It’s also OK to defend those priorities.  

It is also important to call out divisive and hate generating media advocacy when it rears its ugly head.

Greenvtster makes a good point when he says the Democrats need to prevent the media, or conservatives – but I repeat myself – from defining their agenda as a single issue.

The Times Argus’ toxic and divisive poll is a reminder to our legislative leaders that the responsibility to enact priorities carries with it the responsibility to publicly advocate for those priorities. “Leading,” it is why we elect them.

The Democrats need to advocate for the policies and priorities needed to help Vermonters protect themselves from an economy that Republican and conservative policies have thoroughly dismantled and run into the fiscal ditch. The economic recovery and sustainability plans, particularly those the Governor and his administration consistently undermine, need to be pushed front and center.

They, and we, also need to advocate against those forces deliberately distorting the agenda our legislative leaders are pushing on our behalf. Do not shy from calling out partisans in the media. Do not shy away from those conservatives who are fighting social justice or any other group that is distracting from a badly needed progressive legislative agenda.



. . . UPDATED down under . .

The effect of inartful language in the Times Argus‘ “poll” **  is nothing more than a direct, in-your-face, jab at gays and lesbians specifically, and the majority of Vermonters, in general, who value equal protection of the law.

The TA’s behavior The survey’s language has the effect of playing into a narrative that anti-marriage rights opponents are pedaling, which pits Vermonter directly against Vermonter. The poll’s not-too-subtle message to its readers is “Your interests are necessarily mutually exclusive from the priorities of other Vermonters’ interests when it comes to legislative priorities.”

This is just plain untrue. It is toxic thinking. It creates a false, media generated, and media perpetuated conflict of priorities where none exists.

Is the TA afraid too much consensus is building around equal marriage rights? Seriously, what is the inspiration for this?

Here is the problem.  When a survey in a newspaper asks:

Do you think same-sex marriage should be a top priority for the Legislature?

What it is really telling its readers is “are the issues that are important to gays and lesbians more important than the issues that affect you?”

If that’s the questions they are really asking, then want to know what the real answer to that question is?  The answer is Bullshit!  It’s bullshit because the implication is false. The conflict is non-existent.

If the Times Argus really wants to play those games, what’s stopping them from pulling out all the stops and pitting the rest of “us” (whoever “we” happen to be) against each other and against our neighbors?  Let’s see the TA put up a poll that pits children against farmers or the elderly against working people. Why only imply to your readers that it stops with marriage rights? Certainly there are other groups that can fight to trump each other?

Try this:

What’s more important?

Do you think the legislature should make the needs of working families a top priority OR are the elderly more important?

When media outlets such as the Times Argus (they are not the only ones, just the most recent example) carelessly use language in surveys that plays into a false narrative being promoted by the GOP, the effect is to pit Vermonter divisively against Vermonter and it asks us to dig deeply into our inner-hate.

Memo: Stop pitting Vermonter against Vermonter.

This is just shameful because there really is no shortage of targets for the TA, or others, to use when pitting one group of Vermonters against another. Once the tone is set, everyone gets into the game. Worse, it makes people think they may have competing interests when, in fact, nothing is further from the truth. Because, if the TA or other well-poisoners want to play that game, they can throw frogs into the drinking water all day. How about this one:

What’s more important? Do you think the Legislature should preserve Vermont’s image of natural beauty and make cleaning up Lake Champlain a priority OR should the legislature protect Vermont’s farming heritage and ignore agricultural discharging or animal feces and pesticide runoff into the Lake?

Same false assumptions and same false priorities. They are easy to “poll,” but hard to explain.

When the equation is: “What’s more important, marriage and family rights or [Fill.In.The.Blank]?” — why even bother to ask the question? Why frame an issue in a way that suggests (as the Governor and other conservatives are also doing) that fixing one problem means ignoring others? I’ll say it again, nothing is further from the truth.

Divisive questions are really nothing more than divisive statements that are really an editorial about a false conflict. And the conflict pits Vermonter against Vermonter. It does not illuminate the subject. It does not pit “this is where we are today” with “this is where we need to be tomorrow – and why.” No, the editorial questioning keeps public policy on a zero-sum reptilian level and ignores what is truly at issue.

Chew on this: Liberals can address more than one serious problem at a time, just like Republicans and conservatives can spend their entire day trying to obstruct and block progress on any work to fix more than one problem at a time. Smell the coffee, assholes.  

When the General Assembly is in session, every State law that is on the books is potentially on the table. Every (1) State dollar of every (2) State funding priority is at issue and every (3) State policy is subject to review. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

The fact is WE ALL have an interest in civil rights. Civil rights is always a top priority. And top priorities do not make anything else less important either.

————————-



UPDATE:  Thank you to Rob Mitchell, of the Times Argus, for commenting on this post.

He re-states the Times Argus’ support for equal marriage rights and comments that:

The editorial of a newspaper is the voice of the publisher and the community we serve. Sometimes the editorial leads the community, sometimes it follows. . . we support gay marriage as a civil right. We said so editorially, and that is separate from our news coverage. . .

We are not just a poll question, we are much more than that. We provide a forum for people to voice their opinions, and we do not discriminate against any opinion – we protect free speech.

It is easy to get fired up about a poll question, but we have put our money where our mouth is in support of equal rights time and time again.

Please see all of his comments including, HERE and HERE, below.  I note there are revisions in my post in light of his comments.

– cl

———————

[** the “poll” is a stolen cookie click’n’refresh feature. Not only is it not a poll, but this means it cannot even gauge reader preference since one person can vote as many times as desired.]

Also, an alert reader directed us to a neutrally worded survey at WPTZ (and one that does not require you to clear or “toss” your cookies!).

 Loading ...

(Very substantive diary addressing Douglas’s proposed cuts. – promoted by Jack McCullough)

she posed the following question re. the decision to close a prison and (presumably) ship more prisoners out of state

“How much does it cost us to export prisoners?  Is that cheaper than running a prison ourselves?”

Doug Hoffer Testimony

House Government Operations

Regarding CCA and the DOC

2 April 2008

We know that the cost of housing a prisoner is cheaper at an out of state (OOS) facility than in Vermont.  But is the comparison apples-to-apples?   If not, the purported savings are exaggerated and could result in bad decisions.  Here are some differences.

1. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) does not provide mental health services.   DOC has not provided data for the actual cost of mental health services in Vermont prisons.

2. CCA does not provide services related to sexual abuse, substance abuse, or violent offenders.   DOC programs not available through CCA include the Cognitive Self Change program for violent offenders; the Intensive Domestic Abuse Program; Batterers Intervention Program; the Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Programs; and the Discover Program for those with substance abuse problems.  

DOC has not provided data for the actual cost of these services in Vermont but they must be substantial.  For example, the treatment programs for sexual abusers include over 100 beds in St Albans, Springfield, and Windsor staffed with 7+ FTE master’s level MH professionals.

3. CCA provides a GED program but, according to DOC, it is not comparable Vermont’s Community High School (CHS).   DOC has not provided data for the actual amount spent by CCA for its GED program or any details about the program.

DOC’s cost for “education” was $3.6 million in FY07.   DOC was unable to say what CCA spends.  When asked to provide comparable figures to reflect the difference in services, DOC adjusted its education costs downward to $1.45 million.  

According to CCA, 120 inmates earned a GED at its Kentucky facility in 2006. But the company did not say how many Vermont inmates went through the program (and DOC did not tell us).  CCA reported that about half the inmates at the Kentucky facility were from Vermont.  But since Vermont does not send inmates under 22 years of age OOS, it is likely that Vermont’s share of CCA GED graduates is less than half the total.  

CHS reported that 148 high school diplomas were awarded in FY07.   DOC describes the CHS as a very substantial program serving hundreds of inmates who log thousands of hours of time in the classroom.  DOC is required to spend the equivalent of the statewide average for public school students (minus trans. & debt service).  Since CCA’s business model is based on cost containment and limited services, the quality of instruction cannot be comparable to the CHS.  

Therefore, without more information, it is difficult to understand DOC’s adjustment from $3.6 million to $1.45 million.  

4. DOC reported spending $13.4 million for medical care – $7,953 per inmate (not including mental health services).   It seems highly unlikely that CCA would spend anywhere near that much since the total annual cost per inmate is only about $23,000.  Thus, notwithstanding the differences due to the economies of scale, there must be significant differences in the health of the two populations and/or the nature and quality of the services provided.  

We asked DOC for information about health care services and costs at CCA facilities, but DOC had none.  When asked, CCA provided information on Vermont inmates’ share of the percentage of total expenditures for medication.  Vermont inmates represented about half the population at the Kentucky facility but accounted for 77% of the total cost for medication (including diabetic, cardiac, HIV, Hepatitis C, and asthma medication).  

The numbers appear compelling but there’s a lot of information missing.  Percentages don’t tell us what the costs are.  For example, 77% of a small amount is no big deal.  And we don’t know whether a significant portion went to a small number of inmates with more serious conditions.  And we don’t know anything about the demographics or medical condition of the Kentucky inmates.  And, most importantly, we don’t (yet) know how the per inmate medication costs for VT inmates in Kentucky compare to the costs at DOC facilities.  The question was about costs, not percentages.

5. The CCA contract calls for the company to provide only the first $2,000 in care outside the facility (it was $20,000). A DOC memo claims this change will cost the state $360,000 per year.   It does not appear that this cost has been added to the published contract costs for OOS prisoners.

6. AHS and DOC staff make periodic visits to the OOS sites for various purposes.  DOC estimated that the cost for FY07 was $139,000.  

All these costs should be taken into consideration when comparing the CCA contract rate and the DOC instate cost.  The bottom line is that a fair comparison can only be made when the characteristics of the population and the services provided are apples-to-apples.  We don’t yet have the data necessary to do this.

CCA only takes inmates who do not need mental health care or specialized treatment programs. And it seems highly unlikely that CCA’s GED program is anything like the full-service high school experience offered by the CHS.  Therefore, it’s not surprising that CCA’s program is so much cheaper; it is the equivalent of an insurance company cherry picking only healthy people.  

What’s the alternative?

We asked the DOC to help explain the differences in the cost structure.  According to DOC, the primary reason is that CCA achieves economies of scale with larger facilities.  This is reflected in Vermont’s figures as well since the larger in-state facilities have lower costs per person.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean the best solution is to outsource.

Note: CCA also keeps the price down by paying very low wages.  The median annual wage for a corrections officer in Kentucky is less than $25,000.

Every dollar spent with CCA is a dollar lost to the Vermont economy.  On the other hand, if we built a new prison, we would have a fifty-year asset large enough to achieve at least some of the economies of scale we need to save money.  And we would get the short-term benefits of the construction and fit-up (tens of millions in local payroll), as well as the long-term benefit of those continuing expenditures for salaries (money circulating in the local economy).

Having said that, I understand that the annual savings appear to be large. But we don’t yet have an apples-to-apples comparison.  Once we do, the question is how do the savings from outsourcing compare to the benefits of building and operating a new facility? This critical question has not been addressed.

Furthermore, if Vermont continues to rely on CCA for more and more beds, the instate infrastructure (physical & human) will be reduced over time from closures, retirement, and layoffs.  If so, what is to prevent CCA (or another vendor) from raising the price when Vermont has even less capacity?  

Miscellany

Some items in DOC’s report to the legislature that merit brief comments.

• The table at the top of page 26 shows the “Hypothetical Cost of Contracting by Facility”. It says the state could save $41 million by outsourcing all of Vermont’s inmates.  This is not accurate.  As discussed above, CCA does not provide a number of very expensive services.  If they were required to do so, the cost would go up accordingly.  In my view, it is terribly misleading to present this kind of information.

• The second table on page 26 shows the projected contract costs for the “New England Option”.  This too shows tens of millions in annual savings but suffers from the same flaws as the first table.  More importantly, it notes that CCA’s per diem cost would likely rise to $80 from $58, in part to cover the capital costs of the new facility.

I ask you to think about this.  Why should Vermont taxpayers pay for a new prison in another state, to be owned not by Vermont but by a private company?  If taxpayers are asked to pay for a new prison, why shouldn’t the facility and the jobs be in Vermont?  This just makes no sense to me.

• Under “Plan C” (Re-Task Several Facilities), the report states “The correctional facilities serve multiple populations and functions, and intersect with the interests of the criminal justice system, law enforcement, cities and towns, victims, families of offenders, advocates, and taxpayers. Each of these stakeholders has a valid interest in Vermont’s current and future correctional system.” (emphasis added)

Sending inmates OOS does not serve families or advocates.

I just received a copy of this e-mail.  I’ve blocked out the FROM and CC fields because I’m not sure how public this is supposed to be (even though I’m not sure how you can send something to the entire AHS staff without expecting it to be public)

 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:25 AM 
To: AHS - DOC - All DOC Staff 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: 600 Position Reductions

As Secretary Hofmann mentioned in his email (which
I have added below), at  some point today, the 
Administration will release the specific 
information about the positions that will be 
proposed for elimination across State Government in 
order to achieve $17,000,000 in labor cost savings 
for State Fiscal Year 2010. Secretary Hofmann's 
email contains the details on why this is 
necessary, so I will not repeat that information 
here.

Therefore, the DOC proposes the Northeast Regional 
Correctional Facility in St Johnsbury because of 
it‚s proximity to another male prison facility 
(less than 50 miles), it's co-location with an 
existing work camp and because it is the right size 
to address the issue at hand.  While the closing of 
this facility is not desirable, it is necessary to 
address the budget deficit and would mean the 
elimination of almost all of the positions at the 
NERCF site. These positions are in addition to the 
previous 9 that we announced late last week which 
were required to meet our SFY 2010 budget.

I appreciate the difficulty of these reductions and 
sincerely hope that they will ultimately be 
unnecessary. While more conversations between the 

VSEA, the Administration and the Legislature will 
unfold, I want to make sure that you have as much 
information as possible in a timely manner.

As more information becomes available, we will pass 
that along to staff.

That was the preamble to an e-mail from Secretary Hoffman.  I will include his e-mail after the fold.

To All AHS Staff:

While I have asked each Commissioner to be in 
contact with their whole department, I thought it 
was important that all AHS employees hear about 
difficult news that is coming out today directly 
from me.

As you probably know, the State of Vermont is 
facing a budget gap of well over $200 Million for 
the fiscal year (FY 2010) that starts in just over 
3 months.  This only represents the General Fund 
shortfall and this gap is more likely to grow than 
shrink.  The Governor has proposed a budget that 
counts on a huge Federal Stimulus infusion to 
bridge much of the shortfall, but also asks a wide 
variety of non-profit partners, contract and grant 
recipients, medical providers, beneficiaries and 
other Vermonters to share in the cost reductions.  
A reduction in State personnel costs will also be 
necessary.  Several key legislators agree with the 
Administration proposal that $17 million (or about 
8% of the solution) should come from reduced state 
personnel costs.  Given that the union proposal 
does not yet yield the necessary savings and the 
new fiscal year is only a few months away, we are 
at a point where we need to advise the employees in 
positions slated for elimination.

The financial target for the Agency of Human 
Services was $6.8 million (estimated at 285 
positions).  Commissioners, HR/Finance staff and I 
have spent an enormous amount of time wrestling 
with the difficult options to reduce personnel 
costs in our agency of 3500 employees.  Having 
taken some positions off the list, we have 
identified $4.5 million in annual savings through 
the elimination of 195 positions.  While some of 
these positions are vacant, most are not.  We will 
be informing the individuals or work groups 
impacted as soon as possible today.  I expect the 
list of positions to be public by day's end.  I 
will subsequently be reviewing with Commissioners, 
options to reduce the remaining portion of the 
agency target.

For those of you directly affected by these 
changes, I understand that it is extremely 
difficult to receive notice that, through no fault 
of your own, your position is being eliminated in a 
restructuring.  I, and thousands of other 
Vermonters, can personally attest to that.  So far 
AHS has a tremendous track record of helping 
employees land another job within the agency and 
will do our utmost to continue to do so.  This 
naturally becomes more difficult as the number of 
state positions is reduced and the economy causes 
people to stay in (or seek) state positions which 
are relatively more secure than the external 
employment market.  The national recession has 
thrown the continued existence of many previously 
vibrant employers (e.g. auto manufacturers, 
newspapers, airlines, banks, non-profits) into 
grave doubt.  While I can not allay the anxiety 
that you feel, on the whole these reductions are 
less than those that have occurred at many 
businesses.  These reductions are very difficult, 
but the work of State government remains critical 
and will continue into the future, something many 
outside employees can not say with certainty.  I 
understand that this may not be any consolation to 
anyone who loses a job, it may be reassuring to the 
95% of staff not directly impacted.

The Administration has made a counter proposal to 
VSEA yesterday which will become public today.  
Because of this, I remain hopeful that the number 
of eliminated positions can be held steady or 
reduced based on the discussions among the key 
stakeholders.

In the meantime, I encourage staff to support each 
other at this turbulent time and endeavor to remain 
focused on our important work.  Thank you.

Rob Hofmann 

My favorite line is the imaginary group consisting of  “the 95% of staff not directly impacted.”  

We’re all impacted by this.  

An addendum to yesterday’s piece on same sex marriage: in today’s Rutland Herald, they report that Jim Douglas doesn’t support it:

“I don’t support it. I really believe the civil union law we have now is sufficient,” Douglas said during a meeting of the editorial board Tuesday at the Times-Argus office. “I don’t see the need to have … a divisive debate about this topic.”

Here’s my thought: let’s not have a divisive debate.  Let’s not gay-bait, and let’s repudiate anyone who does.  Let’s not pretend that civil unions are equal to same-sex marriage.  Let’s not, for example, use same sex marriage as a bogeyman in your fundraising letters.  

Let’s not be “divisive” about this.  Let’s just pass it and get it over with.  It’s easy.

‘Cause, really, what’s more “divisive” here?  Passing the legislation or vetoing it so that we have to have this battle over and over again?

A new study shows that Vermont has a higher percentage of its population, 34%* , asserting that they belong to “no religion”

Follow this link to the charts.

*CORRECTION: The 21% figure posted earlier was the change, not the absolute fraction. Thanks to worriedinvt for pointing that out.

WPTZ just reported that after a review of the ballots of four wards confirmed the election night results, Kurt Wright pulled the plug on his recount request and conceded to reelected Mayor Bob Kiss.

It was just yesterday that Doug Hoffer, commenting on an earlier recount thread, made this prediction:

I predict Kurt will do as Tim Ashe’s opponent did and agree to stop it midway through;

.

And GMD commenter farjas responded:

I’ll match your prediction with one nearly as prophetic. Kurt Wright will not abandon this effort halfway through, no matter how “torturous” the recount process (see Minnesota: Coleman for proof).

Good call, Doug.

We’ll probably have to wait until tomorrow for more information, but those are the basics.

UPDATE: Haik has the same news over at Burlington Pol, but the only additional detail he has is a more specific lineup of the wards that completed before the end.

(This is a really good catch.  Thanks for posting it. – promoted by JulieWaters)

http://www.wcax.com/Global/sto…

Yesterday, the guv dropped the shovel on Vermont’s first federal stimulus construction project, a bridge repair in Richmond.  The WCAX piece linked above left out that the general contractor, T. Buck Construction, is headquartered in Auburn, Maine.

Call me a protectionist, but is anyone else disappointed our first stimulus job didn’t go to a Vermont company?  And, is anyone else equally disappointed that WCAX neglected to mention anything about WHO will be doing the work?  

Hopefully, T. Buck will at least put some Vermonters to work instead of importing labor.

Looking back, I can’t say that I’m proud about the way I treated my younger brother.  The number of times I made him get me something from the kitchen, forced him to get up off the couch to turn the television channel (this was pre-remote control), or the times I would beat on him as he beat me at basketball (he was the better athlete).  I was older, and stronger.  

I distinctly remember the time I came home from college during break, and gave him a shove because he wasn’t doing something I wanted.  His 6 foot frame gave my 5 foot 10 frame a shove back.  

I was lucky that we were both so surprised by his reaction and strength that it didn’t go any further.  I had earned a reprieve and managed to bluster, “So, watch it,”

However, it didn’t take college level coursework for me to figure out that things had changed.  With one part maturity, and one part self-interest, it clicked that things were not as they always had been.  It was time for our relationship to evolve.

Looking at the birthrates and demographics in the Middle East, the Israelis are on the wrong side of some pretty major trend lines.  They will simply overwhelm the Jewish population.  The Palestinians won’t be willing to do the chores forever, and the day is coming when they’ll be able to shove back.  

It is time for those of European decent living in that part of the world to understand that if they want to remain there, long term, it is time to start working on building a new paradigm.  It is in their self-interest to begin now – before wounds and grievances are even deeper, and irreparable damage is done — to work to develop a new relationship, built on compromise, partnership, and mutual benefit.

(Cross-posted at Broadsides.org)

I’ve been homebound a bit more than I’d like lately. First, with a hideous chest cold and now to avoid the soggy ground and attempt to get some inside work done. And being inside for me usually means being a slave to the radio – talk radio to be precise.

In Central Vermont, local talk radio means WDEV to me. But I’m not sure how much more I can take – especially in the morning – as Mark Johnson of the not-so-cleverly-named “Mark Johnson Show” seems hell-bent in his milquetoast pursuit of playing the media lapdog to Vermont’s power elite.

If you’ve ever listened to Johnson, you’ll know what I’m talking about: He approaches his media role not like a probing reporter but more like a member – if not a leading member – of an insider’s club of Vermont’s media, economic and political elite. In other words, Johnson takes the exact opposite path of what the late, great Joseph Pulitzer saw as the true goal of the “fourth estate’: To have no friends.

For two hours a day, five days a week, Johnson brings forth a steady stream of his fellow club members, exchanging pleasant guffaws with them and lobbing softballs in their general direction, seemingly not bothered by the shallowness of it all. It is, after all, what maintains his membership to the “club.” Because we all know the quickest way to get kicked out of the Vermont media and political elite is to actually ask some tough questions of your fellow members. Bye-bye invites to “Vermont This Week,” for sure. And so long to those 15-minute puff-pieces with Leahy/Sanders/Welch/Douglas where allowing them to regurgitate their talking points masquerades as an “interview.”

If Johnson ever does demonstrate disdain for anyone, it’s usually the poor fool who dares to call into his show and criticize the media. Johnson will not tolerate it. Never mind that the Vermont media is an atrophied shadow of what the media really should be (and getting worse by the week given the layoffs and cutbacks), Johnson will not let even the mildest media critique get by without either a hang-up and/or a stern rebuke.

Most recently, for example, the leader of the Vermont Senate, Peter Shumlin, was a guest on Johnson’s show to discuss the Democratic leadership’s decision to put gay marriage on its priority list for this current session. The all-too-frequent and curmudgeonly old-guy callers (do these guys ever work?) to his show bombarded Shumlin with the Republican talking points, declaring that the gay marriage issue was a “distraction” to the real matters (read: economic) facing the state.

Shumlin hung in there quite admirably, trying – time and time again – to point out that the gay marriage bill wasn’t really taking up much time and, nevertheless, was merely one bill among dozens and dozens that the legislature was more than capable of considering.

But Shumlin crossed the Johnson line when he dared to venture into even the mildest of mild media criticism. “Well,” declared an almost exasperated Shumlin, “we held a press conference yesterday about our latest economic plan but you wouldn’t know it because the media didn’t cover it.”

“Wait, wait, wait,” interjected Johnson, “before you start criticizing the media…”

And Shumlin, being the good club member himself, knew that he had to back down, allowing Johnson’s rebuke to stand while shelving his very reasonable critique of the Vermont media and allowing its embarrassingly shallow coverage of the Statehouse go unchecked.

But Johnson’s at his all-time worst when he’s interviewing a fellow media club member. Take, for example, his interview today with WCAX’s Marselis Parsons. Johnson invited Parsons on after he read the news that Vermont’s own media dinosaur was considering retiring. The ensuing interview was little more than a mutual admiration love-fest: “Don’t you love what you do?”

Um, excuse me fellas, but you’re members of the media. So why don’t you loosen up your lover’s embrace long enough to ask a hard question in these incredibly hard times. You know, something like: How did the Vermont media completely blow it when it comes to the economic crisis? And why don’t we hold some of our life-long political figures accountable for fiddling while our economy burned?

Instead, we got things like: “Wow, you’ve been there for 42 years?” “I’ve only been around for half that time.” “Does it feel like it’s been that long?” “Tell me about your favorite interview?”

That, my friends, is how you remain in the club: lob softballs at your fellow club members, make no waves, and fantasize about all the accolades that might come your way after 42-years of doing little but shilling for the power elite. Oh yeah, Mark, you’re halfway there…

If Johnson ever does show disdain, it’s almost always for those who dare to criticize the media or hold Vermont politicians accountable. Instead of probing the power elite, Johnson acts as a firewall to seemingly protect them – thus assuring more bland interviews with his clubmates. “Tell me, Senator Leahy, how does it feel to be so powerful?” Yawn.

The only disdain Johnson ever shows is almost exclusively for those who dare to put a spotlight on the miserable state of the Vermont media. He simply won’t tolerate it. Much like he won’t tolerate any true people-based attempt to hold his poltical friends accountable for their dithering and/or outright assistance in bringing about the mess we’re currently in as a state and a nation.

Sadly, Johnson’s a proud member of the insider’s club and he’s not going to risk his next attempt to crawl into the laps of fellow members by – gasp! – asking some uncomfortable questions of them. There are rules, you know.

Johnson, of course, is no different than almost all of his fellow Vermont media brethren. They know how to keep buttering their bread, even if it means totally and completely bastardizing the real role of the media: Standing outside of the club so as to ask the tough questions and demand the real answers.

But one thing is for sure: Johnson gets his phone calls returned, especially when those on the other end know that little more than lobs will be coming their way. “Tell me, Senator Sanders, how does it feel to be so popular?”

Or maybe he’s just being honest because, after all, it is called the “Mark Johnson Show.” And it is, indeed, all about Mark Johnson and his cozy friendships with those who are willing to trade back-scratches and belly-rubs. Anything, that is, but make waves….

Sorry, Mr. Pulitzer, it’s a whole different era.

{The author can be reached at mcolby@broadsides.org}

From m-w.com:

id-i-ot…  Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person…

A large group of professional organizations have come out in support of same-sex marriage:

Same-sex marriage rights got an endorsement Monday from four Vermont professional organizations who cited research findings that “children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”

[…]

Their statement, which comes as the Vermont legislature prepares to consider same-sex marriage legislation, was released at a news conference called by the Vermont Psychological Association, the Vermont Psychiatric Association, the Vermont Association of Mental Health Counselors and the Vermont chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

This, however, is not good enough for everybody:

Steve Cable is the founder of the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, a group opposed to gay marriage. The lack of any landmark study tracking the outcomes of children raised in same-sex households, Cable said, makes it impossible to determine how they fare. The groups’ endorsement of gay marriage, he said, uses inconclusive science to justify a political agenda.

First, I find it really funny to see Cable talking about science, as though he gives a damn what science actually says.  Ditto for the use of it as a political agenda.

Cable said large-scale studies have proven one fact – that children raised by a married mother and father achieve measurably better outcomes than children reared in nonconventional families.

So let’s talk about the actual science here.  Studies have shown that children raised by married parents do better than children raised by divorced parents, and that children raised by married parents do better than children raised by single parents.

A sidenote here: this does not mean that divorce is the problem.  It could be that being raised by parents who are not a good fit for one another isn’t the best thing for kids.  The divorce itself may just be a byproduct.  We also know that children do better when both parents present a consistent message, and though some divorced couples are great about this, there are probably more divorced couples who present an inconsistent message than married couples, if for no other reason than simplicity of contact.

Now, as far as the science goes, Cable is doing something a bit slimy here.  He is pretending that same-sex marriage is the functional equivalent of divorce:

Jackie Winestock, associate professor of human and family development at UVM, is quoted in the same article:

However, Weinstock said it’s inappropriate to assume that children raised by gay couples will mirror the statistical outcomes of those raised by single parents or divorced parents.

She pointed to a 2004 policy statement by the American Psychological Association, which concluded that “conscientious and nurturing adults … homosexual or heterosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits and protections of civil marriage,” according to the statement, “can further strengthen these families.”

An American Academy of Pediatrics study, meanwhile, concluded there is “ample evidence” to show that “children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents.”

Cable is not an idiot.  He knows how to manipulate things to pretend they suit his agenda.  

What Cable is doing here is appealing to a cadre of useful idiots: trying to pretend that science supports him, giving them cover for their bigotry.  

Facts are on our side here, and he’s going to lose, eventually, but the real question is whether it will be in months, years, or decades.

Vermont was on the right side of history when this first came up, before anyone else in the union was.  Now is not the time to end up on the wrong side.