( – promoted by JDRyan)

The freedom to end one’s life with the help of a physician in the face of painful or degenerative illness is not an issue I’ve been active in either personally or professionally over the years. Few have, in my experience. Despite this, opinion polls virtually anywhere show strong support for such options, particularly in Vermont where a February Zogby poll showed a whopping 82% in favor of the concept.

And yet the bill currently under consideration, which until recently most people considered a slamdunk, is now threatened, and it’s future looks dicey. In recent weeks, opponents have mobilized. Mirroring the debate in Oregon in the early nineties (and giving me a serious case of deja vu, as I was living there at the time), religious congregations – Catholics in particular – are being politically activated. As in Oregon, there are numerous reports across Vermont of priests delivering fiery political language from the pulpit, casting this singular political debate in a context with abortion and gay marriage as an organized assault on Christianity, and tarring proponents with pejoritives. Reportedly, inflammatory materials are being distributed.

As a result, lawmakers have become skittish over the Town Meeting break. With the bill in the House Judiciary Committee this week, it behooves supporters to make their opinions known (here is a link to the Judiciary Committee roster).

It’s important to remember that the churches are probably not breaking any laws. It’s a myth that their tax status precludes *any* political activity. What it precludes are candidate endorsements, while demanding that this sort of political activity be kept to a small percentage of their resources (which, these churches likely have done). Still, why is it that a teensy, vocal minority stands to quash such an overwhelming popular mandate?

Why, it’s the “passion gap,” and the way it feeds into that pesky social manifestation of Newton’s Second Law of Motion. (Explanation on the flip)

Backing up a bit – When listening to Rep. Michael Fisher (R-Lincoln) and Rep. Anne Donahue (R-Northfield) debate the matter on last night’s Switchboard, I was struck at how apples vs oranges the conversation was. Fisher, like most of the 82% from the poll approached the issue from a bottom-up moral construction. He clearly has a moral perspective from which he’s built an ethic, and that ethic requires that he support this sort of legislation. Donahue approaches the argument in a completely inverted way. She is a strict enough religious practitioner that she starts from the moral conclusions dictated by her faith and works backwards into the general ethic and moral construction that Fisher and others start from. This is the basic difference on these issues between the strict religionists and those for whom religious upbringing is only one piece of a greater environmental soup from whence they build their morality. This is why so many debates on such matters seem ultimately pointless.

Of course if we broach this topic in this manner, we are often accused of being anti-religion, even while we are relentlessly admonished to include religion in public discourse. In truth what those who disseminate that line (yes, I’m looking at you, Barack) really mean is that we should all be speaking religiously, while actually speaking about religion is still politically hyper-incorrect.

But I digress as usual. The point is that those who support the death with dignity movement and those that oppose it are coming from completely dissimilar places. As far as the opponents go, the matter is a dictate from god almighty, and they interpret any effort to legislate the majority opinion on the matter as not simply tantamount to a “culture war” designed to destroy them, it quite literally is. Passion, committment and activism therefore runs very high.

On the majority side, the truth is that the issue is about twenty-third on most of our lists. Seriously, how impassioned are most of us likely to feel about fighting for the right to take a lethal dose if we dont have a direct family stake in the matter?

So there you have it – a passion gap.

And the passion gap matters. I’ve blogged before on how I believe Newton’s Laws of Motion make for useful social metaphors, and in this case I’ll cite the second one; the law of acceleration. This is f=ma, which tells us that the force of an object is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration. With this issue, 82% is a pretty healthy mass, which gives us a pretty healthy force, one would think. But if proponents just sit still, their collective force isn’t gonna come to much in the end.

Opponents on the other hand may start from a small mass, but “with god on their side,” they are all about acceleration, and in the last two weeks they’ve seriously hit the gas, making for a pretty formidable force that has lawmakers noticing.

If proponents want to save this legislation, they better start looking at both variables in that equation fast…

When Congressman Welch was in our chilly county a couple of weeks ago, I went to see him hanging out at Food City (by report, Hannaford and Price Chopper refused to allow the Congressman table space in their entryways: wouldn’t be good for business). He was meetin’ and greetin’ the folks, mostly working class regulars (except for the tie-and-jacket types accompanying Rep. Welch and a few political junkies there to see him specifically). One or two asked him about the war. He asked a few others their opnion while I was there. Most could barely be bothered to shake his hand, they  just wanted to get the damned shopping done, leave ’em alone. A few seemed impressed that their congressman had come to see them on their turf.

So, in a quiet moment I asked him: Peter, why won’t you support impeaching the president?

And here’s what he said: “For me, it’s all about ending the war.”

But Peter, I came back at him, what’s going wrong in this country is way bigger than the war — it’s the Constitution! It’s surveillance and corruption! It’s reclaiming our entire country’s integrity!

“I hear you,” he said, “and I understand your passion. But for me, really, it’s all about ending the war.”

The fact is that Democrats need Republicans if they are going to have any hope to do that. And once impeachment comes out of the closet where the Democratic leadership has stashed it, Republicans retreat to hunker down behind their castle walls, pull up the drawbridge, lower the iron portcullis and man the battlements armed with hot pitch, boiling oil, and poisoned arrows.

I hate it, but that’s reality.

Unless and until the impeachment tidal wave rolls over Washington, of course, and  more and more folks of all political stripes (except the extreme right wingnuts who don’t really believe in democracy of any kind) begin to see that if they want to keep their seats, they’d better get with the program of the people.

I’m not holding my breath — not when the Democratic county chair, acting as the moderator of his town meeting, acts to prevent the impeachment bill from even being presented and discussed.

NanuqFC

Rep. Pete Stark is the first member of Congress known to have declared publicly that he is an atheist.

I think this is great news. It’s about time we have someone in Congress who is actively committed to governing based on rationality and reality instead of on superstition.

There’s more in Slate.

Another Vermonter has won Buzzflash’s ‘Wings of Justice’ award. This time it’s Dan DeWalt:

“Dan DeWalt, a citizen activist from Newfane, VT,” a BuzzFlash reader writes, “spearheaded the movement in Vermont and New England for holding the Bush Administration accountable through impeachment.”

And DeWalt lit a grassfire. His patriotic call for holding Bush and Cheney to be impeached was passed by 37 towns in Vermont on March 8.

“The founders wanted impeachment in the hands of the people,” said DeWalt, who has lived in southern Vermont for 30 years. “They knew there might come a time when the executive branch, the Congress, and even the press, fail us. And that’s the circumstance we find ourselves in today.”

An article from a Vermont paper noted, “Whatever you might think of Vermont’s impeachment drive, you’ve got to agree it makes more sense to impeach a president for making war, than making whoopee.”

Yes, indeed, and for that, Dan DeWalt merits being named the winner of this week’s BuzzFlash Wings of Justice Award.

Well deserved, Dan. Thanks, and a collective tip of the hat to you for elevating the idea of impeachment a bit higher.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance

I used to have a high opinion of Rudolph Giuliani. It was a long time ago, but it’s true, and this is a good time to write about it.

Back in the 1980’s when Reagan was president, one of the things he did was embark on a systemic practice of illegally denying and terminating Social Security disability benefits. It was universal across the country. One of their most egregious practices was a policy they called nonacquiescence, which meant that when a federal court decision went against them on some legal principle, they would simply ignore it, refusing to apply the same legal principle to other cases in which it applied. What was probably even worse, though, was “Bellmon review”. This was a policy they adopted in which the administrative law judges who decided appeals would be pressured and subjected to close scrutiny if they ruled against the government too often. Let me repeat that: the administrative law judges were supposed to be independent, but if they ruled against the administration they would be punished for it. The association of administrative law judges sued the Social Security Administration over that one, and won.

Here’s how Giuliani fits in:

Social Security has a series of steps of administrative review, in which a denied or terminated applicant or recipient can seek to have the initial decision changed, and after the appellant exhausts all the steps of administrative review they can sue the Administration in federal court. I don’t know how many cases are filed now, but it used to be tens of thousands. Like most other cases filed against the federal government, when a case like this is filed it is up to the local U.S. Attorney’s office to defend the government. In these cases, though, most of the actual work is done in Social Security regional counsels’ offices around the country. They would review the record, including the transcript of the hearing and all the medical and vocational evidence, research the law, and write the brief, and then ship the whole thing down to the local U.S. Attorney, who would have one lawyer assigned to handle these cases. That lawyer would sign it all and file it in the U.S. District Court,, and would then have to argue the case when it was ready.

As time went on the positions the Social Security Administration was taking in court grew increasingly outrageous, just without any legal, factual, or moral justification. Things got so bad that when Giuliani was U.S. Attorney in New York he announced that his office would no longer sign off on the briefs they were sent by the Social Security Administration without doing their own independent review of the merits of the case. This may seem like a small thing, but it really isn’t, because it meant that he was standing up not only to the Social Security Administration but also to the whole Department of Justice. (This was in the days of the “Experts Agree: Meese is a Pig” t-shirts.) In other words, he was saying that as a U.S. Attorney, confirmed by the Senate, he was not going to put his name and reputation behind the court filings prepared by his superiors until he could satisfy himself that they were justified. The credibility and integrity of his office, and his personal integrity, were too important for him to simply fall into step behind the bosses.

Turn the clock forward twenty-five years or so to another scandal affecting the U.S. Attorneys. Eight of them are fired for political reasons, whether it’s because they won’t persecute–oops, did I say persecute?–the political enemies of the Bush Administration, or just to give Bush cronies a boost onto one of the stepping stones to a federal judgeship down the road. You would think that someone concerned about the integrity and independence of U.S. Attorneys would have something very negative to say about that, wouldn’t you?

So would I, so I’ll bring you Rudy Giuliani’s official position on the U.S.Attorney purge: there will be no statement. That’s right, no comment.

So much for Giuliani’s integrity.

Yesterday in the Statehouse, the members of the VT delegation were all present to listen to Vermont farmers’ concerns about the state of the industry and the impact of federal policy on it. The federal Farm Bill is up for reauthorization, and the current one expires on Sept. 30th. The bill addresses farming, logging, conservation, nutrition programs and rural development.

As the Times Argus reports, a major concern of the farmers is the need for a more regional approach:

“I urge the (U.S. Department of Agriculture) to establish a national dairy policy which supports the regional production of milk,” said Mark Magnant, who runs a Fairfield dairy farm with his wife, three brothers and parents.

He and other farmers said they’re held captive by existing farm policy. The price they’re paid for their milk is controlled by that policy but the costs they’re forced to pay for feed, energy and other supplies is beyond their control.

“I would much rather extract the dollars needed to cover our cost of production from the marketplace versus through a government program,” Magnant said.

Another concern stated was that the current federal policies favor large agribusiness interests and their huge farms over those of the small family farm. From the Burlington Free Press:

Vermont’s farmers might be of one mind on federal dairy policy, but they are up against much larger dairy concerns in places like Texas, Arizona and New Mexico that run by a different set of economics than the state’s family-owned farms.

“The opposition to helping family-based dairy is going to be strong,” Sanders said noting that the Bush administration and large dairy processors are against regional programs.

Other concerns included the need for rural broadband, a simplification of the federal grant process, better forest and land conservation measures, and incentives for farmers to develop and promote renewable energy projects.

(with the rain coming later this week, this is on a lot of people’s minds… – promoted by JDRyan)

crossposted on EvolvingPeace http://www.evolvingw…

Here in the Capital City of Vermont, Montpelier we are patiently waiting the thaw of the winter’s snow and ice of frozen rivers. Many are hoping that the ice jam along the river does not unleash flooding that could cause havoc throughout the streets of town; however withholding our hope citizens of all are preparing for the worst and signs of preparation are abundant throughout town. Sand bags are stacked in front of buildings and signs of pre flood sales are at many of the downtown business. While the city of Montpelier braces itself for a possible flood, the rest of the human population should resolve themselves in embracing another thaw.

The ice and snow in Montpelier is a buildup from the winter season, while the planet’s buildup of ice and snow has been for centuries. Unlike the potential flooding of Montpelier, the results of a global thawing will be permanent and difficult to counteract. If a flood hits, Montpelier will be under havoc for a short time and eventually normality will return to the city streets and hopefully without any major casualties. For the planet, scientists are predicting world wide calamities are a possibility, and that serious actions are needed now.

Fortunately, there are only a few slivers of doubt shed upon global warming and the debate is spreading towards constraining it over denying it. But imagine, citizens refuting the potential of a flood. No preparations of moving storage or inventory to higher levels, no planning for evacuation routes and no advance placement of sand bags, everyone just leaving things alone and letting the events of Mother Nature unfold naturally and allowing the full scale repercussions to take place. Disaster strikes and people are left stranded, damage done to business, people drowning and homes destroyed.

So when it comes to the planning of a potential flood I am glad to see the community and government’s involvement in attempting to protect us and proceed with action instead of waiting in resistance or denial. I hope the same will hold true in regards to global warming. The majority of scientists have determined that man has directly attributed to the effects of global warming and global catastrophes are predicted, so like the flooding of a local river from a winter’s thaw, as a society we must take action in preparations of the thaw from an ice-age, whether it is man made or natural.

Peace
Robb Kidd

“There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.” William Shakespeare

Here’s your handy-dandy Tuesday linkdump…

The details of the latest Defense supplemental bill are starting to come out… some good, some not so good. Evidently the ‘Blue-dog Democrats’ (aka Repub-lite) have struck a provision from the bill that required President Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. And you can get more details on the bill over here at TPM Cafe.

Bush-enabler Sen. Susan Collins(R-ME) is going to have quite a challenge on her hands in ’08. due to the emergence of the netroots in Maine, something that wasn’t present last time she ran. Americablog has the details.

What is it with the Caledonian-Record? Apparently, there’s no problem with generosity in this country, and get this, John Edwards is a ‘far left liberal’.

Also from the C.R., Sen. Vince Illuzi clears the way for bringing Wal-Mart to Derby.

Gay-bashing… it’s as American as apple pie. First up, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace said that he thinks “homosexual acts are immoral.” Interestingly enough, he’s silent of the immorality of that little war he’s helping to run. Also, Truthdig has a great piece on intolerance, the Christian Right, and their concern over the ‘decline of male prowess in America’, with When They Came for the Homosexuals… UPDATE: General Pace “expresses regret” over his comments.

Remember that sinking feeling you got when Michael Dukkakis (or John Kerry) was the Dem nominee? Time to sit back and gloat a bit. Now it’s finally the Republicans’ turn. The NYT has more on that.

In labor news, why the “Employee Free Choice Act” that will be voted on in the Senate soon is important.

And finally, as compensation for having me read the Caledonian Record to give you this linkdump, I point you homeward for “Yet another reason to love VT.”

Happy Tuesday!

Every time there is a new constitutional crisis, or, to be more accurate, every time there is a new abuse by the Bush Administration, they trot out Alberto Gonzalez to paper it over, to put up his bland, seemingly open and forthright, countenance, to cover over the latest outrage his boss has perpetrated. One of his more striking public performances lately was his defense of the Bush abolition of habeas corpus. “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Now the Times says enough is enough: Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.

This is clearly right.

Time to contact our congressional delegation and get them to push for Gonzalez to be fired:

Bernie Sanders: 1-802-862-0697 – or – 1-800-339-9834 (In State Only)
Pat Leahy: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Peter Welch

The Montpelier Downtown Community Association is looking for volunteers to help fill bags with sand on Sunday from 1 to 4 p.m. at the recreation fields on Dog River Road.

The sandbags will be available to downtown businesses and property owners for free on a first-come, first-serve basis.