Anti-War Blogging
November 29, 2007 | 1 Comment
Vermont Anti-War Action: The next action by the ad hoc anti-war group that has been upping the ante of late will be tomorrow (Friday) at 3:00 p.m. at the military recruiting center in Williston (166 Sycamore Street – near the box store hell zone). This action has been in the works for weeks and was the brainchild of about a dozen Mt. Mansfield High School (MMHS) students who are both opposed to the war and fed up with the continued presence of military recruiters at their school. Interestingly, the last Vermonter killed in the Iraq war was a MMHS graduate. The message of the rally is “out of our schools, out of Iraq.” The group had been planning to make the action a bit of a surprise but military recruiters somehow got wind of it and – yesterday — let the MMHS students know that they knew about it. So the surprise is over but the action will go on as planned. Join us. Support these budding activists. And, better yet, help stop this war and the military’s preying on the youth of this nation to be war fodder.
Speaking of Iraq: There’s been a lot of talk lately about how “the surge is working.” File it under “p” for propaganda, please. The problem, though, is that many of the lily-livered Dems – especially those at the top – are falling for it. On Sunday, for example, the New York Times ran this article on its front page with this headline: “As Democrats See Iraq Gains, A Shift in Tone.” Good grief. And this means that the latest round of so-called tough talk from the Dems in Congress about blocking future war funding is just plain nonsense. The writing’s on the wall. The Dems will be – once again – whipped into submission after failing to stand up to what is obviously nothing more than war propaganda.
The truth about Iraq is that it is still a mess and any of the so-called “gains” there of late are more about the strategies of the moment for the warring factions than any U.S. military strategies. In the November 19, 2007 edition of The New Yorker, Jon Lee Anderson details the current situation in Iraq in a fine piece titled “Inside the Surge.” Read it. And then you’ll see that – like most of the Iraq debacle – the U.S. military is fumbling and stumbling like they always have been over there. Anderson details, for example, how the current slow-down in deaths and attacks is more a result of a temporary changing of alliances in the religious/civil war the U.S. is now trying to referee. The entrenched Sunnis and Shiites are basically re-tooling and re-adjusting for the skirmishes on the horizon. And the U.S. war machine is so damn hungry for any semblance of positive news that they’re jumping on this and running with it straight to the front pages of the New York Times and the evening news. Worse, the ninny Dems are bowing to it instead of challenging it and exposing it for what it truly is: bullshit.
Iraq is mired in a vicious civil war and, worse, the U.S. presence there is fueling it. On some days the Shiite leaders will use the U.S. military to put the screws to the Sunnis. And on other days the Sunnis will return the favor. But the clumsy U.S. military will take these strategic overtures as “evidence” that things are getting better. Until, that is, the next strap-on bomb goes off on the body of a so-called friend.
There is no rationality in this struggle. It is filled with religious hatred and vengeance. Take, for example, the story Anderson tells in his New Yorker piece about two brothers and their mother seeking revenge for the death of their brother/son. The brothers declare that “ten people per finger” must be killed as revenge for their brother’s death. Yes, they decide that “justice’ will be served only after they’ve personally killed 100 people. And so they set out to kill and kill and kill, notching each new death as another step toward “justice.”
But the pathology gets worse. The mother tells her vengeful sons that she wants body parts of the new victims brought to her. “Yes, I want revenge,” she told Anderson. Don’t believe her? Here’s an excerpt from Anderson’s article:
Um Jafaar [the brother] went on to tell me that she took the body parts of Amar’s victims, wrapped in cloth, to his grave, in the holy city of Najaf, and buried them there. “I talk to my son, I tell him, ‘Here, this is from those who killed you, I take revenge.’” Moving one hand in a horizontal circle, she said, “I put them around the grave. So far, I have taken one hand, one eye, an Adam’s apple, toes, fingers, ears, and noses.” (Karim told me that the hand had made the house stink for days.) I asked her how many Mahdi men Amar had killed. “I don’t know: eighteen, twenty? But still my heart hurts. Even if we kill all of them, I won’t have comfort,” she said.
And that, my friends, is what the U.S. military is in the center of. Good luck with that. Here’s what one U.S. officer told Anderson:
Balancing the Shia and the Sunni – the politics of it – that’s the hardest part of my job. ‘Hunt bad guy, kill bad guy’ – O.K., that’s what I’m trained to do. But they don’t train you for this.
If you need a little more proof that the “surge is working” nonsense is, well, nonsense, check out this piece from Editors & Publishers. It’s an article on a recent report from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that chronicles Iraq war reporting. And the conclusion: It’s worse than what’s being reported. Far worse. Here’s a brief excerpt from the article:
Above all, the journalists — most of them veteran war correspondents — describe conditions in Iraq as the most perilous they have ever encountered, and this above everything else is influencing the reporting,” the report from the Project for Excellence in Journalism stated. “A majority of journalists surveyed say most of the country is too dangerous to visit. Nine out of ten say that about at least half of Baghdad itself. Wherever they go, traveling with armed guards and chase vehicles is the norm for more than seven out of ten surveyed.
Hmm, it seems like a pretty good time to protest. I hope I’ll see you all in Williston tomorrow.
Book Review Blogging
November 27, 2007 | 2 Comments
Oops. Sorry about that. Falling off the blogging universe and all. I’ll spare you the boring excuses. Well, other than to say that the holidaze led me to be enslaved by the reader bug. I was a largely immovable object from the “reading sofa,” devouring J.M Coetzee’s “Slow Man,” James Salter’s “A Sport and a Pastime,” and Gordon and Trainor’s “Cobra II.” And then I thought: To hell with blogging. Give it a rest. And so I did. Forgive me. Or don’t. But in the process of forgiveness or vengeance (your choice), please do yourself a favor and read Coetzee and Salter.
Salter’s “A Sport and a Pastime” is – like all of his work – a compact and potent word explosion. His short, dense and descriptive sentences leave me fulfilled like a rich dessert. Go ahead, read it and then roll it around on your tongue/mind for a bit. Taste it. Smell it. And then just try to put it down. But then the story ends and, if you’re like me, you’ll find yourself standing at your bookshelf wondering where the other Salter books are. Damn, I need more, you’ll say, like any good junky-reader would.
Here, for example, is a brief Salter excerpt to whet your appetite:
In the corner in a trenchcoat, her hair gleaming, sits a silent girl with a face like a bird, one of those hard little faces, the bones close beneath it. A passionate face. The face of a girl who might move to the city. She has large eyes, marked in black. A wide mouth, pale as wax. Around her neck is a band of imitation diamonds. It seems I am seeing everything more clearly. The details of a whole world are being opened to me.
It is, indeed, a softly erotic story, told by a man we never really know. He remembers and lives through a friend, vaguely bouncing around France but coming into clear focus when love and lust become paramount – which is often. He’s stricken by the bug of love at first sight over and over again, the symptom of searching and longing and attempting to fill an obvious void. And so the most routine (and brief) encounters with a woman on a train, for example, become life giving and forever memorable. Taste this moment of memory from a train scene:
She has taken a caramel out of her handbag. She unwraps it, put it in her mouth to ensure her silence. Her fingers play with the paper, rolling it slowly, tightening the roll. Her eyes are pale blue. They can stare right through one. The nose is long but feminine. I am curious to see her teeth.
Oh just read it. But do yourself a favor and have Salter’s “Last Nights” on hand so you’ll lessen your withdrawal pangs when you’re finished.
Coetzee’s “Slow Man” is also a kind of a love story. Specifically, it’s about a sixty-ish single man, Paul Rayment, who loses a leg in a bicycle accident and, as a result, begins to ponder his life. His wound leaves him feeling alone and wondering about his decisions not to marry, not to have children and his general perspective on life. Ah, the void! And so he seeks…and seeks…and stumbles. Such is life.
Rayment’s lost leg becomes a metaphor for his lost love and, it seems, a lost life. And he doesn’t take long to fill the void of his lost leg/love with his desperate pursuit of his nurse. He must have her. Never mind that she’s married with three children of her own. Ha! He will take care of the children. And he will befriend her husband. Whatever it takes. Whatever promises have to be made. Whatever. Please, oh please, be his.
Like most of Coetzee’s fine works, Slow Man asks more questions than it solves. Again, such is life. And, in the end, Rayment struggles, ponders and stumbles in a rather existential dance with life. He’s a man in need, seeking to fill a void and changing people’s lives like only a man in desperate search of “love” can: messy and sometimes endearing and sometimes loathsome. Beware the drowning man, for he may take you down with him. Unless, of course, he finds the shore all by himself.
And now, for something completely different, there’s Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor’s “Cobra II,” the much ballyhooed and self-proclaimed “inside story of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.” Gordon, the New York Times reporter, and Trainor, the retired gerneral, are, for sure, decidedly mainstream. No surprise there. But the story of the Iraq war doesn’t need ideological bending to make it appear as ridiculous as it is. And so, Gordon and Trainor methodically – 700-plus-pages worth! – detail the very real insanity of the planning and implementation of an insane war.
I picked it up while browsing at Bear Pond Books over the holiday. I thought it was going to be one of those quick pick it up, scan it for a moment and then put it back with a smirk of a thought. But as I began reading one random passage after another I found myself enjoying the pace of the writing and the rather dispassionate condemnation of the entire affair. It’s dispassionate like a morticians account of a corpse is. It ignores the wails from the adjoining rooms and plows on to record the events and only the events. But that didn’t prevent me from slinging the heavy tome across the room more than a few times with shouts of outrage and hopes that someday the architects of the Iraqi War madness see the jail cells that they deserve to see – especially Donald Rumsfeld.
I’m going to have more to say about this book but, for now, I’ve run out of time. Yes it was a fine Thanksgiving. I’m thankful for the fine books and the sofa to read them on. And you?
Douglas Addresses Global Warming, Room Overheats From Hot Air
November 21, 2007 | 4 Comments
It must be great to be Governor Jim Douglas. I mean, the guy is little more than a political speedbump and yet he’s still considered to be unbeatable. Hmm, could someone please remind me what makes Vermonters think we’re so politically superior? My magic potion seems to be wearing off after nearly twenty jaded years.
Douglas, of course, stepped up to the microphone and fanfare yesterday in Burlington to announce that he had a “global warming plan.” But it seems like the only ones who consider what he said to be anything close to a “plan” are the governor, his minions and the headline writer at the Times Argus who coughed up this for the front page: “Governor Offers Global Warming Plan.” Surely they were smiling.
To be more accurate, what Governor Douglas did yesterday was basically more of what he’s come to perfect: Acknowledge concern about an issue, bash his opponents for their plan to solve it and then declare that his yet-to-be finalized “plan” will surely make us all orgasmically silly – once he releases it. What a tease. But, lucky for him, the media and the voters just keep lining up to here this same tired act. Better yet (for him), the Dems are so frightened of it that they can’t even find anyone to take him on. Go figure.
I’ve tried to read everything I can find on the “plan” Douglas unveiled yesterday and, I swear, I can’t find an ounce of substance. Here, for example, is Louis Porter of the Vermont Press Bureau’s rather noble attempt to parse some substance out of what he had to sit through yesterday:
Douglas emphasized the economic benefit Vermonters could reap from national and international concerns about climate change – and the commitment the state has already made to energy efficiency – rather than the new efforts the state’s citizens should make to reduce their contribution to the problem.
For instance, the state should work to establish a market and quality standard for carbon offset credits that Vermonters, with their relatively low carbon dioxide production and farm and forest land, could then sell to industries and individuals that want to make up for their own release of the gases responsible for global warming. The money could be used to further efforts to reduce global warming, Douglas said.
Huh? And that’s not some excerpt from deep in Porter’s story. It’s the third and fourth paragraphs. You can almost feel Porter grasping for something – anything! – to write about after being summoned to Burlington for a rather pompous unveiling of a “plan.” To hell with Waldo, where’s the plan?
It gets better. The pullout quote accompanying the story on the front page of the Times Argus features this from Douglas:
“I reject the notion that jobs come at the expense of the environment.”
Hmm, there he goes again, arguing with himself. Correct me if I’m wrong, but has anyone on the left of Mr. Right been saying that we all need to give up our jobs to stop global warming? If so, I must have missed that delicious day of delusion from Peter Shumlin.
But I guess that’s what happens to a politician when they don’t have a serious opponent. They just start making stuff up and, like some cartoon word bubble, place it over a semi-likeness of a could-be opponent and then kick its ass in a debate. Or, if I wasn’t used to being paid by the word, I could have just said he’s shadow boxing.
Speaking of shadow boxing, here’s what the chair of Douglas’ Climate Control Commission, Ernie Pomerleau, had to say at the plan’s unveiling:
I am opposed to new bureaucracies. You can’t spray money at something and fix it.
Congratulations on nailing the Republican talking points, Ernie. But what I really want to know is how a real estate developer got to chair a commission on global warming? That’s kind of like having Ed Abbey oversee the building permits, no?
The political reality here is that Douglas-the-speedbump needed some headlines on global warming for the upcoming election year. His young-gun handlers understand that they can’t keep giggling about global warming as if it doesn’t exist or that Vermonters aren’t seriously looking for answers. Moreover, Douglas and his already-in-motion re-election team know that he’s looking a lot like “Governor No” on this issue after his veto last summer. And they need to put something forward and wipe the smirks off their faces for just a moment to make it look like they care.
If Douglas had some real opponents and the Vermont media would wake up, he wouldn’t be able to get away with these kinds of policy photo-ops. Hats off to Senator Virginia Lyons, and Elizabeth Courtney of the Vermont Natural Resources Council and Todd Bailey of the Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters for at least calling the Douglas plan what it is: Hot air. Sorry, Jim, but that’s the last thing we need more of.
Vermont Media Blogging
November 20, 2007 | 16 Comments
While the uptight and incumbent-protecting media in Vermont continues to whimper and opine about the “incivility” of the antiwar meeting with Peter Welch, the real Joe & Jane Vermonters are beginning to be heard on the subject. Take, for example, the letters section in Saturday’s Times Argus. In case you missed it, you can read the letters about the meeting here, here, here and here.
And, no, I didn’t cherry pick the letters that were favorable. I didn’t have the choice because there were no letters supporting the TA’s uptight editorial about “protecting Vermont civility.” Have these people ever read a drunken rant by Ethan Allen? Or, if you’d like to get more recent, can they remember a red-faced diatribe by Ralph Wright? Howard Dean could let it rip once in a while too. And, let’s be honest, those young Republican guns running the Douglas show can be pretty damn ruthless. It’s called politics, you ninnies. Get over it.
But the incestuous little Vermont media circle will always rush to defend the state’s incumbent politicians. They have to because they have to maintain some access. When there are only four big-time politicians and about seven reporters, well, it becomes a bit too close for what it’s supposed to be. Sadly, the fourth estate in Vermont has for the most part morphed into a cuddly little lap dog for incumbents of either party to pat and scratch. And the result? Lifetime political jobs. Quick, name the last time one of Vermont’s top four politicians – either party — was bounced from office. Hint: It was almost twenty years ago.
Speaking of lap dogs, I saw the blogger Philip Baruth’s appearance on Vermont Public Television’s “Vermont This Week” on Sunday. My goodness, the guy has his head so far up Welch’s ass I think he’s chewing the guy’s food. Or something like that. But, on the show, Baruth regurgitated the stale “civility” arguments and then went one step further in protecting the incumbent that he endorsed (earth to VPT: ever heard of a conflict of interest?).
Baruth acted like he had some kind of inside information regarding the meeting model that was used with Welch. It was, as the group openly publicized, the “Accountability Session” model that came from the Saul Alinsky-inspired Midwest Academy. Baruth reported that he went to the Midwest Academy’s website and found out that the group advocates – gasp – “empowering” the group that is holding the meeting. Oh-my-god, say it isn’t so. And if that’s not bad enough, Baruth continued, they also talk about “controlling” the agenda of their meetings! Off with their heads!
Baruth, however, was serious about condemning the group for these apparent etiquette infractions. But I guess we have to cut the guy some slack because he’s obviously more than a bit dizzy from playing the insider game. Remember, this is a guy who plunked down hundreds of dollars to be a part of the super-secret Vermont fundraiser for Obama last summer that netted the Illinois senator more than a quarter of a million dollars. Baruth even brought his camera, got Senator Leahy to take a fawning picture of him with Obama and then drooled all over himself as he told Obama that he was going to be using his books in his UVM English classes. Civil? For sure. But also kind of gross.
Sorry, Philip, but we don’t all bend over like that when we’ve got a few moments with the seemingly powerful. Some of us, for example, would ask some tough questions. But most of us can’t plunk down that kind of money to run in those kinds of circles. So while you’re inside clinking glasses with the politicians you’ve given money to for access, just remember that some of us donned handcuffs (twice) for the same opportunity to have that kind of dialogue. In other words, we did it the old fashioned way: We earned it. You, my friend, bought it. Hook, line and sinker.
Besides, Philip, what’s so bad about a group trying to empower themselves? Isn’t that what all groups do when they hold such a public meeting? And that’s the problem with the insider-disease that infects so many of Vermont’s media and political elite. They begin to think that everyone has the access that they do. And remember, Baruth represents a most virulent strain of this disease because he’s both a member of the media AND a political contributor/endorser. (Shhh, don’t mention this in public, it’s not polite.)
The Vermont Press Bureau’s Louis Porter wasn’t going to go where Baruth was going on VPT, however. But, then again, Porter probably doesn’t have money invested in the Democrats like Baruth does either. Porter declared that he “understood” the antiwar group’s frustration over not getting straight answers from politicians. And he also admitted something that all the other pontificators on this issue have been slow to admit: He wasn’t there. Good for you, Louis.
But, like I said at the beginning, there’s a big gulf between what the elite media folks are saying and feeling about last week’s meeting and what the regular Joe & Jane Vermonters are thinking. Just look at the letters in your newspapers. Listen to the people on the streets. As Bob Dylan said, “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” Perhaps Baruth should step outside once in awhile to see for himself.
–
Speaking of getting outside, congrats to Vermont’s real poet laureate, Peter Buknatski, for landing his poem about meeting civility on the webpages of CounterPunch. [Disclosure: I’m hoping the aforementioned poem and vaunted title will gain me a free cup of coffee from the cheap bastard.]
–
What’s on your minds? Yeah, even you, Boots.
44 & Counting
November 19, 2007 | 2 Comments
It’s my birthday. Not your birthday. And so I can say whatever I want to you. I’m older today. Another year older. 44-years old to be exact. I was born three days after John F. Kennedy was shot. I was still in the hospital with my mother when the news arrived. “The President has been shot,” the nurse told my mom and dad, who were too busy with my new life to think much of the new death. But I always think about death on my birthday. It’s only natural, I’m told. But, then again, I pay the man who tells me this. I sit across from him every two weeks to tell him the crazy things that I do. I try to shock him a little bit every time. But he just keeps saying: That’s normal. And it just keeps making me want to be less normal. What the fuck do I have to do? Oh hell, I’m just a normal guy who’s just another year older and who sits and thinks about death on his birthday.
It could be worse. I could be 45-years old like my brother, Todd. He’s a not-so-normal poet who thinks Iron Man Triathlons are what people should do for fun. Personally, I’d rather sit in the woods and watch the squirrels run. It’s easier. And normal, I’m told. Here’s the birthday poem full of childhood memories that I received this morning from Todd:
Happy Birthday
It’s your birthday
so I tried to get some
birds involved
and thick vanilla
frosting I even
stirred fudge
in the kitchen
with a broken candy
thermometer but
it thickened into
a go cart which
I rolled down the
hill because the
chain fell off
Mrs. Wigger’s car
I watched Tora Tora Tora
with a little
leather baseball glove
from Sears on my hand
I got a bike
and jumped over a ramp
into the void
of Brian the blind
kid down the block
he’s here now
he says hello
& I say hello
and happy birthday
to you my brother.
Love,
Todd
–
It’s my birthday. And so I’m going to do anything I want to do on my birthday. I’m going to start by sitting – and working — in the woods and watching the squirrels run. Then I’m going to ride a horse that probably shouldn’t be ridden. Then I’m going to do what I do every year on my birthday: Read a few of my favorite passages of Don Quixote. It reminds me to smile at confusion. And then I’ll be in the perfect mood to sit for a meal with my family.
Enjoy the day, my friends.
Suffering Through the Dem Debate
November 16, 2007 | 2 Comments
I did it. I watched my first presidential debate last night. And, boy, do I ever feel stupid. What a mess. What a spectacle of nothingness. What an intellectual cesspool. I should have followed the advice of a friend who upon hearing that I was going to watch the debates said that he’d rather “spend two hours making sculptures with the cat litter.” Indeed.
As we all know by now, it was the Dems’ turn to take the stage last night and bicker, posture and pretend that they had a plan to clean up the White House after Bush has trashed it better than any Frat-boy party could have dreamed of. “Oh fuck, it’s morning, dude.” Yes, indeed, it’s morning in America, as Reagan would say. But this time we’ve got one hell of a political and economic hangover.
First, I’ll play the game of punditry and announce the winner as I saw it: Dennis Kucinich. Hands down. The poor guy was the only one who apparently understood they were at a debate with serious issues on the table and serious citizens looking for some answers and some truth. And so he said he’d end the war now, he’d vote to impeach Bush now and he’d roll back the terrible trade policies that are crippling the working class. But before he could get too far into his substantive answers, the moderator of the silly affair, Wolf Blitzer (is that really his name?), would cut him off and give him the kind of brush off that the crazy uncles at next week’s Thanksgiving meals will be getting all across the nation.
Blitzer and the other so-called journalists at the event, Donner and Dasher – or whatever the hell their names were, did their best to keep the riff-raff like Kucinich out of the debate from the very beginning. The media had already billed this as a not-so-kinky threesome between Hillary “Will She Recover?” Clinton, Barack “I’m So Smooth I Don’t Have Opinions” Obama and John “The More I Lose the Closer to the Truth I get” Edwards. The rest of them were basically treated like speed bumps to slow down the pseudo-fighting between the big three.
Kucinich, for example, didn’t even get to respond to a question until almost 30 minutes into the two-hour debate. And that was when Blitzer asked each one to declare – yes or no! – if they’d be willing to support the eventual Dem nominee. Like little yes-only bobble-head dolls, every one of them quickly and enthusiastically answered yes – with the exception of Kucinich. His reply? “Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy.” Oh my goodness, did someone fart? Get him out of the room! Or at least remind him that this is about posturing and preening, not principles, you fool.
I was just happy that Peter Welch wasn’t there. Imagine the melee he would have caused by stirring up the hundreds in attendance by huffing and puffing over the agenda and the waterboarding-like insistence that politicians answer a question with either “yes or no.” Perhaps he could learn a little something from Kucinich who dutifully played along but – gasp! – answered the “yes or no” question with a little creativity.
Kucinich also mentioned the “impeachment” word, too. It came while the rest of the dawdling Dems were splitting hairs and putting the audience to sleep over their various long-winded plans for stopping Bush & Cheney from going to war with Iran. But Kucinich cut to the chase: “Impeach them now!” Oh no, another fart in the room! Don’t worry, though, Blitzer cut him off, but not before the audience roared with approval. And then the rest of the candidates dutifully doused the passion in the room by carrying on as if the mention of impeachment never even came up. Never mind.
But I guess I’m breaking all the rules by not spending all my time mentioning Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Okay, here you go: Clinton is awful and the Dems are total and complete fools for thinking they are going to get anywhere with her. If she wins the nomination, the Clinton fatigue will be so high that inspiring the base will be a near-impossible task – especially without the Bush-man around to knock around. Sorry, but when you put Hillary against a fresh little Republican prick, she’s going to start sounding, looking and acting really, really old and tired. Well, unless the Republicans imitate the Dems by nominating the Fred Thompson corpse.
Enough with the Clintons. Enough with the Bushes. They’ve had a family member in the White House continuously since 1980. And if Hillary gets the Dem nod, the aristocratic repulsion coupled with her hawkish distaste to the liberal base will make it really hard to counter the right-wing pummeling she’ll be facing. Let’s face it, Hillary’s soooo yesterday. And the more she pulls Bill out to flack for her the more yesterday her campaign looks.
And then there’s Obama. Poor Obama. The guy entered this race with so much hope but now has that pathetic look about him that says one thing: I forgot who I am and what I believe. Sure, he’s got the poise and the stature but he’s been so manhandled by his DC-elite-handlers in the last year that he’s basically morphed into a robot. And when you’re knocked so far out of your own political orbit and the handlers, pollsters and consultants have so clearly taken over, you never know what to say or believe. The result? A passionless puddle of confusion. Thanks, handlers.
Finally, we’ve got the pretty boy, John Edwards. Ain’t he pretty? Wasn’t that a good idea to get that growth removed from his lip? It makes him even prettier. Oh, issues? Sorry, but Edwards seems to have one policy when it comes to the issues: move to the left every time he loses. And the more he loses, the more he moves to the left. Remember Edwards in 2004? He was the typical centrist southern Dem. You know, kind of like Lieberman with a drawl. But then he lost and then he moved to the left. And now he’s losing and he’s moving more to the left. And while I’ve obviously got no problem with his tippy-toeing to the left, he makes it look so trial lawyerish (read: contrived). Whatever it takes to sway that jury, huh? No thanks, I prefer a little authenticity with my political meal.
Oh yeah, the debate. I almost forgot. Or maybe I was trying to forget. Kucinich won. The American people lost. And Blitzer, Donner and Dasher need to check in with Santa.
Happy Friday.
Thursday Random Blogging
November 15, 2007 | 3 Comments
Bring on the snow. The horses are ready. The sleighs are painted. And the teamster is tired of politics. Come for a ride, my friends. You know how to reach me.
–
Channeling Snarky: Tonight’s another night of Dem presidential debates. And – oh-my-god – I’m on the edge of my seat wondering if Hillary will rebound. And what will Obama be wearing? And will that thing come back on Edwards’ lip? Oh, and what about Dodd, will anyone notice that he’s there? The same for Richardson. But, most of all, I’m totally anxious about the crowd. I hope they behave. The last thing I want is to have to sit through any rude questions. I mean, a nation at war should not have to tolerate rude questions aimed at those funding the war. It’s just so….uncivil.
–
And while I really didn’t want to slide into this pit again, some video clips of Sunday’s meeting with Welch have been posted on YouTube. I’ll be posting all three here soon if you can’t get over there yourself to check them out. I have, for now, posted the speech given on Sunday by Dottye Ricks in the bottom right corner of this site. Looks pretty peaceful to me. Until Welch threw his tantrum…
–
Speaking of the meeting, the fine fellow who got all the head-bloating publicity over his blogging recap of the Welch meeting, JD at Five Before Chaos, has posted a little update at his site. And yours truly jumped in for a little commentary. Go give JD some traffic love and check it out.
But, if you’re like me, you’ll find his clip of the Norman Mailer fight with Rip Torn a hell of a lot more interesting. Good stuff.
–
Speaking of Norman Mailer, I found a nice little personal account of Mailer by my friend, Jeff St. Clair, over at CounterPunch. Check it out. My favorite line was Mailer’s advice to St. Clair about writing:
Just write, man. And do it every fucking day.
And the best news is that St. Clair has been following that advice. Thanks, Norman.
–
While Vermont ties itself in knots over the etiquette of anti-war meetings, people all over the nation are turning up their activist heat. The folks at Iraqmoratorium.com, for example, are reporting that more than a 1000 students from 40 different schools in Minnesota will be skipping class tomorrow to descend upon military recruiting stations to deliver and anti-war message. Cool.
In Virginia, the Washington Post reported yesterday that more than 800 citizens turned out for a – gasp – heated meeting with their liberal Dem congress member to express anti-war demands. Good for them.
And in Washington State over the weekend, more than a dozen anti-war activists were arrested for attempting to block shipments of military cargo. Commondreams has the story.
But don’t worry, Vermonters, the pot is being stirred here too. The energetic lads and lassies who emerged from the Welch meeting over the weekend have been meeting and corresponding all week about the next steps of this new ad hoc group. We’ll be meeting and training all day on Saturday to rev-up for the next action. Email me if you’re interested in getting involved.
–
And for those questioning my assertion that these actions are necessary to put the war agenda back on the front-burner, consider this news from the Pew Institute: Currently only16% of the public mention the Iraq war as the top story on their mind. Last January, that number was at 55%.
Wake up America. Naptime is over.
–
And what’s on your mind?
Friends in All the “Right” Places: On Welch, Pollina and The Kingdom
November 14, 2007 | 6 Comments
Well, well, well, I knew someone out there in Vermont’s dwindling media ranks would find the importance of Sunday’s “accountability session” with Congressman Peter Welch. But I was a little surprised at first by who it was: The Caledonian Record . Yep, as in: the right-wing Record. And after reading it a few times and thinking about it longer, it actually makes sense.
Vermont’s mainstream media establishment, especially the elected liberals’ favorite lapdog journalist, Peter Freyne, rushed to Welch’s defense after the intense meeting in which more than 100 Vermonters showed up to empower themselves and demand some accountability from our one and only member of the House of Representatives. Instead of focusing on the issues at hand – Welch funding the war while saying he’s opposed to it — most of them focused on the manners of the audience, the planning of the agenda and other such matters akin to rearranging the chairs on the sinking Titanic.
But the Caledonian Record got it. Taste this from the conclusion of the editorial in today’s edition of their paper:
Vermont has a U. S. congressman and two U.S. senators with lifetime jobs who will be reelected as long as they wish without even having to break a sweat. The blame for that sad state lies squarely with the Vermont voter who is too lazy to compare the candidate on the campaign trail with the candidate’s voting record once the election is over. Wouldn’t it be revolutionary if all Vermonters showed the tenacity and backbone of the folks who challenged Welch on Sunday and demanded he do what he said he would do? Wouldn’t it be revolutionary if conservatives, moderates and liberals all followed their example? Just imagine. Candidates having to make realistic campaign promises and then having to stick to them! What a concept.
Indeed. That was the vision of running the meeting the way we did.
And I can see the eyes rolling amongst the liberals out there. “Oh sure, The Record is saying that because they hate Welch,” you’re collectively saying. Sure, there’s probably plenty of the old neener-neener two-party nonsense in the mindset of the editorial writer – about as much as there is in the hardcore Dem Welch backers who’s party blindness refuses to let them be outraged by his funding of the war.
But before the party hacks either cheer or jeer over this, let’s dig a little deeper. As you’ll recall from Vermont’s Progressive Party, Anthony Pollina and Progs in general have been doing well in the traditionally conservative Northeast Kingdom that the Record services. Why? My guess is because of the sentiment expressed in this editorial: People from the left and the right are fed up with politics as usual and a growing percentage of the population is begging for some political truth. The neener-neener nonsense is, indeed, wearing thin, especially as so-called conservatives like Bush run up government spending and so-called liberals like Welch vote to condemn anti-war activism. You don’t have to have your bullshit detectors on very high to pick this up.
Pollina and the Progs are blowing it, of course, with the current game of footsie they’re playing with the Dems. People don’t like it when they’re seduced by rhetoric and then dunked into a sobering shower of “never mind” as political expediency trumps political principles.
Pollina has spent more than a decade talking the talk of standing outside of the “two-party establishment,” even taking on the popular Dean in an effort to prove his anti-establishment credentials. But now it’s one, big “never mind” that Pollina and the Progs are declaring as he readies the faithful for what he hopes will be a Dem/Prog run for governor. Principles? Forgetaboutthem, baby. Because this is about one guy winning.
But Pollina should be reminded of two words before he gets too far into this mess: Peter Clavelle. Yep, the fellow who tried the same thing and got his political ass handed to him. Why? Because people sniffed out the obvious principle problem inherent in years worth of bashing Dems and then a sudden (read: personally opportunistic) transformation. Sorry, but that creates a hell of a lot of electoral cognitive dissonance from the gitgo.
And Welch is facing the same problem. Welch ran and was elected on a record to “change the course” in Washington but, since being there, has all too often been voting in favor of the same old course. Welch to Vermonters: Never mind. Welch was always a moderate but ran as fire-breathing liberal, thus creating an expectation that he cannot and probably will not live up to. If you don’t believe me, take a look at this Welch advertisement from last year and pay close attention to the promise that he’d be “changing the course on Iraq” with a Democratic majority in Congress. It’s also fun to note the fuel prices in the ad: Gas at $2.34 and he promised to change that, too. Hmm, I guess at $3.05 it did change.
As we learned from the large and passionate turnout last Sunday, Vermonters are looking for some truth and consistency in their political leaders. The Record gets it. And growing numbers of Vermonters get it. But by the time the likes of Welch and the increasingly principle-less Progs get it, the party will be over – for them.
The voter’s message is really quite simple: Just give us some truth.
Oh, the Luxury of Discussing Manners in a Time of War…
November 12, 2007 | 12 Comments
Oh boy, democracy can be difficult sometimes. And that’s about how I’d summarize yesterday’s meeting between Congressman Peter Welch and the ad hoc group of anti-war activists in Barre. It wasn’t pretty, for sure. But it was necessary and essential for the public to have those opportunities and for our elected officials to participate in them. So, to everyone who took the time to come out and speak up – including Peter Welch – I say: thank you.
Frankly, I was moved by the passion of the day. I thought of other great passionate moments during our nation’s history when emotions were on high as a result of a military or civil liberty mess we were caught up in the time. You know, sometimes when things are stuck as they so obviously are with the Iraq occupation, the people of this democracy need to provide a little push and pull to get things moving. And so it was.
And I thought of Ethan Allen yesterday, too. I envisioned how proud he would have been by the total and complete unstructured “realness” going on in that room. It was power and the powerless. It was passion and frustration. It was a whimper and a primal scream. It was – by and large – a room crammed with people who basically want the same thing but feel absolutely and completely stuck.
Was it perfect? Hell no. But this little leaderless group busted our asses to try and make it work on three days notice. Try it some time. Pick your issue. Gather your friends. Rent the room. Secure the microphones. Contact the media. Set the agenda. Arrange the speakers. Try to think about and plan all the things that might go wrong – or right. Make contingency plans. In other words, make it happen. Take an issue you believe in, stand on a soapbox of your choosing and ask everyone who will listen if they want to join you. Don’t spend a nickel. Just use your voice, your phone and friends. And then, if you’ve got anything left, hold the meeting. Go for it.
I’m proud to have been one of the more than thirty people who pulled this meeting off. As I’ve written here before, I have been nothing but inspired and energized by these very fine people who are willing to ignore Bush’s war-time advice to basically shut-up and shop and, instead, stand up and speak.
Oddly, much of the post-meeting pontificating has centered on the “manners” displayed at the event, with much of it coming from the same good people who ate the pill of hope last year that led them to the rather starry-eyed proclamations that a Democratic-majority in Congress would solve all our problems. Yeah, you know the folks, the same ones who are now telling us to just wait until Hillary/Obama/Edwards get into office and then – then! – it’ll all be solved. I really wish I could believe in that. Life would really be much easier. And I wouldn’t have to worry about actually taking a public stand beyond writing a check and pulling a lever.
But as I was reading one pontificating blogger comment after another today about the “manners” and the “civility” and the “process” of yesterday’s meeting from people who didn’t bother to attend it but cherish the right to sit on their asses and bitch – oops, was that not polite? – I zipped over to an Iraqi blogger site and read the report of a family who had their house riddled with American-made bullets recently. And I envisioned this poor family, crushed and agonizing over their now crippled child, witnessing the debate happening in Vermont today over whether or not 100 anti-war activists were fair or polite enough to their elected official who has repeatedly voted to fund the war he says he hates. Oh, if they only had the luxury to ponder such nonsense.
The truth of the matter is that the group that organized the meeting yesterday served up softballs to Peter Welch that he should have hit out of the park. While the do-nothing crowd continues to feign sleepy “outrage” over the “yes or no” questions we wanted to ask Welch, no one has actually printed those questions. What, for example, is so “hostile” about asking Welch these questions: Will you vote against any and all bills that include funding for the Iraq war? Will you do everything in your power to prevent war with Iran? Will you support reparations for Iraq? Will you support Iraq sovereignty over their oil and water? Will you support efforts to bring home all contract and mercenary troops now?
Peter Welch and the entire Congress have to vote “yes or no” all day long on questions like these that come up in specific legislation. And yesterday we asked Welch to mimic the congressional model of having time to speak and then providing “yes or no” answers – or vice versa. But it was Welch who had the tantrum about the process, a tantrum that turned a civil meeting into the chaos that ensued.
Personally, I think everyone should take a deep breath and ponder the fact that we are a nation at war. There are bombs dropping and bullets flying at this very moment that are taking and changing people’s lives and continuing to devastate what is supposed to be a sovereign nation. That is what matters. And that is what needs to be stopped.
We took a stab at putting this war back on the agenda and, frankly, given all the discussion and media coverage, I think we succeeded. If you don’t like how it transpired, show us how you’d like it done. We’re all ears. Our meetings are open to the public. But, please, don’t just sit on your hands, do nothing, and, worse, turn an urgent need to stop an illegal and immoral occupation into a discussion of meeting etiquette.
Because there’s nothing civil about a civil war.
It’s Democracy Day in Barre — Come Meet Welch and Speak Out Against War
November 11, 2007 | 1 Comment
Here we go again, launching into yet another dance with democracy. This time, however, we’re actually going to have the opportunity to converse with our congressman, Peter Welch. Yep, today’s the day we throw open the barn doors of discourse, invite the public and our elected official to sit down for a long chat, and – hopefully – come together with a plan to jumpstart the anti-war movement and end the Iraq war NOW. Mmm, nothing like the smell of hope on a chilly November morning.
For those who’ve been donning their orange, scouting for their big buck or otherwise placing themselves in a self-imposed media blackout, let me repeat the specifics of the day: Peter Welch will be meeting with anti-war activists today (November 11th) at Barre’s Aldrich Public Library at 1:30 pm to answer our questions and talk about what we hope are our mutual plans to end the Iraq war.
We worked hard for this meeting. Many of us were arrested (twice) in our efforts to speak with Welch. And four of us are still facing a court appearance on December 4th to answer to the charge of trespassing in our congress member’s office while trying to have the conversation we’re going to have today. To Welch’s credit, he did reverse course and he has agreed to meet with us. And for that, we thank him.
Hopefully, today’s meeting will be about turning the page and breathing new life and energy into the task of stopping the war. It has been an unspeakable tragedy for countless people – the Iraqi people, especially, who have seen their homeland wrecked and ravaged. But thousands of U.S. soldiers have also given their lives for this ill-fated and illegal mission. Sadly, they followed the orders handed down by a Bush administration that has so obviously lost its moral compass and sense of justice.
There is no disputing the facts when it comes to how devastating and unjust this war has been. That’s why poll after poll shows that more than 70% of the public want it to end now. And it’s our duty – as citizens and, in the case of our meeting partner today, congressmen – to do whatever we can right here and right now to come together, to be creative, to be strong in our numbers, and to be relentless in the single-minded pursuit of ending this war. That, my friends, is what we owe our soldiers, the Iraqis, and the world on this Veteran’s Day.
People also need to understand that this meeting with Peter Welch is only a small part of what the newly formed ad hoc anti-war group has been working on. Yeah, it’s nameless and leaderless, but it’s been filling rooms with its energy and ideas for taking anti-war activism to the streets and halls of power. Because we’re not just working to get better votes from our congressional delegation, we’re working to create a peace culture that will reject future war endeavors (with Iran, for example). And if you want to be a part of it, send me an email (mcolby@broadsides.org) and I’ll get you on the list.
I hope you can get to Barre today to be a part of the meeting. It’s certainly got its fair share of media coverage (click here for the Burlington Free Press article). And, speaking of media coverage, I’ll be on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show on Monday morning at 9:30 to discuss the meeting and whatever else Mr. Mark wants to discuss.
Let’s roll.
Posts
