Governor George Aiken, pictured above, is known for having coined the term “Northeast Kingdom” but a lesser known fact is that he stole that term from Green Mountain Daily

Green Mountain Daily, one of Vermont’s most venerable institutions, has decided that it is no longer financially viable to maintain a print operation and will therefore, as of April 1, 2009, move to an online-only presence.  

Green Mountain Daily started out as a small operation and continued in that vein for its first 4 decades or so, focusing on local news stories and human interest material.  Everyone on staff remembers fondly the headlines on December 7th, 1941, “Local Firefighter Saves Kitten.”

But when, several weeks later, we learned that America was at War, we sprung into action and the nature of the paper changed.  With war came a new responsibility to respect our nation and promote its interests.  Thus, with the nation gripped by war, Green Mountain Daily, decades ahead of its time, instituted its own “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and thus a new era was born.

With the fifties came the rise of communism and a new enemy to fight, and Green Mountain Daily was there.  Yes, not only did Green Mountain Daily show up when subpoenaed, several of us camped out on the steps for days before, just to get the opportunity to name names before anyone else could rat us out first show us up in our patriotic duty.

Per Vermont Public Radio:

The Vermont Senate voted 26-to-four on Monday to approve a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.

Supporters said the legislation is needed to provide same-sex couples with all the legal rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have.

If the bill becomes law, Vermont would become the first state in the country to adopt same-sex marriage without a court ordering it.

Wow.  Twenty-six to four.

Eighty-Seven percent.

Wow.

Once again, I’ve got a series of photos to offer.  Most are bird photos, but a few are of other creatures.  As I’ve been doing, I’m going to present this as a bird quiz, but one part of the quiz is a quiz for me as well.  This gull…

…honestly has me confused.  It just doesn’t match anything I can find in my books and I am not very good with gulls to begin with.  Any other birders out there able to ID it?  I already feel stupid about this and figure it’s something common in a plumage which confuses me, so don’t worry about making me feel more stupid by telling me “obviously, it’s a…” or any other such thing.

Other birds, plus a couple seal photos, follow.  

I will note, once again, that these are all smaller versions of larger photos.  Clicking on the photo will get you to a larger version of it, combined with some details (date of photo, where the photo was taken, etc.).  Also, I do not post all my photos here.  If you want to subscribe to weekly (or daily) notices of new photos, you can do so here.  

If you want to purchase any of the photo books I’ve created (either through e-books or print copies), I’m selling them via lulu.com.

Okay, onto the photos:

To me, it’s officially spring when bird #1 starts to show up again:

I’ve posted bird #2 before.  I tend to see them a lot this time of year, but not much otherwise:

Same goes for bird #3…

Bird #4 is very common throughout the Northeast:

They sometimes even mob together to attack Bird #5:

Bird #6 was fun to watch.  I spotted two of them together, a male and a female.  Then noticed several other males in the area.  Within a few minutes, all six of the males were all flicking their tails up and down and bobbing about in the water, while she just ignored them:

Bird #7 is very common in the Northeast:

I was taking a photo of Bird #8 (foreground) without even realizing that Bird #9 (upper part of photo) was in the shot.  I only noticed it later:

Bird #10 is common in my yard, but I spotted this one on a brief walk through the woods:

Bird #11 is also common, but this is an unusual variant:

Bird #12 is common in the Northeast, but much more so in Summer than Winter:

I’ve had better luck with Bird #13 this year than I’ve ever had before.  I’ve been seeing them regularly:

Bird #14 was featured in yesterday’s Dawn Chorus and is normally an uncommon bird for me, but has been here in real quantities all Winter:

Bird #15 is common here year-round:

Bird #16 is another harbinger of Spring for me:

Bird #17 can be seen year-round here, but I don’t get huge numbers of sightings of it:

And finally, as promised… SEALS!

This from today’s Burlington Free Press struck a nerve with me:

“Both sides have a good argument. This is not something you take lightly,” Mazza said Friday, sitting at a desk dotted with pink messages from constituents all weighing in on same-sex marriage.

It struck a nerve with me because it’s simply false.  Those opposing same-sex marriage do not “have a good argument.”  They have bigotry, disgust and religious dogma.  They do not have an argument.  They have false claims, lies and misrepresentations, tied up and presented as defending their way of life.

This, for example, is one of the “arguments” against same-sex marriage, as reported in the Rutland Herald:

“It’s the real science they’ve ignored, and here’s the real science: same-sex parents cannot both be biological parents, and so the family structure is very similar to many stepparent situations… Such a family structure is also missing the inherent complementary balance between a male and a female.”

But that’s not an argument.  It is, in fact, simply a misrepresentation of the truth.  Cable pretends that his twisted and deceptive rendering of what research claims is science, because he has nothing else.  He has no argument.  He just has lies.

What other “arguments” can you find in opposition to same sex marriage?

Well, there’s this one:

This issue is not a side issue of personal preference allowing to “live and let live.” Rather, the gay rights movement is a direct challenge to the authority of God over his creation. God has already judged in this matter. Now he waits to see which side we will choose.

Or, possibly, this one, which, at least, is consistent:

if i had the power i would make it so that it was against the law for a person to remarry until their spouses passed way. but i dont have that power. unlike some people i don’t choose to tear out or ignor the parts of the Bible that i don’t like.

And, finally, my favorite (it’s particularly virulent and defamatory, so I’m putting it below the fold):

In 2006 53% of all new HIV AIDS Infections was with GAY MEN.

53% of all NEW infections and that is from 1% of the population. HIV AIDs shows more prejudice towards gays to the poit it has even been referred to as the GAY disease.

This alone is not the reason why Gay Marriage and adoption should be denied, it is the simple LOGIC that lays behind the FACT that 53% were Gay men. If being GAY is so normal why is the Percentage so EXTREME as compared to the rest of Sociiety?

Now when you explain that one,

Why is it that 69% of ALL Serial Killers were GAY and that 43% of all Serial Killers involved Children?

Then when you explain that

Why is it that “A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological

evidence indicates that only 2 to 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25 to 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”

“A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles

described themselves as homosexual or bisexual”

“Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 23% of all homosexuals have acted as chicken hawks, that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.”

“In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson

found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.”

“A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students. Other studies have shown that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more

likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers.”

feel free to read it for yourselves and verify at other sites if so desired to do so.

Here’s a thought: if the opposition to same sex marriage actually has an argument against it, why don’t they actually make it?  

There’s a nice little report from the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force.  

I strongly suggest everyone go and read the summary, but I’m writing with a whole other idea.  I think we might have a way to both address civil rights and save Vermont’s economy.  One paragraph from the summary struck me:

Brian Pearl, a vocal opponent of the freedom to marry from Grand Isle, testified graphically about sexual acts.

Is anyone else thinking that Vermont’s best bet is to start an internet pornography business?

It’s been an interesting week, with a fairly major power play on the part of the Douglas administration.

Here’s what we know: the administration worked very hard to convince a lot of state employees that their jobs were in jeopardy unless they were willing to take a pay cut.  There were announcements about position cuts, about layoffs, etc.  And there are state employees who are under the impression that their jobs are actually slated for cuts in a few months.

Here’s the thing: the Douglas administration doesn’t have the ability to make all the cuts it’s proposing without assistance from the legislature.  And where is the legislature right now?

It’s out of session.

In the meantime, what does Douglas present as an alternative to the cuts?

Having the union volunteer for pay cuts.

It’s fairly obvious that this is an active attempt to disrupt the connection between the union and the state employees.  It’s not even a subtle one.

In the meantime, he has the actual gall to blame the legislature for putting some time into civil rights, calling it a “distraction.”

And what is the Douglas administration addressing right now?

The quarter.  Specifically what the quarter looks like.

But clearly, that’s not a “distraction.”  

I’m beginning to get the idea of how this works:

“Focusing on the economy” = “doing whatever Douglas wants”

“A distraction” = “doing anything else.”

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

Douglas said several of the bills lawmakers have outlined as their top priorities are unnecessary distractions from work on economic development and balancing the state budget. Among those bills are a gay marriage measure and a bill that would restrict drivers from having pets on their laps, according to the governor.

[…]

He also questioned the worth of some of the other priorities set out by lawmakers. Same-day voter registration and a bill requiring that the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant put more money into a decommissioning fund are not as important as economic development and budgetary issues, he said.

So let me get this right?  With a staff the size of the Governor’s, he apparently can not focus on more than one piece of legislation at a time?  Or maybe it’s just that discussion of same sex marriage is somehow debilitating:

“I’d love to discuss the economy but whenever people talk about same-sex marriage, I’m temporarily blinded!”  I can, actually, sympathize with that, because I have the same problem whenever someone mentions K-Fed.

What’s more, putting a little time into same-sex marriage is focusing on the economy:

A few hours after Douglas critiqued the lawmakers for their priorities, supporters of the gay marriage bill released the results of a study about the potential economic benefit of the measure.

“Thousands of couples traveled to Vermont when civil unions became available in 2000,” one of the researchers, M. V. Lee Badgett, said in a statement. “Marriage will attract even more couples, as recent experiences in California demonstrate, and Vermont is a likely tourist destination for many of those couples.”

Maybe we need to show Jim that gay people could be a good donor base.  How fast do you think his opposition would end then?

I just received a copy of this e-mail.  I’ve blocked out the FROM and CC fields because I’m not sure how public this is supposed to be (even though I’m not sure how you can send something to the entire AHS staff without expecting it to be public)

 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:25 AM 
To: AHS - DOC - All DOC Staff 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: 600 Position Reductions

As Secretary Hofmann mentioned in his email (which
I have added below), at  some point today, the 
Administration will release the specific 
information about the positions that will be 
proposed for elimination across State Government in 
order to achieve $17,000,000 in labor cost savings 
for State Fiscal Year 2010. Secretary Hofmann's 
email contains the details on why this is 
necessary, so I will not repeat that information 
here.

Therefore, the DOC proposes the Northeast Regional 
Correctional Facility in St Johnsbury because of 
it‚s proximity to another male prison facility 
(less than 50 miles), it's co-location with an 
existing work camp and because it is the right size 
to address the issue at hand.  While the closing of 
this facility is not desirable, it is necessary to 
address the budget deficit and would mean the 
elimination of almost all of the positions at the 
NERCF site. These positions are in addition to the 
previous 9 that we announced late last week which 
were required to meet our SFY 2010 budget.

I appreciate the difficulty of these reductions and 
sincerely hope that they will ultimately be 
unnecessary. While more conversations between the 

VSEA, the Administration and the Legislature will 
unfold, I want to make sure that you have as much 
information as possible in a timely manner.

As more information becomes available, we will pass 
that along to staff.

That was the preamble to an e-mail from Secretary Hoffman.  I will include his e-mail after the fold.

To All AHS Staff:

While I have asked each Commissioner to be in 
contact with their whole department, I thought it 
was important that all AHS employees hear about 
difficult news that is coming out today directly 
from me.

As you probably know, the State of Vermont is 
facing a budget gap of well over $200 Million for 
the fiscal year (FY 2010) that starts in just over 
3 months.  This only represents the General Fund 
shortfall and this gap is more likely to grow than 
shrink.  The Governor has proposed a budget that 
counts on a huge Federal Stimulus infusion to 
bridge much of the shortfall, but also asks a wide 
variety of non-profit partners, contract and grant 
recipients, medical providers, beneficiaries and 
other Vermonters to share in the cost reductions.  
A reduction in State personnel costs will also be 
necessary.  Several key legislators agree with the 
Administration proposal that $17 million (or about 
8% of the solution) should come from reduced state 
personnel costs.  Given that the union proposal 
does not yet yield the necessary savings and the 
new fiscal year is only a few months away, we are 
at a point where we need to advise the employees in 
positions slated for elimination.

The financial target for the Agency of Human 
Services was $6.8 million (estimated at 285 
positions).  Commissioners, HR/Finance staff and I 
have spent an enormous amount of time wrestling 
with the difficult options to reduce personnel 
costs in our agency of 3500 employees.  Having 
taken some positions off the list, we have 
identified $4.5 million in annual savings through 
the elimination of 195 positions.  While some of 
these positions are vacant, most are not.  We will 
be informing the individuals or work groups 
impacted as soon as possible today.  I expect the 
list of positions to be public by day's end.  I 
will subsequently be reviewing with Commissioners, 
options to reduce the remaining portion of the 
agency target.

For those of you directly affected by these 
changes, I understand that it is extremely 
difficult to receive notice that, through no fault 
of your own, your position is being eliminated in a 
restructuring.  I, and thousands of other 
Vermonters, can personally attest to that.  So far 
AHS has a tremendous track record of helping 
employees land another job within the agency and 
will do our utmost to continue to do so.  This 
naturally becomes more difficult as the number of 
state positions is reduced and the economy causes 
people to stay in (or seek) state positions which 
are relatively more secure than the external 
employment market.  The national recession has 
thrown the continued existence of many previously 
vibrant employers (e.g. auto manufacturers, 
newspapers, airlines, banks, non-profits) into 
grave doubt.  While I can not allay the anxiety 
that you feel, on the whole these reductions are 
less than those that have occurred at many 
businesses.  These reductions are very difficult, 
but the work of State government remains critical 
and will continue into the future, something many 
outside employees can not say with certainty.  I 
understand that this may not be any consolation to 
anyone who loses a job, it may be reassuring to the 
95% of staff not directly impacted.

The Administration has made a counter proposal to 
VSEA yesterday which will become public today.  
Because of this, I remain hopeful that the number 
of eliminated positions can be held steady or 
reduced based on the discussions among the key 
stakeholders.

In the meantime, I encourage staff to support each 
other at this turbulent time and endeavor to remain 
focused on our important work.  Thank you.

Rob Hofmann 

My favorite line is the imaginary group consisting of  “the 95% of staff not directly impacted.”  

We’re all impacted by this.  

An addendum to yesterday’s piece on same sex marriage: in today’s Rutland Herald, they report that Jim Douglas doesn’t support it:

“I don’t support it. I really believe the civil union law we have now is sufficient,” Douglas said during a meeting of the editorial board Tuesday at the Times-Argus office. “I don’t see the need to have … a divisive debate about this topic.”

Here’s my thought: let’s not have a divisive debate.  Let’s not gay-bait, and let’s repudiate anyone who does.  Let’s not pretend that civil unions are equal to same-sex marriage.  Let’s not, for example, use same sex marriage as a bogeyman in your fundraising letters.  

Let’s not be “divisive” about this.  Let’s just pass it and get it over with.  It’s easy.

‘Cause, really, what’s more “divisive” here?  Passing the legislation or vetoing it so that we have to have this battle over and over again?

From m-w.com:

id-i-ot…  Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person…

A large group of professional organizations have come out in support of same-sex marriage:

Same-sex marriage rights got an endorsement Monday from four Vermont professional organizations who cited research findings that “children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”

[…]

Their statement, which comes as the Vermont legislature prepares to consider same-sex marriage legislation, was released at a news conference called by the Vermont Psychological Association, the Vermont Psychiatric Association, the Vermont Association of Mental Health Counselors and the Vermont chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

This, however, is not good enough for everybody:

Steve Cable is the founder of the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, a group opposed to gay marriage. The lack of any landmark study tracking the outcomes of children raised in same-sex households, Cable said, makes it impossible to determine how they fare. The groups’ endorsement of gay marriage, he said, uses inconclusive science to justify a political agenda.

First, I find it really funny to see Cable talking about science, as though he gives a damn what science actually says.  Ditto for the use of it as a political agenda.

Cable said large-scale studies have proven one fact – that children raised by a married mother and father achieve measurably better outcomes than children reared in nonconventional families.

So let’s talk about the actual science here.  Studies have shown that children raised by married parents do better than children raised by divorced parents, and that children raised by married parents do better than children raised by single parents.

A sidenote here: this does not mean that divorce is the problem.  It could be that being raised by parents who are not a good fit for one another isn’t the best thing for kids.  The divorce itself may just be a byproduct.  We also know that children do better when both parents present a consistent message, and though some divorced couples are great about this, there are probably more divorced couples who present an inconsistent message than married couples, if for no other reason than simplicity of contact.

Now, as far as the science goes, Cable is doing something a bit slimy here.  He is pretending that same-sex marriage is the functional equivalent of divorce:

Jackie Winestock, associate professor of human and family development at UVM, is quoted in the same article:

However, Weinstock said it’s inappropriate to assume that children raised by gay couples will mirror the statistical outcomes of those raised by single parents or divorced parents.

She pointed to a 2004 policy statement by the American Psychological Association, which concluded that “conscientious and nurturing adults … homosexual or heterosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits and protections of civil marriage,” according to the statement, “can further strengthen these families.”

An American Academy of Pediatrics study, meanwhile, concluded there is “ample evidence” to show that “children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents.”

Cable is not an idiot.  He knows how to manipulate things to pretend they suit his agenda.  

What Cable is doing here is appealing to a cadre of useful idiots: trying to pretend that science supports him, giving them cover for their bigotry.  

Facts are on our side here, and he’s going to lose, eventually, but the real question is whether it will be in months, years, or decades.

Vermont was on the right side of history when this first came up, before anyone else in the union was.  Now is not the time to end up on the wrong side.