, disturbing, and kind of freaky.  But it, unlike the SVR, is kind of a real movement.  

There’s an old joke, which I’ve seen attributed to Larry King: “there’s a group called ‘Blacks and Jews for Pat Buchannan.’  They’re meeting in a phone booth in Wichita.”

At this point, I suspect they have a stronger active membership than the SVR.

Of the birthers, that is.

She keeps trying, and she keeps getting shot down again and again. This week she got hit twice.

First was the substantive decision on one of her bogus cases challenging Obama’s qualifications to be president. She had filed a complaint in federal court and a request for a preliminary injunction to protect a military doctor from going to Iraq, and the court not only denied the injunction, the court dismissed the case. In a fourteen page decision the judge eviscerates her and her client:

He goes further, and this is very unusual, ordering that

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

I was first admitted to practice in federal court almost thirty years ago, and I know that I would take it seriously if I got an order like this. What does Orly do?

First, she goes out and attacks the judge, his judicial integrity, and his independence. “Somebody should consider trying [the judge] for treason and aiding and abetting this massive fraud known as Barack Hussein Obama.”

“Judge Land is a typical puppet of the regime — just like in the Soviet Union,” she said.

Then, she goes back to the same judge and asks him, pretty please, to change his mind:

Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary.

Smart litigation tactic? Maybe not.

“It was deja vu all over again.”

Simply, put the motion is frivolous. Moreover, the Court further finds that Plaintiff’s motion is being presented for the improper purpose of using the federal judiciary as a platform to espouse controversial political beliefs rather than as

a legitimate forum for hearing legal claims. Counsel’s conduct violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is denied, and counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary

penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct.

So what’s the point here? Well, I guess there are a couple.

First is the utter pointlessness of this argument. Nobody with a brain takes this argument seriously. Every judge the claim has been presented to has rejected it in one way or another.

The second may be even more important. Orly Taitz really is the best and the brightest. She is absolutely the smartest thing they’ve got going over in Birther-Land.

I know, reading the Taitz dispatches is like susbsisting on a diet of M&M’s. Not nutritious, they won’t sustain you over the long haul, but it’s hard to not grab that one next M, isn’t it?

Federal regulators next week are expected to seek to turn controversial “net neutrality” principles into formal rules intended to give the nation’s computer users the right to use whatever services and devices they like without interference from their ISPs.

(FCC Expected To Announce Support of Net Neutrality Monday, Wired, 09/18/09)

This is (Hey Bernie) HUUUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGE! (If indeed it really comes to pass.) Having ISPs serve us as (hopefully, someday) virtual autobahns while leaving it up to us how to make use of those highways is, I believe, democracy’s last gasp … we may get off the ventilator yet.

The downside? As pointed out in this thread regarding Entergy Yankee and nuclear monitoring, it’s all in who crafts the rules of the road.

Nonetheless I will celebrate if indeed we get a formal federal declaration of net neutrality.