Whoa. Go off to see a movie with the kid, come back home to see Tim Russert of NBC’s obit over every possible medium. Russert was reportedly felled by a heart attack, and our condolences certainly go out to his friends, family and many fans.

In a reminder of the profound effect the major media have on the transmission, reception and interpretation of information across the world, its impossible not to consider the impact that the absence of this giant in the industry will have on this truly historic election coming up. There can be no question that he is one of the few figures in the media whose passing will make a major impact on the news (in the form of election and policy coverage) all by itself – for good, ill, or something in between. It’s sobering to consider.

(Promoting this diary is my answer to the poll question at the end… – promoted by odum)

Future of the EU in question

This won’t make any of the U.S. papers, but hopefully GMD wonks will find it somewhat interesting

On Thursday, Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty, which would have redefined the European Union government.  Essentially, the treaty would have shifted more power from European states to the central government in Brussels.  Institutions such as the courts, banks, and military would have been centralized.

Proponents of the referendum said the new agreement would strengthen the central government; create greater efficiency (fewer state governments doing the same thing); standardize laws regarding human rights, labor, security; and provide greater economic security.  Supporters of the measure, including political parties Fianna Fail, Finn Gael, and the Labour Party, among others, cited the European Union’s beneficial effect on Ireland and exhorted Irish voters not to “throw it all away.”  

Short sidestory: My brother-in-law almost got fired from the Dublin County Council for “defacing” one of Mary Harney’s pro-treaty “don’t throw it all away” signs – he added a small sign at the bottom that said “… I’ll take half.” (Harney is derided for being the overweight minister for health) http://ocaoimh.ie/wp-content/u… (the photo just shows the signs, no my brother-in-law’s handiwork)

Opponents, including Sinn Fein, the Socialist Party, the democratic socialist Workers’ Party and Libertas, an non-partisan organization formed by a Galway businessman to oppose the treaty, argued that the current EU agreement was indeed beneficial to Ireland, and there was no reason to change it.  They warned that it would rob Ireland of its sovereignty.  Ireland’s famed neutrality would be forfeited, Irish men and women could be required to serve in a central army, and it would open the back door to European laws on marriage and abortion.  (Abortion is illegal in Ireland.  They prefer to go to GB or NI for abortions.)

From the EU’s beginning, Ireland has wielded unprecedented power and recieved unprecedented benefit – the treaty would have blunted Ireland’s influence in the EU government.

Perhaps the most significant argument against the treaty for many Irish voters was that it would give too much power to the central government to control taxation.  Ireland’s stunning economic growth over the last decade-and-a-half has been fueled not only by massive investment by the EU, but by the thousands of businesses that have moved to Ireland to take advantage of their low business tax rate (12%).  Few European countries offer low business taxes, superior technological and civil infrastructure, and a highly-educated population in one neat package.

Although proponents debunked many of the opponent’s claims, the “no” vote appears to have prevailed.

In order to pass, the treaty had to be ratified by all 27 EU member nations.  In 26 of those countries, the treaty could be ratified by the representative government; Ireland was required by its constitution to put the question to the electorate.  It has already been ratified by 15 members, and is expected to pass in the rest.

The consequences of the “no” vote are still unclear.  While some say it will force the EU to continue under the current treaty, others warn that it may mean Ireland is squeezed out of the EU – which could be devastating to the country.  When the Irish rejected an earlier EU treaty, it was brought up for a vote again two years later, after a substantial PR campaign.  Many have complained that the treaty is too complex, and independent information on what would change has been sorely lacking.  So it could come around again.

The no vote is a blow to German Chancellor Angele Merkel, who worked hard during her six-month term as EU President to broker a deal on the treaty.  French President Nicolas Sarkozy was said to have been making plans to solidify the new EU government under the treaty during his upcoming term as EU President.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

The poll is mostly for my own edification

 Loading ...

( – promoted by odum)

And heating oil is estimated to rise 35% this winter:

* it’s NOT supply and demand:  Business Week (4/1/08, 4/28/08) report that US gasoline inventories are at their highest levels since the 1990’s with the world supply 2.5% percent higher than May 2007.  

World demand is projected to rise by just 2% over the next six months, compelling even the Saudis, (6/10/08) to say prices are unjustifiably high,

* (May 2nd, Bloomberg) reports heavy crude is stored on tankers because onshore storage tanks are full,                                            

and our government is:

* allowing oil refinery production to be cut,

Barbara

(Is there anything about Dubie that’s not symbolic? – promoted by JulieWaters)

MONTPELIER – Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie declared a home-heating fuel emergency Wednesday morning, saying the state needs to begin preparing for worst-case winter scenarios involving shortages of fuel and oil.

He announced that he would begin a thorough review of Vermont’s emergency response plans – a book several times larger than a state phonebook – to determine if the state should begin preparing for emergencies related to fuel shortages.

Dubie, a Republican up for re-election this year, said his declaration of an emergency was a symbolic one, meant to draw local and state attention to the concern that high fuel costs could result in Vermonters being frozen from their homes this winter.Rutland Herald

Simply ,simply ,brilliant ,no one had noticed that fuel is now creeping up over the top .Who could have predicted without Dubie’s well timed reminder that it may be expensive for people to heat their homes ?  Why is no one running against this man ?

First the GOOD NEWS . . .

The Supreme Court affirmed yesterday, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the United States Constitution, or some semblance of it at least, still exists in theory.  After years of the President of the United States refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Constitution guarantees the right to habeas corpus, the Supreme Court held that the President and Congress do not "have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will." (The Court is of course correct and this fact is an obvious one. However, the behavior of these two branches of government explain the "in theory" of the sometime rule-of-law government that has developed on our generation's watch).

The Court reached the only defensible position available to it. This case was, literally, a constitutional no-brainer, which is a big part of the problem. A razor thin majority willing to affirm fundamental aspects of the Constitution in the waning days of the Bush administration is a good thing – sure. However, the context of the ruling is more evidence of . . . the bad news . . .

Now the BAD NEWS — We're Really Screwed, America, Face It.

It took the United States Supreme Court 134 pages to explain that a basic, fundamental protection against government tyranny cannot be whimsically cast aside by a lawless President, a timid Congress and an uncritical nation. (Hint, if you want to read a really good distillation of the Court's decision – or any Supreme Court decision – the Supreme Court Reporter includes a "Syllabus" prefacing the Court's order. The Syllabus preceding the Court's habeas decision is only 8 pages and is found at the beginning of the .pdf)

It has been three years since an astounding majority of Congresspeople, all sworn to uphold the Constitution, passed the law that purported to overturn (or to "suspend" indefinitely) Article 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The current Congress has impotently allowed a subversive statute that undermines our Constitutional heritage and basic civil liberties to remain on the books and to be implemented by the Bush administration in bad faith. In Congress, there is little enthusiasm for defending the Constitution or putting up even a token fight to protect liberty under the Capitol dome.

It will take an aggressive Congress to perform the hard work of fixing the damage created by eight years of Mister Bush and twelve years of class-warrior congressional Republican police state corruption. The Supreme Court's decision is one more reminder of what we have not seen from Congress for years. Unfortunately it is also a reminder, now more than ever, of how much faith we need to place in Congress, going forward, despite that institution's betrayal of the American people since it surrendered, on its own behalf, to the President in 2001, and surrendered, on our behalf, to a gang of 20 Saudi criminals shortly thereafter.

The Supreme Court is in pretty bad shape too. Four Justices of the Supreme Court, and countless judges in the lower federal courts too, are aghast at the notion that the Constitution applies to brown people. It is bad enough they must condescend to acknowledge ("extend" they will tell you) the rule-of-law to the rich & white of the Republican elite. However, recognizing that the rule of law must ultimately be applied to those kidnapped and tortured by a criminally driven administration obviously burns their throat raw. The right wing result oriented judicial activism that has been rampant for a political generation is alive and well and will continue for the foreseeable future. 

Analysis of the opinion after the jump – 

(More on this forthcoming… this is a great start, though… – promoted by odum)

I know .. it’s rare that the Supremes have ruled to save us from our government, but thanks to Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer (and no thanks to the dissenting fascists Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) the hard to imagine has occurred!

Here’s the link to the SCOTUS decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf.

And just a few quotes

The Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood thewrit of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure thatfreedom. Experience taught, however, that the common-law writ all too often had been insufficient to guard against the abuse of monarchial power. That historycounseled the necessity for specific language in the Constitution to secure the writ and ensure its place in our legal system.

That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty is evident from the care taken to specify the limited grounds for its suspension: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not 13 Cite as: 553 U. S. __ (2008) Opinion of the Court be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Art. I, §9, cl. 2; see Amar, Of Sovereignty and Federalism, 96 Yale L. J. 1425, 1509, n. 329 (1987) (“[T]he non-suspension clause is the original Constitution’s most explicit reference to remedies”). The word “privilege” was used, perhaps, to avoidmentioning some rights to the exclusion of others.

(my emphasis)

The Court has been careful not to foreclose the possibility that the protections of the Suspension Clause have expanded along with post-1789 developments that define the present scope Opinion of the Court of the writ.

[Regarding Guantanamo Bay, Cuba] Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this.The Constitution grants Congress and the President thepower to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not thepower to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powersare not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44 (1885). Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quiteanother.

There’s much more … it’s a long read, but of historical interest and somewhat illuminating.

By Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper

Now that one of the most remarkable primaries in our nation’s history has concluded, attention is turning to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.  In less than three months, the Mile High City and the Rocky Mountain West will host this historic event for the first time since 1908.

The Convention also coincides with Denver’s 150th birthday – a

century-and-a-half of progress and innovation since its birth at the height of the Colorado gold rush.  A hub of opportunity for people seeking new frontiers, people come to Colorado seeking much more than gold these days.  The spirit of visionary zeal and limitless possibility is as strong as ever in the New West.  So it’s fitting that as the Democratic Party marches toward its own new frontier, it will do so through Denver.

A message to all of you in Vermont: you don’t have to be in Denver – or on the Convention floor – to get in on the action though.  The Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee has organized two interactive ways for people anywhere in America to get involved.  We’re convening a national conversation about democracy and community and invite everyone to participate.

The Cinemocracy short film competition encourages anyone and everyone to submit short films about what democracy means to them.  You can submit films – as well as view and judge the entries – online at www.cinemocracy.org.  The top 25 videos, as determined through public online voting, will be screened publicly during Convention week and the winning film will be featured at the 31st Starz Denver Film Festival.

America: Live and In Person is a like a multi-media open mic night, inviting people to share personal stories of what America means to them through art, dance, music, drama, writing, technology, service projects and more.  Submissions will be viewable online for the public to enjoy and judge…and winning entries will be part of an exhibit at the Convention that will also travel through the Rocky Mountain West.

Both America: Live & In Person and Cinemocracy present innovative and interactive ways to participate in the Convention festivities…as a contributor or a spectator.  We encourage people throughout America to contribute their voices and creativity to this national conversation.

Just remember: entries for both Cinemocracy and America: Live and In Person are

due by July 15, 2008, so please – get those cameras and keyboards rolling.

[Cross posted at Broadsides.org]

Did you hear the one about Pollina endorsing Obama? Oh wait, that wasn’t a joke. Pollina was serious. Or should I say: calculating. And, once again, he’s hoping no one will notice his latest “do as I say, not as I do” moment.

But, first, it’s true: Anthony Pollina, the rather dusty stalwart of Vermont’s Progressive Party, put out a press statement a couple of weeks ago announcing his endorsement of Barack Obama for president. Hmm, let’s see, besides everything, what could be strange about Pollina, the “I’m no Democrat,” endorsing Obama, the Democrat?

Good grief, Pollina apparently has no shame. Because, as you may recall, Pollina is running for governor of Vermont as a decidedly non-Democrat against – yep – a Democrat, Gaye Symington, and a Republican, Jim Douglas. And it’s the same Pollina who also ran against Vermont’s last Democratic governor, Howard Dean, who now, interestingly enough, is Obama’s choice to continue running the entire national Democratic Party.

This is getting weird.

For those of us with a memory – or at least access to Google – we remember when Pollina was calling Dean and the Democrats a mere extension of the Republicans. And, I have to admit, it was the kind of rhetoric that made my heart go pitter-patter. But, because I was familiar with Pollina’s nonsense, I knew he didn’t mean it. And, of course, he doesn’t – and didn’t. Why else would he now be endorsing the Dean-led Democratic Party’s candidate for president?

Wait. Don’t answer that. Because I know the answer: Self-serving desperation. And therein lies the difference between truly inspiring third – and fourth and fifth – party challengers and the self-serving, ideologically-adrift retreads like Pollina.

But let’s back up. For non-comatose Vermonters, we know that Pollina is running for governor (again) under the banner of the Progressive Party, the folks who have sometimes, kind of, maybe (depending on the day and the circumstances) tried to make the case that Vermont needs a viable third party because the Democrats and Republicans are hopelessly and ruthlessly protecting a political status quo that isn’t serving the rest of us very well. Can you say “Iraq War,” “health care,” “global warming,” “alternative energy,” “economic justice,” “corporate oligarchy”? I knew you could.

But the problem with Pollina and the Progs is that they only spew that rhetoric – or even pretend to believe in it – when it appears to be politically convenient. And they’ll just as soon say that there’s no hope in getting anything substantive done within the Democratic Party before announcing that they’re either cutting a deal with Dems over which electoral races to sit out or, in the case of Pollina, endorsing a Dem for the highest of political offices: president. Go figure.

So, when it comes to their ever-changing opinions/relations with the Dems,  Pollina and the Progs either don’t believe their own rhetoric, don’t understand that they’ve created a paper trail of opinions (and campaigns) that we can see, or they think their supporters are fools. Or, I guess, it could be all of the above.

How, for example, can Pollina run for governor against Democrat Gaye Symington, claiming “major differences” with her, and yet also endorse Obama for president? What, exactly, are the “major” policy differences between Symington and Obama? I don’t see any, as a matter of fact. Both, quite frankly, are liberal Democrats. Neither supports universal health care. Neither supported an immediate de-funding of the Iraq War. Neither supports a complete and total roll back of the trade policies that have so dramatically damaged working families. Neither supported impeachment of Bush. And both enjoy a ringside seat to the power elite game of inside politics, footsie with corporate lobbyists, and an absolute allegiance to “the party” with little regard for what that means for the people.

But yet Pollina – and other Progs like David Zuckerman – have now made it a point to cast Symington as the mortal enemy and Obama as the savior. It makes no sense. Unless, of course, you consider political expediency.

Pollina & Co. are hoping that voters and the Vermont media will forget all that rhetoric he spewed about Dean when he ran against him in 2000. Just as they’re hoping that people will forget about their on again/off again charges that the Dems are too snuggled with power to really get anything done. But they can’t have it both ways – blasting them one second and endorsing them the next.

The reason Pollina is constantly pulling the Obama card is obvious: he’s desperate. He’s willing to say “never mind” to his rhetoric of the last ten years in hopes that he’ll be able to get onto the Obama coattails in November. But someone needs to remind Pollina that he’s a member of the Progressive Party and Obama (and his opponent, Symington) are Democrats. Hey Anthony, may I introduce you to Ralph Nader? He’s great. He believes what you says. Fights for it, too. Try it sometime. That’s the point of “third parties,” you know.

Pollina knows that he probably won’t be made to feel embarrassed by his Obama endorsement. First, the sleepy Vermont media probably won’t figure out the oh-so obvious contradictions and, secondly, he knows that Obama won’t be bothered by a visit to Vermont – a visit that would certainly feature him with other Democrats like (ahem) Symington.

Poor Pollina. He’s seems really, really confused.

I talked to Venis’ son this morning, and he told me of the funniest thing.

Apparently in today’s Barre/Montpelier Times Argus is this headline: Legislation to extend unemployment benefits fails in House by three votes (link here) that started with this paragraph

The House on Wednesday narrowly defeated a Democratic attempt to give unemployed Americans an extra three months of jobless benefits after the White House threatened to veto the bill.

.

But, my dear Droppings, when Venis’ son read the story he found “the final vote was 279-144”!

I went ahead and did the math and guess what? The bill actually passed by 135 votes … talk about stupid newspaper tricks.

Droppings, I can only assume this was a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in the article and headline, intended, I imagine, to take the onus off those who would keep this legislation from becoming law.

Oh well, just another day in the media I guess.

With love,

Clove Inhoof

[Cross posted at Broadsides.org]

Well, imitating Bernie, that is. On the oil issue.

I’m speaking, or course, about Congressman Peter Welch’s “telephone town meeting” last night on the oil crisis; a phone version of what Senator Bernie Sanders did a few months back on the Internet. The political formula for these little stunts is to give the people – you know, those non-millionaires amongst us – a chance to spill forth with our pain regarding the absurdly high price of oil. And then our elected millionaires can put on their best face of concern and voice of empathy and proceed to get gobs of headlines regarding their willingness to hear our stories.

But wait, there seems to be something missing here. Oh yeah, the action, as in: These people of wealth, power and high-elected office that seem so interested in our sob stories actually doing something about the oil crisis.  There’s apparently no career safety in actually addressing these issues (it gets in the way of contributions and makes enemies amongst their ruling friends). But listening? That’s where it’s at, career wise.

And it’s all our fault, too. Because if we really wanted our elected officials to really care about us and address the issues that are putting a fatal pinch in our lives and livelihoods, we’d stop sending millionaires to represent us. I mean, come on, do you really think Peter-the-multi-millionaire can really feel our pain at the pump? Or even Bernie, for that matter, the man who has become one of the nation’s richest 5% during all that time he’s spent railing against them. I guess he’d call that his own brand of successful socialism – take from the government and give to himself.

The Vermont media buys these little political gimmicks like a giddy kid in a candy store. Take, for example, Josh O’Gorman of the Rutland Herald, who opened his fawning piece about Welch’s telephone conference call with a syrupy line about how the event joined “emerging technology with direct democracy.” Oh, come on – it was a friggin telephone conference call with our representative. Sorry, but I remember doing telephone conference calls 15 years ago.

And what’s this nonsense about “direct democracy”? Again, it was a conference call, whereby the people got to cry and Welch got to put on his most sincere sounding voice before returning to one of his dwellings and – I assure you – not having a nanosecond’s worth of anxiety about his energy bills. Remember, this is the guy who sends monthly checks to some hucksters who’ve convinced him that paying them will relieve him of his carbon guilt. Brilliant.

But if a telephone conference call can now be considered “direct democracy,” I would suggest that we’re in a lot more trouble than I thought. Or, should I say, enough trouble that the issue at hand – the oil crisis – doesn’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell of being solved. Besides, I always thought “direct democracy” had something to do with moving forward with decisions. You know, things like voting or taking other kinds of action. Yes, action, as opposed to mere listening and presenting crocodile tears.

Moreover, not one of the Vermont media’s lapdog-like pieces on Welch’s phone call with the masses dared to look back at the pieces they wrote last month on the congressman’s legislation regarding the oil crisis. The pieces wouldn’t have been hard to find. They were published across the front pages with headlines like “Welch Passes Bill That Provides Oil Price Relief.” Oh yeah? Well, way back then – in May! – Welch’s little gimmick to stop oil shipments to the national petroleum reserve was said by the congressman himself (and repeated by the cheerleading press) to lead to “immediate relief” at the pump. But everyone outside of the congressional and mainstream media clubs laughed at the proclamations – privately, of course, because no one called us for a comment.

And how did that “immediate relief” work out? The price of gas has risen by more than 20 cents a gallon since Welch’s bill was signed by President Bush. But you won’t read about this fact in Vermont’s mainstream media – they’re too busy touting Welch’s next gimmick.

The truth is, Welch, Sanders, Leahy and the Democrats have had two years of congressional control and they have done little but offer to “hear our pain” and do nothing about it. They heard us on our demands to stop the war. And they voted repeatedly to keep funding it. They heard our demands to bring the Bush regime to justice. And they served up worthless (and ignored!) subpoenas. They heard our demands for health care relief. And they did nothing. They heard our cries for energy solutions. And they asked us to put it in writing or participate in silly telephone conference calls.

Worse, with each of their failures, they blamed the big, bad boogeyman, President Bush. But when we offered the solution of impeachment, they said it would be a distraction. From what? Please, tell me what this Congress has done since they dispatched with the “distraction” of impeachment?

Enough already.