(I found this most excellent piece over at Blue Hampshire, where it was posted last Sunday. The author, Tully Fitzsimmons, has his own blog as well, and responded enthusiastically to my request for permission to pass along his observations, as follows, in full. ~ NanuqFC)

By Tully Fitzsimmons

Over 35 years ago, Jerry Mander wrote a landmark book titled, “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.” One of those arguments was that with TV, the media now had the power to edit the variety of pictures they showed to the public, thus enabling them to create whatever ‘story’ they wanted based on what they chose to show.

On Friday, my partner and I finally got to Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan and joined in the Occupy Wall Street encampment. And I have to admit that what I saw was not at all what I had read or seen in the media reports. Thus, my post today is meant to debunk some of the myths I have heard over and over.

Myth #1: The Protesters have ‘taken over’ Manhattan’s Financial District and are interrupting and burdening normal activities.

Wrong. OWS “occupiers” are compactly situated in Zuccotti Park, a plaza about two short blocks north of Wall Street. It is plaza that is normally “occupied” by the public. For the last eight years I have taken student groups to Manhattan, and each year we have had lunch at the plaza. The sidewalks surrounding the plaza are clear, and there is no interruption of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. From as close as one block away, we had no idea that anything unusual was taking place.

[9 more myths addressed after the jump]

Myth #2: OWS is destroying the “park.”

Those unfamiliar with the park may incorrectly imagine this to be a grassy oasis in the midst of lower Manhattan. But there is not a blade of grass in the ‘park’ – it is a 100% paved plaza. The tents that have been erected are not compacting soil, killing vegetation, or being secured into the ground with pegs; rather, they are simply weighted down by their contents on the pavement. The Occupiers have taken great care to protect a planter of flowers and the small locust trees that have been planted around the plaza.

Myth #3: These protesters are just a bunch of spoiled young brats.

No, actually the group is as amazingly diverse as New York City and America are. Occupants are black, white, asian, and latino. They are students, war veterans (actually, veterans are present in significant numbers), grandmas knitting in chairs, economists in ties & suit jackets, middle aged laborers, and senior citizens. My favorite sign, held by one middleaged man with a great sense of humor, read, “Another green-haired, deer-hunting, real estate developer in support of OWS.”

Myth #4: They may be diverse, but they’re simply whiners looking for handouts.

No, these people are heroes. With temperatures falling below 40 and wind whipping through lower Manhattan, it is very cold right now. It is also very cramped: with over 100 tents squeezed together, occupiers barely have room to stretch out. They lack most of the creature comforts that the majority of us take for granted and go home to each night, without complaint. Rather than whining, these people are enduring hardship for all of us – hardship that many Wall Street Executives have never experienced.

Myth #5: OWS has no clear focus or message.

Nonsense. The diverse interests that make up OWS have a consistent thread: – opposition to corporate domination of the American political system. This opposition manifests itself in various ways: opposition to fracking, nuclear power, and the Keystone pipeline; indictments of corporate refusals to hire veterans; student loan burdens, and the exclusion of such loans in bankruptcy proceedings; the imprisonment of Bradley Manning; the Citizens United Court ruling; the irony of lower wages in a time of higher corporate profits; and the capture of both major political parties by corporate donors. Diverse causes, yes…but all undergirded by the influence of large corporations in government decisions.

Myth #6: OWS is disorganized and aimless.

A mere walk through the Occupy Camp shows an incredible amount of organization: there is a large lending library, a medical tent, a welcome table, a press tent, on-site legal assistance, scheduled teach-ins, addiction assistance, a food tent, a sanitation crew, and an energy operation. OWS has managed to create a voluntary, need-based, consensus-embraced camp, in spite of Mayor Bloomberg’s cutting them off from heat & energy sources and sanitary facilities.

Disorganized? Lacking electricity, OWS participants are peddling used, stationery bicycles to create electricity that is being stored in car batteries to continue their computer feeds – an effort in which your Blogger participated. This is impressive creativity, not disorganization.

Myth #7: OWS is hurting New York’s image and its economy.

First of all, the exercise of Constitutional Rights is not subject to image niceties. However, it is fair to say that not only is OWS not hurting New York’s image and economy – it has become a tourist attraction in and of itself. Located in the shadow of the newly-rising World Trade Center Building #1, tourists ringed Zuccotti Park the entire time I was there, snapping pictures, taking videos, speaking with Occupiers. The mobile food carts that have always been located on the south edge of the park remain there and are thriving….as are an increased number of street vendors that are set up across the street on the east side of Broadway.

Myth #8: These people are really anti-capitalist Communists.

To be sure, there are some Occupiers sporting Che Guevara signs and anti-capitalist slogans. There are also a number selling t-shirts, pins, souvenirs, and even refrigerator magnets. More than anti-capitalist (many of them are engaging in entrepreneurial activities), they are anti-corporatist, pro democracy, and promoting new approaches to wealth disparity. More than anything, they value social responsibility and paying a laborer what he or she is worth – a very American principle that has been sorely upended in the last two decades.

Myth #9: The Occupation has become unsanitary and a health hazard.

There’s no doubt that Zuccotti Park is messy & cramped – though hardly more cramped than some 6 x 10 student hostel rooms I’ve stayed in. And tents and canvas and signs and wind and a “camping” situation that is now 6 weeks old will not look like Martha Stewart’s living room. But “Unsanitary?” No. OWS has instituted recycling, composting, and its own “Sanitation Department,” complete with cleansing agents, brooms, and a garbage collection squad. On each side of the Park, very large “Good Neighbor Policy” signs are posted, clearly spelling out behavioral expectations. Considering it is the City of New York that blocked the delivery of port-a-potties (Bette Midler offered to pay for them), it is rather disingenuous of them to then suggest that the plaza is ‘unsanitary.’ (Ironically, this afternoon it was announced that port-a-potties will be located on the loading dock of the United Teacher’s Federation building, about two blocks away)

Myth #10: Crimes are going unreported (said Bloomberg today), and it is a lawless community.

I just have to laugh at this one. Police cars, trucks and at least one Police Tower are parked side-by-side along the north side of the park. TV trucks, with cameras looking down from twenty-foot-high booms, line the south side. Police stand on the sidewalks on all sides. There are more police at Zuccotti Park per square foot than in a Dunkin Donuts parking lot. To suggest that Zuccotti Park is crime-ridden in the face of the videos, cameras, cell phones, TV crews, and round-the-clock police presence, would tell us more about the ineffectiveness of the NYPD than about the Occupiers.  

( – promoted by odum)

I don’t want to jump to conclusions… but I have to say that Peter Shumlin’s 11/8 speech at UVM gave me a case of the willies. It may have been well-intentioned; it may lead to new initiatives in higher education and better uses of public resources. But I found it disturbing in a couple of significant ways.  

He sounded like a Republican. State funding must be “focused in ways that have the maximum return on investment” and “advance Vermonters’ job opportunities.” There needs to be a greater focus on “the sciences, engineering, technology and mathematics,” and UVM must “support and expand partnerships in the state’s business sector and economy.”

That’s straight out of the Republican approach: Educators must get their heads out of the clouds and serve the needs of business. And, as I recently opined in this space, when Democrats adopt Republican talking points, they validate the conservative worldview.  

I could easily hear Shumlin’s speech being given by Jim Douglas. And if it had been given by Douglas, then Dems, Progs, faculty, students, and unions would be screaming bloody murder.

Watch out when politicians elbow their way into academia. Shumlin may have the best of intentions. He may have some good ideas. But do we really want “to maximize the relationship between the University and the state”?  

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Shumlin could have a beneficial impact on UVM. Do you really want to set a precedent for heavy state involvement at the University? Do you want UVM making decisions based on the economic priorities of the state? Of its business community? Will you feel comfortable if the same influence were wielded by a future Governor Dubie or Governor Lunderville?

That said, I must acknowledge that UVM left itself wide open for this. Shumlin’s speech included an oblique but obvious reference to the Dan Fogel kerfuffle: “my concerns about some of the spending priorities,” “recent controversies.”

UVM often exhibits an unwarranted quantity of self-satisfaction. They think they’re better than they really are. This results in inertia-based decision-making and a tendency to ignore problems. (Or sign those involved to generous nondisclosure agreements.)

For example, the Fogel/Kahn-Fogel situation. To me, the real issue wasn’t Dan Fogel’s golden parachute; it was the fact that the situation was allowed to fester for years. And it wasn’t Rachel Kahn-Fogel running loose; it was, as UVM’s review found, “that staffing decisions in the development office were made based on the Fogels’ preferences… with certain individuals rather than their qualifications.” The Fogels.

UVM shot itself in the foot, big time. Thanks to its diminished reputation and the relative disempowerment of its interim President, it left the door open for a power grab from the corner office. And now it has one.  

Well maybe that will happen if a retired Wall Streeter and Vermont resident who spoke to the annual meeting of the famously conservative Associated Industries of Vermont has his way. Bruce Lisman maintains that Irene recovery costs must side-track other state policy initiatives. The Irene recovery an “all in” bet (as he calls it) is so big it should preclude what he considers two other “all in” bets, specifically single-payer and investment in renewable energy. Lisman told the AIV …

“…But maybe this is not the moment to introduce two all-in bets [single payer, renewable energy investment] that would freeze, well, people like you [manufacturers, financiers and entrepreneurs], who might make decisions about expanding a business or adding people or thinking about new capacity or new markets. Maybe not this moment.”

Not surprisingly he doesn’t entertain the possibility of even a modest upper income tax increase.

Practically a living mirror opposite of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Lisman sits on the board of National Life Group, is retired chief of JPMorgan’s Global Equity Division and served as Senior Managing Director of the defunct investment bank Bear Stearns, and plans to launch the Campaign for Vermont.

His campaign will champion what he claims are “centrist, down-the-middle, common-sense” policies and focus on prosperity. While no specific policy initiatives were offered it was made clear according to the vtdigger.com article that scrapping both single payer and renewable energy investment are paramount features of the campaign. He brands both efforts “large, profound” and “maybe intrusive in a fashion”.

A recent poll shows a plurality of Vermonters supporting the new health care law. So maybe it isn’t a surprise  his argument found less than enthusiastic support even among business types.

Said one business leader when asked if he agreed with Lisman that Irene’s recovery cost should make it necessary to scrap healthcare reform and stop investment in renewable energy: “Let’s focus on Irene, get ourselves set, but the other issues are critical and important to the state and I don’t think we can ignore them.”

Another attendee took exception to the “all-in bet” can’t-walk-and-chew characterization of the problem: “I don’t know that I agree with that. I think there’s room for small bets in more than one area.”

Looks like Lisman’s Irene-based campaign to scrap healthcare and renewable energy investment aka Campaign for Vermont hasn’t found the moment and is more than half a bubble off-center.  

Just a quick one to fill us all in on how stupid conservatives are by going over some of the latest memes in the conservative world. By happy coincidence, they come together today.

First off, it’s the way the government is taking over the national communication system. Oh, did you miss that? Maybe that’s because if you noticed it at all you just heard that there was a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System today. For a whole thirty seconds the government broadcast an alert signal on television and radio, all channels, all stations.

To hear the wingers, though, it was going to be like this, posted by our friend Kestrel:

 Nateas by kestrel9000

Here’s just one of the comments by right wingers at a site I frequent:

Will this warning system warn us about our internal enemies? I understand that TSA is asserting jurisdiction over our highways, waterways, railroads, and bus terminals. They assured us that the searches are necessary to protect us from terrorists!

If I remember correctly, they have started random searches in Tennessee already.

First the IRS, then BATF, now TSA. I don’t think we need to worry to much about foreigners!

Or this:

This coming test is obnoxiously STUPID! Good grief, each state of this nation cares for its own. We have alarm systems in place, regular tests, etc. So, what is the reason for it? A national alert system and with WHO doing the announcing?!

Well, news at the start of this year was that our peculiar president was going to put his own voice over the alert systems! Oh, good grief, joke about conspiracy nuts all ya want, this is insanity.

Yeah, way back in time I know I saw a movie of a Communist leader announcing in hypnotic fashion, telling all of the citizens of his nation what to do, where to go…etc.

Rather damn Orwellian, indeed since this is the same “peculiar” president that wants a “Civilian Security Force” that he said will be “as big, powerful and well funded” as our current military forces.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security is doing some checkpoints on roads? highways? in Tennessee for Halloween?!

At any rate, it’s over now, so if the black helicopters didn’t arrive this afternoon to drag you out of your house you’re probably safe.

Next up: Christmas trees. Or rather, how President Barack Hussein is waging War on Xmas(TM). Either that or how he’s breaking his promise not to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year.

What’s the real story? Just like the campaigns for “The Other White Meat” or the Beef Council, the Christmas tree growers came up with a plan a few years ago to assess a fee of $0.15 (yes, that’s a total of fifteen cents, people!) to fund marketing efforts for natural grown Christmas trees, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has just released the final rule approving it.

Take this from the Heritage Foundation:

Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee “is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government” (76 CFR 69102).  The Federal government mandates that the Christmas tree sellers pay the 15-cents per tree, whether they want to or not.  The Federal government directs that the revenue generated by the 15-cent fee goes to the Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Christmas tree program established by the Secretary of Agriculture.  Mr. President, that’s a new 15-cent tax to pay for a Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/…

Or this:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View PostYou’ve been paying small extra taxes on all kinds of agricultural products to fund similar campaigns for years. Why is this a big deal to you now?

Its always a big deal , look at the federal goverment , it looks OK to you ?

Or:

I am concerned. will i have to pay an extra tax when its time to dye easter eggs?

the sooner obama goes the better. its going to be a long year.

Or even:

Why is obama getting away with taxing non-muslims yet again?

So yes, take your pick. Today was just Bonus Conservative Insanity Day. I don’t promise a double dose of conservative insanity every day (but I could).

(sung to the tune of Phil Ochs’ immortal 60s song: Love Me, I’m A Lib-er-al)

Oh I got you some crappy health care

But I can always revoke it next year

And I talked about jobs and energy

Cause it was what you wanted to hear

But don’t ask me to tax the Rich folks

I think you’ve had too many beers

Just Love Me, Love Me, Love Me

I’m a Dem-o-Crat

Oh I can see both sides of an issue

It’s called making the bad guys my friend

Cause you never get nowhere with vinegar

I call it a means to an end

And I know you’ll always vote for me

So I know I can always pretend

Oh Love Me, Love Me, Love Me

I’m a Dem-o-Crat

I know there’s some radicals out there

That’s why I ripped ACORN in half

Cause I’ve got my own network of activists

When I go to their meetings they kiss my ass

And if you get out the vote in November

You might get a job on my staff

So Love Me, Love Me, Love Me

I’m a Dem-o-Crat

Now the workers are getting excited

They want me to take up their case

And the poor people want all their programs

They want me to stop the disgrace

But I’m not going to go crazy

Cause my opponent will get in my face

Please Love Me, Love Me, Love Me

I’m a Dem-o-Crat

Now there’s whackos like Ralph Nader

And that Prog Party guy in Vermont

Saying unions should be supported

What the Hell do you figure they want?

It’s not like they can get elected

So I don’t have to give-in to their taunts

Cause I know you’ll Love Me and Vote For Me

I’m a Dem-o-Crat

Now just forget about what I campaigned on

Never mind that I act like a shit

I’m just doing my best for my country

Why are you people pitching a fit?

And when you ask where I stand on class warfare

Well I guess I’m on both sides of it

So Love Me, Love Me, Love Me

I’m a Dem-o-crap

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.  

Even as I continue to get emails scoffing at the oddsmaker… From Vermont View:

Washington County Sen. Anthony Pollina, the biennial Progressive candidate who took more than 20 percent of the vote in the 2008 governor’s race, said Monday that, in light of Shumlin’s stance against the workers’ grievance, Progs may have to rethink their partnership with the Democratic governor.

“At this point, I’m not contemplating (a third-party gubernatorial candidacy),” Pollina said. “But I know that conversation is beginning to percolate around.”

A modicum of effort (and humility) on the part of the administration, and this all gets straightened out. Seriously. Step one is to stop the self-inflicted wounding.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

As a big “Thank You” to the Democratic overture of last week, the Repblican cohort of Cat Food Commission II has generously offered to raise revenues by $500 billion dollars LESS than they had offered to raise them over the summer.

Though, to be fair, out of the kindness of their hearts, they plan to spare the top earners from any worrisome tax increases, instead gutting those features of the tax code that help the middle class, such as the home mortgage interest deduction and deductions of state and local taxes.

Isn’t it awesome? Don’t you love how our clever Democratic Congress people, thoughtfully reach across the aisle to so effectively keep the other guys from dumping us into the piranha tank? Oh, wait, we’re being dropped into the tank anyway? Oops. No one could have predicted that would happen (heh).

So what if we’re stripped to the bone to further fuel the wealth hoarders’ gluttonous habits? At least the Democrats are friendly!

But here’s my favorite part:

Plus, there is a huge catch: in order to agree to raising revenue, Republicans want to not only make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, but according to the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, they also want to lower the top income tax rate from its current 35 percent to 28 percent:

   The highest tax rate would be reduced from 35 percent to 28 percent under the emerging GOP tax code overhaul proposal, the senior Democratic aide tells me. And the reduction would actually be even bigger than this. After all, if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, as they’re set to do, the high end rate would go up to at least 39 percent. In other words, the aide says, under the proposal Republicans are pushing, the drop down to 28 percent would be at least 10 percentage points from what it would be if the cuts are allowed to expire.

To translate: the Republicans are offering to screw the middle class as a gift to Democrats, as long as the Democrats agree to screw the whole country in return.  

Here’s where letters like the one signed last week blaze a trail of stupidity across the sky:

By being vague and conciliatory, the signatories opened the door for the Republicans to create a lose-lose scenario.

Ok, Congressman Welch, looks like you guys have created an awesome outcome! Now, will you vote to end the home mortgage deduction and implement all sorts of austerity, while cutting taxes on the people who ruined the economy? Or will you let the poison pill take effect, resulting in all sorts of austerity, but at least gaining a bit of revenue without also destroying the last vestige of the housing market?

Might I make a suggestion? Stop playing these “clever” tactical games that make the entire caucus look like a bunch of strategic idiots when the Republicans inevitably turn around and kick us in the teeth.

As one insider put it, in response to this proposed Republican “concession”: “They either think we’re morons or desperate.” Alas, I’m guessing they think you’re both.

[edited to fix 2 typos]

 Loading ...

No elections in Vermont today, but there are a couple of important ones elsewhere.

In Ohio, voters have overwhelmingly voted to throw out the anti-union law that right-wing governor John Kasich pushed through the legislature this year. You may recall that this is the race that Mitt Romney got his fingers burned in recently because of jumping into the fight without clearly picking a side. Another profile in courage for the Mittster, but more importantly, the voters of Ohio have come out to support the rights of public sector workers.

In Mississippi voters have rejected a constitutional amendment that would have counted zygotes and embryos as complete human beings from the moment of conception, immediately outlawing all abortions and some forms of birth control, while at the same time forcing pregnant women to pay double admission to the movies and allowing them to drive in the car pool lane. This was considered a risk to pass, particularly since both gubernatorial candidates supported it.

In Maine the voters have approved a proposal for same-day voter registration, even though the Republicans used scare tactics against it, including ads claiming that the measure was supported by “the gays”.

And on a more personal note, in the town I grew up in, voters in Glen Rock, New Jersey stayed true to a pattern established back in 1896, rejecting a Democratic candidate with new ideas for mayor in favor of the Republican establishment. The candidate was my brother Mark, running for the same office that our father ran unsuccessfully for forty-five years ago. Consistency isn't always a good thing, but the family tradition of working for Democratic ideals remains strong. Congratulations on the effort, Mark!

After the relative love-fest that Peter Shumlin’s summer meeting with the Progs turned out to be, one would have thought there was little he could do to incite a full-on challenge in the 2012 election campaign.

‘Turns out, he found exactly the right way to push Progressive buttons, and at least raise the specter of insurrection at the ballot box.  

It’s uncanny; in 2011, there’s nothing like a very public tussle with the state employees’ union (VSEA) to win Shumlin a solid with Republicans while distancing him from inconvenient old friends…old friends whom he clearly thinks he can still “handle.”

We shall see….

Just as the storm was breaking today on GMD over events at the Democratic State Committee Meeting Saturday in Barre, the November Progressive Newsletter announced that State Committee’s intention to take up a Resolution in Support of Labor at its November 19 meeting in Montpelier.

Resolution proposed for consideration at the 11/19/11 State Committee meeting:

WHEREAS; The Vermont Progressive Party appreciates the critical role that organized labor has played in advancing higher living standards, better working conditions and greater workplace democracy for all workers; and,

WHEREAS; The Vermont Progressive Party recognizes that the decline of organized labor in the United States has significantly contributed to the vastly increased income and wealth inequality deplored by the popular Occupy Wall Street Movement and by the Vermont Progressive Party; and,

WHEREAS; The Vermont Progressive Party affirms that the right to collective bargaining is a fundamental human right recognized in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and,

WHEREAS; The Vermont Progressive Party believes that working people in Vermont have a right to seek redress of contractual grievances free of any public condemnation by public officials;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Vermont Progressive Party that:

(1) The Vermont Progressive Party supports recent and ongoing efforts by members of the Vermont State Employee Association to obtain a ruling from duly constituted authority and a clarification of the terms of its contract with the State of Vermont; and

(2) The Party urges elected and appointed public officials to desist from castigation of the efforts of working Vermonters to seek an adjudication of contractual grievances through proper and recognized means.

Game on, Governor.

Not a news diary, here, so if you’re looking for journalistic edge, please remember this is a blog (as in “web log”), not a news site like Vermont Digger (which people are always accusing of being a blog, which it ain’t).

But a thought on the VSEA vs. Shumlin activity, which – as of this weekend – is escalating dangerously close to the VSEA vs. The Democratic State Committee (see previous diary).

Now I’m going to do something that annoys people, I’m gonna talk crass political strategizing, and leave the ethics/ideology out of it. Again, this is my online web diary and that’s just the way I am.

So let’s put aside the value and morality of unions and the labor movement and ask: was the decision to block a resolution urging the Shumlin administration to back off it’s media war with the State Employees’ union (and allow the grievance process to run its course) a good idea strategically? The answer is a resounding ‘no,’ but represents an all-too-typical mistake on the part of powerful Democratic politicians.

When we talk about the genesis of a conflict, we talk about communication being “charged.” We say “sparks will fly.” This is a good analogy, and I’m going to take it further. All sparks, whether from a frayed power cord or a bolt of lightning, have one thing in common – they seek the ground. That spark is seeking the shortest path to ground, and the safest thing to do when a big spark is seeking the ground is to get out of its way. Better still – if it’s a lightning bolt we’re talking about, better to provide a lightning rod to get it to ground as quickly and efficiently as possible. If you try to block the spark, it either blasts through the blockage, or it makes its way around the blockage in unpredictably dangerous ways.

The Shumlin administration brought the VSEA grievance on itself. It may have been a foolish or naive grievance to pursue on the union’s part, but the point is it was predictable. The administration approached the union before the story broke about how to avoid a double-time pay scenario and a solution was mutually agreed to. Then the administration dropped the ball, and a grievance was filed. Cause-effect. It didn’t have to be a big deal. It only is because, once again, Democratic politicians and advisors to politicians pointlessly fixate on how they think people and institutions should respond to situations, as opposed to understanding the simple mechanics of how they actually will respond.

And then the administration went public, with Shumlin personally putting out the video of his comments, even getting a li’l choked up (ugh), about those mean, mean public employees trying to stick it to Vermonters. Put simply, they picked a public fight (and in a particularly inartful way).

Well, sparks flew. Sparks that could’ve been avoided (more on that in a sec). That spark is heading to ground – and likely would have reached the ground through the State Committee and dissipated – if not for the misguided effort of the administration, through Chair Perkinson, to block it. Now? Well, now it’s going to continue to seek ground, but in dangerously unpredictable and destructive ways.

And why? For the same reason the public fight was started to begin with: Foolish pride and arrogance. It is a consistent failing of many in the political classes to do two things: a) to assume they are smarter than everyone else, and b) to feel they are entitled to act impulsively without consequence (and that impulse is usually born in angry reactions to people and institutions responding in obvious and natural ways, rather than in ways that make the politician’s life easier). Put these two things together and you get a sort of you-talkin’-to-me? politics, which is invariably self-destructive.

The Shumlin administration’s battle with VSEA is not smart, well-considered, or well thought-through. It was born in an act of impulsive chest-thumping. The decision to block a vote in the State Committee is more of the same, and threatens to turn the unnecessary battle into an unnecessary war.

The 2012 election is Shumlin’s to lose. If he keeps playing you-talkin-to-me? politics, he will.