Author: paladin1787

The boots are in the halls

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

When I heard that ICE’s funding was increased so dramatically, I couldn’t just do nothing. You know they target people who *attend* all their immigration hearings, don’t you? Target people trying to do everything right. Why might they want people to behave in unlawful ways? Every possible answer is bone-chilling.

The vast majority of ICE arrestees this year have no criminal records. There are no official repercussions for anyone involved if U.S. citizens are arrested. (Which is illegal.) The administration has set indiscriminate arrest quotas. If you were me, with a seat on the local board, how many of your constituents would have to be taken by masked men for you to try to do something?

Speaking of my board seat: After searching for a place to live in Hartford for about nine months, my partner and I found a house in Lebanon. So we’re moving end of July, and I’m reluctantly leaving the board. As usual, I write here only as myself and certainly don’t speak for the board or town.

For the last meeting where I have a vote—Tuesday July 22—I have proposed a simple ordinance to ban any kind of secret police in Hartford: where you don’t know who’s carrying you away. To be clear: the Hartford PD haven’t been doing this. But ICE have been elsewhere, and the board should make clear they’re not welcome to do it here.

With total anonymity on the table—as it is currently—you might sit at brunch near an ICE agent, in civilian clothes, unaware that just the night before, he fed a small Hartford family into a bureaucratic nightmare that ends in a foreign labor camp from which there is literally no return. And he knew that would be the result. The ICE staffer smiles in your direction. You smile back.

This kind of experience defined life in Nazi Germany. No longer do you have to wonder what that place was like.

For those who watch the board deliberate on Tuesday: don’t let board members you support say they like the general idea but still vote against it locally, on a technicality like “it’s better as a state issue.” That’s precisely the bad-faith argument politicians have been using on abortion (and gun control, gay marriage, etc) for decades. It’s a deflection by powerful people who think you’re naive enough to buy it. I hope you don’t.

In case any board member claims they wanted a bigger “coalition,” or a longer “process” by which this came about… I urge you to remember Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, who gloated that you can dismantle a democracy in front of a liberal’s face piece by piece, and all they’ll do is convene breakout sessions and committee meetings ‘til the boots are in the halls. I urge you to tell the board the *right* decision is simply the one with the right outcome. If the idea is good “on the merits,” then it deserves support no matter the venue, or list of co-sponsors.

As Matthew E. Cochran said, “If you sit down to play a game of chess and your opponent punches you in the face, you’re not going to prevail by getting better at chess.” Now is the time to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. (Technically, that time was long ago, but it is certainly now.)

In the original draft of the ordinance I proposed, the exception for absolutely necessary undercover work was somewhat unclear. So I am posting below a version where that paragraph is slightly amended. I will offer this amendment for consideration at the meeting.

Wow is this concept simple. What should a civil society prevent, and what should it allow? I don’t believe ICE should be able to abduct my neighbors anonymously. If they’re going to come and do that, I want them to at least show their faces and say their names, so the rest of us can decide whether to accept them in polite society. It so happens that something like “social ostracizing” is really important: it may be the only way to prevent fascism.

There is a theoretical basis to anti-fascism. It’s an idea called “the paradox of tolerance.” I urge you to read its summary on Wikipedia. Once you understand it, you too will realize: the only way to truly be nice is to be mean to fascists. So that’s the social dynamic that prevents fascism; what about the official one, of laws and rules?

Democracy is as much about accountability as it is about voting. Because without accountability, you don’t get voting. It eventually goes away. And the only way to hold an *institution* accountable is if its members are, first, identifiable. Being able to identify individuals is just the first step to accountability—but no steps follow without it.

There is a chance this ordinance does not pass Tuesday night. This would mean Hartford tried to take the first step toward securing democracy, and faltered. By golly are the boots in the halls. 

It’s been a great pleasure to serve you this last year-plus on the board. A copy of the amended ordinance follows. It’s scheduled for discussion around 9pm at town hall. If you’re not able to attend, I hope you’ll write in support of it, to selectboard@hartford-vt.org.

~~

Ordinance Against Anonymity of Law Enforcement When Working In Their Official Capacity

WHEREAS, due to the increasingly-common practice of federal immigration officials concealing their identities from the public, including those they are apprehending, while working in their official capacity,

And WHEREAS, due to the soon-to-be-felt influx of federal funding for said immigration agencies,

And WHEREAS, the accountability of law enforcement officials is a bedrock of democracy, and this accountability hinges completely on law enforcement officials’ being identifiable while acting in their official capacities,

The following Ordinance is proposed:

As of the enacting of this ordinance, the Town of Hartford, Vermont requires all law enforcement operating within town limits, from any jurisdiction local state or federal, to leave their faces uncovered when acting in their official capacity, and, to provide their first and last names and badge numbers when asked by any member of the public, including those they may be apprehending, and/or any member of Town staff, and requires that law enforcement personnel allow for whomever is asking to record the identification information for their own future reference.

The only exceptions to the provision on face coverings shall be when there is inclement weather to protect from frostbite, or a strong suspicion of the presence of a communicable disease, or as otherwise addressed during a future epidemic/pandemic by a Police Chief, Town Manager, or Selectboard.

The only exception to both provisions (face covering and disclosure of one’s name) is if the member of law enforcement is working on an undercover assignment given to them by their superior(s) that could only be conducted via the use of an undercover officer.

This ordinance, when passed, is to be communicated to all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.

We live under minority rule

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

Neighbors:

As of Saturday evening, our government has attacked Iran, a state that has not attacked another state with a first strike in more than 300 years. We are doing this to support Israel, a state that made first strikes against five other nations in the last year alone.

One wouldn’t know this from watching pundits (CNN was retroactively manufacturing our consent on Saturday evening), but the vast majority of Americans did not want us to get involved militarily with Iran. As of this month, only between 16% of us (The Economist poll) and 25% (Washington Post poll) thought we *should* attack Iran. This is yet another point of evidence that—and I don’t state this lightly—we live under minority rule. We effectively live under a dictatorship by a class that doesn’t share our interests. Yes, even though we vote.

In case you don’t remember, Kamala Harris ran on a platform of “Iran is our greatest enemy” and “Trump is too lenient on protecting our borders.” It stands to reason that we would not have had a markedly different experience concerning Israel, Iran, or immigration under a Harris presidency—assuming we trust Harris’ campaign promises/messaging.

While I’m proud to help make decisions locally on the Hartford selectboard, that we’ve attacked Iran makes me ashamed to be part of the governing structure generally. (Speaking for myself, not the board or town.)

Don’t let pundits or columnists convince you of the same lie that got us into Iraq 22 years ago. Iran has been letting in the proper international inspectors to watch over its refineries for nuclear power. Given this, it’s highly unlikely the country has made nuclear weapons. Israel, on the other hand, has refused inspectors and the “open secret” is that Israel has up to 60 nuclear warheads. Perhaps the reason Israel hasn’t said this publicly is because, in U.S. law, it’s illegal for us to send a country “military aid” (weapons) to a rogue nuclear state. See:

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/israel-nuclear-weapons/tnamp/

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/israel-nukes-halt-military-aid

I hope you remember that everything is political. That war is never good for working class people. That apartheid is not complicated, and Israel is an apartheid state. That the working class in the U.S. has no political representation.

Remember that the situation we’re in now with Iran would not have been possible without the Biden administration emboldening the Israeli government beyond even their own wildest expectations, according to published interviews with Israeli officials.

And remember that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Our overlords will not go quietly.

For fairer fees for parking

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

Hi all, Brandon Smith here, local board member but not speaking for the board or town government.

I just wanted to recap something that went down at last night’s meeting. We heard a proposal for re-working the ordinance regarding parking and other traffic enforcement in town, which hadn’t been updated since the ’90s. Makes sense that we’d revisit it on the eve of the downtown parking meters, coming this summer.

Again, I’m not the biggest fan of parking meters, but they were funded by a federal grant, and I understand they were implemented to try to ensure spaces aren’t taken over for weeks at a time—which limits spots for customers of businesses. Once the new “Junction House” block takes shape in the area of the Coolidge Hotel, I imagine we’ll have more traffic and *might* start to appreciate the meters.

At any rate, Tuesday night the board heard proposed changes to the parking ordinance. One of those was the fee for a parking violation. Police Chief Connie Kelley said the fee hasn’t been changed from $7 since 1990. I think that’s great. I’m also not opposed to a *slight* bump. $15 was the proposed fee, in line with Hanover’s fee. Elsewhere in the presentation, it was expressed that it could be useful to stay in alignment with Hanover’s practices re: parking. But I say that, when it comes to the fee, we could stand to be lower. Mainly because our median income is lower. I proposed a fee of $11 rather than $15. The board, smaller than usual that night, tabled the discussion and the full board will vote on this proposal at a later meeting. Others proposed free parking on Saturdays—Sundays were always going to be free—and on public holidays. These will also be voted on.

I think $11 is far more appropriate than $15 because, for someone with plenty of cash to spare, the difference between these two numbers doesn’t really matter. But for someone living paycheck to paycheck, as I’ve done most of my life, it really does matter. The clear majority of Americans (60%) don’t make enough money to afford basic costs of living, according to a new study by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity. I’ll paste the URL for an article on it here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-of-living-income-quality-of-life/

The cost of the employee to write tickets was raised at the meeting. If the annual cost of a person to write tickets (all the costs associated with that employee) is $115,000, then five minutes of their time to write a ticket costs about $4.60. Sure, more than half their time won’t be writing tickets. But at $11 per ticket, it should still fund this work.

The board will vote later for a fee structure for the actual parking. I imagine it will be similar to Hanover’s: 25 cents for 15 minutes in the busy zone. (Though again, I will advocate for it to be a smidge lower than Hanover’s.) Their whole fee structure can be found here:

https://www.hanovernh.org/DocumentCenter/View/7042/Proposed-2025-2026-Rates-and-Fees-Schedule?bidId=

I hope you all will support the $11 fee, not $15. And that you’ll support the proposals for free parking on weekends and holidays. As always, we don’t know unless you tell us. Just email selectboard@hartford-vt.org

All my best,

Brandon

Raise a glass to—and your voice for—curbside recycling

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

I’m writing with my perspective only, as one of seven Hartford board members. I too will lose a valuable service in about six weeks’ time: that of curbside recycling. I was one of three members who didn’t vote to end it. I voted “abstain” because that was closest to my personal beliefs. Judging by the letters we’ve received, recycling is clearly one of the most popular services we provide. I voted “abstain” because I didn’t think we should lock ourselves into shovelling money at Casella for the next five years… but I also didn’t think we should cancel this town service without a plan in place to replace the loss.

The night the board voted to discontinue curbside pickup was the third meeting in which we had been told of the final-offer prices from Casella, which fellow board member Erik Krauss has helpfully outlined on this listserv. At each of the three meetings that described the pricing, I raised the point that, with what we’d end up paying each year to Casella, we could buy a new recycling truck outright. It didn’t seem fiscally responsible to fund a huge corporation when we could avoid paying those margins. (I also don’t believe that having more than four times the police officers per capita that other nearby towns have is fiscally responsible, but I digress.)

According to data presented in a board meeting, Hartford’s curbside service occupied one of Casella’s trucks one week out of every two. (Presumably it would collect another town’s recycling the week it didn’t do ours.) If another town also chucked half a million at Casella annually, then the company was raising $1M/year from a truck that cost half a million. Thus it could be said that we were funding a new Casella truck every six months. A truck that would last 15 years. This is the promise of cutting out the middleman: we don’t send those profits away. After perhaps 2 or 2.5 years, given the cost of staffing and new compatible bins, we could have a truck that would last us another 13 years. The plastic bins would last the lifetime of a second truck. I’d rather invest in ourselves than in the shareholders of a billion-dollar corporation. Cities all over the country collect recycling. And we gave small haulers every opportunity to chime in, “tailoring” to them our request for proposals. No one bit. Which brings us to today.

At tonight’s board meeting (May 13), we will discuss future possibilities of town-led recycling. I believe we and our neighbors deserve a clear look at what it would cost Hartford to run our own curbside service. This would be the true cost of providing service, without obscene profit margins. This information can likely be compiled within a couple months, and then we’d all have some time to ponder. Perhaps we implement something for the next fiscal year; perhaps using “local option tax” funds. Or maybe we take out a bond, which we’ve been told we have plenty of capacity to do, at excellent rates. But we’ll never know what it really costs unless the board asks the town manager (who’d likely get help from town staff) to develop a plan and compile those costs. That’s what the board could do tonight. The discussion is tentatively scheduled for 8:05pm. I hope you’ll join, whether in person or over Zoom.

One could think of the temporary loss of curbside recycling as an opportunity. A wake-up call. If we want to resist the corporate price-gouging so prevalent in western society these days, then we need to put our money where our mouth is, and crunch some numbers.

The first White River abductee

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

Hi! If you’re opposed to a genocide but also opposed, on a technicality, to your representatives speaking out against that genocide… then I hate to break it to you, but you may not be opposed to that genocide.

To be clear: this somewhat crude statement is not for those who hold this belief, because, after all, they already know they’re not opposed to the genocide. (And to not be opposed to it is to support it, aye?) Rather, this statement is for those who would be swayed by those people’s arguments. Are you sure you want to be swayed by someone who supports a genocide?

I’m interested to hear what standard business the selectboard is neglecting by holding a special meeting in the week between its regular meetings. And don’t just list off a bunch of things Hartford needs that are already in process and that we can’t hurry up. (Wilder water service upgrades being a huge one.) If there’s even one thing we need that *can* be sped up, I would love to help it/them along. I’ll volunteer to do what research and/or coordination might be of use. But only if the TM believes that thing could be done faster with more internal work. There may not be many things like this, if anything. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. I’ll ask the TM about the items a few of you mentioned this week, and report back. But feel free to send me other things as well. I am here to serve.

(Standard legal disclaimer: I’m writing to speak for myself alone.)

I am also here to move the “Overton Window.” It was actually part of my campaign for this role. If you don’t know what that is, Google it. My point is simple: it is not extreme or radical to oppose, by any means at our fingertips, the now-one-sided violence of the Palestinian genocide. Many voices out there would have you believe opposition is extreme. As of this month, legal U.S. residents are being targeted for expulsion for simply voicing opposition. I repeat: it is not extreme or radical for an elected official to demand that their constituents not be sent to a foreign gulag—on the basis of anything, let alone their beliefs or their ethnicity.

About twenty four hours ago, George Anderson, who lives in White River Junction and has lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, thought he was walking into his final U.S. citizenship interview. He’s a student at an Ivy League university. He could—should—have walked out a citizen. Instead, ICE effectively kidnapped him from the building. At this moment he’s being held in some Vermont cell, not charged with any crime. The Trump administration seeks his removal from the country with the same argument it’s making against another legal-resident student: that Anderson’s presence, based on *expressed ideas*, is a threat to the interests of the U.S.

Is this not town business? When your neighbors start getting snatched up for—expressly, in court filings (!!)—their views? If you’re wondering what you would have done in Nazi Germany, this is it. You’re doing it right now.

Pardon me, I misspoke. The name of the White River man in detention is not George Anderson; it’s Mohsen Mahdawi. Everything else I said is accurate, though. Hopefully his name doesn’t change how this story makes you feel.

All this makes *me* feel like I need to do everything I can to stop it. Are you distressed enough to say it’s worth abandoning some norms? (Trump, for his part, threw out norms a long time ago.) Many seem to have the impression that keeping to norms—like the “stay in your lane” oft lobbed my way—is the correct path to oppose a norms-free administration. My brothers and sisters: Democrats have tried that for decades now, and look where it’s gotten us. It’s a failed strategy. The only strategy that works is: attack injustice, with all your power, all the time. Never allow a technicality to prevent you from standing against inhumanity. Never let process be what keeps us all from a just outcome. If you understand this then you know: all that matters in the case of the Gaza Ceasefire resolution is: Does it do anything real? If yes, then it’s worth passing.

Resolutions themselves are not extreme. Town boards have a history of proclaiming a variety of…colorful…things. A city once honored the 75th anniversary of the Bloody Mary cocktail. Another proclaimed that “getting sick is prohibited,” to bring attention to the town’s inadequate access to healthcare. Yet another elected board wrote and passed a resolution about me. That one had a point, of telling a story (one not about me), but it’s still ridiculous. This Gaza resolution isn’t ridiculous, because it accomplishes some potentially-useful things.

It is not extreme or radical to fight against unjust bombings or fascist actions, and in so doing, to use every ounce of power one has as a white person; a college educated person; a person with a higher-than-median income; with political power. Every ounce. Until it’s used up. If I’ve overstayed my welcome, then don’t vote for me next year. But if you’re ever on the receiving end of fascism—and it seems any of us could be—then perhaps you’ll remember: I’m fighting for you, too.

Also fighting: Some other members of the town board. Perhaps not most state reps & senators, but ours are. They are humans and have hearts; so they’ve taken to their social accounts to speak about Mahdawi. Perhaps they’re brainstorming whether they can bring to bear some of their limited power against this kind of thing. If you and I and all of us 1. Brainstorm well where our actual power lies and where the chinks in the system’s armor is; and 2. Ready ourselves to be all used up… then maybe we stand a chance.

One thing that’s a little extreme: ad hominem insults. Or claiming I’ve been sarcastic about my board duties. (I don’t do sarcasm, my friends will tell you. It’s too often misunderstood.) Everyday town business is so important to me that the minute a colleague suggested a special meeting—to ensure this topic didn’t reduce normal capacity—I said “that’s a grand idea,” and started asking others about it.

Does speaking out for Gaza do more harm than good? Well, what harm? Will we shy away from all action on the possibility of future harm? If so, one might argue, the harm is already done. Shall we debate strategy until the modern-day SS is on our doorsteps? It would appear that day has come.

We should treat ICE agents like people treated the SS. Maybe that’s why they cover their faces now. Of the hundreds abducted by ICE and sold into slavery in El Salvador this spring, one was a 19-year-old with no criminal record in the U.S. or in his home country. No tattoos. An ICE kidnapper who grabbed him outside his home said “He’s not the one.” Another said “Take him anyway.” So they did. This is why people say “abolish ICE.” We would do well to remember that “I was just following orders” was not an acceptable defense at the Nuremberg trials.

Did you know that Anne Frank didn’t die in an extermination camp? She died of a preventable illness in what was basically an overcrowded deportation waypoint facility. The U.S. operates those today. Kids die in them today. And when Biden was president. We’ve been here a while.

Gaza Ceasefire resolution 2025

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

I am here to answer some frequently asked questions about the special meeting, currently scheduled for 4-22, on the topic of a new draft of a Gaza Ceasefire resolution. As always, I’m speaking for myself and not the board or town government. If after reading, you think passing a ceasefire resolution would be more valuable than harmful, please let the selectboard know at selectboard@hartford-vt.org and/or by showing up to the regular meeting 4-15. If you feel you’re in the majority with this view, make it known; otherwise the board is liable to assume you are the minority. Onward with the FAQ:

– “Should we have a special meeting about Gaza?” When hundreds of children keep getting killed and the last of the hospitals is nearly bombed out of existence (remember the uproar at the first hospital bombed?), not discussing Gaza was not on the table. With a special meeting, we can ensure that no time is taken away from the board’s duties to discuss our *SUPER* important normal town business. Also with a special meeting, individual board members can choose to not file for payment for that night if they wish. That said—I do not begrudge any board member from filing for payment, as it is work on the town’s behalf to hear from folks.

– “Is this town business?” Is making veterans feel welcome here town business? Is making queer people feel welcome here town business? Calling into question whether (or not) a statement on Gaza is town business feels a bit like a red herring. For those who feel that way, I would encourage you to think about whether you would be happy if we passed a resolution with content regarding your interests. As someone representing some swath of the public, I don’t abide by subterfuge. If you want to abolish all resolutions, then lobby the board for that. From where I’m standing, though, that doesn’t seem wise as we careen towards a more overt fascism. It makes sense we would want to retain the right to speak up for justice.

– “You (Brandon) pushed for the special meeting. Why?” Because the ceasefire didn’t hold, and we’re supplying weapons and political cover to Israel’s extermination campaign yet again. Because I don’t wish to remember my time on the board as having witnessed this and done nothing. Because the last Selectboard failed the several hundred Hartford residents who petitioned that board, by not passing the resolution. (I wish to do right by those residents.) And because there are still a few levers of power left to a national minority party. These are mentioned in the updated resolution, which was formed by a committee made up of most of the original resolution committee.

– “What are these potentially effective things? What could we possibly do from Hartford? Isn’t a local ceasefire resolution just empty ‘virtue-signalling?’” I share your ire against virtue-signalling, I assure you. The new resolution has three potentially-effective provisions: 1. It calls on our Congressional delegation to filibuster any legislation the Trump administration considers crucial until an arms embargo is placed on Israel; 2. It calls on the same delegation to block Trump nominees until an arms embargo; 3. It defines “antisemitism” for our town as the organization Jewish Voices for Peace defines it. This the definition I knew growing up, describing racial/ethnic discrimination. This ensures our town staff don’t follow the doctored definition that the Trump administration is using to try to deport people.

– “Are there more pressing things Palestine organizers are doing?” Yes! Our neighbors (like two Dartmouth grad students) are getting their visas revoked for standing up for Palestine. If legal residents are facing discrimination based on their views, then U.S. citizens are next. (Even if citizens never face this, it is capital-B bad.) But that’s defense. A ceasefire resolution is offense. Organizers seem to agree that a resolution is still worth passing. If we see something terrible being done with munitions made in VT and NH (they are), and paid for with our tax dollars (they are), and say nothing, then the perpetrators will—very logically—get the idea that they can keep it up. Because they faced no consequences.

– “This feels like a Selectboard-led initiative rather than a public-led one. Why should I support it?” It’s true that I pushed for a special meeting without being in direct contact with the group that made the prior resolution. This group effectively reconstituted itself once the board voted (6-0, with one member absent) to hold a special meeting. In so doing, this raised the possibility of a new resolution, and the group went to work. To me this feels like a natural progression.