I just noticed Freyne beat me to this, but it’s still worth pointing out. This is from today’s Sunday Herald/Argus editorial:

An important decision awaits Gov. James Douglas now that the Legislature has completed its work this year: whether to veto the energy bill that includes a tax on power generation at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

Douglas should sign the bill.

Sounds good, yes? But it follows on the heels of this from two weeks ago:

efforts to make companies more responsible corporate citizens must be undertaken with fairness in mind, which suggests a thoughtful policymaking process.

Action on climate change is long overdue. If Gov. James Douglas had been leading the way on the issue, then the Legislature might not have felt compelled to rush its program into existence. But that is no excuse for creating a program with a dubious funding source.

Clearly, the editors would like us to accept a parsing of the language that would do the Boston Legal team proud; that they can be all for the bill (in a blandly clinical, one-shot way) but still object to the funding mechanism (in a more, shall we say, vehement way on multiple occasions – going as far as taking the playground-scuffle step of calling Shumlin’s original proposal a “score-settling tax”).

But it doesn’t work that way.

Collectively, the Argus and the Herald make up a tremendously influential and consequential chunk of the Vermont media, and as such, they get to lead the way in informing debate. The fact is, when the bill went through, they quickly came out with a couple editorials, slamming the bill in no uncertain terms. In doing so, they set the goalposts, and crafted what has become the “conventional wisdom” among both the opponents of the bill, as well as those casual news watchers who have only followed it peripherally, but now feel that the sophisticated, intellectual viewpoint is that handed to them in the papers.

And an odd conventional wisdom it is. It says that if a tax doesn’t directly, precisely relate to an expenditure, it is “bad policy.” Since the bill is designed to shape the energy paradigm in Vermont, you’d think that a tax on an energy producer would fit that criterion. But apparently using either a nuclear waste tax, a windfall profits tax, a property tax, or an energy production tax that would also be levied on wind (all notions bandied about, with the final one actually making the cut and deemed marginally more acceptable to the editors) on the energy industry providing a third of our electrical power is not related enough to a bill focusing on energy conservation and renewables promotion.

To editorial, the only funding scheme acceptable was the much maligned heating fuel tax. Once again, editors show they are in the enviable position of not suffering the death of a thousand cuts that those in the middle and working classes do. It’s a yearly ritual in my house to consider which bills we will be late on in order to pay for those final one or two deliveries of oil to heat the family home. No big deal to the editors, though – even if there’s an obvious corporate citizen equally related to the energy field who can easily afford it and make for a more progessive target of taxation.

Apparently, you can only tax Vermont Yankee for a bill that would perhqaps move the nuclear waste. Under this logic, tobacco taxes going to health programs would be out the door.

And the General Fund? The sales taxes, income taxes, etc that collectively fund every other functioning of government? Well, I suppose paying the Governor’s salary is “bad public policy.” Even gas taxes going to the transportation fund would seem inadequate. Again – not even the same industrial category. Perhaps if the gas taxes were going for oil drilling…

For whatever reason, the Herald and Argus targetted this bill with unusual scorn. Proponents are doing a good job bouncing back, and the news that Vermont has more per capita nuclear waste than any other state is a nice sign that they aren’t going to be willing to play ropa dope.

But the fact is, despite their nice, groovy sounding liberal editorial today – if this bill goes down, it’ll be a defeat largely owned by the editors of the Rutland Herald and Times Argus.

crossposted at Five Before Chaos

You may remember a few weeks ago, I wrote about the new farm bill, more specifically how the subsidies for Big Corn and Soy make it so the least healthiest foods are the cheapest, and how this ties into our nation’s poorest people having problems with obesity and other diet-related problems. In keeping with that theme, have a look over at this piece at Tom Paine, where it talks about how four members of Congress tried to live on $21 of food per week, the average weekly food stamp allotment. It’s not pretty, and once again, it puts the problems of the nutritional challenges that the poor in this nation have to face:

“No organic foods, no fresh vegetables, we were looking for the cheapest of everything,” McGovern said in an interview with The Washington Post at a Washington supermarket. “We got spaghetti and hamburger meat that was high in fat-the fattiest meat on the shelf. I have high cholesterol and always try to get the leanest, but it’s expensive. It’s almost impossible to make healthy choices on a food stamp diet.”

It does not help that some of the cost estimates of the USDA recommended meals seem out of date. A chili recipe that calls for three-quarters of a pound of ground beef, beans, celery, onions and seasonings is priced at $3.87 for four servings. But the lowest-priced ground beef, with 20 percent fat, was selling this week for between $2.99 and $3.59 a pound at two major Washington supermarkets.

After about three days on their food stamp diet, Lisa McGovern wrote, “We’ve been eating so minimally-concerned that we won’t have enough food to carry us through to Tuesday. I can see an impact on our energy levels, even in just these few days. When Jim got home around 10 last night, he just seemed a little `flat.’ He’s usually very animated when recapping his work day, whether it was good or bad. But the lack of fuel seemed to drain that from him a bit.”

It goes without saying that it’s sickening that we have billions of dollars for unnecessary wars and tax breaks for polluters, when there are people struggling to put food in their mouths. I guess it just says a lot about our priorities as a nation. You can also read one of the congresspeople’s blog about the experience here.

(Promoting. This is an all volunteer event, and I’m one of the volunteers. 😉 – promoted by mataliandy)

The 4th Annual DemocracyFest is coming June 9-10 to the Wayfarer Inn in Bedford, NH. The event will feature progressive speakers, trainings, and entertainment. Organized by volunteers who met through Howard Dean’s presidential campaign, the event has previously been held in Massachusetts, Texas, and California.

DemocracyFest Incorporated, the producers of the event, have just confirmed that

• Sen. John Edwards
• DNC Chair, Gov. Howard Dean will be speaking Sunday evening. Gov. Dean’s speech will be free and open to the public.
• NH Grassroots hero: Rep. Carol Shea-Porter,
• Bev Harris,
• William McNary,
• Mark Crispin Miller,
• Jim Dean, DFA Chair
• Bob Fertik,
• Jeff Feldman,
• Sec. William Gardner.

Entertainment will be provided by Cecilia St. King, Rebecca Padula, and The Subway Serenade, and more…

Plus our own local celebrity, Jeffry Taylor, author of the Rutland Resolution, will be part of an impeachment panel.  We’re waiting to hear whether Dan Dewalt can fit us into his schedule.

“DemocracyFest is an opportunity to network with people who share my political values, and I get to learn how to make a difference while having fun.” says annual attendee Ellen Garneau from Vermont. “I wouldn’t miss it for anything!”

The presenting sponsor of this year’s event is Democracy For New Hampshire. Other sponsors include Democracy For America, Latinos For America, and Camp Wellstone.

More information about the event can be found at http://www.democracy…

Order your tickets today!

I’m a liberal. That means I have no problem with regulation as a policy tool (well, neither do conservatives, they just want to regulate culturally rather than for purposes of social functionality… but I digress). But regulation by definition is based on an artificial power differential created to serve the interests of public administration. And truthfully, power differentials in general make me queasy.

As such, I hold to a simple regulatory ethic when I evaluate policy proposals or administrative functions. Basically, you regulate logistical matters (the housing density to infrastructure capacity scheme, or somesuch) and “bad” behavior (which I’ll define as behavior which can harm others – that covers environmental regulations, public health regulations such as second hand smoke issues, stopping people from beating other people up, etc).

But regulating “good” behavior? Why the hell would we want to do that?

What’s got me riled up is the cover article of this week’s Seven Days which examines the regulation “regime” around street performers in Burlington’s Church Street marketplace. Again, I can see the need for logistical regulation – how many prformers at a time, and such – but it’s clear that Burlington’s marketplace masters have gone way, way beyond that, and it burns me up (more below the fold).

Quick back story – yesterday I was walking to grab some lunch in Montpelier’s downtown. On the way, I heard a saxophone echoing between the buildings on State Street. The music was very skillfully rendered and brought an immediate smile to my face. As I walked over the river, I saw the young woman who was playing get up from her seat on the sidewalk and pack up to leave. I was delighted to see that several people had dropped tips into her sax case (which gave my faith in human nature a little boost) and took a minute to appreciate springtime in a place that tends to attract – and generally embrace – street performers of many stripes (although, as a musician myself, I do admit to being partial to the musicians).

To my surprise today at lunch, I notice that same saxaphone player gracing the cover of the new Seven Days. I enthusiastically grab a copy and sit down to read the article… although the cover blerb is giving me a creeping feeling of what to expect inside.

The artist herself is identified as 18 year-old Zoe Christiansen (who can be heard playing the clarinet, her other instrument of choice, on the Seven days website here). She is precisely the type and caliber of Church Street street talent that so impressed my wife and me when we moved to Vermont so many years ago, and always played a big role in our enthusiasm for making the drive up to Burlington on sunny weekend days.

But in the true spirit of fixing something that wasn’t broke, Burlington has a different regulatory regime in place than they did 12 years ago. One that goes beyond regulating logistics and into regulating individual good behavior (which I certainly consider performing in the community – and in the process enhancing that community –  without an admission fee to be).

In other words, rather than being celebrated, Ms. Christiansen has been banned:

The Church Street Marketplace has a “three strikes and you’re out” policy regarding complaints for performers who have, or are working toward, an annual license. According to the official rules and regulations, annual licenses are granted provided that “at least five daily/weekend licenses have been previously obtained, and no documented complaints have been filed during the five separate performing dates.”

Christiansen’s initial infraction – for excessive volume – came while she was performing on her first day permit. She was given a second day permit but was told a complaint had been filed against her; she was not told by whom.

So by whose authority has Christiansen been “banned?”

“They” are the Church Street Marketplace District Commission, a department of the City of Burlington whose primary function is to ensure that the Marketplace is a clean, safe public center. From maintenance to granting permits, Redmond and his staff handle virtually every aspect of Marketplace operations. Collectively, they are the “man behind the curtain.”

It’s actually a glass door, and the CSM office behind it is where the permit gauntlet begins – with the audition.

You read that right – an audition. To perform, you must audition for a handful of bureaucrats and meet with their approval (and presumably, their personal tastes). A little departure from the romantic notion of the traveling troubadour spontaneously sitting down to make his or her bus fare to the next stop, eh?

It’s important to note that strret musicians were originally envisioned as an integral part of the Church Street Marketplace, but as reporter Dan Bolles informs us, they seem to be seen now as a nuisance at worst, and just a piece of the decor at best:

Buried in the official regulations regarding Church Street performers – just a few paragraphs after the line stating that a street performer’s license “is not an employment contract” – lies a telling contradiction: “The right to act as a street entertainer on the Marketplace is a privilege.” While the language of that sentence is confusing, the message is clear: The Church Street Marketplace views street performance not as a right of free expression but rather, as [CSM Executive Director] Redmond puts it, as an “amenity.”

It’s an irony not lost on Zoe Christiansen. “Park benches are amenities,” she counters.

And who’s complaining about her?

On Monday, May 7, she went to the CSM office to obtain her third day permit. She was told the staff were too busy, and that they might be able to accommodate her later in the afternoon. So Christiansen decided to play on Cherry Street, hoping to siphon some listeners from the Marketplace. While she was physically off Church Street, her sound traveled there, to the displeasure of cart vendor Paul Buschner.

The 46-year-old proprietor of Amazing Kettle Corn typically sets up shop on Church just south of Cherry. Buschner describes Christiansen as a “rule breaker,” who has “only her own interests in mind.” He cites several occasions when he’s witnessed her riding her bicycle on the Marketplace – another no-no. He further claims the clarinetist was “just sitting, playing scales.” Though Buschner normally prefers to speak with offending buskers personally, on this occasion he asked Burlington Police to investigate.

Two officers notified Christiansen that she needed a city permit to play outside the CSM District, defined by the edge of the brick walkway that lines the Marketplace. The incident was reported to the CSM office, which later that afternoon informed her she would not be granted another day permit or considered for an annual license.

“Scales?” Please. Go back and click the audio link again, and keep in mind that this woman performs for a living. Scales wont pay the rent.

So what’s his problem with the “rule breaker?” Apparently according to some, Church Street isn’t a public area, it’s not part of the Burlington community, it exists only for the storeowners and their personal comfort zone takes precedence over everything and anything else. Yet another symptom of our cultural insistence on putting the value of commerce, the market and the successful marketeers so high, it reflexively trumps all else.

Let’s be clear; if a performer is belligerant and is harassing or threatening people – especially if they’re doing it under the pretense of performing, I have no problem with regulations to prevent that. But this is clearly not the case here, and what gives them away is the arbitrary and capricious regulatory regime:

Accordionist David Symons, 29, disagrees. “I don’t have a problem with issuing permits, necessarily, but the standards [the CSM] sets are totally arbitrary. They have these regulations, but they’re enforced selectively.” Symons adds that the CSM “has this attitude that we’re somehow employees, which we’re not.”

Christiansen was also informed by several members of the CSM staff that her attire was “inappropriate,” and that she should reconsider her look.

CSM Executive Director Ron Redmond, 51, conceded there is no mention of apparel, appropriate or otherwise, in the street performer regulations, but he added that CSM staff often make suggestions to performers in an effort to abet their success.

Christiansen was disturbed by CSM’s mother-hen approach. “I was wearing shorts that were kind of . . . short, I guess. But I also was wearing a dress that covered the shorts, down to the middle of my thigh, and a vest over that,” she explains. “I didn’t feel I was scandalously dressed, but I guess [the CSM] disagreed.” Furthermore, Christiansen points out, “There is nothing in the rules about attire and, frankly, who the hell are they to tell me what I can wear?”

To the one or two whiners such as Buschner, I say suck it up. You’re doing business in the most lucrative piece of real estate in the state, and its precisely because of the culture and setting that these performers are an integral part of that it is so lucrative (and BTW – there is no way to play a saxophone quietly). If you don’t like it, open up shop somewhere else. I’m sure there are plenty of folks waiting in line to fill your vacancy.

To the appointed judge/jury/talent executioners (and their bosses/enablers in City Hall), find a new hobby. As far as I’m concerned, from what’s in this article, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

If you’d like to let the appropriate folks know that you’re ashamed of them as well, here’s some contact info:

Ron Redmond, CSM Executive Director
(802) 865-7254
rredmond@verizon.net

Bob Kiss, Mayor
(802) 865-7272
(I couldn’t find an email, but here’s a link to an online feedback form)

… and maybe if you’re on Church Street and you have an urge for Kettle Corn, you might want to consider an alternative.

crossposted at five before chaos.

… although I’d really like to, using a dull X-Acto knife. I’d probably find a tumor that looked like Joe Lieberman. Now, yes, Emanuel does deserve a bit of credit for helping to win back the House, but dammit, now he’s adding ammunition to that argument about there being no differences between the parties/business as usual. David Sirota is reporting about a secret trade deal with Peru and Panama that has been going on behind closed doors, a lobbyist-written one that’s plain awful, even moreso because one of the Dems’ pledges was the end of such trade deals. If I’m understanding this correctly, the labor and environmental protections are not in the main text, rather “side agreements” which are basically unenforceable. And that’s making the White House happy…

Meanwhile, White House and GOP participants in the deal are now signaling that the deal’s much-touted labor and environmental provisions are designed to be kept out of the core text of trade agreements and thus potentially rendered utterly unenforceable. To date, the specific legislative language of the secret deal has been kept concealed from the public.

[This] move may explain why the Bush-connected head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has told reporters he has received “assurances that the labor provisions [in the deal] cannot be read to require compliance.” It may also explain why the dealmakers have yet to release the legislative language of the trade deal texts in question. If they are planning to not actually change the texts of the deals and pass them as is, there may not actually be any new language, meaning there would likely not be any substantive change to U.S. trade policy, despite the flood of press releases.

So where does Rahm fit into this? Well, rank-and-file Dems caught wind of this and wanted to have an open debate on the matter at the Democratic Caucus Meeting (which I believe was yesterday). Emmanuel initially agreed, then removed the debate from the agenda at the last minute. It’s quite obvious whose interests he’s looking out for, and it’s certainly not labor and the environment. Seems like he’s perfectly happy with yet another trade agreement with no enforceable protections. Don’t forget, he was one of the principle architects of NAFTA, which kick-started the whole race to the bottom that American industry continues to suffer from today, and it’s not getting any better. This morning, House Dems who aren’t too happy about this are having a meeting with Pelosi about it, so hopefully something good will come of it. Who knows?

I’ve said it before:  these people need to be marginalized. Rahm’s work in winning back the House shouldn’t get him off of the hook on this. And he continues to add to the cynicism that people such as myself who are not in the party have about “them all being corrupt”. It needs to end. Now. Bush is only part of the problem (and a major one at that). The enablers need to be held accountable as well.

(If it’s patrioticresponse, then I want him front & center! – promoted by Brattlerouser)

Peter Welch spoke on the floor of the U.S. House today explaining to the Congress why Vermonters in ever greater numbers are calling for impeachment. While it is good for members of Congress and for those who watch C-Span to hear about our sentiments, a speech is a miserable substitute for action.

Congressman Welch wants to end this war yesterday he says, but he has thus far only voted to further fund it. Impeachment will divide the Congress and only prolong the war he says, but he cannot point to a single action of Congress that has taken one step to even slow the pace of the occupation.

Welch thanks impeachment activists and says that while he opposes impeachment, he supports the indictment that we make against the Bush administration. He can’t have it both ways. The prosecutor doesn’t thank the grand jury for their hard work, agree with their call for indictment, and then toss it in the trash on his way out of the courthouse. But that is exactly what Peter Welch is doing and some people will try to tell us that we should be grateful to him for doing it.

Impeachment is the only Constitutional tool that we have left in the toolbox that could actually block this administration from furthering their reckless military stance. Impeachment is the only workable remedy that could help to redeem us in the eyes of the rest of the world.

More great stuff below the fold- BR

This Democratic Congress has betrayed us. They pull at some dried skin of a reeking onion, but they refuse to investigate the rot that is spreading from its core. “Look, ” they say, “we snipped those brown edges of the skin, it’s a fine onion again. Aren’t we good cooks?” A mere 40 Senators could prevent any further funding of this war, providing only a way to pay for withdrawal, but there are not yet 40 Senators who are brave or principled enough to do so. While Welch waits for the Republicans to magically join the Democratic war (non) strategy and then convince this President to change his mind, a handful of his colleagues have already called for impeachment investigations against Dick Cheney. It is sad that our Congressman is content with so little. It is as whimsical for him to think that he’s taking steps to end this war as it is for the President to think that he’s winning it.

Our Congressman is not yet convinced that we represent the views of an overwhelming number of Vermonters. He will be disabused of this notion in the coming days and weeks. There will be petition and post card drives that will give notice of just how many we are.

We are fed up with vacuous leadership. We are fed up with excuses. We are above all fed up with mediocre rhetoric masquerading as substance. This is a call for civil obedience to the Constitution by those who have sworn to defend it. It may well be the last call before massive civil disobedience is seen as the only way left to get our government to become once again “for the people”.

Bush’s lapdog is at it again. The self-proclaimed “independent Democrat” just helped out at a fund raiser for Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, as the WaPo reports:

Not only has Lieberman endorsed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine.) — one of Democrats’ biggest targets in the 2008 cycle — but he’s planning to co-host a fundraiser for her on June 21 in Washington, D.C.

The event, which will be held in a Capitol Hill location still to be determined, will feature Lieberman and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — a very rare bipartisan fundraiser. Attendees are being asked to raise $3,000; $2,000 would come in the form of a political action committee donation while the other $1,000 would be a personal contribution, according to an electronic invite for the fundraiser obtained today by The Fix.

Now can someone explain to me how a fundraiser for a Republican senator is a “bipartisan” fundraiser? Is Jack McMullen or Rich Tarrant going to have one for Pat Leahy next time around?

More than ever, aside from his love of all things Iraq in which he continually undermines the efforts to end the war, Lieberman needs to be neutralized. It’s time to strip him of his seniority and committee assignments as soon as posssible. It’s quite clear whose side he’s on now, and it’s not ours.

[05-14-07, 1 p.m. There’s an update, pulled from the Brattleboro Reformer’s report, an accurate soundbite from Peter’s response, about 2/3 down below the fold — NanuqFC]

The basic messages to Rep. Peter Welch at Saturday’s White River Junction “town meeting” on impeachment (short, non-repetitive version, exclusive of conspiracy theories and gratuitous heckling): Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses beyond the war in Iraq; your duty to us and to your oath of office is to defend and restore the shredded Constitution and get these guys out; your rationales for avoiding impeachment hold no water.

The basic messages from Rep. Welch to the 200-plus souls in attendance (short, non-repetitive version, exclusive of side issues, litanies of outrages, rephrasings of impeachment as “change direction,” and self-serving stories): I agree that B/C have done terrible things to our country; impeachable offenses are whatever 218 Representatives say they are; impeachment is just one tool in the fight for accountability; in my judgment impeachment is the wrong tool because it will delay ending the war; look at all the investigating we’re already doing.

Did we change his mind or even cause him to doubt his own entrenchment behind stopping the war first? I doubt it. And, while I hoped that was possible, that’s not the only reason I was there.

For those who want exhaustive detail, it’s below the fold.

Some of the fringier elements were out at the gathering: the Lyndon Larouche  groupies (believe it or not, touting a book called “Children of Satan II” showing Dick Cheney on the cover); the 9/11 conspiracy buffs; and a couple of young loudmouthed guys I might suspect of being provocateurs with their unrelenting, disruptive, offensive taunts aimed at Welch. (The organizers apparently had no plan for how to deal with this, as it went on for way too long and only intensified after Liza Earle “reminded” us of the “rules” for the meeting: play nice, be respectful, take your turn.)

Denny Morriseau, a guy with a gray pony tail and a business card that identifies him as the progenitor of “Lieutenant Morrisseau’s Rebellion,” provided a full complement of more-and-less edgy impeachment signs outside the high school, along with a persistent level of high-decibel heckling inside from high on the bleacher seats.

In fine folk-protest fashion, the “Raging Grannies” led off the meeting with impeachment-adapted lyrics to the tune of “Michael Row Your Boat Ashore.”

Armed services veterans, many wearing their VFW/Legion soft garrison caps, were in the audience and lined up to speak after organizers Liza Earle and Jimmy Leas spoke, followed by the Congressman’s welcome and opening statement, then by three pro-impeachment “panelists,” including former Army Arabic linguist Adrienne Kinne, a recent immigre to Vermont. If the passions had not been so raw and real, the event might have been dismissable as another piece of great political theatre, another cynical attempt by an elected official to show “concern” and to “listen to constituents,” while doing nothing that matters on the issue at hand.

But the passions were very real, even if the speeches were too long. At least two of us — probably more — were wiping tears from our eyes during the two-hour meeting. Welch was moved enough to promise to read into the Congressional Record a letter from the mother of a Vermont soldier killed in Iraq urging Peter to impeach those responsible for our presence in that brutally occupied country. (And then he launched into two stories to show his sincere opposition to the war and concern for the soldiers.)

Was he moved enough to change his stance? Not by any evidence I saw. He lectured the participants on Congressional arithmetic, citing the recent defeat of a deadline amendment to a second Iraq occupation-funding bill:  it received 171 votes, more than expected (he said), but not enough to pass. Someone near the end of the speaker line reminded him that you don’t need 218 votes to initiate an investigation of the main players: George W. and Richard B. It takes only one Representative to do that.

About 75 minutes into the meeting, Peter was asked if he remembered the words to the oath of office he took in January, and if so, would he recite the first few phrases. “I solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States,” he answered. “And protect and defend?” asked the questioner at the mike. “And protect and defend,” he agreed. “And do you feel that you are fulfilling the terms of your oath in refusing to use a non-optional provision of the Constitution to protect and defend it?”

Update from the Brattleboro Reformer on Peter’s response:

The meeting erupted in a roar and a standing ovation: this was the question everyone wanted answered [and the answer everyone wanted to hear]. But his attempts to [further] answer it were broken up and sometimes drowned out by the taunting and yelling of some in the crowd, notably Morrisseau in the bleachers and a conspiracy buff and a LaRouche supporter in the front row. The questioner, standing next to Peter Welch, bellowed, “I ASKED A QUESTION AND I WANT AN ANSWER!”, trying to get the crowd to respect her turn, even though they weren’t satisfied with Peter’s answers.

I left soon after that. Peter Welch never changed his tune. I was sad, but not depressed. Peter will do whatever he feels is “appropriate.” But really, I was there because I have to do everything I can to save and restore Constitutional rule as much as possible, and it’s not possible when an administration as corrupt as this one faces no consequences beyond an election. I’ve said it before: I refuse to be a “good German,” while my constitution and country are raped and assaulted from within by those power-hungry, greedy thugs who have violated their own oaths of office. I have to do everything I can, and if I’ve done that, then (at least so far) I can sleep at night.

NanuqFC

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

Smarting from his steady loss in viewership (and in the face of Keith Olbermann’s steady rise in viewership), Bill O’Reilly continues his never-ending quest for Democrats to demonize in the hopes of throwing more gasoline on his dwindling flame… and once again, he’s turned to li’l ol’ Vermont, his favorite state. From the Freeps: A film crew from Fox TV’s O’Reilly Factor caused a stir at the Statehouse this morning as legislators were gathering for the last day of the legislative session. The crew approached Rep. Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, as he sat in the cafeteria eating breakfast before 9 a.m. Legislators described the crew as aggressively asking questions about sex offender legislation, accusing Lippert of supporting child sex offenders.

“They take the mic and stick it in his face,” said Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, who was across the room. “He was ambushed.”

Sounds like quite a scene, from Hallenbeck’s description, with other Legislators moving in to support/shield Lippert and subsequent calls for some sort of official legislative statement or action on the matter. Big hat tip to B_VT for drawing this to my attention.

Question for the day: There are plenty of Vermont legislators that could draw this sort of ire, and yet O’Falafel (and his local buddy, frequent Factor guest Paul Beaudry of WDEV’s “True North Radio”) for some reason seem to fixate on Lippert… hmmmm, now why would that be? Anyone on the right have an answer? Bueller…?

Bigotry is so transparent…

crossposted at five before chaos.

Now, I know I continually state that it’s just too damn early to be talking about Election ’08. But every now and then something pops up that needs mentioning. If you paid attention to the MSM after the first Dem debate a few weeks ago, one of the frames was about crazy Senator Mike Gravel, who had the audacity to point out that the fact that none of the top tier candidates had strongly denounced the idea of using nukes against Iran, even asking Obama who he’d “want to nuke”. Yeah, that’s reeeeaaal crazy, right? At the DNC winter meeting he had the temerity to claim that  “because of the extreme importance of any decision to go to war,” anybody who voted for it is not qualified to hold the office of President.” Oh, the insanity, please lock this man up!

As you can read in this piece in The Progressive, Gravel has a history of going out on a limb and saying and doing the right thing. He was at the forefront of trying to cut off funding to end the Vietnam War. He’s not afraid to hold his own party responsible for the Iraq mess. And sadly, he’ll never be president. His honesty is truly a liability, and easy to paint in the MSM as unhinged madness. Could you imagine how the MSM would spin this? –

“Our leaders are promoting delusional thinking when boasting that the United States and Americans are superior to the rest of the human race. We are no better and no worse,” he says, in a highly unusual pitch for a candidate.

Gravel says “we’re number one” is a hollow slogan when the United States is actually number thirty-seven in health care and when 30 percent of students fail to graduate high school.

On the other hand, the United States is number one, he points out, in the production of weapons, consumer spending, government, commercial, and personal debt, the number of prisoners, energy consumption, and environmental pollution.

He also favors carbon taxes to fund alternative energy initiatives, gay marriage, and the legalization of marijuana. Sounds like he could come to Vermont and beat the pants off of Douglas in a heartbeat. But sadly, we still have places like the Bible Belt to contend with in this country, whose unhinged whackos will undoubtedly think Gravel is an unhinged whacko.

He’s 76, and is the longest of long-shots. But I hope to hell he stays visible in this race until the very end, because his message is a refreshingly honest alternative to Obama’s calculated “inspirational” rhetoric and Clinton’s consultant-written drivel. And it gives the leftier of us an alternative to Kucinich’s hokey New Agey claptrap, which is extremely unsettling to those of us who have our feet on terra firma. Let’s hope he sticks it out. You can visit his site at http://www.gravel2008.us/.