Moving would be ok.

I know this may sound inappropriate but.... What a Hoot.

Symbolic it may be, but, I now know of two towns where I might feel at home.

Wonder if they need a shrink.... 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 873 comments) on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 8:02:54 PM
 

The Shot at Concord....

has been fired.  Do we have the courage to follow up this courage?

by Michael Morris (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 302 comments) on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 8:27:44 PM
 

Say bye-bye to money

I hope both towns get hit with a boycott just like Berzerkley is getting hit with.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 579 comments) on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 10:39:20 PM
 

Interesting

how for supporters of the Regime, it always comes down to money.

$$$$$

 Cha...ching.... 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 873 comments) on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 7:09:41 AM
 

Very Interesting!

And... what are the fine progressive folks detailed in the links doing with... money? 

http://www.wearenotbuyingit.org/ and 

http://www.impeachbush.tv/events/shop_boycott_070415.html and 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfLWqVdDuJg and 

http://www.alternet.org/story/67577/ and...  

Oh, heck!  Just check out the Google search and see how many silly progressives appear to covet money as a weapon - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=progressive+national+shopping+boycott+&btnG=Search . 

As to the Vermont towns, richard classified their actions appropriately - symbolic.  Article 2 of the petition presumes a priori and without due process (e.g., convening a grand jury and proffering evidence and charges) that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are responsible for the alleged crimes.  To whit, the Article reads as follows: 

"Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities, and shall it be the law of the town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?” 

And progressive scream about the Fascist-like tactics of the said defendants?!?  The fine folk of Brattleboro serve as a fine example of the “Hypocrisy of the Left”, which preaches constantly, “Do as I say, not as I do.” 

While our political process certainly permits and allows such symbolism, I'm concerned about the message these actions send to the rest of the world.  Some certainly felt a quick "thrill" of sticking it to "the Man", but the long-term results are being glossed over in this quick thrill.  In the falsity of claiming to support the Constitution, the people of Brattleboro (as well as a fair number of progressives in general) have become an instrument of America’s downfall and have allowed themselves to be used by foreign entities. Sun Tzu in the “Art of War” states the following - http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html : 

VI  Weak Points and Strong 

13. By discovering the enemy's dispositions and remaining invisible ourselves, we can keep our forces concentrated, while the enemy's must be divided.  

14. We can form a single united body, while the enemy must split up into fractions. Hence there will be a whole pitted against separate parts of a whole, which means that we shall be many to the enemy's few.  

15. And if we are able thus to attack an inferior force with a superior one, our opponents will be in dire straits. 

Militant Islam has found a weakness of most democratic societies (its ignorancy) and is exploiting it by prolonging several military conflicts.  The result of this exploitation is the inward turning of us on ourselves, as witnessed by the recent Vermont vote.  This type of person, and not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy of Fascist Dictators in the Oval Office, is what will hasten America’s demise.  And the irony about it all is that they claim to only represent the “truth”.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1767 comments) on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 8:27:56 AM
 

Here's an Instrument of our Downfall -- Overspending!

Astronomical, Crazy Super-Spending of Fiat money (and our taxes).  You're pointing in the wrong direction again.  There's a huge KABOOM!, and you direct traffic, saying, don't look under this bUSH!  Right HERE in the HEARTLAND, everyone knows this WAR is fantastically expensive to the U.S. economy and citizens, while simulataneously enriching the MIC, et. al.  If America was run like a business -- this Administration would have been FIRED a hundred times over, NO?  The American populace will soon be focused on "Who Stole Their American Dream?!"

Tomgram: William Hartung, The Cost of a Week in HellWarby Tom Engelhardt | March 5, 2008 - 10:19am   How far off were they? Well, it depends on which figure you choose to start with. Here's the range: According to key officials in the Bush administration back in 2002-2003, the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq was either going to cost $60 billion, or $100-$200 billion.

Actually, we can start by tossing that top figure out, since not long after Bush economic advisor Larry Lindsey offered it in 2002, he was shown the door, in part assumedly for even suggesting something so ludicrous.  Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz championed the $60 billion figure, but added that much of the cost might well be covered by Iraqi oil revenues; the country was, after all, floating on a "sea of oil." ("To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he told a congressional hearing.) Still, let's take that $60 billion figure as the Bush baseline. If economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes are right in their recent calculations and this will turn out to be more than a $3 trillion war (or even a $5-7 trillion one), then the Bush administration was at least $2,940,000,000,000 off in its calculations.

Full Article at www.smirkingchimp.com   click here

by boomerang (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 310 comments) on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM
 

Pls. email this around, pass on to city council members etc

Thanks!

by Kathryn Smith (97 articles, 2 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 412 comments) on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 8:31:11 AM
 

Democracy in action is a Beautiful thing...

We so rarely get to see it in this country.

Bush and Cheney are not only the biggest criminals in the history of the U S of A, but they are contending for world honors along with Hitler, Stalin and the boys. There's a constable who visits near my office every so office and while he admits to voting for these crooks TWICE, he is no dummy. He would love to arrest these crooks, and this is in TEXAS!

by Mark Watterson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 9:34:59 AM
 

The Art of War, divide and conquer, abroad and at home.

Hi Tom,

Sorry, this is not a personal affront, but your own inner consternation is vividly evident when you peel back your sophisticated prose and loquaciously vain attempt to "blame the left" for the fall of America.

First, George W. Bush is the President, and last I checked, he is a Republican. He has been in office for two terms, almost 7 ½ years, 2,621 days, and he and he alone, is charged with the executive stewardship of this nation. The Democrats have only a scintilla of majority margins in both chambers of Congress, especially the Senate. And many of them our "Bush Democrats."

Bush can, and does, negate by veto virtually all Democratically-led legislative initiatives, which are usually blocked by Republican filibuster in the Senate first, so they don't even reach Bush's desk. Thereby counteracting any justification that the "left" is some how at fault. The only bills that Bush does sign are ones that are wholly in agreement with his arrogant views after the Democrats have capitulated to his autocratic and petulant demands.

Nobody can argue any longer – with intellectual honesty – that the immense angst and decay in America can be placed at the feet of the democrats; it is all owed to and belongs at the altar of the misanthropic man you seem to grant undue admiration –George W. Bush.

Second, you still erroneously and naively –with apparent great personal alarm – believe that "Militant Islam" is the grand enemy. A rag-tag band of amorphous extremists, that we helped arm in the 1980's, with little or no advanced technology by today's standards – a half a world away; in your mind, is a real and present danger to America.

Simple put, they are not. We, the people of America, not red states or blue states, not liberals or conservatives, but collectively, we are all to blame for much of what has happened due to our own sad apathy and complacency. We have lost the definition of civics and failed our civic duties as stewards of our own nation that once belonged to the people.

Now, it belongs to the mega-corporations, the military-industrial complex and huge political party apparatuses that love power the same way unadulterated greed –avarice – loves money.

There are a thousand books that make a thousand cuts into why the Bush administration has succeeded in its true mission. The manifesto to expand the plenary power of the presidency beyond the grasp of the people or our Constitution – and why we have failed to reign in an executive branch gone berserk under the ruse and guise of a phantom foreign enemy. An enemy that never posed a serious threat to America, except for being a menace to the euphemistically-termed "American Interests" – imperialism, hegemony and oil.

Finally, Tom, you are obviously a conservative man and I am proudly liberal. However, you appear to be an intelligent person, which is why I have utter misgivings in how someone with your seemingly keen intellect can be so deluded by the larger and more nefarious agenda of the neoconservatives. Chiefly, to titrate us through the process of accretion to amass unmitigated power aimed at shutting down our open society. Before you accuse me of hypocrisy by declaring my own perceived consternations, I would highly suggest reading a few books to understand my perspective, Naomi Wolf's, "The End of America" and Kevin Philips', "American Theocracy."

Have you judiciously studied the principles and zealot ideologies of Leo Strauss or Irving Kristol, as I have? The very same neoconservative philosophy that resulted in bringing to power Dick Cheney, David Addington and the architects of the very seditious and dangerous "unitary executive theory" (a euphemism for despot or tyrant.)

See, we are both foolish and impish pawns, with our quid pro quos, the only difference is I have been through the looking glass and no longer see the grand illusion that America professes to be; I see America for what it is: A malevolent hegemony.

Tom I always take pleasure in a civil, yet contentious debate, with opposing view holders. However, I am afraid; I no longer find credibility in those that still hold candidly that Bush and his subordinates are anything but a group of warmongers and interlopers, and the "liberals" are to blame. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, divide and conquer. We are all to blame, Tom.

Peace.

Frank R.
Senior Editor OEN

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 12:56:09 PM
 

Agree and Disagree

Frank, I took no offense was taken, and I found your response very much well-constructed. Of course, though, I do have a response.

"...[Y]our own inner consternation is vividly evident when you peel back your sophisticated prose and loquaciously vain attempt to "blame the left" for the fall of America."

I wasn't solely blaming the Left for the fall of America with my comment regarding the "Hypocrisy of the Left". Rather, I was using this particular action/result in Brattleboro, which was championed by the Left, as an illustration of how political factions today act recklessly without due consideration to the long-term impacts of their perceived short-term gains. My not mentioning the Right did not absolve them of a culpability in the deterioration of America's standing (internal or external).

"Nobody can argue any longer – with intellectual honesty – that the immense angst and decay in America can be placed at the feet of the democrats; it is all owed to and belongs at the altar of the misanthropic man you seem to grant undue admiration –George W. Bush."

Yes, President Bush has my support because I believe he's displayed a conviction to principles that is admirable, even though a great many mock and berate him for such conviction.  I know my support based upon the President's principles may be alien to you (and... a great many... others), but that doesn't render my opinion of the man invalid.

But to claim that the "angst and decay" witnessed today in America can ALL be assigned to President Bush is... silly. As the President, he is the person "in charge" and, therefore, possesses the "Bull's-eye" on his back. Thus, it's only natural that President Bush would be blamed for the observed "ills" by Joe Six-pack because it's convenient and simple (just the way he likes it fed to him). But the last I checked, Joe isn't too happy about Congress' performance either.

There's a clear sharing of responsibility here between the Executive and Legislative. Regardless of the level of majority that the Democrats enjoy or not in Congress and as the majority party in both houses they set the legislative agenda and can (as well as have) influence the final drafting of the bills sent to the President (and sometimes they ensure that the bills WILL be vetoed). While it may be concluded that like the President the Democrats (and some liberal Republicans) are adhering to their principles, I disagree in that these folks are career politicians and "in it" for the long haul (20+ years). The President is here for eight years – tops. Congress occasionally forgets that they work for the People when is acts in a politically expedient manner that largely benefits them on either the collective and/or personal levels.

"Second, you still erroneously and naively –with apparent great personal alarm – believe that "Militant Islam" is the grand enemy. A rag-tag band of amorphous extremists, that we helped arm in the 1980's, with little or no advanced technology by today's standards – a half a world away; in your mind, is a real and present danger to America."

So, you view the loss of life by militant Islam in Bali (2002), Madrid (2004), Beslan (2004), London (2005), Mumbai (2006) as... aberrations by a rag-tag band? And these examples are only the "big ones" because I've left out all the other smaller (i.e., less than hundreds killed) incidents - click here . If that rag-tag band (Why am I picturing the 1970s version of "Battlestar Galactica" here?) has the will and capacity to do "it" there and have demonstrated the same to do "it" here (WTC 93 and 01), then ABSOLUTELY I regard militant Islam as a real and present danger to America.

In light of your apparently being nonplussed about my level of alarm with this issue, I must ask you, Frank, will it take the loss of additional lives on America soil at the will of militant Islam and their version of Allah for you to view this religious movement as anything but a threat?

"We, the people of America, not red states or blue states, not liberals or conservatives, but collectively, we are all to blame for much of what has happened due to our own sad apathy and complacency. We have lost the definition of civics and failed our civic duties as stewards of our own nation that once belonged to the people."

On this point I agree with you in that the majority are more content with "bread and circus" instead of nation building. However, I would point to the unilateral positions that the two major parties have adopted over the past 15+ years as the primary sources of this apathy. If Joe Six-pack sees BoBo the Congressman and Xena the Senator fighting like Arnold in a Terminator movie, I think the end result is that Joe's going to change the channel.

What's really evaporated is a sense that we're Americans first and then... whatever - African, Hindu, homosexual, etc... I have my thoughts on what's caused this loss (i.e., political correctness), but I digress.

"There are a thousand books that make a thousand cuts into why the Bush administration has succeeded in its true mission. The manifesto to expand the plenary power of the presidency beyond the grasp of the people or our Constitution – and why we have failed to reign in an executive branch gone berserk under the ruse and guise of a phantom foreign enemy. An enemy that never posed a serious threat to America, except for being a menace to the euphemistically-termed "American Interests" – imperialism, hegemony and oil."

Whoops! Now you lost me, Frank. This might have more weight IF President Bush et al. were hanging around longer than the Constitutionally-mandated eight years. But I assert that he and they won't be governing much longer. We'll know the reality of this assertion shortly, but lacking any credible evidence, I'll presume President Bush is leaving office.

Therefore, I think you're pinning too much on the individual here, and I find it very dubious that the "military industrial complex" hand picks the presidential nominees and/or president come each election cycle. For that, I need evidence – and lots of it.  Now, this doesn't mean that they attempt to influence a candidate, but so don't "We the People" but on a much less unified scale.

"Before you accuse me of hypocrisy by declaring my own perceived consternations, I would highly suggest reading a few books to understand my perspective, Naomi Wolf's, 'The End of America' and Kevin Philips', 'American Theocracy.'"

I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy per se, but I am accussing thos who voted "yea" in Brattleboro.  I'm not a big fan of Ms. Wolf and her continued allegations of fascism, but I'll consider the suggestion.

"Have you judiciously studied the principles and zealot ideologies of Leo Strauss or Irving Kristol, as I have?"

I suspect that I have not. I tend toward the classical conservative ideology and shy away from neo-conservative approaches to issues.

"See, we are both foolish and impish pawns, with our quid pro quos, the only difference is I have been through the looking glass and no longer see the grand illusion that America professes to be; I see America for what it is: A malevolent hegemony."

I believe this aligns somewhat with my belief that America is no longer the melting pot it once was. Rather, its society resembles a tossed salad with each vegetable trying to assert its own importance, neglecting the reality that they're all in a salad bowl together and not in individual shrink-wrapped packages. But I think it incorrect to claim that this changed societal attitude is solely a result of governmental leadership, although they've done nothing to stop it.

Instead, I believe that the primary cause for this "I'm for me and screw you" attitude DOES rest with the Left. Since the late 1960s (and some claim even earlier), the liberal political agenda has both subtly and openly advanced PC concepts and approaches such that everyone – liberal, conservative, independent, libertarian, etc... – are acutely cognizant of the words they choose. And if they choose incorrectly, the results are swift and merciless - http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html .

The end result is that PC has created a great fear among Americans as to what the say, write, or think. Perhaps this is only a transitional fear and will be "aged out" of the population, but I think this is overly optimistic. You know that something's not right when you have to speak in whispers to another on a "sensitive" issue – whether you are young or old.

This isn't to say that one of the intentional goals of PC was the weakening of America. I believe it probably was meant to correct a perceived wrong, but the collateral damage is beginning to show itself more clearly today.

"Sun Tzu, The Art of War, divide and conquer. We are all to blame, Tom."

I agree and concur with this statement with the PC exception detailed previously.

Very truly yours,

Tom

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1767 comments) on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 3:38:49 PM
 

Way to go Vermont!

Nice job Vermont, time for other cities across the Nation to join in the "symbolism".  Let BushCo be unwelcome anywhere throughout the land.

Are there any websites tracking the number of municipalities enacting similar "symbolic" measures or otherwise encouraging Congress to act? 

by August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 461 comments) on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 1:01:51 PM