The in-the-works “State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)” bill which would famously expand health insurance coverage to children nationwide, also now stands to protect Vermont children from a Bush administration rule change which would deny Dr. Dynasaur coverage to thousands of Vermont children. From a joint press release from the offices of Leahy, Sanders and Welch (emphasis added):

Using SCHIP funds, Vermont’s Dr. Dynasaur program now offers comprehensive health coverage to children from households with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty — $61,950 for a family of four.  Eleven other states also offer coverage to kids from middle-income families.  The legislation will cover an additional 4 million children nationwide – several thousand more in Vermont — on top of the 6 million currently in the program.  It will also sideline a pending Bush Administration rule change, announced Aug. 17, that threatens to cut coverage for millions of kids now covered under SCHIP.  That change would tighten restrictions on states like Vermont that cover children above 250 percent of the federal poverty level.  In Vermont, the new rules would mean more than 2000 kids would lose their health coverage.   

The bill also heads off, at least for six months, another recently announced Bush Administration rule change that would prohibit states from using Medicaid funds for rehab services for K-12 students with disabilities, which would put Vermont on the hook for potentially another $20 million per year.

As has been widely covered, Bush is making a show of his intention to veto the bill (well, unless fellow Republican and Bush state campaign Chair Jim Douglas can use his election-touted clout with the administration to get him to consider…to consider…oh never mind, I'm cracking up even as I type it…). Based on recent history, one would expect that he will veto it, and Congresional Democrats will just mope ineffectively in response (that'll show him).

There is some talk, however, of pushing on this bill the way many of us wanted to see the Iraq withdrawal-deadline bill pushed – simply passing it over and over again until he is either shamed into passing it, or enough Republicans are shamed into voting to override. We'll see…

We've waited “Long Enough” for an answer on how many residual troops the other
  Democratic Presidential Candidates will leave behind in Iraq. That's why the
  name of our campaigns' new TV ad is entitled "Long Enough."

Bill Richardson is changing the debate with his clear, bold, plan to end the
  war and bring all the troops home. This war will drag on as long as our troops
  are in Iraq.

If you care about ending the war in Iraq, add your voice to end the war now!

I proudly work with Bill Richardson, the only candidate committed to leaving
  no troops behind.

  Joaquin H. Guerra

  Richardson for President

 Loading ...

We’ve been involved in The Localvore Challenge this week, and it’s been an interesting experience. 

A quick summary: there are lots of reasons different communities may be interested in eating locally.  Some are environmental; others economic.  For some, it’s just about support for their own community and community engagement.

In our case, it’s a combination of factors, the biggest for me is that I like to know where my food comes from and what goes into it.  If I’m eating food that’s mass-produced in some factory somewhere who the hell knows where, how could I possibly know what conditions exist in that factory?  I still don’t know perfectly well here.  I don’t know if every worker at a farm washes their hands.  I don’t know if every worker at a local produce center is or is not carrying a contagious disease.  But I do know that the food I eat is primarily coming from nearby sources which makes the food I eat more personal and more economical.  When I purchase locally I am:

• saving the fuel cost of shipping something across the country;
• supporting local economy over destructive large-scale agriculture;
• eating foods which are pollinated by local insects which means I have more built-in immunity to local allergens;
• reducing waste and pollution by using food that doesn’t require multiple layers of packaging or chemicals designed to keep the food looking fresh over long periods of time.

More information about local foods can be found at http://www.localharvest.org/ and http://animalvegetablemiracle.com/

Per The Chicago Tribune.  McMillan is the mayor of Jena:

No sooner did tens of thousands of African-American demonstrators depart the racially tense town of Jena, La., last week after protesting perceived injustices than white supremacists flooded in behind them.
[…]
McMillin has insisted that his town is being unfairly portrayed as racist-an assertion the mayor repeated in an interview with Richard Barrett, the leader of the Nationalist Movement, a white supremacist group based in Learned, Miss., who asked McMillin to “set aside some place for those opposing the colored folks.”

“I am not endorsing any demonstrations, but I do appreciate what you are trying to do,” Barrett quoted McMillin as saying. “Your moral support means a lot.”

McMillin declined to return calls seeking comment Monday.

Barker’s father, David, said his family did not know the nature of Barrett’s group when they agreed to be interviewed, adding, “I am not a white supremacist, and neither is my son.”

But Barrett said he explained his group and its beliefs to the Barker family, who then invited him to stay overnight at their home on the eve of last week’s protest march.
[…]

Oh boy! Hooplah!

For those just tuning in: first Freyne reports that Progressive Rep. Dave Zuckerman sez “He (Peter Shumlin) came up to me at an event in Montpelier…and said we’ve really got to talk about how we’re going to get rid of Jim Douglas, and I think Anthony Pollina should really consider running.””… then I report that Shumlin sez “From his recollection, it was Zuckerman who brought up Pollina….Says Shumlin: 'I have told anyone who will listen that the best candidate, in my judgment is Matt Dunne.' (and Dunne verified Shumlin's encouragement in an unrelated conversation with me a ways back).“… then Stewart Ledbetter on Vermont This Week (in a reference to “dueling blogs”) sez “maybe the story that Shumlin was pushing Anthony Pollina is simply not true”… then Freyne sez “Maybe the Moon is made of green cheese?“… then Freyne goes to Zuckerman who sez “I respect Stewart Ledbetter… but that's irresponsible journalism.”

Ahhh, so many sezzes, so little time!

Truthfully, “irresposnsible journalism” is a whopping big charge. Especially when we're not simply talking about journalism. We're also talking about blogging, gossip and even interpersonal relationships, inasmuch as they relate to who believes whom.

But first of all, let's talk about journalism.

Let me start by agreeing with commenters at Freyne's site. Zuckerman is a totally decent guy, and I can't possibly believe that he's lying. And although I was called “naive” for believing Shumlin, I've known the guy (not well, granted, but nevertheless…) for years, and he's never lied to me, or said anything to me that I have reason in retrospect to consider may have been a lie. Does that make me “naive,” as a commenter suggested? Who knows, but I'd rather be naive than be an asshole, and I'd have to be an asshole to arbitrarily doubt his word to me at this point.
  
This is where we get to the difference between hubbub and journalism, and why “he said-he said” situations like this are dangerous to report on, especially when you only have in hand one of the “he's” doing the “saying” and no independent corroboration. IMO, Freyne was definitely on shaky ground publishing this to begin with, especially when you consider we're talking about two different people's reminiscences of brief conversations from months ago. It's as likely a scenario as any that they both honestly and earnestly remember the conversations differently.

(For my part, all I can say is what I said already – that Shumlin's “retort” to me was consistent with what I've heard from him in the past, and consistent with what I'd heard from Matt Dunne… kneejerk Shumlin-bashing should not be a replacement for objective consideration of the merits and the foundations of a tiff like this). 
  
But Freyne is not simply a journalist, he is also a blogger. And those are very different animals, playing by different rules. Bloggers can go up with rumor or hubbub, and often do. Blogs – “web logs” – are simply online diaries meant to spur discussion – and rumors are obviously a valid point of discussion for online communities of interest. You throw it out there and let the readers hash out the viability and credibility, which is the process that has – in fact – been in play between Freyne's site, this one, and the various comments at both, and what the “duel” which-is-not-a-duel is a glimpse into the process of.
  
But then, Freyne's report played out in his print column, rather than his blog. Does that change the implications?
  
Maybe, but I doubt it. After all, does anybody doubt that Freyne is becoming the human twilight zone between blogs and journalism? That role makes his media somewhat interchangable.
 
Either way, the guy's in an awkward spot as Vermont's official journalist-columnist-blogger hybrid, but he seems to generally handle it well, so I won't take him to task.
  
But there's one person I will take to task a bit, and that's Rep. Zuckerman. His suggesting Ledbetter was practicing “irresponsible journalism” was, I think… well… irresponsible.

Ledbetter is not a blogger, or a blogger-journalist hybrid, he is simply a journalist, pure and simple. When confronted with a contradiction like this, it is his job – his responsibilty even – to address it as dispassionately and objectively as he can- and that means laying all the possibilities out there. When two people say contradictory things, its always an objective possibility that one may not be right (especially when one of the suggestions seems, on its face, to defy the journalist's own experience or the prevailing wisdom).

A political officeholder making such an inflammatory charge to a journalist simply for asking one of the obvious questions for the purposes of a discussion among journalists could have a chilling effect on the practice of his 1st amendment responsibilities as a member of the press.

So, I've given buddies of Rep. Zuckerman ammunition to be mad at me if they really want to be, but the truth is, I think the “irresponsible journalism” line was just an off-the-cuff comment that wasn't meant the way someone like me might be afraid it could be. To repeat – as I already said Zuckerman seems like a totally straight shooter.

Honestly, I think we just have a cascading of off-the-cuff comments and fuzzy recollections of a months old exchange. Enough for some entertaining back and forth, but I think the story played out a while ago.