I know its been commented on below, but I wanted to mention it again with particular emphasis: Peter Welch voted against the war funding supplemental, which was another such demand from the Presidency without a timetable for withdrawal (possibly in face of this criticism, however, the administration is reaffirming its August 2010 global deadline for its mostly-withdrawal, after officials had been sounding increasingly soft on it…we’ll see. Cross your fingers.). Given that it was a popular Democratic president pushing for it this time, the pressure was reportedly intense, with Rahm Emanuel furiously bargaining and pressuring (of course, he was reportedly back to working with his favorite partners, the blue dogs and Republicans) and Nancy Pelosi herself whipping members to get behind the vote.
But Welch, despite rumors to the contrary, held firm, and we thank him for that. For my part, its nice to, once again, have my faith in him re-confirmed. We may not agree on everything every single time, but its good to know he continues to stand by his word to Vermonters.
Thanks also to folks like Robert Greenwald, Digby, and especially Jane Hamsher who really latched onto this and almost achieved an amazing political coup under the media radar.
As for the bill, it passed 226-202 – interesting enough, with virtually no Republican support. Republicans objected to $108 billion appropriated in loan guarantees as part of an agreement to help shore up the International Monetary Fund. It’s more base-fodder masquerading as fiscal responsibility, as the anti-everybody-but-America wing of the right sees the IMF as part of its dreaded new world order, even though the Republican caucus has had no problems with supporting it in the past (of course, a lot of us on the left aren’t thrilled with the IMF either – and that’s an understatement – but probably a story for another diary). It is interesting, though, that the sort of bill Republicans have bullied Democrats with, as being a with-the-troops-or-against-them vote has a different flavor without George Bush pushing for it. Call it political relativism, if you want to be diplomatic. The good news is that this GOP hypocrisy seems to be the emerging media narrative in the wake of this vote.
In the meantime, we’ve clearly got a long way to go as a nation on the “better” part of this “more and better Democrats” plan.
But, as Hamsher said in the linked diary above:
Just remember:
They had to hold it open 10 extra minutes and after the Dems hit 218 and there were five GOP votes that scurried in under the wire.
We made the President of the United States himself whip to get the votes.
We tried to make the Dems fight like this when Bush was in office to stop funding the war, but they wouldn’t–so we did it ourselves.
I’m very proud to have worked with every single one of you. This was going to be a rout. They had to work for it.
The following rhetoric from a campaign email (dated the Sunday before the override session) is typical:
As I criss-crossed the state people voiced their concern about the budget stand-off between the Governor and legislature. Vermonters know that these are challenging times for the state and that some combination of spending cuts and tax increases will be required to balance the state budget.
Instead of gamesmanship, Vermonters want real leadership in Montpelier. They want the Governor and legislative leaders to have an honest dialogue and work out their differences. The budget is not a political football to pass back and forth – we are talking about the lives of ordinary Vermonters and the future of our state.
Although the bulk of the email focuses on Governor Douglas, this is another case where Markowitz has been positioning herself to run against the Governor and the legislature (trying to grab the grownup-among-the-children meme… In light of current events (specifically the real leadership that has been shown by legislative Democrats) this might seem to come off as a bit out-of-touch (or worse) to primary voters, who are unaccustomed to feeling so proud of – and empowered by – their state Representatives and Senators…
Contrast this with the lead paragraph of this week’s fundraising letter from Markowitz, dated June 11th (emphasis added):
Governor Douglas made history twice this spring – first when he vetoed the same sex marriage bill, and again when he vetoed the state’s budget for the first time in our history. I am certain that this isn’t the kind of history-making Vermonters are looking for in a governor. We need a governor who will work with the legislature to get things done.
There ya go.
All the candidates should keep their eyes on GMD. We’ll work all your kinks out between now and primary day, so whichever one of you goes on to face Big Jimbo will be in full, fighting trim.
On May 21, I posted a diary about Natalie Jones and her, ahem, overzealous principal and superintendent. The school officials had prevented her from presenting her independent project report on the the life of assassinated San Francisco Supervisor and gay rights activist Harvey Milk. They seemed to think that the district’s policy covering sex education and requiring written permission from her classmate’s parents for them to witness the presentation somehow applied to anything mentioning someone who was gay.
Well huzzah! The school officials have come to their senses (no doubt influenced by the intervention of the San Diego ACLU), and allowed Natalie to present her report, as reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune, “In the last few hours of the last day of school at Mount Woodson Elementary.”
The Union Tribune has furnished links to the letter the school district sent to Natalie to apologize for preventing her presentation, and to the parents of her classmates to ‘explain’ their mistaken judgment, and to Natalie’s own PowerPoint presentation.
That last one really brings home the homophobia the school’s officials operated from. Sensitivity training anyone?
Entergy Nuclear has asked state regulators to approve a plan that would change the regulatory boundary surrounding Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which would move the spot where radiation doses are measured further away from the reactor.
Excellent, as Montgomery Burns would say. Entergy helpfully explains that it is seeking greater “regulatory clarity.” It has asked the Vermont Public Service Board for permission to make the change.
I say we let them do it with the following conditions: That they rename the territory inside the boundary “The Kill Zone,” and post huge skull-and-crossbones signs around the perimeter. What say you, Mr. O’brien?
Big day. Well, if you care about all things wild in Vermont. Because the Agency of Natural Resources will be holding a public hearing tonight in Montpelier (Pavilion Auditorium, 7 p.m.-9 p.m.) to take testimony regarding its plans to allow all-terrain-vehicles (ATVs) access to state-owned land.
Proponents of the letting these gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting and otherwise just noisy and obnoxious machines onto Vermont’s public lands are trying to soft-pedal these new rules, claiming that the newly proposed ATV trails will just be “short connectors” to already existing off-road-vehicle trails on private lands.
Yeah right. If you’ve bothered to follow snowmobile or ATV issues in Vermont, you know that when you give these renegades an inch they take a mile – literally.
Make no mistake, the ANR’s proposed rule to allow ATV access to public lands – no matter how short the original connector trails are – is a huge change in public policy that will almost certainly lead to more and more ATV access to state lands, including our publicly-owned forests. The organized ATV groups – like VASA – don’t hide the fact that they want to ride practically anywhere they can put it in four-wheel drive and rip it up.
The irony in the ANR’s proposed new rule is that ATV proponents are admitting that these new trails are necessary partly due to the current illegal riding by ATVers. Just read these words by VASA’s Danny Hale, as told to John Dillon of Vermont Public Radio:
Unfortunately there’s a fair amount of illegal use already taking place on state land. And what we’re trying to accomplish with a managed trail system is give people a chance to recreate where it’s legal, so that’s going to take a large number of the illegal riders right out of the picture.
Got that? In case you don’t, let me explain: The ATV riders are riding illegally on the public’s land now so, instead of enforcing the laws banning it, the state should change the laws to make it legal.
I’m guessing you’ve got to be around a lot of burned hydrocarbons to come up with that argument.
Unfortunately (and predictably), mainstream environmental groups like the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) aren’t showing a lot teeth when it comes to fighting back against this proposed ATV land grab. The Vermont Press Bureau, for example, writes in this morning’s papers that, according to the VNRC’s Jamey Fidel, the group “isn’t necessarily opposed” to the first new connector trail being proposed in Island Pond.
Why – oh why – is it so hard from groups like VNRC to take a firm stand? But that’s another story for another time I suppose.
To the group’s credit, VNRC does document the very real and acknowledged problems with ATV riding: pollution, noise, flora and fauna damage, water run-off issues, interference with non-motorized forms of recreation and even rider safety. But with a laundry lists of problems like this, VNRC ought to be flying the “ban ATVs flag” as high as they can.
But, have no fear, the Horse Loggers for Peace will there – at tonight’s hearing that is. And you won’t have any trouble figuring out where we stand on this issue. It should be fun. Join us if you can.
Below are some great links to resources from groups who aren’t afraid to speak up and act out:
[UPDATE: The House today passed the war supplemental without timetables for troop withdrawal 226-202. Of the yes votes, 221 were Democrats. Of the no votes, 32 were Democrats, including Vermont Rep. Peter Welch. Welch was reported to be leaning toward voting yes, despite his promise during the Bush Administration that he would not vote for war funding without withdrawal timetables. Some activists are crediting the netroots with energizing enough constituents to gather up the 32 votes against, including some representatives who were wavering or known to be yes votes. Jane Hamsher at firedoglake cited GMD and Odum for keeping the pressure on Peter to do the right thing and keep his promise. –Nanuq]
Robert Greenwald is one of the most prominent and influential voices in the new media. Apart from his groundbreaking web work as founder of Brave New Films, he has produced and directed such films as “Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers” (2006), “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price” (2005), and “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” (2004), to name a few. As his website bio says, he has “produced and/or directed more than 55 television movies, miniseries and feature films. Greenwald’s films have garnered 25 Emmy nominations, two Golden Globe nominations, the Peabody Award and the Robert Wood Johnson Award. He was awarded the 2002 Producer of the Year Award by the American Film Institute.”
And he has a message for Green Mountain Daily Readers, as well as Rep. Peter Welch:
According to Jane Hamsher at firedoglake (who has taken point on this issue), a mere 4 votes are necessary to block the latest request for supplemental Iraq (yes, and Afghanistan) War funding. Welch and others pledged not to vote on such further appropriations without the inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal, and word on the Hill is that Welch may be among those signatories who may reverse themselves on the issue under pressure from the new, Democratic administration.
It’s past time for the progressive wing of the party to stand up and expect the same deference being shown by the Obama administration to the congressional blue dogs. Call Welch and let him know you look forward to him sticking to his pledge to Vermonters at (888) 605-7270 (toll free in Vermont),(802) 652-2450, and/or (202) 225-4115 (here’s the fdl whip tool again).
Just a little over two years ago, Green Mountain Daily did reporting & commentary on the Second Vermont Republic and its ties to white supremacist groups. At that time, Odum posted this piece, which specifically mentioned Robert Griffin, his writing for the SVR and his bigotry. Here’s an excerpt of Griffin’s piece from Vermont Commons, as quoted in the Odum piece:
…I think it is fair to say that the victors in the competition to insert their perspective into school programs have been the egalitarians, collectivists, multiculturalists, feminists, gays, environmentalists, internationalists, secularists, and Holocaust promoters.
Imagine my surprise, however, when I saw this piece on the Rutland Herald’s web site, by Dan Barlow:
For more than 30 years, Robert S. Griffin has taught education courses at the University of Vermont.
But when he is not in the classroom, Griffin is a prolific writer on the topic of white pride – and his books and essays are extremely popular among the white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements in the United States.
I’m actually very curious about this, because, as the school’s communication director notes:
Enrique Corredera, the director of UVM’s communications office, said Griffin has worked at the school since 1974 and confirmed that he is both a tenured professor and still employed there – although he was not sure how actively he teaches classes these days.
Corredera said school officials are aware of Griffin’ writings on race and white pride, but said unless his words “cross a line” into clear derogatory attacks or encourage violence – it is protected under the school’s dedication to academic freedom and free speech.
He’s right– if Griffin’s a good teacher who doesn’t allow his bigotry to influence how he teaches his courses, he has every right to remain a teacher, just as we have every right to comment on his racism and nationalism without fear of reprisal in our own work.
But I’m trying to figure out the context of this piece. Was it published now because of the rise in right-wing violence? There’s nothing about Griffin that’s referenced in the piece that should put him in the news for any other reason.
Is the media finally figuring out that we need to know more about the right wing extremist groups that exist around us?
So let’s take a moment and tie this into other local groups.
We’ve recently been discussing the Vermont Tea Party groups. Until very recently, the web site included a homophobic reference to Barney Frank as “the banking queen.” They appear to have figured out that homophobia that blatant is bad PR, so it’s been removed. What hasn’t been removed is an endorsement of an interview with Alan Keyes:
In the interview, Keyes says about Obama, “we’re either going to stop him, or the United States is going to cease to exist.” He refers to Obama as an “abomination.” Keyes, like some other right-wing extremists, is a “birther:”
The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.
The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama’s status as a “natural-born citizen,” a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.
Once again, Keyes has every right to his opinion, but there is something about the ratcheting up of this rhetoric which comes across to me not like mere freedom of speech, but an urge towards violent overthrow of the government.
The tea parties also seem to take aim at Democrats, not bothering to cite their sources. This quote, for example, appears on the VTteaparty site:
“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” 1944
Norman Thomas
This was sent out via e-mail among right-wingers, but to the best of my knowledge, no one’s ever cited the original source for it. No one’s been able to provide anything but the quote itself, but I’m sure that won’t stop them from claiming it’s true.
I’m posting all this not because I think that all the teabaggers support this extremism. I’m posting it because I think that anyone who wants to be involved with this anti-tax movement needs to know exactly what they’re involving themselves with, and that people who willingly tie themselves in with extremist groups are taking the risk of participating in something beyond just advocacy for their own issues. People have the right to their views, opinions and perspectives on any issue. While NAMBLA members have the right to advocate for sex between adults and children, they do not have the right to actually do the act of molesting a child.
While right-wing extremists have the right to claim that Obama must be stopped, their options of specifically how to stop him are a little more limited. So when their websites say such things as…
As Congress and the White House Administration pursue their agenda at an unprecedented pace, the
the Tea Party Patriot Movement is awakening the “Sleeping Giant” as a response to this threat to our Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. This silent majority of patriotic Americans, will be silent no more, and will not rest untill the sovereignty of We the People is safe from the reaches of despotism…”with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor”…
I wonder if they’re trying to recode the Declaration of Independence to mean overthrowing the current government. Because as patriotic and valuable as that document is, it was basically a declaration of violent war. In the context of claiming that Obama is not a natural born citizen, in the context of the statement “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle,” in context of the phrase “Americans Taking Care Of Their Own…”
I guess I have to wonder what these groups really are.
It may be early in the race, but there is some important action taking place in the 2010 Democratic Gubernatorial campaign. Senator Doug Racine has announced a follow up to the Phil Hoff endorsement with this announcement:
Please join us at a reception for State Senator and Gubernatorial candidate Doug Racine. Featuring special Guest Kathleen Kennedy Townsend former Lt. Governor of Maryland, Author and eldest child of Robert Kennedy. The reception will be held Saturday June 20th, 2009 at the home of Rep. Joan Lenes. Please see the attached invitation for more information.
Joining Former Governor Hoff and his wife Joan in sponsoring the event were Rep. Joan Lenes, Rep. Kate & Marshall Webb, John Hasen, Jerry O’Neil, George Burrill, John & Jane Ewing, Lola Van Wagenen
Townsend is the former Lt. Gov of Maryland and previously worked in the Clinton Justice Department.
Townsend and her siblings Robert and Kerry were in the less publicized Kennedy camp who endorsed Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary. In an editorial, they wrote:
By now you may have read or heard that our cousin, Caroline Kennedy, and our uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have come out in favor of Sen. Barack Obama. We, however, are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton because we believe that she is the strongest candidate for our party and our country.
The wording suggest that the Racine campaign is touting its experience and electability. It will be interesting to see if this endorsement defines the Racine/Markowitz dynamic in any way relative to the Obama/Clinton pattern, as Markowitz seems to be building a strong contribution base according to early rumors, against the “established” candidate in Doug Racine. Event sponsors appear to have been strong Obama contributors according to campaign finance records though. Yet to be established is which candidate will take the more progressive tack in the race, with Racine seen as leaning towards that more than Markowitz, but without much of a track record to judge the Secretary of State on yet.
Another interesting twist in how the endorsement family tree is evolving is Hoff’s endorsement of Progressive Anthony Pollina in the last race.
Rep’s Lenes and Webb are second and first term legislators from Shelburne, respectively. Other sponsors range from strong party contributors to solid Dem “good guys” if you want to play the judge-the-candidate-by-the-supporters game. A solid team to build the foundations of a campaign on in the early going, but only Hoff so far appears to be the kind of endorsement that would sway public opinion.
It was hardly a full-throated announcement, but on VPR this morning Governor Douglas made it clear that he intends to seek re-election.
I also found it interesting that the WCAX article mentions Shumlin in the same breath as Markowitz in terms of potential candidates; given how much more we’ve heard from Markowitz then Shumlin.
Not too long ago Vermont’s Commissioner of Education Armando Vilaseca wrote “Our children’s education is the message we send into the future, and we only get one chance to get it right.” (We get only one chance on education, Times Argus oped by Vilaseca, 2/15/09) And Mr. Vilaseca is now appearing before the legislature pushing that view by complaining about the number of schools we operate in Vermont. (Too many schools, too few students, Times Argus, 06/12/09)
While the first half of Vilaseca’s statement is certainly true under any circumstances, the second half is only true if we continue to demand more centralized control over fewer school districts and supervisory unions. Having one and only one chance is true if we follow his lead and put all our educational eggs in a single basket.
I do agree with Vilaseca’s contention that our current public educational model is obsolete. It was designed in the first part of the 20th century to provide a modicum of teaching to the ever increasing numbers of non-rural dwellers. The design itself was based upon one of the most efficacious processes available at the time: the assembly line.
Even now in the 21st century our kids are marched through learning factories. Like good Ford Model T components, these young folks are pushed to move from one point to another with the education system bolting on one piece of knowledge or another. These youth are moved along in factory like synchronicity from grade to grade … each child expected to be like the next with identical knowledge and skill sets defined by national and state mandated standards (most designed to help out corporate America, but that’s another story).
And, if the factory workers have all done their jobs, in the end we have an 18 year old with a diploma entitling this newly minted adult advancement into the military or college.
It is this assembly line factory paradigm that needs to go … not the schools. The buildings can disappear, but the local access to local educational resources needs to be maintained. We may be able to do with fewer superintendents, but we need to keep the school boards and empower them to seek out educational benchmarks (standards) that meet the needs and expectations of the local community.
We need diversity in our educational approach so our eggs aren’t all in one basket. We need de-centralization of our public education system so we will have many, many chances to get it right … instead of risking our message to the future with a singular approach … like that done way back in the twentieth century.
PS. I could go on about young kids spending ever increasing times being bussed to schools ever farther from their homes … but that too is another story.