I came across a Facebook group I'd never seen or heard of before yesterday. It's called Transform Tobacco, although I really can't tell what they think they're transforming, because it's not hard to figure out that it's an industry front group supported by R.J. Reynolds and the group used to be called nocigtax.com.

Okay, fair enough, they have the right to do what they want to oppose taxes on their industry, and that's exactly what they're doing. Here's what they say on their page:

 Vermont tobacco consumers & retailers: Contact your legislators in the House and the Senate and tell them that raising tobacco taxes is a bad idea!

As you might guess, almost all the comments I've seen on the site are very hostile to their message, arguing that cigarette taxes should be higher, many arguing that cigarettes should actually be illegal, and so forth. I haven't seen many comments pointing out the stark fact that tobacco companies make money by making their customers sick and eventually killing them, which is probably a tribute to the politeness of internet users.

I did notice one guy, apparently an actual human being, defending the tobacco companies. His name is allegedly Andrew Glover, and his Facebook profile indicates that he lives in Barre. I just had to wonder: what kind of person supports tobacco companies? Is this really his honest view?

Here's what I found out. After following a couple of links I found that he apparently joined Facebook in 2007 but may not have actually posted anything until 2013. And why is he all of a sudden posting in support of the cancer industry? (Sorry, I mean the “cancer-COPD-heart disease industry”.)

You guessed it. It turns out that he's  the Director of Marketing at Hibbert & McGee Wholesales, a regional candy, tobacco, grocery and sundries distributor.

Way to astroturf, RJR and Andrew! 

One of the more interesting performers in the state legislature this year has been Windham Senator Peter Galbraith. It was widely noted that the former UN diplomat turned Vermont State Senator is following a unique path that appears to irk many fellow Senators.

And this past week according to VtBuzz

Sen. Peter Galbraith, who has made himself ever-more unpopular with his colleagues, continued on that path Friday.

Galbraith deliberately dragged out the discussion  on campaign finance reform by quizzing a fellow Senator at length about minute details of a pending bill. A desperate  attempt to halt Galbraith’s mini filibuster was made by Senator Phillip “Phil” Baruth who attempted to enlist Mason’s legislative procedural rules on tedious speechifying as a means of shutting off the verbiage. Senate President Lt. Governor Phil Scott ruled against Baruth. That was in character: the Republican Lite Guv always keeps an eye out for any possibility of minimizing regulation; he probably feared creating a burdensome regulatory precedent that might stifle future tedium.

At the close of the hectic week I am not sure where Galbraith’s one-man legislative grand finale places him on the list of winners and losers. But the long-winded Senator’s antics got me thinking less might be more.

Galbraith haiku? Yes I think it can be done in three lines (take your pick). And happily it is too short to ever be tedious.

Galbraith admonished.  

Mason’s rules not precedent:

Galbraith on and on.

And:  

Baruth, he rose, read

Mason’s rules – not precedent

Great Scott tedious.

Shap Smith came back from a 2012 Alaska vacation a changed man, with a newfound dedication to fighting climate change. So the Speaker told House Democrats in December, as reported by “The Ubiquitous” Peter Hirschfeld: (Warning: you may encounter the Mitchell Family Paywall.)

“I was really profoundly influenced by my trip to Alaska, and seeing the impact of climate change and hearing from people what it’s going to mean there,” Smith said. “And it just made me realize we’re not putting enough focus on something that could completely change our planet.”

…”We can’t shy away from it because other people are. We can’t say that because the rest of the country is deciding not to take action, that we will not.”

For his part, Governor Shumlin — who repeatedly refers to global warming as a “hair on fire” situation — promised a new push on renewable energy and efficiency.

“We’re doing abysmally on thermal efficiency,” Shumlin said. “Let’s find a way to work together in the next two years to catch up and do better so we’re not sending our oil and heating fuels out of our windows and doors and the dollars to countries that mostly do not like us.”

Yeah! Go Democrats! Let’s take our veto-proof majorities and show everyone how big a difference we can make!

Or not.  

Fast forward to the (almost) end of the Legislative session, and what do we have to show for those December dedications?

Jack diddly squat, if you ask me.

The tonsorial conflagration took a back seat to the Governor’s push for education and welfare reform — and, especially, to his abhorrence of “broad-based tax increases.” (Meaning tax increases he doesn’t like.)

The Legislature, having rejected Shumlin’s break-open ticket tax (and his unbelievably high revenue estimate) as a revenue source for new energy programs, has squeezed out a bit of new money for low-income heating assistance and weatherization, but nothing meaningful. And to the best of my recollection, nobody in the Executive or Legislative branches ever considered any real expansion of renewable energy.

Scalp feeling a bit tingly, Governor?

How about a trip to Antarctica, Mr. Speaker?  

Perfect it is not; but people who are suffering right now will see relief from the Senate End of Life Choice bill; and that is worth a lot.

The compromise agreement that will ultimately allow “death with dignity”  to become a legal option in Vermont is a short-term solution, sunsetting the Oregon-style comprehensive Choice language in 2016 and replacing it with language that will do no more than indemnify physicians who assist patients when they choose to end their own lives.

That doesn’t seem like much of a victory for lawmakers who fought long and hard to allow Vermonters to control their own destiny when all hope is well-past and all they have in their short future is pain and suffering before inevitable death.  But it means everything to those who will face the unthinkable in the immediate future; and there is every reason to hope that, once reluctant legislators have an opportunity to see the Oregon-style law in effect, they will gain the confidence to extend that comprehensive language indefinitely.

Thank you for that, Senators.

Bellows Free Academy (BFA) in St. Albans recently discovered it had a problem; and the Champlain Valley office of Voices Against Violence,  has been brought on board to facilitate an ongoing conversation about that problem.

In February of this year, a sexting ring at St. Albans’s hometown high school briefly fluttered the news before slipping away from public attention.

States Attorney, Jim Hughes didn’t press charges and no disciplinary action appears to have been taken by the school.

According to multiple sources familiar with the investigation, the young men involved distributed roughly 150 photos of more than 20 of their female peers in various states of undress. Although the total number of recipients might never be known, three of the young men were responsible for organizing the photo exchange.

Someone at least had the good sense to recognize the need for intervention.

The message carried by Voices educators to BFA students has focussed on the meaning of “consent,” and how the principle of consent was violated when those photos were distributed, just as surely as it is in an actual rape.

AndVoices is taking this opportunity to remind students that consent does not ever exist when the subject is impaired by alcohol or drugs.

Voices educator Amanda Rohdenburg observed that

“Boys and girls take these pictures at the same rate,” she said, “and then the pictures of the girls go viral.”

At least one BFA student had an explanation for the difference.

“She was really clear boys felt entitled and could share these like baseball cards,” said Rohdenburg. She explained that in the student’s analysis the boys saw the girls’ bodies as their property, as something they could trade like commodities.

Quite apart from the violation of privacy committed by the male students is the under reaction of  BFA officials and law enforcement, which suggests that this behavior falls within their expectations of “boys being boys.”

According to Michelle Monroe of the Messenger, Hughes felt there was no evidence of coercion.

Vermont’s teen sexting law allows teens caught with photos of an underage romantic or sexual partner to be sent to a court diversion program. However, as assistant state’s attorney Diane Wheeler acknowledged, the law was not intended to cover situations in which those recipients forward the photos to others without the consent of the person in the photo.

How far removed really is this exploitive behavior from that which resulted in the recent suicides of girls in Nova Scotia and California?  And what does this say about the culture of our community?

I can’t believe that after all the decades of struggle to eradicate it, this kind of gross sexual objectification and humiliation of women is still treated like a harmless prank.

In not unrelated news, we learn that sexual assaults in the U.S. military have been increasing at an alarming rate, and now average 70 per day!

This announcement followed quickly on the heels of the Sunday arrest of Lt. Col Jeffrey Krusinski, head of the Air Force SAPRO program…the guy in charge of preventing sexual assault… for himself committing a sexual assault.

Proof enough for me that it is the culture of command that makes the military an unsafe place for women.

Good morning, class. Today in “American Government,” we’ll discuss how a budget is passed.

First, the executive — the President or Governor — proposes a budget, including tax and spending plans. His budget goes to the Legislature, where Representatives and Senators examine the budget, take testimony, and consider the Governor’s plans. Changes can be made in various committees, or in the full House and Senate. There is debate and discussion in each.

If the House and Senate approve different versions of the budget, then three guys go into a small room, toss everything out, and make a deal amongst themselves. And that’s how we get a budget, boys and girls.

Well, at least that’s how it worked this year in Vermont.

Gov. Peter Shumlin and Statehouse leaders announced Tuesday afternoon that they will scrap all new tax proposals this legislative session.

This explains the Governor’s persistent optimism that, in the end, the Legislature would pass a “sensible” budget with NO NEW “BROAD-BASED” (cough*except gas and property*cough) TAXES.

This 2013 Legislative budget process? A mug’s game, fixed from the start. Push comes to shove, Smith and Campbell told their caucuses to take a dive. And they will.

I’m not writing here about the merits of the budget agreement (hint: a damn disappointing batch of weak tea, considering that us voters gave the Democrats veto-proof majorities to work with), but about the process. Which stinks.

If I were a member of House Ways and Means or Senate Finance, I’d be royally pissed. Because, as Anne Galloway points out, the House and Senate plans “had been carefully calibrated over the course of months of testimony, discussion and compromise.”

And after one closed-door meeting of the Three Kings? Poof, it’s gone.

And that, boys and girls, is how Democracy works.  

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Last week, when a box was left alone on the sidewalk on Langdon Street in downtown Montpelier, it was occasion for us to witness the full resources of the State of Vermont’s capacity to respond to the specter of an immanent threat to the safety of her people.  City police closed off a full city block on Main Street, area businesses were told no one could come in or out*, and the State Police bomb squad was called in to handle the situation.  As I understand it, first a robot took an x-ray of the suspicious box- which confirmed there was no bomb inside.  But from there, apparently, the various police agencies involved (presumably including Federal) decided that since they’d gone to all the trouble of being there, the thing that made the most sense was to continue to keep a large section of downtown closed off and use their robot to fire at the box and open it.  The whole incident took something in the order of three hours, perhaps a hair more.

*Curiously, while the block was closed a few hundred feet towards School Street, and a lessor distance towards State Street, police personnel lingering on Langdon Street itself- including the Bomb Squad’s truck- seemed significantly closer to the theoretically dangerous cardboard.  Even more questionable, from the perspective of protecting ordinary citizens, is that businesses within the closed off block were not evacuated, but merely told no one could enter or exit.  Clearly this speaks to the level of danger that authorities understood the situation to entail; and if not that, then a level of ineptitude in protecting us that should be called in to question.

Of course, no reasonable person would suggest there is certainty to the idea that no one would ever find occasion to leave a random bomb in a box on a sidewalk in a sleepy town of 8,000 nestled in what, by the standards of the vast majority of the population, is the middle of fucking no where.  At various points in history it was nearly impossible to imagine an end to the reign of the Tsars in Russia, or for a human being to walk on the moon, or for a million other things.  The point being that we’re better served, perhaps, by looking at what’s possible in terms of probability rather than certainty.

With all this in mind, those we elect to lead us and shape our society (and subsequently those who they put in charge of things such as our “security”) take quite seriously the possibility that someone, for some reason, at some point, could be interested in leaving just such a bomb in just such a random location.  For exactly this reason the Bomb Squad was called to Montpelier last week.  Yet it seems that at some point during the events of May 2 in Montpelier these police forces knew with some degree of certainty that there was no threat (the box ended up containing a pile of books).

I’ll detour for a quick second here to lambast that continually easy target: the media.  They have dutifully reported the facts of the incident (who, what, where, when), but as for what I’ve seen, have asked not a single question regarding the logic of what transpired.  This strict obedience to the Official story, and unwillingness to engage the population in a manner which asks us to question the actions of the State or even- god forbid- question the logic of our fearless leaders and institutions, is a complete betrayal of the very concept of a free press.  And without the diligence of the Forth Estate to educate and antagonize, I’d suggest the very possibility of a free, (a progressing, growing and maturing society) is practically dead in the water.

But yes.  Protecting the people.  This is, of course, the very premise of the police and “security” for society.  But I can’t help but use the “bomb scare” in Montpelier (um, I have yet to talk to anyone who was actually scared or believed the box contained anything likely dangerous) (but perhaps some of our more conservative friends would take this time to opine about the dangers of some books- these were, after all, something called “The Vermont Parent’s Home Guide” or something like that- could be some commie BS) as an opportunity to question where and how we allocate our resources.  If nearly anything is possible, and just comes down to a matter of probability, it would seem we would be best served to direct and consentrate our limited resources towards areas in which we know there to be higher instances of actual danger to society.  Here are some things far more likely to kill a U.S. citizen than a terrorist attack.  In fact, we’re eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist(1).  If we have a societal interest in protecting ourselves (which, of course we do) then our trust of the police is far, far less rational than our fear of terrorism.  If we have limited resources, shouldn’t we prioritize addressing things that are more dangerous over things that are less likely?

While it’s just hearsay, the only word on the street I’ve heard regarding how this lonely box of books became victim of police robot violence involves a vague and random threat/utterance from a mentally unstable person (Montpelier seems to have more then its fair share of such folks wondering around the streets).  It’s not worth harping on, since it’s not a known fact that this is true, but perhaps a sharper focus on resources to aid and care for people with mental disorders or deficiencies would be a smarter- and more efficient- use of than all the bomb squads and police robots.

All things considered, there are countless threats to the safety and health and wellbeing of us all.  We come together, as a social species, specifically to bring our resources together and provide for a more plentiful and safe and fulfilling world for all of us.  The question remains though, in what manner should we allocate said resources? Where are they most effective for creating the greatest outcome for the greatest number of us?  Blindly acting out of fear, instead of thoughtfully considering what are in fact the most realistic and most dangerous threats we face, and then focusing our efforts accordingly, would seem to me to be highly questionable manners of behaving.

Afghanistan.  The Pashtun people and the Talibans?  Piss on them all, man.  

Like when I was in the Nam–two fucking tours–we shot every fucking thing that moved.  Old women and old men, little kids and babies, the livestock, and the young girls after we had some good healthy American fun with them.  And then we burned it all.

The joke was:  You take all the friendlies out on ships in the South China Sea.  Then you bomb the country flat.  Then you sink the ships.

That’s what we should have done.  Except, back then, all you whining liberals and peace creeps and hippies and media fuckers wouldn’t let us.  So we lost the war.

Still, we got in our licks.  Most of you dumb shits still think My Lai was something special.  Shit, we did that all over.  Every fucking day.  Since ’65.  How the fuck do you think over 3 million of them gooks got greased?  I mean, yeah, the planes, the choppers, and the artillery boys did most of it, but us guys on the ground finished up for them.  19 here, 67 there, 142 there–all over the goddamn country.  Every day, like I said, for years.  They were just fucking slopes, gooks.  And all of them Charlie.  And having babies to make more Charlies.  So, we shot them all.  And burned their villes, and destroyed their rice crops, and made good and goddamn sure nobody gave us any shit about it.  Right on up to Westmoreland.  Hell, he helped us cover it all up.  He was a dumbass shit for a commanding General, but smart enough to know you can’t have a good body count and look like you’re winning if you declare 90% of your kills to be fucking civilians.  When, in fact, like I said, they’re just all Charlies anyway.  Man, what we could have done if we didn’t have to look over our shoulders all the time for some goddamn TV crew.

So, Afghanistan?  Hope the guys there are on the program.  If they’re smart and want to get through it, they will be.  I got some laughs out of it already when all the fuss was made about pissing on those Korans, and the two little kids zapped by a chopper, and the women…yeah.  You whiny fuckers send us over there to kill for you, and then you don’t like hearing about it, do you?  Terrorists?  Talibans?  Yeah, like VC.  Over 3 million of them.  That’s how you get the terrorists.  Kill them all.

I also get a kick out of this drone shit.  I mean, you assholes expect them things not to kill civilians?  Hell.  Just like a B-52 strike.  You kill enough of them, you’ll get some Talibans in the body count.  How the fuck do you think war works?  

What’s that?  You don’t want to hear about it?  Tough shit, pussies.  Torture?  I say torture the whole fucking Afghanistan nation.  And Pakistan too.  Then, sink the ships.  It’s a fucking war.  An all out free fire zone.  Our boys are dying over there.  You expect them to take that shit?

Anyway, you peace fucks are gonna screw them all over when they come back home, just like you did me and my buddies.  So, they might as well go on full auto over there and git some.  As long as it’s all covered up, and as long as you don’t want to hear about it, and as long as all of you want to pretend you’re better than us while you go on electing asshole shits like Obama and then act like you NEVER HEARD of Afghanistan.  Like you never heard of Vietnam back when.  There it is.

If me and my buddies weren’t so old and fucked-up, we’d go over there and give our boys some pointers.  Maybe when they come back, if it’s soon enough, me and my buddies and them can get together.  You know, form like a club.  What would you fuckers think of that?  I mean, you can sort of get to like it.  You know, killing.  And it doesn’t matter who you kill really.  I mean, you’re all just a bunch of goddamn gooks and slopes and dinks too.  Right?  Yeah, full auto.  And the women…  Maybe you fuckers should stop whining about those drones.  You may need them someday.  Right over here.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

You really should listen to VPR's Vermont Edition every day. Jane Lindholm and the rest of the Vermont Edition staff consistently find interesting, timely, and important stories and present them with knowledgeable and involved guests. The show is one of the best additions to VPR's news coverage in the last few years.

Today's broadcast is an important one because they will be talking about what it takes to help people get out of poverty.

This is especially important today because we're in the legislative end game of a session in which the administration has been trying to cap and limit public assistance even for families who have not been able to find employment and become self-supporting. In fact, as VtDigger reported last week, the administration wants to not only limit benefits, but also to cut the jobs of people who are supposed to be helping get families off the welfare rolls.

Does this make sense to you? Not to me either. 

When you listen today you might want to call in at (800)639-2211 and tell the listeners what you think of the idea of time limiting benefits while slashing efforts to help people out of poverty. 

In the category of “How naive can you get?” Vermont Yankee supporter, Howard Shaffer certainly wins the prize.

Many in the Vermont legislature would like to see imposition of a $40-million reserve fund to restore the Vermont Yankee site to a “greenfield” condition, post-decommissioning, as was promised to the state by Entergy when it purchased the aging facility.  But Mr. Shaffer sees absolutely no problem in getting Entergy to pay-up:

“The issue of will there be enough money is a serious one, but I also think it will be found that the federal government laws override state laws that allow somebody to go bankrupt and run away from their responsibility,” he said. “That’s Congress’ intent. And they’re going to find the original owners and make them pay.”

Arnie Gundersen of Fairwinds Associates is far less certain:

Gundersen said Entergy Corporation, Yankee’s owner, is looking at major expenses in the future. These include a $200 million bill to replace its condenser and potentially another $40 million in modifications that could be required as a result of the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan…at the end of the day when the fund is depleted there may not be funds to get to greenfield.

Gundersen supports the bill under consideration by Vermont’s House Natural Resource and Energy Committee that would codify Entergy’s obligation to return the site to a “greenfield” state.

Considering it’s record of insincerity and looking around at the declining fortunes of nuclear plants in other places does not make one optimistic that Entergy will live up to its promises, post-VY, without enhanced inducement.

Declining gas prices and growing regulatory concerns are both moving the American energy market away from nuclear and its fleet of outdated reactors.  Dominion Resources just announced that it will close the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin even though it is licensed to operate for another twenty years.  It is expected that many nuclear plants in the northeast will soon follow suit.

The worldwide industry’s number one bad boy,TEPCO is refusing to fork over the small portion (10.5 billion yen; or roughly $106-million) of the decontamination costs for Fukushima, which the Japanese government is asking the company to contribute.  The total costs are expected to reach into the trillions of yen.

It kind of makes you think, doesn’t it?