I see a story in the Saturday 1/21 Burlington Free Press entitled “Vermont House vote could bring property tax relief,” which starts out like this:

Who says politicians can’t agree?



Friday, the Vermont House of Representatives voted unanimously to add a provision to the annual budget adjustment bill that would gradually beef up the non-property tax dollars that support education.

Under the bill, one-half of any future end-of-year budget surpluses would be added to the Education Fund. And the base figure for state education funding would increase by the amount of that surplus contribution. The aim is to gradually restore recent cuts in state school funding.

Support for the bill came together on Thursday and Friday, with the unanimous vote quickly following. An impressive pace for a legislative body, to be sure.

The Freep recounts congratulatory and self-congratulatory words from supporters of the bill, such as “Hooray” from Steve Jeffrey of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

And then, in paragraph seventeen, we hear from the Shumlin Administration. Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon averred that he had only learned of the proposal on Friday, and he had yet to confer with anyone on it. Then, in paragraph nineteen, the Voice of Doom:  

Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding also didn’t know the details. “It is one of the things we will look at, but I will be surprised if it is there at the end,” he said.

In other words, this bill is dead. It’ll be killed, one way or another, in the state Senate. Governor Shumlin doesn’t want to split any future surpluses; he wants to put all the money into a budget stabilization fund to boost Vermont’s bond rating.

Which seems a bit green-eyeshade to me, but nonetheless, there it is.

In journalism, this is called “burying the lead” — putting the real thrust of a story somewhere in its midsection. The tone of the Freep article celebrated a bipartisan agreement to quickly enact a good idea. Until, that is, Jeb Spaulding entered the stage. A truer article would have said “House Passes Bill That Will Go Nowhere.”  

And guess which ones we are.

Well, it looks like the way is clear for 20 more years of “safe, clean, reliable power” with absolutely “no threat to public health or safety.” Yesterday’s ruling by federal judge Garvan Murtha was pretty much a slam-dunk victory for Entergy and Vermont Yankee. Sure, Vermont could appeal, but it’d be a costly process with an uncertain outcome. Today on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, Vermont Law School Professor Cheryl Hanna said that the state would have little to no chance at overturning Murtha’s decision. And there seems to be nothing the Legislature can do to change things.

(Addendum, Saturday 1/21. A differing opinion, reported in the Comments to this post by Doug Hoffer:

That is more encouraging than Hanna’s outlook. I’m almost certain we’ll get the chance to find out; appealing the decision is pretty much a political no-brainer for Shumlin, whether a reversal is likely or not.)

I have a few thoughts about this, and welcome yours in the comments below.

— Was the agreement giving the state a say in license extension just a big scam all along? No other state had any such deal with a nuclear power plant; regulation is otherwise the province of the feds. So was Vermont’s agreement doomed from the start? Was Entergy willing to sign it because, deep down, it knew it could go to court and get the deal tossed out? Did the Legislature accept the deal knowing it might be nothing more than a fig leaf? Were they misled by leadership, or too clueless to realize the fact?  I can’t say; I didn’t live in Vermont at the time. I’d be glad for some historical perspective.

— Will our plucky Ethan Allen Institute conservatives be all up in arms over this trampling of states’ rights? Mmmm, probably not. Hypocrites. Moving on…

— Is it time to start a “Dump Bill Sorrell” movement? He got his ass kicked but good on this one. Maybe he was playing a weak hand, but hey, when a football team loses, the coach and the quarterback get the blame. (His losing streak also includes the state’s campaign finance law.) And let us not forget his issuance of a free pass allowing the Hartford Police Department to commit mayhem in the name of keeping the peace, topped off by his opinion that “there is no right to resist an arrest, even an illegal one.”

(And maaan, did he sound stupid and clueless on the radio this morning, when Mark Johnson was questioning him about Murtha’s ruling. If you didn’t catch it live, Mark podcasts his shows on his website. (Google “Mark Johnson Show.”) He usually posts fresh audio within a day or two. Sorrell was on right at the beginning of the first hour today.)

I’d call for a Sorrell version of the GMD Oddsmaker if not for The Salmon Theorem: The voters of Vermont will blindly re-elect incumbents unless/until they (a) commit felonies or (b) die.

And I’m not sure about (b).

— In a moment of pure political cynicism, I find myself thinking that the decision is a big fat win-win for Governor Shumlin. He gets credit for vocally opposing Vermont Yankee, but he doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of an actual closure.

But I’m sure that evaluating a politician on the basis of cynicism is completely unfair.

I am Seamus, and I am grateful to be riding on the roof.  

Y’know, at first the story about Mitt Romney’s dog Seamus was a nice little fillip — a schadenfreude-inducing anecdote that reflected Mitt’s occasional bouts of cluelessness. Recently it sparked a funny website (I want a “Never Forget Crate Gate” T-shirt) and an attempt to Google-bomb a new definition for “Romney.”

(For those just joining us, back in 1983, for a long family driving trip, Romney put the family dog in a carrier and strapped it to the roof. At one point, the dog had a case of diarrhea, possibly related to the stress of the ride. Romney’s solution: stop at a gas station, hose down the dog, and keep driving.)

But now, when Mitt seems completely incapable of discussing his vast personal wealth without coming across like J. Pierpont Morgan glaring at a beggar, I think it reveals a fundamental flaw in Mitt’s personality. One that makes him unfit to be President.  

(Not that he’s more unfit than Gingrich or Santorum or Paul. But that’s a very low hurdle to clear.)

On all the issues, Mitt is well-rehearsed and lifelike. Sure, there’s a gloss of insincerity to the whole exercise, but at least he doesn’t trip over his own talking points like some of the other Republican contenders. But when it comes to his own riches, he seems to have a blind spot. The gaffes are coming so thick and fast, it’s hard to keep up with them all. He admits to a tax rate of about 15 percent. $374,000 is “not very much” money. He can’t come up with a decent dodge on his tax returns. “I like being able to fire people.” “America is right and you’re wrong!”

Mitt can (sort of) handle the day-to-day business of politics. But he apparently can’t handle criticism aimed at him personally. (Hell, he still hasn’t managed a coherent explanation for tying his dog to the roof.) At some fundamental level, he’s lived such an entitled life that he is nonplussed and more than a bit offended when people raise questions about him.  

It’s as if, somewhere deep inside, he’s saying “Look, I’m rich, successful and handsome. I could do anything I want. But I will deign to be your President. I’m even willing to visit crappy little diners and say all kinds of stupid stuff to get the job. Can’t you people show a little gratitude?” Just as he might have said to Seamus, “Look, I went to all the trouble of strapping you to the roof and giving you a free ride across the country. You should be grateful. So stop whining and getting shit all over my car!”

It’s the same mindset that drove him as a venture capitalist: he’s working hard and growing wealth. If your job gets lost in the process, well, you should be thankful that he’s making your company (sorry, your ex-company) more efficient and competitive.

Yes, folks, We Are All Seamus. Mitt is offering us a free ride on the roof of his car. So just shut up about his millions and his offshore tax shelters and his heartlessness. Stop shitting on his car and enjoy the ride.

Wowee, big news out of Iowa…

Republican front-runner Mitt Romney’s narrow lead in the Iowa caucuses disappeared when officials certified the vote count, a Republican involved in the process said Thursday, but former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum cannot be declared the winner because of irregularities in some precincts.

Instead of leading by eight votes, Romney ended up trailing former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum by 34 votes–29,839 to 29,805, the Republican said.

That from the Washington Post, which credits the Des Moines Register with breaking the story. (Official announcement coming this morning.) So I guess Mitt Romney isn’t sweeping the primary process after all. And who knows how it might have played out if Santorum had been named the winner on caucus night. (IMO, it wouldn’t have had much impact; Santorum is too flawed and underfunded to prevail.)

But to me, the bigger takeaway from this story is the utter ineptitude and sheer hypocrisy of the Republicans. The Iowa GOP screwed this puppy six ways from Sunday.

First, they took longer to certify the results than the two weeks required in their own rules; the official announcement comes on Day 16.

Second, the recount uncovered a massive number of bungled talles, according to The Register: “GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts, although not all the changes affected the two leaders.” That’s a lot of mistakes. Hell, I take more care proofreading my GMD posts than the Iowans did counting their ballots. But here’s the topper:

Results from eight precincts are missing – any of which could hold an advantage for Mitt Romney – and will never be recovered and certified, Republican Party of Iowa officials told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday.

The conclusion: The Iowa Republican Party gives up and declares a virtual tie. Sorry, folks, nobody won our “crucial” caucus. It’s a wash. Move on, nothing more to see here. Yeah, we proclaimed Mitt Romney a winner by a scant eight votes — but we can’t name a winner now, even though Santorum has a 34-vote margin in a much more accurate count.

This, from the party that is so concerned with The Integrity Of The Voting Process that they’re trying to build all sorts of barriers between us and our constitutional right to vote. It’d be funny, if the threat to voting rights wasn’t so real.

A couple more points…

Given the performance of the Iowa GOP, I wouldn’t let ’em borrow my car, let alone run my government. The nation’s eyes are on Iowa; they cling determinedly to their first-in-the-nation status; but when push comes to shove, they can’t be bothered to run a clean, efficient process and they don’t seem to care very much. That’s scary.

Finally, I’ll be interested to see whether the political media lets the Iowa GOP have the final say. The Party proclaims this a virtual tie. But clearly, if you accepted the eight-vote “Romney victory” — or Bush v. Gore, for that matter — you ought to take one look at the official results and say, “Santorum Won Iowa.” Anything less would be an abdication of journalistic responsibility.

And even worse: an abdication to the very people who completely f**ked up their caucus.  

Oh boy, oh boy, we’re number one!!!

Vermont leads the list of highest risk states for embezzlement according to a new study of major embezzlement cases.

“We have done this report for four years now and Vermont has been on the list of highest risk three out of the last four years. This year, topping the list,” Christopher T. Marquet, chief executive officer of Marquet International told the Burlington Free Press.

Those encouraging words from the Burlington Free Press’ account of the

2011 Marquet Report on Embezzlement. And yes, be very proud: this year Vermont shed its contender status and vaulted to the very top of the list in what Marquet calls “Embezzlement Propensity Factor,” which weights the frequency of embezzlement and the average loss per occurrence on a per-capita basis.

More after the jump, including: the leading industry for embezzlement (you’ll be as shocked as Captain Renault), what your typical embezzler looks like, and why (IMHO) Vermont is embezzlement-prone.  

Okay, so if embezzlement is largely taking place outside of government, which sectors are most at risk? The top target is the financial-services industry. Gosh, you’d think banks and investment firms and insurance companies would know how to keep control of their assets. But noooo: the financial sector sprouted 12.4% of major embezzlement cases in 2011 — and the typical case tended to be costly. Financial-industry embezzlement accounted for almost 25% of total losses.

Embezzlement from nonprofit organizations also accounted for 12.4% of total cases, but a much lower dollar figure: only 7% of total losses to embezzlement. Other sectors high on the list: Health care, manufacturing, and real estate.

So who’s your typical offender? The Marquet report includes some striking figures on the nature of the big-stakes embezzler: A woman (two out or three perps are female) with no criminal record, working solo (only 10% of cases involve a conspiracy), middle-aged (almost 70% between 40 and 59 years old), who has access to company funds (writing bad checks, dipping into the cash drawer, fraudulent EFT’s), and who has been getting away with it for a long time (average duration slightly less than five years). In short, it’s the person you might least expect. And it’s the organization or business with stunningly lax financial controls.

Now, in castigating Vermont for its “epidemic” of embezzlement, it’s important to keep in mind that we’re talking about a very small number of cases. Ten, in fact. So a single case can really skew our ranking, much more so than a single case in California or New York. Still, it’s undisputably true that we do have significantly more major embezzlements than you’d expect. And we’ve been near the top for three of the past four years.

So what’s wrong with Vermont? A revealing quote from “Fraud Talk,” Marquet International’s corporate blog:

One small business owner based in Vermont explained to me that “people up here generally tend to be more trusting and believe that people will do what they are supposed to do and not do what they are not supposed to do. As a result, a lot of the checks and balances that might seem like common sense don’t get put in place until after someone gets caught taking advantage of the situation.”

Organizations in Vermont — large and small, public and private — tend to operate on a family dynamic instead of an organizational/business model. To illustrate, let’s say your family has a Weird Uncle Bob. He drinks too much, says inappropriate things, and occasionally cops a feel. Even so, chances are you still invite Uncle Bob to Thanksgiving dinner. Because he’s weird, but he’s family.

Now let’s imagine you’re in a company, and Uncle Bob is your chief of accounting. In a business dynamic, Uncle Bob gets fired — or, at least, transferred to an out-of-the-way post. But in a family dynamic, Uncle Bob keeps his job and you just learn to work around him. Even if it kneecaps your organization.

Even when there’s no specific Uncle Bob, it’s still a dysfunctional culture. If your family doesn’t really work, you don’t try to fix it, you live with it. If your business doesn’t function well, you don’t fix it, you live with it.

I’ve seen this very clearly in a small company I used to work for.  It was severely handicapped — its very existence threatened — by poor financial controls, unproductive salespeople, and a boss who just didn’t enjoy the business side of the business, so he let it go.

We’ve also seen it in one of Vermont’s largest organizations, the University of Vermont. Its most recent Uncle Bob was Rebecca Kahn Fogel, wife of UVM President Dan Fogel. She was causing major problems in the university’s development office — and she was allowed to go on causing problems for years, destroying morale and hamstringing the office’s work, until the story became public.

There are other stories of dysfunction at UVM, but most of them have gotten little or no publicity because the university tends to cover them up with generous severance packages and nondisclosure agreements.

Not to pick on UVM. This kind of dynamic is practically universal in Vermont, and a high embezzlement rate is only one of the consequences. I’d argue that organizational dysfunction hampers our economy much more than Act 60 or Act 250 or the Green Mountain Care Board or any other piece of legislation.

I once had the chance to interview Tom MacLeay upon his retirement as President and CEO of National Life, the Montpelier-based insurance and investment firm. He talked at length about the challenges of being a relatively small company in competition with the biggest, richest outfits on the planet. After the formal interview, I brought up the above thoughts about organzational culture in Vermont — and he emphatically agreed. He said that it had been an ongoing struggle to change National Life’s culture so it could compete at such a high level.

As far as I know, National Life has never had a serious embezzlement case (knock wood). But in order to survive, it has had to battle against Vermont’s prevailing culture — changing it from a family dynamic to an organizational one. Otherwise, National Life would have long ago fallen off the map.

That prevailing culture has nothing to do with liberalism or socialism; it’s a traditional mindset, a way of life, that crosses all political boundaries. And it’s helped make us Number One! in major embezzlements.  

Lots o’politics going on in Vermont these days, mainly to do with the opening of the Legislative session. So much going on that I found it difficult to keep up with, let alone write GMD posts. But there’s some stuff worth commenting on — and providing a space in the GMD comments section for your two cents’ worth.

In no particular order, the topics are: Governor Shumlin’s budget address, the latest on the relocation of state workers displaced by the flooding of Waterbury, the debate over how best to replace the Vermont State Hospital, and Randy Brock’s attempt to make health care reform an issue in the gubernatorial campaign.

Strap in, buckaroos… deets after the jump.  

Shumlin’s budget address. One thumb up, one thumb down. The upside — and this cannot be overemphasized — is the Administration’s success (so far) in keeping the ship afloat in very tough budgetary times. Remember 2009-10, when Jim Douglas was castigating the Leglsiature for refusing to take a meataxe to the budget? When he warned of dire consequences in the next biennium? Well, so far, his successor has managed to avoid those consequences. Which either means that Shumlin’s done a heck of a job, or… maybe ol’ Jim was exaggerating just a bit?

Probably both.

Okay, the other thumb. Given the budget situation… given the expense of post-Irene rebuilding… and, frankly, given the weakness of Shumlin’s potential opposition… this would have been a great time to propose a tax hike on upper-income Vermonters. It could have helped restore past cuts in human services and forestall future cuts. It could have allowed Shumlin to propose an increase in higher-ed funding (aside from his ideas for specific new programs) when tuition is already too high. It could have allowed him to avoid a real headscratcher of a budget cut: delaying Medicaid reimbursements for autism treatments for young children. Maybe this makes sense, but from the outside it sounds incredibly meanspirited.

There’s also the fact that, although he would hold the line on income, gas, and sales taxes, his budget would shift costs onto local school districts by permanently cutting the General Fund transfer to the Education Fund. Local districts would face a tough choice between cutting their budgets and seeking property-tax increases.

Besides all of that, Shumlin’s stance reinforces the Republican shibboleth that higher taxes kill the entrepreneurial spirit and cause rich people to flee. There is absolutely no evidence for those assertions. And when Democrats adopt them, they bolster the conservative case and cede precious ground in our political dialogue.

Relocation of state workers. Shumlin’s plan, if I understand it, is a pretty fair attempt to satisfy everyone. Waterbury would retain the vast majority of its former state workforce, and Barre would get a modest influx. In the past, I’ve warned against a move to Barre purely on political grounds: why should Shumlin hand a major victory to Thom Lauzon and thus elevate him as a potential statewide Republican candidate?

I still feel that way. But Shumlin’s plan seems to lean Waterbury’s way, and it doesn’t give Lauzon a huge victory. I’m satisfied with what I’ve seen on the issue.

The Vermont State Hospital. I won’t spend much time on this because I’ve already made my views clear. But I will say that, while Shumlin wants a fast-track adoption of his plan, there’s a rising tide of opposition from the medical community and a lot of questions being asked in the Legislature. (See Vermont Digger’s stories posted on January 6 and January 12.) This ain’t over, and I doubt Shumlin will win approval for his plan without some significant changes.

Randy Brock’s desperation heave. The Republicans would dearly love to make health care reform an issue in the gubernatorial campaign. Can’t blame them; Shumlin’s gonna be awfully hard to beat, given (a) his performance in keeping the budget in check, described above, (b) his post-Irene leadership and the impressive accomplishments in the recovery effort, and (c) Vermont’s track record of re-electing incumbents even if they don’t deserve it. (Tom Salmon, come on down!) And health care reform, as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could tell you, is an issue ripe for demagoguery.

So the putative Republican nominee for Governor, Randy Brock, has introduced a bill that would move the due date for the Green Mountain Care Board’s reform plan from January 2013 to September 2012. (The bill would also call for the hiring of an independent contractor to review the plan’s financing, rather than the Joint Fiscal Office.)

On purely political grounds, the bill makes perfect sense. If GMCB had to release its plan in September, the Republicans could certainly find grounds — or pretexts — to attack it and raise all kinds of fears about it.

But, well, given the Democrats’ sizeable Legislative majorities, Brock’s bill is DOA anyway. He’s just hoping to manufacture a talking point. I can’t blame him; he doesn’t have much to work with.  

I know we’re all supposed to be on tenterhooks today, eagerly parsing the results from Dixville Notch and keeping our eyes glued to cable news to see who wins the New Hampshire primary. Can Mitt Romney hold on? Can Rick “Santorum” Santorum build on his Iowa momentum? Will Evil Newt gain a foothold? Will the state’s libertarian right give Ron Paul another boost? Is that Jon Huntsman I see riding in from the distance?  

Feh. And pfui. Doesn’t matter what happens tonight; Mitt Romney, ladies and gentlemen, is your Republican Presidential nominee. It’ll happen sooner or later, depending on exactly how things turn out tonight, but it’ll happen, for sure.

The primary race is about to kick into ridiculously high gear. You’ve got South Carolina and big-money Florida before the end of the month, and then it’s on to Super Tuesday on March 6 (your correspondent’s birthday, shared with Michelangelo and Ed McMahon) with ten states up for grabs. (Including plucky little Vermont.) Which means that Mitt’s big advantages — in money and organization — are about to become decisive.

None of his challengers can come close to equaling Mitt’s machine. They’re each just hoping to slow down the Mittmentum enough to give voters another chance to change their minds. Won’t happen. Object lessons: In 2000, John McCain got a big win in New Hampshire, only to get run over by the Bush train. And in 2004, John Kerry (many eerie similarities to Romney) sidestepped the doubts of the Dem faithful through the unstoppable velocity of the primary calendar.

Still, we’ve got pundits and reporters and bloggers and cable networks spinning out all kinds of scenarios, desperately trying to convince us that it’s not all over, that anything could still happen. That you really need to Tune In Tonight.

Why? Well, a blandly predictable outcome is a whole lot less fun than a dramatic surprise twist. Reporters are people, too — and yes, even pundits are people, somewhere beneath their reptilian facades. They like a good story. They want a good story. And the cable nets — they desperately need a good story. lest America turn its attention away from the chattering class and back to The Bachelor or The Next Iron Chef or Ice Truckers. “Jeezus,” you can imagine the cable panjandrums whispering, “We gotta have a story! Hell, American Idol’s about to come back!”

Pay them no heed. Relax and enjoy the inevitability of Mitt. And why should that prospect make liberals feel as comfy as a teddy bear in a Snuggie, even though Mitt is the only Republican who polls strongly against Obama? Come jump with me…  

Mitt Romney is the very embodiment of the man who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. He has never, ever had to worry about anything in his silver-spoon life. Well, we all find things to worry about — but he’s never really had anything to worry about, beyond mis-timing a short-sell order or leaving a few dollars behind when he looted a takeover target. He’s never faced existential dread, the real thing that makes you fear for your life or even wish you were dead.

In other words, he’s a soft target. And now he’s on the political equivalent of third base — not on his own merits, but thanks to the utter incompetence of the rest of the Republican field. If there was another Republican candidate who could tie his own goddamn shoes, he would have eaten Mitt’s (very expensive) lunch by now. As it is, Mitt is shambling unsteadily toward the inevitable when he should be enjoying a triumphal march to the convention.

And clearly, he’s beginning to think he hit a triple. And he’s allowing his innate boarding-school smugness to come shining through. “I like being able to fire people” — it should be a line for the ages, and Mitt blurted it out even before he actually won a single primary.

(As some pundits have been quick to point out, the line is being misinterpreted. But it reflects what we see as Mitt’s real character; you might say it’s truer than the truth. Just like Al Gore’s supposed brags about the Internet and “Love Story” or John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I was against it,” Mitt’s “I like firing people” rings true. It resonates.)

Stretching before him is a ten-month period of intense scrutiny. Plenty of time for complacency to take root, grow, and bear fruit. Guy like this, standing on third base with a self-satisfied smirk on his mug for ten months? Just imagine the stupid shit he’s going to say.

I don’t care what the polls say right now. If Obama can’t beat this presumptuous, overbearing Upper Class Twit, then he doesn’t deserve a second term.    

For the second time in four months, Andy Bromage of Seven Days has seen fit to fire a volley in the direction of GMD’s Dear Leader, John Odum. Don’t really know why Bromage is spending so much time on a mere blogger and (very part-time) news editor of a twice-monthly small-market free newspaper, but he apparently sees Odum as a notable threat to the standards and ethics of Vermont journalism.

(Such as they are.)

In August, Bromage wrote some highly critical words about Odum’s hiring as the (very part-time) news editor of The Bridge:  

John Odum has made a name for himself by mocking Republicans and cheerleading for Democrats on his popular politics blog Green Mountain Daily. He’s also worked as a paid political consultant, most recently for PowerThru Consulting, advocating for myriad progressive causes.

But now he’s donning a new title: news editor for Montpelier’s twice-monthly newspaper The Bridge. And Odum says that in his new role, he’ll check his opinions at the door and practice just-the-facts-ma’am journalism.

Then, on January 6, Bromage put up a post on “Blurt,” Seven Days’ staff blog, in which he made fun of Bridge publisher Nat Frothingham’s attempt to market a Statehouse column written by John Odum. Bromage reiterated his earlier precis of Odum’s resume, and wondered about “a perceived or actual conflict of interest.”

(Addendum: Not only did Bromage file this on “Blurt,” but 7D posted this story on its “Daily 7” for Monday 1/9. “Daily 7” is its e-mailed capsule of the top seven stories in Vermont news. Now, if the launch of Odum’s column is one of the biggest stories in the state, then either Seven Days is suffering from a severe perspective disorder, or we live in a really, really boring state. I vote for both.)

First, a quibble: if Bromage had paid any attention to Odum’s actual GMD posts, he would know that Odum is nothing like a cheerleader for the Dems. He is at least as likely to slam Dems/Libs/Progs as to wave the pompoms. Many of Odum’s GMD posts — especially compared to the ill-considered rants of the rest of us — are even-tempered and insightful. (Somehow, Odum gets stigmatized for anything that anybody writes on GMD, when he exercises virtually no editorial control whatsoever.)

Second, journalistic purity is pretty much a joke in Vermont. And Seven Days is one of the darker kettles in that rather inky kitchen.  

The whole notion of a firewall between journalism and advocacy in Vermont is completely laughable. Really, it’s S.O.P. to play both sides of that street. Indeed, it’s the only way for journalists to make any real money in a small state where mainstream journalistic enterprises are woefully underfunded.

Let’s take three cases far more egregious than Odum’s, because all three are far more famous and influential. One: Anson Tebbetts, first a reporter, then a Douglas Administration appointee, now News Director of WCAX-TV. I don’t recall anyone questioning his hiring. Two: Chris Graff, former Vermont Bureau Chief for the AP, now chief flack for National Life and simultaneously a frequent “political analyst” for a variety of media outlets, who somehow never acknowledge his massive potential conflict of interest.

Three: the late great Peter Freyne himself, the most outrageous of lefty opinionators and onetime flack for Democratic Gov. Madeleine Kunin. If Odum’s past disqualifies him from writing a politics column, then Freyne should never have been allowed to darken the doorways of Seven Days. Still, somehow, Freyne became a respected commentator and reporter who made significant contributions to Vermont journalism. If he can do it, then maybe — just maybe — we should give Odum a chance.

(Ironically, Freyne himself almost didn’t get the chance. In Seven Days’ obituary of Freyne, co-publisher Pamela Polston noted that after his tenure as Kunin’s spokesperson, “Peter’s reputation was sullied, and for quite some time he couldn’t find work in Vermont — as a journalist or anything else.” IMHO, it’s a damn good thing that Seven Days looked beyond the taint and gave Freyne an opportunity to shine.)

In fact, Odum’s work as writer and news editor for The Bridge has been exemplary. His articles have been fair and objective, and he has tried to explore issues and trends in the civic life of Montpelier that had heretofore gone unexplored. Bromage even acknowledged as much in his August screed about the alleged evils of Odum:

His first piece for the Bridge – a front-page article on legislative redistricting published on August 18 – might be the poster child for dry-but-important journalism. It’s a thoroughly reported piece on a complicated topic, and Odum even wrangled a quote from one of his frequent punching bags, former Vermont Republican Party chairman Rob Roper. Odum once called Roper a “wingnut” on GMD.  

Odum’s subsequent work has been of similar caliber. When Bromage again hefted his cudgel last week, I wish he had seen fit to either (a) provide examples of Odumian bias in The Bridge, or (b) admit that, so far, Odum’s doing a fine job as a “real” journalist.

Now, I will concede that hawking a politics column to Seven Days wasn’t the brightest thing Nat Frothingham has ever done. Seven Days is just about the only weekly in the state that isn’t a potential market for such a column, being the home of the Peter Freyne Memorial Chair In Journalistic Advocacy And Advocacy Journalism. But there’s absolutely nothing sinister about a small weekly trying to make a little money by selling something of value for a fair price. Nor is there a threat to Vermont’s journalistic purity in having John Odum write that column. Let it thrive or perish on its merits. (Or is Bromage afraid of a little competition, hmm?)

And if anyone should be embarrassed to don the mantle of Journalistic Guardian, it oughta be Seven Days. I like the paper, I read it every week, but it routinely ignores the line between opinion and reportage whenever it wants to. A snarky tone is, indeed, the very signature of the Seven Days style. Taking the lead in that parade is the Freyne/Totten/Bromage political column itself — a walking, talking, flamboyant exercise in erasing the “news/opinion  line” that so concerns Bromage in his consideration of Odum’s qualifications. And yet, somehow, that column has been a valuable contributor to political discourse in Vermont.

Maybe Odum can do the same, if given the chance.

Finally, a word of advice to the current occupant of the Freyne Memorial Chair: One of the finest traits of Peter Freyne was that he trained his ire on the famous and influential. He was Jack the Giant Killer — or at least Jack the Giant Annoyer.  With all due respect to John Odum, he is a gnat on a hippo’s hiney compared to Tebbetts, Graff, Freyne, or many others who have crossed the journalism/opinion/flackery “divide” with nary a harrumph. If Andy Bromage is going to get all tetchy about standards and ethics, he should choose bigger targets.

Acknowledgments: I have a whole bagful of potential conflicts of interest here. I’m a colleague of Odum’s at GMD; I like the guy and would like to consider him a friend; I used to work for The Bridge, and I still write occasionally for the paper. On the other hand, I am a big fan and regular reader of Seven Days; I loved the work of Peter Freyne and Shay Totten, and I hope that Bromage can bring us more of the same. Dunno exactly how those factors balance out; perhaps you can evaluate this post on its merits.

This space (and my portion thereof) is usually given over to snark, sarcasm, and criticism, in various combinations. But there’ve been a few good-news stories lately, and I’d like to take the time on this newest, freshest day of the year to offer some thanks and gratitude. (Possibly seasoned by just a pinch of snark. Gotta be me.)

— Hooray for the opening of the new Champlain bridge! It took just a bit more than two years, and came in just a bit over budget. All in all, a pretty darn remarkable accomplishment.  Y’know, when government works, it can do some really nice things.

Snark: Hopefully, New York will be a little more diligent about inspection and upkeep this time.

— Three cheers for the beefing-up of the LIHEAP funds for this winter. (It’s gonna get cold sooner or later, right?) Our Congressional delegation, and the Shumlin Administration, did some good work in pumping more money into this crucial program.

Snark: Congrats to Jeb Spaulding for doing his part in this, despite the perfidious attempt by VSEA to distract his attention.  

— Finally, good-on-ya to the DOT and all the hard-working road crews for reopening Route 107, the last highway shut down by Tropical Storm Irene. It’s quite an accomplishment, getting all that done under very urgent circumstances, in what would usually be the tail end of the road-construction season. (And an assist to global warming for the late onset of winter that helped make it possible.)

Snark: We’ll see how the rivers and streams deal with the consequences of various unpermitted construction activities. Still, IMO, while I’m sure some unfortunate things were done, it was a rare situation when some shortcutting was called for.

So I just noticed bmike’s recent diary entitled “WTF?” Turned out he was exercised about something stupid John McClaughry said in an opinion piece. Nothing new there.

(For those of you just joining us, McClaughry is the founder of the Ethan Allen Institute, and a devout conservative/libertarian/free marketer. Gotta be lonely to be one o’ them in Vermont, hanging out with the likes of Paul Beaudry and paying good money to put Rob Roper on the radio.)

Out of sheer, I don’t know, idle curiosity, I did a Google Image search for ol’ John. And one of the top hits featured a picture of him wearing an obviously false mustache and a set of fatigues. (See photo here.)

Hmm. I clicked on the link. It was to a 2002 conference held in Puerta Vallarta, Mexico, of the International Society for Individual Liberty. The subject was “Advancing Liberty in Latin America.”

‘Cause, you know, nothing wrong in Latin America that a dose of Ayn Rand couldn’t cure.

And there, in the midst of this “humanitarian” effort to lift Latinos out of their socialist morass and into a new dawn of prosperity, was ol’ John giving what must have been a side-splitting impersonation of “El Jefe General Saturino Borhorquez,” a stereotypical tinpot dictator who had found the gospel of Randianism and renounced his statist ways. From the conference report:

John McClaughry… delivered a hilarious skit as a reformed banana-republic dictator. Strutting to the fore in a military uniform, hat and boots, with a wide red sash and jangling medals, he must have been a sight for the locals. He renamed his country “Nueva Prosperidad” and rhymed off the libertarian reforms that would bring prosperity.

It then adds, “All good satirical fun.” Unfortunately, the accompanying offer to “buy the tape” is no longer online. I would have been sorely tempted. Because you know what usually happens when devout conservatives try to indulge in “satirical fun” involving ludicrous costumes and ethnic stereotypes.

So John, are you available for weddings and bar mitzvahs?

(Addendum: Bringing forward a very perceptive comment by BP. Wish I’d thought of it myself:

Exactly right, BP. Libertarians have gotta know, somewhere deep inside, that they’ll never win through democratic means. El Jefe is their deepest fantasy (and ultimate self-contradiction) personified: the overthrow of statism through the absolute power of the state.)