Congratulations, Mr. Ambassador. You single-handedly overturned a legislative process that had been building for years, and derailed a thoughtful debate through your own intransigence.

I say again, how in hell did Peter Galbraith ever make a successful diplomat?

The subject here is the rapid and confusing turn of events on the Senate floor today. On Tuesday, the Senate voted 17-13 to advance a death-with-dignity bill toward a final vote. But Galbraith joined the majority only to keep the game going, as he planned to advance his own amendment that would completely gut the bill.

And thanks to the closeness of the vote, he had the power to do just that.

Note to Galbraith: Just because you have power doesn’t mean you ought to use it. I think that’s something they teach diplomats.

The original bill, shepherded by Sen. Claire Ayer, was based on the Oregon model. Oregon has allowed doctor-assisted suicide under strictly controlled conditions for fifteen years; it has worked exactly as intended, allowing a tiny number of people to end their lives after meeting tough criteria. It’s a carefully crafted system.

Galbraith’s substitute bill would simply indemnify a doctor who prescribes a lethal dose to a patient. Even I, neither a doctor nor a lawyer, can see lots of problems and unanswered questions there. If he was serious about this, he should have introduced it earlier in the session, instead of springing it on the Senate at the very last minute.

Galbraith insisted that his bill had the same intent as Ayer’s, but it had a completely different effect on the Senate vote. Opponents of the Ayer bill lined up in favor of Galbraith’s, while Ayer’s allies all voted no.

The vote means that the Ayer bill is now dead for this session.

Instead, the Senate’s only option is Galbraith’s hastily-drawn and very brief amendment that hasn’t been vetted by legal or medical experts. Supporters of death with dignity will face a tough choice: vote yes on a bill they don’t like — at all — or vote no and wait to fight another day.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Ayer’s opponents jumped on the Galbraith bill as a way to kill the issue, and that they will reverse course tomorrow and vote “no.” If they do, and if a single supporter of death with dignity can’t bear to vote for the Galbraith version, then the bill will die.

Without dignity.

I know there are some GMDers who oppose death with dignity. And although I support the Ayer bill, my complaint isn’t over the fact of its defeat — but rather the underhanded way it was defeated.

They say that lawmaking is like sausage-making: a close-up view can cost you your appetite. That’s certainly the case here. And just as the nether regions of pigs play a starring role at the meat factory, this bit of legislative legerdemain featured a certain porcine sphincter in the lead role.

Talkin’ to you, Mr. Ambassador.  

Here’s a brilliant move. The Vermont Republican Party, which (by its own leaders’ admission) needs to attract younger voters and refresh its image, have taken a nice big step — in the other direction.

The VTGOP is holding its spring dinner on March 16. And its keynote speaker?

That guy.

Steve Forbes. 65 years old. Was briefly a compelling figure in Republican politics, back in the 1990s. Spent vast amounts of his (inherited) fortune on two spectacularly unsuccessful runs for President — the most recent of which was twelve years ago.

Steve Forbes, who still spends his days trumpeting the glories of the free market, the flat tax, and voucherized Social Security.

Steve Forbes, whose most recent book is entitled “Freedom Manifesto: Why Free Markets are Moral and Big Government Isn’t.”

Steve Forbes, just the man to change the VTGOP’s bitter-old-white-wingnut image.  

Steve Forbes. A new voice for Vermont.

Sometimes this stuff just writes itself.  

(This is so funny (and, I’ll bet, true) that I spit a beverage through my nose.  And that was single malt scotch, Sue.  An expensive nose-spit.)

In a smoke-filled room at the Vatican, the College of Cardinals meet to discuss future business after Benedict’s abdication:

Cardinal Barzini:  “All right.  We’re all here, the representatives of the 120 Major Families.  The smaller Families will go along with what we finish settling here today.  Cardinal Sollozzo has asked for a vote on his proposal.  Cardinal Corleone, you have something to say?”

Cardinal Corleone:  “I know all the Families have some fears about where we’re headed now that Benedict has resigned.  We have voted to move in a more liberal direction.  This is good.  It is good for business.  Cardinal Moe has already made contact with this Mr. Trump in New York, and I think this move, if we make Trump an offer he cannot refuse, will mean an end to the closing down of so many of our businesses that we’ve seen in recent years.  When we take over the Trump Organization, I think we will have a way back to good business again, like in the old days.  But this proposal of Cardinal Sollozzo?  With all respects, I cannot support it.  If we get into this drug business, I see trouble for us up ahead.  And using the little Altar Boys as…what was it, Cardinal Sollozzo?”

Cardinal Sollozzo:  “Runners, Cardinal Corleone.”

Cardinal Corleone:  “Yes, runners.  Who help distribute the drugs.  I think that’s bad for business.  The people will turn against us.  As they did about the sex with all the little boys.  This drug thing.  It worries me.  I’m an old man, so I worry.  But I have also seen things in my time like this.  Things like this sometimes are trouble.  So convince me.”

Cardinal Tattaglia:  “But Cardinal Corleone, we used the little boys for sex, but it was not business.  We made no money on them.  But now, with Cardinal Sollozzo’s plan, we have sex and we do business.  You are too old-fashioned, Cardinal Corleone.  The drugs are where the real business, the real money, is.  The people want the drugs?  So we say yes, give the people what they want.  It is the job Our Almighty Godfather has given us to do.  The people need the drugs?  It is also our job to nurture the people.  So they will enter into the Godfather’s Kingdom with us.  The people therefore will come to us for the drugs.  To Mass.  To Confession.  To Bingo.  To our casinos in Las Vegas.  And they will be loyal to us, and those people not in our Families will join them.  We will grow as our business grows.  And no one will talk out of Confession.  No one will dare a sacrilege after what we have planned for Father Brasi in Vermont.  More people will come to us for the drugs, rather than go to the others in the drug business.  They will come to us, not the Russian families.  Because they will know our drugs are blessed.  By the Almighty Godfather.  And the Sweet Virgin Herself.  It is business, Cardinal Corleone.  It is just business.  But it is good business.  

Cardinal Corleone:  “Yes, but this business is a business that could take over all we do and all we are and all we love and worship.  I don’t know.  I still have doubts.  Forgive me, Cardinal Tattaglia, Cardinal Barzini.  And speak to me now, Cardinal Sollozzo.”

Cardinal Sollozzo:  “We already have the Trump Organization, Cardinal Corleone.  Cardinal Moe has informed me that, as of this morning, this man Trump has accepted our offer.  Seems that waking up in bed with a bloody comb-over hairpiece at his feet convinced him of our…how shall I say it?...sincerity.  And with the drugs, we will have the Halliburton and Monsanto Organizations too.  The smaller Families will grow into Major Families.  We’ll be able to have a thousand, maybe two thousand, new Cardinals.  And they will be young ones.  Some of them our past Altar Boys.  And it is the young that make us powerful, Cardinal Corleone.  Are you so old you have forgotten the eagerness of the young?  Of the little Altar Boys?  That is our future.  Cardinal Barzini, I ask for a vote.”

Cardinal Barzini:  “Have you said all you have to say, Cardinal Corleone?”

Cardinal Corleone:  “I will go along then.  But someday, Cardinal Sollozzo, I will ask a favor of you for my blessing here today.  A favor you cannot refuse.”

Cardinal Sollozzo:  “I will be at your disposal, Cardinal Corleone.  You do this for me today and I will be in your debt for eternity.”

Cardinal Corleone:  “Ah, eternity.  May we all live to see it come to pass.  Even with the drugs.”



Cardinal Tattaglia:  “I hear, Cardinal Corleone, that eternity will be better with the drugs.”  (All the Cardinals chuckle)

Cardinal Barzini:  “Then it is settled.  We don’t need a vote then?  Cardinal Sollozzo and Cardinal Tattaglia will proceed with the drug business.  And they will have all of us and all the members of all the Families behind them.  We have pledges of support from our Republican friends in the American Congress.  And we have more sex videos of American Congressmen of both parties with little boys.  And, thanks to Cardinal Ola, we will be back in business in Cuba after that awful man Castro dies.  Now, Cardinal Moe?  On the arrangements for Benedict?”

Cardinal Moe :  “Yes, Cardinal Barzini.  It is all arranged.  Benedict will be taken to a quiet little island in the Aegean.  We will say it is for his health.  Then, in a week, two weeks at the most, he will suffer an unfortunate accident while out on a small boat.  A tragic accident.  He will never have a chance to talk.  It is done.”

Cardinal Corleone:  “So Benedict will sleep with the fishes.  This is good.  This is good for business.”

Cardinal Barzini:  “All right then.  Our business here is completed.  Cardinals, join me now in a prayer to Our Heavenly Godfather.  Let us bow our heads and give thanks to Him.  And ask for His Blessing in all our future deeds here on His earth.  In the name of His Holy Spirit and His Holy Business.”

            THE END

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

(“It’s only business.  Just business.”)

My sympathies to Senate Majority Leader Phil “Philip” Baruth. Because, to paraphrase Jean-Paul Sartre, “Hell is needing Peter Galbraith’s vote.”

As I’m sure you know, the state Senate voted 17-13 yesterday to proceed with the “death with dignity” bill. Technically, they were voting to reject the Judiciary Committee’s stand against the bill. More debate today and final votes either today or tomorrow. The vote was good news for supporters of the bill, but final passage is not assured; it’s possible that a couple of Senators will change sides, with would kill the bill.

One of those fence-sitters is our friend Peter Galbraith (D-Hambone), who voted with the majority yesterday but wants to completely rewrite the bill before the final vote. (Link goes behind the Mitchell Family Paywall. Sorry.)

Galbraith… is at work on an amendment that would essentially replace the current legislation with language that “decriminalizes” the prescribing of lethal doses of medication to certain eligible patients.

Galbraith favors assisted suicide, but he opposes “a state-sponsored process.” As far as I can tell, he’s a one-man army on that position. And given the fact that a critical mass of Senators want even more control on the process than the current bill would establish, it’s safe to say the bill would be in danger of defeat if Galbraith’s amendment is accepted.

But Galbraith? He don’t care. Peter “All By Myself” Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau caught this little exchange:

As Galbraith made clear to Senate Majority Leader Philip Baruth after the vote, “the issue is, are there 15 votes to pass this bill without Hartwell and me?”

“And the answer is ‘no,'” Galbraith said.

At least he didn’t add “Neener neener!”

Maybe that sounded different in person, but in print it reads like an outburst of narcissism. He has his own idea, and he’s openly holding the legislation hostage. In public, in the presence of a reporter, no less. So much for collegiality.

Bob Hartwell voted with the majority yesterday, but he has very different concerns with the bill: he wants to require that patients seeking to end their lives, talk with family members and consult with experts in palliative care before proceeding. If both men stick to their positions, it’s hard to imagine them voting “yes” on the same bill.

Hartwell can be mollified with a couple of tweaks. If Galbraith insists on his rewrite, then he appears to be in a position to single-handedly kill it, because of a concern that is his alone.

Which isn’t how lawmaking — or diplomacy — is supposed to work.  

A House committee appears to be backing away from a bill that would restrict the ability of third parties to submit absentee ballot requests. Leaders of Vermont’s three largest parties all spoke against H.21 at a hearing of the House Government Operations Committee, and their testimony appeared to be persuasive. By the end of the hearing, the bill’s primary sponsor, Randolph Democrat Larry Townsend, openly talked of killing his bill in favor of “some good ideas” brought up during the session.

The bill would require a voter’s signature on any absentee application submitted by a third party who is not a relative or health care provider. It was inspired by reports of voter confusion around Election Day 2012; some voters were unsure whether they had applied for an absentee ballot or not. Some claimed that applications were submitted without their knowledge. In writing H.21, Townsend was seeking to block outsiders from filling out applications for unknowing voters.  

All three political parties testified in opposition to the bill, on the grounds that helping voters with the absentee process helps build turnout. It’s common practice for party workers and candidates to help voters submit absentee requests, or even fill out and submit the requests on behalf of voters.

The witness list for the hearing was short: Progressive State Rep. Chris Pearson, followed by Jake Perkinson (Democratic Party), Jack Lindley (VTGOP) and Robert Millar, the new executive director of the Progressive Party.

Pearson spoke first, started his case clearly, took a few questions, and left to attend to his legislative duties elsewhere. Then Perkinson testified, followed by Lindley. After that, a sort of general colloquy broke out, with several questions directed at both Perkinson and Lindley.

Meanwhile, on a bench along the wall, sat Robert Millar.

After the jump: MIllar finally gets a shot, and Angry Jack is never far from the surface.

I guess no one on the committee knew what he looks like. (Someone actually gestured in my direction, as though I was the Prog Party chair. I took it as a compliment.) Eventually someone noticed Millar, and he was belatedly invited to give his testimony.

It was an unfortunate moment. His presentation was brief and punchless, and he was an uncompelling figure. Admittedly he faced difficult circumstances: Pearson had presented a Progressive case already, then Perkinson and Lindley gave very similar testimony, which didn’t leave Millar with much to add. He may have been understandably deflated because the committee kept him in the on-deck circle too long.

I don’t know Robert Millar. He may be a very effective party builder, which is what the Progs need right now. But judging by today’s appearance, public speaking is not his strong suit. The Progs would have been better served by letting Pearson represent them on his own.

Okay, enough inside baseball. As for those “other good ideas” that might actually find their way into legislation, the focus was on transparency and disclosure. Perkinson called for “accountability for those requesting a ballot for someone else,” by openly identifying the requestor and his/her affiliation. (Party, candidate, advocacy group, etc.) He said it’s standard practice for Democratic volunteers and candidates to offer clear identification. He also called for a statewide database of absentee-ballot requests.

All three party leaders agreed with one lawmaker’s suggestion for unmissable disclosure on any mailer or brochure that includes absentee materials: the name of the sender and other pertinent information would be printed in the largest type font used anywhere else on the material.

Lindley echoed his colleagues’ concerns about the bill’s potential for limiting voter participation. But he took advantage of the occasion to rattle off some Republican bumpf on the mythical plague of voter fraud. He called for increased penalties for violators of election law — a $1,000 fine instead of $100. He spoke ominously of those “who play on the dark side.” When asked what he meant, he said “People using techniques that we would find foreign in terms of manipulating elections.”

Ooh, “foreign.” Any particular country you have in mind, Jack? Kenya, perhaps?

When asked if there was any sign of voter fraud in Vermont, he admitted “Not yet.” He even acknowledged that the VTGOP lost the 2012 election “fair and square”; he simply wants to keep it that way.

Since the actual topic of H.21 was disposed of in short order, the discussion drifted onto unrelated campaign issues — specifically, the rise of PACs and Super PACs. Lindley spoke of a day in the future when lawmakers would represent PACs, not districts or constituents. And here’s where Millar staged a brief rally on behalf of Progressive principle. Perkinson and Lindley joined arms (metaphorically) in a call to lift limits on individual donations to candidates and parties — in order to level the playing field with Super PACs, which operate without limits.

That would, of course, “level the playing field” at a much higher dollar figure. MIllar insisted the right course is to refuse entry into this financial “arms race,” and instead focus on overturning the US Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United ruling.

Tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon, by the way, the Senate Government Operations Committee will hold a hearing on campaign finance reform — a measure that has generally attracted support from all three parties and VPIRG. We’ll see if it sails through, or if lawmakers exercise their creative skills in finding areas of disagreement.  

The President of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation brought a clear message to the Statehouse today: He has every hope of transporting tar-sands oil from western Canada in an existing pipeline that runs through the Northeast Kingdom. Currently, the pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal.

“Some have said we may have a reversal project,” Larry Wilson told the House Fish, Wildlife, and Water Resources Committee this morning. “We don’t have one at this time. We hope to have a project to revitalize our company and use these assets to provide for energy needs.”

(Wilson’s company actually has two pipelines on the same route; one is currently mothballed due to lack of demand.)

Wilson spent most of his testimony offering reassurances (or bromides, if you prefer) about his company’s safety record, maintenance procedures, and environmental orientation. He claimed that oil pipelines are built to handle flows in either direction, and that “pipeline companies routinely change the direction of flow.”

Wilson is trying to beat back proposed legislation that would require a fresh Act 250 permit for any substantial change in use of an existing oil pipeline. Under current law, it’s unclear whether a fresh permit would be required.

Wilson also sought to minimize concerns about the nature of tar sands oil. He never said the phrase “tar sands oil”; instead, he referred to “heavy crude,” and said his pipelines were fully capable of carrying any kind of oil, heavy or light. He denied that carrying tar sands oil would require heating of the pipeline or an increase in pressure.

But mostly, over and over again, he referred to his company’s “outstanding,” award-winning, diligent, constant, continuous dedication to safety and maintenance.  

Funny thing. Thanks to US Judge Garvan Murtha’s ruling in the Vermont Yankee case, lawmakers must tread carefully when talking about “safety.” As with nuclear power plants, the safety of oil pipelines is solely a matter for federal regulators. More than one member of the committee expressed concern that, if they talked too much about safety, they might be providing evidence for a Yankee-style lawsuit. Would it sound too conspiratorial to infer that Wilson was hoping to drive the conversation onto safety, in hopes of building a trail of evidence for future legal action?

Wilson slammed the bill, saying “it seems discriminating to me.” I think he meant “discriminatory,” but we’ll go on. He argued that the pipeline industry is already heavily regulated, and added “If you tell me I have to secure permits I don’t need today, it seems unnecessary and difficult for me to move [oil] to markets.”

Environmental groups (scheduled to testify on Wednesday) plan to focus on global warming rather than concerns about oil spills. The extraction of tar sands oil is a very carbon-intensive process, and has been called “the dirtiest form of fossil fuel.” Western Canadian oil producers are looking for pipelines to major ports — through the central US and through western Canada to the Pacific — and the Portland-Montreal pipeline would provide a ready outlet to overseas markets.

(If, of course, states like Vermont don’t erect new regulatory barriers.)

The enviros’ larger goal is to make tar sands oil a financially unattractive proposition, in hopes of limiting production operations and the resulting carbon emissions.

If Wilson was hoping to kill or delay the legislation, he may have done his cause more harm than good. His frank admission that he hoped to reverse the pipeline certainly adds some urgency to Deen’s bill. And given the partisan makeup of the Legislature, Wilson can’t hope to prevail by appealing solely to the free-market crowd. Most lawmakers, IMO, will probably remain unconvinced by the practiced blandishments of a professional oilman.  

First, let’s stipulate that the resignation of Pope Benedict was the biggest news story of the day yesterday. (It even swamped the Ellen/Katy encounter at the Grammys.) And of course, any responsible news organ would give it some coverage.

But the Freeploid went absolutely batshit. The front cover of today’s ‘Loid is dominated by a huge profile photo of Ratzy, wreathed in smoke (as if he was singing “It Was a Very Good Year” at Karaoke Night) with the giant headline ‘A SHEPHERD STEPS AWAY.” Plus three full pages of coverage inside.

Seems a bit over-the-top, since (a) the Freeploid generally focuses like Gov. Shumin’s laser on local and state news, and (b) isn’t Burlington kind of a liberal hotbed? The kind of place that’d have Pope Benedict crossing himself every ten seconds and bathing in Purell at the end of the day?

This is the second time in less than a week that the Freeploid has morphed into The Burlington Catholic Reporter. The first time was last Thursday, when its front page was given over to Bishop Salvatore Matano’s opposition to the death with dignity bill. Giant (and uninteresting) photo of the Bish testifying in the Senate, headline BISHOP IMPLORES STATE painting Matano as the last guardian of morality, begging Vermont to foreswear the path of darkness.

Hey, a lot of other folks testified too, y’know. But the Bishop  — the guy who has consistently been more concerned with the finances of his diocese than the well-being of pedophilia victims — gets the big splash, as if he has some unique and monumental status in Vermont.

So, Freeploid, what’s with all the Cathoholism?

Following on the killing of Macadam Mason by Taser a bill has been introduced to establish a statewide policy regarding training for and use of “electronic control devices”.

H. 225 is sponsored by Jim Masland, who represented Macadam Mason in the House, Anne Donahue from Northfield, and more than thirty other legislators.  It would provide for substantial regulation of the use of Tasers, including recognition that Tasers are deadly force, they should only be used when deadly force would be justified or to prevent a person's death through self-harm, must not be used for punishment or compliance, and must be used with the recognition of the special risks to people with cognitive disabilities or in emotional crises.

Advocates have been asking for action ever since Macadam Mason's death last summer and this bill, which has been referred to the Committee on Government Operations, is the first step to address those concerns.

The bill's sponsors and other supporters will be speaking at a press conference in Room 10 of the State House at 2:15 this afternoon.

Speaking at the press conference will be Rep. Anne Donahue of Northfield and Rep. Jim Masland of Thetford, lead sponsors of the bill; Ed Paquin, executive director of Disability Rights Vermont; Allen Gilbert, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Jack McCullough of the Mental Health Law Project of Vermont Legal Aid.

Yes, I know this feature is putatively entitled “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down, and a Poke in the Eye,” but I’m having too much fun playing the field. So… Special Clown Edition!

VTDigger, the state’s best online news source, for taking home a $75,000 grant that will help it build a solid foundation. The matching grant comes from the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation; the money will help pay for two new positions — publisher and database developer — and efforts to create databases aimed at increasing political transparency and accountability.

Technically, the money goes to VTDigger’s nonprofit parent, the Vermont Journalism Trust. And the Trust does have to raise a matching $75,000. But this grant will make a huge difference in terms of making VTDigger as stable organizationally as it is reliable journalistically. Getting a good publisher will be especially helpful in that regard; until now, founder Anne Galloway has been wearing approximately six hats — chief editor, writer, publisher, fundraiser, etc., etc. If she can doff a hat or two, that’ll be a very good thing.

The State of Vermont, for apparently failing to live up to its bargain on Montpelier’s proposed district heating system. And a lesser Sad Clown to the city government, for  launching a big, ambitious program with extremely little margin for error. Last week, we learned that the state’s portion of the system would come in $2.3 million over budget. The state then asked the city to pay one-quarter of that overrun. And the city declined.

Even if the city had agreed, it’s questionable whether the Legislature, in a tough budget year, would be willing to appropriate another $1.8M for the state’s portion. On the other hand, the city and state have already spent about $5M on the project, and cancellation would cost millions more. Given that unhappy prospect, the two sides are talking about some sort of work-around that would keep the project on track.

The larger part of the blame would seem to fall with the state, for trying to squeeze money out of the city beyond the terms of the contract. But the city decided to proceed with the project even though it knew there was almost no wiggle room for unforeseen contingencies. And on a project of this scale, there are always unforeseen contingencies.

After the jump: the Shumlin switcheroo; a small college stands on principle; chainsaws and coffee; and a nuclear humanitarian.

The Shumlin Administration, for its stout defense of welfare recipients and denial of the oft-repeated canard that too much help fosters a culture of dependency. In a January report, the Administration said that imposing a five-year lifetime limit on “Reach Up” benefits “could leave families destitute and at risk and will create a large hole in the fabric of Vermont’s safety net for those most in need.”

Wait, what?

Ohhhhhh, that report came out in January 2012, you say? And Shumlin’s new budget imposes a five-year lifetime cap on Reach Up? Exactly the kind of program cut it opposed only one year ago?

To quote the great Emily Litella, “Never mind.”

The teeny-tiny Republican minority in the Legislature, for continuing to prove that the VTGOP has failed to learn the lessons of 2012. I don’t know how many times Vermont Republicans have to be utterly rejected by the electorate before they start to understand that their right-wing, free-market policies are firmly opposed by a solid majority of voters.

I guess they need at least one more painful lesson, considering the clueless and pointless “No” vote cast by Republican members of a House committee on a bill that would provide free school lunches to students who currently qualify for reduced-price meals. The bill was obviously going to pass, and it’s probably the Grinchiest stance the Republicans could have taken.

Hey, VTGOP: if you want to pretend to be the Guardians of the Public Purse, please find yourself a more arguable use for taxpayer funds, and then go to town. The more you keep doing this stuff, the longer it’ll take for your party to regain even a hint of relevance.

Sterling College, for taking a meaningful stand against global warming with its decision to stop investing its endowment in the fossil fuel industry. Sterling is the first college in Vermont, and only the third in the nation, to heed the call of Bill McKibben to stop profiting at the expense of the planet. School trustee Rian Fried noted that short-term return is not the only way, or even the best way, to evaluate one’s portfolio.

“With this action, not only will the social return of the portfolio increase, the safety of the long-term financial returns will also be significantly enhanced by shielding the College from direct exposure to companies whose production levels are unsustainable.”

Sterling is a little tiny place, to be sure. But from small acorns do mighty oak trees grow.

Those black marketeers (knowing or otherwise) at Maple Grove Farms, for buying large quantities of maple syrup stolen from a Quebec warehouse. How large?

How about 12 tanker truckloads?

Company flack Matthew Lindberg insisted the company “purchased the maple syrup in good faith with no reason to believe that it was coming from Quebec or that it may have been stolen.” He denied media reports that the syrup was bought at well below market rates.

That’s as may be, but it’s a big blow to a company that trades heavily on its homespun Vermont charm. And you do have to wonder how tight their purchasing and sourcing operations really are, when they somehow managed to buy 12 tankers full of maple syrup from one of the alleged warehouse thieves without knowing its provenance.

The unknown thief who pulled off a smart perfecta at a seasonal home in Bradford. The burglar broke in sometime over the last several days and stole two chainsaws, a coffee maker, and several boxes of coffee.  

It’s a rare thief with the foresight to plan heists in accordance with well-known public safety tropes. (“Do not operate heavy machinery while drowsy.”) Plus, the coffeemaker was a Keurig single-cup model, so the thief is also patronizing local business. In his or her own way.

ABC’s “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” exploiters of human misfortune, for pushing another family to the brink of bankruptcy. For those blessedly unfamiliar with the more rancid outposts of reality TV, EM:HE is a sappy, over-the-top descendant of early TV weepie “Queen for a Day.” It finds deserving families living in substandard conditions and builds them a BRAND… NEW… HOUSE!!!

A house that’s obscenely large and aggressively overdecorated, and proves very difficult to maintain. And sure enough, there have been several cases of families being unable to keep up the financial commitment of their “free home,” and either gone bankrupt or sold off. This time, it’s the Vitale family of Athens, Vermont who are desperately trying to hang onto their home, which was custom-designed for their severely disabled son. However…

The family struggled to keep their new home once it was built, Vitale said. He also said he and his wife failed to read through the entire contract. When they did, they realized they were responsible for financing the house, a total of $220,000 for a 30-year mortgage with Chase Bank.

The property taxes and heating bills were also beyond their means. And when they tried to sell the house last year, they found no takers for a handicap-accessible rural home designed for the specific needs and interests of the Vitales at a price of 600 G’s.

Can somebody please give obnoxiously cheerful EM:HE host Ty Pennington a good hard kick in the nuts? Tell ”im Green Mountain Daily sent you.

J. Wayne Leonard, erstwhile utility magnate and budding Citizen of the World. Wayno stepped down at the end of January as head of Entergy, just in time to leave his successors holding the bag of the embarrassing Super Bowl brownout. He also leaves his company in a perilous cash flow situation that may force it to abandon one or more of its reactors — possibly Vermont Yankee. And leaves his successor to desperately explain away the “challenging economic situations” of its aging nuclear power plants:

“We have not made any decisions to shut down any of our merchant nuclear plants,” Entergy CEO Leo Denault said on the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call.

But, he said, “We are continually assessing our businesses and investments.”

…”Near-term power prices are challenging for some merchant nuclear generating units in certain competitive markets,” Denault said, noting the company was “bullish longer-term relative to the current forward curve.”

Which, I believe, is CEO-speak for “Oh God, oh God, somebody HELP!”

I haven’t been able to find information about Leonard’s retirement package, but I’m sure his parachute is a rich warm shade of gold. And in addition to great personal wealth, he also gets to play Junior League Bill Gates on his former employer’s dime:

A $5 million endowment for the creation of the J. Wayne Leonard Poverty, Climate Change and Social Justice Fund was announced Friday by Entergy Corp. in honor of J. Wayne Leonard, retiring chairman and chief executive officer of the company.

… The money comes from shareholder-funded donations to the Entergy Charitable Foundation, which means the corporation will make donations to the fund periodically until it reaches $5 million.

It may come as a complete surprise to Vermonters who only know Wayne Leonard through his stonewalling PR and his scorched-earth legal tactics, but in Entergy’s back yard, Leonard is known as a real humanitarian — at least, compared to his ethically challenged colleagues in CEO-land. In fact, Leonard is seen as something of a rebel in the energy business because of his outspokenness on climate change. Which, of course, plays into Entergy’s status as owner of several “carbon-free” nuclear power plants. But I’m sure that’s mere coincidence.

One final note. The Leonard Fund will make grants in the states where Entergy owns nukes and other major facilities, including Vermont. So we can look forward to getting a few crumbs from Entergy’s table, lavishly trumpeted in press releases I’m sure, even as the corporation itself continues to marshal legions of attorneys in its fight for the right to keep Vermont Yankee open.  

Hi.  Click on this link, popesrus.god, and you will be able to nominate your choice for the next Pope.  We have a suggested list of candidates that includes Clint Eastwood, Donald Trump, Rand & Ron Paul, Sean Penn, Bob Dylan, Tim Tebow, Alex Rodriquez, Tiger Woods, Oliver Stone, and Chris(t) Christie, to name a few.  

However, you may write-in your own choice.  Like, say, Joe Biden or Robert DeNiro.  Wouldn’t it be cool to have Robert De Niro as Pope?  “Are you lookin’ at me?!” he’d say to the crowds in St. Peter’s Square.

Please include all your personal identifications, phone numbers (both home & work), where you bank, where you pray (or drink), whether you own a gun or guns, how many children you have and their ages and sex, the names and information on at least three friends or references, and what other blogsites you saw this contest notice on.

BECAUSE–If your choice for Pope actually becomes Pope, you will win a LIFETIME SUPPLY of Catholic Holy Water, as used by the Vatican and Monsanto.  Please get your entries in by Feb.28.

You may also add a line or two explaining your choice for Pope.  For example: “I think Joe Blow, a sex offender recently relocated into my neighborhood, would make a great Pope because then I won’t have to move my family to Vermont.”  or:  “I could see Big Daddy Kane as Pope cause didn’t he do a “fuk ya up da ass” song, or was that WC? He’s cool too.”  or;  “I choose Ralph Nader as Pope because then he could show that it was GOD who made a fucked-up product–The World–and not me.”

And remember, whoever the next Pope is will probably want to meet with you and your partner and your children.  People with no children are prohibited from entering this contest.  Thank you.