I love this story. It's been around, but I happened to catch it on NPR last night.

It seems that national Republicans are worried that they're losing their appeal to younger voters. As the head of the national collegiate Republicans said on the air yesterday, if the voting age had been thirty, Romney would be president today.

So they did a study to find out what their problem is with young voters, and they came up with an answer that should make regular readers of Green Mountain Daily very, very happy.

 And on the whole, young Republican voters seem to agree the party needs to change its image.

Yes, that's right.  The way they understand the problem, the Republican Party has an image problem. As NPR reporter Audie Cornish points out, “in focus group surveys, young, winnable Obama voters, they used the words like close-minded, racist, rigid and old fashioned when you did word association with Republican Party.”

 And the problem is what? That's right, image. Nothing to do with the positions of the Republican Party, and everything to do with messaging.

Of course, the problem is way more than image. It's not a matter of whether they should talk about “big government” when they are attacking programs that help people, it's really a matter of attacking the programs that help people. For instance, their platform calls for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and they've voted to repeal it thirty-seven times. Meanwhile, millions of young adults have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, and millions are able to get contraception because of that same act.

 But you know what? That's fine with me, and it should be fine with you, too. Because as long as they keep lying to themselves about why the can't get any traction with young voters they're still going to be unable to get traction with young voters, and that's good for all of us.

Today millions of Americans will pause from their barbecues and family gatherings to remember the American heroes who fought and died in the service of their country. This is altogether fitting, for even when the cause has not been just, they served, and risked all, on our behalf.

By coincidence, today is also the ninetieth birthday of a man who least deserves another day, not to speak of another year, of life. Unlike our fallen heroes, the life of Henry Kissinger is marked not by sacrifice but by self-aggrandizement, not by devotion to our founding ideals, but by their utter rejection.

Whether we speak of his direction of unrestrained bombing of civilian populations in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, his engineering of Pinochet's coup d'etat against the democratically elected president of Chile, of which he observed,  “I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves,” or his support for Indonesia's genocidal invasion of East Timor, we are speaking of a man who has become wealthy and gained the regard of political elites, all the while escaping any accounting for his crimes.

Today, remember our fallen heroes, but also spare a moment for the victims of America's oldest and most vicious war criminal, Henry Kissinger.

UPDATE: The Brattleboro Reformer now has the story.

http://www.reformer.com/ci_233…

 There are more problems for the Brattleboro Retreat and for the Department of Mental Health's increasing reliance on the Retreat as a location for involuntary mental health treatment.

Late Friday afternoon the weekly update circulated by the Department included the following statement:

 This week, the Brattleboro Retreat received its report from the Centers  for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS).  CMS provides deemed status to entities which meet Medicare health and safety conditions.  Surveys of deemed status are conducted when the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that there is a need based on substantial allegations of deficiencies which would adversely affect the health and safety of patients.  Once surveyed, if a psychiatric hospital is found to have deficiencies with respect to compliance with one or more Conditions of Participation, deemed status must be removed. 

 On February 21, 2013, a substantial allegation survey was conducted and the Retreat followed up by submitting a plan of correction, which was accepted. 

 On April 18, 2013, CMS conducted a full Medicare survey of the psychiatric hospital and determined that Conditions of Participation were not met in two areas:

·         Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws

·         Patient’s Rights

This survey has resulted in the determination by CMS to terminate the Medicare provider agreement between Brattleboro Retreat and the Secretary effective August 15, 2013.  However, the Retreat now has the opportunity to avert this termination through submission of another Plan of Correction within 10 calendar days.  A revisit survey will then be scheduled by the Division of Licensing and Protection to determine whether compliance has been achieved.

 

Asked for comment, the Retreat provided the following statement:

CMS Press Statement May 2013   “ Following an on-site survey in April by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Brattleboro Retreat received a letter on Monday, May 20, citing deficiencies. In the coming days, the Retreat will submit to CMS a Plan of Correction, and CMS will return for a follow-up survey to determine the effectiveness of our Plan,” said Peter Albert, senior vice president of Government Affairs. “Our recent growth as a hospital, and in particular our contract with the State to care for patients on a newly renovated 14 bed unit who would in the past have gone to the now closed Vermont State Hospital has been accompanied by a process of continuous learning, problem solving, and innovation. In reviewing the data from the survey we recognize that the majority of the issues identified are related to this new state hospital unit, we have been and will continue to work on making the necessary improvements. As a result we are confident that all cited deficiencies will be corrected, and the improvements we make as part of this process will help us continue our focus on excellence in our clinical practice at all levels of the organization, and assure our patients, and their families, that we are providing exceptional and compassionate care.”

 

As I say, this is a big problem for the state for a couple of reasons.

First, when Waterbury closed the state moved a lot of patients to the Retreat, and it has continued to be one of the main locations for involuntary commitments and the only hospital accepting criminal defendants for forensic evaluations.  

Second, this is not even the first time this year that the Retreat has been found deficient in meeting federal standards, and at least the third time since 2012.

Last, and possibly most important, the Retreat has been justifiably criticized by state officials and legislators for being, shall we say, extremely slow in letting the information about their disciplinary problems make its way to the public. The latest decision from CMS, the federal agency responsible for the Medicare program, was received by the Retreat on Monday, May 20. We don't know when the state got notice, but it was not released to the public, or at least to the limited e-mail list for the Department's weekly e-mail advisories, until Friday, May 25, at 5:31 p.m.  

Last year and earlier this year the Retreat came under heavy fire from legislators for slow-walking bad news like this. I don't know if the Retreat sat on this, but it is reasonable to think that if either the Retreat or the Department had released this information earlier to the members of the Mental Health Oversight Committee the news would have become public much earlier than after deadline on the Friday of a holiday weekend.  

Granted, the Retreat has time to submit a plan of correction, so it's possible that the won't actually lose Medicare funding.  On the other hand, when they are repeatedly cited for violations, including patients' rights violations, is this the kind of place we should be locking up our most vulnerable people?

We have not received the CMS statement yet, but we’ll keep the readers posted when we do.

Great news, everybody!

 As of today, there is officially no real crime in Montpelier.

That's right, and that's according to the Montpelier police. According to the Burlington Free Press:

Police in Vermont's capital city say a 23-year-old woman is facing a prostitution charge after she allegedly propositioned an undercover officer.

Montpelier police say [the woman] was arrested early Tuesday after she and the officer agreed on a price for the sex act.

I live in Montpelier, and all I can say is THANK GOD that the streets are now safe for me to walk. What's even better, though, is that there is apparently nothing more serious or dangerous happening in the Capital City

Let's follow up on a theme we looked into a couple of months ago, only we'll shift from basketball to tennis.

Yes, tennis, the sport of white shorts, hushed crowds, and impeccable sportsmanship.

Wait, did I say sportsmanship? Well, I admit that that was a very long time ago, and before John McEnroe established his apparent lifetime lock on the title Biggest Asshole in Tennis, he had an important predecessor: Jimmy Connors.

Last week's release of Connors's autobiography should put to rest any question of whether his abominable behavior on the court was the result of an excess of competitiveness, a desire to put on a show for the fans, or just another example of a depraved character.

In the early 1970's the tennis world was dominated by two young Americans, Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert, who were not only linked in the public eye on the court, but were also together romantically off the court. It didn't last, but it was not until the memoir that we learn the details. Suffice it to say, the details do not look good for Connors.

As reported by The Atlantic, here's what he says about Evert:

“But now, 35 years later, Connors is releasing a biography this week titled The Outsider, in which he strongly hints that during their whirlwind affair in 1974, Evert got pregnant and had an abortion. He says that she did so without allowing him to be part of the decision-making, though he states that he ‘was perfectly happy to let nature take its course and accept responsibility for what was to come.’ He bitterly writes to Evert in the book, ‘Well, thanks for letting me know. Since I don't have a say in the matter, I guess I am just here to help.’”

What is there to say about this? That Chris Evert's decision was hers to make, not his. That the fact, and the decision to make it public, was hers and not his. Most of all, though, that his choice to make this public, and his attitude, that the choice was all about him, tells us all we need to know about his egocentric, entitled world view.

In the Biggest Asshole in Tennis competition, that is game, set, and match for Mr. Connors.

Here's a shock for you. Just a few weeks after taking their big stand against gun control on the principle of preserving our sacred constitutional rights, a growing list of Republican senators are lying about what they voted for and against.

Specifically, as Talking Points Memo is reporting, more and more Republicans who filibustered the new gun control proposal are trying to peddle the bogus claim that they were actually in favor of an improved background check system. Republicans who are taking this approach are Rob Portman, Jeff Flake from Arizona, and Kelly Ayotte, from across the river in New Hampshire.

 In fact, Ayotte (and nearly every Republican senator) voted to block the Manchin-Toomey legislation to expand background checks. Instead she voted for a substitute Republican measure to include more mental health reporting in the FBI criminal background check system and permit recovered mentally ill people to buy a gun.

As you may have noticed, the anti gun control, anti background check position has proven to be unpopular among voters, with Ayotte in particular getting heavy criticism during home visits. 

If they were so sure they were right, and standing on principle, wouldn't you think they wouldn't have to lie about their positions? 

I came across this in my in box from the Peace and Justice Center yesterday. I was in contace with Ed briefly in the early 1980's when he was one of the Winooski 44 and I was a member of the defense team. Even in a large group of defendants he stood out as a thoughtful and positive activist. His death is a loss for progressive and peace loving people.

 Ed Everts 1919-2013

13 May 2013, 3:36 pm

Ed Everts, lifelong peace and justice activist, died this past Friday, May 10, 2013, a month short of his 94th birthday.

In September 2007, Serena Chaudhry, then PJC Executive Director, wrote this about Ed:

“Ed Everts fell into a lifetime of leadership and activism. In 1940, Ed Everts joined the military. In 1945, Ed fell from the sky when his plane was hit. His near death experience ultimately pushed him out of the military and inspired Ed’s belief that war is not the solution. This epiphany launched Ed into a life of social justice activism. In a California meat packing company he organized union workers and negotiated the complexities of racial justice and equity. Circumstances eventually brought Ed Everts to Vermont where he continued to agitate through becoming a member and avid supporter of the Peace & Justice Center and the Green Mountain Veterans for Peace as well as filming and producing 15 years of public access T.V. shows.

It is refreshing to see activism recognized and rewarded. Ed Everts was acknowledged in 1997 when he was honored as runner up for United Way’s Hometown Hero Award. It is nothing less than inspiring when celebrated leadership perseveres. Ed Everts persevered. He donated his U.S. Air Force pension to the Peace & Justice Center every month for 23 years. Swords into Plowshares!”

Ed was very generous to the Peace & Justice Center for many years and in many ways: with is heart and soul, his money and time, his songs and laughter, and wit and wisdom. He served on the board, many committees, and proofread the newsletter for countless years. The PJC would not have lasted as long or been the same organization without Ed Everts’ participation. Thank you, Ed.

This Link will take you to an interview with Ed that was printed in the Peace and Justice News in 1997.

His memorial service is June 29, Saturday afternoon at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Burlington.

You've probably noticed that we've been covering the bill on providing unemployment insurance coverage to people who deliver newspapers for a living. 

The issue is whether the people who work for the newspapers, getting the paper to your door, should be considered employees, which would make them eligible for unemployment coverage, or independent contractors, which would kick them out of the system. It's important to me, not because I'll ever have a job delivering newspapers, but because I think we need to stand up to the decades-long trend to reduce unemployment coverage and benefits, especially for low-wage workers.

As I posted earlier, two things are clear: first, newspaper drivers are employees, not independent contractors. They don't come close to the standard to be met to establish the independent contractor relationship. Second, the law has been clear since 2006 that newspaper carriers are not considered independent contractors, but when the law was passed the Douglas administration adopted a secret policy to continue to apply the exclusion to these workers, so until union advocates unearthed this secret policy earlier this year the workers were barred from the unemployment system.

 Two weeks ago we reported that the Senate had voted to screw the workers out of their unemployment protection, which meant that the bill went back to the House. (Note that the Senate rejected a substitute amendment from Mark MacDonald to protect the newspapers without screwing the workers, but that wasn't something the Republicans or the Democratic majority wanted to do.) 

I'm pleased to report that in one of the last acts of the legislative session, both the House and the Senate adopted the conference committee report that preserved the argument by kicking the issue to a summer study committee. I've heard that Vince Illuzzi was fond of saying “summer studies are for losers”, but in this case, given that the senate conference committee had two of the anti-worker members among their three appointees, I think the House conferees did well to hold the line and prevent the legislature from kicking the carriers off the program altogether.

 Thanks and congratulations to House conferees Bill Botzow, Mike Marcotte, and Warren Kitzmiller for standing up to pressure on this important bill.

On a roll call vote the House just voted to concur with the Senate proposal of amendment on H. 77, the Death with Dignity bill.

 The vote was 75-65, and was definitely not on a party line vote.

Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but I strongly agree with the advisability and necessity of this legislation. 

We don't talk too much about sports law here, but here's an interesting story. It turns out that a young lawyer who practices in Barre, Andrew Delaney, is the intellectual inspiration behind a move in Congress that we can all support: a change in the law that would strip the NFL and other major sports leagues of their nonprofit status.

Yes, you read that right: the National Football League, that pays its commissioner $11.6 million a year and has revenues of $10 billion a year, is a nonprofit.

As reported in the Newark Star-Ledger, the proposal, the first socially useful bill or amendment ever sponsored by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, would be called the  Property Reducing Overexceptions for Sports Act (PRO Sports Act).

The bill was inspired by a law review article that Delaney, who has been practicing law in Vermont since 2010, wrote for a brand-new law journal on sports and entertainment law.  I haven't met him personally, although I know the firm, Martin & Associates, for many years. Still, if his new legislative idea goes anywhere he will have made quite an impression for a new lawyer.

One can only wonder if the new law, if passed, will apply to the equally overstuffed but infinitely more corrupt sports cartel, the NCAA.