Submitted for your approval:

1. Vermont’s jobless rate rises for the fourth straight month. What’s worse, the number of employed Vermonters continued to drop: our employed workforce has dwindled by 4,400 since January 2012.

2. Break out the tiny violins, folks: Walmart’s sales are dropping and its 2013 outlook is dim, because its customer base — the working poor and middle class — can’t afford to buy their shit.

3. And as if on cue, here comes El Jefe General John McLaughry to tell us the real problem with our economy: the overly generous “cornucopia” (his word) of welfare benefits keeps Vermonters dependent on the public dole.

Taken together, this is what we get after three-plus decades of outsourcing, downsizing, rightsizing, productivity gains, union-busting, and a ruthless devotion to the immediate bottom line among corporate executives and Wall Street wise guys.

(This is why I have so much contempt for Bruce Lisman, who spent his entire career immersed in the Wall Street mindset — you know, the one that cratered the economy in 2008? — and who clearly buys into it whole-hog, and dares to wander around Vermont claiming to have all the answers.)

This is what you deserve, Walmart, for your years of cannibalizing local businesses, driving down wages, hardballing unions, and forcing your suppliers to cut and cut and keep on cutting. Really, you couldn’t see this coming? Look at this graphic, which shows the “middle class” as high as the 60th percentile not very far from poverty, and tell me you don’t understand why consumer purchasing power is “surprisingly” weak:

After the jump: discouraged Vermonters, Walmart schadenfreude, and a particularly noxious McLaughry ragespew.  

Vermont’s unemployment figure is actually a bit of a mixed bag. The initial rate showed a slight decline in July; but when the usual seasonal adjustments are applied, that drop turns into a slight increase. Either way, not statistically significant. And, as Labor Commissioner Annie Noonan pointed out, the number of people filing claims for unemployment insurance “continues to decline.”

The key word there is “filing.” That leaves out the unemployed who’ve stopped looking for jobs. Which brings us to the more disturbing figure, as reported by Paul Cillo of the Public Assets Institute:

According to the monthly household survey, 335,689 people said they were employed-a drop of about 500 from June and almost 4,400 since January 2012, the most recent peak.

Hey, boys and girls, can you say “jobless recovery”?

4400 fewer workers in a state the size of Vermont? I find that deeply troubling.

And, of course, it’s 4400 fewer Vermonters who can afford those luxurious trips to Walmart.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s biggest retailer, said the weak global economy continues to batter its low-income shoppers.

… “The retail environment remains challenging in the U.S. and our international markets, as customers are cautious in their spending,” [Walmart CFO Charles] Holley said in a statement, noting a “reluctance” among customers to spend on things items like flat-screen TVs.

Aww, jinkies. You lowball your workers on pay and bennies, and those miserable ingrates are “reluctant” to splurge on high-ticket electronics? Color me shocked.

Other tidbits from Walmart: “sporting goods and entertainment products like toys saw declines”… clothing sales were solid as “the discounter refocused its offering on basics like socks and no-frills jeans” … grocery sales were hurt by shoppers “trad[ing] down to cheaper products to save money.”

Go back and look at that wealth-distribution chart, and you’ll know exactly why consumers are “trad[ing] down to cheaper products” and “reluctant” to buy your shiny new TV sets.

The maldistribution of wealth isn’t “merely” a problem of social justice; it’s a huge impediment to our economy. Businesspeople ought to realize this — and economists certainly ought to. As long as more than half of Americans are barely scraping by, and have little or no financial security, our economy will be hamstrung. For their own sake, businesses need to pay their employees a living wage — and provide a sense of longer-term security so people can commit to car loans and mortgages and the like.

Oh, but John McLaughry would disagree. Citing the Cato Institute, a free-market megaphone “think tank,” he notes that Vermont’s total welfare benefit package ranks eighth in the country. Leaving aside the credibility of Cato’s ideology-driven “research”, let’s focus on El Jefe’s argument:

According to Cato, an out-of-work Vermonter can draw benefits worth $37,705, including everything — welfare, food stamps, housing aid, health care, LIHEAP, etc. (Presuming that a single Vermonter could actually qualify for top aid in all categories. But again, for argument’s sake, let’s let Cato be Cato.) Which means, its report says, that a recipient transitioning to the workforce would need to earn more than $42,000 just to equal the value of his/her “cornucopia.”

(Not that $37,000 a year is anybody’s idea of a cornucopia. Wonder how much El Jefe draws from the Ethan Allen Institute, a nonprofit whose sole raison d’être seems to be distributing the thoughts of John McLaughry and Rob Roper to a grateful populace. Yeah, we taxpayers indirectly foot that bill, since high-rolling conservatives can take a tax deduction for donating to EAI. Same thing for Cato. We’re paying for this swill.)

El Jefe then quotes the Cato conclusion:

…it is undeniable that for many recipients – especially long-term dependents – welfare pays more than the type of entry level job that a typical welfare recipient can expect to find. As long as this is true, many recipients are likely to choose welfare over work.

So, I guess, the problem isn’t the mass proliferation of shit jobs that don’t pay a living wage; it’s the “generosity” of our social safety net that allows  the unemployed to — and I quote — “enjoy a life unburdened by gainful employment.”

Oh snap! Well, I guess John McLaughry would know all about being “unburdened by gainful employment,” having been amply remunerated by EAI for doing nothing more than sharing his opinions.

McLaughry’s prescription, in case I haven’t telegraphed it already, doesn’t involve improving wages and working conditions; he wants to slash away at that welfare “cornucopia” so that working — even working two or three low-paying, part-time jobs with irregular shifts* — is preferable to enjoying that “life unburdened.”

*Many of which require their employees to be available at all hours with very little notice. That gives employers a lot of flexibility, but workers find it almost impossible to work more than one job, find child care, and commit to education or retraining.

Because, as he puts it, when people start working, they can “hopefully climb up the income ladder” to financial independence and prosperity.

Problem is, America isn ‘t a financial ladder anymore. As that chart clearly shows, it’s a long slow slog through the swamplands of low pay followed — at best — by a grueling rock-climb up an almost sheer cliff. And if you lose your grip, well, best get climbin’ again. We don’t want you “enjoy[ing] a life unburdened,” after all.

Oh, and even if you don’t have any money, please keep buying shit. If you do, maybe the economy will grow enough that you can get another crappy job.  If you don’t, well hey, “weak consumer confidence” is holding us back.

That, and our overly “generous” welfare programs.  

I was out of town most of last week, so I hope you’ll pardon a piece or two of catch-up business. Still relevant, I think.

The Progressive Party’s recent state meeting caused a brief flurry of punditic ejaculation on one aspect of Our Little Engine That Could (Maybe)’s future: should they run a candidate for Governor in 2014?

They sat it out in 2012, in support of Governor Shumlin’s stands on Vermont Yankee and single-payer health care. But dissatisfaction grew this year, due to Shumlin’s proposed cuts in programs for the working poor and his obstinate rejection of any kind of tax increase (except, of course for the ones he supported). Plus some disturbing signs that his commitment to single-payer might not be as rock-solid as we thought. Either way, Shumlin is likely to cruise to re-election should he (cough, choke) decide to seek a third term.

So, what’s a Progressive to do?

Here’s one view from a liberal freelance who doesn’t like Shumlin’s centrist and hippie-kicking tendencies.

(And who, in the interest of full disclosure, occasionally finds the Progs too twee and self-absorbed for his taste, but who appreciates their existence and wishes them well.)  

The Progs have been in rebuild mode since hitting (what appears to be) an electoral glass ceiling in 2008, when Anthony Pollina narrowly beat out a very weak (sorry, Gaye) Democratic candidate, but still finished way behind Jim Douglas. The party turned its attention toward the grass roots, concentrating on legislative races. Which was the best thing to do. And it still is. And it’s a solid argument for staying the course, sitting out the 2014 gubernatorial elec Shumlin coronation, and aiming toward a full statewide ticket when the party is strong enough to have a significant impact.

On the other hand, the arguments for running a Prog in 2014 are (1) to keep Shumlin honest and remind him not to take the Progs for granted, and (2) to have a Prog voice in the campaign, and particularly in the debates. Both good arguments.

But is it worth diverting resources and, possibly, sacrificing a candidate who might be truly viable in two or four more years?

I’d say no.

After the jump: my reasoning, and the promised punditry FAIL.

If I were King of the Progs, the only way I’d run a sacrificial lam candidate for Governor is if I could find someone who (1) has a decent public profile already, to lend a veneer of credibility to a very longshot candidacy, and (2) is willing to run as a low-budget figurehead.

(Unless, of course, Bernie Sanders decides to open up his bank vault and actually, y’know, tangibly help the party whose colors he used to fly. Bwahahaha.)

But the Progs with a high enough profile (Anthony Pollina, Tim Ashe, David Zuckerman, Chris Pearson) already hold elective office and would be better served by staying there. As would the party.

So again, I’d say no, no Prog on the 2014 ticket.

2016 maybe; by then, Shumlin will have a longer track record to support or oppose — most importantly, by then it ought to be clear whether we’re still on track for single-payer or not. By then, the Progs ought to be a stronger party with higher-profile leaders. Also, 2016 carries a low risk of a Prog splitting the vote and tipping the race to the Republican because (1) it’ll be a Presidential year with a strong liberal turnout, and (2) the VTGOP is likely to remain a basket case.

And now, I note a punditic personal foul committed by our friend, Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz.

In recent days, he has twice addressed the Progs’ Predicament. Before the statewide meeting, he posted a piece entitled “Should A Prog Run for Gov? Nope.” In it, he laid out the reasoning against a Prog run in 2014.  

And then, a couple weeks later, he listed the Progs as Losers in his weekly roundup of winners et al:

…The Vermont Progressive Party seemed no closer to pulling the trigger at a state committee meeting last weekend, according to Seven Days’ Kevin J. Kelley. If they can’t or won’t run in a year when the Democratic governor’s taken a sharp right-ward turn on fiscal issues and the Vermont Republican Party has nearly imploded, what good are they?

Oooookay, let’s recap. On one hand, the Progs are ill-positioned and lacking an obvious candidate for 2014. On the other, if they don’t run in 2014, they’re useless cowards.

In the words of Walnuts McCain, “That’s not punditry you can believe in.”

Hearty congratulations to “Angry Jack” Lindley, chair of the VTGOP, for rising — however briefly — out of the fog of political irrelevance that is his usual lot in life, and actually… wait for it…

… making NEWS.

That’s right, ol’ A.J. (pictured at right in his day job, as proprietor of “Angry Jack’s Shell Emporium,” one of the finest retail establishments in all of Bikini Bottom) managed to catch the attention of our state’s political press with one of his overheated, knee-jerk press releases. This one, snarking all over Two-Fisted™ Bill Sorrell’s Appeals Court defeat in the state’s effort to close down Vermont Yankee.

A press release that only took him, as Dave Gram reports, two days to come up with. Must be busy season at the Shell Emporium, eh, Jack?  

After the jump: Republican Hypocrisy! And, a disavowal of Randy Brock.

Anyway, Lindley argued that the fight against VY has been “ill-advised, inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective*.The state of Vermont has nothing to show for it now, except wasted resources.”

*Which, as Gram points out, puts Jack Lindley somewhere to the right of his own gubernatorial nominee, Randy Brock. In 2010, then-Senator Brock was part of a 26-4 majority voting against a measure that would have authorized an extension of Yankee’s operating license — putting the state squarely in Entergy’s path. Lindley now says Brock’s vote was “ill-advised.” SO, I must conclude, the VTGOP has moved to Brock’s right on the Vermont Yankee issue?

But Angry Jack is right that Vermont faced long odds in its effort to block relicensure, and in seeking to close VY it risked losing an expensive legal fight. And you could certainly question the stewardship of public resources.

However, I would just like to point out that every Republican-controlled state in the country feels absolutely no compunction about passing legislation that’s likely to be overturned in court. To name two examples that have occurred dozens of times across the country, Republican legislatures have passed (and Republican Governors have signed) restrictions on reproductive and voting rights that are very unlikely to survive a court challenge. And when one of their laws is overturned in court, they keep on coming back with slightly rejiggered laws that are, again, subject to court review. Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  

And they don’t seem to give a good goddamn about all the taxpayer money they’re spending on lawyers.

So Jack, to the extent that you have a point in your attack against Sorrell, Shumlin, et al., I do hope that you press the same argument against all your ill-advised, inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective Republican colleagues who are far more guilty of wasting resources than Vermont’s Democratic leaders.

Sorry, Jack, I can’t hear you. Did you say something?  

A couple of interesting tidbits in the aftermath of the Lac-Megantic disaster, courtesy of the Montreal Gazette:

1. Railways are fleeing responsibility as fast as they can.

2. The chemical composition of the oil may have made the disaster much worse.

For those just joining us, Lac Megantic, Quebec was devastated on July 6 when an unattended train carrying 72 cars of crude oil rolled into the town and exploded. The oil came from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota; CP Rail had contracted to move the oil to New Brunswick, and had subcontracted the last portion of the transport to the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway. The train was being run by MM&A when it exploded.

Now, the two points (and their implications) in more depth.  

1. Corporate cravenness. After being ordered to pay $7.8 million toward cleanup and recovery (an operation whose total cost is likely to top $200 million), MM&A ducked into the protection of bankruptcy court, from whence it is highly unlikely to re-emerge. Indeed, Canada has revoked MM&A’s license to operate (although a brief extension is possible, just to keep freight moving) because, for some odd reason, the railway is having trouble getting liability insurance! How about that.

Which brings us to CP Rail. The Canadian government says CP is also liable because it was “the entity responsible for ensuring the transport” of the oil to its final destination. CP’s response?

“As a matter of fact, and law, CP is not responsible for this clean up,” the rail giant said in response to Quebec’s decision to add the company’s name to a formal legal notice on Wednesday. “CP will be appealing.”

What does the government think of that?

“I will leave it up to lawyers, but let’s be clear: under the law on environmental quality, the minister does not ask for, or suggest, compensation … he orders it,” [Environment Minister Yves-Francois] Blanchet said in a statement. “It’s not optional.”

Heh.

2. The oil “reacted in an abnormal way.” Oil is flammable, obviously. But a tanker full of oil doesn’t necessarily explode. It’s kind of like a library: full of flammable material, but the material is so densely packed that it can’t burst into flames. Unless you tip over the shelves and rip up quite a few books, a library is surprisingly fire-resistant.

An oil tanker isn’t as safe as a library, natch, but the principle is the same.

In Lac-Megantic, though, the explosions came fast and furious — “in an abnormal way,” said an official of the Transportation Safety Board. Which prompted the Gazette to ask the obvious question: Why?

And the most likely answer: traces of natural gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, in the crude oil. H2S is an extremely volatile (not to mention deadly) substance; most of the Bakken crude is low in H2S, but some is not. In fact, the oil pipeline company Enbridge filed a complaint with the US government earlier this year, after receiving batches of crude with high concentrations of H2S. Levels high enough to cause instant death if you breathe the stuff.

Even so, it’s not especially dangerous if it’s vented properly, according to Paul Bommer, University of Texas professor of petroleum engineering. But when crude is transported in a rail car, vapors can build up at the top of the tank. This is one significant way in which train transport of crude oil is more dangerous than pipelines, which keep the oil moving and make gas buildups unlikely if not impossible.

“If you had an accident where you overturned a tank car and it ruptured, the first thing out of there potentially could be the little bit of vapour.

“And if there’s any heat source at all, that’s likely to explode, and if it explodes, the oil’s going right up with it.”

We don’t know yet if there were high levels of H2S in the Lac-Megantic crude; the Transportation Safety Board is testing oil from the same Bakken source to determine what, if any, other substances were in the crude. But H2S appears a likely culprit.

Due to the lack of pipelines, a whole lot of crude from the Bakken reserves and the Alberta tar sands is being transported by rail. This means good money for the railroads — and heavy pressure to deliver. The Gazette notes:

Data collected by the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration show railroads have been asking for approval to move a significant number of tank cars that may be overloaded, without enough room to allow for vapours expanding in transport.

Oh, yay.

Two things I think about this. In the immediate case, if CP Rail has made any similar requests of Canadian authorities, then I’d say CP is screwed.

And in the broader view, I think this is cause to question whether pipelines are really the worst things. Certainly, at the very least, this should make us consider the options and the real pluses and minuses of each. And I know, I know, for the sake of the planet what we really need to do is get off fossil fuel.

The best way to do that is to go as hard and fast as we can on renewable energy. Until renewables can beat fossil fuels in the marketplace, there will be strong pressure to move the oil, one way or another.

Honestly, I can’t say which is worse: trains or pipelines. And saying “neither” is unrealistic, at least until we wean ourselves off fossil fuels.  

No, not about its rancid Panhellenic system; I expect they’ll sweep the “Crips and Bloods” costume party embarrassment under the rug. But it has taken back its lovely job offer to Anglican Bishop James Tengatenga, now deemed inconvenient to serve as head of the College’s Tucker Foundation due to his record of anti-gay rhetoric. Seeing as how the Foundation is supposed to be all about “moral leadership,” y’know.

[Dartmouth President Philip] Hanlon, who met last week with Tengatenga on Dartmouth’s campus in Hanover, N.H.,said in a statement Wednesday that after much reflection and consultation with senior leaders at the college, he decided that Tengatenga’s past statements compromised his ability to lead the William J. Tucker Foundation.

“The foundation and Dartmouth’s commitment to inclusion are too important to be mired in discord over this appointment,” Hanlon said.

Yeah, you’d think if its “commitment to inclusion” was so important, somebody at Dartmouth might’ve Googled “Tengatenga” and “gay marriage” before offering the job, given the highly publicized intra-Anglican battles of recent years. Could have saved the College some trouble, for sure.

Could have also saved the Bishop from dead-ending his own career, apparently.

Tengatenga… had already resigned his diocesan post and expressed public support for gay marriage after receiving the Dartmouth post.

That belated public support wasn’t enough to keep his Big Green Sinecure, but it’s likely to cause him some problems among his former brethren in the Intolerant Wing of the Anglican Communion.

You could almost feel sorry for the guy. Not his fault, really, that Dartmouth College once again revealed the big fat blind spot in its moral sensibility. Indeed, if I were him, I’d be consulting an employment attorney.  

Ah, Dartmouth College. Fairest academic flower of Northern New England. Elite institution of knowledge. Training ground for our future leaders.

And, ahem, the place whose concept of “moral leadership” is embodied in a loudly anti-gay Episcopal  Anglican Bishop.

Well, the Big Green has done it again. Earlier this summer, the Alpha Delta fraternity hosted a costume party. The theme?

The Crips and the Bloods.

That’s right, the scions of Our Ruling Class gave themselves a chance to dress up in Afro wigs and gang colors, and maybe even break out the “ghetto talk,” f’shizzle.

(Well, somebody has to do it; the school’s student body is only 8% African-American, so if the white folks don’t Represent, who will?)

And lest you think Alpha Delta is some fringy little outlier, bear in mind that Dartmouth’s new President, Phil Hanlon, is himself a proud Alpha Deltan.

Well, maybe not so proud right now. He hasn’t said yet.

The party happened on July 26, but was just reported today by Dartblog (and picked up by the national gossip/news website Gawker). So maybe the Prez is still whipping up his official response, which I’m sure will be chock full of Regrets and High Moral Statements and Assurances That Dartmouth Is A Diverse, Welcoming Place.  

It’d be nice if he turned in his membership card, but I don’t expect that much from the head of an institution whose Greek houses chronically overstep the bounds of good taste (and perhaps even legality).

And they wonder why so few minority students try to join fraternities and sororities:

Many students who consider themselves members of minority communities join Panhell and IFC houses, but others choose to rush multicultural houses or opt out of the Greek system entirely. While the decision is stressful for most Dartmouth students, some said that the process can be even more difficult for students who identify with minority groups because of cultural differences or lack of representation.

“Cultural differences,” heh. A nice, polite way of saying “We don’t want your kind here.”

You’d think, though, that the Alpha Delts would be a little smarter about this sort of thing, considering  that two other frats were busted for the same offense back in 1998:  

At Dartmouth College, white students at a “ghetto party” dressed as gangsta rap artists, some sporting Afro wigs and carrying toy guns, prompted a protest…

James Wright, a history professor who became Dartmouth’s 16th president in September, said of the campus party: “I was disappointed that this event happened. But I was immensely proud of the way students and the community came together.”

There’s a nice weasel-word template for President Hanlon. His predecessor (once removed) responded to the same situation with a weak expression of “disappointment” followed by a brisk appellation of lipstick to this ugly pig of an incident.

So sure, let’s all come together. Let’s have meetings and earnest conversations and maybe even a White Paper. Let’s hear all about how the frats are Going To Do Better. Maybe even a little sensitivity training.

And then the Greeks can go back to doing what they do best, and the institution can go back to ignoring the rampant ignorance and hatred on its storied campus.  

Well, well. Our old friend, the Robster, has a solution — no, no, make that THE solution — to all our country’s health-care woes. It’s so simple you won’t believe it.

Well, it’s so simple I don’t believe it, and if you’ve got any brains you won’t either.

The distinguished President of the Ethan Allen Institute outlines the plan in a VTDigger op-ed. The idea, in short: Doctors provide a certain amount of pro bono health care for the poor, and in exchange, the government assumes their medical malpractice coverage.

That’s it.

No need for exchanges or single-payer. No need for the Robster’s alleged “government takeover of health care.” Heck, no need for Medicaid or Medicare, folks.

Of course, there are a few holes in the plan. Just off the top of my head:

— The poor would get basic service from volunteer doctors at free clinics. But how would the much, much greater cost of medical tests and hospitalizations be covered? Surgeries? Medical devices? Post-hospital rehab? Physical therapy?

— Unless you very broadly define “the poor,” a whole lot of people will be left out. Say, those stuck in low-paying or part-time jobs, or those working for the ever-growing number of employers who don’t offer health insurance (or who only offer crappy plans with sky-high deductibles).

— The plan would do nothing — NOTHING — to bend the health care cost curve, which is making insurance unaffordable for an ever-increasing number of Americans.

— If participation is voluntary (and it better be, coming from the head of the Ethan Allen Institute), what if too many doctors opt out? What if there’s a shortage of participating doctors in certain geographic areas or specialties?

— The plan presumes a Norman Rockwell health care system, with each doctor in solo practice. Today, virtually all doctors are in group practices or are employees of large organizations, institutions, and corporations. Those institutions pay the malpractice premiums. Do the institutions get to decide whether all their doctors participate? How do they negotiate hours of voluntary service?

— If you believe in market forces as an inducement to good behavior (an article of faith for conservatives, I’ve been told) then this plan would completely eliminate the moral hazard for malpractice. Oh, Rob, we don’t really want that, do we?

— And here’s a big fat contradiction. You don’t believe in centralized, single-payer health care — but you’re advocating centralized, single-payer malpractice coverage? Oh, Rob, how could you?

I could go on, but that’s quite enough, I think.

Where did the Robster pick up this juicy little idea?

From one Dr. Alieta Eck, a candidate for U.S. Senate in this year’s special election in New Jersey to fill the late Frank Lautenberg’s seat.

After the jump: Evidence of Dr. Eck’s nutbaggery.

The latest polls put Eck way, way behind the other Republican, Steve Lonegan. They also put Lonegan way, way behind  the top Democrat in the race, Newark Mayor Cory Booker. So that gives you an idea how far out of the mainstream our Dr. Eck is.

Here’s another hint: Dr. Eck is a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). Not to be confused with the AMA or any reputable medical organization.

The most famous member of AAPS is Ron Paul.

AAPS is, to put it roughly, the John Birch Society of medicine. Its original purpose was to “fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine.” It has characterized Medicare and Medicaid as “evil” and “immoral,” and urged its members to boycott the programs.

Oh, and in 2008, the AAPS implied that Barack Obama was using “neuro-linguistic programming,” a “covert form of hypnosis,” to coerce people into electing him as President.

The AAPS’ official medical journal is a real piece of work. It has published “scientific” articles asserting that climate change is not caused by human activity and that it will be beneficial; that HIV does not cause AIDS; that the “gay male lifestyle” shortens life expectancy by 20 years*; that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer; that “humanists” have conspired to replace creationism with evolution; and that illegal immigrants are responsible for a sharp rise in leprosy cases in America.

*Somehow I doubt that the journal has reported the actually true medical fact that lesbianism is demonstrably healthier than heterosexuality. Fewer STDs, hardly any domestic violence, and much lower exposure to the health risks of pregnancy.

On that last one, published in 2005? The author claimed 7,000 leprosy cases in the preceding three years. Problem is, 7,000 was actually the figure for the preceding THIRTY years.

The journal has never published a correction.

I think that will suffice to show that the esteemed Rob Roper is getting his health care policy advice from a real-life Paultard — a former driver of America’s biggest medical clown car, which is a purveyor of fraudulent “science” that’s helped fuel the Tea Party and the Religious Right and climate-change denialism.

Ladies and gentlemen, Rob Roper, doing his best to further marginalize conservatism in Vermont. Thanks, Robster; we at GMD appreciate your efforts.  

Oh look, what’s this I see on the Vermont Republican Party’s website? Why, it’s an invitation to attend VERMONT’S CONSTITUTION DAY EVENT (caps theirs) on September 14th in St. Albans. The proceedings will include patriotic music, food, a raffe, “other attractions” (same-sex kissing booth?) plus a very special Keynote Speaker: KrisAnne Hall, “Constitutional Lawyer and National Radio Talk Show Host” from Florida.

Who is KrisAnne Hall, you may ask?

Well, she used to be an assistant state’s attorney in Florida. She was fired in 2010 for giving political speeches at Tea Party rallies “educating ‘citizen groups’ about the Constitution,” and defying her boss’ order that she stop doing so.  She used her firing as a springboard into a new career as a public speaker and living martyr for the Cause.

I can describe her place on the political spectrum with one posting on the homepage of her website, in which she declares war on the Republican Party.

Yes, the Republican Party is way too squishy for her. She thinks the Census is unconstitutional, that America has “taken a hard turn” away from liberty toward collectivism, that we’ve lost our way because we’ve turned out backs on the Christian God. She believes that the Constitution somehow “ended slavery” even as it established slavery in the foundation of our nation. Her beliefs appear to be roughly equivalent to Ron Paul on a bad day.

Right in tune with Vermont’s political scene, no?

To be fair, this is not officially a VTGOP event; its organizer is “American Conservative Women in Action,” which is apparently a very small group (12 “Likes” on Facebook!) based in St. Albans. But the VTGOP is publicizing the event on its website, and party chair “Angry Jack” Lindley gave it a plug in his weekly e-mail to party members.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Vermont Republican Party, still clueless about how to broaden its appeal.  

Oh yeah:

Highly radioactive water from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is pouring out at a rate of 300 tonnes a day, officials said on Wednesday, as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered the government to step in and help in the clean-up.

The revelation amounted to an acknowledgement that plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) has yet to come to grips with the scale of the catastrophe, 2 1/2 years after the plant was hit by a huge earthquake and tsunami.

Ya think?

The problem, apparently, is the steady flow of groundwater from inland hills through the Fukushima site. Tepco had tried to build a “bypass” to shunt the groundwater around the plant, but that obviously hasn’t worked. And the proposed solution?

Tepco and the industry ministry have been working since May on a proposal to freeze the soil to prevent groundwater from leaking into the reactor buildings.

Similar technology is used in subway construction, but Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said that the vast scale of Tepco’s attempt was “unprecedented in the world.”

In other words, Tepco and the Japanese government are so desperate that their best option is a harebrained scheme straight out of the Evil Supervillain playbook.

You know, unlike many in the GMD community, I am not necessarily opposed to nuclear power. But the potential risks are so great that the industry needs to be held to the highest of standards in design, operation, maintenance, and emergency planning. And when we see Entergy operating just like any other corporation — when quarterly profits drop, order up a round of layoffs — it’s clear that those standards are, at the very least, potentially compromised.

The American nuclear industry is struggling against the onslaught of abundant, cheap natural gas. If those struggles get worse, thanks to new extraction technologies or widespread adoption of renewables, do they keep cutting back? And when do we cross the Fukushima line, when the system is too overstressed to respond in an emergency?

Or is it already?  

Well, it looks like Vermont has dodged an environmental bullet… because it’s been fired in another direction. TransCanada has announced plans for a massive new pipeline to carry Albertan tar sands oil to Saint John, New Brunswick.

The energy company (which also, thanks to Jim Douglas, owns the hydroelectric dams on the Connecticut River) is seeking a new route, given political uncertainty over the Keystone XL project in the central United States and a proposed pipeline to the British Columbian coast.  And its possible use of an existing pipeline between Portland and Montreal, which has raised some environmental hackles in New England.

The $12 billion Energy East Pipeline would have a capacity of 1.1 million barrels per day. Some of that tar-sands crude would be processed at refineries in eastern Canada; the rest would be exported from a new deepwater oil terminal on the Atlantic. And there seems to be a lot of pent-up demand:

Customers have already pledged to use at least 900,000 bpd of the line’s capacity, suggesting that producers and refiners will pay for an export route, while regulatory hurdles delay pipelines in Western Canada and to the United States.

“It looks like they got far more interest than they were initially expecting,” said analyst Sandy Fielden of consulting firm RBN Energy in Austin, Texas.

Yeah, well, if there’s oil to be had, the market will find a way to get it. But at least it won’t flow through Vermont, right? We don’t seem all that concerned about the environmental damage that Hydro Quebec causes north of the border as we calmly consume HQ power — and even think of it as “clean energy.” So I expect we’ll breathe a sigh of relief about the Portland-Maine pipeline, and not give much thought to Energy East. Out of sight, out of mind.  

The TransCanada project will take several years to build, and must clear a variety of regulatory hurdles. And Canadian environmental groups are promising a fight. But as long as (longtime Albertan and former oil company employee) Stephen Harper rules the roost, TransCanada is likely to find receptive ears — at least at the federal level.

And unlike western Canada, where environmental concerns often trump economic arguments, the Atlantic provinces have had weak economies for a long time. So although the idea of a deepwater port for tar sands oil in the unique ecosystem of the Bay of Fundy gives me the fantods, eastern Canadians are unlikely to look askance at a huge and lucrative development project.

In any case, the oil’s gotta flow. Even now, in the absence of pipelines to the sea, huge quantities of tar sands oil are moving by rail. A distant relative works for a railroad in the Pacific Northwest, and he’s said that they can’t keep the trains moving fast enough to carry all that oil to port. Which, after the recent disaster in Lac Megantic, should give us all the fantods.  

My point, and I do have one, is that as long as there’s demand for oil, they’re going to produce it in Alberta and find a way to ship it out. Which is why I’m such a strong advocate for real renewables. We can fight Keystone, and Canadians can try to fight the other potential routes, but the only real way to stop this crazy business is to establish renewable energy — solar, wind, hydro, biomass, whatever — as a viable and substantial source of power.