July 2006


I was just scanning my recent Site Meter visitor stats, in a haze of short-lived narcissistic rapture after just realizing I was linked to from MSNBC…

And I thought, hmmm… this is an interesting recent visitor…

Domain Name af.mil ? (Military)
IP Address ###.###.###.# (The Pentagon)
ISP The Pentagon
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Maryland
City : Upper Marlboro
Lat/Long : 38.8357, -76.7738 (Map)
Language English (United States)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor
Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 16 bits
Time of Visit Jul 20 2006 4:00:15 pm
Last Page View Jul 20 2006 4:00:29 pm
Visit Length 14 seconds
Page Views 3
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://www.peasantsw…itchforks.com/point/
Visit Exit Page http://www.peasantsw…itchforks.com/point/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time Jul 20 2006 4:00:15 pm
Visit Number 3,913

Either this proves there really are liberals in the military…

Or, I’m now on a list…

Or both.

(And, to clarify, I removed the IP address myself. That’s not some super-double secret Pentagon wizardry at work.)

Wow, Will at Clicked was nice enough to post the email I sent to him, pointing out that the Netroots didn’t actually grow out of the Dean campaign, as he had suggested.

So, if you clicked, thank you…

I’ve been catapulting the propaganda since April 7, 2006.

But, I may email him again to clarify what might already be obvious: I don’t doubt that the term “netroots” was coined by Jerome Armstrong during the Dean campaign…

But, the main point was that the emerging internet-connected grassroots movement started before Dean’s campaign. MoveOn.org is an obvious example.

But, hey, despite what you might think, we homespun Vermonters are not above a little lust for celebrity.

So, thanks Will!

Looking at my web stats, I just noticed that someone searching for “creative bbq area photos” decided to click on this top 10 listing…

What’s the Point? » BBQ Photoblogging: High Bandwidth Edition I would be remiss if I failed to point out that there are some really freaking weird BBQ photos over at Odum’s site — and I mean freaking weird.
peasantswithpitchforks.com/point/2006/07/10/bbq-photoblogging-high-bandwidth-edition/ - 13k - 16 Jul 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

Wouldn’t you?

I guess just about anyone would be drawn in by “really freaking weird BBQ photos.”

But, hey, a special VDB-inspired elaborate welcome to all you BBQ enthusiasts.

Thom Hartmann just read the famous passage below. And though I had read it before, I felt moved to publish it here today.

I’m reprinting it exactly as is from Information Clearing House

They Thought They Were Free

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of “They Thought They Were Free” First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

“What no one seemed to notice,” said a colleague of mine, a philologist, “was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

“You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time.”

“Those,” I said, “are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’”

“Your friend the baker was right,” said my colleague. “The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

“Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late.”

“Yes,” I said.

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

“But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

“But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

“You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

“Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

“What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know.”

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

“I can tell you,” my colleague went on, “of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom.”

“And the judge?”

“Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know.”

I said nothing.

“Once the war began,” my colleague continued, “resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was ‘defeatism.’ You assumed that there were lists of those who would be ‘dealt with’ later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a ‘victory orgy’ to ‘take care of’ those who thought that their ‘treasonable attitude’ had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

“Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it.”

Copyright notice: Excerpt from pages 166-73 of They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©1955, 1966 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the University of Chicago Press. (Footnotes and other references included in the book may have been removed from this online version of the text.)

Milton Mayer
They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45
©1955, 1966, 368 pages
Paper $19.00 ISBN: 0-226-51192-8

Jamison Foser provides a very good summary of the latest installment of “My Favorite Unhinged Left-leaning Blogger.”

This episode focuses on the push-back by Greenwald, Sargent and others who ask the question: ~Why do demonstrably offensive right-leaning commenters keep getting invites to appear in the national media, helping to legitimize even the most heinous of comments?~

Make no mistake about it: Coulter, et al., do push the debate to the right. When they launch a full-scale assault on The New York Times, the major news media come along for the ride, exploring a “debate” between conservatives who think Times editors and reporters should be hung from the nearest tree and journalists who think they shouldn’t be.

Here’s who appeared on the July 2 edition of CNN’s Reliable Sources to talk about The New York Times flap: Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, Washington Post editor and columnist Gene Robinson, former Post ombudsman Geneva Overholser, and “radio talk show host and blogger” Hugh Hewitt.

That’s three journalists and Hewitt, a partisan (actual Hewitt book title: If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends Upon It) with an interesting approach to journalism: while director of the Richard Nixon presidential library, Hewitt reportedly said: “I don’t think we’d ever open the doors to Bob Woodward. He’s not a responsible journalist.”

What’s missing? A progressive media critic. Someone who might argue that not only is the right-wing complaint about the Times story on the Bush administration’s bank-tracking program off-base, but that the Times‘ real shortcoming in recent years has been its repetition of conservative misinformation and its failure to adequately challenge the Bush administration.

And Media Matters encourages you to take action.

“World War III”, the new scare-the-bejesus-out-of-the-voters product launch from the GOP, courtesy of Newt Gingrich.

And I’ve got some new additions to the Vermont blogroll…

Caleb Daniloff, added for “what i saw today,” his wonderfully perceptive reflections on life in Vermont. I really like his VPR commentaries, too. And he dated a friend of mine in college.

Peter Freyne, for being, well, Peter Freyne.

Charity Tensel’s She’s Right, the Grande Dame of the Vermont conservative blogosphere. Though we may not agree on a variety of issues (but probably more agreement than one would imagine), she struck me as a very decent person at the BBQ. And she’s a fellow former Rutlandian, to boot.

Mark Floegel, for great political and social commentary, with the occasional tie-in to life in Vermont.

And Haik Bedrosian’s Burlington Pol, for being, well, Haik.

For Bill and Evening

For Bill and Evening...

In this current installment of Darren Allen SnarkWatch (OK, this is the first - and, who knows - maybe the last), I’d like to address two items that he is SHOCKED, SHOCKED to learn about…

One, he finds the Welch campaign’s response to learning of $21,000, spent on Martha Rainville’s behalf, to be whiny and insincere. And speculates that when the next quarterly reports come out, we’ll be sure to see that “the Democrat money machine in Washington is spreading its largesse to Welch.”

But, PoliticsVT is reporting a somewhat different story (my emphasis):

According to reports, the Republican’s national US House campaign spent over $21,000 on Vermont’s US House race further dividing a possible clean campaign pledge between Democrat Peter Welch and Republican Martha Rainville.

Rainville, according to the press, was shocked [SHOCKED, SHOCKED] when she learned that the national GOP had done a poll in Vermont. Rainville said that she would call the GOP in Washington and ask them what questions were being asked and if it was a “push poll.”

Wow, that’s a little different scenario, isn’t it?

And second, he’s troubled by the Sanders campaign’s response to learning of Tarrant staffers videotaping his campaign stops. He writes (my emphasis)…

Sanders and Welch and Tarrant and Rainville and James Douglas and Scudder Parker and every other major candidate always send emissaries to their opponents [sic] events. It’s as old a trick as they come…

But, uh oh, Peter Freyne has this to say (my emphasis)…

P.S. Yes, confirmed Lennon, that was the “Tarrant for Senate” campaign’s office manager Layla Gray grilling Bernie about his sugar contribution at the spaghetti dinner Sanders’ campaign held on Saturday in Swanton. Eyewitnesses say the Tarrant staffer did not tell the crowd who she worked for, and kept interrupting Sanders when he attempted to answer her question.

Lennon told “Inside Track” Ms. Gray had every right to be there and ask questions as a private citizen.

Technically, yes. But it is in rather poor taste, Ol’ Tim, for a campaign staffer. At least in Vermont. Can’t remember it ever happening before in the Green Mountains.

Maybe it’s kosher in your native New Hampshire, but in Vermont, the paid-staff doesn’t play “average citizen” at an opponent’s campaign event.

OK, so who’s right? (And I recognize that they are commenting on two slightly separate topics: Allen adds the videotape angle).

Odum was nice enough to say at the Political BBQ last Sunday that it was good that I don’t have any real inside knowledge of Vermont pol’s proclivities; that I might be able to report from the perspective of the average Vermonter’s media-generated perspective of the political climate.

So, I say again, who’s right, here?

Is Darren Allen correct when he says that “Politics, as most observers know by now, is a dirty game that has only one acceptable outcome — to win.”

Or is Peter Freyne accurately positing a much rosier portrait of the traditions of the Great State of Vermont?

(By the way, it appears that the reference to the BBQ and Odum are missing from the print edition of Freyne’s Inside Track. I’m sure (hope?) this was just edited down for space concerns, but…

Does the Inside Track blog Freyne says is looking for sponsors - read: Seven Days is trying to find funding to pay Peter for a few more hours a week - not want to highlight the consistent work being done by the future competition?

Who knows? But, fun to speculate about, eh?)

[Crossposted at Green Mountain Daily]

I could quibble with some things in this to be sure, but, this may be the best Hillary Clinton article I’ve read this year…

The title you link to from the home page is lame:

WP: Hillary Clinton vs. herself.

However, it softens when you get to the main story (strange how that works, huh?):

Among some voters, it’s Hillary vs. herself
N.Y. senator stirs strong feelings, pro and con

But, after that, there’s not too much to get flustered about…

‘Too stiff and packaged’
But some voters wonder what is behind this controlled persona. “I was just talking to my friends about this,” said Jeny Guy, 55, a registered independent from Falls Church, who expressed a “favorable” view of Clinton but said she would not vote for her. “I find her too stiff and packaged.”

“I guess she would do a good job, but I just don’t think she can get the votes,” said Julie Troy of Michigan, who describes herself as an independent and a liberal but says she definitely would not vote for Clinton. “I find that men don’t like her and that’s a problem. . . . I don’t think we’re ready for her.”

Those close to her say that she is engaging, kind and funny among friends but that she opens the door to just a handful of intimates who have a long history with her.

“She will define herself, and we will have the money to do it,” said one close adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Clinton has forbidden those close to her to speculate publicly about 2008. “People have to get to know her, know that she was once a Republican, that she’s a big Methodist. . . . That will happen.”

My mother was, at one time, a member of the National Public Relations Committee of the National Education Association and had the pleasure of meeting Hillary Clinton on at least one occasion…

She described her as every bit as warm as some say she is. But, there’s no denying the “Ice Queen” vibe that she sometimes projects.

One hopes that smart people around her, including Peter Daou, can help her connect with voters. Cuz, if she is the nominee, I sure hope she wins.

Real quick, Zack Exley has a great diary up on Daily Kos…

The result of the Dean campaign magic was very concrete: tens of millions of dollars. Tens of millons. That’s the beautiful, life-saving, nation-saving thing that’s going on here. That’s the easiest-to-see way the Dean campaign really did change American politics forever: magic, emotion, passion, dreams, all that hokey stuff — now there’s a way to convert it all into the cold hard cash  it takes to put a candidate on top. (And yes, dear netroots, the cash is still key.)

Do you remember how simple the equation was before Dean? Remember how candidates with access to large donors were the shoe-ins? And how Leno and Letterman were making a joke out of Dean for evening thinking he could throw his hat in the ring? Then these half a million people showed up from out of nowhere to give him more money than any Democratic primary candidate had ever seen. The vast majority of that money came in response to the campaign’s emails that, at least for a while, succeeded in making that direct connection (especially when the money really counted, such as around the first Dean Bat).

The Democratic base went on to contribute hundreds of million dollars to the presidential campaign, the DNC and Democratic-aligned campaigning organizations in 2004.

OK, back to your own ‘08 dreams. The new fact is that whichever candidate makes that kind of sincere and emotional connection again, will be rewarded with insane amounts of money during the primary.

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are using the now Unilever-owned corporation to push for social issues again, with the new American Pie flavor.

From the Burlington Free Press

Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. is returning to its social activist roots, attracting its aging hippie founders back to the company for the first time in years, as it lobbies to shift federal spending from nuclear missiles to children’s programs.

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are leading the company’s American Pie campaign, designed to persuade consumers to demand that the federal government shift its spending priorities. Their goal is to shift $13 billion that now pays to maintain thousands of nuclear bombs into pediatric health insurance, schools or other programs for children.

“Do you really need 10,000 nuclear bombs?” Greenfield asked in a telephone interview from Washington, where he and Cohen kicked off the campaign Tuesday. “How many nuclear bombs are you going to send anywhere? Five? Ten?”…

The company has created a new ice cream flavor — American Pie made with apple pie ice cream with apples and pie crust pieces. Lids from pints of ice cream will carry information about the campaign and ways to get involved. A new section of Ben & Jerry’s Web site is dedicated to the initiative, and Cohen and Greenfield have set out on a multi-city tour to carry the message.

“I think that business is the most powerful force in the country,” Cohen said. “When business starts using its voice for the benefit of the country as a whole, not just in its narrow self-interest, it can really be the force that can make the changes that need to be made.”

More info can be found at the Ben & Jerry’s site.

« futurepast »