Have your flan and eat it, too

You may or may not be familiar with the Basque separatists in Spain. Euskadi Ta Askatasuna is their name, though it's usually abbreviated to ETA. They're neo-Marxists rebels who wish independence for their province, but also seek a revolution in the surrounding countries. They advocate a "revolutionary tax" on businesses and wealthy individuals in their area of operation, and failure to pay is often met with assassinations, kidnappings, and bombings.

Last year, on March 26, ETA declared a permanent cease-fire from all attacks. In December, after three warning calls, ETA detonated a truck bomb in an airport garage. Two men sleeping in their cars were killed.

ETA released a statement showing "solidarity" with the collateral damage (i.e. the dead men), saying they "did not intend" for there to be any victims. They blamed the government for the deaths, asserting that it was the government's responsibility to see that the facility was evacuated, in the wake of their warnings. In spite of this, they asserted that the cease-fire was still in effect.

Today, ETA declared the permanent cease-fire over, saying that the Spanish government was persecuting the group, rather than negotiating.

Ok. We've got a terrorist group that regularly kills, extorts, and destroys. During the "cease-fire", they believe they can detonate a bomb and destroy a garage, yet somehow still be within the cease-fire? Does "cease" mean something other in Spanish that I'm not aware of? It appears that ETA believed the truce was just with regards to loss of life; property damage is still acceptable.

Except for those unfortunate men in the garage, sleeping in their cars. Is the government responsible for the deaths when ETA makes warning calls? Considering the "lack of government information" was not the direct cause of their deaths, I'd have to say no. In fact, it seems to me that the bomb is the most direct cause of death. Of course, I'm not a political revolutionary. Perhaps I'd see those two men as a small inconvenience on the way to the glorious revolution. The good of the many versus the good of the one (or the two, in this isolated case).

ETA wants to bomb and destroy things. And if the Spanish government doesn't let them do that, then they bomb something to teach the government a lesson. And when the government cracks down on the group after the bombing, ETA complains that the government isn't moving forward on the peace and negotiations, and terminates the cease-fire.

They just don't make a permanent cease-fire like they used to.

*** *** ***

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., Vermont is considering succeeding from the Union. SOURCE

The Second Vermont Republic movement wants to remove Vermont from the U.S., which it considers an "empire about to fall." A survey of rural Vermont indicated 13% support for the position. 300 people attended a "succession convention" in 2005, and another is planned soon.

One supporter conceives of the breakaway Vermont as "the Switzerland of North America". The secessionists feel that they are politically too far away from the rest of the U.S. to be reconciled. Increasing interest in the movement is attributed to the Iraq war and high gas prices. The group's website can be found at http://www.vermontrepublic.org/. Be sure to stop in the website store and consider the purchase of a "Free Vermont" bumper sticker.

As someone in the article says concerning succession, "It doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make political sense, it doesn't make historical sense. Other than that, it's a good idea."