viagra canada
cialis open ticket western
canada cialis
female viagra
effects of viagra
buy viagra
cialis generic soft tab
viagra uk
cialis commercial
cialis effects side
viagra use
order viagra
viagra soft tab
natural viagra
buy generic viagra
cialis online
cialis price
save on drugs
blind viagra
cialis pharmacy
viagra prescription online
cialis online order
purchase viagra
cialis story
generic viagra
viagra prescription
mail order viagra
viagra cialis
cialis review
woman taking viagra
viagra sales
herbal alternative viagra
cheap generic viagra
discount viagra online
viagra sample
cialis pill
get viagra
buy discount viagra online
tadalafil citrate
cialis liquid
cialis discount generic
canadian cialis
where to buy viagra
cialis get viagra
blindness viagra
cialis vs viagra
cialis consultation delivery
cialis europe viagra
viagra information
cheap viagra online
viagra jelly
viagra shop
cheap cialis generic
pfizer viagra
cialis company
cialis comparison levitra viagra
cialis versus viagra
cialis order
cialis europe get
cheapest cialis
herbal viagra
best cialis price
sildenafil
viagra levitra
canada cialis generic
cheap cialis
viagra dosage
cheapest viagra
tadalafil
penis growth oil
affordable viagra
viagra without prescription
cialis mt tadalafil
penisole
cialis mexican
comprare viagra
buying viagra
blindness cialis
buying viagra online
20mg cialis
cialis line
lowest viagra price
cialis uk
cialis dysfunction erectile
cialis lowest price
cialis discount
viagra side effects
generic viagra online
viagra pill
cialis levitra
trial viagra
cialis com
cialis testimonials
cialis soft
cialis generic
cialis compare levitra viagra
cialis compare levitra
levitra
how does viagra work
viagra vs cialis
cialis why
apotheke cialis
cialis experience
viagra sale online
purchase viagra online
cialis jelly
cialis information
viagra mexico
cialis professional
viagra online pharmacy
cheap viagra uk
viagra sales uk
cialis new viagra
viagra price
penis extender
cialis forum
cialis dosage
viagra
comprare cialis
cialis generic viagra
cialis soft tabs
viagra soft
cialis viagra vs
cialis levitra viagra
low cost viagra
viagra research
order viagra online
cialis levitra vs
cialis tadalafil
how viagra works
cialis drug
cialis woman
generic tadalafil
best price viagra
cialis lilly
cialis open western
viagra for woman
buy cialis
viagra story
cialis mt
cialis tablet
cialis href
buy cheap generic viagra
viagra substitute
save on drugs viagra
discount viagra
cialis discount online
levitra professional
viagra cialis levitra
viagra soft tabs
viagra professional
viagra wholesale
offender viagra
viagra commercial
viagra on line
cialis soft tab
viagra trial
cialis generic online
viagra alternative
cialis sample
cialis from india
viagra sale
drug viagra
viagra erection
levitra vs viagra
viagra and alcohol
cialis purchase
cheap viagra
no rx
cialis drug impotence
100mg viagra
viagra for sale
cialis sale
cialis online pharmacy
cialis compare viagra
cialis mexico
cialis prescription
cialis viagra
save on pills
buy cheap cialis
viagra online
cialis germany
viagra 50mg
medicaid viagra
natural viagra alternative
viagra pharmacy
cialis generic price
womens viagra
cialis uprima viagra
viagra hgh
cialis online purchase
citrate sildenafil

Follow the stimulus money .The White House called it the accountability summit Thursday. State leaders charged with spending the stimulus were told they are on the “front lines”. Officials from all fifty states but Idaho (?) attended to be coached on how to make the stimulus work .Cabinet secretaries and administration officials were available for questioning. Accountability and transparency were buzz words at the meeting a major part of transparency is easy availability of information.”Recovery” web pages and easy access to state information regarding stimulus money spending and contracting is key.

Stimulus spending has started here in Vermont at the Richmond Bridge. The choice of the very low bidding out of state company makes clear the need for openness. Vt. Secretary of Transportation defended the Maine contractor choice in the paper  the other day  as questions were raised about the company being from out of state and  about the huge difference in bid costs .Nothing apparently is amiss but information access online could be better because accountability is the goal.

A tracker tracker of sorts,here is a link http://www.obamaperspective.co…

to a site by a fellow who is tracking all   fifty state’s “recovery” websites. He is tracking how states are handling transparency issues. Posted are links to and   brief notes on all states “recovery” homepages.

The quality of Vermont’s site (as it now appears) compared to others according to this site gets what  would translate as a “meh”.

…..Vermont’s stimulus site includes only the most general information about the recovery plan, such as links to the text of the bill, and to the federal stimulus site, http://recovery.vermont.gov/

More information will follow, a press release says.

The tracking website says “we’re considering adding a scoring system. The Missouri site is noted as best …and for accountability and décor Missouri nails a 9.8!  . The Missouri Accountability portal provides comprehensive documentation of grants, contracts, budgets and state employee salaries. All line item expenditures are accounted for, even for minimal expenses. Missouri’s  recovery site lists stimulus funds received by the state, with fields for the date of deposit, the funds’ intended purpose, the amount and how the dollars have been spent. http://mapyourtaxes.mo.gov/MAP…

Missouri is the “Show me State” after all

http://www.propublica.org/spec…

It’s been an interesting week, with a fairly major power play on the part of the Douglas administration.

Here’s what we know: the administration worked very hard to convince a lot of state employees that their jobs were in jeopardy unless they were willing to take a pay cut.  There were announcements about position cuts, about layoffs, etc.  And there are state employees who are under the impression that their jobs are actually slated for cuts in a few months.

Here’s the thing: the Douglas administration doesn’t have the ability to make all the cuts it’s proposing without assistance from the legislature.  And where is the legislature right now?

It’s out of session.

In the meantime, what does Douglas present as an alternative to the cuts?

Having the union volunteer for pay cuts.

It’s fairly obvious that this is an active attempt to disrupt the connection between the union and the state employees.  It’s not even a subtle one.

In the meantime, he has the actual gall to blame the legislature for putting some time into civil rights, calling it a “distraction.”

And what is the Douglas administration addressing right now?

The quarter.  Specifically what the quarter looks like.

But clearly, that’s not a “distraction.”  

I’m beginning to get the idea of how this works:

“Focusing on the economy” = “doing whatever Douglas wants”

“A distraction” = “doing anything else.”

A thief breaks into your house, steels everything, and leaves you nearly broke. Law enforcement responds by visiting with the thief and the resellers of the thief’s stolen goods in a very friendly setting, perhaps lunch at the Four Seasons. Law enforcement then takes the information to government officials who respond by writing the thief and the resellers a check from what is left of your checking account. They decide this too over lunch, perhaps also at the Four Seasons and on your dime.

Then the same government officials declare that a new and better alarm system should be installed in your home and in the home of all Americans, at a high cost to you of course (The reality is that the alarm system worked perfectly, but that does not matter).

(I called it a corporate coup, they call it looting… either way, we got robbed…, at-Largely blog, 03/13/09)

Yeah … she’s talking about the Wall Street bailout.

UPDATE–Here's the link to the video: 

http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/burlington-city-council-0

Well, it's been an interesting week for free speech in Vermont, even if we don't include the abortive IRV recount in Burlington.

Still, since I mentioned Burlington, why not start out there? At Thursday's City Council meeting, the Democratic majority was up to what some would say are their old tricks, and some would say are their duty to their constituents that ordinances be passed only after due and careful consideration. You may have read the great reporting by Shay Totten, and if you haven't I'll invite you to hop over there rather than to recap the whole story.

The basics, though, are that in consideration of a zoning amendment on the height limit for new buildings, the Democrats, particulary Ed Adrian and David Berezniak, were interposing parliamentary objections to the extent that the people who wanted the ordinance to go through were getting mighty peeved. Accounts of what happened differ, but some say that Adrian and Brezniak were being disruptive, others say that they were forced to act as they were because Council President Kurt Wright wouldn't recognize them when they wanted to speak, so they had to speak up even when someone else was speaking.

Finally, Almost Mayor Kwik-Stop decided he'd had enough, so he called in the police.

That's right: at a public meeting of a legislative body, the presiding officer called in armed police officers to silence elected officials whose positions he disagreed with.

I get that many observers seem to feel that Adrian and Berezniak (they mostly seem to be blaming Adrian) were engaging in bad meeting behavior; that they should have just accepted the fact that they were in the minority and taken their lumps. On the other hand, calling in the cops to silence your political opponents? I think Almost Mayor Wright has hit a new low.

I'm also struck and horrified by the fact that so many commenters at Blurt and the Burlington Free Press are supporting Wright's actions. Maybe Ed Adrian is the most unpopular Democrat in the whole city of Burlington, I don't really care. Somehow I doubt it, since he was able to get elected. Maybe he should know better than to try to stand up to the Progs and Republicans when they decide what's going to happen. Still, if they're as bad as all that, convince the voters in their districts to vote them out. 

 Meanwhile, the Vermont Supreme Court handed down a victory for free speech Friday morning. It relates to the charges of disorderly conduct against Boots Wardinski and Michael Colby for demonstrating against John Negroponte when he spoke at the St. Johnsbury Academy graduation back in 2006.

Here are the facts, as the parties agreed to them:

On June 5, 2006, defendants Boots Wardinski and Michael Colby attended the St. Johnsbury Academy commencement ceremony.  Both defendants had tickets to the invitation-only ceremony at which John Negroponte, then the United States Director of National Intelligence, delivered a speech. Approximately two minutes into Negroponte’s address, defendant Wardinski stood from his seat and shouted that Negroponte “had blood on his hands” and invited the audience to join him in walking out on the commencement address.  At some point prior to defendant Wardinski’s remarks, defendant Colby also stood and shouted at Negroponte.  Academy staff and police officers promptly asked both defendants to leave and escorted them from the premises without resistance or further incident.  Despite these interruptions, which lasted no more than thirty seconds, Negroponte delivered his speech in its entirety.

The two were arrested, charged with disorderly conduct, and convicted.

On appeal, the Supreme Court looks at two important issues: how disruptive must conduct be before it counts as disorderly conduct, and how must we balance the public interest in order against the right to free expression.

I have to say, the Supremes handled this a lot better than Kurt Wright.  On the first point, the Court held that the thirty-second disturbance did not substantially interfere with the conduct of the three-hour graduation ceremony, or even with Negroponte's eight-minute speech. Similarly, balancing the defendants' First Amendment rights, the Court holds:

Both defendants left the site of the graduation ceremony upon being asked and without further incident, whereupon they were arrested.  Such de minimis disturbances, even if rude and out of place in the context of a commencement ceremony, cannot serve as the basis for criminal liability without running afoul of the First Amendment. 

 The Court quoted with approval a 1949 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court:

“[F]reedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against . . . punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.”

Maybe somebody should read that to the Un-Mayor before the next City Council meeting.

The Senate Government Operations Committee on Wednesday March 18 at 9AM room 4,

Change in Primary Date.

 http://www.leg.state.vt.us/sch…

Democrats crowd race for governor cried the headlines last month,in stark contrast to last year’s never ending wait for candidates to up their courage and enter the fray .This year we seem to have an abundance courageous Democratic candidates ready to take on Governor Douglas(should he run ).Maybe an earlier primary date could help energize the party and give some organizational breathing room before November rolls around .

and lies my radio and my tellie and my internet also told me. Actually it’s lies people who know better told me. Actually this is more about those in the middle, the “reporters” and pundits, and what they’re willing to do.

Secrets, secrets everywhere

Spreading lies with those that share

Brother, do you have a dime to spare?

‘Cause the liars left my cupboard bare

And now the whole issue ……………..

For openers here’s a link to the Cramer V. Stewert clip from last night … Stewart to Cramer: ‘It’s not a f**king game’, Raw Story, 03/13/09.

I think two things bear emphasizing from the above: Cramer is putting himself forward as an honest broker and adviser while he is simultaneously depending upon the same financial industry he “reports” on for his livelihood; and Cramer openly admits he has had corporate CEOs lie to his face, but I don’t find any record of him making that statement during his own show (I could be wrong, but I’ve watched his show once in a while and have seen no indication he would do such a thing).

In this Washington Post story (Intelligence Pick Blames ‘Israel Lobby’ For Withdrawal, 03/12/09), we see a perfect example of reporters hiding their sources EVEN WHEN THE SOURCES ARE PROVIDING PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION!

For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, “took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it,” spokesman Josh Block said.

But Block responded to reporters’ questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: “As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background.”

That doesn’t seem too sinister, until one reviews just where all this anonymous sourcing leads us to.

Remember when the cheney/bush administration uncorked every public relations weapon they had to pursue and persecute Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie? Remember how virtually all the reporting that came from anonymous sources variously described as “ex congressional staffers”, “highly placed administration sources” and the lie really all came from the most partisan actors in DC? (cheney, Liddy, Addington, Fleischer, Rove and a couple others)

Did any single one of those reporters deem it important to tell us their information could be tainted because of the radical partisanship of those “sources”? No … at least until the “reporters” were put under oath by a federal prosecutor who had no fear of jailing the “reporters”. (I could go on a loooooooong roll about the NYT’s Judith Miller and how she acted with alacrity as cheney’s conduit of misinformation to the American public regarding Iraq.)

And bear in mind almost everything reported from the above mentioned partisan sources was found inaccurate at best and direct lies at worst.

What I’m describing is a lack of principle. None of the many “reporters” mentioned or alluded to above would have voluntarily told us the reality behind their “reporting” without threat of legal consequence or the very public beating of John Stewert (thank you John).

Flip back to 1996. Republican John Carrol was running for Lt. Governor with a campaign based mostly on his alleged understanding of business and creating a business friendly atmosphere in Vermont (the more things change the more they stay the same, etc).

Carrol came on my radio show, and I proceeded to do my usual shtick: give my guest a platform to speak their piece while I offered up questions I thought would illuminate what was being said.

Because Carrol was running as one who understood and thus could help small businesses I asked him some questions about his own background in this area. You see, Carrol had had a construction company that had gone under, and the Rutland Herald had written a good sized story about how Carrol’s business had not been able to meet payroll or pay bills.

I understood very well that businesses go down the drain on a steady basis, so I was going to offer Carrol a real softball question: I wanted to ask him what he had learned form his own bankruptcy that could be passed on to others.

But I never got past the confirmation that he gone bankrupt. Carrol exploded in denial of any bankruptcy ever, he was red in the face with anger, he was a large (not fat) man and was physically leaning in to me as he castigated me for making things up. When I pursued the question he compared what I was doing to the old style of asking if someone had stopped beating his wife.

Fortunately for Carrol, and unfortunately for me that day, I had left the copy of the Rutland Herald article at home … I couldn’t confront him about his deliberate lie to my audience and me on that Friday.

And then came Monday.

I showed up to my show with the article. I read it on the air. I informed folks I didn’t like guests lying to them or me. I made sure I called Carrol a liar, and I did it publicly … because that’s what he did, and because he did it with such certitude, I applied the word directly to him in a personal manner.

Over my time as radio host I had one other incident where I had to come back and tell the audience I had done a little research and it was obvious a specific guest was lying to them.

I just wonder why that expectation of honesty and willingness to hold folks accountable for their words seems to be so limited in the arena of public news gatherers and pundits.

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

Douglas said several of the bills lawmakers have outlined as their top priorities are unnecessary distractions from work on economic development and balancing the state budget. Among those bills are a gay marriage measure and a bill that would restrict drivers from having pets on their laps, according to the governor.

[…]

He also questioned the worth of some of the other priorities set out by lawmakers. Same-day voter registration and a bill requiring that the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant put more money into a decommissioning fund are not as important as economic development and budgetary issues, he said.

So let me get this right?  With a staff the size of the Governor’s, he apparently can not focus on more than one piece of legislation at a time?  Or maybe it’s just that discussion of same sex marriage is somehow debilitating:

“I’d love to discuss the economy but whenever people talk about same-sex marriage, I’m temporarily blinded!”  I can, actually, sympathize with that, because I have the same problem whenever someone mentions K-Fed.

What’s more, putting a little time into same-sex marriage is focusing on the economy:

A few hours after Douglas critiqued the lawmakers for their priorities, supporters of the gay marriage bill released the results of a study about the potential economic benefit of the measure.

“Thousands of couples traveled to Vermont when civil unions became available in 2000,” one of the researchers, M. V. Lee Badgett, said in a statement. “Marriage will attract even more couples, as recent experiences in California demonstrate, and Vermont is a likely tourist destination for many of those couples.”

Maybe we need to show Jim that gay people could be a good donor base.  How fast do you think his opposition would end then?

Quick test of your constitutional knowledge: where does legislation originate according to the United States Constitution?

(Here’s a hint: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.”)

Sure, not all earmarks are created equal, but what is all this fuss about Congresspeople having the authority to direct federal spending?

Why do we want to invest in one person, the President of the United States, either the legal (line item veto scam) or political power to decide which earmarks are and are not worthy?

Personally I can think of only one quicker way to an authoritarian government, and that way is the process the cheney/bush administration was following. Look up the stories: secret legal opinions asserting executive power to do whatever the prez wanted to do either foreign or domestically (such opinions discarded only when it became apparent the Rethuglicans were not going to remain in power).

Giving the President sway over the specifics of the earmarking process conveys a political tool with access to trillions of dollars. If earmarks are going to be abused, I’d just as soon see that abuse spread among competing interests. I don’t want any single person having that kind of economic power in our nation.

On the other hand, it appears to me the vast majority of earmarks do serve a valid public purpose.

Keep the power of legislation where the Constitution and common sense say it belongs … with the Congress.

Thanks to this story from the Huffington Post ….

Thank you Tell us Vision.