You may have noticed the little Internet kerfuffle over last Friday's column by David Brooks. Brooks is the resident conservative at the New York Times, and at the Times, and on Fridays on NPR and McNeill-Lehrer he uses his amiable, slightly self-deprecating shtick to advance his slightly out of the mainstream conservative views.

 Friday he was on marijuana legalization, and in an eminently mockable column he expressed his opposition to legalization, anchoring his opposition to legalization to a youthful experience in which:

 I smoked one day during lunch and then had to give a presentation in English class. I stumbled through it, incapable of putting together simple phrases, feeling like a total loser. It is still one of those embarrassing memories that pop up unbidden at 4 in the morning.

I'm not sure why the lesson of this experience is “never smoke pot ever again” instead of “never get high before you have to give an important presentation”, but I'm not David Brooks.

As I said, the column unleashed a stream of mockery on the Internet, the Twitterverse, and elsewhere, but that's not what I'm here to talk about.

The substantive key to his argument, though, is this:

 I’d say that in healthy societies government wants to subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship. In those societies, government subtly encourages the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts or being in nature, and discourages lesser pleasures, like being stoned.

 It is this point, though, that makes the argument for continued prohibition not only incoherent but even inconsistent with conservative ideology.

Let's take a look at how Brooks's argument fits in with conservative ideology. If you've been paying attention at all in recent years you've seen that one of the greatest evils that the conservatives have been trying to protect us all against has been the National Endowment for the Arts. That was exactly what Brooks thinks we want: the government “subtly encourag[ing] the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts . . .”

That's also the agency that conservatives use to stir up their base, threatening to defund the endowment in the guise of fiscal responsibility. If they ever succeed maybe it will enable the Pentagon buy more paper clips or something. 

More importantly, though, think about the scale of things that the government can do to influence behavior. On one end of the scale we have almost entirely voluntary efforts, like Michelle Obama's efforts to encourage people to eat well and exercise. * You know, the stuff that conservatives call fascism. All those PSA's you see on TV about wearing your seat belt, not drinking and driving, or not discriminating against people? All ways for the government to subtly encourage people to behave responsibly.

From there we go to financial incentives, like tax-exempt status for educational and cultural organizations: if your local orchestra doesn't need to pay taxes on their they can charge lower prices, and then maybe more people can afford to go to classical music concerts, and rich people can get tax breaks by giving them contributions. Those grants from the National Endowment for the Arts fit in here.

Then if you want to go all the way to the most coercive, most violent method of influencing behavior, we have the criminal justice system. See someone doing something we don't like, throw them in jail. That's the approach we've been following with marijuana for decades, and we've figured out that it doesn't work that well at “discouraging lesser behaviors like being stoned”. Hell, it didn't even work for David Brooks when he was in high school, and I'm guessing he wasn't much of a wild rebel when he was growing up. (Okay, that's going out on a limb, so feel free to prove me wrong.)

So that's what Brooks wants to do: he wants to keep throwing people in jail for marijuana use, even though it doesn't work, apparently because it is government's subtle way of tipping the scales in favor of temperate, prudent behavior and subtly encouraging the higher pleasures.

But there's one more thing that David Brooks left out of his column: his experience of being arrested and going to jail for smoking pot. I'm pretty sure he left it out because it never happened to him. I have a very hard time thinking of a single one of my white friends that it ever happened to, either.

But it's a funny thing: it does happen to black people. Black people use marijuana at about the same rate as white people, and yet they are arrested for it at a tremendously higher rate. Depending on where you are, if you're black you may be three, four, five, or even eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana use than if you're white.

So of course David Brooks didn't get arrested, and he really didn't have much to worry about. Some people do get arrested, though, and the odds are that those people are not white.

So when he tells us that we should keep marijuana illegal, what David Brooks is saying is that continuing to arrest black people for marijuana use is one of those ways that the government can subtly tip the scales to discourage white people from getting stoned.

Personally, I don't think the goal of keeping future David Brookses from smoking pot and blowing an English report is worth the price of locking up black people.

But maybe that's just me. 

 *CORRECTION: A reader has pointed out that in addition to the voluntary exercise and healthy eating programs promoted by Michelle Obama, legislation adopted in 2010 and regulations adopted in 2012have made mandatory changes to the school lunch program, including fruit, vegetable, whole grain, and other nutritional standards.

They say politics makes for strange bedfellows; and that is no more so than right here in Vermont where conservatives are fading like fireflies,  and the lion’s share of power and influence is carried in Democratic

hands.

All of which makes our particular brand of Republican-lite occasionally champion issues more usually associated with progressive thinkers.  When that happens, once in a blue moon, it behooves us to seize the opportunity to stand on common ground.

So it is with Bruce Lisman of the Campaign for Vermont, who is finally getting down to some respectable brass tacks.  After a couple of years of expounding vaguely about how Vermont policymakers should do “better,” in language straight out of the Republican playbook, Mr. Lisman is actually proposing some pretty radical stuff.

He wants Vermont lawmakers to adopt sweeping transparency rules in the interests of ending cronyism, nepotism and all manner of conflicts of interest.

And I say, “Why not?”

Obviously, Mr. Lisman proposes this from the conservative minority position, in the hope of reducing the huge advantage that Democratic policy enjoys in the state; but no matter what motivates the effort, its time has come.

Mr. Lisman points to the terrible marks Vermont gets for transparency, relative to the rest of the country; and he is absolutely right that we can improve that situation dramatically with a few simple rules.  

He does, however, focus primarily on statewide transparency issues, making it appear to be more of a Democratic failing.  In reality, the failure peculiar to Vermont has its roots in the intimacy of local politics, which generally falls outside traditional parameters of “Democrats” and “Republicans”  even when those labels are nominally applied.

As I have said on many occasions, that intimacy is both the strength of Vermont’s democracy and its greatest challenge.  The clannish nature of local influence blocks frequently obscures the process and discourages challenges of any sort.  Casual conflicts of interest are so common in many towns as to go completely unremarked.

But before a bright light can be shone on the manner in which conflicts of interest control the local process, it is first necessary that strict transparency rules be adopted at the state level, as a model of good behavior.

Mr. Lisman may have finally found a way to be relevant in Vermont; and, while I rather doubt that we will agree on much in the future, on the need to address conflicts of interest in the political process we seem to be of one mind.

Well, seeing’s how my most recent GMD diary touched off something of a shitstorm (durr hurr hurr), I’d like to present a few more thoughts.

Regarding the unfortunate acronym, POOP (Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty): my criticism of that is purely on political/PR grounds. It’s just plain stupid to craft an acronym with unintended connotations. It is, as they say in soccer, an own goal. The Council isn’t done any favors when it’s given a name straight out of Beavis and Butthead.  

I’ve also raised an objection to the underlying idea behind the name. It borrows from conservative rhetoric: that the purpose of social-service programs is to eradicate poverty. That’s part of it, to be sure; but some people will never escape the need for assistance. This is especially true in a society where the deck is stacked against the poor and working poor — and even the middle class are walking a tightrope above the chasm.

As for the work of the committee itself: Some very good things may come out of the simple fact of putting this group of people together on a regular basis. They may well spot systematic problems — the forest beyond their individual trees — that can’t be seen from any single perspective. But if their charge is limited to the social-services system, their ability to create anything as grand as “pathways out of poverty” will be limited as well. Social services fights against very strong currents of wealth and income inequality, the decimation of the middle class, many years of wage stagnation for the working poor, and tax policies that too often favor the rich.

That’s a lot to overcome. A close consideration of social-service flaws is useful, but it fails to address most of the equation.

I don’t know for a fact that the Council’s charge is limited to social services, but its membership points in that direction. I’d be happier if the Council included some progressive voices on broader policy questions. To pick a name out of my frontal lobe, how about Paul Cillo or Jack Hoffman of the Public Assets Institute?

As for the new antipoverty measures unveiled by Governor Shumlin this week: Chris Curtis is encouraged. I, the snarky blogger, am cynical. Based on past experience.  

The Governor’s January “priorities” have died a quick death before. In January 2013 there was a lot of lip service to, among other things, energy efficiency, social services, and early education. But during the actual legislative session, some items just didn’t seem to get a lot of push, and others failed when the Legislature balked at Shumlin’s preferred funding mechanism.

And the Governor has yet to say where he’d find the money for this week’s initiatives. Based on past experience, it wouldn’t surprise me if he dumped the whole thing in Doug Racine’s lap (“Here, Doug, cut something else to pay for these things”) or identified a funding source that’s unworkable (the ill-fated break-open tickets tax) or unpalatable (the ill-advised proposal to slash the Earned Income Tax Credit) or both.

One more thought from the blogger’s cynical brain. This wouldn’t be the first time Shumlin used a bunch of good people as a backdrop for a feel-good announcement that never went anywhere. I don’t blame any of the participants in this week’s event; if the Governor asked me to be part of his backdrop, I’d say yes. And I’d feel a little dirty afterwards.

So this week’s announcement was a good first step, but there’s a long way to go. And past experience doesn’t fill me with confidence.

And the Council, unfortunate name and all, is full of fine people — some of the state’s best and most dedicated. Indeed, maybe a measure of hope is the difference between them and me: They go out and fight the good fight, while cynical me sits in my metaphorical Mom’s Basement and writes commentaries.

I hope they prove me wrong. But for now, I remain skeptical.  

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Gov. Shumlin recently announced a new poverty reduction initiative. The total new state funding comes to about $2.5 million for homeless shelters, longer term affordable housing solutions, child care subsidies and case management/counseling services for low-income families. Together with federal matching money the total of new spending on anti-poverty programs tops $4 million.

This is a pretty big deal. I cannot recall a time in my almost ten years at Vermont Legal Aid where an initiative like this has been announced before the sitting Governor’s budget address. Having these commitments from the Governor secured in advance starts the conversation with lawmakers about priorities in an entirely different place. It signals an early commitment to anti-poverty programs that work. And, the establishment of a new poverty council signals a new commitment to communication and collaboration with low-income service providers and anti-poverty advocates. That is a welcome development from years past and prior administrations.

It’s also worth noting that many of the initiatives outlined by the Governor were recommendations made to him by an ad hoc coalition of low-income advocates who worked for months on a wide ranging report he requested in advance. Some of the recommendations are also echoed in a months long review of the Reach Up program required by the legislature (in which I also participated).

And, hopefully there will be more to come. Vermont Legal Aid’s poverty law project has created a legislative agenda focused on “Housing, Hunger, and Hard Work”. Many of the “housing” priorities are included in the Governor’s initiative (for example, doubling the Vermont Rental Subsidy program). But we hope lawmakers will respond to other issues we and others are raising as well. For example, holding low-income families harmless from food stamp overpayments that resulted from the state’s errors, not because of any fault of the families. And, making work pay for families on Reach Up by eliminating outdated asset tests and increasing earned income disregards so that work is rewarded, not punished. It would be great incentive if families knew they could keep every dime they earn for a period of time before grant reductions kick in instead of immediately losing support simply because they went to work. Other states are implementing these ideas. Vermont should, too.

The Council members (listed below) represent a wide variety of service providers and advocates well known for vigorous and able representation on behalf of their constituents. The new plan isn’t perfect, but it’s a far cry from no investment at all, or starting the year fighting new cuts to essential programs and services.

Certainly, the budget has yet to be announced and given the early reports of a $70 million deficit there are likely to be budget cuts forthcoming. It remains to be seen how savings will be acheived by the Administration. Certainly where proposed cuts might adversely affect the poorest Vermonters low-income advocates will once again speak out. That’s our job. On the other hand, today we have good news to cheer from the Administration in the form of significant new money for several programs and services many of us have recommended.

Taken together with the Administration’s willingness to listen to advocates over the summer before implementing emergency rules that would have overly restricted access to Vermont’s General Assistance program (which has resulted in the Administration going back to the legislature for more funds for emergency shelter – something the Council members support) these commitments represent real progress for the low-income Vermonters. It’s a good start.

I know I speak for the Council when I say we hope Vermonters will join us in supporting the Governor’s poverty reduction plan – and other initiatives designed to alleviate the symptoms and causes of poverty in Vermont. It’s a worthy effort.

***

Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty

(alphabetical)

Co-Chairs:

Christopher Curtis, Vermont Legal Aid

Linda Ryan, Samaritan House

Members:

Cary Brown, Vermont Commission on Women

Joshua Davis, Morningside Shelter

Erik Hoekstra, Redstone Commercial Group

Sara Kobylenski, Upper Valley Haven

Karen Lafayette, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council (VLIAC)

Jan Demers, Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO)

Erhard Mahnke, Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition (VAHC)

Rita Markley, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)

Michael Monte, Champlain Housing Trust

Melinda Moulton

Marissa Parisi, Hunger Free Vermont

Joe Patrissi, Northeast Kingdom Community Action (NEKCA)

Elizabeth Ready, John Graham Shelter

Mark Redmond, Spectrum Youth Services

Sheila Reed, Voices for Vermont’s Children

Auburn Waterson, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Richard Williams, Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA)

Council currently made up of 19 members (30 member maximum).

Gov. Shumlin recently announced a new poverty reduction initiative. The total new state funding comes to about $2.5 million for homeless shelters, longer term affordable housing solutions, child care subsidies and case management/counseling services for low-income families. Together with federal matching money the total of new spending on anti-poverty programs tops $4 million.

This is a pretty big deal. I cannot recall a time in my almost ten years at Vermont Legal Aid where an initiative like this has been announced before the sitting Governor’s budget address. Having these commitments from the Governor secured in advance starts the conversation with lawmakers about priorities in an entirely different place. It signals an early commitment to anti-poverty programs that work. And, the establishment of a new poverty council signals a new commitment to communication and collaboration with low-income service providers and anti-poverty advocates. That is a welcome development from years past and prior administrations.

It’s also worth noting that many of the initiatives outlined by the Governor were recommendations made to him by an ad hoc coalition of low-income advocates who worked for months on a wide ranging report he requested in advance. Some of the recommendations are also echoed in a months long review of the Reach Up program required by the legislature (in which I also participated).

And, hopefully there will be more to come. Vermont Legal Aid’s poverty law project is focused on a legislative agenda we’re calling “Housing, Hunger, and Hard Work”. Many of the “housing” priorities are included in the Governor’s initiative (for example, doubling the Vermont Rental Subsidy program). But we hope lawmakers will respond to other issues we and many others are raising as well. For example, holding low-income families harmless from food stamp overpayments that resulted from the state’s errors, not because of any fault of the families. And, making work pay for families on Reach Up by eliminating outdated asset tests and increasing earned income disregards so that work is rewarded, not punished. It would be great incentive if families knew they could keep every dime they earn for a period of time before grant reductions kick in instead of immediately losing support simply because they went to work. Other states are implementing these ideas. Vermont should, too.

The Council members (listed below) represent a wide variety of service providers and advocates well known for vigorous and able representation on behalf of their constituents. The new plan isn’t perfect, but it’s a far cry from no investment at all, or starting the year fighting new cuts to essential programs and services.

Certainly, the budget has yet to be announced and given the early reports of a $70 million deficit there are likely to be budget cuts forthcoming. It remains to be seen how savings will be acheived by the Administration. Certainly where proposed cuts might adversely affect the poorest Vermonters low-income advocates will once again speak out. That’s our job. On the other hand, today we have good news to cheer from the Administration in the form of significant new money for several programs and services many of us have recommended.

Taken together with the Administration’s willingness to listen to advocates over the summer before implementing emergency rules that would have overly restricted access to Vermont’s General Assistance program (which has resulted in the Administration going back to the legislature for more funds for emergency shelter – something the Council members support) these commitments represent real progress for the low-income Vermonters. It’s a good start.

I know I speak for the Council when I say we hope Vermonters will join us in supporting the Governor’s poverty reduction plan – and other initiatives designed to alleviate the symptoms and causes of poverty in Vermont. It’s a worthy effort.

***

Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty

(alphabetical)

Co-Chairs:

Christopher Curtis, Vermont Legal Aid

Linda Ryan, Samaritan House

Members:

Cary Brown, Vermont Commission on Women

Joshua Davis, Morningside Shelter

Erik Hoekstra, Redstone Commercial Group

Sara Kobylenski, Upper Valley Haven

Karen Lafayette, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council (VLIAC)

Jan Demers, Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO)

Erhard Mahnke, Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition (VAHC)

Rita Markley, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)

Michael Monte, Champlain Housing Trust

Melinda Moulton

Marissa Parisi, Hunger Free Vermont

Joe Patrissi, Northeast Kingdom Community Action (NEKCA)

Elizabeth Ready, John Graham Shelter

Mark Redmond, Spectrum Youth Services

Sheila Reed, Voices for Vermont’s Children

Auburn Waterson, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Richard Williams, Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA)

Council currently made up of 19 members (30 member maximum).

Sometimes I think, not at all self-servingly, that Governor Shumlin ought to hire a snarky blogger — to provide a bit of perspective, a bit of sour in the dough, and as a preventative to doing stupid stuff like…

Gov. Peter Shumlin signed an executive order Monday creating a new council to combat poverty … the Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty will have between 10 and 30 members and meet three times a year.

Uh, er… a POOP Council? Really, now.

I do have some more substantive comments on the Governor’s new POOP. Back in the 1990s, my home state of Michigan had a conservative Republican Governor by the name of John Engler. One of his strokes of rhetorical brilliance was to give the Department of Social Services a new name: the Family Independence Agency. Because, y’know, we’re not in the business of giving handouts to the undeserving poor; we’re giving people a chance to achieve Family Independence!

Stupid shit, which Engler’s successor Jennifer Granholm quickly undid. And Governor Shumlin is dipping into Engler’s tainted pool of anti-welfare jargon with this “Pathways Out of Poverty” POOP.

I’m not arguing with the idea that we’d like to see as many people achieve independence and security as possible. But, as Our Lord and Savior once said, “the poor you will always have with you.” Especially since one of the principal products of our 21st Century economy is poverty and financial insecurity.

You want evidence? Take a look at the Public Assets Institute’s new report, “More Jobs, Clustered in Low-Wage Sectors.”

The [November] unemployment rate inched down to 4.4 percent, mainly because fewer Vermonters are looking for work. At the same time, employers reported 2,200 more Vermonters on the job than in October, with most of those newcomers in traditionally low-wage service sectors.

A nice shiny chart, displayed after the jump, illustrates this disturbing reality.  

All those low-paying jobs put a smiley face on our unemployment rate, but they do little or nothing to give people a Pathway Out Of Poverty.

Now, that chart is a noe-month snapshot. But it’s part of a longer-term trend — as shown in PAI’s year-end report “State of Working Vermont 2013,” which finds that “fewer Vermonters were working in 2012 than in 2007. And private employers were providing fewer jobs, most concentrated in low-wage sectors.  Also, “the number and the percentage of Vermonters in poverty had increased,” as had the number receiving food stamps (up a stunning 86% in five years) and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Governor’s new Council will have to be awfully darn creative to buck these trends and provide real Pathways Out Of Poverty. Methinks it’s more likely to produce a honeywagon-load of POOP.

In addition to his new Brown Ribbon Committee, Shumlin also announced a brace of anti-poverty initiatives worth a grand total of $2.2 million. Funding source TBD, since the Gov is determined to flatline next year’s budget. Human Services Secretary Doug Racine described the initiatives as “more aggressive than efforts put forth in other states,” and “a huge initiative [that] will make a huge difference that you aren’t going to be seeing in the rest of the country.”

Gosh, Doug. Mighty big (or should I say “huge”) words for a couple mill. I know that’s a lot of scratch for your average working-class stiff, but it seems like a spit-in-the-wind for the fight against poverty. Can two million dollars — and that’s generously assuming Shumlin comes up with a funding scheme that’s acceptable to the Legislature — really “make a huge difference”? Somehow I doubt it.

Look, it’s nice and all. But don’t oversell what is, in reality, a very modest proposal.

And I wish good luck to the curiously variable 10-to-30 members of the Governor’s new POOP, I really do. They’re gonna need it.  

Wise men run for the hills (and staffers update their resumes) when these dreaded words fall from the lips of Jim Fogler, President and Publisher of the Burlington Free Press:

I have exciting news to share.

Because it usually means “Look out, folks, I’ve got a truckload of manure to dump on your heads!”

And what a truckload it was, that greeted His Dear Readers on this first day of 2014.

The opening shovelful deacribed the Freeploid’s new digs:

We’re moving our Free Press news, advertising and business offices to a new, state-of-the art media facility in mid-January from our downtown College Street location…

See, it’s not a “newspaper office,” it’s a “media facility” suitable for synergy and crossbranding and multipurposing and other buzzwords deployed to conceal the death rattle of Fogler’s enterprise. The Freeploid’s new offices media facility is a rental space on the seventh floor of a downtown building. He played up the nice view of Lake Champlain (I wonder who got the corner office), but what it really means is that the Freeploid’s corporate masters at Gannett have decided to cash in their real-estate chips.

Inevitable, but sad. Newspaper buildings used to be landmarks; now, they’re hidden away in nondescript quarters invisible to the general public. But what wonders, aside from a lovely view, does the “media facility” have to offer?

The high-tech, new location will put all of our employees in open spaces, helping all of our departments build off of the energy of others. There will be increased communication…

… yelling, shouting, airport-level decibel readings, and no privacy whatsoever — for those key off-the-record conversations, or for a bit of on-the-clock Web browsing. You’ll never know when Jim Fogler’s tiptoeing up from behind.

There will be more TV screens throughout our new space showcasing Facebook, Twitter feeds and news programs, keeping us up to date on news developments and our readers’ feedback.

Oh goodie, the sportsbar approach to newsroom decor. Big video monitors displaying the continuous flood of meaningless Internet gibber. Yeah, that’ll lead to in-depth, revealing journalism.

Wait, no, it’s not “journalism,” it’s “product.” As in…  

…a higher-quality product in digital and in print.

Nice thing about buzzwords like “product” and “content” is that they say absolutely nothing about quality or insight or truth. Nope, we’re all just crankin’ out the product. And then we get to the real business of the Freeploid’s new “media center” — DA BENJAMINS.

Our sales teams will be able to show our customers in media rooms what’s new and being offered in regard to our new digital capabilities, including Web development, social-media strategies and placement, targeted emails and search engine optimization (SEO) and marketing (SEM).

Oh, I am so glad to hear that “our sales teams” will have a prominent place in the newsroom. That concept of an unbreakable wall between journalism and sales is so… 20th Century, don’t you think?

I’m also glad that my newspaper is dedicating itself to search engine optimization and marketing. Is there a Pulitzer Prize for that?

Oh, and then Fogler gets to the real shitball of Freeploid 2014.

On the content front, look for a larger printed Burlington Free Press soon.  …a newspaper with more to read… We’ll be adding more pages of content…

Larger, more to read, more pages of “content.” Must be a good thing, yes?

Well, yes, if you believe that an 800-pound man is healthier than a 180-pound man. Because what Fogler is talking about is not an expanded commitment to local or Statehouse reportage; it’s stuffing the Freeploid with a castrated version of the industry’s chief castrato, USA TODAY (all caps please, per Gannett’s copyright team).

Or, as Fogler puts it, Gannett will “leverage both USA TODAY’s national coverage and the unique, local reporting of our journalists.”

That’s “leverage” as in “maximize profit.” Because, as we previously discussed in this space, the daily insertion of USA TODAY pablum will allow Gannett to claim a much larger circulation figure for its dismal national newspaper. And, as we’ve already seen, they’ll be “leveraging” us readers as well:

Asked whether prices would rise for subscribers receiving the extra USA Today content, a Gannett spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, said, “As we introduce enhanced products, consumers tell us they are willing to pay for the added value we’re bringing them.”

Meanwhile, the real focus of The New Freeploid will be stuff like…

On the digital front, with iPhones in our reporters’ hands, we offer more video today than most media locally. We also are planning a redesign of our website and our mobile apps in 2014 that will make it easier to find the stories and video you want to see. Our digital offerings include solutions such as Web development, targeted emails, SEO/SEM solutions and display ads on one of the most viewed websites in the market.

“More video.” Not “better video,” just MORE. Plus all those “solutions” for problems I don’t have. I turn to a newspaper or website for news, for information — not targeted emails, SEO, and more intrusive advertisements.

And, in more evidence that Jim Fogler and his ilk have their eye firmly off the ball:

Our presence on Twitter and Facebook is constantly engaging readers, including young people, which helps them recognize the importance of the Burlington Free Press in their daily lives.

“Young people.” The constant preoccupation of dying media empires (and the Republican Party, heh). Hey, Jim, haven’t you heard that “young people” aren’t that into Facebook anymore? Why not force your ever-more-distracted reporters to create Tumblr feeds and Instagram accounts and gifs and Vines while you’re at it?

Fogler closes his missive with reassurances about the ‘Loid’s survival evolution and growth. He promises that…

…we are here not only to stay, but to grow…

Just like the 800-pound man.  

Note that I'm not saying “top ten”, because I don't necessarily know how many I'll want to list. Still, I have a feeling that I won't have trouble with the dividing line between the books I would strongly recommend, those that are just okay, and those that I would steer you clear of.

 Bending Toward Justice: The Voting Rights Act and the Transformation of American Democracy by Gary May

This year we saw Republicans in state legislatures continue to try to keep black voters away from the polls and Republicans on the Supreme Court gut the Voting Rights Act, so this is a timely reminder of the difficulty and heroism of the fight to establish voting rights.

 Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup

 Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass

At a time when conservatives think slaves should have been grateful for the life they had, and Southern conservatives express nostalgia for the Lost Cause and anger at what they like to call the War of Northern Aggression, it is still important to have a clear vision of the reality of slavery in our past.

 The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins.

 A new poll just demonstrated that the percentage of Republicans who “believe in” evolution (do you “believe in” gravity? the germ theory? the heliocentric model?) has dropped to a minority. Maybe it's because some of the smart ones are leaving, but it's important to know the facts.

 Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry – A Doctor's Revelations about a Profession in Crisis by Daniel Carlat.

We are constantly seeing new research demonstrating the limited effectiveness and affirmative harms of psychiatric medications. In this book Carlat exposes the moral bankruptcy of the industry in which so many policy makers continue to repose their blind faith.

 Let the Great World Spin by Colum McCann.

New York City is falling apart, Richard Nixon is about to resign, and a French tightrope walker prepares to walk between the two towers of the World Trade Center.  This novel, which I had some reluctance to read, captures these events and a world we can hardly imagine or remember forty years later.

 The Cost of Haven (Great Cities, #1) by F.F. McCulligan

 My interest in fantasy pretty much begins and ends with Tolkien, but I know that fantasy readers are always on the lookout for a new voice. Here's one that presents a believable world and believable, relatable characters. It's worth reading, even if I, the author's father, say so myself.

The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

 You really haven't read it yet? Come on, what are you waiting for? Too big a fan of capitalism? 

 Lord of Misrule by Jaimy Gordon.

 I never thought I'd have any interest in a book about the world of horse racing, but this is definitely worthwhile.