( – promoted by BP)

Vermont Public Radio has reported that yet another state trooper has shot – but this time did not kill – an unarmed man suspected of stealing a car, breaking into a building and a school bus, and threatening suicide after announcing he had a bomb and a gun.

“[Suspect William J.] Mahoney then made several overt movements toward the holster, and began to advance on the trooper,” Colonel Tom L’Esperance told reporters at a press conference. “Believing that Mahoney was reaching for a gun inside the holster, the trooper discharged his service weapon five times, striking the male subject once.” […]

Police say the holster turned out to be empty but that Mahoney was carrying CO2 cartridges and they also found a BB handgun in the car that Mahoney allegedly abandoned.

In their defense, the police point to Mahoney’s “extensive criminal record” and say the state Parole Board had been seeking Mahoney’s whereabouts earlier in the day.

Six thoughts: One: Is it safer or more dangerous  for us common folk who might cross paths with the police as unarmed suspects or innocent bystanders that they are such bad shots? I mean, less than the length of a schoolbus?

Two: Is it bravery or stupidity to go inside the otherwise empty schoolbus after a suspect who claims to have an explosive device? Was any thought given to letting the suspect chill out, using negotiation to avoid unnecessary risk of deadly harm to either the trooper or Mahoney? If not, who made that decision?

Three: CO2 cartridges and a BB gun?

CO2 cartridges are used to make carbonated beverages, cool and preserve food, inflate tires, and automate or propel machinery.

Not to mention whipping cream.

Oh yeah, also in deadly paintball, pellet, and BB ‘guns’.

Four: Is this progress, that Mahoney was not killed outright? Were the witnesses (two other troopers, who, btw, rendered first aid and called an ambulance) a factor in that outcome?

Five: So much for the promise by the state police to call a mental health professional in situations where a suspect appears or is known to have mental health issues – which should include any suspect who threatens suicide. According to Col. L’Esperance, “mental health professionals were not summoned  because the situation was dangerous.” Right. Isn’t that the point? To save lives in situations that turn dangerous when mental health issues are affecting behaviors? To slow down the process from “shoot first, get the A.G.’s blessing later” to “ask questions now, let everyone have a chance to come out alive, no shooting necessary”?

Six: When did the State Police get to be such rootin’-tootin’ sidearm-shootin’ cowboys? Were there ever days when they could be proud of entire careers when they never had to fire their weapons except in target practice on paper targets? When did shooting unarmed suspects become the first resort and not the last?

PS: Mr. Kestrel – this is not about guns being good or bad or regulated or not. It’s about how and why state police decide to use their legitimate guns on unarmed ‘suspects.’

( – promoted by mataliandy)

GMD has learned that one of the hidden provisions of the state’s new healthcare law, strongly backed by Governor Peter Shumlin, would require grocery store cashiers to remove all sugar-sweetened beverages in any person’s order and substitute an equal dollar amount of broccoli.

“They can carry it on their shelves,” Governor Shumlin declared, referring to sugar-sweetened beverages, “but we’re not going to let people get diabetes and cost the taxpayers money for sugar- and obesity-based diseases. That just burdens our system and wastes healthcare dollars. Let ’em eat broccoli!”

The governor’s stance was closely aligned with President Obama’s healthcare plan provisions, although the checkout substitution for soda pop and other sugar-sweetened beverages is a uniquely Vermont twist. The Governor’s spokesman, Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding, refused comment on rumors that the original proposal specified kale instead of broccoli. Broccoli was accepted, knowledgeable insiders said, as long as kale was the back-up vegetable in the absence of broccoli of sufficient quality.

A legislative tussle behind closed doors before the bill gained committee approval featured Attorney General William ‘Wild Bill’ Sorrell throwing what observers called “a tantrum” because his favorite vegetable, Brussels sprouts, was not the required ‘green’ substitute.

Sorrell, facing a Democratic primary, refused to acknowledge the broccoli-Brussels sprouts split in the ranks. “I still have serious Democratic support,” he maintained, “Governor Dean still likes me! Or at least, he still feels like he owes my dear departed mother for his political career. Thanks, Mom.”

The incumbent attorney general also claimed that the substitution of an equal dollar amount of a vegetable was his idea. “It’s even better than a tax, there’s no oppression of the poor here, and it doesn’t cost more money to make them eat green,” he explained. “It’s the best idea I’ve had in decades! But it really should’ve been Brussels sprouts.”

No one is discussing the possibility of lawsuits by soda-industry giants Pepsi and CocaCola and large-scale purveyors of what is popularly known as “junk food,” such as Walmart.

Nor has there been any response to questions regarding what unintended effect this provision might have on the market price of broccoli, or whether the green vegetable closely associated in popular culture with apparent melanin-overriding growth hormones, resulting in a change of skin color and giantism, would be conventionally grown or organically raised.

( – promoted by odum)

Nice of Larry ENVY to start pointing fingers – before the fire marshal’s investigation is complete – for the fire at the ENVY office in Brattleboro.

Smith wasted no time in pointing at the anti-nuke folks.

Although tensions have been high regarding the continued operation of the nuclear power plant, this was the first time someone had put people’s lives at risk, Smith said. He added that he was shocked that someone could be so selfish as to put their agenda before someone’s lives.

[from VPR] (Smith) “It’s a little disturbing; it’s unnerving. If the cause of the fire is determined to be deliberate, that’s the most brazen, deliberate attempt on our property, or our employees or one of our facilities in our in our 39 year history.”

Right, lives were in such danger at corporate headquarters at 3 a.m.

“When the first crew arrived the sprinkler system was active and there was smoke in the first floor of the building,” [Fire Chief Michael Buccossi] told the Reformer. “Fire damage was minor as we were able to extinguish it in a short amount of time, but there was moderate water and smoke damage to the building.”

The usual anti-nuke spokespeople all seemed to fall right in line with the suggestion that some anti-nuke person or group had broken in and started the fire.

[Dan] DeWalt said setting fire to a building as a form of protest is “highly counter-productive.”

“We’re trying to win allies here,” he said. “I don’t think an act of violence or of destruction can win allies. The power of our movement is in our non-violence.”

Given that the state is now battling the worn out and obsolete plant’s continued operation beyond March, 2012, it just wouldn’t make any sense for the grass-roots anti-nukes to even consider such a thing.

Bob Stannard, spokesman for Citizen Awareness Network, which also opposes Yankee’s continued operation, agreed with DeWalt […]

“This whole process is all about playing in the confines of the rules of the game,” Stannard said. Setting a fire is pointless and not to be condoned, he added.

After dumping that thought, my next one was to wonder whether someone staged the break-in and fire in order to dispose of inconvenient records or test results that can now not be produced. Nor, if I understand the news coverage correctly, can tests be run in the basement lab.

We have our plant servers and computer systems. And there’s a quality control lab where we test instruments and other nuclear grade equipment. ~ VPR quoting Larry Smith

What a shame. No current data, more delays in releasing test results now done out of state … gosh, who’s the beneficiary there?

It’s admittedly an uncharitable thought. But I remember when the folks up in Killington wanted to secede from Vermont because they thought their statewide property taxes were too high.

One wonders whether, once their personal safety is assured, they might be making the connection between the help they are receiving now in getting Route 4 made passable, for example, and their taxes, perhaps regretting their former disdain for the works and costs of state government.

Naahh. To those folks, like their counterparts in NH, government is always too expensive, until their road is washed away; then once it’s fixed (to the likely accompaniment of entitled demands for faster work), they go right back to sneering at government work and governement workers.

On the other hand, maybe those tax seceders all moved to NH, and it’s only good-hearted and community-minded Vermonters left.

In either case, they need help after Irene, and they should get it. And it should make them think real hard about those taxes.

This is one of those times when it’s really, really hard to remember why churches don’t pay taxes.

Just over at Pam’s House Blend on my regular blog scan, and here’s what Louise from Maine has to stir us up:

The anti-marriage folks in Maine, who, if you’re not following this, flog their bigotry by paying people from Michigan to gather signatures for a referendum against Maine’s Marriage Equality law, are out-fundraising the Equality Maine folks better than 2 to 1 between April 1 and July 5. Almost half the money came from Roman Catholic Churches or organizations (most of the rest from NOM — of “Gathering Storm” parody fame —  and Focus on the Family, with just $400 from actual Maine residents. Of course, much of that time was before the law passed.)

The Diocese of Portland gave “Stand for [Het] Marriage Maine” $100k in actual money and over $10k in “in-kind’ contributions, Louise reports.

The Knights of Columbus forked over $50k. And Catholic Charities in Evansville, Indiana donated a thousand bucks, as did the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, NM.

As Louise aptly points out, aren’t these the same folks who are closing parishes and selling church properties? Aren’t these the same folks who say their parishioners’ donations go to charity work? to food and clothing and shelter for the poor and destitute? One might also wonder who is paying the salary for the Diocese spokesman who “has taken leave” to work for SFMM.

So the spokesbigot said the $100k was from a special fund donated to the Church for “this kind of activity.” And quite likely the donor got a tax deduction for it. And wouldn’t have if the donation had gone directly to the the anti-marriage PAC — as one commenter on the thread pointed out. Tantamount to money laundering.

Okay,maybe it’s time to not let people have tax deductions for donations to churches. The church may not have to pay taxes, but any donations they receive should be after-tax dollars.

The last time the Catholic Church was right about something, it was draft counseling in the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and Liberation Theology (when, for once, the Church was on the side of the campesinos and not the landowners — think Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador).

( – promoted by odum)

First off, before all you Democrats jump down my throat, I still think he’s way better a president than McCaint ever woulda been.

But ya know, his rhetoric far exceeds his deliverables.

For example, Obama had promised (and it was on the White House website at least until April 15) to fully fund needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV. So guess what? Not only did he cut the funding for the needle exchange programs in his budget, but he called for the funding ban to remain in place. And his promise disappeared from the website. And if you don’t believe me, Rachel Maddow had it on her program a few days ago. So I guess it went down the memory hole.

So then there was this demonstration in the Capitol Rotunda, and 26 people got arrested for chaining themselves together and shouting “Clean Needles Save Lives” in protest of this gross betrayal. But, over on Pam’s House Blend, Keori reports that “Protests Work – House Dems Buck Obama and Lift Federal Ban on Syringe Exchange,” quoting a story from Huffpost. It’s all in the Appropriations Committee and there’s a long ways to go, but the HIV advocates, at least, are not taking Obama’s reversals lying down. Yay for them! Now, if only the HRC and the NGLTF could get a little inspired, we might get somewhere on DOMA and DADT.

 

And then there’s a kind of confusing story about Obama’s first signing statement over at The Hill. I don’t actually know whether it’s Obama’s first signing statement. And, it’s true that he never actually promised not to do it. But given how much he (and all of us too) criticized the former Chief Executive over ridiculous signing statements supposedly canceling out huge swaths of the laws they were attached to, well, you wouldn’t expect Prez O to go ahead and do one this soon, wouldja?

This one is about some restrictions on international aid payments involving stronger environmental and labor protections. The Prez didn’t want to go along, and the House voted 429-2 (talk about bipartisan!) for an amendment that requires the big O to abide by these restrictions. And, it was proposed by a REPUGLICAN!

Love him or hate him, Barney Frank had this to say:

“We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of this democracy,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “There’s kind of a unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements.”

I think if we want activists to make a difference here, we should do some kind of “Obama Watch” where people keep an eye out for broken promises and serious flip flops. I’m not volunteering, I’ve got enough to do. But maybe if everybody contributed something, we’d all know more about where to put our energies to make change (and I ain’t talkin’ nickels and dimes). How else are we going to keep him accountable?