Thought I would just simply post a chart from this June.It makes a nice colorful illustration to accompany Sue’s diary below. Chart can be found here

This is important shit, people.  Read it:

The British Film Institute’s magazine, Sight & Sound, which has listed Citizen Kane as the #1 greatest film for the last fifty years, now says that Citizen Kane is #2.  The new #1 (I feel like going into The Prisoner here) greatest film of all time is now Hitchcock’s VERTIGO (1958).  Hmmm…well…okay.  I mean YES!  I think VERTIGO is a GREAT MOVIE!

James Stewart is brilliant as a fucked-up-in-the-head detective who transforms a live woman (Kim Novak) into a dead woman (Kim Novak).  And vice versa.  The movie is great because, at its core, it deals with the hauntings of past unrequited love in the psyche of Stewart (as Every-Fucked-Up-Man), and how that leads him to become a tad ‘disturbed’ in his relations to women and to his job as a private investigator.

The dead woman’s death was ruled a suicide, a leap from a church tower, but Stewart blames himself, in that his fear of heights prevented him from climbing the spooky stairway in time to stop her.  So he seeks solace in transforming the lookalike live Kim Novak into the exact image of the dead Kim Novak.  It is probably Stewart’s greatest performance as the psychologically ‘quirky’ American male, as opposed to the rock solid All-American Cary Grant (also a Hitchcock star) type of American male.  Stewart’s characters, I’ve always thought, were always just a little bit ‘off’–including a lot of his Western roles.  But enough of this synopsis shit (as Sean Connery might have put it in The Untouchables); it is imperative now to look into the DEEP INNER MEANING of VERTIGO, and the DEEP INNER MEANING of the British Film Institute crowning it the new #1 film of all time:

VERTIGO, folks, is about NECROPHILIA, plain and simple.  Stewart wants to make love to a corpse.  (Remember, this is a Hitchcock flick.  The guy who did Psycho.)  Your true love dies.  You run into someone who looks startling much like her.  Then you have her dye her hair, change her hairstyle, clothes, make-up, etc., etc., and, lo and behold, you have your own true love again, as though she had risen from the graveyard, to have and to hold.  And to do other things to also.

It’s sort of like that routine I think all men, excepting Heathcliff, have gone through–I know I have–when we meet a woman who reminds us of a past love.  We get kind of…flakey.  But do we put the make on the dead?  Make love to the dead?  No.  Not like Stewart In VERTIGO.  He has a genuine “oh babie, you look just like a corpse I once loved” leap into the netherworld of a desire one just simply doesn’t speak of over drinks at the bar with the guys.

Stewart’s fits of vertigo perhaps make him feel more ‘grounded’ with a dead woman.  (Couldn’t resist that one, folks.)  His fear of heights becomes a fear of looking at the truth.  The dead Novak’s alleged suicide is actually staged by her husband, who has already murdered her, with the live Novak being an imposter and an accomplice.

Of course, this film does NOT have a happy ending.  After Stewart discovers the truth, his vertigo goes away and the live Novak becomes the dead Novak again.  Well, now wait.  Is that MAYBE a happy ending? Or, what if the live Novak does not return to the grave?  Is that a happy ending?  What does all this psychological shit mean, folks?  Just how fucked-up is Stewart’s character?  This movie is VERY VERY DEEP.  And great fun.

And it’s much much better, and much more fun, than all this vampire/zombie crap that has possessed our attention.  Could it be that maybe those people at the British Film Institute are saying something to us?  Let’s see–America has a love affair with bringing about death and destruction; we have a ghoul with the hairstyle of a corpse running for President; the planet is going to die; we do not explore space anymore; we drill into the ground for energy instead of lifting our heads to the sun; and no one can reach the top of the stairs because the Rich don’t want us to see the view, let alone look down at the less fortunate.  And we fuck the dead.  So obviously, here is our New #1 All Time Greatest Movie affirming those passions.  Or should I say, lusts?  Pre-versions?

Well, I am not a shrink, and I don’t think even a shrink could pin down VERTIGO .  And that’s what makes it a Great Movie.  To be viewed late at night with the lights out.  And not with popcorn, folks, but with those ritual and elegant condiments that befit a ‘classic’ feast.  Lifting us all to a great height from which we can say to ourselves, as Stewart said to Novak at the end: “You were a very apt pupil!”

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.  

Expanding on my earlier topic of Facebook collaborating with Walmart;  a simple fact about the relative wealth of the Walton heirs, gleaned from a tweet posted by Bernie Sanders and judged “true” by PolitiFact.com, bears emphatic repetition on GMD.  It absolutely blew my mind.

“Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America.”

PolitiFact.com teased out the statistics in support of Sander’s claim, and found that the net worth of just six Walton heirs is greater than that of forty-nine-million American families.

When held in contrast to their legendarily parsimonious treatment of Walmart “associates” and suppliers, the Walton’s hoarde becomes all the more grotesque.  

Do American’s really love people who have succeeded in accumulating disproportionate wealth as much as Mitt Romney would have us believe?

Czarist Russia had nothing on capitalist America, and look how that came out.

 Bill Sorrell knows he has been less than active in past years soliciting campaign donations. He tells VtDigger.com:

“I’ve had the luxury in the past of not having serious opposition.” He added that he’d not been overly active in soliciting contributions in years past.  

The simple three word version:“I am rusty.”

Knowing that he is rusty, you’d think Sorrell might well have spent a little extra time and attention  considering how something might look to voters. You know, a thing like donations from businesses that have had legal difficulties with the state, for example.  

The Sorrell campaign received a $2000 donation from one company, Dish Network, which in the past paid the state of Vermont to settle an unfair and deceptive sales practices case. Another donation of $250 came from the Arizona-based company Lifelock that had paid the state to settle fraud and deceptive advertising charges.

Sorrell has reached settlements with both firms in recent years, winning substantial awards for Vermonters. In July 2009 Vermont and 45 other states settled with Dish Network over allegations of “unfair and deceptive sales practices” for $5.9 million, with Vermont receiving $125,000. Less than two years later, Dish again paid Vermont $125,000 in August 2011, to make amends for 310 fraudulent letters sent to Vermont consumers. […]

In March 2010, Lifelock refunded some Vermont consumers and paid the state $15,000 to settle claims of deceptive advertising by the firm. Lifelock exaggerated the risk of identity theft before falsely claiming it could absolutely “guarantee” against such theft.

Sorrell makes the understandable case that it’s no big deal; a communications pro notes that this isn’t unusual, and of course everybody does it. These donations might be right, wrong, or soon forgotten, but if he wasn’t rusty, Attorney General Sorrell might have asked “How do I look in this donation?”  

About twice a month since April last year a Vermonter has been shot with a 50,000 volt taser by State Police. That is, according to a lengthy article at VtDigger.com by reporter Taylor Dobbs, who has analyzed records of Vermont State Police taser use. He reports that since all troopers were issued tasers in April 2011 they have been fired 33 times in those fifteen months.

According to 81 “use of force” reports released by the Vermont State Police earlier this month, 25 percent of officers have unholstered their Tasers in the line of duty. [How does this compare to frequency of an officer unholstering a firearm?] Since the uniform division of the state police was equipped with Tasers in April 2011, bringing the force total to 207, 53 officers have either deployed their Tasers or displayed them (unholstered their Taser, but did not deploy it in the incident). In all, 154 officers have never reached for a Taser.

The reports don’t make clear how many times the incident involved an individual with a mental health issue.

Below the fold: link to Google interactive Vermont taser-use cluster map!

These details are of particular interest given recent calls for a moratorium on VSP taser use since the death of Macadam Mason, following a State police officer’s  taser deployment to his chest. The use-of force reports showed that the trooper who fired his stun gun at Mason had displayed (un-holstered) but not deployed (fired) his taser more than any other officer in the uniformed state police.

While the majority of officers who have drawn Tasers have only done so once over the 15 months since most were equipped, eight officers have had two incidents involving a Taser, one has had three, four have had four, and one – David Shaffer – has had five.  

Col. Thomas L’Esperance, the top officer in the Vermont State Police, says it’s a matter of chance. Some officers happen to respond to a higher frequency of violent situations, he said.

VtDigger also has an interactive Google map here showing clusters of taser use. The map shows the incident location, date and officer involved.

A geographical analysis of state police Taser incidents shows distinct patterns. Predictably, there were relatively tighter groupings of use around the state’s largest concentrations of population in Rutland and Chittenden counties.

An analysis across the 12 state police barracks showed a cluster in a rural community. There were seven incidents at the Bradford barracks (five of which involved Shaffer). Based on the combined population of all towns within each barracks’ coverage area, Bradford had more than four times more Taser incidents per capita than the state average.

Clusters of taser use are found around major population areas but also several rural areas including around the Bradford barracks.

Vermont Department of Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn wished for better compliance from subjects when asked to  comment on the number of taserings that take place in the state:

“I don’t think I could say that I’m happy with any deployments, because in a perfect world there wouldn’t be any deployments,” he said. If all subjects were compliant, he said, Tasers would be unnecessary.

Yes sir, if all subjects were properly compliant it would be easy, say the people holding 50,000 volt Tasers.  

The indefatigable Al Norman of Sprawl Busters, just brought to my attention this latest reason to resist the lure of Facebook.

Through Sprawl Busters and its  network of sympathizers, Mr. Norman, of Northfield, Massachusetts has maintained a constant vigil since the early nineties against the growing threat to local economies and social systems posed by the meteoric rise of big box store development.  

According to a Reuters report,

(Facebook  CEO, Mark) Zuckerberg and his senior management team will spend two days at Wal-Mart Stores Inc’s Bentonville, Arkansas home office this week, meeting with executives of the world’s largest retailer and discussing ways to “deepen” their relationship.

The object of the exercise seems to be to reinforce the mutual opportunities provided by “data mining.”   Those practices have long been in place at the giant retailer, where every customer transaction is carefully logged, then assessed by a massive data management system for the twin purposes of inventory management and sales opportunity.  

Marrying that capability to personal information that may be collected and assessed through Facebook’s twenty-four hour virtual “surveillance” of users’ lives is an obvious next step that will no doubt be accepted with the same relative indifference that has met each revelation of Facebook’s expanding invasiveness.

Remember those futuristic books that creeped us out in middle school, like “Farenheit 451” and “1984?”  The ones where populations are controlled and rendered compliant by sinister powers through ubiquitous media systems?  

Not so remote from reality now.

Chittenden senatorial candidate, David Zuckerman just picked up another significant endorsement for 2012:

Professional Firefighters of Vermont President Matt Vinci stated “Dave has a proven track record of supporting working families and firefighters and we want you to stand with us in sending David back to Montpelier to represent Chittenden County in the Senate.”

The Firefighters made special note of the leadership shown by Rep. Zuckerman in securing passage of legislation banning the use of DECA, a toxic chemical used in manufactured furniture as a fire-retardant.   Due to the nature of their work environment, firefighters in particular were at risk from repeated exposures to the substance, which has been identified as a hazard affecting multiple functions including reproduction.

(First-hand account from Sunday’s protest in Burlington. – promoted by mataliandy)

There are some truly bizarre things in the police report from Sunday’s demonstration.  First, none of us who were on the sidelines of the confrontation described here saw anything remotely resembling a protestor dragging an officer, as was claimed by the Burlington Police.  People were shot repeatedly with heavy rubber projectiles, about 3/8 inch in diameter, not just “pepper balls”.  As police and their guard dogs were successfully pushing away those blocking the buses, heavily armored officers (presumably from the State Police) lunged into the crowd shooting.  In 30 years of political activism in Vermont, I’ve never seen anything remotely like this extreme overreaction on the part of police.

It was a disturbing end to what was otherwise a glorious day, which brought together an unprecedented variety of environmental and social activists from all across our region.  They included representatives of the Innu people, whose territory in Eastern Quebec continues to be invaded by Hydro Quebec’s apparently insatiable desire to increase hydroelectric production, as well as powerline opponents from northern New Hampshire, and Sierra Club members and other tar sands opponents from all across New England, along with Occupiers, labor activists and so many others.

The Burlington Police like to proclaim their commitment to free speech, which was admirably displayed throughout much of Sunday. But the sight of robo-cops on hair trigger alert, charging a few dozen people and firing their weapons out on College Street was a truly shocking and unnecessary end to an otherwise exceptional day.

According to a facebook post from Bill McKibben, Burlington police used unnecessary violence against tar sands pipeline protesters Sunday. Here’s video he posted of the incident:

http://t.co/yR6Lz4cC

The Free Press, has photos, but no significant commentary (other than a headline that implies the protesters started it):

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

Every once in a while, I read a remark by some leading Vermont Republican (which is no large distinction) to the effect that “The voters should elect more Republicans because of the dangers of one-party rule.” The latest whiner is House (Extremely Small) Minority Leader Don Turner, in the Sunday Freeploid:

“What I am selling is Vermont needs a little bit better balance,” Turner said. “I want to bring more Republicans to Montpelier so there is debate.”

Yep, he wants affirmative action. We should elect more Republicans, not because they have better candidates or have done anything to merit our support, but to create some artificial “balance” in the Statehouse. I do hope Mr. Turner would make the same argument in reverse for Republican-heavy states like Texas or Utah. I hope, but I doubt.

He sure as hell wouldn’t have called for partisan balance during the century or so that Vermont suffered under the yoke of one-party rule by the Republicans.

Give me enough time with the Google, and I could find an almost identical statement from just about every top Republican in the state. But I’ll cite just one more.

 This is from the VTGOP’s own website, quoting Mike Bertrand during the brief time when he was the party’s Executive Director. (The time between his appointment in the fall and his resignation in the winter after the party failed to pay his salary.*)

*Speaking of which, according to the Freeploid, the VTGOP currently has no paid staff. Still hurtin’ for cash, I guess. Which is a really bad sign in a campaign year. Especially one that finds most Republican and conservative organizations flush with greenbacks.

“We have got to return some sense of balance to Montpelier,” said Bertrand.  “The simple truth is that Vermonters want elected leaders to act in the best interests of all Vermonters, and to develop sound policy solutions to our shared problems.  One party rule is not what Vermont needs at this critical time.”

Well, Mike, the thing about elections is that they reflect the will of the voters. At least, so we hear whenever the Republicans win one. I agree with you that Vermonters want leaders to act in their best interests and develop sound policy solutions. But Vermonters freely chose to elect a whole bunch of Democrats in pursuit of those ends, and decisively turned their backs on your party. They did so, not because of imaginary ACORN shenanigans or brainwashing by the allegedly liberal media, but because they overwhelmingly preferred liberal ideas and Democratic candidates. There was a battle of ideas, bucko, and you lost it. Bigtime.

If you want to end one-party rule in Montpelier, the task is simple: come up with candidates and ideas that appeal to Vermonters. The VTGOP used to be good at that: Bob Stafford, Dick Snelling, Jim Jeffords, Jim Douglas. These days, its only political figure with anything like broad appeal is Phil Scott.

What do those past and present figures have in common?  Relative moderation. Or, in Douglas’ case, the carefully-maintained image of moderation. If the VTGOP hopes to diminish, or even end, the Democrats’ dominance of state government, they need more candidates like Bob Stafford or Jim Jeffords or Phil Scott. And they need to turn back to the more moderate Republicanism of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. You know — back when they used to win a lot of elections.

Instead, they’ve turned themselves into a carbon copy of the national party, whose far-right conservatism puts it way outside the Vermont mainstream. The result in 2010 — a year of epically-proportioned Republican landslides, and a year when the VTGOP hoped to bask in the fading glow of the Douglas years — was an embarrassing defeat that handed the Dems the governorship and veto-proof Legislative majorities. They follow up that incredible pratfall with a pathetic 2012 performance that included the financially-induced resignation of their executive director, the failure to even contest enough House and Senate races to come close to a majority, and a statewide ticket full of has-beens and never-wases. And Phil Scott.

Then they put the cherry on top of this turd sundae by inviting Maine Governor Paul LePage to raise money for Randy Brock — whereupon LePage immediately makes an ass of himself and creates a nightmarish news cycle or two for the VTGOP. And now they’re inviting Allen West??? Good God, what are they thinking? Or smoking?

And they have the sheer gall to complain about one-party rule, and plead with Vermonters to elect a few more Republicans for the sake of “balance.” Well, sorry, guys, but it’d be against your stated principles to consider you a minority group and grant you some affirmative-action hires. Get out there and earn it, you slackers!