Things aren't looking so hot for Bush consigliere and attorney general Alberto Gonzales lately, even worse after last week's perjury and evasion testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even many Republicans can't seem to ignore the stench of Gonzales, and aren't jumping in to support him.

The good news is that there was a resolution sumitted today by Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington's 1st congressional district, that is calling for an investigation into the possibility of impeaching the Attorney General:

Specifically, the resolution would require the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution would need to win approval by a majority of the House for the panel to start investigating. If after an investigation the Judiciary Committee, by majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment exist, a resolution impeaching the attorney general and setting forth specific allegations of misconduct, in one or more articles of impeachment, would be reported to the full House.

I couldn't find the number of the resolution, but you can read its full text here. More below the jump.

Now, as you all well know, many of us are frustrated with the lack of action on impeaching Bush and Cheney. However, as high-profile as it has been lately, and with Gonzales stepping further and further in the poop everytime he opens his mouth, I think this one, should it come to fruition, won't be as much of an uphill climb as getting the guys at the top. Of courese, some will make a stink about it, as the Seattle Times reports:

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, denounced the resolution Monday night.

“The call by Democrats to impeach Attorney General Gonzales is a misuse of congressional power for purely political reasons and a waste of the American public's money and time,” Smith said in a statement.

He said Democrats have chosen “to engage in a politically motivated campaign to slander the Justice Department and undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement.”

 J'ever notice how, even still, after all of these years. the typical GOP repsonse to criticism is “the Democrats are just playing politics“? How original. What the hell is that supposed to mean? They're politicians fer Crissake, playing politics is part of their job, isn't it? Inlsee, interestingly enough, took some criticism earlier in the year, when he asked state senators in Olympia to drop a resolution asking Congress to impeach President Bush, saying at the time that promoting impeachment was “grandstanding.” Maybe this is different to him somehow, it doesn't really matter, it's a step in the right direction.

Now,  Texan GOP Blowhard notwithstanding, this is something that, with a groundswell of support, is within reach. It's time to call Peter Welch, and ask him to sign on as a co-sponsor to Inslee's resolution calling for an impeachment investigation into Alberto Gonzales.  You can reach his VT office at (888) 605-7270 (toll free in Vermont), or the DC office at (202) 225-4115. The “I” word elicits some pretty strong emotional responses in some people; it's important to keep it focused on this impeachment, as to not mix the two issues up. I'll have more on this when I get some more information. Please feel free to share some of your responses from Welch's office in the comments section. 

Once again another multi national corporation puts the screws into the community they are supposedly supporting. News headlines in Vermont broadcasted that IBM is to lay off workers in some of their facilities throughout the country. Vermont’s Essex location is to bear their share with ninety employees forced out and onto the unemployment lines. What is so ironic is that Vermont politicians have been coddling IBM in order to prevent such measures. While IBM (International Business Machines) further exports American jobs to China and other countries, politicos like our own Governor Jim Douglass, Republican and “conservative” Democrats grovel over how to concede to them.

Just recently, a claim from opponents of the Global Warming Bill had used IBM as a reason why they could not support a tax on Vermont Yankee as it would send a wrong message to the business community. Well there goes that message; instead IBM has just sent its employees and the community a message that it just does not give a hoot about Vermont. Ironically, the potential savings from the Global Warming bill could have provided IBM would have offset any cost measures and would have virtually let them retain employees. Extra revenue offsets are as well about to come from reassessment of their facilities in Essex, and it seems that while every residential property’s values have gone up, big business’s assessments have gone down, thus lower taxes for an extremely profitable corporation.

Additionally, while our governor was out gallivanting around China to search out lucrative trade opportunities for Vermont companies, IBM seemed to have other intentions. It appears that IBM’s plans are just to process computer chips in Vermont and then ship them around the globe to be installed in one of their other facilities. I guess that is what is mean by exporting. A lot of talk has been made by the Governor of the opportunities for trade; however a simple fact that IBM is responsible for eighty percent of Vermont’s foreign trade is a scary statistic since that it is an unfinished product that quite possibly could be completed here in Vermont; however the greener pastures of lower wages and less environmental regulations have tempted IBM to displace Vermont and American jobs.

While, American and Vermont workers struggle to pay their bills, pay for healthcare or educate their children America’s glorious corporations bypass America for their needs of enriching their executives and stock holders. Neither America nor Vermont should cow toe to these mammoth international conglomerations because it is quite evident that the community they do business in is just another tool for them to exploit. And for that matter the politicians who advocate the corporate line, have to go…

Peace

Robb Kidd

“You name the large multinational corporation, many of which make substantial campaign contributions to both political parties, and they're on the Export-Import welfare line. Needless to say, many of these same companies receiving taxpayer support pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs. IBM, for example, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner over $260 million in stock options while they were lining up for their Export-Import handouts.” Senator Bernard Sanders while a Congressman. 

I was tempted to post something about this when I first read about it, but I didn't. Now, however, I just watched a diavlog about it and it makes me want to get back to the issue.
The issue is the burqini. Never heard of it? It's a bathing suit that covers a woman's entire body, except for the face, hands, and feet, designed for Muslim women to wear to the beach.
So in this diavlog Jackie Shire is talking about the ambivalence she feels in reading about these things, and the conflict she feels between the idea that feminism means wearing and doing what you want, and her concern that women should not be made to feel that their bodies are something to be ashamed of, or that they need to cover up.
I say she shouldn't feel any ambivalence. The issue here isn't whether women are going to be allowed to wear what they want. The burqini, like the burqa, is about one thing: oppression of women. It is entirely of a piece with Islamic laws that say women can't drive cars, or be outside of their father's home without a male relative. As Americans we should all be feminists: we all agree, or should agree, in the equality of the sexes, and the issue here is not the outward expression of religion in public, but in whether we will support Muslim men's structure designed and operated to oppress women.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. We aren't likely to see too many women wearing these things, but we will see more and more women wearing burqas, hijabs, and other concealing, restricting, cultish clothing.
And we should think very hard about what it means.

From the State of Vermont's Web site:

You are "uninsured" if you meet any one of the following circumstances:

You currently have health insurance but it covers ONLY hospital care OR doctor’s visits

 

You have not had health insurance for the past 12 months

 

You had health insurance in the past 12 months but lost it because you:

 

• lost your job
• got divorced
• no longer have COBRA coverage
• became ineligible for Medicaid or VHAP
• had insurance through someone else who died
• are no longer a dependent on your parent’s insurance
• graduated, took a leave of absence, or finished college or university and purchased your insurance through school

Does anyone else notice what's missing here?  It doesn't provide an exception if you lost your medical insurance because your spouse or civil union partner became unemployed.  If your partner dies, you are eligible.  If you get divorced your are eligible.  But if you're getting insurance through someone who loses their job and you therefore lose your insurance, there's no indication in here that you're eligible for catamount.

Is this just a minor error on their web site or did I just find a major gap in eligibility here?

The recent assault by the Brattleboro Police against two non-violent protesters is just one more illustration regarding our various governments' run-away violence. Another example would be the (again) Brattleboro PD's killing by gunfire of Robert Woodward after he threatened to harm himself back in 2001.

The war against the American people (euphemism: drug war) comes up with many more instances of abuse … click here for an interesting list.

We invaded a nation, Iraq, that never attacked us.

This is a short, short, short list.

I find all this absolutely unacceptable.

Will politicians from either the Democratic or Republican parties act to protect us from all this? Maybe the question is … why haven't they to date?

There are answers … click here to read about legislation actually introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. It appears to me here in Vermont we need some sort of department level non-violence representative.

And, of course, there are those things we can do in our day to day lives that encourage non-violence.

We need a piece of that peace.

Many people I've talked to feel that the recently passed veto session was, for all intents and purposes, the real start of the 2008 Governor's race. Sure we don't have a candidate yet – and, well… that's a problem, no doubt – but it feels for all the world like the race is on nonetheless, and we can at least be laying the groundwork for a successful run by…well, by somebody. And a little encouragement might get a wavering candidate in. A usual Vermont short election calendar serves incumbents – especially the incumbent Governor – so why wait?

It's time we all did what so many in the rest of the country have done (and what kestrel9000 is doing in Virginia, until such time as he finally gets a job up here that allows him to move back to Vermont where he belongs) – that is, make our OWN media. Blogs, sure. If you're at all inclined, you oughta have one, but what I'm really talking about is A/V! Time to get out the cameras and/or microphones and start following Republicans to public meetings and events. Ask the tough questions, get them on record and put it out on the intertubes as a permanent record. Ask them how they voted on the global warming bill, death with dignity, campaign finance. Ask how they feel about gay marriage, IRV, the RNC hiding from a subpoena behind “executive privilege.” Ask them in front of GOP crowds. Get a hold of a video editor and add your own music and effects, or just post it raw. Nobody's gonna do this for us, folks, so lets start to kick it up a notch.

To that end, GMD will have a contest: make your own internet ad that tells voters why its time to stop voting for Jim Douglas and submit a link in a user diary,  or just via email to me (check my profile). We'll get them all posted and let people vote on their favoritte. It could be video, or just straight audio, if you're more into the radio thing.

Now, I have no illusions about the relatively small pool of readers of this site. None of us on the front page are expecting hundreds of entries. So we'll allow plenty of time for the contest. Get your entry in by the first of November, and we can announce the winner exactly one year before election day. That's three whole months, folks. Plenty of time to get creative! We'll post updates and reminders from time to time, and I'll add a link to this diary at the top of the page so new readers can be brought up to speed.

So what are you waiting for?

Here in Vermont we are lucky in many, many ways. One of those is our easy access to both land and knowledge that allows us to grow some or all of our food. The big city of Burlington has it's Intervale which supports “financially viable and environmentally sustainable agriculture” on over 350 acres. In central Vermont there is the Food Works at Two Rivers Center where they host a wide range of food related activities including donating to the local food bank and summer camps and other educational opportunities. If you're out driving around the ubiquitous countryside the plethora of personal gardens is going to be obvious this time of year.

Many of us in this state are personally connected to our food: where it comes from, how it's handled and what the nutritional value is. We expect that … we're rural! But what about the really big population centers in the U.S. and around the world?

A week ago in the Sunday Rutland Herald/Times Argus' “News Digest” section I found this little gem: More city dwellers turn to chickens as pets:

This whole idea of urban agriculture has interested me for years now, so this little story piqued me into looking around again. It's easy to find information about this subject … just go to your favorite search engine and type in “urban agriculture”.

One fun place to start is SPIN (Small Plot INtensive farming) where they advertise:

SPIN will refer you to Somerton Tanks Farm who lays claim to “$68,000 in gross sales from a half-acre”. Not earth shattering, but impressive nonetheless.

According to a 2000 U.S. Department of Agriculture article:

You can get a quick look at some more of the pros as well as some cons regarding urban agriculture at the New Agriculturist. This Science Friday story has some very interesting information too, but there is a lot out there on this topic … so go wandering the 'net.

In closing I'd like to present an audio piece the wife and I did in 2005 on local agriculture as it does have bearing on what I discussed above … click here to listen or download.

If you read more than just the Vermont blogs, you've undoubtedly heard about Bill O'Reilly's jihad against DailyKos, attempting to label it a “hate site.” If you missed it, there isn't much to the narrative; O'Reilly thinks he can bully Kos out of existence by using troll rated comments to rationalize the harassment of a “Yearly Kos” convention sponsor (Jet Blue) out of the program. In that he has been partially successful, but of course this has done nothing but fire up the netroots crowd who are not only (of course) finding more objectionable user comments on O'Reilly's own site (as well as targeting his sponsors), but have also begun to get organized and coalesce into a netroots driven, rapid response, anti-Fox truth squad. O'Reilly's return volley has been simply to become obsessive in his attacks on dKos by trying to brings his TV guests into the fight, demanding they join him in comparing bloggers like us to nazis, the Klan, Mussolini, Al Capone, etc.

But thereisnospoon is now reporting that the battle has been joined by Sean Hannity (Hannity, for those who don't listen to talk radio or watch Fox, is the slightly dumber version of Rush Limbaugh who doesn't talk about himself as incessantly). Hannity is now attacking The Huffington Post on air, again based on comments users have posted on her site (and again, there are even nastier comments on Hannity's own site).

This begs the question as to whether or not we're seeing the beginnings of an all-out proxy war between the two major political parties being waged by their media manifestations.

If we are, you couldn't pick better avatars. The blogs are a decentralized phenomenon frequented by an astonishing number of people across the country that mushroom independently, but function in loose, almost communitarian concert. There is no head to cut off that would cause the body to fail. Fox, on the other hand, is not just a corporate entity, but an old-school corporate behemoth still run as an institutional totalitarianism by the legendary media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. In the short term, you have to give the advantage to Fox in terms of sheer media power, but in the long run it's hard to imagine any force outside of a complete governmental crackdown that could ever do more than annoy the blogosphere. Fox, on the other hand, is comparatively vulnerable – especially when you consider that they are a media force in ratings decline, while the blogosphere continues to grow. Fox's widening of the war is clearly an act of unmitigated hubris that – in an example of an exceptionally unbusiness-savvy strategic decision – places only itself at risk.

Still, it's interesting to wax futuristic when you look at this. Could we be looking ahead into the partisan wars of the future, here? As the major parties come to have more in common with media organizations, could this be a glimpse into the next evolution of the parties themselves, rather than simply their proxies? It would be an interesting sort of instiutional sci-fi indeed to glance decades ahead to see the Democratic party essentially merging with the netroots, and the GOP becoming a right-wing traditional media machine like Fox (even more interesting when you consider that the head of Fox is not an American citizen)? Would such an evolution lock in the current power structure, or break it open? Would the lines between a netroots-Democratic Party and the greater inhabitants of the American left blur enough to recreate the party as home for disenfranchised lefties (and even Greens)?

Yeah, yeah. All sci-fi, I know, but fun to ponder all the same. I sense a novel here (Philip, let's talk…)

Here’s a joke (I’ve seen it in text and in cartoon form) about marriage for gays and lesbians:

Woman: I think lesbians and gay men should be allowed to marry, don’t you, honey?

Husband: Haven’t they suffered enough?

(Rimshot)

But seriously, folks, the Free Press has put up a poll on  marriage equality. I’ve already been to cast my vote for equality. Please go thou and do likewise.

NanuqFC

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. — George Orwell

Hey. Long time, no see. Thought you might like this. Whoever's producing these (and his name is David Olson) is a goddamned genius.