“Do not reward politics as usual”

Retired General Anthony Zinni spoke to an audience of 250 people at Montpelier’s Unitarian-Universalist Church Wednesday night. While he has been in the news in recent years for his criticism of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, his discussion Wednesday ranged far beyond the war, and was primarily concerned with how the United States can exist and be effective in the world as it now exists.

Zinni’s thesis was that we are living with the results of the third great global transformation of the Twentieth Century. The first was after World War I, the second was after World War II, and the third was at the end of the Cold War. As Zinni put it, “The world did not change on 9/11, it changed in 1989-90 when the Soviet Union dissolved.”

General Zinni was first commissioned as a brigadier general at the time the Berlin Wall fell, and he recalled travelling to Berlin for his orientation, a process as disorienting for the trainers as for the trainees. Zinni and the other new general officers were taken on an unauthorized tour of East Berlin by a lieutenant who drove right through Checkpoint Charlie, now unmanned, and around the streets of the Potemkin village that was East Berlin, before returning with a sledge hammer to break off pieces of the Wall as souvenirs. What Zinni learned in that process, and the years that followed, was that, “We are living in a changed world that we don’t understand, and which we are ill-equipped to deal with.”

He also learned that Bush 41’s New World Order did not bring the stability that was anticipated and promised, due to forces as diverse as globalization, revolutions in technology and communications, and the rise of regional hegemonies, and the conclusion he draws is that “Instability is the primary enemy.”

The audience included Adjutant General Michael Dubie and defeated Congressional candidate Martha Rainville. While Zinni’s subject was broader than the war in Iraq, he received questions on the war, and on the Military Commissions Act.

“What went wrong in Iraq?”

A couple of things. First, we went off track in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, which made the problem worse. By invading Iraq we got involved in the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Second, the war was not conducted right. Third, to put it charitably, the administration abused the intelligence. Finally, “we made the same mistake as in Vietnam: if you have a strategic vision, don’t hide it from the public. Once you lose the credibility of your rationale it’s very hard to recover from it.”

What do we do about Iraq now? Admitting that is answer is unlikely to be popular with a Montpelier audience, Zinni echoed Colin Powell’s so-called Pottery Barn rule: “We broke it, now we own it.” He said that one option is to get out, but that we’ll be back in in three to four months, once it turns into Afghanistan. The answer, in Zinni’s view, is not to get out or to keep doing what hasn’t been working. The answer is an integrated government that can implement military and political measures and provide social services.

When asked about the Military Commissions Act, Zinni’s answer was straightforward: “If you don’t want it done to your sons or daughters, you don’t do it to anyone else.”

In answer to the question of what we, as individuals can do, Zinni offered a three-ooint prescription;

First, “Do not reward politics as usual.”

“Why,” he asked, “Do we accept a political system that brushes aside competence?” refering to the decisions by Mark Warner and Colin Powell not to seek the presidency.

Second, “Inform yourselves.”

Third, “Don’t underestimate your own power.”

Half-Baked Baker commission

According to the NY Times, “[The Baker Commission Report] warned that if the situation continues to deteriorate, there is a risk of a ”slide toward chaos (that) could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe.”

”Neighboring countries could intervene. …. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized,” commissioners said.”

Gee – Ya think?  Am I the only one who thinks this assessment accurately reflects the situation as it was about two years ago?  It takes no genius to forecast the past.

And we have a good historical example of how well the main recommendation works – we called it “Vietnamization of the conflict”.  Hold that helicopter, please!!! 

Webb and Bush: the subtext

In theatre, we have the concept of subtext.  This reflects the reality that people don’t always say (or even know) what they have in mind.  People say one thing and mean another or talk around the point.  (Bt the way, the thing that makes a soap opera a soap opera is that there is not subtext.  It’s all out in the open.)

So here’s my point.  When Bush, who had been told that Sen-Elect Webb’s son in Iraq had been in serious danger, asked Webb: “how’s your boy doing?” he really was saying “I have the power of life and death over him and there’s nothing you can do about it.” 

Let’s not miss the point, Bush is a psychopath. 

What the hell is wrong with the AARP?

Most of my friends cancelled their memberships in the AARP back when the AARP greased the skids for passage of Medicare Part D, which, as you know, has turned out to be a disaster. (Yes, my friends. Like me, described by my friend Rebecca as “older than dirt”, most of them are geezers.) I didn’t cancel my membership, which means I keep getting the magazine that used to be called “Modern Maturity”, but is now called something creative like “the AARP magazine”.

Anyway, I was reading the AARP magazine the other day (by the way, it has more blow-ins and bound-in commercial offers than any magazine I’ve seen) when what should I find but a full-page tribute to our own Governor Scissorhands for “ris[ing] above politics” and giving us this great new health care plan. I kid you not.

This is the guy who blocked any chance of real health care reform with his veto threat, and here he is getting an award from the AARP.

Don’t get me wrong. The Vermont AARP is a good organization. Right now they’re taking the lead on the effort to create a low-income electric bill payment program, one area in which we’re way behind most of the rest of the country.

So I don’t really have an answer, just a question: What the hell is wrong with the AARP?

FCC Licensing, WCAX, and the Public Interest (w/poll)

In the waning days of the last election season, I received an email from a reader who was clearly angry at WCAX’s naked partisanship demonstrated, not simply in it’s standard, FOX-news-reminscent news coverage (or lack thereof), but by it’s refusal to sponsor a gubernatorial debate (despite hosting debates for every other major office, and traditionally hosting one in cycles past), thereby significantly (and seemingly intentionally) minimizing the opportunities for Scudder Parker to reach voters in his challenge to Jim Douglas.

The writer had an interesting suggestion… that “maybe it’s time to challenge WCAX’s FCC license since it appears they are not operating in the public interest?”

The timing is spot on, as their current 8-year license expires April 1, 2007. This means that public input on the renewal can be accepted until March 1st. But whether or not such an effort would be worthwhile and victorious may come down to a questin of how you define victory

It’s unlikely that such an effort would bear fruit, if the goal is to shut down WCAX. Such efforts generally aren’t, but there is a push out there to use this process as a means to hold corporate media accountable, win or lose. It should be added though, that “corporate media” that they are, there are still free speech considerations, ethically speaking.

But, as so many of those opposed to state-based impeachment never allowed themselves to understand, sometimes it’s not simply about winning and losing – or, more accurately, it’s often the case that there are degrees of success. Many would be thrilled to see the CAX operation shut down for meddling so shamelessly in the democratic process, but it would also send a powerful message indeed to give Marselis Parsons and his GOP cronies a serious public black eye – and it could then prove inspiring to others around the country who similarly have to deal with their primary local news source so closely wedded to the ambitions and goals of a specific political party.

Here’s the process (pulled primarily from the handy-dandy how-to guide at New Hampshire’s FreePress.net):

Yesterday, WCAX filed an application to renew with the FCC. Click here to view the application on the FCC website. Now that they have, the flood of public commentary should begin from now until 30 days before the expiration date of April 1st.

First, there’s the head-on approach; writing a letter that makes the case that the station is serving a partisan political interest. This is grounds for a complaint, as is working against the interest of the community it’s located in.

It may also be possible to catch them in a “gotcha” moment, whereby they’re not fulfilling their obligations under their licensure. For example, all stations are required to air 3 hours a week of educational programming for kids, and it’s not uncommon for stations to either pre-empt that programming, or to pass clearly non-educational shows off as meeting the obligation. You can go to the FCC database located here to view WCAX’s reporting on meeting this obligation. These public accountings are filed quarterly, and it would take a little effort to comb through them. A glance at last quarter’s reveals little out of place, but I certainly think it’s questionable whether or not “Dance Revolution” counts as educational…

The following information needs to be included on the letter:

  • Call letters: WCAX-TV
  • City and State: BURLINGTON VT
  • Facility number: 46728
  • License renewal application file number: BRCT – 20061130APP

The letter can be sent to:

Video Division, License Renewal Processing Team
Room 2-A665
FCC, Office of the Secretary
445 12th St. SW
Washington, DC 20554

A copy should also be sent to:

General Manager, WCAX-TV
MT. MANSFIELD TELEVISION, INC.
P.O. BOX 4508
BURLINGTON VT  05406

The other, more time-intensive but effective route would be to file (with the help of a lawyer) a formal “Petition to Deny”. The link provides details.

So from where I’m sitting, it seems to me to be a no-lose scenario. Cast a vote below if you have an opinion.

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 ...

New campaign group formed

Thanks to Philip Baruth I found a new Yahoo group found to support the possible presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. It’s been organized by Zephyr Teachout and our own Neil Jensen and although things have been relatively quiet so far, I suspect things will get more active this winter. I’ve joined because I think he is a strong prospect, although I’m not ready to get married, or even engaged, quite yet. If someone organizes a John Edwards group I’ll probably sign up for that one, too.

I posted a message to the Obama group about our discussion, so maybe we’ll get some visitors.

Similarly, any other readers who form groups for the other candidates or potential candidates should let us know and we’ll help get the word out.

Bolton follies

( – promoted by odum)

I sat at lunch yesterday with a former Egyptian ambassador to the UN and asked him his opinions on Bolton.  Interesting response – not very diplomatic, but he is retired.  He felt that Bolton’s problems were along two dimensions – one was a very abrasive and arrogant personality, not a good quality in a diplomat.  The other was a policy platform dictated from Washington.  The result was three major strategic failures that discredited him and the US.
1.  There was an attempt by Bolton to hijack the UN budget management process.  The USA pays about 20% of the UN budget, but wanted to have 100% control over the management of the spending.  This was soundly rejected by the General Assembly.  Now  one could certainly make a case for UN reform and greater efficiency, and maybe if the US were viewed as more benign by the world there could have been granted disproportionate influence, but everyone is so pissed off at us that this was a battle that was lost before it began, and a person with half a brain would have know that.
2.  Choosing a South American seat for the Security Council.  Venezuela never had a chance, but the American choice, Guatemala, was soundly rejected and Panama was chosen as a compromise for the 2 year term.  This loss was widely viewed as a major blow against the US.
3.  The USA was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission in a stunning rebuke that was supported not only by the developing countries that we routinely criticize, but also by western countries that are tired of “do as we say, not as we do” chest thumping by the US.  This occurred before Bolton’s tenure, but he has done nothing to repair the regard for the US, especially in the face of charges of US torture, renditions, secret CIA prisons, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc.

The importance of civil liberties

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

How many times have you heard it from administration apologists? “I’m not a terrorist, I’m not talking to Osama bin Laden on the phone, so I don’t care if they listen to my conversations. I’ve got nothing to hide. I’m innocent.”

Well, here’s a good example. You remember the lawyer from Oregon the feds scooped up and threw in jail a couple of years ago? Sure you do, they had him dead to rights. They even found his fingerprint on a supermarket bag full of detonator caps at the scene of the train bombings in Madrid. Plus, he represented a terrorist in a custody case. Definitely a bad guy, no questions asked. Naturally, our so-called allies in Europe were cautious, said to go slow, they weren’t so sure. You knew they were soft on terrorism, didn’t you?

Here’s what they did to him: Using expanded surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act, the government wiretapped his conversations, conducted secret searches of his home and his law office and jailed him for two weeks as a material witness in the case before a judge threw out the case against him.

“The horrific pain, torture and humiliation that this has caused myself and my family is hard to put into words,” said Mr. Mayfield, an American-born convert to Islam and a former lieutenant in the Army.

“The days, weeks and months following my arrest,” he said, “were some of the darkest we have had to endure. I personally was subject to lockdown, strip searches, sleep deprivation, unsanitary living conditions, shackles and chains, threats, physical pain and humiliation.”

Oops. It turns out they made a mistake. They didn’t have the right guy. Had nothing to do with it, so they eventually just let him go.

So he did what comes natural to a lawyer: he sued them, and this week he settled the case for two million dollars. That’s right, two mill to him from the federal government–I mean, two mill from our tax dollars because of what our employees, the feds, did to him.

And that’s not all. They had to apologize to him. That never happens. Almost literally never. I’ve been suing the government and private parties–bad actors, like slumlords and people like that–for more than twenty years, and I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an apology as part of a settlement, but they apologized in this case. “The United States of America apologizes to Mr. Brandon Mayfield and his family for the suffering caused” by his mistaken arrest, the government’s apology began.

And that’s still not all. In addition to the apology, and the two million, he gets to keep the part of his case in which he was challenging the constitutionality of the so-called Patriot Act going. He didn’t have to give up the legal challenge to the law to force the settlement out of the government. He’ll get to continue with that case, and, hopefully, get a judgment invalidating the statute.

This is really important, but not just because of what the individual plaintiff got. One of the things we civil libertarians are saying all the time is that we have to protect the rights of everyone, even the guilty, because if we don’t then the rights of the innocent are worthless. This is a guy who was innocent. Totally innocent. Not in the “innocent until proven guilty”, presumption of innocence sense. He had absolutely nothing to do with it, and he was spied on, locked up, strip searched, and terrorized by our government. You’re goddam right they owed him an apology.

And you also have to ask: who’s the next innocent person they will do this to, and will there be anyone to stand up for that person?

O’Reilly: Here comes the Left — ‘Dracula rising!’

http://www.JewishWor… | Emboldened by the Democrat victory earlier this month, the far left is rising like Dracula at midnight. Just days after the vote, the San Francisco Board of Education voted to ban Junior ROTC in the city’s high schools, tossing more than 1,600 students out of those clubs. The Massachusetts legislature refused to allow a vote on gay marriage even though more than 170,000 Bay State voters signed a petition demanding to be heard on the subject, and a Vermont press group honored Judge Edward Cashman, the guy who sentenced a brutal child molester to 60 days in jail.

Don’t kid yourself, while the majority of Democrats are moderate, there is a fanatical subdivision of the party that is off-the-wall secular-progressive (S-P) and bent on radically changing America.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome told the press he was glad the Board of Education waited until after the election because “cheap shot artists like O’Reilly and Fox would have exploited (the vote).”

Not exploited, Mayor, reported. I coined the term “San Francisco values” and well understand they have little to do with democracy. How nutty is the San Francisco Board of Ed? We’re fighting a lethal worldwide terror movement, and these people are telling high school students the U.S. military is bad, that’s how nutty.

By the way, the ACLU is MIA in the ROTC controversy. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Board of Ed had banned a gay high school club? San Francisco values strike again.

The far left in Massachusetts is almost as bad. Gay marriage was imposed in the Commonwealth by three judges who found a loophole in the state constitution. Marriage was not expressly defined as between a man and a woman. Presto, traditional marriage has company.

But my question is this: If marriage is a constitutional right, which it is not, why can’t polygamists get legal? How about triads? Why can’t you marry your mom?

If one alternative lifestyle, homosexuality, is granted license to marry, you have to include other alternative lifestyles as well. That’s equal protection under the law, is it not?

But the secular-progressive movement doesn’t care about the Constitution. It wants a brand-new America where the people don’t call the shots — the “enlightened” minority sets the agenda.
So get ready for more of this kind of thing. The state of Vermont has already left the building. It elected Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, as junior senator. Compared to Sanders, Patrick Leahy, the other Vermont senator, is Dick Cheney.

By the way, in case you went to public school, a socialist is someone who believes the government has a right to seize private property and do whatever it wants with it. Apparently, Vermonters are down with that, as well as with judges who give child predators the same amount of jail time as bar brawlers. Vermont is the first secular-progressive state to drop all pretenses and declare itself Havana friendly. Wait, that might not be fair. Even Fidel harshly punishes child rapists.

If you think I’m exaggerating, you’re wrong. The far left feels liberated, and it sees daylight. Expect these people to make a strong power run led by S-P mom Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the house.

Let’s recap: no tolerance for the military, no voting on controversial issues, and let’s ease up on those adults sexually brutalizing children. Welcome to the land of the secular-progressive.

Have a nice day.