A Long History of Aggression

Editor, Vermont Commons:

I have read a few [issues] of your Vermont Commons with much interest.  I wish you well with your attempt to gain independence from the central government of the United States.  But in order to understand the reasons for the uncontrolled power of the present government and improve on any replacement government, I believe one has to debunk some of the American myths and beliefs.     

Most of these myths and beliefs arose out of what we often call the American Civil War (more accurately described as the war of Northern aggression; see below).  As Shelby Foote said in Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary, “(T)he Civil War made us what we are today.”  Probably the best analysis of the political issues at the heart of the Civil War is contained in Jefferson Davis’ “The Rise and Fall of the Confederate States of America.”   

The primary myth is that we have a Constitutional government.  The central government only pays attention to the Constitution when it serves its interest.  This policy was started by our presumptive best president, Abraham Lincoln.  For example, Mr. Lincoln, usurping the power of the Congress, unconstitutionally declared war on the Confederate States after Fort Sumter when he called for 70,000 volunteers to suppress the Southern states.  Mr. Lincoln unlawfully arrested members of Maryland’s legislature because he feared they would vote for secession.  Mr. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for political prisoners who opposed his war.  The list goes on and on, and yet we honor Mr. Lincoln as the best president we have ever had.     

Many succeeding presidents have, at least by action, tried to emulate Mr. Lincoln so that they, too, could be a “great war president.”  Mr. Lincoln provoked the Confederates to fire on Fort Sumter by secretly sending reinforcements after promising to remove the federal garrison at Fort Sumter.  Franklin Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor by demanding they withdraw from China.  And my generation can never forget how Lyndon Johnson provoked and exaggerated the attack in the Bay of Tonkin in order to draw us into a disastrous war in Vietnam.  Now George W. Bush has extended this policy to its logical conclusion: an unprovoked attack on the sovereign nation of Iraq.  And just as Mr. Lincoln changed the reason for the Civil War from “saving the Union” to “freeing the slaves,” George W. Bush has changed the reason for the Iraq war from “eliminating weapons of mass destruction” to “bringing democracy.”    

Our country has a long history of aggression.  Shortly before the Civil War, the United States conducted a shameful war of aggression on a weaker neighbor, Mexico.  So it was only natural that the central government conducted a war of aggression on the Southern states when they threatened to derail “Manifest Destiny” by forming their own country.  We have never given up on Manifest Destiny and our belief that we know how the world should live.     

But if we really want to know what is driving our policies, we need to “follow the money.”  Just as the money and power moved north as a result of the Civil War, we need to stop economically exploiting other nations for our advantage.  When we forego the temptation to extract economic advantage by applying military pressure on other countries, our standard of living will probably decrease. But even if we have to sacrifice some of our luxuries, we will be richer because we will regain our freedoms.  

Eric Stewart
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Vermont Yankee In A Global Context

Editor, Vermont Commons:

Entergy’s affable radio jingle for Vermont Yankee is nothing more than malignant propaganda, shrink-wrapped in jovial soliloquy and mellifluous melody.    

It seems the purveyors of nuclear monoliths seek to trick the public into appreciating actinides (what are responsible for long-term radiation in spent fuel) as they mutate and decay the fabric of life – if not for thousands of years, billions of years. Each 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility produces approximately 500 pounds of plutonium and 30 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, annually. There is no safe way to dispose of this.   

Considering the current dilemma of depleting energy sources (or the fact that it has finally implicated its way into mainstream media) and the increasing value of uranium, the alarm of a recrudescence of nuclear proliferation as an energy candidate (and of course for nuclear weaponry) is also increasing.   

Depleted uranium (DU) is used in high-explosive incendiaries and has been released over Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia. DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and emits an ionizing radiation responsible for irreversible DNA and genetic damage, and ultimately death. Its fallout circumnavigates the globe in the jet streams. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have been affected (their physical appearance brutally altered for the rest of their only lives) by the incessant U.S. aerial deployment of depleted uranium since the onset of the first Gulf War.    

And then there are the birth defects on account of the latter: Iraqi and Afghani infants born without heads, with anomalously oversized heads, with deformed limbs. The pictures make you tremble with disgust, anger, and despair.     The rapacious effects of uranium mining have been felt worldwide from Saskatchewan, Canada, all the way to Rum Jungle (perhaps the world’s worst case of negligent mining) in Australia. Uranium mining is culpable for radiological contamination of the environment and impacting groundwater systems. Environmental-protection measures have yet to be effectively administered throughout the world’s mines.            

The regional land surrounding Yucca Mountain (a proposed waste repository and current weapons testing site) legally is not U.S. territory but is Shoshone Nation “sovereignty” (aside from U.S. gold-mining in the area – which is also massively annihilative to the land and people). This can be backed lawfully by the Enabling Act and the Ruby Valley Treaty.              In Canada, 10 lakes in the Lake Huron region are now radioactive waste sites from uranium mining. Uranium mined from Elliot Lake in Ontario was used for U.S. nuclear weapons, and the area is now infecund and emits dangerous levels of radiation [affecting] the Northern Ojibwa people – all of this is, strangely, like genocidal procedure, considering the current conditions of indigenous peoples and lands as an effect of an alarming history of violence.    

As for the green-façade the NEI bulwarks itself with, this is fallacious to a high degree. Uranium mining is one of the most intensive CO2-emitting industrial operations; for every kilowatt of power generated, 34-60 grams of CO2 are emitted from the mining, fuel enrichment, and plant construction – and emissions levels will only increase with demand. It should be known that in order to replace the entire world's fossil fuels, more than 2,000 new nuclear facilities would have to be built. (See http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/campaign/climate/lovelock/Open_Letter_to_Lov...)
Proliferation of nuclear energy is untenable and ultimately violent as it assails the ecology of the planet and its peoples.   

For Vermonters to sign on for another 20 years with Yankee is a Faustian endeavor that will undermine the morale of a Vermont republic – engaging surreptitiously (with intent or not) with the U.S. foreign/domestic policies that reflect ignominiously upon the citizens not directly involved in the Establishment’s politick-protocol, and the laggard environmental policies that allow corporations to continue to trash the planet while citizens are urged to step up to paltry efforts such as the Ten- Percent Challenge.     

Here is an estimable challenge: Question Douglas’s veto of the decommissioning bill, and say no to another contract with Vermont Yankee.   

Frank Smecker
Richmond

VC: Secession and Substance

Editor, Vermont Commons:

Thank you for a most excellent and intriguing read! And also for the quick send-delivery time, for me to receive my sample copies of Vermont Commons. Thanks for the bumper sticker, too.    

To be honest, I find only two separatist movements appealing – the Vermont Second Republic, and the one in the Pacific Northwest, though that one is more unstable and is . . . divided because there are two movements that are pushing for independence; one is the “Green crowd” and the other is the “White nationalist crowd,” and if you want to add more stuff to the mix, we can throw in the constitutionalists in Wyoming and Montana. But getting back to what I had to say about yours is that I really have found great enjoyment from reading the two papers.    

The manner in which they are composed is excellent! The propaganda value is worth its weight in gold, and in lives if you manage to secede from this draconian monster. Instead of using it as a radical leftist vehicle, or even just plain radical, you have put together something real; what I mean is along with the articles on independence from the federal government you also speak of local issues, agricultural details, varied speakers, world events, the oil-fuel issue, economics, and a host of other situations which require thus far my modest admiration.    

Good job. I have decided to subscribe and plan to read your more in-depth articles. My family history is rooted there, from the first French-Canadian settlers to my English blood that fought at Lexington and Concord and also managed a bit of Tea in Boston one fine morning. It just shows that my ancestors were radicals – they believed in independence and knew that when a government became corrupt it was time to separate.    

That meant bloodshed. From the example of the USSR’s collapse we see it does not always mean so. Either way, I’ll be around.

Nicholas T.
Pine Beach, New Jersey