I finally decided to catch up with the rest of the blog-o-nerds and figure out that whole Technorati thing. (Nerd is a good word. I love nerds.)
I just signed up and there is now a "love me" button at the bottom of my side-bar now. So, come on, now! Love me, love me, love me!
How else will I gauge my self-worth?
More importantly, how else will I advance my vast right wing conspiracy to take over the internets?
 clipped from www.jeremyryan.orgThe Democrats packed $21 billion in pork in the bill to win Democrat votes. Some examples include $200 million to the dairy industry, $74 million for the peanut farms, and $25 million for spinach farmers. The bill also includes $2 billion in unconstitutional foreign aid, including $500 million for Lebanon and Eastern Europe. It appears to me that the democrats are not really different from most other republicans in that they both see great opportunities to get their pet projects funded by war. In reality, I don't believe that the democrats (Sanders and Welch included) really want the war to end, as long as they continue to get huge subsidies for all their pet projects and donors to their campaigns.
|
I should start a new feature called: Stupid Things the Vermont Legislature is Doing.
Entry one.
Sorry, I'm not going to quote it, you have to read the whole thing.
Blog note: I have been working on the big post about the environment (which might end up a two parter), but I am not going to be able to get it up today. I have the rarest of all opportunities to spend the whole day with my first born, 10-year-old son, D, I'll call him, alone, without his brothers. This has never happened before. So, I really can't justify working on a marathon blog post.
It is possible that he will ditch me around 3:00 when his friends get home from school, so check back in the late afternoon. Otherwise, it's going to be over the weekend.
I'll leave you with a funny story. Last night, I was working on my web portfolio because I want to get back into freelance writing. I went into the bedroom to get some newspaper clippings from the filing cabinet and my husband was in there, so I showed him one and said, "Hey, check her out." He replied, "Wow, you were really hot back then!"
Gee, thanks.
Yeah, guys, don't say something like that to your wife. It really creates a non-winnable situation for you.
Although, I guess I should have been flattered. It's not every day someone calls me hot. Even if he was referring to a four year old picture that I do not look like anymore.
Have a great day, folks!
You might have noticed that I did not feature a Compassionate Cause this month.
This month, my extra giving was done to a person that I know instead of to a faceless organization. As important as it is to give to organizations that help those in need, we must not forget that we have friends and neighbors all around us who have needs, too.
This month (yes, I know it is almost over), I encourage you to do something to bless a friend or neighbor. It does not take much to show someone that you care about them.
I will be back next month (next week) with another spotlight organization that needs your support.
(I hope that didn't sound too preachy. I'm just trying to do my part to make the world a better place.)
Updated.
Last night was the night that the global warming "denier" S. Fred Singer spoke at UVM. The Free Press has an article about it.
I was not able to attend. I was hoping to go and blog about it, but that didn't work out.
Here's a quote from the article (emphasis mine):
In an interview before the discussion, Singer said his organization, the Science & Environmental Policy Project -- whose mission it is to "clarify the diverse problems facing the planet and, where necessary, arrive at effective, cost-conscious solutions," according to its Web site -- has received a one-time grant of $10,000 from the Exxon Foundation, which he said was unsolicited, and wishes had been more. He said it came after he started researching and writing skeptical pieces about global warming and called the accusations about him on the Web lies.
I was just testing out a new web tool called Clipmarks. The post below is a result of the clip-to-blog feature.
I plan to write up a review after I have used it a bit more. Feel free to leave your comments regarding how the clip-to-blog posts look.
clipped from www.janegalt.netIf you care about animals, I heartily urge you to support their action by switching to BK for your fast food needs. Sure, the fries suck . . . but so do McDonalds', now that they're free of trans fats, tallow, beef flavor . . . and any detectable texture or taste. BK's burgers are better anyway. And if nothing else, you might save capitalism, by illustrating to environmentalists that markets can solve problems, as well as create them.
|
Lately, these redbox DVD rental kiosks have been popping up in Hannaford stores around here. I am not sure where else they are, but according to the website, there are redbox locations across the country.
You can use the redbox two ways: walk-up rental or online rental. The movies are only $1 per night, due back by 7PM the following evening.
The first time I used it, I did the walk-up thing. The machine has a touch screen which you use to see what movies are available. One caveat, do not look at the display outside the machine for what titles are available. It is a huge disappointment to get on the machine and see that they are out of the title you want.
So, I rented a movie for the kids using the free rental code that I received via e-mail by visiting the website. You have to swipe a debit or credit card, so you can be charged if you never bring the movie back.
When I brought the movie back the next night, the machine was down. I brought my movie to the customer service desk and the woman said she had a call in to the redbox company and she would tell them about my movie so I wouldn't be charged.
As I expected, I was charged for an extra night. I e-mailed the company explaining the situation and within minutes I received a refund. The customer service was first rate - a big plus in my book.
Today, the kids wanted a movie, but I did not want to get there and have it be out, so I went online to redbox.com and rented it online. That secures the rental, so it is in when I go to pick it up. I am charged at the time of online rental, so if I don't go pick it up, I lose my dollar.
At the redbox kiosk, all I did was select the "online rental pickup" button, swipe my debit card, which was given online, and out popped my movie. If you love technology and gadgets, you will likely find this experience enjoyable.
Overall, I found redbox to be a fun and easy way to rent a movie at the grocery store. The major drawback for me was that they seem to be limited to new and recent releases, which is not really my thing, but the kids found a lot of selections they liked.
If you like to rent DVDs, I recommend getting the code for a free rental and trying it out.
No, I am not being paid to do this. If they do pay me, I'll be sure to let you know.
My last post seemed to spark a game of "Catch the Blogger in an Inconsistent Ideology" in the comments field. I thought it would be easier to address all of the issues in a new post, rather than in the comments.
First, I have to point out, you will not likely find me with an inconsistent ideology. I am nothing if not consistent. Thanks, JD Ryan for at least backing me up on that, even if you did take a dig at said ideology.
Speaking if JD, he said that seat belt laws (and other safety related laws) for children are okay. I would tread lightly here. I think what anonymous @ 3/28/2007 08:54:00 AM said is right on. Parents are the ones who have the primary role in deciding what is good for their children, not the government.
Does that mean that children will be the victims of their parents' stupidity? Oh, yes, it does. But you know what? Children are the victims of their parents' stupidity. Aren't we?
God love her, there are at least a dozen things that I do (and will do) differently than my mother did because of how it affected me. That does not mean that the government should have been telling her how to parent.
For Pete's sake, according to Richard Dawkins and his ilk, I am abusive to my children because I am raising them with a religion. The way I look at it, I am exposing them to a great sense of security and value that a mighty, all-powerful God loves them even when they think or do bad things, as we all do.
Should the government decide which one of us is right? (The answer is no.)
I really stand by my simple rule of thumb that the government should not make laws to protect us from ourselves - even when I think the action in question is morally wrong. (I will address Ivan Jacobs' comments about such simplicity in another post.) I will get into detail about the other specific comments, though.
Right out of the gate, comes the classic association fallacy that because I am conservative, I must support the use of government to deny rights to homosexuals.
As any longtime She's Righter can tell you, unlike the usual suspects, I fully understand that my freedom to worship the Spirit in the sky is only as secure as your right to worship mother earth, the tree faeries, money, your favorite Hollywood celebrity, or your same sex life partner.
Setting aside the fact for the moment that I do not think the government has the jurisdiction to regulate marriage contracts at all, under our current system, I do not think that it is the right of government to define what is a morally acceptable marriage union.
However, I do not believe that anyone has the right to be liked or to have their lifestyle accepted; that goes for any lifestyle. The government is not there to make anyone feel comfortable and loved. And the government is definitely not there to force religious organizations to deny certain tenants of their faith in order to make someone else feel okay. There are already plenty of religious groups that accept homosexuality. And last I checked, freedom of religion is actually written in the Constitution, not just inferred or made up.
Moving on, legalization of marijuana. I am not a big fan of the stuff myself, but hey, if it's legal, we can tax it and sell it in stores. A wider tax base for my perfect small-government society means the tax rate will be even smaller; real entrepreneurs can get into the marijuana industry, including hemp production, which will bring down the price of hemp clothing; and the low-level street thugs will be forced to go out and get real jobs, instead of preying on innocent children. Can you say win-win-win?
Next, we have the if we have no laws, everyone will drink, gamble, and sleep with prostitutes defense of freedom-limiting laws.
Actually, I think there should be no drinking age, gambling should be legal, and I can come up with no reason that prostitution should not be a legally permissible business venture.
Let me uncouple these and take them one at a time.
Drinking: The countries that have no drinking age, and where families typically practice drinking in moderation as a regular practice, have fewer problems with binge drinking teens/young adults.
Anecdotally, anyone can tell you a story about that girl or boy in college who had never had a drink in high school, went totally crazy once they tasted freedom, and failed out of freshman year because they were too drunk to go to class - ever.
Gambling: I totally don't see the problem with gambling. I never got why people think it should be illegal. Is it a stupid thing to spend money on? Yes. Can I name 100 other things that are stupid to spend money on (and don't even present that tiny chance of making that money back)? You betcha. (And yes, I saw the Free Press story about the poor gambling addict that embezzled over $73,000 from his employer to fund his addiction.)
Prostitution: Do you frequent prostitutes? Are you a prostitute? Would that change if it was legal?
I do not foresee a huge uptick in the amount of prostitution going on, if it is ever made legal. It is still going to be morally wrong regardless of the law, so I doubt that people are going to flock to brothels just because it is legal.
That brings me to another point, the government does not have to pass laws in order to model decency. I see nothing wrong with leaders having values and expressing the dangers of certain lifestyles, such as gambling and prostitution. We can be a decent society without having the government baby sit its citizenry by legislating right personal behavior.
Besides, we will always have outspoken religious leaders to tell us when our actions will send us to Hell.
The other evening at dinner, I was complaining about yet another erosion of our freedom - I can't recall which one; there are just so many these days - and my 8-year-old son said that laws that keep us safe are a good idea. In an effort to avoid the unpleasantness of a future liberal in the family, I asked him to give me an example.
He said that seatbelt laws were good because seat belts keep us from flying out of the window in a car accident.
I said, "Well, remember that commercial that says that kids should ride in a booster seat until they are 4'9"? Should they make that a law?"
"No. That would be stupid!" (He's not yet 4'9", but he is over 8 years old, the age up to which Vermont requires a booster seat.)
"Why? It would keep you safer, like the commercial said, and you just said that laws that keep us safe are good."
"Yeah, they are, but that law would be stupid?"
"Why?"
[Silence]
"Why? Because you don't want to have to sit in a booster?"
"Yes," he reluctantly replied.
"So how do you decide what safety laws to make? If you don't want someone telling you that you have to ride in a booster seat, why do you have the right to tell someone else what to do to keep them safe?"
At which point he brilliantly concluded, "I guess I don't."
We all talked about it for a while longer, including my husband and my 10-year-old son. The kids came to the conclusion that laws that keep us safe from other people hurting us are okay, but that we really don't have the right to make laws just to try to keep people safe from getting themselves hurt.
I just wanted to do a quick post about the Burlington Intervale land sale. I did not really follow this issue as closely as I could have, or should have, even, but I did want to let people know that it is on the agenda tonight for the council to discuss an amendment to the sale.
They want to add 2.8 acres, which the Intervale Center currently uses for compost, to the sale. They also want to add the City to the Act 250 petition for the compost project land use. Why? I am not sure. I am also not sure if that process with end up costing the City (i.e. us) any money. And speaking of money, the resolution also appropriates $8,000 for the City to buy 20 acres of Intervale land from BED, for the City to maintain.
You can read the PDF of the resolution here.
I would love comments from any Burlington readers who have been following this issue.
I am feeling much better and I will be posting again later on non-Burlington matters.
Members of Burlington’s Board of Health will appear on Channel 17 Town Meeting Television’s “Live at 5:25” call-in program on Thursday, March 29 from 5:25 to 5:55 p.m. The program topic is “How to Communicate with the Board of Health.”
This initial program, part of a series of programs, “To Your Health,” will introduce residents to the Burlington Board of Health members and the best way to communicate with the Board. The show will also provide viewers an opportunity to ask questions. Board members are hoping to increase community involvement on important public health issues.
Three additional taped programs in the series are scheduled for this year. Planned topics include Burlington’s pesticide ordinance, personal and family emergency preparedness, and building healthy communities.
I actually read something in the paper this morning that I was not expecting:In a vote that surprised people on both sides of the issue, the House on Wednesday defeated a bill that would have allowed doctors to help terminally ill patients hasten their deaths.
The 82-63 vote, which came after almost four hours of debate, ends the legislation's chances for the two-year session.
Voting yes, 55 Democrats; 4 Progressives; 2 Republicans; 2 Independents
Voting no, 46 Republicans; 35 Democrats; 1 Progressive
The full story is here. (If they move the link, it is in the top news today.)
In other news, six demonstrators were arrested protesting at Congressman Peter Welch's office. Recognize any of the names? Here's a hint: Snarky Boy was there, too.
Okay, I hate to say this, but it's back to bed for me. Trust me, I would rather be blogging, but I can't seem to stop the room from spinning.
Have a good one!
I just spent my second day in bed. I am online for a minute to see if anything earth shattering happened in my absence.
My conclusion: The only post worth seeing is this one, keeping things in perspective, that is.
I will be back, as soon as I am better, with an original post.
Okay, back to bed.
I have to add, my husband is the greatest man in the world.
I'm sorry for the link posting, but I am yet again (what is this the tenth time this season?) battling a stinking cold.
Wondering what the legislature has done to fix education spending (and property taxes) this session - one of their campaign promises?
Vermont Tiger has the low down and it's not pretty.
As one of my callers said on Friday's She's Right, hopefully people will get mad enough when they get their property tax bills that they will finally want to hold someone accountable for this.
But, hey, at least the legislature held hearings on things they can do something about, like global warming and troop withdrawal from Iraq.
By the way, the podcast of Friday's show is up here.
I don't normally read Town Hall (it's just gotten too big), but I do get the daily e-mail summary of the day's columns, which I usually look at. I thought this was worth mentioning - former Majority Leader Tom DeLay speaks out in an excerpt from his book, No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight. I served in the United States Congress for twenty-two years. I was passionate, aggressive, and partisan. I believed in my cause, and I hit hard. It came as no surprise to me then when my political opponents hit back. To open my morning paper and see lies written about me, or see myself painted in the ugliest terms, became a regular part of my life. It was harder to read vicious distortions about my family and friends, but even this I accepted as the price we all paid for the life of leadership I had chosen to pursue. What I did not expect was a concerted effort to destroy me legally, financially, and personally. I have now spent millions of dollars in lawyers’ fees to answer the lies of the left. I have taken hours away from doing the nation’s business to work through the laborious process of responding to legal charges that my liberal opponents knew were untrue and frivolous when they first filed them. I have watched my family suffer under the burden of not just my political misfortunes—an expected reality in a politician’s family—but of the threat of material destruction, imprisonment, and ruin. This should not be what happens to someone who has defended his political ideals, aggressively, yes, but honorably. A congressman serves his nation by serving his values with passion, and the nation only suffers when partisanship is punished with personal destruction. I use this word “punished” because it is the best description of what is really happening. I did not serve in Congress for twenty-two years because I simply stumbled into the role or captured it in some illegal way. I was elected by people who thought I was the best representative of their values. Once elected I fought hard for conservative principles and, in time, my fellow conservatives and I won major victories. Remember, these were victories for the very principles we were sent to Congress to serve. But the liberals could not win on the floor or at the ballot box, so they tried to win by hurting us personally. Like good communists, when they cannot defeat their enemies politically they seek to destroy them personally, and this is what they did to us. All of this is punishment for holding values different from theirs. All of this is the price they want to visit on us simply for being conservative.
It looks like a good read. I think people forget that politicians are real people. It is a shame what we do to their lives.
You can read the entire excerpt here.
The History Channel has an interesting (and short) online video about the history of Saint Patrick.
Speaking of global warming, I received this e-mail yesterday:
Here are the related links from this evening's She's Right show on Channel 17:
Burlington City Election Results
Burlington School Budget Information
Education Funding Proposals, from the blog Vermont Tiger (These are the proposals that I touched upon, but ran out of time to discuss):
Art Woolf
Walt Freed
Thanks for watching She's Right.
I will link to the podcast when it becomes available.
You know, after reading about Rep. Stark coming out of the closet on his atheism, or at least lack of belief in a supreme being, I started thinking about courage. I mean, it must have taken a lot of courage to come out as an atheist in this day and age of atheism persecution in America, especially for a Democrat in the San Fransisco Bay area.
After being inspired by Stark's level of courage, I decided that it is time that I, too, come clean about the heretic that I am.
I do not believe in man-made global warming.
I was sort of on the fence, as it seemed the science really did back it up, but I had my reservations. Most of those reservations stemmed from the fact that any opposition to the Church of Global Warming is met with name-calling and death-threats, as opposed to rational debate. It's a little too fundamentalist for my taste. I had to set out on my own to seek the truth for myself.
Well, today, I finally had the chance. I have a little, and long overdue, break from mom/teacher/cook/housekeeper/nurse/referee duty today, so I decided to watch this UK documentary about global warming.
I was expecting mediocrity and, as a result, to be left still wondering what the real truth is.
What I found instead was real science that actually disproves man-made global warming.
The documentary is a little long (about an hour and 15 minutes), but I am glad I took the time.
I can't do a full run-down of the film because I have to prepare for my show this evening, but the most shocking revelation was about the science used in "An Inconvenient Truth."
The scientists in the film, one of which was the Arctic paleoclimatologist who performed the ice core survey used to support CO2-caused global warming, agreed that Al Gore was correct when he stated that there is a correlation historically between CO2 levels and global temperature. What was startling was what Gore did not say, that the rise in CO2 follows the rise in temperature (sometimes by several hundred years). Ergo, my dear readers, the CO2 cannot be causing the rise in temperature.
The film does not stop there. It explains why CO2 levels rise following temperature increase and, brace yourselves, it offers an alternative theory that is backed up using independently gathered scientific data.
There was a scientist that thought the periods of warming historically, because there have been periods of greater warming than this, way before industrialization, might be related to the solar activity.
See, clouds are formed when cosmic (non-solar) rays interact with water vapor in the atmosphere. Clouds keep the earth cooler. When the sun is more active, the solar winds push those cosmic rays away from the earth. The theory is: More solar activity => less cosmic rays come to earth => fewer clouds are formed => warmer temperatures.
To test this, they gathered the historical temperature data and charted that against the historical sun activity data. They found that the correlation was dead on.
Here is a screen shot of a graphic in the film showing historic temperature vs. CO2 levels compared to the temperature vs. sun activity.
There was so much more, but this was I think the most damning piece of information in the film.
I could not in good conscience stay silent about this information after I watched the end of the film, where they addressed the fact that the real victims of global warming hysteria are the people in poor, undeveloped areas, who do not even have electricity, but are being told that they cannot burn the fossil fuels that they have in abundance because we need to err on the side of caution on the issue of man-made global warming.
If you watch no other part of this film, I urge you to view the last 15 minutes.
I know, I know. How dare I question? How dare I speak such blasphemy? Put up the stake and start the fire.
(A very, very big hat-tip to the Chanman for the link to the documentary.)
Reminder for my local readers: She's Right is on Channel 17 live @ 5:25 pm, tomorrow (Friday).
Notice, in the sidebar, the topic is still TBA - yikes! I'd better get on the ball, huh?
Yesterday, I was listening to the podcast of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Focus on the Family, the radio ministry of Dr. James Dobson.
As you know, Dobson is pro-life and opposed to gay marriage. He is also rumored to be very influential on certain politicians in Washington, and arguably carries a lot of influence over evangelical voters.
But his conversation with Gingrich was not about abortion or same-sex marriage. It was about the security of America. It was about the level of seriousness of the threat against us. It was about the American politicians' unwillingness to take this threat serious. And about Gingrich's own intentions to do so.
Gingrich has several speeches and interviews on his website outlining his concerns, including this one.
There seems to be this belief that the influence of social conservatives has waned, as evidenced by the lack of action on their core issues, and that social conservatives, disillusioned with the Republican Party, will no longer constitute a meaningful voting bloc.
What will it mean in the next election, though, if instead of voting based on conservative social issues, the "religious right" rallies around the issue of national security?
I take one little, long-weekend break from blogging and all sorts of unexpected things happen.
Burlington Pol took an intermission, Homocon - one of my fav., non-local, conservative blogs - did an entire post linking to She's Right (it's in my Friday Morning Coffee, so I missed it last week), and my favorite blogger, VDB, aided and abetted by that other Vermont lefty blog, GMD, decided to wage a campaign to convince The Caledonian-Record to dump Ann Coulter over her use of the word "faggot."
About that, I have mixed feelings. My knee-jerk reaction was to fire off an e-mail to The Caledonian-Record, urging them to keep Coulter. Just who do these liberals think they are, trying to dictate which conservative voices get heard? Of course they don't like Coulter - she's a conservative.
I'll tell you what, Philip, Jack, why don't you two head over to Town Hall and let us know what syndicated conservative columnist you would like to see in The Caledonian-Record. Then we'll talk.
But, I'm not the knee-jerk type, so I thought about it a little bit more.
Personally, I don't even like Ann Coulter. I don't think she's funny and I think at this point her career is more about her own shock-value and less about making a coherent point. She's done for conservative political hacks what Howard Stern did for horny, teenage boys. If you are into what they are talking about, you get it and maybe even think it's funny, but if you aren't a member of their respective core demographics, you are just disgusted.
I have not read an Ann Coulter column in at least a year or longer. My husband had to tell me the real point of her Edward's comment. (You can read a decent, short summary of that here.)
Even though the real target of Coulter's grade-school level joke was the PC police that will cart you off to "rehab" if you utter a homophobic slur, her tactics are petty and, frankly, really don't do anything for me. I'm so over my emasculating bitch phase. It's called growing up.
I'm sure The Caledonian-Record could find a more thoughtful conservative columnist to run, but I don't even read the Caledonian-Record print edition, so I don't really think it matters what my opinion is.
I get really angry when I see liberals trying to silence opposing viewpoints in the media. Now, I'm not saying that that is what Philip is trying to do. He has been one of the biggest supporters of my blog and I am every bit as conservative as Ann Coulter. I just have a sore spot left from my days in the Free Press Writers Group, when there was an active campaign by a few loudmouth, local liberals to get my column dropped. (It didn't work.)
On the one hand, everyone has the right, even the responsibility, to hold the media accountable for staying within the realm of decent, respectful political debate. It is arguable that Ann Coulter has crossed that line. (And by arguable, I mean a third-grader could easily make the case.) Though, it is worth noting that she did not commit this latest impropriety in a column.
On the other hand, I don't think the the left-wing of the blogosphere is the proper agent for determining what the realm of acceptable speech is for the right. There are plenty of personalities on the left that are just as petulant as Coulter, possibly even more so. Perhaps they should concern themselves with policing their own.
I was just in the middle of writing a post and I received an e-mail from my husband, who works with Haik Bedrosian.
Haik and "Poopsie" welcomed their new daughter this morning at 5:18 am.
According to the e-mail, she is the same weight and length as her brother was when he was born: 6 lbs, 14 ozs, and 19 1/2 inches long. Mother and baby are doing fine.
Congratulations, Haik and family!
I was watching a debate on RETN last night, between former Governor Madeleine Kunin and UVM Professor Frank Bryan, regarding the state's two-year gubernatorial term.
Here is the show's description, from the RETN website:
Vermont is one of only two states that still have a two-year governor’s term. Is Vermont best served today by having statewide elected leaders who serve for only two years? Would governance in Vermont be better served by longer terms and fewer election cycles? Should legislators be elected to longer terms, as well? If terms are increased, how do we maintain a constitutional balance of power and serve Vermonters best? The Center for Research on Vermont and The Snelling Center for Government present this public discussion and debate between former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin and UVM Political Science Professor Frank Bryan on this important civic issue. It is anticipated that bills will be introduced in the upcoming legislative session that will call for a constitutional amendment to expand term lengths. Should such proposals be initiated? If so, what are the structural changes that should be made? This is the first of a series of activities that are planned to raise awareness and involve the public in this important deliberation about the future of the structure of Vermont state government.
The lefty VT political blogs (and newspapers) are all a twitter about the impeachment votes on Town Meeting Day. I can't blame them; I mean, this is a huge victory for them. They successfully proved that a majority of politically active Vermonters are opposed to the war. All those who questioned that can now stand down. All two of them.
So, can I ask the question that no one seems to be asking? Or maybe, that no one wants to ask? Is anything really going to come of this?
All three members of our congressional delegation have already said that they will not pursue impeachment, and further, that it would be an impediment to their actual focus of brining the troops home. Now there's a convenient excuse. By the way, how's that coming along?
Mark my words, nothing will come of this. But, you already knew that, didn't you?
Yeah, I know I could have broached this topic in a gentler manner, but I can be a real bitch when I'm sick. Just ask my husband.
Ward 1: Sharon Bushor (I)
Ward 1: Ed Adrian (I)
Ward 2: Jan Knodell (P)
Ward 3: Tim Ashe (P)
Ward 4: Kurt Wright (R)
Ward 5: Joan Shannon (D)
Ward 6: Andy Montroll (D)
Ward 7: Craig Gutchell (R)
It looks like there will not be a run-off in Ward 7.
The Burlington City Council now has 3 Republicans. Just three years ago, there was only 1.
The balance of power is now: 3 Republicans, 2 Independents, 4 Progressives, and 5 Democrats.
I just came from voting over at Burlington Electric Department, in Ward 5. The traffic was extremely light according to everyone there.
The Democratic candidate for City Council, Joan Shannon, was standing alone, with Snow Joan, in front of BED.
There was a Green Party table set up across the parking lot. Green candidate for City Council, Rene Kaczka-Valliere was on a lunch break, but Jay Vos was standing in for him.
Joan and I were talking on my way in about how weird that was. In the past, candidates of all political stripes stood in a line together, at least the two times I ran that was the case. We talked and kept each other company.
I think that is one of the things that makes local politics so civil. It is kind of hard to demonize your opponent after you chat away a frigid March day together.
Of course, it's not like they ignored each other completely. That's Jay talking to Joan, below.
Here is a picture of Inspector of Elections Doug Dunbebin hard at work checking in a voter.
That had to be the shortest ballot I have ever voted on. How sad. This is our one time of year that we get to focus on local issues and there was only one ballot question, besides the school budget.
At least I got to see "Snow Joan."
Be sure to stop by Exit Voices and post your own election experiences.
The other night at the Euro Cafe, the topic came up of Odum and the SVR flap that pushed his employer to ask that he refrain from blogging, or whatever, and I mentioned that I hadn't even been following the SVR/racism posts because when I see the word "racism," I tend to tune it out. That topic kind of sets me off, so I don't like to get into it.
In thinking about it after, I was a little surprised that no one asked me why, but then again, I don't think like a non-conservative.
JD asked me last night in a comment on his blog FBC, "So... I have to ask... what's your issue with racism (in that you tune it out)? That stuck in my head that night. You're not one of those cons that doesn't think it exists, are you?"
To answer JD's question, no. I am not "one of those cons that doesn't think it exists."
I know racism exists, as does sexism, classism, education-level-ism, political-ideology-ism, religious-beliefs-ism, sexual-orientation-ism, and country-of-origin-ism; and any-other-way-we-can-judge-others-ism is alive and well, too.
See, as human beings, we tend to compartmentalize the information that we are bombarded with on a daily basis. That compartmentalization is largely based on judgments, which are based on our past experiences and preconceived notions.
When we encounter an unknown, be it an object, situation, or person, we make judgments about that object, situation, or person based on the information available in our minds of similar objects, situations, and people. To do otherwise (ie to not base our judgments on past experiences) would take a conscious effort on our part.
Does that make sense?
So, yes, we judge. We judge based on what we know. Many times those judgments are unfair. Often, though, those judgments are not malicious.
The appropriate thing to do when one is confronted with these incorrect judgments, is to face them head on, point them out in a non-accusatory way, and show the person making the judgments that they were incorrect in judging you (or whoever they are judging).
Does hate-based, malicious racism still exist? I'm sure it does. However, every single time I have ever read or heard that someone was accusing someone else of racism, it was not a case of actual racism, in the sense that the person being accused actually holds "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."(Source)
Instead, racism is often being used as a way to slander a person (almost always a conservative) in an attempt to side-step the actual issue being discussed. It's a way to win an argument that one is losing, or an argument that one fears one might eventually lose.
The result is that racial tensions thrive, the false stereotype that a certain subset of American politics (read: conservatives) is inherently racist will continue to exist, and, worst of all, instead of examining the real causes of inequality in America, racism will continue to be the scapegoat of choice, virtually guaranteeing that real solutions will continue to elude us.
Crying racism is a deplorable tactic that only serves to damage race relations in this country even more than they already are.
I once hoped that by the time my sons were adults, racial tensions would be but a memory in this country, but I'm sad to say it never will be as long as the term racism is still so effective at silencing political opposition.
I know I mentioned this yesterday, but it bears repeating. Don't forget to visit Exit Voices and post your Town Meeting Day comments. The Open Thread stays at the top. Be sure to check under it for additional content from political bloggers around the state.
Welcome, 802 Online readers. If you are here looking for the Burlington Politics posts, just click on "Burlington Politics" in the side bar under "Posts by Category." (Or click here.)
Thanks for stopping by!
Just when I start to wonder if there is any redemption for our popular culture, I see a glimmer of hope on the horizon.
The turning point is hard to pinpoint. But after 30 years of growing popularity, rap music is now struggling with an alarming sales decline and growing criticism from within about the culture's negative effect on society.
Rap insider Chuck Creekmur, who runs the leading Web site Allhiphop.com, says he got a message from a friend recently "asking me to hook her up with some Red Hot Chili Peppers because she said she's through with rap. A lot of people are sick of rap ... the negativity is just over the top now."
Though music sales are down overall, rap sales slid a whopping 21 percent from 2005 to 2006, and for the first time in 12 years no rap album was among the top 10 sellers of the year. A recent study by the Black Youth Project showed a majority of youth think rap has too many violent images. In a poll of black Americans by The Associated Press and AOL-Black Voices last year, 50 percent of respondents said hip-hop was a negative force in American society.
(Updated)
Don't forget to vote tomorrow.
Haik has an excellent post on endorsements and predictions. (I do not agree with his endorsements, but I think his predictions are pretty good. I'm not sure about Ward 2, though.)
In case you missed it, here is my post on the school budget. (Short version: Vote "no." I have a good reason, really. Don't worry, they still get a 7.93% increase from other, non-local sources, including our state property taxes.) Did you see in the Free Press that the school budget has increased 42% (from $29.2 million to $41.6 million) in the past five years?
Last, don't forget about Exit Voices, the election blog project of Bill Simmon and Channel 17. Stop on in and share your after meeting/after voting thoughts.
Oh yeah, and Channel 17 has after election coverage starting at 7:30 pm tomorrow evening.
Happy Town Meeting Eve.
Update: Ack! How could I forget this? Yesterday's Free Press had a guest column by UVM's Frank Bryan about Town Meeting Day. Check it out.
Here's an excerpt:
For decades our representatives in Washington have come home to hold "town meetings" on this or that public issue, often, shameless testimonies to their own heroic efforts on our behalf. Meantime, national politicians and media label staged campaign events as "town meetings."
Both practices are fakery.
As a teacher of national politics at the University of Vermont, I now find the great majority of references to town meeting not in the democracy section of textbooks but in chapters on the media.
Indeed, it has come to this: After decades of stripping town meeting of its ability to make important decisions, politicians are now absconding with its very name.
In doing so they are demeaning America's oldest, proudest and most fundamentally democratic institution.
Last night, the area political bloggers got together for a few drinks and some good times. I finally got a chance to meet Bill Simmon, Alex Ball, and Jack McCullough in person. And I had a chance to see my old blogger pals Philip Baruth, Neil Jensen, Haik Bedrosian, Cathy Resmer, and the blogger who cannot be named. Even the political opinion legend Peter Freyne was there.
Here's Freyne and Bedrosian having a chat.
And I finally got to meet this crazy mofo in person!
Speaking of bloggers, since you know we love to talk about ourselves as if what we are doing is really important, did you happen to check out Vermont This Week on VPT this weekend? None other than our favorite blogger, and host of the Saturday evening get together, Philip Baruth was on the panel.
Take a look at his tag: Publisher, Vermont Daily Briefing.
Blogger gets mainstream media cred. Sweet.
(Sorry if this is old news; it was new to me. Equally sorry for the lousy pic.)
I had a great time hanging with all the blog-folk (and the others who were there, such as Rep. Jason Lorber, who I had a great chat with). Let's just say, I have a lot of post material from all the conversations I had last night.
Candleblog Bill has a recap of the after-party. I'm sure the other recaps will follow soon.
Can't wait for the second annual blogger BBQ this summer.
Earlier this week, the word on the street was that, according to this post on GMD, the State Senate "can't find someone willing to testify in support of the war."
Apparently, such confidence breeds complacency. According to Snarky Boy's first person coverage of the hearing, the pro-war side came out in force and "the anti-war movement [got] its ass handed to them."
Oops. That's gotta hurt.
It kind of makes one wonder if the bench is really as empty as Odum speculated. The Republican-types tend to stay to themselves until things get too far out of hand. Then they just sort of come out of the woodwork in droves.
The big celebrity moment of the day - the speech given by the face of the anti-war movement, Cindy Sheehan herself - was a big let down. Says the Snarkmeister, "...it felt like Sheehan had simply cut and pasted some warmed-over sound bites, basically yawned them out, and then called it a speech."
Speaking of Snarky Boy, he mentions in his post that a "middle-aged man began booing [Marion Gray, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who spoke in support of the war, and against Sheehan] from the back of the room and shouting that she “was out of order.” He was quickly engulfed by the large numbers of security personnel and, from my perspective, immediately ushered out of the building."
The Free Press identified this man as one Michael Colby. Name sound familiar?
Interestingly enough, the snarky one's coverage ends there.
Note: This is post is on local politics, but has application far beyond that, so you might want to read even if you are not a local.
Today the Free Press profiled the Ward 6 City Council race between incumbent Democrat Andy Montroll and his independent challenger Tom Licata.
It is noted in the article that the first time (of three) that Tom ran, it was as a Republican, in 2005. If you are up on your Charity Tensel trivia (which no doubt you are), you also know that I was chair of the Burlington GOP at that time. I sat down with Tom at the Bagel Cafe on North Ave. to find out more about him. I have to say that he was probably the single most impressive person I have met in local politics. That man knows economics. Our city would do well to have someone like that on the council.
(No offense to the other impressive people I have met in local politics. You know who you are.)
He had this to say in his personal statement in the Free Press this morning:Nobel laureate and economist Milton Friedman captured Vermont's unacknowledged battle between freedom and fairness when he gave one of his last interviews in July. When asked about his thoughts on a China versus India comparison, he gave the following response: "China has maintained political and human collectivism while gradually freeing the economic market. This has so far been very successful but is heading for a clash, since economic freedom and political collectivism are not compatible." It's this incompatibility of tensions, defined as cognitive dissonance, between Vermont's collectivist leanings and prosperous economic wants that drives our current state-of-confusion. Meaningful progress as a city, and State, requires us to bridge this gap of incongruence.
The results of Burlington's collectivist leanings: 50% increases in property and sale taxes in 3 years; millions of dollars in under funded pension benefits; a refusal to provide tax relief through an objective productivity study of city operations; refusal to unlock tax revenue relief that a partnership of public and private developers would consummate in developing our waterfront; and prized Burlington properties and institutions co-opted to achieve political ends (City Market, our failed waterfront bus terminal, Intervale land sale, Moran Plant). This quiet campaign to leverage city assets to further an economically-challenged progressive movement has resulted in enormous opportunity costs in the form of lost tax revenues and higher taxes.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is what Einstein defined as insanity; stop voting our entrenched incumbents into office.
Vermont's adopted 1778 State motto of "Freedom and Unity" and Mr. Friedman's view on this subject best summarizes our dilemma: "The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both".
Vote thoughtfully.
On Tuesday, we here in Burlington will be voting on the school budget.
If you want to listen to a really boring (unless you are into this stuff), but thorough presentation, I suggest you check out the Channel 17 podcast of it here. That will give you the specifics and you will get a little education about equalized pupils and common levels of appraisal.
If you have already been doing this crap for so many years that you can compute the common level of appraisal differentials in your sleep, you might find it a more efficient use of time to check out the school board budget information on their website.
See, I try to offer something for every level of knowledge here at She's Right.
If you want the easiest method of understanding the budget, read the next five sentences (with the dollar figures) then skip to the last paragraph.
Here's the bottom line.
The current budget is $38,113,325.
The proposed budget is $41,574,566.
That is an increase of 9.08%.
But, other sources of revenue are increasing for the school district this year to the tune of $41,135,677, so the portion we actually get to vote on is only $438,899.
About that, it used to be that the voters got to approve the entire spending. If a budget was not passed by a certain date, the school district had to make do with the previous year's budget amount.
Then someone cooked up a tasty little scheme to remove our local control. It was pitched as a "soft landing," which meant if voters did not approve the budget, the school board would fall back on last year's budget plus any increase in the per pupil money from the state. Supporters claimed that to revert to the previous year's budget would mean forgoing the increase in state money - which was an outright lie. The truth, which for some reason never had a good spokesman, was that in the case where we reject the budget, forcing the school budget to last year's number, and there is an increase in state money that year, our local portion of taxes would go down. In other words, we blew any chance to ever see a tax decrease on the local level.
Okay, so now that I am done ranting about the past, what does this have to do with this year's budget?
Well, if memory serves, when I was watching the school board meeting on RETN (channel 16), the finance committee came out with a budget that was within that "soft landing," the 7.93% increase to $41,135.677 that they will get no matter how we vote. The rest of the board proceeded to add in other things they wanted for the budget they are sending to the people.
That kind of ticks me off. I mean, there is this constant feeling by the people that the school spending is out of control and the school spenders don't give a rat's patootie. Given the serendipitous windfall that the school board found itself with this year, it seems like it would have been a great time to show the voters that it does understand our tax time woes.
Can you imagine if the school board came out and said, "Look, this year we are going to keep our budget increase within the limit of the revenue increase. We will not seek an increase in the local tax rate." Wow.
Back to reality, though. The budget is not really asking for anything way out there. They are actually filling the preventative maintenance budget like they are required to, but never do because they use the money for other stuff. They are spending $80,000 to pay the state for employees that are not covered with health insurance, per the Catamount Health Plan legislation. They are funding the after school program, which ran out of grant money. (Don't you just love how they do that? They propose a program and assure us that it will be paid for by grant. Then, when the grant runs out they tell us how much they need to keep this great program and we end up paying for it directly.)
I wish we had a line item budget vote, so they actually knew why we voted "no." That would be cool. They could itemize the increases and let us vote on each one. Or at least have a survey for "no" voters to fill out, so they could get some feedback.
Anyway, in case it is not obvious, I will be voting "no" because I think they should have stayed within that huge 7.93% increase they were gifted with. That's what we all have to do with our budgets.
This is so funny, I wish I had made it up.
I am working on a post about the Burlington School Budget, so I decided to download the MP3 of the budget presentation on Channel 17 and put it on my iPod so I can listen to it while I do some other things this morning.
I went to the website, saved the file, and imported it into iTunes. As I was getting ready to load it onto my iPod, I noticed the genre that the podcast had been assigned.
Here is a screen shot of iTunes. Click on the picture to get a close-up of the School budget presentation (the blue line).
If you are like me, you don't usually look at the weather forecast. Maybe I am an oddball, but in the event that I have other Vermont readers that are equally odd, I wanted to let you know this:
The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning early Thursday morning. It's in effect from tonight until Friday evening. Forecasters think 8 to 14 inches of snow will fall before the worst of the storm blows out of New England Friday night. Some sleet could mix in. Sleet and even some freezing rain is more likely farther south in Vermont.
The Friday morning commute is expected to be slow at best, with heavy snow, maybe mixed with sleet. Roads will almost certainly be snow covered and slippery, and visibility will be low. People should budget lots of extra time to get to work, or even better, stay home.
