Jake Perkinson is resigning as chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, effective three days from now. The press release:

Montpelier, Vt. – On Tuesday evening, Vermont Democratic Party Chair Jake Perkinson informed the State Committee of his intentions to resign as Chair. Perkinson’s resignation will become effective on Saturday, March 16 at which point Vice Chair Dottie Deans will service (sic) as Interim Chair until party reorganization elections in November.

“Over the past decade I have worked along with hundreds of other volunteers who have dedicated countless hours to building a better Democratic Party,” said Perkinson. “Because of that hard work, we are in a prime position to move Vermont forward. At every point in this journey I have been humbled by the selfless service of our committee members and volunteers at every level. Now is an opportune time for me to depart because the Party has never been stronger or more secure in its operations.”

“The VDP is now poised to fulfill the obligations of supporting the policies and politicians that are overwhelmingly favored by the Vermont electorate. I’d like to thank our Governor, elected officials, the party staff, and the people of Vermont for the wonderful opportunity,” Perkinson concluded.

I’m not a connected guy, but this certainly seems like a bolt out of the blue. There’s certainly no results-based reason for him to go, since the party is at a historic high point. And, as it happens, I interviewed Jake a couple weeks ago when I was guest-hosting The Mark Johnson Show on WDEV, and there was no hint of anything like this.

Whatever’s going on, Jake has done his job extremely well, and I wish him the best.

Update: I just got off the phone with party spokesflack Ryan Emerson. His comments after the jump.

Ryan Emerson’s comments on Perkinson’s departure:

“This has been in the works for a couple of weeks. Historically, after an election cycle, chairs tend to step down. They usually stay on for two years, max. Jake is very hands-on and active, but it takes a lot of time.

“This is a good time. The party is in a good position, we’re fully staffed, and we have confidence in Dottie Deans.”

There’s also a solid candidate-in-waiting to take Deans’ spot as vice-chair: David Scherr, currently chair of the Burlington Dems.

Emerson expanded on the seemingly sudden nature of the announcement:

“We’d wanted to keep it under wraps until as close to the [party] committee meeting as possible. Sometimes, if there’s more advance notice, you get a lot of public speculation and innuendo, and we didn’t want that.”

There you go. According to Emerson, a natural transition at a good time. No scandals, no emergencies.  

If Tuesday was any indication, things are getting tetchy at the State House. Lawmakers came back from their Town Meeting break, with committees under pressure to move legislation. Which had a couple of unexpected results:

1. The child-care unionization bill was voted down in a Senate committee, with a co-sponsor casting the deciding “No” vote.

2. A House committee dumped Gov. Shumlin’s much-derided tax on break-open tickets and grabbed money from other sources to pay for energy efficiency programs.

And now the details…

1. The Senate Economic Development Committee voted 3-2 against the child care unionization bill, with co-sponsor Bill Doyle doing a last-second 180. His explanation:

“It caught my attention that the only people that could vote for the union would be those who are subsidized by the state,” Doyle told VTDigger on Tuesday afternoon. “There’s not a lot of give and take when some of the people opposed to this union are not at the table.”

Ahem. This is Senator Doyle’s 44th year in the senior chamber. This legislation has been around for quite a while, and he’s a frickin’ co-sponsor. And I’m supposed to believe that a key provision only just “caught [his] attention”? Smells fishy to me. Especially since, as VTDigger reports, Doyle “toured around central Vermont just last week with a pro-union organizer, visiting child care providers.”

I also, at the risk of venturing into tinfoil-hat territory, detect another fishy undertone.  

Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell opposes the bill, but promised it would get a full hearing in committee. And then he played his usual pre-session role in choosing the committee. He chose Republican Kevin Mullin, who strongly opposes the bill, as committee chair. Was that coincidence? Campbell apparently felt no compunctions about packing the Natural Resources Committee with opponents of utility-scale wind; maybe he had his thumb on this scale as well.

Franklin County Democrat Don Collins cast the other “No” vote, while Dems Ann Cummings and Phil Baruth voted “Yes.”  

The vote was a setback, but the bill isn’t dead. Chief sponsor Dick McCormack says that “many options remain.”

2. The House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy made a dramatic (and unexpected) move on Gov. Shumlin’s plan to boost energy efficiency and low-income heating assistance (LIHEAP) through a new tax on break-open tickets. The committee dumped the break-open tax, dropped LIHEAP from its bill, and appropriated up to $11 million from other sources to fund weatherization and renewable-energy initiatives.

The action has only been reported (as far as I know) in the paywalled Mitchell Family Organ, by Peter “Vermont Press Bureau” Hirschfeld. The revamped legislation, which awaits a full committee vote, relies on existing revenue from a tax on sales of heating fuels to commercial users. That money is currently split between the general fund and education fund. If the committee passes the bill, the House Appropriations Committee would have to reverse the action or fill an $11 million hole in the budget by some other means.

Committee chair Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier) is ready for the fight over what he calls “the climate change bill of 2013.” He argues that heating fuel is a primary source of carbon emission, and fuel-tax revenue is an appropriate source of funds to battle climate change.

During the hearing, Klein expressed frustration over a lack of solid funding for what’s been billed as a high priority for the Shumlin Administration:

“We’re struggling with it. We’re getting lambasted for it, frankly,” Klein said during a committee hearing. “No one seems to want to pay for (these policies) in any way, shape or form.”

The Administration claimed that the break-open tax would net $17 million, enough to fully fund weatherization, clean energy, and LIHEAP. But the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office reported that the tax would only bring in about $6.5 million.

As for stripping LIHEAP from the energy bill, the committee decided that the issue was better left to committees that deal with human services issues. In doing so, of course, it also off-loaded another multi-million dollar problem. Klein has proposed a partial solution: he’d like to see LIHEAP recipients moved to the top of the weatherization list. That makes a lot of sense; if you tighten up low-income housing, you cut fuel consumption and the burgeoning cost of LIHEAP.

All that, and it’s only Day One of the second half of the session. Could be a barnburner the rest of the way to adjournment.  

Hey! Great news!

[Vermont] Housing affordability continues to improve: At record level in 2012

Oh no! Terrible news!

High Rents Make Housing Unaffordable for Many in Vermont

Huh. We seem to have a little puzzle on our hands.

The first headline comes to us courtesy of Vermont’s Most Overpaid Economist*, Art Woolf. His annual “analysis” shows that Vermont housing got more affordable in 2012 for the sixth year in a row.

*He’s got the balls to price his “Vermont Economy Newsletter” at $150 per year. I’ll stick with “Tiger Beat,” thanks.

The second headline comes from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which found that “Renters in Vermont need to earn $18.53 an hour in order to afford a basic apartment.”

And there’s the disconnect: Woolf is only interested in housing purchases, while the NLIHC focuses on rental housing, the only available outlet for many of the working poor.  

Note: Here’s where the Correction starts. Actually, a complete overhaul of the rest of this diary. In my original post, I confused “median” with “mean,” so my original point about Woolf’s bias is not accurate. (Thanks to commenter TomC for the correction.) However, his report remains extremely problematic.

What’s more, Woolf only considers families including a married couple filing jointly* — which leaves out many of the poor and working poor. The median income for a married couple is almost certainly a fair bit higher than the median income for all Vermonters. And in Vermont Business Magazine’s story on the Woolf study, he does not give a dollar figure for “median household income.” I wrongly assumed he meant $53,000, which is the statewide median income.

*Thanks to commenter Doug Hoffer for pointing this out.

Between those two problems, I’m not really sure if there’s a point to Woolf’s study. It’s extremely selective in a way that makes Vermont’s housing market look a lot more accessible than it really is. Either he doesn’t know how to appropriately design a real study, or he deliberately designed this one to provide a rosy picture.

Either possibility is quite disturbing, and makes me mistrust his punditry and his very expensive newsletter.  

So, our Two-Fisted Attorney General held a public forum yesterday on the use of Tasers. Not sure why, because he remained absolutely unmoved by anything he heard. Went in defending the cops, came out defending the cops.

And I’ll tell you, I don’t entirely disagree with him. Tasers could be a valuable tool if used correctly; the problem is, Vermont’s law enforcement community gives us nothing but lip service on the issue.

But here’s the thing. A 2012 investigative report by VPR’s John Dillon was brought up. He’d looked into the use of Tasers on people with disabilities. He found about 25; and in 10 of those cases, Tasers were fired at people “threatening suicide or… experiencing a mental health crisis.”

Sorrell’s response: those instances only made up a small minority of “the hundreds and hundreds of times tasers have been deployed in the state.”

Not true, Bill. Big fat honkin’ lie, in fact. Dillon’s survey covered police records from an 18-month period — from the spring of 2011 to the fall of 2012. And according to a State Police official, Tasers have been fired roughly 70 times between March 2011 and the present.

In other words, that’s 10 out of no more than 70 — not “hundreds and hundreds.”

And although Sorrell and Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn continue to insist that we have good policies, Dillon uncovered some cases that belie those bland assurances.  

n one case, a state police video shows an officer chasing down a man who’d created a disturbance at a residential group home. After firing his Taser and subduing the man, the officer said this to the man’s caregiver:

“What I got him with was a Taser. It doesn’t cause any damage to him at all, but it will keep him calm and controlled.”

This officer needs some retraining, stat. Or perhaps the VSP’s trainings aren’t as clear and thorough as they’re made out to be.

Dillon also reported an incident in which a man with Down syndrome, who’s 5 feet tall and weights 110 pounds, refused police orders to move. Note: passively refused. The police explained that “his refusal could be seen as a precursor to violence.”

Which seems to be at odds with VSP’s policy of using Tasers only on subjects who are “actively resisting” the police. Either that, or the VSP has an awfully generous definition of “actively resisting.”

I realize that the police have a very difficult job. God knows I wouldn’t want to be a trooper. And when they’re responding to a report of a troubled or disruptive individual, there’s a great deal of uncertainty. The situation can escalate very quickly.

But when an officer believes Tasers are harmless, or when a Taser is fired on a passive resister of small stature, you can understand why people don’t trust the police or their reassurances. And why the words of Bill Sorrell sound callous and uncaring.  

You’d think so. But there’s at least one significant issue where at least one media outlet has completely failed. I speak of utility-scale wind, and I speak of the usually admirable VTDigger.

Since the beginning of this year, Digger has posted (by my count) 16 opinion columns whose primary focus was support for, or opposition to, large-scale wind farms.

13 were opposed to wind. Three were in favor.

That’s the kind of score that invokes the Mercy Rule in softball games.

Not to pick on VTDigger; its organization makes an archive scan simple and free. This isn’t true for the Mitchell Family Organ (or the Freeploid), or I’d be able to verify my strong impression that the opinion pages of the Herald and Times Argus have been similarly slanted against wind. Anecdotally, I recall a recent Sunday issue which presented two opinion pieces under a header that said “The Wind Debate” or something to that effect. Both pieces were against wind.

Heck of a debate, Brownie.

I suspect that what’s going on here is not a conspiracy, just the simple need to fill space.  

This is why you often see the same opinion column showing up over and over again in different outlets. I doubt that our news operations pay for opinion pieces, and I think they have to (at least some of the time) print or post or broadcast whatever is offered to them. And, of course, the small but extremely determined Windy community is very prolific.

Some of the blame must go to the pro-wind community, especially the environmental groups that held a well-publicized January news conference in which they promised to fully engage the public debate over wind. They have, by and large, failed to do so. You’d think that someone at VNRC or Sierra Club Vermont or 350VT or VPIRG or the Conservation Law Foundation could whomp up a few pertinent essays.  

But still, I’d think that Digger and other media outlets should feel responsible for ensuring some measure of balance on current issues of wide interest. Maybe even solicit a few pieces from the other side, if there’s an imbalance.

That would seem to be the responsible thing to do. VTDigger isn’t doing it.  

Playing a little catch-up on a couple more items concerning FryRiceGate, because, well, we are the Blog of Record for embarrassing wingnuttery. And it’s so much fun, also, too.

When last we visited the Cal-Rec’s intensive CYA operation, publisher Young Todd Smith was frantically defending his turf and blaming his accusers in a Saturday editorial covered in these parts by our NEK correspondent, kestrel9000.

But wait, there’s more. As you may recall, this story went national after GMD tipped off Jim Romenesko, noted journalism blogger, and he posted it on his widely-read website. In his initial post, Romenesko noted that he’d put in a call to Mark Smith, Cal-Rec publisher, and was awaiting a call back.

Well, here are two more notes from Romenesko.

First, Romenesko had a brief chat with Dana Gray, Cal-Rec editor and (apparently) a practicing journalist. Gray noted that the “Go ‘Toppers, Fry Rice” poster was the work of “the production side,” not the editorial side. And when Romenesko asked Gray what he thought of the poster, the reply was:

“I’d just as soon stay out of it.”

Yeah, I bet you would.

Second, Romenesko got a very snippy reply from Big Poppa Mark Smith:

As a trained journalist, University of Missouri School of Journalism, 1972, Newhouse School of Communication, Syracuse University, 1973, it is basic to have accurate information before you start asking questions.

As a trained journalist, Mark, it is basic to write complete, grammatically correct sentences. But do go on:

I am NOT publisher of the Caledonian-Record and have not been for 3 years.  …I am also semi-retired and a resident of Bulverde, Texas. I will adress [sic] any issues you may have with any of these publications when I return to Vermont in late June.

Oh, snap!

Trouble is, Romenesko had the goods on Mr. Smith of Bulverde, Texas:

Dear Mr. Smith: I’m sorry I interrupted your semi-retirement with my email, but I went to your newspaper’s Contact Us section yesterday and this is what I found: Mark M. Smith, publisher.

Oopsie. Yeah, sport, you ought to update your damn website every three years or so. (The Cal-Rec did so, very very quickly, after Romenesko posted the above exchange.)

One more note. In his editorial, Young Todd Smith says “next year, we might try “Cook Rice.”

No, Todd, I’d stick with the original. Except this time, spell it “Fly Lice.” You know, because them Chinese talk funny. And maybe attach a couple of pieces of reusable tape to the poster, so readers can tape their eyes in the slanty position. You know, because them Chinese look funny. And don’t worry, it’s not racist, it’s just a li’l joke.

And when, as GMD commenter HSTGonzo pointed out, Bill Stenger starts bringing in busloads of Chinese EB-5 investors to help him revitalize the NEK’s economy, I’m sure they’ll appreciate a local newspaper with a good old-fashioned sense of humor.  

(The title is an homage to one of the worst movies of all time.)

Joe Benning does not like utility-scale wind. Not even a little tiny bit. The Caledonia Republican is one of the more vocal members of the anti-wind cadre in the Senate, and he’s a co-sponsor of S.30, the late unlamented wind moratorium bill, as well as the retooled S.30, which is on its way to the Senate floor without the moratorium.

But even though the retooling was entirely the work of the bill’s sponsors, it still sticks in Benning’s craw. He vented his frustration the old-fashioned way — in an opinion piece published last Thursday in the Mitchell Family Organ. (Paywalled, sorry*.) A piece that’s so unhinged and over-the-top, it’s almost funny. How funny? Let me count the ways…

(UPDATE 3/13: Benning’s piece has just been posted at VTDigger, where it’s available without paywall. Digger, BTW, has now posted 17 opinion pieces on wind this year; 14 were anti-wind.)

He starts slow with a first paragraph that does nothing more than set the scene. But then it’s blast-off time, with a second paragraph that masterfully compresses all the standard lies and exaggerations of the Windies into a few concise phrases:

How did we get to become so obsessed about developing an electric generating facility that blasts away the tops of iconic mountains, attacks heretofore protected wildlife, imposes known health risks on people living too close, fails to generate enough power to meet predictions, makes us pay far more for power than we have to, makes us give up the right to locally govern ourselves, has a limited working life span of about 20 years, and yet leaves us with concrete pyramids for unknown millennia? Seriously – whose nightmare is this?

Let’s take these in order. First, nobody’s obsessed but you, Joe. Wind advocates see it as one viable part of a sustainable energy mix. Even those detestable folks at VPIRG only want to build four more wind farms in the entire state.

Second, “blasts away the tops of iconic mountains.” Yes, there’s some blasting and some rock removal, but not enough to change the profile of a mountain. As for “iconic mountains,” I think they’re safe, unless you think every ridgeline in Vermont is somehow “iconic.” Nobody’s calling for wind turbines on Camel”s Hump; just for a few more wind farms on appropriate sites.  

Third, “attacks heretofore protected wildlife.” A sensible approach to wind-farm siting would protect key wildlife habitats. And that’s what we want: a sensible approach.

Fourth, “known health risks.” Here’s the rub. Windies allege a cornucopia of health impacts including Wind Turbine Syndrome, shadow flicker, subsonic vibrations, and God knows what else. However, study after study shows no actual medical/scientific evidence of any health effects. Three sources: the Sierra Club Canada’s report, “The Real Truth About Wind Energy,” the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s “Wind Turbine Impact Study,” and a review of scientific literature by Public Health Professor Simon Chapman of the University of Sydney, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Classic ‘Communicated’ Disease.” In the latter, Prof. Chapman points out that there have been at least 17 reviews of the available evidence about wind farms and health, and that each of them has found no evidence that turbines make people ill. The closest thing to an actual “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is that people who don’t like turbines are far more likely to be affected by their proximity.

Fifth, “fails to generate enough power to meet predictions.” Wind energy is a widely-used source of sustainable energy with an established track record of performance. If it was really a failure, nobody would be building turbines. They’re not doing it just to annoy Joe Benning.

Sixth, “makes us pay far more for power than we have to.” Well, if by “have to” you mean we could save money by continuing to burn fossil fuel or letting Vermont Yankee keep on wheezing, then you’re right. The problem with fossil fuels (and with nuclear power) is that the market fails to factor their real costs in pricing. Wind and solar and other renewable sources may be more expensive now because of flaws in the market, but (a) we can’t afford to go on paying the hidden cost of carbon emissions, and (b) the more we develop renewables, the more competitive they will get.

Seventh, “makes us give up the right to locally govern ourselves.” Nope. The energy regulatory structure has been carefully crafted and has been in place for years. There is no brand-new giving up of local rights. And wind supporters want to take local opinions into account. If a community really doesn’t want a wind project, with all its financial benefits (just look at the local tax rates in Lowell or Sheffield, and tell me there aren’t a hundred communities that could use the same kind of help), then it can be built elsewhere.

Eighth, “has a limited working life span of about 20 years,” I will consider with: Ninth, “leaves us with concrete pyramids for unknown millennia.” Completely untrue. Wind farm developers are responsible for decommissioning turbines, removing structures, and even re-landscaping. The money for restoration has to be put in an account before construction begins. Joe Benning is either ignorant of this, or he’s lying.  

In the next paragraph, Benning goes nutzoid against wind supporters:

A group of us decided not to be deluded with visions of grandeur about Vermont’s single-handed ability to reverse climate change using this particular nightmare as our tool.

There are so many lies in that sentence, it’s hard to keep count as they go whizzing by. No wind advocate believes that Vermont can single-handedly affect climate change; we simply believe that Vermont is responsible for doing its part. And unfortunately, no sustainable energy technology can “reverse” climate change; all it can do is keep climate change from worsening. Finally, Senator Benning, if you’re going to call wind supporters as “deluded” and wind energy as a “nightmare,” I suggest you’ve abandoned the kind of useful, cogent argument that could actually convince people of your viewpoint.

After congratulating himself for co-sponsoring S.30, he portrays wind advocates as “aghast” over the word “moratorium.” No, not at all. Nobody was “aghast,” and it wasn’t the word “moratorium” that set anyone off. We simply opposed S.30 and didn’t think that a moratorium is needed or wise. We still oppose the revamped S.30, even though it’s been stripped of the dreaded word.

Then, Benning characterizes his opponents as “gripping fiercely to the concept that Vermont should lead the world on addressing climate change.” No, and no. I don’t think Vermont should lead the world; as I said above, I simply think we ought to do our part. The “gripping fiercely” is an unnecessary piece of rhetorical brimstone. If anyone here is “gripping fiercely,” it’s Joe Benning and his extreme opposition to wind energy.

Benning asserts that opponents of S.30 “failed to pause long enough to either read or understand the bill.” Well, again, no. We understand it; we simply oppose it. It’s one of the most popular canards among the Windies: those who support wind power just don’t understand. Our eyes have not been opened to The Truth.

Benning then lets fly with a double howler: “Blogs and public opinion polls followed suit.” Aha! The reason the Castleton poll found two-thirds of Vermonters support wind is that somehow the “poll followed suit.” As if the poll had a mind of its own. And speaking for this blogger, I considered both sides and joined the one with more credibility and better evidence.

And now for another load of hysteria:

Opponents, frightened by that scary word “moratorium,” pulled the covers up over their heads and trembled with fear in the belief Vermont was suddenly on the road to disaster. It would be comical, if it weren’t so sad.

Joe, Joe, Joe. You’re not even trying to convince anyone, you’re just stewing in your own juices. Opponents are not frightened by the word; they just oppose the concept. We see no need for a moratorium because (a) climate change needs to be addressed as quickly as possible, and (b) study after study after study has found no significant problems with appropriately-sited wind farms.

But then, the whole “study” thing is just a red herring anyway. The only people who supported the moratorium are those already convinced that wind is a terrible thing, and they don’t want any of it in Vermont ever at all. If Vermont’s study followed in the footsteps of at least 17 other scientific reviews, it would give wind power a clean bill of health. And no opponent of wind would be convinced in the least.

Next, Benning asserts with no evidence whatsoever that “the winds of public opinion are changing.” Not according to the two Castleton surveys taken ten months apart. The first had wind support at 69%, the second at 67%. That’s within the poll’s margin of error, and does not at all show a drop in support for wind. The second poll simply validated the first. The fact is, two-thirds of Vermonters support ridgeline wind. And two-thirds would support ridgeline wind in their own community. That’s bad news for Joe Benning, so I’m not surprised he’s trying desperately to spin the results.

Finally, after all this ranting against the obsessed, deluded, frightened, trembling activists who torpedoed his beloved moratorium, he suddenly changes gears and declares that we don’t need the moratorium after all, because the new S.30 accomplishes everything he wants. Well, gee, Joe, shouldn’t you be thanking us for “improving” S.30 by forcing you to discard the deadwood of a moratorium?

In a way, I’m glad Joe Benning is so inept at the fine art of persuasion. As long as the anti-wind case is characterized by lies, exaggerations, and overheated rhetoric, wind energy will continue to enjoy broad support among Vermonters.  

If you choose to spend some of your time blogging, you learn to ignore the occasional snorts of derision from the legacy media. The “Mom’s basement” canard that’s seldom uttered but still colors perceptions. The dismissal of news that breaks in these parts until or unless it’s confirmed by “real media.” Their reluctance to follow up on that news, and their even greater reluctance to give credit where credit is due.

But sometimes it just piles up a little too high to ignore. And at the risk of sounding like a Whiny Blogger, I’m going to complain a little, and then explain why we deserve more credit than we usually get.

First, we had Kathryn Flagg’s little piece of secessionist hagiography in this week’s “Seven Days.” Thomas Rowley did a fine job of filling in all the missing information, but I want to focus on the story’s casual blogosphere-belittling.

See, according to revisionist historian and Keeper of the Secessionist Flame, Rob Williams, it wasn’t Thomas Naylor’s well-documented ties to neoconfederate seshesers that did him in. It wasn’t his angry outbursts against the widely-respected Southern Poverty Law Center. It wasn’t his appearances on overtly racist radio programs. No, it was that dastardly blogosphere what killed Naylor’s movement.

And by “blogosphere,” of course, he meant Green Mountain Daily, which tirelessly exposed the seamy underbelly of the Second Vermont Republic. And, for its trouble, came in for vicious attack by Naylor and his cohorts. But heaven forfend that Williams or Flagg should deign to utter our name.

After the jump: Windy Joe Benning and the “Fry Rice” controversy.

Next we turn to Senator Joe Benning, ardent Windy, who wrote a particularly spittle-flecked commentary this week in the Mitchell Family Organ. (Paywalled, sorry. But it’ll probably show up on VTDigger soon enough.)

A full recounting of Benning’s lies, distortions, and shrill attacks would fill up a lengthy post on its own, but for now I’ll mention how the mean ol’ blogosphere helped to kill the three-year wind moratorium that Benning supported.

Aghast over the word “moratorium,” a host of environmental groups lined up with author Bill McKibben and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders to oppose the bill. Gripping fiercely to the concept that Vermont should lead the world on addressing climate change, they failed to pause long enough to either read or understand the bill. Blogs and public opinion polls followed suit.

That paragraph alone contains more whoppers than your average Burger King, but my favorite is the last sentence: “Blogs and public opinion polls followed suit.” As if the Castleton poll had a mind of its own that was influenced by Bill McKibben.

I’ll take full credit for the “Blogs” part of that. I’ve written extensively on the importance of wind energy as one tool in the fight against climate change, and on the exaggerations and misstatements of Windies such as the good Senator. But it’s not because I’m ignorant; it’s because I’ve studied the evidence and the science, considered the issue, and come to a conclusion. But there are only two camps in the Windies’ worldview: The enlightened (anti-wind) and the ignorant (pro-wind).

So, Joe, go right ahead and disparage “blogs” as simpletons. Doesn’t make it true.

Finally, we come to a story uncovered by GMD’s own kestrel9000: the ignominious “Fry Rice” poster published by the St. Johnsbury Caledonian-Record.

After kestrel’s original post, we forwarded the story to Jim Romenesko, proprietor of a widely-read national blog on news media issues. He posted an item within an hour or so, and it quickly spread across the country.

And, after that, it even spread across Vermont, where the legacy media is loath to criticize its own; but when the story went national, they couldn’t ignore it.

They could, however, ignore the original source. None of the stories published or posted or broadcast anywhere in Vermont give credit to GMD for breaking the story.

Because, I guess, it’s not news until a “real media” source reports it.  

Okay, look. I am very much aware of my limitations and those of GMD. We are not a news organization. We are a bunch of volunteers with no staff and no resources. We don’t cover all the news, nor can we. Sometimes we get stuff wrong. (When I do, I post a correction.)

But we do play a significant role in Vermont’s media ecosystem. GMD has a lengthy history, dating long before I ever washed up on this shore, of providing insight and analysis — and yes, even actual news — that’s not available anywhere else. The only currency we have is our credibility, built up slowly over the years. And it’s only because of our credibility that we attract about 25,000 site visits and 50,000 page views per month.

So no, we’re not the Burlington Free Press or the Mitchell Family Organ or VTDigger or Seven Days or even Channel 3 or Channel 5. What we are is Green Mountain Daily, and we are proud of that.

And we deserve an appropriate amount of credit for that. And too often, we don’t get it.  

Awww. Poor, poor Skip Vallee has suffered another setback in his ongoing battle to avoid free-market competition at Exit 16. This time, the District 4 Environmental Commission turned down a request by Vallee and another convenience-store giant to reconsider a January decision allowing Costco to build a gas station at its Colchester store.

The two parties, ever in search of loopholes and pretexts to keep Costco at bay, asked for a rehearing on the flimsy grounds that their party status was improperly limited on some aspects of the Commission’s hearings. Including a section of Act 250 regarding esthetics.

The Commission turned ’em down flat. And, in a decision written by vice chair Marcy Harding, injected a bit of sarcasm into its two-page decision:

Vallee had argued that he can see the wetlands near Costco from his offices at the Maplefields facility on U.S. 7 near the entrance to Costco.

“Regarding new evidence … on Mr. Vallee’s ability to see the Costco wetlands from his building, we find that this is not evidence that is either newly discovered or was previously unavailable,” Harding wrote.

Methinks the Commission is getting a little tired of Skippy’s endless petitions and appeals.

Not that their disdain will have any effect on Our Man Vallee, who vows to “seek redress in all forums available.”

I wonder how much his legal antics are adding to the cost of a gallon at Maplefields?  

The Worst Daily in Vermont has done stepped in it big time. Word of its unfortunate insert in today’s paper, first reported by GMD’s kestrel9000, has gone national by way of the widely-read Jim Romenesko media blog.

And thence to the attention of the Asian-American Journalists Association, which has fired off a letter of protest to Mark Smith, publisher of the Cal-Rec:

No one can criticize the Caledonian Record for rooting for the home team. But we at the Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) were appalled by the insert included in your newspaper to cheer on the St. Johnsbury Academy. “Fry Rice” caught the wrong kind of attention because of its racist undertones.

By itself, the slogan might be considered clever. But it became offensive when published in a typeface mimicking Chinese calligraphy.

A Wall Street Journal columnist summed up how seemingly inconsequential things like fonts perpetuate stereotypes. The column (found at http://on.wsj.com/LCaQYn) noted the “psychological toll from regular exposure to ching-chong babble, slant-eyed caricature, cheesy font choices and face-painted minstrelsy.”

We’ll assume that your use of that typeface was not meant to offend. But we’ll also assume that if that is the case, the Caledonian Record will publicly acknowledge its lapses in taste and judgment.

I suspect it’ll be a cold day in Hell before they get their apology. And if it does come, it’ll be one of those weaselly “to those who were offended” non-apologies.

Because so far, the operators of the Calcified Rectum remain clueless about their bad judgment.  

Publisher Mark Smith failed to return Jim Romenesko’s request for comment. The Cal-Rec’s webpage still includes the paper’s Tweet alerting readers to the quasi-racist poster.

And the paper’s Facebook page has attracted a steady stream of comments, most of them critical of the paper. A few, predictably, are variations on “so what’s the big deal?”

Unfortunately, their number includes three ignorant posts by “T. Smith,” I’m guessing  Todd Smith, assistant publisher, who presumably earned his high post the old-fashioned way: by fortunate accident of birth. T’s posts:

The last one was posted around 2:30 p.m. No more after that. I guess the Toddster decided to get out of the line of fire. Or perhaps Daddy told him to shut up and lay low.  

That’s one of their two options, anyway. The other is to step out, own up, and apologize sincerely and fully.

Ya think they’ll go with option A?