Impeachment is the question of the day

( – promoted by odum)

CNN is asking if it is wrong for Congress to rule out impeachment. Yes, it is wrong for the Congress to rule out impeachment investigations.
The illegal acts of this administration, require impeachment to redress two serious wounds to our nation.
First, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have managed to greatly alter the balance of power between the three branches of government. Through signing statements, contempt for Congressional demands and outright violation of treaty obligations and Federal law, Bush has launched the first stage of establishing a unitary executive. Even if the Democratic Congress were to rein him in and prevent him from doing more harm to the Constitituion, the newly implanted un-balance of powers will stay to take root.  Impeachment is the proscribed process for Constitutional redress. It is apolitical and non partisan.
Second, the crimes of Bush and Cheney are occurring on such a cataclysmic scale, and are of such a heartless, cynical and unpatriotic nature, that their perpetrators should not go unjudged. And impeachment is the surest way to put the brakes on their reckless and dangerous actions.
If Congress is serious about its duties, it will have no choice but to open impeachment investigations.

Rosemarie

(Crossposted to Daily Kos)
Between me and Odum, we’ll keep you on memory lane….plus, I’l give you the latest on a dear friend.

Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont. On March 20, 2003, her 66th birthday, she was arrested for participating in a peaceful protest against the war. After her arrest, she was incarcerated, hand cuffed, booked, finger printed, photographed, arraigned, tried, convicted and sentenced. The jury arrived at a guilty verdict in less than 10 minutes. The conviction has been appealed in the State Supreme Court. The decision of the court is expected to be rendered sometime within a year. If the appeal is won, the government will retry Rosemarie. If the appeal is lost, Rosemarie will most likely go to prison.

Principles are not always convenient….
The legal struggle continues below the fold.

This diary dedicated to the memory of Robert P. Scanlon.

March 20, 2003. I’ll never forget the day.
Having just been invested with the title of Program Director at WZEC in Bennington, I was at a lunch meeting at Carmody’s on Main Street with Ken, the corporate COO and Doug, the station’s general manager. On a TV over the bar, CNN was showcasing the shock and awe.
Usually it’s me that’s the distractable one, but on this occasion, the entire meeting was a little hamstrung by the awful news of the day.
Just as we managed to get the meeting back on track, an angry klaxon from an 18-wheeler cut somebody off midsentence. We looked out the window, and traffic was backed up as far as wee could see in either direction.
Doug and I exchanged grins, knowing what this had to be.
Ken picked up on it immediately. I think I was squirming like a little dog under a “sit ‘n’ stay” command that wanted to go outside.
“Why don’t you go see what’s going on, Ed,” said Ken, and I happily obliged.
At the Four Corners, the protest was underway. Angry people lined the sidewalks, shaking their fists and shouting. The supporters were closer in, appauding and flashing peace signs.

Later protests at the Corners.

Rosemarie is in red, on the right.

In the center with the long blonde hair is Wendy Woods. Second from left is Claude De Lucia. Feel free to jump in and identify any others if you can.

There was one hyper, greasy little guy with dark hair, running up and down the sidewalk, screaming incoherently about how he wanted to go into the street and start beating up protestors. “One at a time! I’ll kick ALL their asses!”
I caught his eye. “Calm DOWN, dude. You’re being stupid.”
“Oh YEAH?”, he said, suddenly up in my face.
“How ’bout I kick YOUR ass? Huh? HUH?”
It was ludicrous. I lost the battle not to burst out laughing when Adam, the kid doing afternoons for me, came running out of the radio station, laughing himself.
“I got your back, Ed! I got your back, brothah!”
In the intersection, protestors moved in with banners, then out, goup by group, at the direction of the police, who had clearly been preparing for this day.
(Let me take a moment here to commend the Bennington Police Department. They were businesslike, restrained, and professional, and I was rather pleased with them.)
The final group remained in the street – twelve protesters, some of them costumed, who clearly planned to be arrested. The police went about their business. As the protestors stood in a line, a plainclothesman asked them one by one to leave the street. Each refused, and was handcuffed and led away in turn, as the onlookers cheered. You would have had to ask each of them precisely what it was they were cheering to be really sure.
The street was cleared, and traffic began to move again.
At trial, each of them pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and received a fine and diversion, except one:
Rosemarie Jackowski.

Rosemarie with a future peace activist whom we all hope won’t have much cause for activism by the time he grows up…

Published on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 by the Bennington Banner (Vermont)
War Protestor Will be Retried
  A grandmother whose conviction for disorderly conduct was over turned by the Vermont Supreme Courtwill be retried, according to the county prosecutor.
Rosemarie Jackowski, 69, appealed her conviction for disorderly conduct at an anti-war protest at the Four Corners to the Supreme Court in September 2005. She was convicted by a Bennington District Court jury of intending to block traffic and annoy drivers while she stood in the middle of Bennington’s busiest intersection.

Retried?
Double jeopardy, anyone?
State’s Attorney William D. Wright:

“At this juncture, we are going forward with the case. We think that the evidence was overwhelming in our view, and we think that the jury should have another opportunity to decide Ms. Jackowski’s guilt or innocence.”

Ooooo-kayyyyy….here’s the state’s argument for retrying her:

Jackowski’s intent – whether or not she meant to block traffic and cause an annoyance – was the main focus of the jury trial. The state Supreme Court overturned the trial jury’s verdict, ruling three to two in favor of Jackowski after the court found that (District Court Judge David) Suntag had made mistakes during the trial, including taking away the jury’s responsibility to decide Jackowski’s true intent. According to the majority opinion, Suntag made a mistake by telling jurors that if they found Jackowski knew that she would block traffic during her protest, then she must have intended to block traffic.

Not really sure I get that, but Rosemarie’s cool with it…if a little surprised:

“That’s fascinating. I had not heard that. I am kind of shocked and blown away by that. … I guess he is just doing the job the way he sees it,” she said.

  Jackowski is the only person arrested that sought a jury trial. (She) said she does not fear another trial, and said she will be more prepared the second time around.

“I’m very willing and ready to go trial again. It will be much more easy for me this time. I will have experience at being a defendant in a criminal trial,” she said while laughing.

But there is a fly in the ointment, and now we get to the real reason I’m blogging this:

Finding a new lawyer might be difficult, said Jackowski. Her former attorney, Stephen Saltonstall, who argued her case in trial and before the Supreme Court, said he can no longer represent her because former prosecutor Daniel McManus has joined his law firm as a defense attorney. She said she would consider representing herself.

“I hope that someone will come forward to represent me. … It’s not a big concern or worry. I think the facts are so simple and straightforward that I would like to tell a jury about that day and what I did,” she said.

So if anyone reading this would care to step up to that plate, this dear, sweet granny with a heart of gold and a spine of steel could sure use the help.
Rosemarie: hugs from me, Julie and the kids.
Good night, and good luck.

 

Thanks Jim

Today, December 9th, marked the end of the “lame duck” session in Washington, and while most of us will remember the day as the end of the most incompetent, corrupt and dangerous Congress in anyone’s memory, it is also the official closing of the final US Congress that Senator Jim Jeffords will ever be a part of – and for that, I am feeling sad.

In 2001, when the course of this President and his congressional enablers had come clear, many of us concerned about our Constitutional freedoms and the very essence of what makes our nation special had begun to despair. It was during this moment that a singularly brave and ethical public servant stepped forward to do what none of his colleagues in the GOP Senate caucus could do (or have done since) – the right thing. Jim Jeffords single-handedly turned control of the US Senate to the Democrats, and for a brief moment ended one party rule in Washington.

Sadly, it was all too brief, but his action did serve to temporarily halt the momentum of those who have since done such harm to this country. Perhaps more importantly, though, it gave many of us who were in despair some real hope – not just that things could get better, but that we were right. It was a shot in the arm that we, as opponents of the Bush agenda, absolutely needed.

The poor Google video clip above was taken by me using a hastily acquired video camera (the first two minutes show some of the scene outside the Burlington hotel where Sen. Jeffords held his press conference, the next fifteen or so show the actual announcement, and the next 3-4 show the increased crowd outside the hotel… the last minute or so is blank). I’ll never forget that week or the wild scene in Burlington…

I was working for the Vermont Democratic Party at the time, and had taken most of the week off to do a brief teaching gig, as it was the slowest time of the election cycle for us. Party Executive Director Mark Michaud (there were only two of us on staff at the party at the time, amazingly enough) contacted me to let me know something big was coming – that it looked like Jeffords was either going Independent (and would caucus with the Dems), or going Democrat outright. In either event, we needed to get it on camera.

We managed to keep the event in Burlington rather than Montpelier, as originally discussed, as there was to be a truckload of anti-civil union activists in the Capitol City that day and we didn’t want them crashing the scene. Also, the Chittenden County Dems were busy phonebanking their lists for a completely unrelated reason, so we were able to piggyback a turnout message onto their script (so no, that wasn’t quite a spontaneous crowd, I’m afraid).

So I hastily got a hold of a public access camera and arrived in Burlington met by the scene at the beginning of the recording. Unfortunately, police, hotel security and hotel management were checking for press credentials at the door to the conference room. Since everyone who was anyone of local importance was wearing a suit, I figured I could bluff myself by as I was in a plaid shirt and jeans – and therefore looked like an absolute nobody tech with a camera. I loaded up both arms with equipment and strolled up to the door through the aisle created by police and security through the throngs of well-wishers. When I reached the harried hotel manager at the door, she asked for my press pass.

I put my best pained look on my face, glanced quickly at each armful of equipment as if to say “you’ve got to be kidding me.” The only sound I made was a semi-audible cross between a grunt and a whine…

…and she simply waved me through.

I set up two cameras over from Candy Crowley, and what you can see through the Google viewer is all that survied of my personal copy of the tape, which sadly got water damaged in my basement (yes, I’m an idiot).

It was quite a moment on quite a day – one I and many others will never forget. It was a day that etched a two word phrase onto the bumper stickers, lips and minds of Vermonters for years to come:

“Thanks, Jim.”

The following is the text of Jeffords’ speech:

Good morning, everyone.

Anyone that knows me knows I love Vermont. Vermont has always been known for its independence and social conscience. It was the first state to outlaw slavery in its constitution. It proudly elected Matthew Lyon to Congress, notwithstanding his flouting of the Sedition Act.

It sacrificed a higher share of its sons in the Civil War than perhaps any other state in the Union. And I recall Vermont senator Ralph Flanders’ dramatic statement 50 years ago, helping to bring the close on the McCarthy hearings–a sorry chapter in our history.

Today’s chapter is of much smaller consequence. But I think it appropriate that I share my thoughts with my fellow Vermonters.

For the past several weeks, I have been struggling with a very difficult decision.

It’s difficult on a personal level, but even more difficult because of the larger impact in the Senate and also the nation. I have been talking with my family and a few close advisers about whether or not I should remain a Republican.

I do not approach this question lightly. I have spent a lifetime in the Republican Party and served 12 years in what I believe is the longest continuous held Republican seat in history. I ran for re-election as a Republican just this past fall, and had no thoughts whatsoever, then, about changing parties.

The party I grew up in was the party of George Aiken, Ernest Gibson, Ralph Flanders, Winston Prouty, and Bob Stafford. These names may not mean much today outside Vermont, but each served Vermont as a Republican senator in the 20th century.

I became a Republican not because I was born into the party, but because of the kind of fundamental principles that these and many Republicans stood for: moderation; tolerance; fiscal responsibility. Their party–our party–was the party of Lincoln.

To be sure, we had our differences in the Vermont Republican Party, but even our more conservative leaders were in many ways progressive.

Our former governor, Dean Davis, championed Act 250, which preserved our environmental heritage.

And Vermont’s Calvin Coolidge, our nation’s 30th president, could point with pride to his state’s willingness to sacrifice in the service of others. 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.

For 26 years in Washington, first in the House of Representatives and now in the Senate, I have tried to do the same, but I can no longer do so as a Republican. Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement with my party. I understand that many people are more conservative than I am and they form the Republican Party. Given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me and for me to deal with them. Indeed, the party’s electoral success has underscored the dilemma that I face within the party.

In the past, without the presidency, the various wings of the Republican Party in Congress have had some freedom to argue and influence and ultimately to shape the party’s agenda. The election of President Bush changed that dramatically.

We don’t live in a parliamentary system, but it is only natural to expect that people like myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, will largely support the president’s agenda.

And yet, more and more, I find I cannot. Those who don’t know me may have thought I took pleasure in resisting the president’s budget or that I enjoyed the limelight. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had serious substantive reservations about that budget, as you all know, and the decisions it set in place for the future.

Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I’ll disagree with the president on very fundamental issues–the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues, large and small.

The largest for me is education. I come from the state of Justin Smith Morrill, a U.S. senator from Vermont who gave America its land grant college system. His Republican Party stood for opportunity for all, for opening the doors of public school education to every American child.

Now, for some success seems to be measured by the number of students moved out of the public schools.

In order to best represent my state of Vermont, my own conscience and principles I have stood for my whole life, I will leave the Republican Party and become an Independent.

(APPLAUSE)

JEFFORDS: Sorry for that.

Control of the Senate will be changed by my decision.

AUDIENCE: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff.

JEFFORDS: I’m sorry for that interruption, but I understand it.

I will make this change and will caucus with the Democrats for organizational purposes once the conference report on the tax bill is sent to the president. I gave my word to the president that I would not intercept or try to intervene in the signing of that bill.

My colleagues, many of them my friends for years, may find it difficult in their hearts to befriend me any longer. Many of my supporters will be disappointed, and some of my staffers will see their lives upended. I regret this very much.

Having made my decision, the weight that has been lifted from my shoulders now hangs heavy on my heart, but I was not elected to this office to be something that I am not. This comes as no surprise to Vermonters, because independence is the Vermont way.

My friends back home have supported and encouraged my independence. I appreciate the support they have shown when they have agreed with me, and their patience when they have not. I will ask the support and patience again, which I understand will be very difficult for a number of my close friends.

I have informed President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Senator Lott of my decision.

They are good people with whom I disagree. They have been fair and decent to me, and I have informed Senator Daschle also of my decision. Three of these four men disagree with my decision, but I hope each understood my reasons. And it’s quite entirely possible that the fourth one, with my independence, may have second thoughts down the road. But anyway, that’s the way it is.

I have changed my party label, but I have not changed my beliefs. Indeed, my decision is about affirming the principles that have shaped my career. I hope that the people of Vermont will understand it. I hope in time that my colleagues will as well. I am confident that it is the right decision.

Yes?

Q: Senator Jeffords, what do you say to those people who, only six months ago, voted for you as a Republican…

(APPLAUSE)

Q: … so what do you say to them (OFF-MIKE)

JEFFORDS: Right. I understand, and I’m sorry that I had no expectation of it.

Q: (OFF-MIKE) you were his campaign chairman, obviously?

JEFFORDS: I was not the campaign chairman, but that’s a small point. I believed at the time and had hoped at the time that those of us that are the moderates of the party, not just myself–and I speak, I’m sure, for many moderates in the party who had high hopes when the president spoke of education and when he gave his dedication to education–that we would be able to follow him, and I praise the president for his education package.

It will alert this nation, every student, every school, every state will know exactly how bad they are.

And that’s the problem that I have with it. Because there are terrible problems out there that will have to be solved, and that is why in the budget process, I stood up and said, no, we can’t give all this money back. We have too many high priorities–education, number one.

We have got to provide the resources for the president’s plan. If the resources are not there, it’s going to be misery in the school systems. And I told this to the president personally. So it’s no secret that I have these feelings.

But I could not, after that, see the direction of the budgetary process–and you know I stood up against that, and we succeeded in getting some $300 billion extra to spend. But it’s not being directed under the budget process to education.

Q: Do you feel the president has not lived up to his campaign promises?

JEFFORDS: Well, I don’t know–I don’t ever remember specifically a promise to fund. He gave us a promise to get us new direction in education. But new direction without funding is really no useful direction at all.

Q: Senator, much has been made of the way the Bush White House and the Republican leadership in Congress have treated you. Has their treatment–personal treatment of you had anything to do with your decision?

JEFFORDS: Oh, nothing whatsoever. It gets laughable at times, and you get upset with it–like Vermont, the national school teacher, those kind of things. But that had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

Q: When did you make your decision?

JEFFORDS: I’m sorry?

Q: When did you make your decision?

JEFFORDS: I made my decision yesterday on the way down, really. And I’ll tell you why–why did you wait that long? I promised my moderates. I met with the moderates yesterday, and it was the most emotional time that I have ever had in my life, with my closest friends urging me not to do what I was going to do because it affected their lives very substantially.

I know, for instance, the chairman of the Finance Committee has dreamed all his life of being chairman. He’s chairman a couple of weeks, and now he will be no longer the chairman.

All the way down the line, I could see the anguish and the disappointment as I talked. So I told them I would not make my final decision until I had time on the way to Vermont to decide, and I did leave it open. But I could not justify not going forward.

(UNKNOWN): Last question.

Q: Senator, last week, the chairman of the Vermont Republican Party said he’d be terribly surprised if the idea of leaving the party had even crossed your mind. What have you done today to Republican leaders (OFF-MIKE)?

JEFFORDS: I’ve communicated with them, either I or my staff have. I’ve had conversations with them on the phone to make sure they understood what I was doing and why I was doing it.

STAFF: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Kentucky Fried Cruelty

Crossposted from My Left Wing

Take these broken wings
And learn to fly again
And learn to live so free
And when we hear the voices sing
The book of love will open up
And let us in
Take these broken wings
You got to learn to fly
And learn to live so free
And when we hear the voices sing
The book of love will open up
And let us in
-Mr. Mister

Why did the chicken cross the road?
Well, actually, he didn’t. The traffic was pretty constant, and had he tried, he could have ended up as roadkill.
  But when you think about it, that might be a more merciful and quick ending than what endless flocks of chickens experience at the hands of the Colonel, just so bachelors with no cooking skills beyond Top Ramen and TV dinners can stop by and grab a bucket or two on the way to the church potluck.
  Citizen journalist kestrel9000 was on the scene as activists from PETA stood in defense of his flightless brethren.
  Not that kestrels don’t eat chickens – we do, when we can get them – but for Christ’s sake, at least we’re SPORTING about it.

  The fowl truth about KFC – and pictures and videos of PETA activists delivering the word to the people of Harrisonburg, VA – is below the fold.



Okay, now that I have your attention………

PETA addresses the issue of inhumane treatment of chickens by KFC at KentuckyFriedCruelty.com:

PETA is asking KFC to eliminate the worst abuses that chickens suffer on the factory
farms and in the slaughterhouses of its suppliers, including live scalding, life-long crippling,
and painful debeaking. The more than 850 million chickens killed each year for KFC are tortured
in ways that would result in felony cruelty-to-animals charges if cats or dogs were the victims, but KFC still refuses to make changes. As the leader in the chicken industry, KFC has a responsibility to ensure that the chickens raised for its buckets are protected from the worst cruelties.

I was, essentially, minding my own business Thursday afternoon. Doing my radio show, and
blogivating on the side, when I headed for the little boy’s room and noticed that, once again,
the fax machine was dumping its output all over the floor.
Sigh.
So I picked up the mess, and in amongst the usual pile of PSAs for church socials, sales pitches for
streaming services and syndicated shows, and deadly-dull press releases from the Department of
Agriculture and VDOT, I found this:

GIANT CRIPPLED `CHICKEN’ CROSSES THE ROAD IN HARRISONBURG TO PROTEST KFC

Beleaguered `Bird’ Sets Sights on KFC to Protest Factory-Farming Abuses

For Immediate Release:
December 7, 2006

Contact:
Lindsay Rajt 757-622-7382

Harrisonburg, Va. — A giant crippled “chicken” will repeatedly cross the road
in front of a local KFC to lead a protest against the company’s abusive treatment of chickens.

Other PETA members will distribute leaflets to passersby, and one activist will wear a body
screen TV showing shocking video footage of factory-farming abuse.

Date:  Friday, December 8
Time:  11 a.m.
Place:  KFC, 891 Cantrell Ave., Harrisonburg

The more than 850 million chickens killed each year for KFC are tortured in ways that would
result in felony cruelty-to-animals charges if other animals were the victims. They are drugged
and bred to grow so large that many become crippled from the weight of their massive upper
bodies. Many have their throats slit while they are still conscious and are scalded to death in
defeathering tanks. KFC ignored recommendations for animal welfare improvements made by members
of its own advisory panel, including five who have since resigned in frustration.

“KFC stands for cruelty in our book,” says PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich. “If KFC employees
abused cats or dogs the way they abuse chickens, they could be thrown into prison on felony
charges of cruelty to animals.”
For more information, please visit KFCCruelty.com.

Wow. PETA in Harrisonburg, VA, the bowels of right-wing hell. This, I decided, I had to see. Plus, it’d get me out of the shop in the middle of the day for a while.
  Most of the rest of the detritus spewed forth from the fax machine went into the scratch
paper box, in deference to the trees that gave their lives so someone could tell every radio
station with a fax machine about the booking availability of various aging rock bands in their latest incarnations.
  The PETA press release, however, got folded up and filed in the cargo pocket of my BDU
trousers which I frequently wear. (I like a lot of pockets.) I made a mental note to shoot off a
quick email to let them know we’d come out and take a look, and went back into the control room.
  Couple minutes later, the receptionist came flouncing into the studio (she flounces everywhere she goes) and told me, “There’s a call on line one from somebody wanting to speak to
the news department…….”
  Knowing who it had to be, I told Angela, “We don’t HAVE a news department.”
  Those huge green eyes of hers took on that confused look with which I am so familiar, and
I grinned and said, “I’ll take care of it.”
  Sure enough, It was Lindsay from PETA. “Hey, I got your fax”, I told her, “and as one progressive to another, I gotta tell ya, this is a pretty right-wing town, you know….could be an interesting experience…”
  She assured me the PETA people were ready for anything that might come their way, and I told her we’d send somebody out to help the chicken cross the road.
  Having given my word, I was now committed.
  So, the following day, when I arrived at work in the morning, I told Walker (the operations manager) that I was going to lunch with Ashley, our web designer and afternoon talent on the country station.
  “Where you guys goin’?” he asked me.
  “KFC,” I told him.
  He shot me a look. “Dammit, Eddie, you just can’t stay out of trouble, can you?”
  I just grinned. “We’re just gonna take some pictures and stuff and I’m gonna bloggerize it.”
  He grumbled something about how PETA doesn’t believe in a free country, and reached into his pocket.
  “Here, you might as well take the Magic Bus”, he said, and tossed me the key.
  And away we went.

  Learned a few things too:

Leading animal behavior scientists from across the globe now tell us that chickens
are inquisitive and interesting animals whose cognitive abilities are more advanced than those of cats, dogs, and even some primates. Chickens understand sophisticated intellectual concepts, learn from watching each other, demonstrate self-control, worry about the future, and even have cultural knowledge that is passed from generation to generation. Dr. Chris Evans, who studies animal behavior and communication at Macquarie University in Australia, says, “As a trick at conferences, I sometimes list these attributes, without mentioning chickens, and people think I’m talking about
monkeys.”


And he ain’t kiddin’:

Weird Al Yankovic is hanging out someplace, mighta been the airport, and a fan comes up to him and says hello. That fan happens to be Paul McCartney. “I love your stuff,” enthuses the former Beatle. “Anytime you want to do one of my songs, its yours!!!”

Weird Al is thrilled, but stumped – he can’t figure out which song to do. After two years of fruitless pondering, it finally comes to him in the middle of the night. He sits bolt upright in bed, the passionate refrain to Live and Let Die ringing around his head. “Live and Let Die…Chicken Pot Pie! Yes!”
He contacted members of the orchestra that had played on the original Live and Let Die track, and flew them out to his studio. When he was ready to release the track, he contacted Sir Paul for approval. “I finally came up with the perfect song,” he enthused. But Sir Paul was not amused.

“Oh no…” he said. “I can’t possibly allow this – Linda would never have supported a song that celebrates the killing of chickens.”

Yankovic has performed the song live (he debuted it as part of his concert food medley during a 1992 tour) but Chicken Pot Pie is still, as yet, unreleased…

Somehow, I bet it’s gonna stay that way. Sorry, Weird Al. You’re just gonna have to stick to your bologna.
Promptly at eleven o’ clock, Ashley and I arrived at the Harrisonburg KFC.

No, the KFC marquee sign is not
photoshopped.

Ashley (left) with the ear-pleasingly British-accented PETA activist wearing the body-screen video display

Thousands of Chickens Tortured by KFC Supplier

In July 2004, PETA revealed the results of an investigation into a KFC-supplying slaughterhouse in Moorefield, West Virginia, where workers were caught on video stomping on chickens, kicking them, and violently slamming them against floors and walls. Workers also ripped the animals’ beaks off, twisted their heads off, spat tobacco into their eyes and mouths, spray-painted their faces, and squeezed their bodies so hard that the birds expelled feces-all while the chickens were still alive. Dan Rather echoed the views of all kind people when he said on the CBS Evening News, “[T]here’s no mistaking what [the video] depicts: cruelty to animals, chickens horribly mistreated before they’re slaughtered for a fast-food chain.”

The world’s leading animal welfare experts condemned the cruelty at this KFC supplier. Colorado State University professor of animal science, biomedical sciences, and philosophy, university distinguished professor, and university bioethicist Dr. Bernard Rollin writes, “I can unequivocally state that the behavior I saw exemplified in [this] videotape was totally unacceptable. … The tape showed evidence of a work force that apparently failed to recognize that chickens are living sentient beings capable of feeling pain and distress.”

Apparently, the video referred to in the above blockquoted text had been used on the previous night’s episode of CSI. Listen to the conversation with a truckdriver observing the protest from across the street from the KFC heard in this video of the Harrisonburg protest.

This activist wants to give you something to think about over lunch.

Routine Abuse and Neglect Found Inside German KFC Farm
Even in a country like Germany, where the rights of animals have been written into the Constitution and egg battery cages have been banned because of their inherent cruelty, chickens raised for food suffer hideous lives and miserable deaths. PETA investigators at a chicken farm in Bavaria (owned by Wiesenhof, one of Germany’s largest chicken producers) documented hideous and routine abuse of chickens being raised for KFC restaurants in Germany.

More video from the protest. Listen closely as an activist offers a possible reason why the chicken never actually did cross the road.

The chicken didn’t cross the road, but the kestrel did…

A kestrel stands with a chicken in avian solidarity.

For some final thoughts on this sort of thing, I can’t resist referring you back to Tiger Mom’s excellent diary from a few days back. No one I know realistically expects that we will see a worldwide vegan/vegetarian movement sweep the planet in our lifetime, but hey, if you must eat chicken, do chicken right.
Because, you see, after researching this piece, PETA, as entertaining as they often are (and intentionally so), convinced me of something:
KFC does chickens wrong.
Although I will certainly remain a committed omnivore, when it comes to chicken, I think I’ll take my business elsewhere.
We birds of a feather gotta stick together.

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 ...

Rep. Brooks to seek sergeant-at-arms post

A decision made public by Representative Francis Brooks may open up an opportunity for local Democrats seeking to represent the capital city in the state Legislature.


December 9, 2006

By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER – Well-known Montpelier Rep. Francis Brooks will seek the post of sergeant-at-arms when the Legislature reconvenes, a move that would increase his pay, put him in charge of security at the Statehouse – and pose a challenge to an incumbent who has not decided if he will retire or not.

“I very much enjoy working at the Statehouse and with the various folks that come there,” said Brooks, a Democrat who is chairman of the House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee. “I think I have the personality to deal with people.”

Property Taxes – we get what we pay for

( – promoted by odum)

There’s a lot of talk, and it looks like there may be some action, on property taxes. Before we jump in too rashly, I’d suggest that we are getting just what we pay for…

“Minnesota, Vermont and New Hampshire remain nation’s healthiest states”

http://www.unitedhea…

http://www.governmen…

Vermont 3rd Safest State

http://www.governmen…

Vermont 4th Most Livable State

http://www.governmen…

“Vermont Again Named Nation’s Smartest State”

http://www.morganqui…

Vermont tied for 2nd in Percent of Public School Fourth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading in 2005

http://www.morganqui…

Vermont #6 in State/Local taxes as
% of per capita income

http://money.cnn.com…

The real question we should ask if we want to look at this issue responsibly is
“Should we trade off these benefits to lower our taxes?”

Impeachment is not the only answer

Impeachment comes from Britain.  In Britain, it’s very similar, the House of Commons impeaches and the House of Lords holds the trial.  Like much of the American Constitution, American impeachment is a codification of the British. 

At the time of the adoption of the US Constitution, impeachment was very much a big deal in Britain as the House of Commons impeached Warren Hastings several times for what today we would call human rights violations in India.  However, the House of Lords would not convict.  As a result, though impeachment remains on the books, the vote of confidence essentially has replaced impeachment as a way of removal from office.

Unlike the morons who drool such phrases as original intent etc., a constitution is not just words on a page but it is also custom and usage.  In fact, in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the office of Prime Minister rests entirely on custom and usage. 

Our constitution is really no different and it is time to catch up with our fellow English speaking democracies. 

The new Congress should immediately vote non confidence in the Bush administration.  No, I don’t think they’ll resign, but it will deprive them of legitimacy and begin to establish a new usage. 

It would be right and proper for heckling to take place during the State of the Union Address.  Quoting Oliver Cromwell “Go, in the name of God, go!” would be just the ticket.  Or, maybe, “to the Hague to the Hague to the Hague”

The cost of war .. and the lack of preparedness for the ‘homeland’

The cost of the Iraq war to Vermonters passed $506 million today, not counting the lives and future well-being of our troops. 

Published on Wednesday, December 6, 2006 by McClatchy Newspapers
Official Iraq War Costs Don’t Tell the Whole Story
by Kevin G. Hall and David Montgomery

WASHINGTON – During a recent visit to a military family center at Fort Hood in Texas, Joyce Raezer was dismayed to find a sign in a stall in the ladies’ room. It asked women to clean up because janitorial service had been cut back.

“What message does that send to a family member when they walk into a family center?” asked Raezer, the director of government relations for the National Military Families Association.

At Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, swimming pools closed a month early this fall, and shuttle vans were sharply curtailed in an effort to trim spending. At Fort Sam Houston in Texas, unpaid utility bills exceeded $4 million, and the base reduced mail delivery to cut costs.

Belt-tightening at the bases is only the beginning. As the United States spends about $8 billion a month in Iraq, the military is being forced to cut costs in ways big and small.

Soldiers preparing to ship to Iraq don’t have enough equipment to train on because it’s been left in Iraq, where it’s most needed. Thousands of tanks and other vehicles sit at repair depots waiting to be fixed because funds are short.

At the Red River Army Depot in Texas, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported in October that at least 6,200 Humvees, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, trucks and ambulances were awaiting repair because of insufficient funds.

There’s a virtual graveyard of tanks and fighting vehicles at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. Depot spokeswoman Joan Gustafson said that the depot expects to repair 1,885 tanks and other armored vehicles during the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1. That’s up from the 1,169 and 1,035 vehicles repaired in the prior two fiscal years.

Some of the depot’s private-sector contractors haven’t been able to supply enough parts in time to make all the repairs, she said. The depot is trying to reduce the time it takes to get repair and replacement parts from 120 days to 60 days.

Tanks and helicopters are one thing; the toll on America’s warriors and their families is another.

More than 73,000 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and with problems such as drug abuse and depression. That’s enough people to fill a typical NFL stadium.

Internet blogs written by soldiers or their wives tell of suicide attempts by soldiers haunted by the horror of combat, civilian careers of reservists who’ve been harmed by deployment and redeployment, and marriages broken by distance and the trauma of war.

“Back-to-back war deployments has changed both of us – to where it’s as if a marriage does not exist anymore,” wrote a woman calling herself Blackhawk wife on an Iraq war vets Web site. “We just go through the daily steps of life and raising children as best we can.”

A mother of a returning soldier posted this: “Since he has been back, he has had 3 DUIs, wrecked his truck, attempted suicide, been diagnosed with PTSD” and is being kicked out of the Army.

The length of the war in Iraq has strained all aspects of the armed forces, said Dov Zakheim, who was the Pentagon’s chief financial officer from 2001 to 2004.

“In 2003, I don’t think anybody predicted it would go as long as World War II and the wear and tear on equipment would be as intense,” said Zakheim, now a vice president for global strategy consultant Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. “When I left the department, we were spending less than $4 billion a month on Iraq. Now it’s pretty much doubled.”

The length of the Iraq war surpassed that of World War II last month. The costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global fight against terrorism are expected to surpass the $536 billion in inflation-adjusted costs of the Vietnam War by spring. That’s more than 10 times the Bush administration’s $50 million prewar estimate.

Through the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, Congress authorized about $436 billion in war spending, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

In October, President Bush signed legislation that tacked on $70 billion, bringing the total to more than $506 billion. That number will rise again once Congress appropriates Iraq stabilization and reconstruction funding.

The armed services, seeking to replace aging equipment and address quality-of-life issues for military families, are believed to be seeking $100 billion to $160 billion in a supplemental spending bill for spring.

If that’s approved, war funding – three-quarters of it going to Iraq-related operations – would reach nearly $700 billion. If U.S. troops remain in Iraq through 2010, it will approach $1 trillion.

In January, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz released a study that said the true costs of the Iraq war could exceed $1 trillion and perhaps reach $2 trillion.

“When I saw that figure, I thought it was an exaggeration. I no longer think it’s an exaggeration,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Vietnam veteran who’s criticized how the war has been fought and funded.

The Stiglitz report focused on hard-to-measure things such as lifetime care for injured soldiers and the economic effect of higher oil prices as a result of the war. But his final numbers for unofficial costs are on pace to be matched by the official costs – which don’t add the intangibles.

“We were very conservative on the numbers, and the numbers have repeatedly come in higher than we estimated,” said Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank, in a telephone interview from Spain. “Those costs continue to pile up: the health care costs, the disability costs, the replacement costs – and there’s obviously an open question now if we ever reconstruct” Iraq.

Here’s a look at some of the costs:

Until recently, little of the authorized war funding went toward reset, the military term for replacing fighting vehicles, tanks, helicopters and other equipment that are wearing out from heavy use.

“We have a backlog of maintenance work to reset, fix, retool all our equipment, and at the same time we have to take care of our civilian soldiers,” said Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, who in January will become chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on readiness. “Many of the units in the United States Reserve or National Guard do not have any equipment because their equipment stayed in Iraq … Humvees, weapons, trucks, tanks. You name it, they need it.”

Gary Schmitt, a defense expert for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said the problem existed before 2001. “The war has obviously made that much worse,” he said. “People would be surprised, but the reality is the increases in defense spending have been personnel and operational,” not for upgrading or modernizing the armed forces.

The October bridge funding, which bridges the gap that occurs when the fiscal year begins before funds have been appropriated, included $24 billion for reset costs across the armed services. The Army’s deputy chief of staff, Lt. Gen. David Melcher, told Congress in March that he expected reset costs of at least $12 billion a year while troops are in Iraq and for two years after withdrawal. In the 2006 fiscal year, the Marine Corps’ reset request was three times bigger than its regular procurement budget.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a $60 billion reset price tag through 2016, assuming a reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq by 2010.

“As long as the current level of intensity is maintained in Iraq operations, there’s not going to be enough money to meet all the services’ needs,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a military think tank. “We’re really burning up money over there at a furious pace.”

Policymakers are stymied in their efforts to predict war costs, partly because the Department of Defense provides only vague estimates of future costs.

“DOD has provided little information about overall requirements to replace worn equipment or to upgrade capabilities, or how war requirements relate to ongoing peacetime investment,” Amy Belasco, a defense budget analyst for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said in a September report.

As the chief economist on President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2002 and director of the CBO from 2002 until last year, Douglas Holtz-Eakin wrestled with that same problem. “It was hard to get actual cost data,” he said.

-HEALTH

Between Oct. 1, 2001, and June 30, 2006, 35 percent of returning active-duty soldiers and 31 percent of Army reservists and National Guardsmen sought medical care from Veterans Affairs health centers. That figure from the Veterans Health Administration doesn’t include treatment at VA hospitals.

In that period, more than 33,000 returning troops received preliminary diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder. Others experienced depression and drug abuse.

“The wear and tear on soldiers and the wear and tear on their families have been immense,” said John Grady, a spokesman for the Association of the United States Army, a nonprofit group that lobbies on behalf of active and retired soldiers.

Problems are getting corrected, he said, “but they’re getting corrected very slowly because the money is very slow in arriving.”

In the first Gulf war, in which 700,000 U.S. soldiers were involved, 44 percent filed for some sort of disability compensation.

More than 1.4 million U.S. soldiers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since late 2001, and about 26 percent have filed disability claims, according to raw data provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. That percentage could grow as soldiers leave the armed forces.

“I see the whole thing as a mini-Medicare, another huge entitlement program which is going to be sprawling out over the course of our lifetimes and our children’s lifetimes,” said Linda Bilmes, a Harvard University public finance professor and co-author of the Stiglitz study. “The big costs come when they get back … they stand a good chance of being really underfunded and not taken care of properly.”

Veterans groups worry that they’ll be forced to compete with other government programs for funds. Not enough attention is being given to the future mental health and medical needs of Iraq and Afghanistan war vets, they say, especially given how those wars differ from previous ones.

“First, they are deployed to war longer. Second, they are being deployed to the war zone two or three times. The combat there is more intense than the Gulf War for nearly every one deployed,” said Paul Sullivan, a Desert Storm veteran and director of programs for Veterans for America. “There are no rear-area jobs. Everyone is on the front lines … cooks and clerks and truck drivers … the entire country is a war zone.”

-FUTURE READINESS

Military commanders complain that they’ve been forced to fight a war on the cheap, despite its large costs. That’s because military spending totals about 4 percent of the broader economy, a historically low level. Some critics, including Murtha, want to see more funds dedicated to the military’s long-term needs.

“As the ships get older, the airplanes get older, we won’t have the deterrent capability that we need,” Murtha said.

Big-ticket U.S. military programs have been delayed since the 1990s, said Schmitt at the American Enterprise Institute. There are now so many unfunded replacements and upgrades scheduled in the years ahead that the nation faces a “procurement bow wave” that could swamp the federal budget.

A “spasm of endless spending in Iraq and Afghanistan” threatens future Air Force readiness, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, the incoming chairman of the House Armed Forces subcommittee on air and land.

Zakheim, the Pentagon’s former CFO, said diverting money from acquisition programs is akin to “eating our seed corn for the future.”

For more on GAO concerns about funding and the global war on terror: www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf

For the Congressional Research Service report on war costs, go to www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

For a military challenges report by Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, go to www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25097/pub_detail.asp

© 2006 McClatchy Washington Bureau and wire service sources

Auditing an Election (UPDATE: Unofficially, Salmon is up 217-make that 258 votes- see comments)

(Amazingly, it sounds like this race has FLIPPED to the D column – at least for the moment! Sounds an awful lot like we’re looking at Auditor Tom Salmon. – promoted by odum)

Observing the recount for the State Auditor’s race in Franklin County has been pretty interesting. And I’ve got 4 counties’ worth of very unofficial numbers.

[Caveat reminder as of Friday morning as noted in an email by one politically astute observer: “More than half the population of the state has yet to be recounted and to weigh in with their figures.  With one stroke of the pen this number could turn topsy turvey.  Additionally, after the counting, Judge Teachout will be reviewing challenged votes and other irregularities and concerns and making decisions about awarding votes.”]

Up here, someone counting ballots in Richford gave 36 Salmon votes to Jerry Levy. Thanks to the recount, Tom Salmon got them back. Richford tallied 886 ballots. Brock gained one vote there. Other than that, the gains and losses were by ones and twos, except for two towns that missed 4 Brock votes each and one other town that missed 8 Salmon votes.

The unofficial county-wide results show Brock gaining 15 votes and Salmon gaining 48 votes, for a net gain for Salmon of 33 votes.

Four other counties’ results were obtained via the grapevine. They show:

a strong trend toward Salmon. Lamoille provided Salmon with 57 more votes; Windsor is reported to have come up with 50 more Salmon votes; Windham (via third-hand report) added “30-something” to the total. That’s already more than the margin of Brock’s so-called victory.

People make mistakes, especially under pressure on a very long election day.

While the biggest mistake in our county came in a small town that marks and tallies its votes by hand, the machine-tabulated towns had changes, too. The five largest towns (Fairfax, Georgia, Swanton, St. Albans City, and St. Albans Town), which use tabulating machines, missed 8 Brock votes and 14 Salmon votes.

Overall in the county, Abbott lost 6 votes; Levy lost the aforementioned 36 in one town, but there were no changes for him anywhere else.

Worst idea: someone used white-out to change one entire ballot. We observers surmised that someone might have voted by early or absentee ballot and changed their mind — or some relative changed it for them. The ballot was considered “spoiled.”

Saw a few ballots where the voter followed the pre-election advice to foil corrupt machines by writing in all chosen candidates. Someone had a problem with the execution: that voter checked the box for the candidate and ALSO checked the write-in box and wrote in the same name. There was discussion as to whether that ballot should be considered spoiled (a double vote) or whether the voter’s intent was clear since the write-in and the candidate check box matched.

I was glad to see the process in action.

NanuqFC

CATAMOUNT TAVERN: It’s a long, long way from May to December

On the road leading to the Bennington Battle Monument is a statue of a Catamount on a granite pedestal. This was placed as a marker in rememberance of the Catamount Tavern. The Tavern was not named the Catamount Tavern until years after it stopped being a tavern. Whether known as Fay’s House, the Green Mountain Tavern, or the Catamount Tavern, it was the meeting place of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. It was here that they planned the assualts on New York and the British. It was here that, according to Vermont sources, the attack on Fort Ticonderoga was planned. The Tavern burned down in 1871.

Consider yourself at home.
Consider yourself one of the family.
We’ve taken to you so strong.
It’s clear we’re going to get along.
Consider yourself well in
Consider yourslef par to the furniture.
There isn’t a lot to spare.
Who cares?..What ever we’ve got we share!

Now open for business below the fold.

You hear this a lot:

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House’s top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November’s elections, her office said last night. (Dateline: 5/12/2006)

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday “that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it,” spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Hey, Nancy, who died and made you Speaker of the house or something?
Oh, that’s right. The lock on discourse held by the Republicans did. The fearmongering, the ability to lie with impunity, the hate, the politics of division and class warfare, all died an ignominous and painful (painful, at least, if you’re a Republican) death on November 7th.
Cenk Uygur of Air America’s Young Turks, in his “The Biparitsan Myth” piece publised today on Daily Kos and Huffingto Post points out:

….the real proof is in the numbers. Twenty-nine House seats and six Senate seats changed from Republican to Democrat. None changed from Democrat to Republican. Not one.
That’s not bipartisanship. That’s a 35-0 blowout.

This repudiation to me suggests that there’s a little – shall we say – hostility among Americans to the neoconservative agenda.
Allow me to say it, directly:
They have FAILED.
They have failed to build on the incredible comity and goodwill offered to us by the world community after 9/11.
They failed to prevent the events of that horrible day in the face of every indication that  they were going to occur.
They have failed to capture and bring to justice the perpetrator of the murder of 2,749 Americans.
They have failed – those who were sworn – to uphold their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend  the Constitution of the United States.
They have failed to defend our countrymen from the danger they put them in abroad, and they have failed to defend them from the forces of nature at home.
With respect to value, decency, and the execution of their responsibilities as stewards of our country, the Republicans have succeeeded at exactly NOTHING.
Nothing. Nada, zip, zilch, bupkus.
A big fat fucking ZERO.
They have succeeded only at lying. And breaking the law. And exploiting the differences between us so that they become divisions.


This from a piece I found on afterdowningStreet.org:

Leahy of late has had a fire in his belly, the likes of which we haven’t seen in a while. His sadness at the loss of comity and the discarding of basic Constitutional values under the Bush GOP has turned into outrage, and he has been consistently riveting in front of a crowd in recent months.

But since the election, that outrage has turned into inspiration, and it’s an inspiration he passed on to the crowd tonight. Like the speakers before him, Leahy was funny, thankful, exuberant… but there was an edge that was very serious. He related a conversation where he was recently asked if President Bush should be “worried” that he was now to be Chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. The crowd started cheering.

“No, no” he said, calming the crowd, as if to be prepared for a softening of his rhetoric.

“No, he shouldn’t be worried. He should be terrified.”

And the room exploded.

Leahy went on to assure the crowd that, unlike “some in the administration,” he’d “actually read the Constitution,” and went on to promise that no judges nominated to the federal bench who would ignore that Constitution would ever get past his committee.

Be afraid, Mr. Bush. Be very afraid.

Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark offers his views on the Bush Administration:

Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. – – ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H.Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

5) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, to violate the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

7) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the “Supreme Law of the land” under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

8) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an “enemy combatant.”

9) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

10) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

11) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

12) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

13) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

14) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

15) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed “terrorist.”

16) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

17) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

18) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

Enough is enough.

It is time.

I’ll leave the details to the experts, but for now, I’ll say this much, and, for the moment, no more:

If it should chance to be
We should see
Some harder days
Empty larder days
Why grouse?
Always a-chance we’ll meet
Somebody
To foot the bill
Then the drinks are on the house!
Consider yourself our mate.
We don’t want to have no fuss,
For after some consideration, we can state…
Consider yourself
One of us!