It’s Been Real

I hardly know how to start writing this diary.

As those of you who read this site regularly probably have noticed, the current trend among those who don’t like what they read here has been to respond by attacking me in personal ways. Given the realities of my socio-economic status and the responsibilities of family, this has always been a vulnerability. So I suppose it was always only a matter of time before these sorts of attacks drew blood, as they have.

As a result, I have no choice but to leave Green Mountain Daily (and blogging) indefinitely. Whether or not this is permanent is anybody’s guess. I’ve put a lot of my heart and soul into building something that I’m sure will continue to be a force in both public debate and electioneering going into 2008, but I’d be lying if I said the thought of it doing so without me wasn’t painful.

But go on it will, with Jack, Ed, Neil, Euan, B-Rouser and Kagro. To help make up for lost content, former FP-er mataliandy will be returning from time to time, and Five Before Chaos blogger JDRyan will join the front page as well (yeah, he’ll be the first FP-er that doesn’t self-ID as a Dem, but he’ll still have his own blog as well, so he can keep that radical cred intact and please the spaghetti western fans). For the moment, I’ll hang on the admin duties just because I’m not sure how else to handle it, but I have been informed that GMD will be receiving a Blogpac.com grant to cover a years worth of hosting fees, so whatever else happens, GMD will be around.

Have fun, folks. I’ll be reading!

SVR’s Thomas Naylor has a serious problem telling the truth.

(In light of odum’s departure, I found it important to front page this, if only to shed some light and let the folks at SVR know that this isn’t going away. – promoted by JDRyan)

Note from JD – I put this on my blog, five before chaos last night, when it was first brought to my attention. Considering they’ve now put the letter in question on their website (with revisions), I feel it is important to have this post here. )

UPDATE: In an incredibly stupid move, SVR has posted their attack piece on John Odum on their website. Before reading my post here, go have a look, then come back here. And let me know if you don’t agree if it sounds more like the insane rantings of a paranoid demagogue than a well-respected (until recently) academic.

You know, when observing how the Second Vermont Republic is dealing with this ever-increasing scrutiny over their ties to Neo-Confederate organizations, the best comparison I can possibly make is to the tactics of the Bush Administration (ironic, considering how much the SVR rallies against the Bush-led imperialism). Straw man arguments, attacking the messenger, disingenuous innuendo, and bald-faced lies.  Did Karl Rove lend them his playbook?

The latest outrage is a letter sent out by Second Vermont Republic’s guru/leader, Thomas Naylor, to its members, which is basically a hit piece on John Odum, the Green Mountain Daily blogger who first drew attention to the story broken on the Vermont Secession blog. For an organization that likes to continuously attribute the motivations of its critics as coming from ‘fear of the success of SVR (while completely ignoring that to many, SVR is merely a novelty or punchline), they’re sure acting like they’re the ones with something to be afraid of.

First, they relocate the Langdon St. Cafe appearance, out of concerns of ‘risk’ (as in the ‘risk’ of being questioned and confronted about the allegations). Now, they send out this letter. You’d need a Camel’ s Hump-sized shovel to get through all of the bullshit in Naylor’s letter. Now, Odum’s more than capable of defending himself, but considering he’s getting all of the heat and attention, and it’s involving personal matters now, I thought it was best that I let those of you who are interested know about the latest lies from Naylor, because the SVR certainly isn’t going to point you to five before chaos (but they sure do see to spend a lot of time there, reading).It’s curious that FBC has stayed under the radar during all of this, considering the criticisms there on the site have been harsh, and for the most part, accurate.

1) Naylor states that anonymous blogger Rowley’s ‘only source’ is the Southern Poverty Law Center (a credible source by any means, except if one is in one of the hate groups watched by the SPLC). Naylor offers no proof on this allegation whatsoever. Must have heard it from the ghost of Ethan Allen.

2) Naylor the gets into calling Odum a ‘Democratic party hack’ and, horror of horrors, a ‘supporter of Bernie Sanders’. He then keeps insisting that Odum has a problem with the Lincoln revisionism and that he doesn’t know the well-known quote from Lincoln about being okay with him not freeing the slaves to save the Union, (which one doesn’t obviously have to be a Neo-Confederate to know-just a Howard Zinn reader). He also says that Odum thinks ‘Abe Lincoln was their greatest president’ and ‘is vehemently opposed to peaceful  secession.” Once again, there is no record of this as motivated by ‘objections to Lincoln revisionism’, and Odum has been on record as stating the idea of secession as ‘somewhat appealing’.  Naylor is just pulling this one out of his ass.

3) He then goes on to somehow insinuate that Odum’s non-profit workplace is somehow behind this. He accuses him of calling into the Brattleboro radio show last week on company time, in an apparent attempt to jam him up with his job. Problem is, Naylor’s too lazy to look out the window, because there was a huge blizzard that day, and NOBODY went to work, including Odum. The fact that Naylor is resorting to these kinds of attacks (without even bothering to check the weather) is very telling as to who the ‘scared’ ones are in this.

UPDATE: The above thing about the calling in on the snow day was removed from the website, but not on the actual letter that was sent out. out. A bit late on the fact-checking.
Here’s the original clip where they try to get odum in trouble with his job:
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
4) He then cites that oft-cited poll  (that nobody seems to be able to obtain specifics on) that ‘found that 40,000 Vermonters  support secession’.  It’s a bit misleading, considering that we can’t find out exactly how many people were polled, but I’ll bet it wasn’t 40,000. And one poll doth not a movement make.

5) He once again defends the League of the South, Basani and DiLorenzio, while downplaying the racism rampant in the organizations these people associate. Remember , as SVR’s Rob Williams said, ‘they don’t know and don’t care’. He then goes off on some Bernie AIPAC rant. I guess that one plays well with those ‘Zionist conspiracy’ types who might be listening.

6) He talks about the VNN controversy… apparently there was some posts on the hate site, of dubious origin with DiLorenzio’s name on them that I pointed out in the comments section of GMD. Since then, I and numerous others have acknowledged that their veracity may be in question (they’re still there, as to not insinuate we’re going back and doing some kind of whitewash). Naylor then accuses the ‘the blogger’ of a cut-and-paste fabrication. That may be true, but the ‘blogger’ in question is whoever put the posting on VNN, not FBC, Rowley, or Odum, as Naylor is trying to infer.

7) Naylor goes on to list his lifelong opposition to segregation and racism. I don’t doubt his accounts on this. He then once again goes on with the blatantly false accusation that Odum has accused Naylor of being racist. Must be Ethan Allen’s ghost whispering in his ear again.

He wraps up with the laughable and by-now-tired notion, once again, that our motivations are because we somehow fear what this organization represents. First it implies we’re in stark opposition to secession (once again, an outright lie), and second it implies that they’re much further along in their goals than they actually are. Does he actually believe the words coming out of his mouth?

It would be nice if Naylor could actually point to some real example of these allegations, instead of listening to the voices in his head. Maybe he thinks you’re too stupid to bother trying to figure it out for yourself.

I REALLY want to be done talking about this. I have better things to write about.The people who needed to know about this now do, and in the grand scheme of things, SVR doesn’t really matter all that much outside of its supporters. But if Naylor’s idea of a defense is completely sidestepping the issue here while lying his ass off, it’s important you know about it. Hopefully, this will be my last post on this for a while, so those of you who in SVR who are checking this site religiously every few hours out of fear of some new allegation, rest easy. Go back to looking at Confederate memorabilia sites or something.

Has Barre lost its mind?

I don’t spend much time in Barre, and I’ve never lived there, but you sure have to wonder. First we have the mayor pushing through a curfew that even the police chief gives only lukewarm support to, and now this:

Mayor wants death penalty for drug dealers

February 25, 2007

By Sue Allen The Times Argus Editor

BARRE – Mayor Thomas Lauzon on Saturday said he hoped the Legislature would consider imposing the death penalty on convicted crack and heroin dealers, and to legalize marijuana.

Comments from anyone in Barre?

Henry Waxman Follows the Money

Cross Posted at Rip and Read.

February 2007:

Anna Nicole Smith died, Lisa Nowak- astronaut- put on a pair of diapers and raced across the south to do some serious ass kicking in a love triangle and Henry Waxman began holding hearings about what happened to the money we sent to Iraq.

Guess which story got the most play in the so called “Liberal Media” this month?

The question sort of just hangs out there…what happened to the TONS of cash that the U.S. shipped to Iraq? 

That’s right…TONS of cash.  According to a Denver Post Article, 363 tons, to be exact.  In true better late than never fashion, I started following this February story just as March was rolling over the horizon…oh, but what interesting reading it is…if only you can find it.

I’m going to post a link to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at Rip and Read

That way, I might remember to check it out from time to time- if I rely on the “Liberal Media” to keep me informed, I’ll grow old waiting to find out who-done-it.

In the meantime, here’s part of an opening statement by Chairman Waxman. As you may recall, it is his congressional committee which is looking into the billions of dollars that has simply disappeared in Iraq.

You can find more committee documents at: http://oversight.hou… if you can stand to read more:

 

Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Hearing on “Iraq Reconstruction: An Overview”
February 15, 2007

Last week, our Committee focused on the $12 billion in cash that our government sent to Iraq.

We learned that no one knows what really happened to that money or even whether it ended up in the hands of terrorists. All we know is that the cash is gone and billions were wasted.

Today we get more bad news. The Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency is going to testify that there are more than $10 billion in questioned and unsupported costs relating to Iraq reconstruction and troop support contracts.

This estimate is three times higher than the $3.5 billion in questionable charges that the Government Accountability Office warned us about last year. And in this new report, $2.7 billion in suspect billings are attributed to just one contractor: Halliburton…

Even worse, the actual amount of waste is likely even higher. The Defense Contract Audit Agency arrived at its $10 billion estimate after reviewing only $57 billion of Iraq contract spending.

But American taxpayers have already spent over $350 billion for the war in Iraq. There’s $300 billion still to audit. The total amount of waste, fraud, and abuse could be astronomical.

Let’s add it up. Last week’s $12 billion in cash and today’s $10 billion in questionable charges combines for $22 billion. And there’s still the potential for tens of billions more in waste.

It’s no wonder that taxpayers all across our country are fed up and demanding that we bring real oversight to the “anything goes” world of Iraq reconstruction.

Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, will tell us about a particularly egregious example of wasteful spending. It involves the State DepartmentÂ?s contract with DynCorp to train and equip the Iraqi police.

…the government could not demonstrate that it had actually received tens of millions of dollars in critical equipment, including armored vehicles, body armor, and weapons.

This is the equipment that is supposed to be going to the Iraqis so they can take up the fight and allow our U.S. service members to come home.

… I want to assure the American people that we aren’t going let a handful of corporations walk away with enormous windfalls while thousands of American soldiers are sacrificing everything to defend their country.

…To Be Continued.

SVR Collateral Damage (some housecleaning, and my last post on this nasty business)

I’ve promised myself I won’t talk about the Second Vermont Republic issue anymore – I’m gonna leave that to Rowley and JD Ryan – but I want to restate something I did say to minimize collateral damage. I’ve been swapping email with an angry Jason Sorens of the Free State Project, and I’m afraid after the Guardian article, that people may be making incorrect inferrences from my brief reference to him/them. I have no factual correction to make, but given Sorens’ understandable reaction I want to make sure I’m 100% clear, so I’m going to restate with a bit more force:

I’ve heard on more than one occassion, people suggest or charge that the Free Staters may be xenophobic or have racist undertones – in large part due to their involvement in an event last year that had originally been flagged by the Anti-Defamation League as such. But in my web surfing, it looked to me like these charges were unsupportable – even the ADL backed off from them to large extent. And you can bet that if I’d caught a whiff of racism or xenophobia, I’d have said so in that diary. I specifically didn’t, and I sure wasn’t inclined to hold back (for that matter, I had nothing on Bassani either – those specific charges have come from the Green Mountain Collective).

While I find Sorens’ politics WAY off, he seems like a well-meaning sort. In fact, he went so far as to agree on the racism of the League of the South and scoffed at their hiding behind the banner of heritage.

As far as this stuff goes, I’ve even tried approaching the FSP online community a bit, to maybe a little avail (I owe them a link to a student group complaint that I had also, but of course, I cant find it now – I think it was mutterings in response to the same NH event anyway…). A lot of ranters and ravers over there sure, but also a lot of decent folks. It’s a good site, believe it or not.

And while I’m at it, I did have lunch with Rob Williams yesterday (yes, when they posted their press release stating “SVR is not interested in responding to bloggers who refuse to engage in constructive dialogue with individuals and organizations prior to leveling allegations of any sort”, we had already planned to get together… I wondered if the PR was an oblique cancellation, but there’s a lot of left-hand-vs-right-hand going on I think). And let me just make clear; I have no idea whether or not Naylor himself is a racist. Questions, sure – but no conclusion (it’s enough that his craven attacks against me and my family’s livelihood in the media mark him as a person of low character). But, let’s be clear – I don’t think Williams is a racist. I just think he is supremely, tragically wrong.

Just again to be clear. I’ve never made any “allegations.” I’ve just expressed my shock and disapproval at SVR’s institutional relationships and makeup. Others have agreed. There are no facts in dispute, no charges made. I’m just grossed out, frankly (and neither is it fair to have expected “special treatment” – I didn’t ask for permission before criticizing Howard Dean, Pat Leahy, George Bush or any of the others I’ve criticized or praised… this is a web log for pity’s sake). Basically, there is no better summation of my feelings than the following, stating concerns that SVR…

…consorts with racists, white supremacists, and neo-confederate Christian theocrats. Unfortunately, there is some truth in those allegations, since the SVR has chosen to include on its advisory board and to invite to our table those who are associated with such movements. And it has done so with very little input from the larger activist secession community.

Even with the newly-published disclaimer that such associations are only because of the common interest in peaceable secession, there is a danger that such relationships will taint Vermont’s secession movement, as indeed this current controversy has born out.

I, for one, had already been arguing that we should draw a firewall between SVR and individuals or groups with publicly-stated philosophies that are antithetical to SVR’s and to Vermont’s tradition of tolerance.

… which was penned by Robert Riversong of the SVR. By all means, firewall away (although, may I suggest something more along the line of a mile wide, bottomless trench to seperate you).

Now I really am done with this. Way beyond done. Go talk about it at five before chaos.

A Message From John Nichols and Cindy Sheehan

( – promoted by odum)

By John Nichols

Cindy Sheehan and I will travel Vermont this weekend, stopping in towns from Burlington to Brattleboro, to talk about why we think the president and vice president should be impeached — and the essential role that Vermonters are playing in the process. We come not to tell the people of Vermont how to vote on warrant articles regarding impeachment at their town meetings next week. That would be not just presumptuous but foolish. Frankly, the voters who have given America George Aiken, Ralph Flanders, Robert Stafford, Jim Jeffords, Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders do not need any advice from us about how to make political choices.

Rather, we come to celebrate the wisdom of Dan DeWalt, Ellen Tenney and the thousands of other Vermonters who have chosen to embrace a Jeffersonian vision of how Americans relate to their federal government, and to take some of that wisdom back to the rest of the country.

It was Thomas Jefferson who observed more than two hundred years ago that, “Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic.”

It was Jefferson, as well, who asked of those who would inherit that republic: “But will they keep it?”

The answer to that question, for this particular moment in history,
will come from the Vermont town meetings that debate calls for the
impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. No, decisions made in
town meetings across the Green Mountain State will not, in and of
themselves, restore the republic — which, rather than the punishment of
individual men, is the purpose of impeachment. But, as Americans in towns
and cities across this great country despair at the determination of
their president to surge the country deeper into the quagmire that is
Iraq and react with horror at courtroom revelations about the manner in
which their vice president has used his office to manage attacks on the
reputations and livelihoods of an administration critic and his spouse,
Vermont can signal to the nation that there is an appropriate response
to the crisis.

More importantly, Vermont can put that response — impeachment — back
on the table for use by the American people and their  Congress. The
attention to the votes cast by Vermonters will remind Americans that the
founders did not intend for the people or their representatives to
allow any president or vice president to act as “a king for four years.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was wrong to suggest, as she did during the
heat of last fall’s election campaign, that impeachment was “off the
table.”

No section of the Constitution can or should be rendered inoperable by
any politician — even a well-intentioned one.

The Constitution does not belong to the politicians. It belongs to all
of us. And the medicines it prescribes for the ailments of the body
politic are ours to administer.

Indeed, Jefferson argued that all power must ultimately rest with the
people, believing that citizens at the grassroots would always be better
suited than politicians in Washington to recognize the point at which
friends of the republic must defend its democratic aspirations and the
rule of law that underpins them. “It behooves our citizens to be on
their guard, to be firm in their principles, and full of confidence in
themselves,” the author of the Declaration of Independence explained. “We
are able to preserve our self-government if we will but think so.”

Jefferson believed that the process of impeachment would at times begin
outside of Washington, with petitions from the states. His manual for
the conduct of Congress, written in 18OO and adhered to today, mandates
that Congress must accept such petitions and give them due
consideration. Hence, the votes cast at town meetings across Vermont next week can
extend beyond symbolism. If the Vermont legislature responds to the
message from the voters by conveying to Congres articles of impeachment,
as several legislators have suggested it should, the struggle to hold
the president and vice president to account will have been advanced. If
Vermont’s representative in the U.S. House, Peter Welch, chooses to so
respond, he can introduce articles of impeachment incorporating language
from the resolutions adopted at Vermont’s town meetings.

As the mother of a slain soldier who has proven that one person can
confront the most powerful man in the world and be heard, and as an author
who has spent a lifetime examining the interplay between people and
power, we come to Vermont to say that the impeachment process really can
begin in the town halls and community centers of this state.

And, we will argue, this is exactly as the founders intended. 

The authors of the American experiment had a deep and healthy distrust
of concentrated power, especially when that power was held by a regal
figure, be he identified as king or president. They crafted a
Constitution that made no mention of God, corporations or political parties. They
made no effort to establish a process for nominating candidates for the
presidency, and gave only the barest outlines for the selection of the
commander-in-chief — an electoral college was established, but little
preparation was made for how or when the electors would be chosen, let
alone who would do the choosing.

The founders figured that the American people would figure out how to
choose their leaders.

They feared, however, that after the selection process was done,
Americans would forget that they have the power — and, indeed, the
responsibility — to remove executives who transgress against not just the law
but the rule of law. The oath that the president and vice president take
binds them to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States.” A failure to do so, as identified by the people and acted
upon by their elected representatives, forms the basis for sound
articles of impeachment.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have, with their manipulation
of intelligence in a scheme to launch an unnecessary preemptive war,
with their repeated refusals to cooperate with a Congress that is
supposed to serve as a coequal branch of government, with their assaults on
scientific inquiry in order to prevent a fact-based discussion of global
warming by that Congress and the American people, with their violations
of laws that prevent presidents from ordering secret spying on the
American people, and with their abuses of positions of public trust to
punish critics of the administration’s policies have failed to “preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

They have created a Constitutional crisis.

Now, it is suggested that those who would address the crisis with the
tools afforded them by the founders are doing harm to the political
process and perhaps the nation. The claim that impeachment represents a
dangerous diversion from the work of nations is at odds with everything we
know and love about our country.

No less an American than James Madison said, after assuring that the
Constitution would include a broad authority to sanction members of the
executive branch, observed that “… it may, perhaps, on some occasion,
be found necessary to impeach the President himself…” The occasion
has arrived. The necessary arguments for the impeachment of the president
— and the vice president — have been identified. That Vermonters are
among the first to recognize the circumstance does not surprise us.
Rather, it inspires us. This is why we have come: to share in a great
democratic moment, and to carry the faith forward to other Americans in
other states. It is the faith of the founders, a faith that is being
restored by the people of Vermont.


John Nichols, the author of The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’
Cure for Royalism [The New Press], and Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was
killed in Iraq and who has attracted international attention with her
anti-war activism, will appear in close to a dozen Vermont towns Friday,
Saturday and Sunday to take part in rallies, forums and discussions

Senator Lieberman, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

( – promoted by odum)

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingSeems like there’s more buzz on the possibility of Bush’s favorite Senator, Joe Lieberman (CT-Party of One) picking up his toys and jumping the fence to join the Repugs (officially, that is – Joe’s been unofficially one for a long time).  Joe’s been filling up a diaper load on a daily basis with his obsessive love of all things Iraq, not giving two shits to the overwhelming majority of his constituents who oppose the war.

The panic line seems to be that if Holy Joe jumps ship, he’ll ‘return control of the Senate to the Republicans’. Not completely true. At that point, it would be a 50-50 Senate, with Dick Cheney breaking any tied votes. But a point to ponder… considering the way the Senate has voted lately, and with Repubs jumping ship on Iraq quickly, the chance of 50-50 votes on anything is becoming extremely unlikely. The other concern is that if he did, there would have to be some new kind of power sharing agreement in regards to committees and such, as there was when Sen. Jim Jeffords left the Repubs a few years back.  I can’t remember where I read this, but I think that once the Senate rules are in place and agreed upon at the beginning of the term, they can not be changed, short of a supermajority. If anyone has more details on this, please leave something in the comments and I’ll update it. But if that is indeed true, him leaving  the Dems won’t really do much in terms of shifting the power.

There are a lot of reasons for him not to make the switch. If indeed, the Senate rules stay in place, it’s a damn good bet that he’ll lose his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Considering it’s the committee responsible for overseeing his buddy in the executive branch, nothing would be better than to get him out of there. He seems intent on not overseeing the President on anything, as evidenced by his response to investigating the Katrina debacle.

It’s amazing how the mainstream media is spinning this, as evidenced by the garbage Time put out today on the matter:

If he were to jump ship, the ensuing shift of power to Republicans would scramble the politics of the war in Iraq, undercut the Democrats’ national agenda and potentially weaken their hopes for the White House in 2008.

What kinda horseshit is that? Lieberman has recently made it his life’s work to undercut the Democratic agenda. By what stretch of the imagination would he somehow undercut it more in the GOP? And potentially ‘weaken their hopes for the WH in 2008’? How? I thought that was Hillary’s job. If the implication is that a McCain-Lieberman ticket would somehow have some chance in hell of winning, then methinks someone at Time’s been spending too much time with the crack pipe.

David Sirota has a good take on how Joe jumping ship works out to be a positive for the Dems:

Democrats control the House, and as we’ve seen on the Iraq debate, a narrow majority in the Senate effectively stops that institution from doing anything. Thus, we have basic gridlock right now. Additionally, most believe that President Bush will veto any good legislation that manages to get out of Congress right now – meaning that gridlock is ensured by the White House. Throwing the Senate to the Republicans by one vote wouldn’t change this gridlocked situation at all. Democrats would still have the House and filibuster-ready Senators to stop anything awful from getting to Bush’s desk. Meanwhile, Democrats would still have investigatory/oversight power from their House chairmen…

So, to sum up: I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn’t hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an “if”) and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman’s switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty.

So those of you who are frettin’ over this, don’t. He’s nothing but a liability to you Democrats. Him leaving would just hasten his demise into political irrelevancy. So relax. Heck, send him flowers if he does it. He’ll need all the friends he can get at that point.

crossposted at five before chaos

THE FIRST VERMONT PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL (for links to the candidates exploratory committees, refer to the diary on the right-hand column)!!! If the 2008 Vermont Democratic Presidential Primary were

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

I’m a red… a very red… Tory.

Canadians have a wonderful political category – the red Tory.  Sometimes, it is just used as the equivalent of liberal or moderate Republican.  However, it’s more interesting meaning is that of someone who’s political ideas include pieces of left and right.  Not just any pieces.  The wisdom of Edmund Burke, the great English conservative and REFORMER is a major piece of it.  The notion that society is more than just the arithmetic sum of its individual members.  The idea that grand ideological schemes are  very likely to end in blood and horror.  The humility to understand that any act, no matter how well-motivated and thought-through, is still likely to have unintended and not necessarily happy consequences.  As well, there is the crucial notion that doing nothing is still a choice and an act.  If one looks at the constitutional monarchies in the world (ones in which the monarch is a figurehead not like the monarchy in Tonga where the king has enormous power granted to him by a constitution), one sees societies that have successfully evolved from feudalism to modern democracy usually without major upheavals. This shows societies that can deal with change well.

The notion of a solid state constitution that is unchanging is a recipe for disaster and dishonesty.  Disaster because a society that makes change difficult or impossible will become dysfunctional.  Dishonest because it is epistemologically impossible to know what the `framers ` meant.  Any society always has two major sources of disaster – an unchanging society will ossify; a too-changing society will fly apart.  The more one attempts to avoid one of the more likely the other is to happen.  At any given time, the balance must be and will be different.

That’s the Tory part.  The red part knows that elites eventually serve only their own self-interest and one must view them with profound distrust.  As well, the differences in individual abilities, talents etc. is not just a reflection of innate differences, but the result of the social system.  The liberal notion of equality of opportunity is a sham and a delusion in that even if everyone is at the same starting line; their training, their equipment, and even their condition is unequal.  As well, the operation of a free market is never really free so those who proclaim the glory of free markets are really only defending their own distorted power in what passes for a free market.  The Tory in me is doubtful of both planning and central control and the action of the invisible hand.  The red in me cannot believe that innate differences can even begin to account for the enormous inequalities in society.  Is  Bill Gates really that much “better” than Steve Jobs?  Or even better at all? 

Societies live in the natural world.  We often hear of natural disasters?  Are they? Or are they social failures?  Yes, if out of the blue, Vermont were to be hit with a category 5 hurricane, it would be a true natural disaster as would 29 inches of snow in one day in Miami.  But Katrina in New Orleans was a social failure both in preparing for hurricanes and in building levees.  Much of the Netherlands is below sea level; they know how to build dikes.  Yes, there were terrible floods there after WW II for obvious reasons.  And yes, even successful dealings with the natural environment can warp a culture.  The Dutch, brilliant at keeping out the sea, arrived in Manhattan and adapted their dike-building culture to keeping out the Indians by building a wall on what is now Wall Street.  Apartheid was a form of wall building as well.

The right wing nonsense about taxation needs to be exploded.  Sweden’s very high taxes have far economic effect on the Swedish economy than do taxes in this country.  Why?  American taxes are so complex and riddled with loopholes and exceptions that many economic decisions are made on the basis of tax consequences.  As well, some really gifted individuals use their gifts in negotiating (in both senses) others through the system.

Famously, Joe Biden in his last presidential bid, plagiarized Neil Kinnock’s famous statement that the fact that he was the first member of his family to go to university did not mean he was the first one capable of it. 

The liberties of society are not just a bill of rights or a document at all.  In this country, we make a big deal about the Bill of Rights.  New Zealand doesn’t have one in the sense of an entrenched constitutional document.  In fact, it doesn’t even have an entrenched constitution.  Much of constitutional government there is based on custom and usage as is the entire notion of parliamentary system as found in the Commonwealth.  Guess who has the better record on civil liberties?  It’s not even a close thing.

So I guess the Tory part of me comes out in a belief that we’d be better off constitutionally and freer if we had evolved as did Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  Or, we’d be better off in Vermont had the Haldimand negotiations been successful.

Regionalized Social Media

Over the past several months, I’ve been involved with various regional efforts in the progressive political blogosphere.  I keep posting on my own blog, as well as various national blogs, but I also participate in Connecticut’s progressive political blog of record, MyLeftNutmeg.  From time to time I visit neighboring regional progressive political blogs of record like BlueMassGroup, Below Boston, Blue Hampshire, Green Mountain Daily all in New England, and blogs like Culture Kitchen in New York, and Blue Jersey in New Jersey.

Yet social media is much more than just progressive political blogs.  In New England, the New England News Forum is convening a conference on how changing media is changing civic involvement.  It will include journalists, bloggers, educators, people interested in economic development and social issues.

I will be co-leading a session, “From DC courts to NH campaigns: Has blogging gone mainstream media?”  I hope that many of my friends from New England regional blogs attend, and participate in discussions of how the broader spectrum of social media interacts in New England for the benefit of us all.

The Vermont Republican Bench

Wanna play the world’s worst drinking game?

Sit around with your buddies, pour shots, go around the circle and anytime anyone can come up with the name of a likely Republican candidate for Vermont’s at-large US congressional seat, take a drink. Expand it out to include any statewide office (beyond the two they already hold). I guarantee you’re gonna end the night pretty sober.

The conflicting rumors about previous candidate Martha Rainville (that she is intending to go for the seat again vs. she’s moving out of the state entirely) open up the Congress question, and pretty quickly one comes to realize just how thin the GOP bench has become.

Under the guidance of recently departed Chair Jim Barnett, the Republican legislative races were allowed to dry up and blow away while all attention and energy was spent protecting Governor Douglas and pushing some of the other, big ticket statewide races. The result is a dearth of talent in the short term, and few rising stars on the horizon.

I have little doubt that pressure is already being brought to bear to persuade Brian Dubie to make a Congressional run, but he seems content with the cushy time committment-to-public profile ratio afforded him by the Lite Gov’s office. New House Minority Leader Steve Adams (R-Hartland) has high marketability potential, but is too new in his leadership position to be able to stike out anytime soon with any hope of success. And then of course there’s recently defeated Auditor Randy Brock who is already running against Salmon for his old position, but in a manner so over the top it’s already bordering on self-parody.

So who are we looking at for Congress? Secretary of State? Treasurer? Attorney General?

Folks like former House Speaker Walter Freed and former National Committeeman (and local Party moneybags) Skip Vallee have begun collecting cobwebs on the political shelf. Perennial Congressional candidate Greg Parke – who runs not to win, but to simply bring in income for himself and his family – may find it harder to continue his electioneering industry racket without the boogeyman of Bernie Sanders to open wide the spigot of out-of-state, reactionary GOP cash. A crusader (such as recently defeated former Rutland County Senator Wendy Wilton) is always a possibility, as electoral viability is not generally a concern for those sorts (and with Roper now the GOP Chair, folks like Wilton may feel empowered and energized).

So who’s left?

My guess is that more candidates in the Rich Tarrant mold will emerge to fill the vacuum – individuals used to being the ones the candidates turn to for money and contacts. For that list, instead of turning to current officeholders, we may find the Republican candidates of tomorrow by looking at campaign finance filings, such as this one or this one of Martha Rainville’s.

Many of these bigger contributors may or not be interested, but my gut tells me that somewhere on this list there are GOP-ers already making noises behind the scenes about stepping into the spotlight and sticking it to the liberals.

What do you folks think? Recognize any names?