Thanks to Christian for posting the breaking news that iBrattleboro has been dismissed as a target in their high-profile defamation suit. You know the one – where iBrat was sued over the content of a user comment? The one that got national attention for its free speech implications? The one that legal analysts across the country dismissed out of hand? (from the Citizen Media Law Project):

This is not even a close question… Moreover, immunity exists even if a defendant edits comments (so long as the edits do not materially change the meaning of the statement) or otherwise exercises discretion in selecting which comments to post or remove.

(That’s for the very reasons Caoimhin discussed here, for those paying attention). The same suit that was dismissed as bunk by virtually every media observer?

Yeah, that suit. The one that Brattleboro Reformer editor Randy Holhut had this to say about:

“…”If what gets published or what gets posted or what gets aired doesn’t meet the standards, then you’re legally liable for it.”

This quote coming after the Reformer’s comparably-toned editorial the Citizen Media Law Project specifically referred to as “odd” and “simply wrong as a matter of law.”

But of course, the Reformer piece was nothing. The Times Argus and Rutland Herald (who, on occasion, needlessly make little offhand pokes at the blogosphere and citizen journalism) apparently had truly unique wisdom. Grandiose wisdom, in fact (emphasis added):

It hits at the center of a gray area in electronic law, and as such, may well wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court before all is said and done.

…well, almost unique, as WCAX ridiculously agreed:

It targets a gray area of media law and could potentially end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Good grief. Putting aside the borderline plagiarism on display between those two quotes above – there was no “gray area.” Why did everybody else in the known universe seem to understand that? Now that this nonsense has been unceremoniously tossed out of the courthouse on its ass (as everyone predicted), these “professionals” should be ashamed of themselves, waxing excited as they were over a meritless assault on the free speech rights they themselves depend on.

And now that there’s a little egg on their faces (egg not shared by their more even-keeled, rational counterparts in the other traditional media outlets from Seven Days to the New England Press Association), maybe they can take the media envy somewhere more appropriate: to a therapist.

Crossposted at www.vermontbloggernaut.blogspot.com

For the Vermont State Police, the Vermont State Auditor’s Office, and the Vermont Attorney General’s office.  It’s been over a year since the town clerk in the island hamlet of Isle La Motte confessed to embezzling money.  Shazaam!!  In swoops the press, and state agencies who confiscate records and vow to get to the bottom.

NOTHING HAS HAPPENED SINCE!  The poor town has not had any closure, or the benefit of knowing what really happened to their money.  Are Vermont’s state agencies incapable of this investigation?  Who’s dropping the ball here?  Why on earth is it taking so long?  She confessed to taking the money!!

Funny thing is a month after this stunning revelation, a town clerk over in New York was busted embezzling $150,000.  Guess what?  That case is all wrapped up and the guilty party is in jail.  Why the heck is it taking Vermont so long to do the same?  Does the state just not care because the crime it didn’t occur in Chittenden county?  Because now it’s old news?

You’d think that one of the “gold towns” of Grand Isle County that sends so much revenue to the states coiffures would warrant a speedy and thorough investigation.  It would appear that the issue has been backburnered indefinately.  Why leave a whole town hanging?  It may be a year later, but there are still some pretty hard feelings on the island.

Had this been Chittenden County, the investigation would have been concluded last summer.

Among those of us who frequent the Vermont blogosphere, who hasn’t been wondering if the reason we haven’t heard from longtime Seven Days political columnist (and blogger) Peter Freyne for more than two weeks was that his cancer had returned?

Given that, today’s news from Freyne land was a bit of a relief, if still disappointing: he’s simply done, and will be stepping back from his role as columnist to focus on other projects. From Freyne Land:

Life is short. As my ol’ pal Mike always said, “We’re not here for a long time, we’re here for a good time.” And as I’ve come to realize, one cannot begin that new chapter of life until one closes the page on the current one. It’s a big step to take, a risky one, but until one takes it, the misery reigns supreme.

Health-wise, things haven’t been this good in Freyne Land in decades. And the writer within – the non-political columnist – has a whole lot of material that’s been waiting much too long to get out.

Stay tuned.

It’s unclear how much he will continue blogging, but he suggests that he will keep Freyne Land going.

Best of luck Peter. I daresay over GMD’s 2+ years, there is no member of the fourth estate we have cited with near the frequency as we’ve cited you (and despite a couple high profile frustrations of late, I’d guess no columnist approaches your rate of positive citations on this site, either).

Good luck with your next thing, and thanks for the years of good work.

[Cross posted to Broadsides.org — by Michael Colby, a possible Progressive Party candidate for governor.]

It wasn’t hard to see this coming, not with the track record of Anthony Pollina being what it is: losing, losing and losing. But the Caledonia Record reported earlier this week that the milk company co-founded by Progressive Party stalwart Anthony Pollina, the Vermont Milk Company, is experiencing some serious financial setbacks. Worse, one of the five farms that supplied the non-organic milk to the company is crying foul when it comes to the payments they received from Pollina’s company.

Last week, before news of the company’s troubles became public, Pollina tendered his resignation from the company’s board in order to “focus on his run for governor.” While the Pollina campaign is seeking to distance itself from the company’s new woes, it continues to highlight the Vermont Milk Company as a major achievement in his efforts to help Vermont’s dairy farmers.

According to the first paragraph of Pollina’s biography on his campaign website, “he was approached by a group of dairy farmers interested in working together to keep farming viable. The result was the Vermont Milk Company – a farmer controlled ice cream, cheese and yogurt plant. Anthony ran the start up until 2008.”

But Karla Barrett and Mark Sutton, two Northeast Kingdom farmers who sent their milk to Pollina’s start-up, aren’t impressed with the “help” they received.

The following is an excerpt from the Caledonian record:

“We stopped shipping milk to them December 1 because we didn't get paid,” Karla Barrett said. “They still owe us a lot of money. We got paid the base price but not the extra money.”

She said she understood there had been some poor business management decisions, but she wants to know what is going on.

“Somehow I think they should look into Anthony Pollina. I don't think he'd make a good governor if he can't run a little milk company,” Barrett said. “Hopefully, investors will come through and they can clear all this up.”

Interestingly, officials at the Vermont Milk Company are claiming that its financial problems are a result of the “high milk prices” being paid to farmers of late. Pollina, therefore, was in a most awkward position in his dual role as dairy farmer advocate and dairy company executive. And, according to Barrett, the farmers came out on the losing end of that particular juggling act of Pollina’s.

News of the Hardwick-based Vermont Milk Company’s financial failures come at a sensitive time for Pollina – just as he puts his campaign for governor into high gear while using the company as an “example” of his “professional” experience.

A call to the headquarters of the Vermont Milk Company by Broadsides wasn’t returned today. The person answering the phone only said that no one was available because the company was in the middle of a board meeting. One can only imagine that they had a lot to discuss, not least of which was trying to fix this problem before it brought Pollina down with the farmers he’s always proclaimed to be helping.

The real mystery in this story is where are Vermont’s other mainstream media outlets? So far, not a peep…

Starting our sixth year in Iraq,heading out under sunny skies………….

Cheney Goes Fishing in Gulf of Oman

The Associated Press

Wednesday, March 19, 2008; 7:20 AM

MUSCAT, Oman — Vice President Dick Cheney went fishing in the waters between Oman and Iran on Wednesday, borrowing the Sultan of Oman’s 60-foot royal yacht for the mission.

A Cheney spokeswoman said the vice president, his wife Lynne, and daughter, Liz, a former State Department official who is traveling with her father as a private citizen, headed out under sunny skies into the Gulf of Oman on “Kingfish I,” owned by Sultan Qaboos bin Said.

I’m a little late with this one.  I’ve been fighing the flu for five days now.  But now that I can think without feeling like my head will explode I need to revisit what I saw on WCAX’s “You Can Quote Me” last Sunday.   The guests were Chris Dutton and Mary Powell of Green Mountain Power.  Across the table were Marselies Parsons and Andy Potter of WCAX.

The discussion was about the future of energy in Vermont as we currently pay less per kilowatt hour than most of the other states around us.  80% of our power comes from Vermont Yankee at 4 cents a kilowatt hour, and Hydroquebec at 7 cents a kilowatt hour.  States around us pay between like 9 and 13 cents per kilowatt hour.

The whole conversation began cordially enough with the discussion of windpower, and problems citing it in Vermont.  The folks from GMP seemed pretty on the ball and big fans of green energy.  They talked about their two big drivers being energy affordability and sustainability.  Then Parsons came out of nowhere.

He wanted to know, since GMP was just bought by the Canadian company Gas Metro if they could use their new contacts to get Vermont cheap natural gas.  For of all things a gas fired electrical plant here in Vermont.  The folks from GMP responded that not really, the price of gas is what it is, if we don’t want to buy it for their price someone else will.  They also went further though, in that because most of the energy consumption in Vermont is in Chittenden County, a plant like Parsons was talking about would have to be sited there or close by.

Did I miss something here?  Are we not running out of fossil fuels?  And WCAX wants us to continue with them?   Time to move on to greener pastures, thinking like this got us where we are in the first place.  by the time we build this facility we are then locked into using it, whatever the price of gas skyrockets to.  Is this sound thinking?  WCAX was way off base on this one, I’m glad the folks at GMP possess better foresight.

In this election year, one of the key differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, at least among liberals, is that Obama was “right” on Iraq and Clinton was “wrong”. The differences don't end there, of course, but I heard of more than one voter on Town Meeting day saying that they wanted to vote for Clinton, but couldn't get past her vote on the war.

This distinguishes her from John Edwards, who cast the same war vote that Clinton did, but was able to get past it and get support from liberals because of his apology for his vote, but Clinton has refused to do the same.

Why is this such a key point for antiwar voters? In part I'm sure it's an emotional response, and by saying that I'm not suggesting that that would be illegitimate. It goes beyond that, however.  My concern is that this was the biggest vote of Clinton's political career, she was dead wrong at a time when many of us knew–absolutely knew–she was wrong, and it says something about her judgment.

If we could get some honest reflection from her about why she got it wrong, and what could make a difference the next time she's confronted with an important decision, it could make a difference in how we see her. Frankly, if war supporters won't say what they would do differently the next time it would send me a strong signal that they can't be trusted with important decisions.

The same is true not only of politicians but also of analysts and pundits. This week Slate is running a series about liberal hawks titled “Why Did We Get It Wrong?” and it features commentary from a broad range of writers, most of whom supported the war and, either soon or late, recognized that they had made a mistake.

As you read it, consider what Hillary Clinton might write in such a piece, and what difference it might make in your thinking.