This might become a new feature. We’ll see.

Every week we receive comments that are worth a second look, further discussion or just plain recognition for being smart, entertaining, pathetically retarded (h/t Rush&Sara) lame, entertaining or generally worthy of a second slide through the page.    

Friday is a good day to post, rescue, reprint (regurgitate?) a few of the better, more interesting, funny, insightful or just plain awful comments from our virtual banquet of reader punditry from the preceding week.

So which reader comments hit your radar this week? Drop your links and thoughts in the comments. A few of my picks are below the fold.  

On the overdue but still insufficient primary date correction, you can’t argue with this clear statement of the situation from Reelvermonter:

If Douglas vetos a bill that passed the House with 139 votes it will prove once and foreall who is POLITICAL!  If he does not veto it, it will also prove who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Long-time GMD denizen Hoopmeister pinned the tail on the donkey (and the elephant and the moose) with this spot-on observation regarding Burlington Telecomm:

it never should have come to this and the intervention of Shaver and that other numnuts from the NNE is further evidence of how far the R contingent will go to stand in the way of progress just to spite Kiss. . .

When will Burlington folks realize that internet and TV and phone are public utilities and the ability of a public entity to provide that service is a good and cost savings thing for citizens??

Are those clowns now advocating that Burlington Electric be sold off to GMP or Velco???  Pretty much the same situation except one is established and the other developing and competing with Fairpoint and Comcast. The service from BurlTel is so much better than Comcast that they cant stand a side by side test.  Even for the same money you get better service…  

Both the R and D contingent are willing to sacrifice something good to shame Kiss, who is not without blame, but they certainly should be able to rise above this game for the public good.  

DoesLess and his PSB clowns are just another story… we no longer have a functioning state government.

Truer words, Buddy, truer words . . .

In response to Hoopmeister’s wise reminder that Burlington Tellcomm is a better deal and far more customer friendly than, for instance, the jokers at Comcast, Doug Hoffer is quick to remind everyone what passes for GOP “policy” when it comes to public utilities or public policy for that matter, by reminding us all that Burlington Electric:

was targeted for sale 15 years ago when Peter Brownell was mayor (for one term); it was even supported by the General Manager of BED at the time; ridiculous but that’s what passes for policy ideas from that crowd

That would have been brilliant!

There are too many angles to the story about legislative reimbursement for food and travel to cover. Putting aside the legal and moral questions as well as the political nuances, Mike Eldred hits a pragmatic realism note with his thoughtful observations:

If you drop per diem, then it will either cost substantially more to be a legislator from, say, Bennington than to be a legislator from Barre. Many legislators simply have to stay in Montpelier during the week, or else they face three to six hours on the road every day. And they’d miss a lot of the other work that goes on between legislators outside of the regular day.

There has to be some way of dealing with the added expense that some legislators face because of the location of the districts they represent – whether it’s to require reimbursement based on receipts for actual expenses incurred or to build a dorm and cafeteria for legislators.  (Visions of all-nighters and food fights.)  

I’ve received both a per diem and a meals allowance from the federal government.  It was just a flat rate, based on the local economic conditions.  If I spent less, the rest was mine, if I spent more, the difference was mine to make up out of my base pay.  

And that’s the way it was supposed to be.  I wasn’t supposed to claim an amount based on actual expenses.  There wasn’t any way to return money that wasn’t used for its specific purpose.  Nothing I was doing was considered unusual or unethical, in fact, I had no choice but to accept the terms.

On the other hand, I’ve also collected mileage from the federal government.  It had to be for actual miles driven in my own personal (or borrowed or rented) car.  I did not, and could not legally, collect mileage reimbursement for carpooling miles in someone else’s car, or for personal side trips.

So what exactly are the rules for legislators?  According to the 7D article, legislators are supposed to estimate their expenses for the coming year in January – that’s not even the “honor system,” that’s asking them to make a prediction. Is it any wonder that legislators predict they’ll need the maximum?

Finally, check out this Olympic PeteySweety / Sue / Bill McKibben discussion.

There are plenty more comments to mine and run through the vomitorium for further review, next week maybe I’ll flesh it out some more.  

What comments have caught your attention recently? Nothing is off-topic in this post.