Best Vermont Blog (Take 2)

Okay, I guess in my post about the Best Vermont Blog contest, I should have been a little more emphatic about my desire that you vote for me.

I said that I don’t think I have the best Vermont blog, but by that I just meant my ego is not that big. I do however think I have a quality blog that I am proud of.

I also think it is entirely worth voting for. I voted for it. Bob the Optimizer voted for it. You can, too. Just click here. Polls close this MONDAY at 5:00PM, so you’d better do it fast.

Thanks for reading. I hope you consider voting for shesright.blogspot.com as the Best Vermont Blog. Thank you, if you do.

Freedom to burn the flag

This is a day late because I am working on another project, but I wanted to say a few words about the flag-burning amendment that failed in the Senate the other day.

The fact that I am/was a Republican probably makes you think that I was all for this move, which was largely supported by Republicans, or at least that’s how the media is portraying it (I haven’t actually looked at the vote break-down) - unless, you regularly read this blog with an open mind to my positions.

If the latter is the case, you know full well that I completely oppose this idea.

The reason the flag-burning law was shot down by the Supreme Court was because it is a violation of free speech. If we amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, it is still a violation of free speech, only now it is imbedded in our Constitution making it a contradiction of itself. What an insult.

The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect our right to express our dissent from the government. The First Amendment protects us from the government interfering with our free expression, be it political, religious, or other.

That means, anti-American nut-jobs have the right to burn the flag, a political candidate has the right to spend millions of dollars (his or others’) trying to build name recognition, churches have the right to think homosexuality is wrong, protesters have the right to call the president names and scream about “blood for oil,” protesters have the right to carry signs with pictures of aborted fetuses, and the government (that includes you, too) does not have the right to stop them.

I am totally at a loss as to why one side supports freedom only when it suits them and the other side supports freedom only when it suits them. It’s all or nothing, people. Either we are free or we're not. If you are allowed to subvert the Constitution and restrict our freedom for your agenda, what do you think the other guys will do when they are the ones in power?

This has been a victorious week for the Constitution. Thank God because I was really starting to get worried.

Best Vermont Blog

From 802 Online:

Ok folks, the polls are open. It's time to vote for your favorite Vermont-based blog. The winner will receive the coveted Best Vermont Blog Daysie award.

The rules are simple:

* Anyone, anywhere can vote.
* Everybody gets one vote. No ballot-box stuffing!
* The blogs you vote for must be on my my blogroll. If you want to vote for a Vermont blog that's not listed, let me know about it, and I'll add it.
* Make sure you give us the URL, not the blog's title.
* The polls close at 5pm on July 3.

Vote here, and spread the word!

Okay, I don't think I have the best Vermont blog, but you might. If you do, I encourage you to vote. If you don't, I still encourage you to vote.

The Constitution is not dead yet

Despite my dramatic comments in response to my last post, it seems that there is still some level of respect for the constitution of this country (though it is not from the legislators).

The Supreme Court of the United States struck down Vermont’s campaign finance law, ruling it unconstitutional in that it limits free speech.

Attorney General William Sorrell, who championed the law, had this to say,

"It's not totally unexpected, but it's disappointing."

“Why was it not totally unexpected?” you might ask. Why, because the law violated The Constitution. He knew that, but hoped that the Supreme Court would over look that paltry little detail the way Vermont’s courts and politicians have become so adept at doing.

Sorrell also said,

"This is a major disappointment for people all over the country who think there's too much money in politics."

No, this is only a major disappointment for people who think there is too much money in politics and think the only solution is subverting The Constitution.

Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Had this to say,

"I think it's a sad day for democracy in Vermont."

Yes, Paul, upholding The Constitution is sad, indeed. Good ol’ VPIRG. You’ve gotta love those guys.

This law did nothing to preserve democracy. In fact, one could argue that the law is damaging to democracy. The law gives a decided advantage to incumbents and those with established name recognition. I fail to see how limiting the ability of a newcomer to get the message out is good for democracy.

If you ask me, this is a good day for our country and our constitution. It’s about time.

"The painful clash between gay rights and religious freedom"

I was just reading an article in this week’s Seven Days about the gay marriage movement.

In Vermont, "We've taken a breather from the civil-union debate and are now ready to open the conversation again," says Beth Robinson, chair of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force.

Now, this is an issue that I rarely talk about and if memory serves have never blogged about. I just don’t care that much about it.

I am of the school of thought that the best way to get people to live by God's Word is for them to first begin a relationship with Jesus Christ. Such a relationship fundamentally changes people’s hearts and changes in their lives inevitably follow. It is not through legislation or through condemnation that people will change. In fact, I think that only serves to push people away from Christ.

Besides my religious view, I’m also just not interested in dictating to people how they should live.

Unfortunately, the fallout of gay marriage in Massachusetts, whereby a religious organization was being forced by law to betray its beliefs, has caused me to have a slight change of heart on this matter.

There is no right more important in my eyes than freedom of religion. There is nothing else that matters to me more on this earth than my right to worship my God in the manner that I so choose, in all aspects of my life, and all manifestations thereof. Call me a religious kook, but when the government starts to infringe on that right, I have a problem.

Let me backtrack a little because you might have missed this story.

Massachusetts has a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, as do most states. In the past, religious adoption agencies could still deny adoptions to gay couples by restricting adoption to married couples.

Enter gay marriage. Now all adoption agencies in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts must allow gay married couples to adopt, even if it goes against their religious convictions.

As a result, the Catholic Charities of Boston has closed the door on its adoption agency – an agency which is well known for finding homes for the most difficult to place children, including older children, sibling groups, and children with disabilities.

Both sides, left and right, have used this issue to accuse the other side of putting their agenda ahead of the needs of these children, although I hardly call staying true to a nearly 2000 year old religious tradition “an agenda.”

The fact is, this is not a case of gay couples being denied an opportunity to adopt. There is no shortage of adoption agencies in the state of Massachusetts willing and even eager to adopt to gay couples. This is about making the Catholic Church change its stance on homosexuality. By extension, it is an attempt to use the law to “prohibit the free exercise” of religion. Last time I checked, the First Amendment is supposed to protect us from this state intrusion.

I could ignore this because I am not Catholic. I could ignore this because I do not necessarily oppose gay marriage and certainly do not support the Marriage Amendment. But I won't ignore it when the government starts dictating the beliefs of a religious group. I cannot ignore the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment being thrown out the window.

The worst part of this whole situation is how the marriage movement is losing an ally by pushing too hard. I was once on their side in the name of freedom. I am now moving away from them in the name of freedom.

This is no longer about the freedom to marry. It has become (to some) about manipulating the law to oppress any and all opposition even at the expense of the First Amendment. And that is not an issue I can remain silent on.

(The post title is a quote from this article.)

Remember the taxpayers

For the last few years, the Burlington School District has proposed closing one or more school buildings due to declining enrollment and increasing spending. Every time the issue is brought up, the parents at said school protest and the idea is tabled. Last March there was even an item on the Town Meeting Day ballot allowing residents city-wide to show their support for “community schools.”

Then former Superintendent Lyman Amsden brought up the issue of equal educational opportunities for low-income students, who perform below their higher-income peers and are mostly concentrated into the two Old North End schools, incidentally the two frequently cited for closure.

So, of course there was a task force assigned to look into ways to level the playing field for these low-income students. According to an article in the BFP, the task force on student equity has made a number of recommendations about how the district can improve educational opportunities for low-income students. One of the suggestions is to have two K-2 schools and two 3-5 schools. There are currently six K-5 elementary schools in Burlington. This would allow the district to close one or two of the buildings.

But wait, we could use those buildings to have magnet schools that focus on the arts, business, technology, or some other field.

Then of course, we need to offer pre-school under the umbrella of public (taxpayer funded) education - another recommendation - and extended hours after school, as well.

This ties in well with the legislature’s efforts to include pre-K in with the state-wide education funding, a move that would have already happened had it not been for the conservative groups, who scrutinize education spending.

In an “ideal” Burlington, we would have two schools with pre-K through 2, two schools with 3-5, a magnet school for the arts, a magnet school for technology, math, and/or science, a 5:1 student-teacher ratio, teachers would make a “livable” starting wage of $50,000 (with full health insurance, premium free), and all of us nay-saying crusaders for lower taxes would move away and stop raining on everyone else’s parade.

That was meant to be illustrative of how ridiculous and unrealistic the goals are of some with respect to the school system, but as I type it, I realize how many people actually think that way.

Unfortunately, they along with the school district, missed the memo about how fed up the taxpayers in Burlington are getting. I suggest they go down to channel 17, get a copy of the last City Council meeting, and listen to the public forum, where one after another, irate taxpayers voiced their frustration over the proposed tax increase.

The recommendations made by the task force are only the start of what is sure to be a long discussion about the future of Burlington City Schools, but if the school district is not considerate of the limitations of the taxpayers, the changes will not be possible in the long term because the funding will not be there. There is only so much the taxpayers will tolerate before they start voting down the school budgets - a Burlington tradition that has been absent the last couple of years.

I hope the school board will view the taxpayers as partners, instead of adversaries, and remember that we all want good quality schools, but we need to be able to afford to stay in our homes as well.

It looks like Rove will not be indicted

The news was out last week that President Bush’s advisor, and the mastermind behind his election and re-election, Karl Rove will not be indicted in the Valerie Plame leak wannabe-scandal.

I was relieved to hear the news, especially after the false story circulated the blog-o-sphere last month that Rove would be indicted.

What is interesting in all of this is the non-retraction made by Truthout.com even though they clearly ran a false story that Rove would be indicted. I guess I should withhold judgment at this point, since they did say there would be a “more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19.”

In the mean time, you can read a scathing excerpt from a Washington Post story all about the false Truthout.com story’s author Jason Leopold’s narcissism and his disdain for journalistic ethics. Ouch!

Back to Rove, I saw a PBS documentary about him a while back and the man is a total genius as far as political strategy (or strategery, as Bush says) is concerned. It was amazing to see the whole process from when he first met Bush up through when he led Bush to victory in the presidential election. Whether or not you like his politics, the man is impressive, to say the least.

I would hate to see someone I admire turn out to be guilty of breaking the law, so the non-indictment is great news to me.

I’ll think I’ll go watch the Rove documentary again to celebrate (I taped it, of course). On second thought, I’ll wait until we have actual confirmation from the Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. You really can't trust the media anymore!

Another Looming Crisis

This is excerpted from a newspaper article. It describes a new government program being proposed. Can you guess what it is?

"There is a quiet crisis in the making," [government official] said. "Millions of Americans and thousands of Vermonters aren’t _____________. Besides the personal implications," he said, "they are going to put a stress on taxpayer-supported services."

The [government official] would package the new program with existing ________ plans offered to state and municipal employees, which would reduce administration expenses. The program wouldn't require any tax dollars, [government official] promised.

Sound familiar?

Guess what. This story is not about healthcare. It’s about retirement plans.

This is how the story goes. You’ve heard it all before. There is a crisis looming and only the government can solve it. Don’t worry though because they will just streamline administrative costs and it won’t cost the taxpayers a thing.

Sounds like Clavelle’s healthcare plan from the 2004 gubernatorial race.

The real quiet crisis is the slippery slope toward socialism we have been tumbling down.

I don’t doubt that most people do not have enough saved for retirement. It is a problem and it stems from a lack of education/information about saving for retirement and the fact that so many people think social security is supposed to be enough to retire on.

The plan in the article sounds harmless enough, but we have heard this siren song in the past and we know where it really leads. This is how the government makes incremental steps toward taking over the private sector entirely, creating the socialist utopia they’ve been dreaming about. One industry at a time, they declare a crisis (or in many cases, create one) then offer the solution – a new government program.

I am not saying that the new government program being proposed here is bad, per se. The bad thing is the propensity of modern politicians to use the government to solve all problems. And I, for one, am quite tired of it. My only hope at this point is that the growing movement against this sort of governance will gain a foothold before it’s too late to turn back.

No She's Right this Friday

In case you missed it on the side bar, this Friday She's Right will not be on. Instead, Hardy Machia of the Vermont Libertarian Party will be hosting a live show in its place. I'll be back next month on the third Friday, as usual.

In City Council News...

Tonight the Burlington City Council will take up the Mayor's re-revised budget; the first for our new mayor. According to this story in the Burlington Free Press...

The Burlington City Council will come face to face tonight with Mayor Bob Kiss' $45.16 million General Fund budget.

Caught between voter angst over the increasing cost of government and warnings from city officials that a 6.3 percent tax increase is vital, the council will meet in a work session before its 7 p.m. meeting to decide how to vote on the budget, or whether to delay a vote.

The budget for fiscal year 2007 takes effect July 1.

The funny thing about that vital tax increase is that a couple of weeks ago, Kiss said that a 9.4% tax increase was vital. The council said, "No way, Jose!"

Then last week, Kiss came back with a 8.4 percent tax hike, again vital unless we cut services, but again councilors stood firm in their demand that he lower the burden being placed on the citizens of Burlington.

Now, he's back with a lower figure and no cuts.

That raises the question: Is Kiss a liar or just in over his head?

He was able to take a budget that he said could not be lowered without cutting services and lowered it without cutting services.

What gives?

Was he being less than truthful about the first budget, or did he just not know what he was doing? Then there is always the possibility that he just doesn't understand the need to keep the increase as low as possible and to him, it was a necessary increase.

I guess I should cut the guy some slack seeing how he has only been in office for like two months, but this has set a bad precedent for his future budgets. Now the council knows that his first budget is likely an inflated number, or at the very least can be lowered.

I am pleasantly surprised that the council stood up to the mayor like this. That's impressive for a part-time council that has been largely ineffective in the past.

Speaking of the Council standing up to the Mayor, also on the agenda tonight is a resolution opposing the sanctuary city idea floated by Mayor Kiss.

In other business, the council will consider a resolution against making Burlington a sanctuary city sponsored by Republican councilors Kurt Wright, Ward 4, and Paul Decelles, Ward 7; and Joan Shannon, D-Ward 5. Early in May, Mayor Bob Kiss told participants of an immigrant rights parade that the city should begin a discussion about whether to make Burlington a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.

Tonight's resolution would put the council on record as not wanting to begin the sanctuary-city discussion while the city is trying to resolve serious financial problems. It would also direct the city attorney to stop researching the question.

It will be interesting to see how the vote on this bi-partisan resolution comes out.

Also check out the blog "The Burlingtonian" for a story about a tax payers' protest being organized for tonight's council meeting. (A post about the sanctuary city issue follows.)

shesright.org

Sorry that I have not been updating much this week. First, I was out enjoying the sunshine with the kids before the fall weather set in. Then, for the past two days Blogger has been on the fritz. And today, I spent all of my computer time trying to integrate my She’s Right TV show web site into the blog.

As you can see, the side bar of the blog now contains all of the pertinent show info. The reason for this was (1) I always forget to update the show site and (2) now I can direct the web address www.shesright.org here instead of to the show website. As soon as the domain registration company makes the update, you can get here using that address.

I will try to post over the weekend, if there’s anything that grabs my attention.

Burlinton Pol is back (again)!

For those of you following the on-line melodrama known as BurlingtonPol.com, Haik’s back with a new one of his many personas. I call this one, “Haik Bedrosian – Uncensored.” It’s worth the read. Check it out.

The Other Republican House Candidate

For those of you who don't know, Martha Rainville has to face an opponent in the Republican Primary before she can go on to face Peter Welch for Bernie Sanders' open US House seat, though the Vermont GOP establishment and the media would have you think otherwise.

That opponent is Republican State Senator Mark Shepard.

This was forwarded to me, but I believe it originated from the Shepard campaign.

SHEPARD: RAINVILLE & WELCH ARE TWO PARTS OF THE SAME PROBLEM

US House Candidate Mark Shepard held a press conference today June 6 in front of the now-closed Specialty Filaments building on Pine Street in Burlington, where 150 Vermonters recently lost their jobs. Reporters from AP, the Free Press, WCAX and WPTZ attended.

"You've all heard the news stories about how Washington Democrats and Washington Republicans see this Vermont open seat as 'critical' to gaining or keeping power for themselves," said Shepard. "This is the problem with what's going on with this race: Washington special interests don't care at all about Vermonters, but they are using Peter Welch and Martha Rainville as pawns in this inside-the-beltway power game."

Shepard noted the amounts of out-of-state PAC money both Welch and Rainville have accepted, and cited recent examples of Laura Bush visiting on behalf of Rainville, Illinois Senator Obama visiting on behalf of Welch, and California's Nancy Pelosi giving Welch a chance to rebut the President's radio address. "None of these people care about what happens in Vermont or to Vermonters. It's bad enough to watch DC trying to buy Vermont – but it's really disappointing to see our candidates buy into DC, hook line and sinker."

"For months it seemed all Rainville and Welch talked about is whether Donald Rumsfeld should have a job tomorrow or not. I think Vermonters are more concerned with whether they'll have a job themselves tomorrow or not."

Shepard pointed to the empty building behind him.

"This is why I got into politics six years ago. I saw in my business and in my life that the politicians we were electing were disconnected from the real lives of the people they were supposed to be representing, and I wanted to change that. Vermonters deserve a candidate they can call their own. One who won't play the establishment game. One who can understand and represent the best interests of the working people of Vermont."

"D.C. has something the other candidates think they need to get elected – big out-of-state PAC money. Someone has to take the lead and say "no" to the sort of control DC is trying to exert on Vermont. So today I am announcing that I will not take any DC special interest PAC money, either before or after the September primary. I am giving Vermonters a choice for the U.S. Congress race: a candidate for Vermont issues and priorities. With money come strings, and I want my strings to be attached to the people."

"I am a sixth generation Vermonter. I grew up on a farm in Vermont. I learned a blue collar trade in Vermont. I run a small business in Vermont. I'm raising a family in Vermont. I've been elected to the Senate in Vermont. And I will work hard for Vermonters to become their next representative in the U.S. House."

For more info on Mark Shepard, visit www.shepardforcongress.com.

The New Bernie Sanders

I really would like to get off the Bernie Sanders topic, but I just couldn’t resist commenting on this morning’s editorial in the Burlington Free Press. It was so apropos.

It starts our rather innocuous with such information as Bernie ran for Senate in 1970 as a candidate for the Liberty Union Party, the Senate has 100 members, Sanders will be 65 by November, blah, blah, blah.

Then I read the funniest, stupidest, most ridiculous statement ever in my whole entire life:

Sanders has differences with his opponents as well as similarities that draw him closer to the middle.

The middle? The middle!!??!! WTF? Crazy Uncle Bernie – the corporations are evil spouting, pro-big government, Canadian-style healthcare loving, wealth redistributing, success demonizing, fist pounding socialist is being portrayed as someone who is “closer to the middle”? Closer to the middle than whom, Noam Chomsky?

Another interesting revelation in the column was that Sanders is now calling himself “a loud voice for the rights of the middle class” instead of for the “working people,” as is his usual riff.

Asked about this, Sanders said he considers the two groups the same.

Really, that’s funny; most people thought you were talking about the poor all these years.

And then there’s this:

He made it clear that he is not a pacifist and he agrees there should be a war on terrorism.

Really? Am I the only one that this comes as a shock to?

In the end, Sanders said, "people know me."

Do they? So which is the real you? This new packaged politician who champions working with both parties or the shouting madman who has been protecting us from the evil corporations all these years?

I think we all know.

Assorted News Notes

File this under “There’s a Shocker.” The Burlington School District and the Burlington teachers union cannot agree on contract negotiations. Read the Free Press coverage here.

Burlington teachers and the district's School Board were unable to agree on terms for a new teacher contract Wednesday night, making it more likely that both sides will have to resort to a fact-finding process scheduled for this month.

Teachers and the board met for more than three hours at the district's Taft building to hash out terms, but they were not able to reach an agreement.

The groups reached an impasse in March after several months of negotiations but had agreed to meet Wednesday as "a good-faith effort," said Burlington School Superintendent Jeanne Collins.

"We went back to the table thinking we'd have some movement, but we did not come to agreeable terms," Collins said.
...

Neither side will divulge salary-related offers, but there is a significant disparity on the benefits side, according to school administrators. Collins said the board is looking to increase health benefit co-pays to 20 percent, while teachers want co-pays to stay at 10 percent.

Where have I heard this story before?

In other news…The Free Press had a story today about the widow of former Republican Governor and US Senator George Aiken - often championed as a moderate - and a certain Republican Senate hopeful. Lola Aiken came out yesterday in support of Rich Tarrant. For some reason the Free Press does not have the story on-line.

Update: Here is a link to a story about this on Politics VT.

Speaking of politics…The two Democratic candidates for Lt. Governor, Rep. John Tracy from Burlington and Sen. Matt Dunne from Windsor, will be making the rounds. There is a lasagna dinner at 5:30PM Sunday at the St. John’s Club on Lakeside Ave in Burlington, where you can meet the two. The cost is $25. Reservations can be made by contacting BurlingtonDems@yahoo.com or calling 598-8139.

If you don’t feel like financially supporting the Dems, you can go to the Visitor Center of the Ed Weed Fish Culture Station in Grand Isle on June 19th at 7:00PM for a debate between the two candidates.

The two men will face off on the Democratic Party ballot in the September Primary, which is of no consequence to me, since I plan to take the Republican ballot. The winner will face Lt. Governor Brian Dubie in November.

That’s about it for now. If I don’t have a chance to post again, have a great weekend!

Experience money can't buy

Have you seen these big Bernie Sanders banners? The big red ones that say “Bernie for US Senate” and “Experience money can’t buy”?

I don’t get that whole tactic of “don’t vote for Tarrant because he has no experience.” There are like a half dozen letters to the editor daily with that line. Since when do we have a professional congress? What’s next, a requirement that candidates attend a special “politician training school”?

Maybe that should be a college major, including such classes as Fundraising 101, Appropriations Bills: How to hide the pork, and Political Speech: How to sound profound without really saying anything.

Look, I am not Tarrant’s number one cheerleader, but this tactic is as lame as Bernie Sanders is communist. There are a plethora of legitimate reasons to criticize Tarrant on his ideas. They do not include: how long he has been in office, how much money he makes, how many homes he has, or what kind of car he drives.

When we set the standard that only experienced legislators can hold office, we toll the death knell for our democracy.

If you ask me, I think being in office for 16 years is a drawback, not an asset. Bernie has gotten into bed with the very same type of people he originally railed against. He is quickly becoming part of the establishment he so vehemently opposed as the center of his campaign that got him into power in the first place. It's like there is something in the water in Washington that causes people to compromise their principles. But, I digress. That is a topic for a whole other post.

My point here is that one does not need “experience” to be in the Senate. Rich Tarrant has demonstrated that he has character and competence. He is a reputable businessman who has created jobs and given back to his community in other ways as well. That more than qualifies him.

For once I would like to see the Sanders groupies come up with an actual policy or position critique and rise above these petty personal attacks.