Brent Budowsky, who can write some pretty good stuff, seems to be drinking the Kool-Aid of delirious optimism:

1. Democrats should aspire to build a new era in American history of
patriotic reform and national renewal similar to the eras of FDR and JFK. By electing a Democratic President and Democratic Congress in 2008 we can inaugurate the next New Deal and New Frontier and we should think in large, idealistic terms.

2. 2007 will see the coming together of this growing alliance between Democratic leaders, national grassroots, the progressive blogs and progressive radio which will all flourish and support each other more than pundits predict. News and communications power will be further shifted from MSM to independent news sites.

This new alliance will empower voters, lift the party, widen the debate and attract political support and investment capital. The sites mentioned include Arianna and Huffington, Caro Kay and makethemaccountable, Mark Karlin and Buzzflash, Rob Kall and OpEd News and Bob Parry and consortiumnews among others.

3. The Democratic Party will regain its historic leadership on natonal security by expanding on its major gains in 2006 with Senators, Members of Congress, and candidates with military service addressing issues important to our troops, vets and mlitary communities.

What planet is Budowsky living on? Does he think this ‘new progressive era’ will be ushered in by a group that doesn’t even have the balls to call for impeachment, or more importantly, cutting off funding for the war, as Kucinich has suggested? Yes, from time to time I wonder if the pendulum has swung as far as it has to the right and we’re on the verge of some Third Progressive Era. Then I roll over and go back to sleep.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

We spend a lot of time in the political blogosphere discussing the Christian Right and the political claims to Christ’s personal endorsement of their agenda – but personally, I draw the line at any attempt by the Right to co-opt my superheroes. So my gander was tweaked when I read last week’s typically left-bashing piece at the Dwinell Political Report entitled HELP WANTED: SACRIFICIAL LAMBS. The piece, which started out reasoned and thoughtful, quickly veered into li’l ranting tidbits like this one: choosing to be in Vermont now overwhelming means that one is expected to volunteer to be sacrificed to the pig-headed vanity, incredible ineptitude, and purely-ideological fantasies of a remnant ruling class of elderly flower children. Fairly pedestrian right-knee-jerk-drivel, of course – except for the byline (emphasis added): Captain America graces these pages annually. Captain America is a Vermont resident

I beg your pardon.

Captain America?! A Republican?? Pfft. Let’s put this li’l fallacy to rest right away.

First off, it comes as little surprise that the Right would try to co-opt Cap (Cap-opt?). Mr. Red-White-and-Blue is the very image of patriotism, and the right has a tendency to think they own that particular quality. In point of fact they do own it, inasmuch as those that do attempt to use the concept as a bludgeon (certainly not all Republicans, just the talk radio types) like to define it as some sort of imperialized laissez-faire, religious and ethnic superiority. It brings to mind Bill O’Reilly’s favorite trick, recently put on display against Barbara Walters on The View, whereby he pointedly, repeatedly and impatiently prods on the matter of the Iraq War with the simplistic question “you do want us to win, don’t you?”. The answer is awkward because his presumptive definition of “win” is likely the neoconservative transformation of the Middle East into an American corporate client state. A straight-up “no” doesn’t play well, and you don’t get any time to qualify your answer to Mr. “I’ve never received any Republican talking points” (BWA-ha!) O’Reilly.

So Cap’s the one they think they have a right to. Who else have they got? Spider-Man’s mantra of “with great power comes great responsibility” is, after all, a better statement of the liberal ethic than the last thirty years of Democratic Party talking points.

For those who don’t know (and without going too much further down the fanboy route than absolutely necessary), Captain Americ’a story begins in World War II, where he volunteers to receive a chemical treatment (the secret to which has, of course, been lost) which transforms him into a “super-soldier.” Not super-powered per se, but given a shortcut to the peak of human athletic potential. Through a combination of suspended animation and the peculiar flow of comic-book time, Cap survives into the modern era fighting more contemporary bad guys.

On the way, though, there have been several hints into Cap’s political leanings. There was the enthusiastic first meeting with FDR (where the President gave him his shield) – but the ever-patriotic Captain is always respectful and accomodating to the office of the Presidency. Less easy to explain away, however, was his reaction to the Watergate scandal (or its comic-equivalent). Rather than adopting Skynard-esque defiance, Cap was distraught, losing the stars and stripes for a time to become the gloomier Nomad.

He also dropped his Captain America persona following his attempted conscription by the government in the 1990s, and his rational (but deeply felt) patriotism was contrasted against the aggressive, Rambo-era jingoism of his replacement in the red-white-and-blue (a replacement he naturally had to take down eventually).  This is clearly not a my-country-right-or-wrong guy. In addition, he’s always been one to stand up against racism, sexism and classism, and one could argue in the post WWII era, that given his genesis, the guy is a one-man successful government program.

So, okay, this is one fanboy’s opinion. What isn’t a matter of opinion is the message being sent by the current stroryline in Captain America’s Marvel Comics line. From this month’s issue of the Utne Reader:

Hundreds are killed. The president asks for, and gets, expanded powers. Preemptive war is waged in the name of national security. More people die. Only a few voice their dissent. “War is just a diversion,” writes embedded journalist Sally Floyd. “We’re so busy watching ugly pictures on TV that we lose sight of what’s really going on. The hurt doesn’t seem real . . . which suits the warmongers just fine.”

Who is this perceptive and opinionated journalist? She’s a fictional reporter for the imaginary New York Alternative-and the war she’s covering is between two groups of superheroes in the Marvel Comics Civil War mini-series, launched in May. One group embraces a “Superhuman Registration Act” that forces costumed heroes to reveal their secret identities and register with the government; another, led by Captain America, goes underground and resists the expanding power of the state. Later, Sally is arrested for refusing to reveal a confidential source.

Reflecting their older demographic base from previous decades, comics have done what few television or movie productions have – tackle the Bush era civil liberties debate head on. In fact, leading the other side of this “civil war,” is Marvel’s Iron Man – the head of a multinational corporation who recently (and briefly) served as Secretary of Defense. Captain America, now forced underground, clearly playing the role of oppressed, but unbowed everyman. From Utne again:

For example, some readers might assume that Captain America, a superpatriot who already works for the government, would support the Registration Act. Yet it makes perfect, if surprising, sense for Captain America to lead the rebellion. Through many political zigs and zags in the real world, Cap has always represented core American ideals-freedom of conscience, fair play, and commitment to the general welfare-that are today in conflict with the imperatives of the war on terrorism. If Captain America really existed in George W. Bush’s America, whose side would he be on? Cap probably would be punching out Abu Ghraib torturers and exposing secret detentions as un-American.

What’s my excuse for spending so much time on Captain America today? Yeah. sure, I’m a geek – but it’s more than that. That little byline on Dwinell’s site is yet another (albeit subtle) example of Republicans feeling they have the right to co-opt everything and anything that smacks of patriotism. Sometimes deliberately, but sometimes out of complete cluelessness, given that to so many of the Bushites (again, which not all Republicans are), being proud of America means being proud of the Republican Party, as opposed to being proud of the noble principles enshrined in our imperfect, yet still-extraordinary Constitution.

So to Dwinell and his mystery writer daring to scrawl his drivel under this hallowed pen name, this fanboy has one thing to say:

I’ve grown up with Captain America. I know Captain America. Captain America is a friend of mine…

Mr. Republican-screed-writer, you’re no Captain America…

DO SENIOR CITIZENS SUFFER GREATER PUNISHMENT FOR PROTESTING THE WAR IN IRAQ THAN OTHER PEOPLE WHO PROTEST?

I have a friend in New York with 18 years experience in social services.  I mentioned to my friend that  a 69 year old woman was threatened publicly in Vermont with criminal prosecution for protesting the war in Iraq.  I stated that it was in the news world wide, you can even see it in news search at http://news.google.c… if you search her name.

Myrtle at first responded that she would just love to join in some of the protests in Time Square, “oh you’ve GOT to come to New York soon!” she exclaimed.

  It must be wild there now, with all of the anticipation of whether or not President George W. Bush will pull on his puppet strings and order a pardon for Saddam Hussein like he did some other dictator from some country that bombed hundreds of citizens on a jet flight, or have we all forgotten all the forgiveness given to someone in Libya?

Now, come on, admit it, how many of you put hanging Saddam Hussein Christmas tree bulbs on your Christmas tree?

Well, Myrtle said she just couldn’t take any risks at her age, (almost the same age as some senior citizen woman in Vermont who is the talk of all the news media for protesting the war in Iraq), but she sure would love to if she could.

Myrtle’s number one concern is the lack of clean water in Iraq because of all of our bombing.  Such is the life of a New York social worker, concern for clean water for all of the homeless people who live down in the sewer tunnels.

Talk about homeless and Myrtle gets to the point,
will this senior citizen woman in Vermont lose her Social Security benefits or any other benefits she might have as a possibly low income senior citizen if she is jailed for 2 months, if she is convicted in a second trial for protesting the war in Iraq?

Will this senior citizen woman who is facing re-trial for protesting the war in Iraq be able to make payments to the electric company while she is jailed for protesting, if she is convicted,
and will her pipes freeze in her home and her walls burst and her ceiling cave in?

If this senior citizen woman is re-tried and convicted for protesting the war in Iraq, will she be able to make mortgage payments?

If this senior citizen woman is re-tried and convicted for protesting the war in Iraq, will she be homeless when she is released from jail?

Where do homeless people go in Vermont when the homeless shelters are full and turn people away even when it is 40 degrees below zero?

How many homeless people die in Vermont every year?

What is the real PUNISHMENT for a senior citizen who protests the war in Iraq?

Do senior citizens face far greater punishment than other protestors?

Do senior citizens have a far greater likelihood of dying of pneumonia in jail or of dying of a heart attack in jail?

“WHY DOESN’T SOMEONE CALL ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES?” Myrtle asks?  “CALL ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES!!!!!” Myrtle begs!

 Loading ...

The Times Argus AP (thanks for the catch, Nat) has its list of the top 10 stories of 2006 out. Some are rather broad categories of stories (“congress race,” “Vermont Yankee”), some are clearly news stories that belong on such a list (“Cashman controversy,” “school shooting,” “Fell sentenced”), while the “tire burn” story probably doesn’t belong in the top ten, in my own opinion.

All told, though, some significant news stories probably should’ve been on that list – or at the very least, should be mentioned in the same strata. Here then, are what I believe to be the top 10 stories not included on the AP’s list (not necessarily in order of prominence or priority). Some of them were big splash items, while some simply did not receive the attention they probably should have, but were significant events whose impact may be underestimated or underappreciated by the traditional media.

And by all means, use the comments to add your own as well… (continued on the flip)

1. Spec. Chris Merchant of Hardwick, Sgt. Josh Johnson of Richford, Sgt. Carlton Clark of South Royalton and Lance Cpl. Kurt Dechen of Springfield are killed in the Iraq War, bringing the total number of Vermonters killed in Iraq to 18, with an escalation of tens of thousands of troops virtually guaranteed to be proposed by Bush and supported by GOP leading Presidential contender John McCain.

2. The Vermont Impeachment Movement. Two grassroots efforts simultaneously spread across the state – both of which garnered major media attention nationwide and galvanized activism leading into the elections, energizing the anti-war movement from coast to coast. Starting with Dan DeWalt in Newfane, multiple Vermont Towns have passed Town Meeting Resolutions calling for the impeachment of the President. Simultaneously, Jeff Taylor of Clarendon drafts language calling on the Vermont legislature to use its authority to initiate impeachment proceedings, and that draft sweeps through Democratic Town and County Committee meetings statewide. When some members of the Dem leadership ralied to narrowly defeat the measure at the State level (in a still-controversial vote), nearly a dozen Democratic Progressive and Independent State Representatives signed on to Progressive Rep. David Zuckerman’s similar bill in the Statehouse. Both the Town Meeting and Legislative efforts continue in close alignment.

3. GOP Senate Candidate Rich Tarrant spends more per vote than any other candidate in US History. This of course being the eye-catching tagline of the greater story of the huge amounts of money now being spent in Vermont on these races and the end of statewide elections as we’ve previously known them.

4. Auditor’s race reversed in recount. Such a thing has never happened before. Who says your vote doesn’t matter? Congratulations again, Auditor-elect Tom Salmon Jr.

5. Vermont Peace Activists spied on by US Government. Although it originally broke last December, the issue played out over the first three months of this year. One of those stories of huge import and potentially monumental implications, yet the coverage was tepid and the follow-up perfunctory. At least Senator Leahy was properly pissed off.

6. Catamount Health. It sort of blows my mind that the AP left this off their list. The issue of health care was where it belongs in 2006 – front and center. Unfortunately, it also sucked the air out of the room for many other issues. The compromise with the Governor was not the systemic overhaul envisioned by the House bill in 2005, but a safety net for most completely uninsured Vermonters. Called the most extensive reform in the nation, it was still a mighty disappointment for progressives (li’l ‘p’, natch), and made it difficult for Scudder Parker’s gubernatorial campaign to get any traction on the greater issue. Although serious doubts about the long-term sustainability of the plan loom, the Democratic Legislative leadership made a deliberate decision to not let the perfect (true reform) stand in the way of the good (covering tens of thousands without health care). In any event, the train-wreck that is the US health care system keeps piling up.

7. The Vermont Milk Company launches. Largely overlooked by the media (I suspect because it gets into a level of economics that makes many reporters’ and readers’ eyes glaze over), the VT Milk Company is the culmination of a long effort by Anthony Pollina and others to take control of a corner of the dairy production market in order to give local dairy farmers better prices. As the Catamount Health system was for health care, VT Milk doesn’t get at the root causes of the steady decline of the dairy industry in Vermont which are systemic to the global market. Again, it doesn’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good – which in this case means allowing farmers to begin to take some small measure of control of the production and offer stabalized prices on the higher end of what is commercially viable at present. Again -as with Catamount – issues of long-term sustainability linger.

8. Warming trend. Nationally, six of the first nine months of the year were much warmer than average. Going into fall globally, September was the 4th warmest recorded. Locally, November of 06 had the lowest snowfall ever in Vermont. And then there was the Green Christmas. Anybody see a pattern?

9. Instant Runoff Voting used in Burlington mayoral race. And very successfully by most accounts. Expect the issue of election reform to be revisited and the Burlington election to be the first of many.

10. Blogs impact Vermont statewide elections. Julie Waters broke the now-famous Rainville plagiarism story – which is coming to be seen by many as a watershed event in the Congressional election. The genie of the blogosphere is now out of the bottle in Vermont, and expect big-ticket statewide elections to never be the same again.

Your turn. What’s I miss?

This post might also be tittled, “Why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should not be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.”

Hillary Clinton is accomplished and smart. The fact that she is female, I believe, is an asset to her political ambitions.

She can raise money.

As First Lady, she survived (even thrived?) the level of scrutiny that candidates for President endure from a international press corps. In 08′, only McCain and Edwards have had their personal closets rooted through so thoroughly.

If Hillary were to run she would have the greatest Democratic strategist of her generation, Bill Clinton, as her campaign manager. No one is better than Bubba (but a few are equal).

It doesn’t matter.

If Hillary 08′ really makes a run for it, and I do not think she does (exploratory campaigns do not count), she would take the Northeast and West Coast states.

That does not take her to the 270 electoral votes that she needs to be President.

To crack 270 she has to pick up electoral votes in the Great Lakes-Mississippi River region, the near West and Southwest, Pennsylvania and/or Florida.

She won’t.

Hillary, love her or hate her, has 100% name ID nationwide. In all 50 states her favorable/unfavorable are set in stone.

There is nothing (and I mean NOTHING) that you, me, the guy walking his dog down the street will see/read/hear about Hillary that will make them change their mind about her. That goes for the people that love her as well as the people who despise her.

It does not matter who the Republican nominee is (sorry John McCain). Hillary doesn’t get to 270. The electoral math just doesn’t add up in the battleground states.

The Democratic Party would be foolish to let her run because if she runs, she will get the nomination and is guaranteed to lose the general.

She would even beat Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, which is a shame because I really like Barack Obama.

Not that it matters because Brack Obama isn’t going to be President in 08′.

Not yet.

It’s not that he’s black. This country is most likely ready for a black President.

Its not that he’s not smart enough. Obama is really smart. I mean, really, really smart. And telegenic and articulate, which are both key ingredients of the modern presidency.

It’s because Obama doesn’t really stand for anything. Not yet. He’s too young.

We love Obama because he is fresh and so unlike 99% of our other politicians. We like him because he is honest (stupid land deals in Illinois aside). We like him because he seems to be the most like us.

Which is the problem. Obama-mania is really all about us (its always about us, we’re Americans). We project our hopes and dreams upon him because, by standing for nothing in particular, Obama stands for everything. Like us.

Standing for everything is very dangerous under the white hot lights of a Presidential campaign. Standing for everything is not a winning campaign strategy.

And, as my very good friend Mark Halperin said, “If you animate forces who do not feel a strong enough bond with you, the mob that had your back can become the mob at your door.”

Just ask Howard Dean.

Which leaves us with John Edwards. And, to be honest, he’s not a bad choice for the Democrats in 08′.

In fact, he is a pretty cagey choice. If the Democrats would only wake up and smell the coffee.

Edwards is very smart, as smart as Hillary and Obama.

Edwards can raise money. Maybe not with the ease of Hillary and Obama, but he will raise enough to be competitive.

America already knows about his skeletons and Edwards knows that we know. He survived 04”s election scrutiny with his reputation relatively intact. This is a huge advantage.

Edwards is able to get to 270 electoral votes. This automatically makes him better than Hillary.

Edwards is already laying campaign groundwork in the key states. He is picking up staff, volunteers and endorsements so much so that he feels comfortable announcing his candidacy next week – well before Hillary and Obama.

But, what I like most about Edwards is his campaign platform – “The Two Americas”.

Very cagey. Very kitchen-table oriented.

When Edwards talks about the gulf between the haves and the have nots, he makes people believe that he is going to do something about it.

Edwards’ campaign is going to resonate.

Let’s hope that the Democratic Party is smart enough to pay attention.

( – promoted by odum)

On Christmas Eve, I suppose “normal” people are wrapping presents or drinking eggnog with friends and family or something, but no, not me.

Since I just finished putting together some language for a legislator on death with dignity (now THERE’s a Christmas-y topic for ya), I’m now doing a diary on Iran for GMD.

So how did I get to Iran for Christmas (not that I celebrate much any more)? Two words: Reza Aslan.

I’d never heard of him, although he’s all over the media in the last two years: Daily Show, Colbert Report, Slate, the Nation, NPR, Craigblog, and more than 16 pages of Google listings. Where I found him was in an intense and sometimes self-indulgent magazine my partner gets, called The Sun.

My point, and I do have one, is that Aslan is the one person I’ve read who makes any sense IMNSH0 on what’s going on in Iraq and Iran and the U.S. More after the jump.

It likely helps that Aslan is an Iranian-born American, and that he’s got degrees in religion (Santa Clara University) and theological studies (Harvard) and attended the famous Iowa Writers’ Workshop. He is in perhaps a unique position because he gets both Christianity and Islam.

From that perspective, he says that what’s going on right now is not Islam against the West (“… a clash between Islam and the West would be a clash between a religion and and a geographical location, and that’s ridiculous”). It’s Islam against itself in a struggle he compares with the Protestant Reformation. It’s a struggle over who will control Islam: the institutions (the Ayatollahs and Imams) or the individual.

“[J]ihadist propagandists” are winning the “war on terror” “because they have the better marketing campaign.”

Their campaign works because bigoted idiots (my words, not his) in the U.S. have no understanding of Islam and insist on using language that implies or baldly states that Islam is a backward, violent religion inferior to Christianity.

For example, Reza Aslan says in The Sun interview,

the president [of the U.S,] lumped Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda together. These four entities have almost nothing in common. Hezbollah has issued death warrants against bin Laden. Hamas has issued fatwas condemning  him and the attacks of September 11. Both these groups want absolutely nothing to do with the global jihadist movement. The only thing they have in common, besides their use of terror as a tactic, is their Islamic identity, which the president has used to lump them together so that the American people can perceive them as a common enemy.

And, Aslan says in the part of the article you can’t get online,

The president of Iran [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] makes not a single foreign policy decision: not one. Televangelist Pat Robertson has more control over the U.S. Government than the president of Iran has over the Iranian government.

The clerics are in control, so the rhetoric that is apparently driving us toward war is primarily for domestic (Iranian) consumption, because the blacksmith’s son (Ahmadinejad) can’t keep the campaign promises he made to do away with corruption.

In The Nation article, which starts out as a paean to Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian woman lawyer who has fought for the rights of women under an oppressive regime, the spark that lit up a light bulb in my head was about the Iranian Revolution of 1979, about how it was a revolution for democracy, and the U.S. Hostages were taken because the U.S. had interfered and betrayed prior democratic experiments and revolutions. And then that revolution was hijacked by the clerics when Saddam invaded.

And, btw, Aslan is the author of the very well-reviewed No god But God, a history of Islam’s evolution with critiques and suggestions as to where it should go now.

I have waited so long for someone to look at this Iran/Iraq situation and say something that made sense and was not America-centered. Aslan has done it. I recommend checking him out.

NanuqFC

( – promoted by odum)

Yes, Virginia, sadly to say there are people living houseless (i.e., more commonly referred to as homeless) and even some sleeping outside within the state of Vermont during this holiday season.

Unfortunately it appears Santa is not able to manage to carry what these people need within his sleigh in order to help them find and maintain the affordable housing they need.

Nor does there seem to be the will or leadership among any of the major political parties of the state (i.e., Democrats, Republicans or Progressives) to do anything meaningful or lasting other than to pay lip service to this problem faced by those Vermonters who are among the most in need.

When they do talk about a fix of one sort or another, usually it is about placing people who are living homeless in the type of housing that they would probably not choose if they were ever faced with houselessness: i.e., transitional housing or some other form of supported (read: institutional) housing — typically with lots of strings attached most people would never want to agree to in order to have a place of their own to live.

Apparently homeless shelters are about the best the state can seem to manage and, even then they nickle and dime them, mostly because people most in need within our state are too far down the food chain to care enough about when it comes to the making of priorities and then actually doing something about it.

In fact, this morning’s edition of the Barre – Montpelier Times Argus includes a must-read article penned by David Gram, an Associated Press Writer for the Vermont Bureau, which profiles people living homeless within the state that helps to illustrate how [h]omelessness is not just an urban problem, here (Sunday, December 24, 2006).

Yes, Virginia, while you and many others are enjoying this holiday season in one form or another, there are those who are barely getting by and whom do not have much more than dreams of a better future for presents.

Yet, please do not fret my dear Virginia, as when the new year arrives you and nearly everyone else can find comfort in forgetting about such souls since there are more important things to be concerned about as always, so continued deliberate indifference is the best course of (in)action, just like it has been the stock of trade year after year.

So make sure to enjoy the presents, family gatherings, holiday feasting and your nice warm, safe housing that most are conveniently able to take for granted.

Happy Holidays Virginia!

It’s been a big year, with lots of political news. We’ve seen Douglas keep his seat as governor, the D’s increase their majorities in the House and Senate, the national D’s take control of the House and Senate, and Vermont D’s leading the way in the impeachment initiative.

I’m sure there’s a lot more that I’m not mentioning, but this is a start to tee up this subject. We’ve never had a Vermonter of the Year here at GMD before (mainly because we didn’t exist before), but at the close of 2006, if GMD were to name a Vermonter of the Year, who should it be?

 Loading ...

A Vermont political icon has passed away at the age of 93. From the AP:

beginning as Rutland city attorney and moving up through Rutland County state’s attorney, attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor, U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

Stafford built a national reputation in the Senate as a stalwart defender of the environment and a good friend to education.

“Throughout his long and distinguished career of public service, Robert Stafford represented the best of Vermont values,” said Sen.-elect Bernie Sanders, who in January will take the seat once held by Stafford. “He was nationally known and respected for his leadership work on education and the environment and for his strong sense of political independence. He made our state proud and will long be remembered for all that he accomplished.”

As a matter of perspective, I would just add the following quote (via Newsday) from former Rutland Herald Reporter David Moats’ discussion of his book chronicling Vermont’s civil union debate of some years back:

[David Moats:] “In the last chapter [of my book], I quote [former Vermont U.S. Sen.] Bob Stafford [on civil unions], who came forward with that statement, ‘What’s the harm?'” He laughs, as if nothing could be more obvious. “Come on, guys,” he says, “what is the harm?”

If younger readers (who may only know of Stafford through the student loan program that bears his name) or Vermont newcomers wonder what Jim Jeffords meant during his famous party-switching speech when he said “Aiken and Gibson and Flanders and Prouty and Bob Stafford were all Republicans, but they were Vermonters first. They spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders, and did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in,” the above quote may put it into contemporary context.

Rest in peace, Senator – and our sincerest thanks for your service to Vermont and the nation.

(It’s a JD day, apparently. Too much to think about in this NOT to front page it… – promoted by odum)

Trans-fats, or those in partially hydrogenated oils, have been in the news a lot lately. New York City has taken the bold move of banning them in restaurants and Massachusetts is considering a statewide ban. As usual, when things like this happen, we hear drivel like this:

Cities should respect local businesses and allow the free market to continue to adjust to consumer demand. Instituting a New York-style ban would needlessly shock the market, triggering higher costs for consumers and removing flexibility for restaurant owners.

Ah yes, the free-market, performer of more miracles than Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s done a wonderful job with healthcare and affordable housing too, hasn’t it? Anyways, when public-health legislation like this pops up (such as smoking bans in public places), the free-market fundamentalists love to pile on with the ‘protecting us from ourselves’ argument, calls of the ‘food police’ and the inevitable ‘Big Brother’.  And sadly, a lot of people buy into this crap.

I’ve always been a believer in the premise that, by and large, many Americans often don’t do the right thing until we have no other choice. Many of us tend to be unable to grasp a ‘bigger picture’ in that we seem unable to grasp how our individual actions and choices affect the world around us. Unfortunately, because of the powerful industries pulling the governmental strings, the right thing doesn’t get much of a chance. Consider fuel mileage standards, for example. Every time legislation is introduced to mandate higher mileage standards, we get the typical argument from the auto industry about how  ‘the market’ is not calling for more fuel-efficient cars.  ‘People love their SUV’s, so they’re obviously not concerned about fuel efficiency’.

Know what? They are 100% right, many people don’t really give a damn. So, by that logic, the hell with global warming, mideast oil wars and such? That’s when the idea of the ‘common good’ needs to come into play. It blows my mind that, no matter what, the right of someone to make money always seems to trump my right to clean air and water or pristine wilderness or not having every corner of my mental environment cluttered with advertising.

Ok, so back to the trans-fat debate, and the common good. Truth: Americans are a bunch of fat-asses. Obesity is a major, serious health problem in this country. (disclaimer for the PC thought police: the author himself badly needs to drop twenty pounds – so said my dietician).The Center for Disease Control:

Overweight and obesity and their associated health problems have a  significant economic impact on the U.S. health care system (USDHHS, 2001).  Medical costs associated with overweight and obesity may involve direct  and indirect costs (Wolf and Colditz, 1998; Wolf, 1998). Direct medical  costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related  to obesity. Indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs.  Morbidity costs are defined as the value of income lost from decreased  productivity, restricted activity, absenteeism, and bed days. Mortality  costs are the value of future income lost by premature death.

According to a study of national costs attributed to both  overweight (BMI 25-29.9) and obesity (BMI greater than 30), medical  expenses accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in  1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002  dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003). Approximately half of  these costs were paid by Medicaid and Medicare.

If framed properly, even though it’s not going to convince all of the right-wingers (it’s really all about the money to them anyways- their profits, not our personal incomes ), it will shift the public perception of how those issues are framed, and hopefully we can make some progress. I thoroughly support people’s choices to engage in harmful behavior; I engage in it quite often myself.  But I don’t support having to pay for someone else’s poor choices, nor do I expect you to pay for mine. And the right-wingers seem to be all about rewarding what they see as good behavior (savvy investment choices, staying off welfare, abstaining from sex until marriage. whatever). Why shouldn’t they support this? Well, like I said, ultimately it’s about freedom, the freedom to make money. And although important, it needs to be kicked down a few notches on the ‘ladder of freedoms’, certainly below the rung of public health. They have controlled the debate for so long in this country that much of their bullshit is taken as conventional wisdom and to hell with the facts. It’s time for us to change that.