( – promoted by Caoimhin Laochdha)

Despite better education and more awareness within the general population, a pervasive bias remains against people with mental health problems. 

Suffering from mental illness too often means suffering from prejudice or discrimination as well. The systemic biases in our communities and institutions exacerbate the very illness afflicting those who most need support and understanding. Prejudice and lack of access to care are another set of roadblocks for people struggling with acute and/or chronic serious mental health problems. 

It is an all-consuming task, for many who have mental problems, to cope with their disabilities and work toward maintaining or preserving – to the full extent they can – a functional life. This burden frequently falls on the family and loved ones who help to care and take responsibility for those with mental/behavioral health and personality disorders.  Now, throw in the added burden of prejudice, neglect, a judgmental community that fails at its duty to be a support system (or to allow a support system to be in place), and life for the mentally ill is one nasty uphill fight.

If you haven't guessed already, this is about the  U.S. war on Iraq . . .(more below)

This past week, police officers acting on behalf of the United States of America arrested Army Sergeant Brad Gaskins.

I do not know the legal background to this case, but the fact that Sgt. Gaskins has suffered severe disability from two combat tours in Iraq is not in dispute.  The United States arrested him for being AWOL after he sought treatment for his mental illness. The treatment he sought and needs is unavailable to him in the overstretched, understaffed, unprepared and ill-equipped health care system that is responsible for U.S. solders and marines. 

As reported by the AP

SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) — A soldier who served two combat tours in Iraq was arrested Wednesday. . .

. . . Sgt. Brad Gaskins said he left the base in August 2006 because the Army wasn't providing effective treatment after he was diagnosed with PTSD and severe depression.

“They just don't have the resources to handle it, but that's not my fault,” Gaskins said.

Tod Ensign, an attorney with Citizen Soldier, a GI rights group that is representing Gaskins, said the case is part of a “coming tsunami” of mental health problems involving Iraq and Afghanistan vets.

Last month, the Veterans Administration said more than 100,000 soldiers were being treated for mental health problems, and half of those specifically for PTSD. . .

 So here's the problem.  The U.S. government, unable to treat seriously ill soldiers, is criminalizing their illness.  This is where the mental/behavioral health and physical injury prejudices come into play.  I acknowledge not knowing the specific medical and legal details of Sgt. Gaskins' case. However, regardless of the specifics of Sgt. Gaskins plight, his case is one more blatant indictment of the United State's and especially the current administrations', pattern of neglect and betrayal of our all volunteer recruited military.  Compound this continuing mistreatment of our soldiers and marines, with the historic and systemic prejudices surrounding mental illness; and a pre-existing medical double standard becomes a societal and governmental double betrayal as well.

Sgt. Haskins arrest is one example demonstrating the ways in which the physical/mental health double standard has eaten its way into the Pentagon and is one more way in which we are disgracing our troops. 

Imagine, for a moment, a soldier with shrapnel in her brain who faces a lifetime of paralysis if she does not find a neurosurgeon to remove the shrapnel. Then imagine the Army will not provide a surgeon trained or capable of removing the shrapnel in order to save this soldier from a lifetime of disability and suffering. Forced to accept only one acceptable option, the soldier leaves the base infirmary and goes AWOL. The soldier then ends up at Mass General, Dartmouth or a local community hospital where a surgeon can salvage her future.

Unfortunately, for our hypothetical soldier with the shrapnel in her brain, a local TV crew shows up at the hospital parking lot to tell the story (like the media did with Sgt. Gaskins) of her combat injuries and the military's unwillingness to provide critical treatment for her.  Now, imagine as she is going through her pre-operative tests, the MPs arrive and arrest her: putting her in shackles and walking her out of the hospital still wearing a surgical gown. Preposterous? (I hope you said “yes” although what is preposterous any more). That is the  attitude feeding our double standard because it is truly difficult to see much difference in the level of outrage either type of case should generate.

People generally understand and are less likely to “stigmatize” traumatic head injuries and their corresponding disabilities than the mental health trauma suffered by soldiers such as Sgt. Gaskins.  To the soldier facing the consequences of either trauma, the responsibility of the United States to the people we recruit to serve in our military is no different. How short we fall from that responsibility is apparent when the United States arrests a sick soldier rather than treats him.  It is a further apparent when we allow the Pentagon to criminalize illness rather than treat it. 

Sgt Gaskins' case is a gross betrayal by the United States of its soldiers and marines.  It is also a symptom of a bigger problem faced by veterans.  The example of his situation sends a message from the Pentagon and the administration to the tens of thousands of soldiers and marines who are receiving either substandard care, or not receiving any care. And this is the message: “We know you're in bad shape and we know you hurt.  Now you know that we can make it much worse for you too.” 

Every day, the United States War on Iraq proves there is no shortage of ways for the U.S. to shame itself in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of our soldiers and in the eyes of history.

It appears we have shamed ourselves in the eyes of Sgt. Gaskin as well.

The picture here is a light drawing I created Tuesday night.  It’s not a Photoshop effect; it’s me waving a pair of light wands around for a long-exposure shot.  Clicking on the picture brings you to a whole set of thumbnails of light drawings.

1. Take the phrase REMAKE RAILROADING THEFT. Rearrange the letters of that phrase to form the names of two well-known artists;
2. Take the phrase GREGORIAN JUNGLE HOOP.  Rearrange its letters to form a famous group;
3. Look at the following:

   CIDER LIE
   EVIL LIME
   EVER ONCE
   
   You have three clues as to the answer. One clue is an anagram. An other is the same structure of consonants and vowels. The third is the same number of letters in each word. The trick is figuring out which is which;

4. Same sort of puzzle as #3:

   HOC JAM FELIX
   MOMENTS I CRY
   MAD HOE STRAP
   

Note– spoilers may appear in the comments section.  Read them at your own risk.

Does anyone see a problem here?

Vermont Yankee decommissioning funds insufficient

Friday November 16, 2007
John Dillon

Montpelier, Vt.

Let’s face it, Democrats have three possible gubernatorial candidates: Sen. John Campbell, (former) Sen. Matt Dunne, and (former) Ambassador Peter Galbraith.

Sen. Dunne has some statewide name recognition after last cycle’s run for Lt. Governor.  But rather than jump to the next level, he should challenge Dubie again.  Dunne closed well in that race last cycle, and without a primary (hopefully), Dunne will give Dubie all he can handle.  Furthermore, by not jumping into the governor’s race, Dunne will avoid the only consistent criticism levied against him – that he’s too ambitious. (By the way, when did having ambition become a negative?  When someone has the ambition to serve his community and improve the quality of life for current and future state residents, how is that not a positive?)

Sen. Campbell’s potential candidacy seems a better reflection of his lack of upward mobility in the Senate than his statewide prospects.  Sure, the Democrats would support him, but he wouldn’t excite the activist.  He doesn’t have any statewide name recognition (although state senators never seem to accept this reality), and probably couldn’t raise the type of money necessary to unseat an incumbent.  Plus, he’s a member of the state legislature (though he would doubtlessly resign as majority leader if he ran) coming off a disappointing session.  Granted, Vermonters seem to like the job the Dems are doing at the State House more than the governor would have us believe, but with the press’ habit of mistaking Jason Gibbs’ press releases for the Gospel, Sen. Campbell would have a hard time pointing to a record of recent accomplishments.

Of course, there’s the theoretical possibility of a unity campaign behind Anthony Pollina – but that’s not going to happen.  He’s burned a lot of bridges among Democrats, and his statewide track record won’t inspire any confidence.  That said, he deserves credit for laying the ground work to allow the Progs to line up behind the Democratic nominee.

I save Peter Galbraith for last, but not to suggest he should be the nominee by process of elimination.  Galbraith may not have the statewide name recognition of Matt Dunne (although his name will probably “ring a bell” with a lot of people), but after that, there is much to like about his potential candidacy.  For starters, he is incredible intelligent, well spoken, and (from all reports) a genuinely nice guy.  His knowledge of state issues would probably have to be improved, but there’s no reason to think this acclaimed author would have any trouble getting up to speed.  He has political experience as ambassador to Croatia, but can’t be characterized as a career politician.  He’s recently book on the war in Iraq will endear him to the many Vermonters who believe the war was a mistake (incidentally, while the governor may not have much to do about Iraq policy, who wouldn’t relish the contrast between Galbraith’s crystal clear stance on Iraq and Douglas’ political dodges?).  And perhaps most importantly (sadly), Galbraith is well-connected enough to raise the kind of money (and hire the quality staff) that will be necessary to really challenge Douglas. 

Peter Galbraith would be an out-of-the-box nominee, which is exactly what the party needs to shake up the race.  No matter who runs against Douglas, it will be an uphill battle; but unlike the other contenders, Galbraith could change the dynamic of the race.

On August 18th, 1950, Pete Seeger was called to testify before the House Unamerican Activities Committee.  But first, just because it’s amazing, here’s Pete Seeger on the Smothers Brothers show from 40 years ago.

  The relevance?  I’ll get to it, after the fold.

First, a sidenote: I do not sing, because I know my strengths and I know my weaknesses.  But I’m an evil genius with the guitar and stick to the things I know.  But the title of this diary is still appropriate because Seeger never gave up on his music or his activism.

Seeger’s been a protester and an activist for his entire life, and that activism got him blacklisted in 1950’s.  When he was called before the House Unamerican Activities Committee, he gave them quite a run, being serious, while still being funny, and refusing to ever give them a thing they wanted, without ever being anything but civil and polite.

Bear with me.  This quote is a bit long, but the original testimony is a bit longer:

[…]
MR. TAVENNER: You said that you would tell us about the songs. Did you participate in a program at Wingdale Lodge in the State of New York, which is a summer camp for adults and children, on the weekend of July Fourth of this year?

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: Again, I say I will be glad to tell what songs I have ever sung, because singing is my business.

MR. TAVENNER: I am going to ask you.

MR. SEEGER: But I decline to say who has ever listened to them, who has written them, or other people who have sung them.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you sing this song, to which we have referred, “Now Is the Time,” at Wingdale Lodge on the weekend of July Fourth?

MR. SEEGER: I don’t know any song by that name, and I know a song with a similar name. It is called “Wasn’t That a Time.” Is that the song?

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Did you sing that song?

MR. SEEGER: I can sing it. I don’t know how well I can do it without my banjo.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I said, Did you sing it on that occasion?

MR. SEEGER: I have sung that song. I am not going to go into where I have sung it. I have sung it many places.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: Did you sing it on this particular occasion? That is what you are being asked.

MR. SEEGER: Again my answer is the same.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: You said that you would tell us about it.

MR. SEEGER: I will tell you about the songs, but I am not going to tell you or try to explain-

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer the question. Did you sing this particular song on the Fourth of July at Wingdale Lodge in New York?

MR. SEEGER: I have already given you my answer to that question, and all questions such as that. I feel that is improper: to ask about my associations and opinions. I have said that I would be voluntarily glad to tell you any song, or what I have done in my life.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: I think it is my duty to inform you that we don’t accept this answer and the others, and I give you an opportunity now to answer these questions, particularly the last one.

MR. SEEGER: Sir, my answer is always the same.

MR. SEEGER: I shall he glad to answer about the song, sir, and I am not interested in carrying on the line of questioning about where I have sung any songs.

MR. TAVENNER: I ask a direction.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: You may not he interested, but we are, however. I direct you to answer. You can answer that question.

MR. SEEGER: I feel these questions are improper, sir, and I feel they are immoral to ask any American this kind of question.

MR. TAVENNER: Have you finished your answer?

MR. SEEGER: Yes, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked “Seeger exhibit No.4,” for identification only, and to be made a part of the Committee files.

MR. SEEGER: I am sorry you are not interested in the song. It is a good song.

MR. TAVENNER: Were you present in the hearing room while the former witnesses testified?

MR. SEEGER: I have been here all morning, yes, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: I assume then that you heard me read the testimony of Mr. [Elia] Kazan about the purpose of the Communist Party in having its actors entertain for the henefit of Communist fronts and the Communist Party. Did you hear that testimony?

MR. SEEGER: Yes, I have heard all of the testimony today.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you hear Mr. George Hall’s testimony yesterday in which he stated that, as an actor, the special contribution that he was expected to make to the Communist Party was to use his talents by entertaining at Communist Party functions? Did you hear that testimony?

MR. SEEGER: I didn’t hear it, no.

MR. TAVENNER: It is a fact that he so testified. I want to know whether or not you were engaged in a similar type of service to the Communist Party in entertaining at these features.

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line.

Think for a minute about this:  here’s a man with everything to lose.  A working musician who knew who and what he was facing and just decided he was going to do exactly what the right thing was.  What’s more, he did it with humor, with passion, with grace and with dignity. 

Can you imagine going before Congress and offering to sing for them when they ask you about a song, and when they question your patriotism, telling them you’re sorry they’re not interested in the song?

And he suffered consequences for this::

Seeger, Arthur Miller, and six others were indicted for contempt of Congress by an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives. In 1961 he was found guilty of contempt and on April 2 he was sentenced to ten years in prison. The following year his ordeal ended when the case was dismissed on a technicality.

The video clip above is from Seeger, years after these events.  Blacklisting, contempt charges, threats, intimidation, and yet still…

I saw Pete Seeger at Clearwater a few years ago.  A tall, skinny, grizzled old man without the voice he used to have and without the banjo chops or the vocal resonance he once had, but still present, powerful and magnificent. 

Seeger is pushing 90, but his voice, his power, his resonance make a difference today.

Even something as simple as coming onto a prime time TV show and singing about war and being accurate about war and what people are like during it, paying attention to history– I don’t think we see much of that any longer and it’s something that saddens me– it’s not just that Seeger’s anti-war: he’s anti war, and incredibly articulate about it. 

And Seeger’s refusal to bow to HUAC– this is relevant, because he was willing to stand up to them and take the challenge directly to them.  He refused to plead the fifth in front of HUAC.  He instead pled the 1st: freedom of speech and freedom of association.  This was a much bigger challenge to the committee than simply refusing to self-incriminate.  As Jim Musselman put it:

…Everyone else had said the Fifth Amendment, the right against self-incrimination, and then they were dismissed. What Pete did, and what some other very powerful people who had the guts and the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the committee and say, “I’m gonna invoke the First Amendment, the right of freedom of association….” “

“…The case of Seeger v. United States… changed my life, because I saw the courage of what he had done and what some other people had done by invoking the First Amendment, saying, “We’re all Americans. We can associate with whoever we want to, and it doesn’t matter who we associate with.” That’s what the founding fathers set up democracy to be. So I just really feel it’s an important part of history that people need to remember.”

What we do today can cause ripples into the future.  The rights we stand up for today can influence the next generations, and the cowardice we show today will affect our children and our grandchildren.

What Seeger showed us was that any one of us can challenge the power of the system around us.  Any one of us can stand up and say “we have the right to be who we are, speak to the issues that are relevant to us and the government has no business intervening in any peaceful act.”

Seeger may not be with us a lot longer (like I said, he’s 88), but he’ll be a part of my life long after he’s gone.

The first videos of last Sunday's controversial meeting with Peter Welch have been put up on YouTube.  Go below the jump for more…

The first three videos are up, they are videos of the three speakers that opened the meeting. The first is from Dottye Ricks of Military Families Speak Out. For me, her angry, moving speech was the high point of the meeting for me:

The next is from Judy Sargent of Marshfield:

Finally, Will Allen from Thetford, of Farms, Not Arms.

I am hoping that more videos will be posted shortly, in particular the confrontation with Welch. With all the various takes on what happened and who antagonized who, it is important that those who were not there will get to see and decide for themselves. Thank you to whoever posted these.

(Good discussion here. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Visit VermontIRV at http://www.vermontir… for more on instant runoff
voting.
Vermont is a three party state. It's that simple. The Vermont Progressive Party is just as capable of seeing their candidates get elected or make solid showings as are the Democratic and Republican parties. The “spoiler” charge is not a legitimate argument against a strong non-Democratic/Republican challenge.

Because of this we are going to see more and more vote splitting and elections being won by candidates with far less than a majority vote. Vote splitting occurs when generally like minded candidates share a pool of voters who disagree on relatively few topics. The non-majority winner occurs when three or more strong candidates are on the ticket and there is no requirement to reach more than 50% of the vote to win.

We've seen what happens WITHOUT instant runoff voting in recent years in races that ended with non-majority winners for Governor , Lt. Governor and State Auditor.

We need instant runoff voting, and that's where you come in. Connected, Vermont (http://www.connected…)is currently working with an ad-hoc gathering that includes Common Cause, Fair Vote, League of Women Voters and others. We ALL want to see S.108 (a Vermont bill that will institute IRV for the federal House and Senate races) passed into law THIS YEAR.

In today's (11/16/07) Times Argus the ugly spoiler charge was leveled via a letter to the editor in what is surely just the beginning: “My heart sank when I saw that Anthony Pollina plans to run again for governor. With a great candidate like Peter Galbraith, the Democrats have a real chance of unseating Douglas and Pollina can do nothing but act as a spoiler. The few Progressives with whom I am still speaking seem to have a blind spot on this question and cannot believe that voting for Pollina is just a way that the self deluded vote Republican. If the Progressives want to do something really progressive they should back and vote for Peter Galbraith.”

I am not a member of the Progressive Party, but I take great umbrage at this “vote Democratic or you're voting Republican” stance.

Your letter to the editor is desperately needed! Letters to the editor are well read and very influential on your community. You can make a huge difference by writing a one, two, three or more paragraph letter. Using your own words you can tell your community how you feel about instant runoff voting and why. You can inform the folks around you that we already have S.108 passed by the Vermont Senate and waiting on passage by the House and Governor.

Do you have questions that will help you put a letter together? Great … reply to this post with your questions, comments or whatever. I'll be more than happy to either find you help or help you myself.
 

 Loading ...

Dennis Kucinich's approach to the economy is so practical and farsighted, I sometimes wonder why it isn't discussed more; even by Kucinich! But, I guess Iraq is always the dominating issue.

However, amazingly, this plan addresses: balancing the budget, tempering the Pentagon war machine, fair taxation reform, leveling the business sector to enable small businesses to compete, our $800 Billion trade deficit, worker's rights human rights and environmental concerns, the millions of outsourced jobs, and  rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure-while at the same time creating more national wealth with millions of jobs, promoting renewable energies and saving families money on bills! It is insanely practical and wholly part of his message of “Strength Through Peace” for America.

In the same way that Dennis Kucinich will strengthen our security internationally by creating pragmatic relationships of peace, based upon equality and fairness, so he will at home by creating a more balanced economy and more equal society. To start with, Kucinich will repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and then double the tax refunds and credits for Americans earning $80,000 and less. He will create a more level playing field for small businesses by reconstituting the trust-busting powers of the Justice Department and breaking up the monopolies that make competition next to impossible in many industries. Further, he will slash the bloated Pentagon budget that we spoke about earlier by 15% to provide for universal education, pre-kindergarten/daycare through college, as well as a new public works program, called the WGA, which in turn will create millions of new jobs.

Regarding our massive trade deficit, mounting over $700 Billion/yr, and the millions of jobs our country has lost through trade agreements (3 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 alone) Kucinich is the only candidate willing to address the problem head on. As one of his first acts in office, he will notify NAFTA and the WTO that America is withdrawing from the agreements, thus protecting massive outsourced job loss, stimulating the economy and getting us on the road to recovery nationally; as America starts to produce goods that Americans purchase. No longer will it only be about corporate wealth, but national wealth as well, and Dennis will agressively pursue that these corporations pay their fare share in taxes too.

We will return to bilateral trade, based upon workers rights, human rights and environmental principles. No more exploiting workers for slave wages. No more ruining the environment for profit. Workers will be empowered and the rights of American workers to unionize and enact effective collective bargaining will gain more strength by Kucinich's promise to repeal the Taft-Hartely Act.

And finally, Dennis will create millions of new jobs and more wealth among the middle and working class and small businesses, while simultaneously addressing our crumbling infrastructural problems and energy needs. Through his Works Green Administration, or WGA, Dennis is investing in the environment, as well as our future, while stimulating the national economy. Inspired by FDR's Works Progress Administration, the WGA utilizes the Environmental Protection Agency to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our schools, bridges, roads, ports, water systems, and environmental systems. Not only does the bold practicality of the plan lie in putting Americans back to work by investing in the national wealth of our own infrastructure, but the plan also incorporates environmental and energy concerns to further create wealth for the country and save individual families more money. For example, not only will the public works projects stress green building and renewable energy technology, but the plan will enable homes to be retrofit with green building, solar and wind microtechnology which will save families money on their energy bills.

Chevy Volt

Lyrics as if in the voice of Sheryl Crow  

by Nate Freeman

I want a Chevy Volt. I want a good green home.
I want a piece of the earth that's gonna be here in a hundred years.

My man earned just $12.65. Seemed a struggle just to keep our ride.
Now he's at home raising the kids. It's not what we asked for; it was my wage or his.

I want a Chevy Volt. I want a good green home.
I want a piece of the earth high off the coast with black garden dirt.

I give my children the best to survive. I teach 'em love and how to fight.
Off to college for a Masters degree; then two years of hell to build their resumes.

Then they can buy a Chevy Volt. Then they can have a good green home.
They'll do it right: get a piece of the earth. Should only take 'em just a couple of years.

Now if my kids have their own boys and girls, there's no telling how to plan for their world.
What will it come to?  Where will it end?  A barrel of oil for an acre of land?

Will it then matter who's the President?  Will it then matter where Al Qaeda went?
Oh, stop it now, let's not dwell on it.

I want a Chevy Volt. I want a good green home.
I want a piece of the earth. I don't want your damn rhetoric.

I want a Chevy Volt. I want a good green home.
God dammit, just a piece of the earth. God I'm asking you for all that it's worth.

No opining to do on this, other that a big “woo-hoo!” From TPM:

…aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have confirmed to me that the version of the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee does not — repeat, does not — contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. 

And a source close to Reid says that this is “most likely” the version that the Majority Leader will file a motion to proceed on.

It's a bit of a concern that Reid's person is leaving wiggle room, given that Reid seemed ready to declare war on his own caucus of late, all in the defense of a major campaign contributor.

How did it go down?

Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the committee, essentially went around Specter's amendment and moved to have a vote to report the bill out of committee without any telecom immunity in it. That passed along strictly party lines. And that's where we are.

Nice work, Senator. You did us proud today.