I Asked My Congressman to Stop Funding the War and All He Did Was Critique My Fiction Writing
October 30, 2007 | 10 Comments
Well, well, well, I finally got a response from Congressman Peter Welch’s office today. Since our arrest last week in his Burlington office while seeking a meeting and a commitment from him to stop voting to fund the Iraq war, Welch’s office has been completely ignoring my requests for a meeting and an explanation of his confusing blend of anti-war talk but pro-war votes. You’ll recall, for example, that Welch voted for $12 billion more for the Iraq war in late September after also voting with the Republicans to condemn the anti-war activism of MoveOn.org. And this was after he voted for more than $120 billion for war last spring.
But, as you’ll see in the response below, Welch still isn’t interested in addressing the war or his continued support for it. Geez, he doesn’t even use the word “war” anywhere in the response. And who can blame him? I mean, it must be hard to always be saying one thing (“I oppose this war”) and then voting the opposite way (“I will vote for the war funding”).
Instead of addressing the war, Welch and his staff have decided to morph into a kind of Congressional-Miss-Manners role, whereby critiques of the etiquette of civil disobedience apparently mean more to him than his constituents’ urgent calls to end the war. Mr. Welch, there are thousands of people being killed, maimed or otherwise terrorized every day in Iraq. These are the people we were speaking for in your office. With all due respect, these are the people truly being inconvenienced – not the members of your staff who spent a few hours sharing a publicly-funded office with the public and, lest we forget, your constituents.
Finally, I guess Welch and his staff are little slow to catch on to the whole Snarky Boy routine. As I spell out on this website, I was, indeed, the creator of that character. Yes, a character, a fact that everyone else seems to understand. You see, Mr. Welch, I’m also a fiction writer – and Snarky Boy was the lead character in a collection of stories that I hope will be published some day soon. And while I’m flattered by the attention you’re giving to my character, I’m afraid your attempts to engage in a debate with him are a little too late. The stories are complete. The website is dormant. And the manuscript is being shopped around. I’ve heard, however, that Santa Claus sometimes responds to letters if you’re really jonesing to dialogue in the fiction realm. But – shhh – don’t tell the staff that he doesn’t really exist.
But back in the land of reality, the issue is not me, my fiction writing or where I stood while in your office. The issue is the Iraq war and the untold horrors being perpetrated in our nation’s name as a result of this war. And, frankly, shame on you for trying to make the issue anything other than the pain, suffering, death and destruction that millions of people are feeling as a result of the war that you continue to fund.
Trying to make this an issue about me and/or Snarky Boy is a nothing but a cheap evasion. Because there were 19 other people in that office with me seeking answers from you. And there were seven other people who were handcuffed because you refused to simply agree to meet with us at a time, date and place of your choosing. But more than that, there are nearly 450,000 Vermonters (70% of our population) who are opposed to this war, many of whom voted to send you to Congress to put an end to it. Congressman Welch, you must stop ignoring us. We are not going away until this war is stopped, the troops are home safely and the proper restitution is made to the Iraqi people.
Okay, okay, here’s the letter:
Dear Mr. Colby,
Thank you for your request to meet with Congressman Welch.
On March 21, 2007, you (and others) came to our Burlington office without an appointment and demanded a meeting with Congressman Welch. As you will recall, Congressman Welch was in Washington that day but still accommodated your request by participating in a conference call with you. He spoke with you for some forty minutes and responded to all of your questions. At the conclusion of the call, you chose to remain in our office for the balance of the day. You refused the staff’s request to leave the office at our normal 6:00 p.m. closing time. You left us no choice but to call for the assistance of the Burlington Police Department. Responding officers also gave you the opportunity to leave the closed building on your own but you refused. You were removed from the building and cited for trespassing.
On the morning of October 22, 2007, you left a voice mail for a Washington, DC staff member indicating you would be arriving at our Burlington office at 3:00 pm that day and that you were demanding a meeting with Congressman Welch at that time. Upon your arrival in the office, accompanied by members of the press, you again demanded a meeting with the Congressman. Your request could not be met because the Congressman was not available at that time. Despite your refusal to remain in the common area of the office as requeste by staff – you were permitted to remain in the office for the balance of the day. You again refused the staff’s request to leave the office at our normal 6:00 p.m. closing time. You again left us no choice but to call for the assistance of the Burlington Police Department. Responding officers again gave you the opportunity to leave the closed building on your own will and you refused. You were again removed from the building and again cited for trespassing.
Yesterday, October 29, 2007, you phoned our Washington, DC office and left a voice mail for a staff member. You immediately called back asking for another staff member. I took your call at that time and you again demanded a meeting with the Congressman. I told you that your request would be taken into consideration and that you could expect a quick answer. You also inquired as to whether this office was intervening in your case with law enforcement officials. I emphatically told you that any decision about your legal case was a matter for law enforcement officials, not this office.
Finally, you have created and maintained a website (www.vermontsnarkyboy.blogspot.com) where you have repeatedly delivered derogatory and offensive remarks aimed at the Congressman and other public officials.
Here is a sample of your writing from your web site to refresh your memory:
- January 30, 2007: Here’s how Peter the Dick will go down in 2008… Thus, Welch will face a strong third-party candidate and a Republican candidate and – holy shit – Peter the Dick will be sent home to walk his dog and enjoy his millions. … Then, of course, Peter the Dick will utter these historical – hysterical? – words: “I wish Snarky Boy well in representing the people of Vermont for the next two years.” Oh yeah, baby. You’ve been snarked.
- May 1, 2007: Let’s start with Peter Welch. What the fuck is it about this guy that just makes me want to hate him? Oh yeah, he’s the embodiment of every little prick-know-it-all that we all knew in school. He was the kid, for example, who always had his homework done and – worse – joined the teacher in giving the rest of us that smug little look that said: “Why are you underachieving?” And for purposes of my own battered self-esteem (fuck you, Wordpress), I’m going to ignore the fact that Welch went on to be a congressman and I’m an underemployed painter for now.
Mr. Colby, Vermont has a rich history of vigorous debate over the many fundamental issues facing our nation. Vermonters have conducted such debates not only with passion, but with a civility that shows respect for each other and an appreciation for the special state in which we live. You have shown time and again by your behavior that you have no interest in civilized debate and discussion. Instead, you seem intent on disrupting the work of Vermont’s Congressional office and staging a media event. Therefore, your request for another meeting with Congressman Welch will not be granted because the pattern of your behavior makes it clear that it is impossible to expect a productive and civil meeting in the Vermont tradition.
Sincerely,
Bob Rogan
Chief of Staff
Office of Congressman Peter Welch
Monday Hit & Run Blogging
October 29, 2007 | 1 Comment
Oh damn, the coffee got the best of me this morning. Too much, too soon. And I’ve learned that it’s better to blog while jittery than run a chainsaw. So, deal with it. Ready. Set. Blog.
Book Review Goodies: Did you happen to notice the shakeup at the New York Times Book Review’s “best sellers” yesterday? Yep, Stephen Colbert’s new book unseated Clarence Thomas’ book at the top of the list. How weird is that? So, for just a brief moment, liberal irony defeats right-wing lunacy. At this point, I’ll take the “victories” wherever I can find them. And I’ll quickly change the subject before I let myself think any further about this nation’s very strange reading habits.
Speaking of reading habits, those of us who are feeling guilty about the growing pile of largely unread books on our nightstands got a bit of psychic relief yesterday from the noted French intellectual, Pierre Bayard. In his interview with the Sunday Times Magazine’s increasingly controversial Deborah “I’ll arrange the interview any way I’d like to” Soloman, Bayard assures us that skimming books is just fine – even necessary. Whew. Thank you, Pierre. Now I can put some of them on the shelf and, hopefully, they’ll stop making me feel like shit for skimming them.
Here, for your entertainment, are the books I’m skimming now:
J.M. Coetzee’s “Inner Workings;” Denis Johnson’s “Tree of Smoke;” Dave Eggers’ “What is the What;” Hugh Brogan’s biography of de Tocqueville, and Paul Auster’s “Travels in the Scriptorium.”
I did, however, just finish a wonderful collection of Melville’s short stories, including the fantastic “Bartleby the Scrivener.” Read it if you can. Skim it if you must. And then just try to tell me that you don’t fantasize about telling your boss what Bartleby does over and over again when given orders: “I’d prefer not to.” Priceless. And one hell of a long way from today’s passive aggressive workplaces, huh?
And while we’re on the subject of arts and letters, did you catch the news a couple of weeks ago that New York’s famous independent radio station, WBAI, was too worried about FCC punishment to air Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” on the fifty –year anniversary of the court ruling that the poem was not “obscene.” Yep, fifty years ago the poem was ruled not obscene but today the chill in the air over free speech is preventing the poem from being read over the public’s airwaves. Oh America, what’s happening to your dreams?
I’ve been thinking about Ginsberg of late as I venture back into the antiwar activism waters. And I keep asking myself: Where are today’s Ginsberg’s? Where are the bards and the artists who can interject so much drama and life into the otherwise drab world of political discourse?
In a private email exchange with a friend last night, I was asked, “what’s changed since the ‘60s?” It was a question asked out of the understandable frustration over public’s lethargic response to the war and other political disasters of our times. And here was my response:
The difference between now and the ’60s? Art, as in: music, drama, poetry and general creativity. The movement needs a (metaphorical) big fat joint and some good lyrics by modern day Ginsbergs and Lennons in order to forge a bond between politics and culture. Somehow, the culture and the creativity have been washed out, leaving a deathly monotonous and wholly uninspiring brand of politics that is easily ignored and/or avoided.
What do you think? How would you have answered that question? Before you answer that, imbibe in this video tribute to Ginsberg as he reads his poem, “America:”
Speaking of activism, the ever-entertaining NTodd has posted his photos of his trip to Boston over the weekend to protest the war. You can check them out here. And then make sure to give NTodd the reading love that he deserves by visiting his other site here.
Plame to Vermont: I know everyone’s trying to make a big deal out of Valerie Plame coming to Vermont but I’m having trouble with that bandwagon. Sorry, but I can’t quite leap over the fact that she was a CIA agent. It makes it kind of hard to feel sorry for her getting outed. Sure, the outing was outrageous and against the rules that the Bush clowns love to flaunt but…Plame was playing in the CIA environment. I wonder, for example, how much sympathy Ms. Plame had for the people she was lying to and otherwise screwing over when she was in “good CIA standing?” Before we go too far in making her another shallow-partisan-hero, how about some explanation about what she really did while flacking for an agency that lives in the shadows and has a terrible human rights record? What, for example, does she think about overseas CIA torture? And, remember, she agreed to have her book vetted by the CIA before it was published. I’ll take a pass on this “hero.”
Enough already. Besides, I think it’s now safe to operate the saw.
Vermont Antiwar Meeting on Wednesday
October 29, 2007 | 3 Comments
Okay folks, you keep stopping us on the streets and sending us emails declaring that you’re sorry you missed the little adventure at Congressman Peter Welch’s office last week. Well, it’s time to get in on the ground floor of the new round of discussions about what this rag-tag bunch of peace loving, democracy infatuated folks are going to do next. Funny, huh, that it takes this much work to get a meeting and a pledge from our congressman to stop funding the illegal, immoral and otherwise obscene war on Iraq? Peter Welch just doesn’t get it. And guess what? We’re not going away. So join us for crying out loud.
This Wednesday, October 31st – yes, Halloween night – at 6:00 pm we’re having a very informal meeting at Montpelier’s Langdon Street Café to discuss what our next actions will be. Come on down for the discussion and planning. We hope to see you there.
Oh, and by the way, Welch’s office has still not returned our phone calls seeking a meeting with our congressman – calls that were placed before last week’s action.
Weekend Edition Special Report
October 27, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
Friday Random Blogging (Part Two: Blackwater & Welch Edition)
October 26, 2007 | 3 Comments
Damn, I wish I would have gotten together with some of my buddies on September 12, 2001 and made this video. Who knew that it would result in nearly a billion dollars in governmental “security” contracts? Frankly, it does look like something Paul Beaudry and his buddies at True North Radio would have put together while working themselves into a frenzy over some big, scary, lurking (and liberal!) danger out there. But, then again, it also looks like the kind of stuff I see in Worcester everyday. Let’s face it, those Blackwater guys are financial geniuses to be able to turn this low-rent video into a billion dollars worth of taxpayer loot.
Speaking of Blackwater, our man in Washington, Congressman Peter Welch, is getting a lot of traction for his sorta-kinda-maybe tough talk on Blackwater. As you’ll recall from yesterday, Welch is responding to the drunken murderous actions by these mercenary thugs by calling for “more governmental oversight” of them. Oh baby, that’ll show ‘em.
But how does our congressman respond to people peacefully showing up to his office seeking to speak with him: Arrest them! Yep, handcuffs and all.
So let’s review Welch’s political week: Oversight for Blackwater. Handcuffs for peace activists.
But don’t expect to hear any kind of meaningful discussion about this in the Vermont blogosphere. Here, for example, is what happened over at Freyne’s blog after he did a rather fine job of reporting on the Welch protest. Um, children, can we get back to the issue, please? There is a war going on. And our congressmen are continuously voting to fund it.
Damn, there I go again – getting all rude by mentioning the issues.
Friday Random Blogging (Part One: Baseball Morphs to Politics)
October 26, 2007 | 1 Comment
Okay, okay I was a bit bored last night and went fishing around the Internet waters looking for some inspiration. I tried to be a modern American man and watch the World Series but found the pace, the commentary and the commercials over the top on the obnoxious scale. It was the live interview with the CEO of Taco Bell that put me over the edge. Yep, right in the middle of the game they went to one of those dopey “roving reporters” in the stands who was with the taco magnate to announce that – get this – since one of the players stole a base, their corporation would be giving away free tacos from 2 to 5 pm next Tuesday. What the fuck? If anyone can explain the connection between theft and free tacos, please let me know. Adios tacos and game, and off I went to the other glowing box in the house – the one with the stylish little apple on it.
First stop: The Hill, where I learned what I always learn when I poke around the political haunts of the Internet. Yep, the Dems are lame. Been there, done that. But this commentary was coming from the Dems themselves. Ah, the navel gazing of it all! The piece, “Internal Dem Memo Faults Party Message,” begins with these obvious words:
Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because the party’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.
Here they go again, focusing on the message and forgetting all about their actions. Sure, the message matters but what really gets the voters all hot and ready to actually pull your lever is a little follow through, you ninnies.
These poor Dem strategists just keep imitating only half of the Republican Party’s playbook: the message part. But then I can only imagine the looks on their faces when they turn to chapter two of the playbook and see that the Republicans’ idea of “supporting the troops” means that we arm them to the teeth and flirt with World War Three in the naked pursuit of world domination. And have you noticed, class, that they’re following through?
“Oh shit,” I can hear them say, “we can’t do that.” And so it goes, the Dems co-opt the “support the troops” message and have absolutely no clue about where to go with it other than bumble and fumble amongst themselves. Which, of course, leads them directly to where they are now: holding political majorities but doing absolutely nothing of substance with the power. The Dems’ pursuit of power is kind of like that poor dog that chases cars. Sooner or later, the dog catches the car and…splat. All that work for nothing. Bummer.
The piece in The Hill also uses the word that is almost always used when describing today’s Dems: nervous. And, of course, it involves them being “nervous” about another fight with President Bush over more war funding. But, I’m sorry, if they’re nervous over going to battle with a president as lame as this one on an issue that nearly everyone agrees with them on, there really is no hope for them.
Taste this excerpt from the piece in The Hill:
He cited Democrats’ frustration over the likely showdown with President Bush over supplemental spending for the Iraq war. Democrats are discussing not sending a supplemental spending bill to the floor until Bush changes course on the war. But that makes many Democrats nervous that Bush will use the tactic to say Democrats aren’t supporting the troops.
When’s the last time you heard a Republican described as nervous before a political fight? That comes from knowing that you’ve got a message and a course of action that gives you confidence. Sure, it’s usually bat-shit crazy but they sure as hell aren’t nervous about it. Reckless? Sure. But not nervous.
But my favorite part of The Hill’s piece on the memo comes when they quote an anonymous Dem aide who declares that the memo probably won’t be widely read anyway. Why?
But he also noted that the number of the memo’s readers might have been limited by the fact that the memo was a long attachment, which makes it less likely to be read by BlackBerry-wielding aides.
Oh great. They’re nervous AND stupid.
[Stay tuned for more Friday random blogging.]
Reading Around
October 25, 2007 | 4 Comments
Good day, class. Lots on the plate today with very little time to get to it. So let’s go into rapid-fire mode. Buckle up and read:
The Vermont Press Bureau finally got around to acknowledging the protest at Congressman Peter Welch’s office on Monday. Okay, okay, so they’re only three days late. But it gets worse. They buried their mention of the protest at the end of an article by Dan Barlow titled “Welch Says Blackwater Hurting Iraq Efforts.” Check it out.
And now let’s examine the article a bit. First, a quick response to the headline: No shit. I think the fact that “Blackwater is hurting Iraq efforts” has not only been established but it’s been established months ago. But, hey, rookie congressmen apparently need to take their sweet time to acknowledge the obvious. Welcome aboard, Peter. What’s next, you gonna announce that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
But let’s get back to the article. After Welch does his typical huffing and puffing about how obviously out of control Blackwater is, he proudly announces that he’s the co-sponsor of a bill “that would bring contractors such as Blackwater under more congressional oversight.”
Say what? These thugs are running roughshod over a supposedly sovereign nation, killing and maiming as they go, and you’re proud of the fact that you’re offering some “congressional oversight”? Boy, I’ll bet the Iraqis feel great about that. Sleep tight, folks, because Congress is watching….
The obvious solution to Blackwater in Iraq is that Blackwater must be kicked out of Iraq. Period. It’s what that Iraqi government wants. It’s what the Iraqi people want. And it’s the only thing Blackwater deserves for terrorizing the people of Iraq with their mercenary madness while lining their pockets with our taxpayer cash.
Government oversight? Mr. Congressman, Blackwater is killing innocent people. May I suggest jail?
But if you really want to get ill, watch how seriously Bush is taking the issue:
–Speaking of Blackwater, they apparently realize that the toothless yipping and yapping from Congress about their illegal actions won’t be bothering them in the long term. And so why not a logo makeover? Yep, Blackwater recently announced that they had modified their logo to remove the not-so-subtle crosshair/scope look. Here’s what Lauren Miller, a design professional, told the New York Times about the logo change:
I would say it’s a highly significant change; they’re repositioning themselves. The old log suggests that they’re targeting people. The new logo is a more ambiguous, more safe corporate logo…The subtle changes mean everything here by eliminating the scope of a sniper’s rifle.
Of course, we won’t bother with the fact that the corporate mission and corporate culture won’t change.
–
Credit where credit is due: Congrats to Senator Bernie Sanders for announcing that he will be voting against the appointment of Michael Mukasey for attorney general. Now if he can just get his Vermont cohort, Patrick Leahy, to do the same. And while I’m in the warm and fuzzy mode, let me also remind you that Sanders was the only one of Vermont’s three members of Congress to vote against the resolution to condemn the MoveOn antiwar advertisement. Thanks, Bernie.
–
If you missed it last week, check out this editorial by the New York Times about the state of the Democratic Party. Why is it that everyone except the Kool-aid-drinking Dem zombies can see how pathetic the party has become? The last paragraph is worth repeating:
It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.
Ouch.
–
Finally, for the fun of it, check this site out: Government is Good. And while you’re there, take the “Government IQ Test” that’s featured in the sidebar at the site. I’ll show you my score if you show me yours.
–
Housekeeping 101: I believe the comments problem has been ironed out (again). But I’m still working with the powers-that-be to have the comments option appear on the front page so people will see there’s a discussion taking place. So feel free to sound off. But, as always, if you want to reach me in private, write to me at: mcolby@broadsides.org
Thanks for playing.
Forget the Partisans, Organize the People
October 24, 2007 | 10 Comments
There’s something sickening happening with politics these days. And, unfortunately, we’re all to blame. While it’s easy to get up on our hind legs and wax poetic or even rage at our elected officials for this transgression or that, the sad truth is that those politicians and their more than lethargic leadership skills are merely mirroring the lethargy of the population. Sadly, we’ve become a nation of political sleepwalkers.
Consider the war, for example. Yes, we are a nation at war. And tens of thousands of people are dying because the nation we call our own is waging that war in a place thousands of miles away. Yet the American public largely yawns with indifference over the actions of our government that are not only resulting in unfathomable death and suffering but are also undermining future hopes for peace and prosperity.
Worse, the discussion on the war has been hijacked by a kindergarten-like partisanship that only serves to fuel the hopelessness, inaction and, worse, disconnection between the people of this democracy and our leaders. You know the discussion I’m talking about, the one splashed across the front pages, yelled by the radio talkers and oh-so-well articulated by the hierarchies of the two parties. Yep, the one where the Republicans tell us to wave the flag, “support the troops” and otherwise shop ourselves to sleep, while the Democrats respond by telling us to wave the flag, support the troops and go to sleep until the next election. And then they all wonder why the public isn’t engaged.
The wet blanket of partisan bickering masquerading as “democracy” has trickled down to the street level, where the grassroots partisans try to clumsily get into the game. You know the type, they start blogs and scream about the “other guys” and refuse to see that “their guy” is neck-deep in the game of nothingness as well. Ah, the bliss of well-fitting blinders – especially when you still get your phone calls returned!
But where did the dreamers go? Where did the risk-takers go? And when the hell did we decide that the “art” in politics had to be replaced by this drab and wholly uncreative blob of bickering nonsense? Oh dreamers and risk-takers and – dare I say it – revolutionaries, we need you. Please come home and shock the system again. Because, as Mother Jones said, “we must wake the sleepers.” Because people are dying for crying out loud and I’m tired of everyone in power blaming someone else in power while those of us with no power just become dizzy from the nonsense of it all.
As readers know, earlier this week I was part of a group of dreamers who decided to pay a visit to Congressman Peter Welch’s office to express our displeasure with his recent votes to provide more money for the Iraq war and his condemnation of antiwar activism. As activism goes, it was about as low-key and civil as it comes – the nuns amongst us wouldn’t have tolerated it any other way. But we were rebuffed completely in our efforts to gain an audience with our elected official and, instead, arrested for trespassing at a taxpayer-funded office.
While Welch’s response to us was, indeed, appalling if not completely bizarre, the reaction from the public has been more interesting. Not surprisingly, the hardcore Dem partisans ran to the defense of their anointed one, Peter Welch, ignoring the facts as we presented them and, instead, deciding to cast personal aspersions about the dreamers (“hippies,” “radicals,” “un-credible,” etc. ho-hum). How very Rove-like of them, huh?
But, remember, the issue here is the war, not the personalities or fashion styles of the protesters. And these partisans love to talk about how much they hate this war, but apparently not enough to see through their partisan blindness to realize that their elected Democratic leaders keep voting to fund the war. And hell hath no fury hot enough for those who take the “risk” to point that out. But that’s okay, we’ll never be invited to the cocktail parties anyway. It’s a risk we take to truly believe in the power of democracy.
But there’s been another reaction to our little visit to Welch’s office that has been truly inspiring: The reaction from the vast majority of non-partisans. Yeah, the everyday folk who don’t dither with navel-gazing blogs, get invited to high-priced political fundraisers and who only get recognized by the Peter Welch’s of the world when he dons his bottle of hand-sanitizer every two years to get close enough to them to ask for their votes.
These folks have been excited about our action. They see, hear and recognize the bullshit being spewed by the partisans and they’re cheering us for calling it what it is. They’re the ones who saw the Dems wave the flag and vote for the war until it got unpopular and then continue to wave the flag but merely talk about hating the war. But votes? Forgetaboutit.
Last night, for example, I stopped at a general store for a snack. The second I walked in the couple that runs the place exclaimed that they saw me on television protesting. I didn’t know where it was going to go because I have no idea about their politics and – perhaps stereotypically – assumed they were conservative. And the gentleman came across the counter and shook my hand and said this: “I switched parties to vote for Welch because I believed that he was going to stop this war. I’ve been waiting for people to hold him accountable.” He then thanked me and told me to remember to tell the judge that I was “trespassing in an office paid for by the public.” Indeed.
And therein lies the lesson for me. Forget the partisans. They’ve lost the ability to dream, to be creative and, worse, to even be honest most of the time. In their thirst to get the cocktail invitations to the next great Welch or Obama or Clinton “spectacle,” they’re apparently all-too willing to silence themselves and, worse, attack those who of us who still hold onto that quaint notion that it is our responsibility to speak up – especially when people are dying.
If they don’t want to dream, so be it. But we can no longer let them kill our dreams. Forget the partisans, organize the people.
I’m hopeful again. And so it goes.
I Visited My Congressman and All I Got Was Handcuffed
October 23, 2007 | 3 Comments
What was all that crap I wrote about “hope” yesterday? Oh never mind. Because today I’m just finding myself cranking Lou Reed’s “The Blue Mask” and wanting to slip into the almighty zone of indifference. Yes, that’s it, I think I’ll open the window for some air and a chance to let the wet wind here me utter this guttural moment of clarity: AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHH! There, I feel a little better.
Okay, there was plenty of hope yesterday as the twenty of us relics from the dustbin of democracy dragged our cranky asses to the office of our lone representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, Peter Welch, to officially deliver our dismay with his continued willingness to fund the Iraq war. Nothing radical there, huh? Well, we didn’t think so until we got to the office and his staff treated us like we had Martha Rainville masks on. Ouch.
We got about three and a half minutes to quickly express ourselves to his clearly contemptuous staff member before having their office doors slammed on our faces with the declaration that we would not be allowed to speak with Peter Welch via the phone and that they had work to do. Wham! Slam! Bam!
No wonder the Iraqis are so skeptical of the so-called democracy we’re trying to export to them. Because if it looked anything like the slamming doors we saw yesterday while trying to express ourselves to our elected official, I wouldn’t want anything to do with it either.
And let’s remember that the twenty of us were there to speak with Welch and/or his staff about the issue he calls his “top priority.” Geez, I’d really hate to see the reaction we would have gotten had we come to address a lower priority of his.
But we dutifully stayed until closing time – just like we promised. And then the cops came — just like they promised. And then the negotiations began.
“What can we do to end this without arrests or incident?” asked the Burlington police officer.
And to that reasonable question we made what we thought was a very reasonable proposals to end the whole thing: We would leave if Peter Welch agreed to meet with us at a time, place and date of his choosing. Quite honestly, we thought it would be over and we’d soon be leaving with a promise to meet with our congressman in the near future – a meeting that became even more relevant as the news came out during our time in his office that Bush was seeking an additional $46 billion for the war.
The police and Welch’s staff huddled in the next room to discuss our offer. Calls were made to Welch’s Washington office to further contemplate the offer. We thought they were simply trying to figure out the proper scheduling.
Silly us. Because the police officer came back with the news that stunned us: “They are rejecting your offer and they would like us to arrest you if you don’t leave now.”
Got that, people? No meeting with Welch and, instead, handcuffs for the eight of us who remained after the final warning – myself included. And so, for the four of us “repeat” offenders – those who were arrested at his office last March – it’s off to court on December 4th to be arraigned on the charge of trespassing at the office of our congressman.
I’ve got my statement ready for the judge: “Yes, your honor, I was peacefully involved in seeking a meeting with my elected official, Peter Welch.” And let’s see how much jail time that gets me.
I went to Welch’s office yesterday with a gnawing desire to do something about the war in Iraq that I find so morally and legally reprehensible. I’m tired of the inaction. I’m tired of the lethargy. I’m tired of the soothing calls to “just wait” until after the election for change. I’m tired of hearing myself complain about the war but so rarely risking much of anything to stop it. And visiting our man in Congress who keeps voting for more money to prosecute this war seemed like a very reasonable thing to do. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.
Call me a hopeless political romantic, but I still believe we can stop this war. But it’s going to take more than twenty people willing to go to their congressman’s office to say, “stop the funding.” And it’s going to take more than a yawn of a response when those people are arrested for seeking a meeting.
Anybody awake out there? Let’s talk. Because the time for action is now – before Bush gets another $46 billion for war.
See you in court….
[Oh yeah, you can find some media reports of the endeavor by clicking here (including video option) and here.]
It’s Democracy Time! Antiwar Protest at Welch’s Office
October 22, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Mmm, I love the smell of democracy in the morning. It’s the aroma of hope. The elixir of possibilities. The highway to change. Oh, and did I mention it’s also a responsibility? Yeah, that too.
And so, off we go. To Congressman Peter Welch’s office, to be precise. To practice the increasingly lost art of democracy in an effort to let our lone elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives know that we’re not happy with his recent votes involving the Iraq war. [Note to those wanting to join us: We’ll be meeting shortly before 3:00 today in front of Welch’s office building at 30 Main Street in downtown Burlington. Come and join the democracy celebration! Watch people – including nuns & kids! – express themselves peacefully on an issue they feel passionately about. Imagine that.]
The last time we visited Rep. Welch’s office – last April – the good congressman had us arrested because we refused to leave until he promised to vote against the war funding bill before Congress at the time. The late Grace Paley joined us that day — ailing, for sure, but still willing to make the trek and speak her mind. Priceless.
As we all know, Welch ignored us, the vast majority of Vermonters and – oddly enough – his own rhetoric by voting in favor of the Iraq war funding bill that eventually handed President Bush over $120 billion more for the disastrous war. Welch and the slim majority of Congress who voted for more war funding took pride in the fact that the bill also included “deadlines and benchmarks” that would “force” Bush to be held accountable. And how’s that working out, Mr. Welch? The President, of course, is ignoring all those so-called deadlines and benchmarks – just like we told you he would.
At the time, Welch made this statement in an apparent effort to mollify the antiwar majority: “I will firmly oppose any future Iraq legislation that does not include a date certain to end the war.”
Well, just a few short weeks ago – on September 27th, to be exact – Congressman Welch voted in favor of H.R. Resolution 52, a budget resolution that provided continued general funding for the government, including tens of billions of dollars more for the Iraq war. And, no, there was no “date certain to end the war” included in this resolution. So much for Welch’s promise to Vermonters.
More than a dozen other congress members refused to support H.R. Res. 52 due to the “blank check” nature of the money it provided to Bush and his Iraq war. And in the U.S. Senate, Russ Feingold stood tall and proud while voting against this funding and issuing this statement:
I am disappointed that we are about to begin the 2008 fiscal year without having enacted any of the appropriations bills for that year. I am even more disappointed that we passed a continuing resolution that provides tens of billions of dollars to continue the misguided war in Iraq but does not include any language to bring that war to a close. We need to keep the federal government operating and make sure our brave troops get all the equipment and supplies they need, but we should not be giving the President a blank check to continue a war that is hurting our national security.
I guess Peter Welch is going to have to stop saying that “no one opposes the war” more than he does, huh? Or perhaps he could let his actions match his rhetoric? We’ll certainly be asking him to do that when we visit his office today.
Congressman Peter Welch also recently voted to condemn the now infamous antiwar advertisement by the advocacy group MoveOn. That’s right, Welch Joined a Republican-led majority to take government time and resources to condemn the free-speech rights of a very mainstream antiwar group. And his reason: The Republicans made him do it. No, Peter, the Republicans only introduced the resolution – you had the right to vote “no,” just like many others in your party (including Senators Sanders and Feingold) did.
So, because of your votes for more funding for the Iraq war and your condemnation of antiwar activism, we’re going to be paying you another visit today. We’ll be asking to speak with you directly. We’ll be asking for an explanation for these votes. We’ll be asking you how it is that Republicans can get you to vote their way. And we’ll be demanding that you walk your talk and begin VOTING boldly to stop the Iraq war now. Yes, now, just like the majority of Vermonters want.
We look forward to talking with you.
Posts
