More on Marriage Equality

Support for marriage equality has been growing faster than any other civil rights issue that I can think of.

Now, fresh off President Obama's announcement of his support for marriage equality, we learn that his Defense Department has decided it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

From the Vermont Freedom to Marry Coalition:

 On Wednesday, a Veterasn Affairs Department legal memo announced the VA’s refusal to defend the “Defense of Marriage Act” in veterans benefits cases.  The VA will not fight Fifth Amendment claims based on equal protection under the law brought against DOMA, says the memo signed by VA Counsel Will Gunn on behalf of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.

So who's left to defend DOMA? It's John Boehner's BLAG, spending taxpayer money on things that are apparently more important than economic recovery or benefits for poor people.

People obviously need to keep the pressure on,but this is another sign of President Obama making the personal operational.

 

Another howler from Art Woolf

I want to be careful here, and I want to be fair to Art Woolf, Vermont’s Loudest Economist (TM). But his latest screed on Vermont Tiger is irresponsible hackery at best, and race-baiting at worst.

In it, Woolf takes on the results of the US Education Department’s 8th Grade National Assessment of Educational Progress Science (NAEP) test. The results are pretty good; 43% of Vermont eighth-graders were proficient in science, compared to 31 percent nationally.

This is, of course, inconvenient news for Woolf and the other Tiggers who are constantly flaying Vermont’s public schools for high cost and low performance. So he goes hunting for explanations that don’t involve praising Vermont schools. And he finds a goddamn doozy.

To wit: Vermont scores well, not because of our schools or teachers, but because we have a monochromatic population.

In Vermont 93% of students are white. Only 55% of students in the U.S. are white while 21% are Hispanic and 15% are black.  In Vermont, 2% are Hispanic and 1% are black.

He then notes that 45% of white students were proficient nationally and 46% in Vermont. And then he compares Vermont to Texas, which had a proficiency rate of only 32%.

But Texas is filled with low income minority students, with 63% Hispanic or black students and only 31% white students.   In the Lone Star State, 53% of white students achieved a proficient or advanced score, a higher percent than Vermont’s 46%.  So which state does a better job of educating students in science?

Oh, Art. I’m sure you didn’t mean to assert that the real measure of a school is how well it educates white students. And I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that minority students are naturally less proficient in science than white kids. But it certainly comes across that way.

After the jump: Show me the money!

Now for Woolf’s triumphant conclusion: Vermont’s per-pupil spending is much higher than Texas’, and we’re getting no better results (among white students). Therefore, ipso facto, Q.E.D., Vermont schools are lousy and costly.

I assume that Vermont Tiger is not a peer-reviewed journal with academic standards for research, because this is a really sloppy piece of work. And dangerous, because it leaves Woolf wide open to charges of racism. Personally, I don’t think he’s a racist, I just think he’s a lazy opportunist when it comes to political debate. Which is less than I’d expect from someone with a professorship at UVM.

So let’s lay out some of the questions that Art Woolf might have asked himself before he ejected this little P.O.S.

Is race the only variable between Vermont and Texas? Are there challenges facing Vermont that don’t face Texas — like, for instance, a small and scattered population? Does Vermont perhaps have a higher rate of poverty among white students? (Only 28% of poor students were proficient in science, compared to 51% in other income groups.) Does Texas, which really skimps on public education, do more “teaching to the test” than Vermont? How does Vermont compare to states with similar demographics, per-pupil spending, or geography?

Is Texas the best comparable to Vermont? Obviously not, in most respects. But it’s the state Art Woolf picked, because it props up his belief that Vermont schools, test results notwithstanding, are an expensive failure.

And in the process, he left himself wide open to racist interpretations of his argument.  

Film of Abenaki Speech at May 1 Rally-Support Tribal Forests!

If you were not at the May 1 Put People and the Planet First rally in Montpelier, go to the below link and see the speech given by Abenaki leader and Sierra Club organizer Luke Willard!

The speech calls for the creation of Tribal Forests and a new Vermont Popular Front!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

*Also, please go to the below link and sign the online petition in support of Abenaki Tribal Forests!

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

*And please go to the below link and download an Abenaki Tribal Forest petition and have your friends, co-workers, families, and neighbors sign!

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

Solidarity!

Vermont Sierra Club

Breaking: Ann Romney’s Black Eye

(Romney’s Turn Today)



Yahoo Celebrity News…20 minutes ago

Ann Romney turned heads this morning at a fundraiser in Parma, Ohio, showing up in a revealing low-cut mini-dress.

“It’s the New Look,” she told her husband’s supporters.  It’s all over the NET every day.  Power Women are showing their stuff.  I have a Daisy Duke outfit I’m saving for October.”

But, it wasn’t just the dress.  When Ms. Romney briefly removed her sunglasses, you could plainly she her right eye had a good sized shiner.

“Oh, it’s nothing,”  she later told reporters outside.  “Mitt has this sense of humor, you know.  Like with the dog.  And that prep-school gay kid.  He’s always goofing around, trying to make me laugh.  He sometimes likes to play Humphrey Bogart and give me a sock on the jaw and say:  ‘Here’s looking at you, kid.’  It makes me laugh.  Really.  In fact, I was laughing so hard when he went into his shtick I guess I threw off his punch and caught it in the eye.  That made us both hysterical.”

When Amy Goodman of Democracy Now asked Romney a long loaded question about her husband’s seemingly violent and sadistic side and how as President he would be able to control that, Ms. Romney replied:

“There’s not a violent or sadistic bone in Mitt’s body.  He just has a…well, special sense of humor.  He loves goofing around imitating Hollywood tough guys.  And he’s great at pranks.  He’s got a good prank set up for October.  And, let me tell you, Amy, after he’s elected he’s going to have the Chinese and Russians in stitches.  Not to mention all those folks down at Guantanamo.”

Ms. Romney then told reporters not to take seriously a new story being told by a few of her husband’s college friends.  That, in college, Romney liked to stroll the backstreets of Provo, Utah carrying the Book of Mormon and a gallon can of gasoline, finding drunks and convincing them he was Joseph Smith there to baptize them.

“He never said he was Joseph Smith,”  Ms. Romney explained.  “He told them he was Brigham Young.  Please don’t distort this.  I’ve got to go now.  I need to ice this eye on the way to Toledo.  Oh.  That reminds me of another prank of Mitt’s.  Oh…he’s so funny.  I’ll tell you about it sometime.”

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

(Hey Mitt, you big Republican asswipe, when you lose in November, I guess you maybe could become a celebrity barber.)

 

Vermont Democratic Party Chair Speaks Out in Support of Obama’s Endorsement of Marriage Equality

MONTPELIER, VT.  Today, Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson, heralded the historic news that the President Barack Obama supports full civil rights for all Americans and affirmed his belief that marriage equality should be available to all people.  The President said today “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”  

Chairman Perkinson stated “President Obama’s statements this afternoon in support of marriage equality mark a watershed moment in this deeply important civil rights issue.”  Vermont is one of the few states in the union that permits same-sex marriage and has been at the forefront of this issue for over a decade.

Chairman Perkinson continued, “I am personally gratified that the President has made clear that his personal view is that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so. This is a great step forward for civil rights in the United States and I am proud that the President is leading on this issue just as many courageous people in Vermont, including our own Governor Shumlin, and others elsewhere, have done before him.”

The Obama Administration’s consistent record in support of the LGBT community also includes:Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; Ending the Legal Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); Signing Historic Hate Crimes Legislation:  Ensuring Hospital Visitation Rights for LGBT Patients and Their Loved Ones; Preventing Bullying Against LGBT Students; Developing and Implementing a National HIV/AIDS Strategy; Expanding Access to Health Coverage;  Addressing Health Care Disparities; andTaking Steps to Ensure LGBT Equality in Housing and Crime Prevention.

###

Brock’s Whoops and Picking Your Battles

UPDATE: Today’s May 16 and I just got another one of those campaign e-mails at my work e-mail address today.

Hmmm.

Jack McCullough

Well,whoops, Randy Brock’s campaign sent out fundraising solicitations to lobbyists during the legislative session. Three different lobbyists received multi page fundraising letters according to Seven Days.

Three different registered lobbyists provided Seven Days with copies of a two-page fundraising solicitation dated April 18 that was addressed and mailed to their offices in Montpelier. One lobbyist also shared two emails the Brock campaign sent to his work email address during the session containing news on the campaign and links to the “donate” page on the Brock for Governor website.

This solicitation is an apparent violation of part of Vermont campaign finance law that has been trampled on before. Both Peter Shumlin and former Governor Jim Douglas to various degrees have been there and done that. Brock campaign manager Darcie Johnson (formerly of Vermonters for Healthcare Freedom) noted it was a “mistake” and beside that, a disclaimer for lobbyists that might receive the solicitation was included.

And there is this interesting comment by VDP Chairman Jake Perkinson about the lack of enforcement. When asked why he didn’t pursue a complaint with Attorney General Sorrell as he had in the past Perkinson said:

"Frankly, I'm getting frustrated at being the campaign finance police," Perkinson responded. "The last time we filed a complaint, the attorney general didn't do anything about it. At a certain point, you've got to pick your battles."

 

Drug bill failure causes outbreak of PTBKS at Statehouse

Just when you thought the arguing was over, two of Vermont’s top elected officials have contracted cases of Post-Traumatic Bunched Knicker Syndrome — an exaggerated sense of wounded entitlement whose onset comes well after the triggering event.

That triggering event was the failure of a bill that would have allowed law-enforcement officials to get their foot in the door of the state Health Department’s prescription drug database. Never mind that when the database was established only a few years ago, we were assured that it was to be used purely and solely for health-care purposes. Never mind that those assurance are still prominently displayed on the Health Department’s website. Never mind that the Health Department’s own figures indicate that since the database was established, the rate of prescription-drug abuse in Vermont has declined or stayed the same.

The details of the bill’s demise, for those just joining us: the State Senate approved a bill that would grant law enforcement limited warrantless access to the database. The State House refused to go along with that provision, but did approve several other measures aimed at fighting prescription drug abuse. The entire bill then died in conference for lack of a compromise.

After the jump: Case File No. 1 (Peter Shumlin) and Case File No. 2 (John Campbell).

PTBKS Case File No. 1:  Governor Peter Shumlin. In this week’s Wednesday news conference, he had some harsh words for opponents of the database-access provision.

“The fact that the House didn’t agree with the Senate version of that bill, I think, is inexcusable. I think Vermonters will die because of it. I think we will see crime continue to rise because of it. And, I’m astonished that they’re not taking this crisis more seriously,” Shumlin said Wednesday.

He went on, and on, and on in this vein, even expressing the hope that opponents — many of whom are fellow Democrats — would be punished at the polls this fall. He also took issue with a story by the Associated Press’ Dave Gram*, which pointed to Health Department statistics that bely Shumlin’s characterization of prescription drug abuse as an “epidemic.” The health data show that misuse of prescription opiates is “declining or remaining steady,” that deaths from prescription opiates declined in each of the last six years, and that Vermont has substantially improved its ranking in non medical use of pain relievers, from 11th in 2006 to 34th in 2009.

*We should note that Gram’s story was based entirely on research by Allen Gilbert of the VT ACLU. He deserves much credit for a most timely bit of advocacy; the story may have blunted the bill’s momentum at a crucial moment.

Nonetheless, Shumlin harrumphed, “It IS an epidemic.”

That’s a funny epidemic, if you ask me. And Shumlin’s apparent desire to make this a major campaign issue, and to bring it back in 2013, shines a light on one of his less endearing traits: the unwillingness to listen to others or to let go of an idea once he’s made up his mind.

Of course, his obvious vulnerability to BKS might explain his habit of sleeping, and chasing bears, in the altogether. Can’t get your knickers in a twist if you’re not wearin’ any.

PTBKS Case File No. 2: Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell. Another chronic BKS sufferer, whose symptoms are apparently unrelieved by the end of the legislative session.  

On Wednesday, the Senate leader joined with House Speaker Shap Smith for what was supposed to be a mutual back-slapping review of the 2012 session. And by and large, they stuck to the script, lauding their accomplishments in health care reform, balancing the budget, redistricting, and rebuilding Vermont after Tropical Storm Irene.

But Campbell went rogue on the failure of the drug database bill, per Vermont Digger:

The Windsor Democrat said House members didn’t “understand” the legal ramifications of probable cause and reasonable belief.  Campbell in turn blamed House members, the Vermont ACLU and some of the people who gave testimony for causing confusion…

Ohhh, I see. anyone who disagrees with Mr. Campbell is suffering from a lack of understanding caused by the nefarious activities of the bill’s opponents. What a masterpiece of condescension! The Speaker was quick to respond:

When asked whether he thought House members were confused, Smith replied: “I think there wasn’t any confusion. People saw this issue through different philosophical lenses.”

Bear in mind that the House was perfectly willing to pass a prescription drug abuse bill that included every provision in the Senate bill except police access to the database. But Senate leaders rejected that proposal; they wanted all or nothing. Remember that, if Shumlin or Campbell tries to demagogue this issue in coming months: they could have had almost everything they wanted, but they scuttled the whole bill instead. Bunched knickers are not good for the legislative process.

Chances are, this whole thing will quickly pass into the rearview mirror — at least for now. Shumlin will almost certainly bring the issue back next year, assuming (cough, cough) that he decides (cough, choke) to run for re-election. And I doubt that he will actively campaign against fellow Democrats who oppose police access to the database.

On the other hand, this kind of intra-party squabbling is often a consequence of single-party government. In Massachusetts, the Republicans are impotent and the Democrats are their own worst enemy. (And we thank the Mass Dems sincerely for giving us Senator Scott Brown through their own hubris and ineptitude.)  I hope this isn’t an early warning sign of divisions in the Vermont Democratic Party. (Maybe it’s time for a homeopathic treatment of Progressivism.)

Breaking…Obama Takes Another Courageous Stand

Breaking News…The White House…30 nanoseconds ago



OBAMA TO ENDORSE ORAL SEX BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS; WILL DEFINE ORAL SEX AS ‘REAL’ SEX, BUT NOT ‘REGULAR’ SEX

White House Assistant Press Secretary Bruce Lesbian said this afternoon that President Obama approves of consenting adults engaging in Oral Sex.  Oral Sex has been a controversial issue for Democrats since the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, which resulted in the election of George W. Bush in 2000, and led to an eight year ‘don’t ask/don’t tell’ national Anal Sex epidemic.

Lesbian said the President will address the nation at 10p Sunday night about Oral Sex.  He stated that the President  will define Oral Sex as Real Sex, a position President Clinton refused to take in 2000.  Lesbian added, however, that Obama would not be defining Oral Sex as Regular Sex, and will urge adult Americans to continue to caution their teenage children on how Oral Sex can lead to more serious and addictive sex acts which can lead to more unwanted pregnancies which can lead to more abortions which can lead to a problematic position for the President this election year.

“Right now,”  said Lesbian,  “we know that American teenagers are engaging in Oral Sex.  A lot of Oral Sex.  And we have heard from the Republican Party that this is because President Clinton made teenagers believe it was cool to have Oral Sex.  Of course, this is ridiculous.  Teenagers are having Oral Sex because they do not believe it is a real or serious sex act requiring birth control protection which, we all know, the radical elements of the Republican Party and the anti-abortion and anti birth control groups have made teenagers believe will not be available to them, and therefore they have no other recourse but to engage in Oral Sex as frequently as possible, because Oral Sex is not really Real Sex.  But since the President will be defining Oral Sex as Real Sex, Republicans might ask themselves whether their positions in forcing Oral Sex upon the youth of America are, in the very least, somewhat questionable positions to take.  I mean, people are in prisons right now for doing that.”

When asked to clarify his last statement on Oral Sex and Real Sex, and why Oral Sex wasn’t Regular Sex, and whether it was bad or good and who should go to prison for what, Lesbian explained:  “Look, we’re going to talk openly and deeply about the issue of Oral Sex, and take a responsible yet penetrating position with regards to it.  We hope the Republicans will do the same, rather than make Oral Sex an election year issue, which will only add to the confusion and awkwardness teenagers experience when they are offered an occasion to say yes or no to Oral Sex.  And we’re having this Presidential address on Oral Sex at 10pm in hopes that eight to twelve year-olds and, hopefully, thirteen to fifteen year-olds are in bed already, because it is a school night.  And we believe our children should respect school for their educational goals first, rather than consider school just another venue for Oral Sex.  Again, let me state, the President will be speaking about the need to recognize Oral Sex as Real Sex, but not necessarily Regular Sex.  And he knows that each and every adult American watching or listening to Oral Sex…I mean watching or listening Sunday night will know what he is talking about, because we believe many many Americans have sampled their share of Oral Sex over the decades, as far back as the Civil War, we believe.  Oral Sex is now an American Fact Of Life.  Oral Sex is as much a part of the American landscape as baseball, football and the hot dog.  Oral Sex must be recognized as part of American Exceptionalism.  And the President means to see to it that the misconceptions and discomforts Americans have about discussing Oral Sex openly and repeatedly in their day to day lives does not lead to a situation in this country, the greatest country on the face of the Earth, where, soon, some  extremists will be able to put forward the idea of a War On Oral Sex.  We have other wars to address.”

When a Reuters reporter suggested Lesbian had substituted clarification of his last statement with an even more confusing statement, Lesbian replied:  “This is why the President will be addressing the nation Sunday night. To show us his position on Oral Sex.  All of us approach Oral Sex from different positions, but the President hopes to make his Oral Sex position the National Oral Sex position.

The FOX TV news correspondent asked Lesbian if, perhaps, a Presidential address on Oral Sex might be in bad taste.  Lesbian responded that it was his feeling that Oral Sex was not a question of taste but, rather, a question of choice, and that the framers of the Constitution had Oral Sex on their minds, as did Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration Of Independence.  “Oral Sex is an unalienable right.  It is how many Americans pursue happiness,” he added.

Finally, Lesbian was asked whether President and Michelle Obama engaged in Oral Sex in the White House, and if they used the same places President Clinton used to have Oral Sex there.

“That, I believe,”  said Lesbian, “is a matter of National Security.  It is up to the President to reveal that information if he feels it is in the National Interest.  But, I can tell you this–the First Lady plans to incorporate Oral Sex with her campaign about the eating habits of obese Americans.  

Now, I thank you all for your time, and urge all Americans to tune in Sunday night for a frank tip to toe go-over on a position that all of us should feel requires our focus and participation.

Thank you.”

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

(Hey Obama–Have a Gay Marriage on the White House Lawn.  Dare ya.)  

Did you see this?

ABC News and CNN are reporting that Michele Bachmann, shown here ripping pages out of our version of universal health care, has received citizenship in Switzerland.

Don't worry about losing her from Congress, though. When asked if she was going to run for office she said yesterday that that would have to wait until she is fluent in Swiss.*

 

*Not intended as a factual statement.