Newt Gingrich (pbuh) explains the likely outcome of an atheist takeover of the United States:

“I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

No understanding of what it once meant to be an American? Is that as bad as no understanding of what it means to be an atheist or a Muslim?

(I had to get this post up before April Fool's Day!)

CLOSE THE COUNTRY

many many more cases today

it’s as if talking about it

makes people feel sicker

I had to reassure a child

whose care was cut for lack of funds

when the committee declared a crisis

told him how it’s going

to be all right  it’s

almost over  but I know better

there are remedies

I told the committee

the carriers are the problem

they seem happy and healthy

yet more people are sick

struck down inexplicably

there are no funds left

to provide rudimentary relief

homes are being abandoned

if only the media

had reported when it began

symptoms could have been treated

why do the carriers thrive

while all these people die?

why are they immune?

we only have words now

that we are afraid to utter

lest we are taken ourselves

yet I have studied this disease

I believe it must be talked about

the only hope to find a cure

people must go to the committee

demand emergency actions and the funds

the carriers have been given

for I fear the committee will let it

burn itself out on those of us

who are weak and most susceptible

then say to us as I said to the child

it’s all right now  all over

you can go about your business now

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, VT.

(Thank you, Al stop)

Cross posted from Rational Resistance. http://rationalresistance.blog…

We actually think it’s pretty important in the United States. We may have discovered the idea at Runnymede, when the barons stood up to the king and made him acknowledge that the law was more than whatever the king felt like.

Only they haven’t learned that lesson in Wisconsin yet.

You know what they’ve done so far: they screwed around with the rules to pass Scott Walker’s union-busting legislation, then they decided that if you were a Democrat your vote wouldn’t count.

The violations of law were so clear that the opponents of the law went to court and got an injunction prohibiting publication of the law, an essential prerequisite to implementation under Wisconsin law.

So what did the Republicans do? They went ahead and published the law anyway.

If I had been the judge, I’d be some pissed by this time, and apparently the judge who issued the order is. She really did say “Maybe you fuckers didn’t understand what I was saying.”

Well, pretty close anyway:

“Further implementation of the act is enjoined,” said Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi.

“Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation of Act 10 was enjoined. That is what I now want to make crystal clear,” she said.

And:

“Now that I’ve made my earlier order as clear as it possibly can be, I must state that those who act in open and willful defiance of the court order place not only themselves at peril of sanctions, they also jeopardize the financial and the governmental stability of the state of Wisconsin,” Sumi said.

We’ll see what the next round brings, but I, for one, am looking forward to seeing Scott Walker frog-marched out of the state house to start serving his term for contempt of court.

As several people have raised question about the 5% administrative fee I mention in the latter part of this piece, I decided to contact Roger Marcoux of the Sheriff’s Association for clarification.  His response is now posted in comments

__________________________________________________________

I bring these stories of Franklin County municipal monkey-business to the GMD community both to entertain you and as object lessons in how far out of whack the local process can become when citizens don’t keep their hands upon the throttle.

The melodrama over the St. Albans Town policing contract continues to unfold.  Sheriff Robert Norris is now suing the City of St. Albans for “predatory pricing” practices and is seeking an injunction to prevent the Town’s contract with the City from going into effect.

As you may recall, the Town Selectboard voted by a margin of 3 to 2 to award that contract to the City of St. Albans, whose bid for the job came in at one-million dollars less than the Sheriff’s bid.  

There was a general rhubarb raised over this decision by the Sheriff and his merry band, egged-on by Selectboard Chair Bill Nihan who had flip-flopped to the pro-Sheriff side in time to represent one of the two dissenting votes, after initially saying he supported awarding the contract to the City.  But then, it was coming up to election time, and Mr. Nihan needed those pro-sheriff voters in order to squeak by for re-lection… which he did, by just twelve ballots.

In the previous election, he had barely made it by two votes; and we are now learning that those two ballots may be presumed to have been from his two sons who live and work in New York City (in the financial industry, of course), as they have apparently been routinely voting in St. Albans for years despite little to suggest that they ever lived here!  According to the Messenger, the voter status of those two junior Nihans is currently under investigation.  But that’s another story for another time…

There was also a star-turn by the Town Manager, Christine Murphy, who, we are led to believe, took it upon herself to approach the Sheriff for a new, lower bid after the Selectboard had already voted to award the contract to the City.

I’ve seen video-tape of the Selectboard meeting following this indiscretion, and came away with the distinct impression that someone put her up to it.  It was, to put it mildly, a complete circus, stage-managed on the eve of the Town Meeting vote to bring out the Sheriff’s supporters and get them to the polls.

The Sheriff is alleging that the difference between the City’s original price quote for services, given in 2007, and the one given in 2010 is evidence of price-fixing.  Says the Sheriff, the City is trying to monopolize police services.  This, despite the fact that, according to the Messenger, the Sheriff’s office currently provides coverage for 62% of Franklin County’s population and the City only serves 15%.  Even with the City holding the new contract for Town policing, the Sheriff’s share of the county pie will only be reduced to 50%, while the City’s share would rise to 28%.

Beyond the obvious incongruity of the Sheriff’s monopoly claim, there is the small matter that both entities are public services, and municipal police services are exempt by law from anti-trust regulation.  

Of course, in order to qualify for a preliminary injunction, the matter must represent some irreparable harm or injury to the plaintiff.  According to the Messenger,

“Only economic loss that threatens the survival of a movant’s (plaintiff’s) business amount to irreparable harm,” city lawyers said, quoting case law. “Plaintiff claims a monetary loss here, but provides no evidence of a threat to the ‘survival of his business.”

Wait a second!  “His business?!!”  I thought this guy’s business was doing the work of the elected Sheriff of Franklin County!  

I rather doubt anyone  remembers a little piece I wrote way back in July of last year about “Benefits Bob.” That’s the way some folks apparently refer to Sheriff Norris.  

At the time, Norris, a nominal Democrat, was being challenged in the upcoming election by a couple of Republicans, and one of them, Paul Moritz, had an interesting take on how the office might better be served.  He pointed to the $65,000. salary that the Sheriff was paid by the state and promised that, unlike Mr. Norris, should he win election he would “make do” with this modest compensation, returning the 5%  “administrative fee” charged on private contracts, to the Department.  You see, the custom is for that “administrative fee” to go straight into Sheriff Norris’ pocket, raising his annual income from $65,000. to $112,000.   I believe I called it a “handsome” $112,000.

No wonder Sheriff Norris sees an injury to his personal “business” in award of the contract to the City!  There are some other shenanigans alleged to have happened within the Sheriff’s Department, but, as Mr. Moritz lost his bid for the office, I doubt we’ll hear much more about them for a while.

Sometimes I think I’ve stumbled onto the set of “Green Acres.”

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Update on Fukushima: Discovery of Plutonium Leakage and Highly Radioactive Water from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

Recieved my issue of ‘Time’ magazine yesterday. Japan catastrophe noticably absent, or perhaps ‘replaced’ is more like it, w/a story which asks ‘Can its young people save Japan’? But no story about current events. How about the fact that situation has worsened in some aspects & estimates of how long it will last is now ‘months’?

‘Health & Science’ section seems to gloss over & minimize the effects, especially ‘Assessing The Threat’ even for the Japanese people.

That plutonium & uranium-laced water is sloshing over the boots of plant workers, er, ‘contractors’ & their condition, plutonium on the site is not mentioned is odd indeed. One could go on. There are sobering headlines by the dozen & serious news accounts by the score which need to be told regardles of how grim they may appear. Sudden backseat Japan continuing debacle has taken noteworthy, in that with the sheer volume of stories & its continuing development, it seems to be gettinging pushed back more & more.  

Several stories on Libya, not surprising & Elizabeth Taylor appropriately gets a few pages. Oh, & there is a story about how crying at work is now ‘OK’, we have their permission.  

In a world where corporate interests take precedence over the best interests of all of us, ‘truth’ is becoming an ever more rare commodity. Here in ‘the land of the free & home of the brave’, ‘truth’ is happily sold out to the highest bidder, processed by the spinmeisters, those who represent & are funded by the special interests, who then spin it to desired consistancy, color it a shade to their liking & serve it to sheepled masses, the gullible public. Intended audience is made clear by the facts or lack therof which are easily recognized by those who are have followed it or knowledgable about the issues.

Depressing to see supposedly reputable news organizations who have allowed themselves to be played by these special interests who then game their viewers or readers by misinforming them.  

Meanwhile back in VT where truth still prevails, we can be grateful & thankful for Fairewinds Associates, the Gundersens, to bring it to us, as well as the expert analysis to understand what the latest developments mean to the average citizen.

*note- I took the fact that an update & video was up, but not posted to GMD as perhaps the Gundersens being too busy to post it to GMD. If there is a story, I would gladly take my story down if there was one that just hadn’t made it up.  

Hello,

This is my first diary on this website. I find myself today in the VT Statehouse on internship duty for a state Rep. I was in the middle of a couple of duties in the internship while I was listening to the Rep. Consejo’s speech on the floor on VPR. After the brouhaha raised last week by teabagger Rep. Burditt ranting that there is nothing compassionate about socialism, Rep. Consejo gave a heartfelt speech which I only half caught, and while some Reps were starting to come back into the Committee Room and listened to it. There were a couple of remarks approving his stand, giving his history of how he became a citizen, etc. Of course, this approval came from the Democratic members of the committee, who don’t seem to think very highly of teabagger friendly Rep. Burditt. It would be nice if someone could post the content of the speech on the website or maybe ask Rep. Consejo to provide something. I wasn’t expecting such a moment during a day when there was little business going on the House floor. But it’s nice to know that there are elected representatives out there courageous enough to stand up to speech-mongering and unsubstantiated accusations. Now it’s back to business.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance.  

Here's a new guy (Republican candidate for President), pizza magnate Herman Cain.  

Like most Republicans, his reading of the Constitution is a little, well, idiosyncratic.  

  KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?    

CAIN: No, I would not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

 

Oops. I guess I spoke too soon when I talked about his reading of the Constitution, because that's obviously something he's never done. If he had, he might have noticed the Religious Test Clause.  

 

Yes, sir, even though he wants the opportunity to take the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, apparently that doesn't apply to the parts he doesn't like.  Follow the link and watch the video soon, because we have a hunch he may not be in the race too long.

It was a long-awaited day in court for the Vermont Natural Resource Council, local farmer Marie Frey, and members of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (of which I am an active member.)

After eight years of controversy, appeals of the permit for a proposed Walmart at exit 20 of I-89 in St. Albans Town had a final half-hour of oral arguments before the Vermont Supreme Court this past Wednesday at the Vermont Law School in S. Royalton.

The room was packed with about a hundred spectators.  As if to illustrate our claim that the local permit review process had been contaminated by conspicuous and persistent conflicts of interest, former Town Selectboard Chairman, Bill Nihan, took his seat in the front row, cheek-to-jowel with applicant Jeff Davis of JLD Properties, his attorney Stewart McConaughy, and project engineer Sam Ruggiano.  

Mr. Nihan has been a consistent figure in Town government throughout the Walmart saga, even popping-up on the special “Ad-Hoc Committee” that was formed by the Northwest Regional Planning Commission, under pressure from the Town, to “reconsider” Davis’ Walmart project after the usual NRPC Project Review Committee had rejected it.  Not surprisingly, that “Ad-Hoc Committee,” under the heavy thumb of Mr. Nihan and friends, returned a decision favorable to the project.  But Mr. Nihan does not even play a minor role in our assertions of a tainted process.

In fact, the pattern of conflicts of interest throughout the process was so widespread and insidious that former VNRC attorney Jon Groveman was forced to narrowly focus on the most egregious examples (due to filing limits on the number of words in the written arguments.)

The abundant evidence of conflicts of interest that was included in the written arguments was not wasted on the Supreme Court justices who peppered attorneys from both sides with many questions on the issue.  Everyone, even the attorney for JLD, seemed to finally agree upon the existence of those conflicts. What remained to be evaluated was the validity of the applicant’s assertion that, since the Environmental Court hearing (the venue for our appeal of the Act 250 decision)  was considered “de novo,” meaning a new look at the evidence, contamination of the local permit process was unimportant.

As VNRC’s Jared Margolis very ably argued, if the Supremes were to accept this view of the local permit process, it  would send an appalling message that corruption could simply be overlooked; and it would have a “chilling effect” on concerned citizens’ access to that process.  If those citizens did not possess the financial means to appeal a local decision to the Environmental Court, they would simply be deprived of their right to a fair hearing.  

Other issues being appealed included the complete absence of evidence provided by the applicant that the project would be compatible with a large and thriving family vegetable farm and farm-stand located just a third of a mile down the road; and the omission by the applicant  of evidence with regard to the impacts of “secondary growth” that would inevitably accompany location of the Walmart.  Mr. Davis’ attorneys have insisted that there will be no secondary growth; an argument that, for anyone familiar with the retail boom around the Walmart near Taft’s Corners, really stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.

The final points of law argued in the appeals concerned Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel which are principles of settled law.  As I understand it, we are arguing that, because a similar, albeit smaller Walmart, was proposed in 1993 for exactly the same parcel of land, and ultimately denied a permit by the Supreme Court, the applicant cannot propose what is essentially the same project in the same location, again.    Without this safeguard, an applicant with deep pockets might ultimately prevail simply by exhausting the resources of opponents in successive applications for the same project.

So that is the long and the short of it.  Some will be dismayed that so little of the obvious economic and environmental arguments against the project actually made it into the Supreme Court appeals, but there are practical limits both to the length and scope of arguments that could be made within the constraints of the venue.  

Despite the fact that preserving the working rural landscape was one of the principle intentions of Act 250, the fate of Marie Frey’s farm is reduced in the appeals to little more than a debate over geographical standing and semantics.  This is particularly ironic since the Hudak Farm is the quintessential rural Vermont success story. Formerly a struggling dairy operation, Hudak Farm has been transformed over the past generation into a thriving crop-farm, and is now completing the challenging transition to fully organic methods.  Throughout their business journey, the farm has made significant contributions to local schools and always upheld responsible stewardship for the environment.

I am told that the decision is not likely to be announced for several months.  The judges must draft careful opinions on each aspect of the combined appeals.  Their decision with regard to conflicts of interest, alone, has particular significance for the future of Vermont’s citizen access. The very legitimacy of Vermont’s cherished local control hangs in the balance.

Stay tuned.