Update to the below: The commenter sent me an email detailing his experience on 9/11:

I worked in 2001 for Guy Carpenter & Co. – a reinsurance intermediary. GC was headquartered in the South Tower and I was located on the 51st floor. I was late for work that day and had just come out of the subway and was approaching the WTC quad when the second plane hit. My wife who was at home with our newly born second son, knew what train I had taken and was convinced based on her sense of timing that I was probably in an elevator when the plane hit. Fortunately, I was still a few minutes away. Afterwords I spoke at the St. Johnsbury Academy, the Elks Club in St. Jay, the Lyndon Rotary and a few other places about my experiences. The Caledonian Record ran two stories about my talks. In any case, I found Mr. Foty’s comments very inappropriate.

To recap: Vermont Tiger’s Daniel Foty explicitly compared environmentalists to “our jihadist enemies” and cites Osama Bin Laden.

Vermont Tiger really owes this guy an apology. To let this hang out there without addressing it is S-L-I-M-Y.

---

From the comments:

How VT Tiger Operates  

Odum: Thanks for helping me put all this wing-nuttery into prespective and helping me laugh. At the time, however I took great offense to Mr. Foty’s Bin Laden post on VT Tiger as I am a 9/11 survivor. I’ve had some go arounds with him before – and have called him a anti-science ideologue. Well, he didn’t have the courage to post my response to his nonesense, so I wrote Mr. Norman, one of the blogs founders. No response. I thought your readers might find my letter and comment interesting (copied below). I appologize for it being serious but the Global Warming Deniers who use anything but scientific evidence to push their ideological and political goals need to be called out – not that it does any good. Also, sorry for the length, but I appreciate the opporutunity to post this material. Many thanks, Sandy

The bulk of the comment is below the fold. To the commenter, with most folks I advise that, while this kind of freako-weirdness should always be called out, the real wingnuts aren’t worth getting too worked up over. They feed on that.

But considering his connection to the tragedy, the comparison is that much more abhorrent. Assuming the poster’s claim is correct (and I have no reason whatsoever to believe it isn’t – its just that this is the internet…), by any ethical measure, he is owed an apology. We’ll see if he gets one. The question is whether VT Tiger wants to be “the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal” or freerepublic.com.

Hi Mr. Norman:

I must say your Mr. Foty went beyond the pale this weekend and I felt compelled to answer (he of course deleted my post). I thought Mr. Foty’s “Jihad Greened,” was in very poor taste and added nothing to the debate over Global Warming.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative (I’ve worked for large corporations most of my life) but try to think rationally about science and environmental issues. I worked at the World Trade Center and lived through 9/11. From my point of view there was nothing funny about Mr. Foty’s post and I saw it as further evidence of his non-scientific approach to the issue of Global Warming.

I realize Mr. Foty took offense to my labeling him an anti-science ideologue (this was solely based on a review of his writings – as I don’t know him). He on the other hand, attacked me personally by charging that I must have a vested interest in this issue (I don’t) implying that he didn’t have to answer any of my science questions as a result.  This is simply a trick to avoid answering – he has done this over and over again. His approach hardly makes for the kind civil discussion he advocates

I don’t mind the attacks, however as they come with the territory. Nevertheless, Mr. Foty is hardly innocent. Read a few of his comments. He almost always makes a point to answer a post that disagrees with him. He writes paragraph after paragraph never acknowledging that the other person has an interesting or rational point of view, just that they are wrong. He often implies that because he is a scientist (I’m not sure his background means he understands climate science better than the average person – but that is irrelevant) and has studied the issue, the commenter must be wrong. Maybe a little less “I’m a scientist so I must be right rhetoric” (it comes up all the time) and a little more scientific data and research might make him more credible and the debate more worthwhile.  

And, of course, he is never above his own labeling calling scientists – “dishonest,’ and cynically remarking that some of the most respected scientists in the world call “themselves scientists.” He labeled James Hansen a “busted flush,” Obama’s economic advisers “economic illiterates” and one Tiger commenter as living in a “thick cocoon.” I called him an anti-science ideologue because science is the last thing he discusses in his posts – individual scientists and the scientific process get lots of space, but there is very little scientific evidence.

Finally, I won’t bother you with the number of factually untrue statements he has made that can easily be shown to be false. There is no point – he wouldn’t answer the charge with scientific evidence. Believe me I don’t mind that he disagrees with my point of view, but expect that if he attacks scientific conclusions that he should have scientific evidence to back his point of view. Global Warming science may be awash in politics but whether it’s happening or not is a scientific question.  

Mr. Norman, I know when to quit and will do so – frankly I’ve got better things to do than argue with someone whose critical thinking powers lend themselves to conspiracy theories, attacks against the scientific community, and the all time topper: grouping environmentalists with Osama bin laden. You can bet, however that I will continue to preach climate science literacy and stand up to those that would take the actions of a few and use them to imply that the entire scientific community is corrupt.

Although Mr. Foty has yet to acknowledge that Climate Science is built on many independent lines of research, modeling, and actual observation, his refusal can’t change this obvious fact. I believe his posts hurt the credibility of what you are trying to do a Vermont Tiger and think that is unfortunate.  

I would only ask one last favor. Please post my response to Mr. Foty’s “Jihad Greened.”  As a 9/11 survivor I take great offense to his post. I think your readers deserve to see my perspective and judge for themselves whether I have a reasonable point. I am attaching my post – below.

My Comment:

“A terrorist such as Osama Bin Laden, who is in hiding, depends on gullible media outlets to provide him with a platform to spread his words of hate. That Mr. Foty would showcase Bin Laden’s words to vilify environmentalists clearly shows that Mr. Foty will go to any extreme to push his political and ideological objection to Global Warming.

There is really nothing funny or appropriate about giving Osama Bin Laden a mouthpiece for his propaganda and hatred against America.

This post clearly revels that Mr. Foty has little interest in scientific evidence but will stop at nothing to attack environmentalists, scientists, and the scientific process.

By his twisted logic he trivializes the death of thousands of his fellow citizens and Vermont Tiger readers should see Mr. Foty’s flippant words for what they are; an affront to all Americans.  

Finally, I personally object because I worked at the World Trade Center on the 51st floor of the South Tower. I survived 9/11 but many of my friends and colleagues did not.”

Pick your favorite:

• Vermont Tiger doesn’t just stop at saying: if you’re an environmentalist, you are also a “fascist”;  apparently, you are a terrorist in league with Osama Bin Laden and radical Islam as well. No foolin’.
• Only Vermont Commons’ secessionist candidates will be able to save us from the secret “earthquake weapon” the US military just used on Haiti to get their oil and gold. Better vote for em. On the other hand, if you do, won’t Barack Obama use it on Vermont? Decisions, decisions…
• All I can say is it’s about time:
  

  Aliens live on Earth and are in constant communication and interaction with us, Bulgarian scientists told Novinar, quoted by Dnes on November 23 2009.

  It was even claimed that some alien species were present during a media statement in which they had answered more than 30 questions put forward by Bulgarian Academy of Science (BAS) personnel.

  […] “The aliens are very critical of our immoral behaviour and our destruction of the environment. They say that global warming is attributed mainly to infrastructural engineering. Additionally, they are very skeptical of our use of cosmetics, and artificial insemination because this is ‘unnatural,'” Filipov said.

Tough choice, huh?

In the end, it wasn’t even close. Big kudos to Bernie Sanders for trying his best (including voting against cloture, which has come to be the only vote that matters on anything in the Senate).

Putting aside the ethics and wisdom of reappointing the Bush appointed Fed Chief who helped wreck the economy and who has been the chief moneyman for massive, unaccountable payouts from the wallets of a taxpayer base hobbled by economic crisis, there’s also the political stupidity factor. Bernanke is rightfully described as a “Time Bomb” waiting to happen, as Republicans may have hard evidence that he covered up Fed staff recommendations against the bailout of AIG, all of which would dovetail disturbingly cleanly with Treasury Secretary Geithner’s AIG related troubles. Cenk Uygur even speculates that the GOP may well have planned to wait until after Democrats re-appointed Bernanke before pushing their evidence, in the process hanging the whole mess directly on Obama and the Senate Dems.

I guess we’ll see if anything does come out, or if it’s just hubbub. At any rate, it’s more profound stupidity from Washington Dems (or in the case of outgoing Senator Dodd, who seems to have started auditioning for a nice K Street job ever since announcing he would not seek re-election, possibly self-interest).

But what I’d really like to hear is our senior Senator – Patrick Leahy – come here and explain exactly why he foolishly and irresponsibly voted to reconfirm this guy when he should have stood with his fellow Vermont Senator.

Woopsie.

Here’s the kind of thing I’m kind of surprised doesn’t happen more often. After the flip for some screen shots…

First, from the Markowitz for Governor site:

---

Second, from the Racine for Governor site:

The Racine site seems to generate the entries dynamically, so the testimonials might be in a different order if you go, but Adler is definitely on there.

UPDATE: A quick email in my inbox from Brooke Adler makes the point that she is “not trying to be in two places at once and the the inclusion of my name on the list of Markowitz supporters in the Democratic Primary is an error.”

Honestly, it didn’t even occur to me that somewhat might think Adler was intentionally on both lists. I’d be surprised if anybody reading drew such a conclusion.

Thing is… lotsa candidates. Small state. This is going to happen a lot. Not a big deal necessarily, but the campaigns do have an obligation to keep vigilant when dealing with regular folks’ names like this.

Okay, this is officially getting weird. Last week was apparently no anomaly, as reporter Louis Porter again cuts his “analysis” of the Governor’s budget ideas in a light that is deceptively favorable (here is the link). Gone, at least, is the explicit (and demonstrably untrue) statement that Douglas has proposed no tax increases, but what remains still masks reality to the point that seems beyond simply sloppy.

In his analysis of taxes, there remains no mention – none – of the tax increase Douglas is proposing to the middle class. Only a potential tax break to the upper incomes is mentioned. So while it doesn’t contain the explicit no new taxes line, it deceptively continues the same narrative, in the process simply omitting what is likely to be the most controversial (and thereby newsworthy) element of his tax proposals – an element presented as such by the free Press and AP coverage.

The Governor, of course, wants to eliminate some income sensitivity under the statewide property tax, which could hit two-income families in particular. As one analyst laid it out for me:

For example, if your report $65,000 in income, your ed prop. tax would go from to $1,170 to $1,463 (max. % rising from 1.8% to 2.25%). [note that the local inflators would make the figures different in different towns but this is before the adjustments]  That’a 25% increase for a middle class family.

If you report $80,000, your tax would go from $1,440 to $2,800 (94% increase based on an increase from 1.8% to 3.5%).

He wants to use the savings to lower the residential & non-residential rates by one cent.  Thus, the savings will accrue primarily to the wealthy (instate, second home owners, and businesses).

If you depended on the Vermont Press Bureau’s coverage, you wouldn’t even know this controversial aspect existed – at least not in the two articles I’ve seen.

In the past when we’ve seen a Vermont reporter go all Douglas advocacy, its usually led to a job change. According to Hubbub, Sabina Haskell insisted that the Brattleboro Reformer endorse Jim Douglas for Governor, and shortly thereafter she went to work for the administration (the endorsement did not repeat). When Brendan McKenna began writing fluff pieces about Martha Rainville for (again) the Rutland Herald & Times Argus, it was only a matter of months before it was anounced he was joining the Rainville election team as Communications Director.

Douglas is a lame duck, though, so its hard to imagine any jobs opening up. Maybe Dubie’s looking for a Communications Director.

In any event, this needs to stop. I encourage folks to send emails to the editors of the Rutland Herald and Times Argus and ask that coverage of the Governor’s budget be more… er… fair and balanced (will that get me sued by Fox News?).

Times Argus letters-to-the-editor: letters@timesargus.com

Rutland Herald letters-to-the-editor: letters@rutlandherald.com

Shumlin stays hot, Racine turns it up to 10, and Dunne moves front and center. All told, most of the candidates really kick it all up a notch or two.

Peter Shumlin. Shumlin’s still hot, again to large extent thanks to Vermont Yankee’s continuing troubles and his strong association with the issue. But he’s also got his email list running, is growing his Facebook contacts, and is actively campaigning (when I called him about another issue over the weekend, I caught him shaking hands on a Middlebury street corner alongside Elizabeth Ready en route to an evening fundraiser). In the news, looking more gubernatorial than Douglas (and Dubie), raising money, campaigning. Check, check, check and check.

Doug Racine‘s been all over the place this past week. In the news on health care, but also hitting the Governor strongly on his budget cutting proposals insofar as they impact those who can least afford it, and taking advantage of the greater campaign flexibility his position affords him on as compared to Senate Prez Shumlin. Capping off the week with the high profile campaign event Sue reports on below makes for an explosive week for the former Lietenant Governor. It’s unclear how much money is coming in these days for the Chittenden Senator, as his ActBlue meter hasn’t shown much life lately, but there’s little doubt his kickoff event garnered him some campaign cash. All told, as good a week as a candidate can have at this still-early stage.

Matt Dunne. I thought he might bump up another notch this week, but Dunne comes on even stronger as his statewide momentum has even started to breach the legislature-centric Montpelier bubble. Dunne has not only assembled an impressive collection of advisers, he is also bringing on staff and reportedly already has six figures in the bank, despite his late entry. Dunne also entered the Montpelier arena literally as well as figuratively with a media event focused on Vermont Yankee. As such he is the only other Democratic gubernatorial pretender making any real effort to actively share the issue with Senator Shumlin.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; Dems tend to fall into one of two categories regarding Dunne – those who really like him a lot, and those who refuse to accept just how many other Dems really like him a lot. It’s starting to dawn on the latter group that the former Vermont State Senator and House Whip is going to be very much a factor in this primary.

Susan Bartlett. Bartlett’s getting a little buzz in the sense that more folks are accepting her as a legitimate candidate as opposed to wondering why the state Senator – who has never before appeared on a statewide ballot – would jump in to such a high profile race for the top job. Her attempts to stake out the fiscally conservative Democratic turf seem to be paying some dividents, and readers of the this site will note a few diaries down that she even took that message here to GMD – hardly a receptive crowd ideologically. Props for chutzpah. That combined with my encountering my first couple people that have indicated to me their intent to vote for her in the primary makes for a little extra mojo.

Deb Markowitz. Starting to get some negative feedback on Markowitz for her mixed signals on state issues (she reportedly exited quickly after the Governor’s budget address and managed to avoid the press). She continues to be the most relentless fundraiser, but that too is starting to weary folks. There’s clearly a real desire to see her dive more clearly and definitively into Vermont issues. She does get out press releases about “safe” national issues, such as the recent SCOTUS decision, but the muttering-for-more has definitely increased this week, at least insomuch as what I’m hearing. Without any good media or events to counter, it means she drops another mojo point for the week, although I have no doubt there are some significant moves from this campaign to be seen some time from now, particularly in the realm of media buys. My gut tells me Markowitz is going to have a very paid-media-heavy campaign.

---

Brian Dubie. I got nuthin on the Dubester this week. The movements of Republicans are often unclear to me, although there are still mutterings about possible primary challenges from more doctrinaire and/or marketable GOPers. Heard Randy Brock’s name again. Whether its a name being floated with his approval or awareness is debatable. I’d bet no, and that its just another sympton of old-guard Republican ambivalence towards their anointed one.

Sunday night, and this doesn’t really belong on the front page, but so what.

Was just reminded of a movie I’d forgotten about completely. In 1983, Francis Ford Coppola directed two films based on similar S.E. Hinton books written for the “young adult” set. Both starred Matt Dillon and one, The Outsiders, was a fairly pedestrian 80’s young-adultish film and performed reasonably well at the box office.

The other was Rumble Fish, and it largely crashed and burned at the theaters. It too starred Dillon, but also featured Diane Lane, Tom Waits, Mickey Rourke, Dennis Hopper and others – a really interesting cast. Unlike The Outsiders, it was filmed with a lot more creativity – not simply by virtue of being filmed in black and white (except for the fish, as I recall), but for some unusual cinematography and scene transitions. In fact the whole film’s tone really transcended the source material. Yeah it was melodramatic, and perhaps pretentious, but it worked – at least as I recall. Haven’t seen it since I was in high school.

Anyway, it just came rushing back to me when I recalled the song from the movie, which I absolutely love, and which (again, from what I remember) captured the odd, even disturbing tone of the film well. Does anybody else remember this pic? Was it as good (or at least interesting) as I remember it being (I was only, like 15 or 16 at the time, and I thought some pretty crappy stuff was good when I was 16, after all)?

I find this piece from TPM fascinating, in no small part because I can easily put myself right in some of these House members shoes. Frankly, I feel exactly the same way.

…more than half of House Democrats don’t want to pass the Senate version of the (health care reform) bill with the promise that the bigger differences they’ve already been hammering out would be fixed with a second bill.

The bottom line is that many members feel betrayed by the White House and Senate and just don’t trust that a fix would pass.

[…] “They are frustrated the White House fell for all the talk in the Senate that they thought they could make [their bill] bipartisan,” the aide said. “Members don’t trust the Senate, they definitely don’t trust the White House to come back and fix any of this.”

I doubt I’m the only one feeling a little empathy towards lefty Representatives after reading this piece. That’s probably a good thing on several levels.

Fan that spark of healthy skepticism and independent thinking into a full on flame, folks. Clearly, as far as dealing with the White House and the Senate on this, or other charged issues, the House progressives’ mantra should be trust, but verify.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the Supreme Court’s decision to blow the lid off corporate campaign contributions and overwrite a century’s worth of legal doctrine on the issue. The decision, of course, is predicated on the notion of “corporate personhood” – the idea that corporations are entitled to the same rights as so-called “natural” persons. In this case, the Court decided that this was a matter of protecting corporate-persons’ (I like to call them “corporate-Americans”) right to free speech, given that speech is money (which should explain to those that know me why I choose to talk so much).

But I, for one, am delighted by the decision. I believe it’s long overdue. Corporate-persons have long faced discrimination, and I am sick to death of seeing any kind of person singled out for any sort of discrimination in our society.

In fact, I hope the Supreme Court doesn’t just stop with speech, as there is clearly so much more to be done to fully guarantee corporate-persons the rights to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that their fellow persons enjoy under our beloved Constitution. Here are just a few of the more egregious ways our society has institutionalized its bigotry against this singularly downtrodden class of person:

• Marriage equality and the right to a family! Nowhere are corporate-persons more discriminated against than in these areas, so fundamental as they are to what makes us all persons. If I went down to the courthouse to fill out a marriage license for myself and RiteAid, I wouldn’t just be denied, I would likely be mocked. It’s time to end the discrimination, as all persons should be equal in the eyes of the law. Not only should I be able to wed the person of my choice, we should be able to adopt, since it’s likely that RiteAid and I won’t be able to naturally conceive. Perhaps we might choose to start our family with the adoption of an abandoned inner city infant. Perhaps we’d adopt a small chain of convenience stores as well (I’ve already picked out names!)
• Justice for the brutally murdered! Made vulnerable by the ailing economy, corporate-person Circuit City was tragically killed just last year – in part due to the intentional actions of other persons such as Best Buy and WalMart. And yet, neither have been brought to answer for this murder before a criminal court. Justice for all persons (and for god’s sake, let’s have the trial in Texas so we can give WalMart the Chair!)!
• Suffrage! Why is an entire class of persons disenfranchised from the electoral process? Corporations should not be barred from registering to vote – and I mean corporations big and small! Why, I might just go out and sign the paperwork to create a few small corporations myself (call it a “litter” I suppose), and I’ll fully expect that my baby corps will be able to exercise their constitutional rights (although I suppose they may have to wait til their eighteenth birthdays).

  Along these lines, I daresay I hope I’ll live to see the first corporate-american President. After the court’s decision this week, I feel more optimistic than ever that we’re on the way (so long as a valid American birth certificate can be produced, of course).

• Jobs! I have no doubt that if a corporate-person applied for virtually any job in the classifieds, they wouldn’t even get an interview. Hell, the prejudice is so pervasive that I bet McDonald’s wouldn’t even hire a corporate-person as a burger flipper (which is doubly tragic, because they’d be committing an act of discrimination against their own people!). It’s time for a civil rights march on Washington demanding affirmative action. These overlooked citizens need jobs too (as well as the right to collectively bargain, but first thing’s first, I suppose).
• Bring on the entitlements! Medicare! Foodstamps! Unemployment! Not exactly sure how it’ll all work, but regardless, no class of persons should be discriminated against when it comes to our social programs.

I thank god that the Supreme Court, in its unquestionable wisdom and undeniable logic, has taken another major step towards righting these, and other wrongs. In fact, I’m starting a new corporation – a nonprofit, actually – to further the Supremes’ message and continue the struggle.

I’ll be sure to let readers know when the christening will be held.

(Crossposted at HuffPo)

Somebody want to explain this to me? Here’s the headline from the Times Argus yesterday:

Douglas budget makes cuts, proposes no new taxes

Here’s from the Rutland Herald:

Reductions, no new taxes for $150M state budget hole

Blazing message for all to see. Douglas is holding the line on taxes. Even the casual passersby got the message from the stacks in the stores. Too bad it’s complete crap.

What’s the truth? For that, you have to turn to the editorial page of the Herald/Argus (for a very solid piece, BTW):

It is also noteworthy that as (Governor Douglas) holds the line on new taxes on the wealthy, he has asked middle-income taxpayers to pay higher property taxes. He would achieve this by raising the percentage of income that could be tapped for school property taxes for households earning between $60,000 and $90,000.

Bizarre. Do these folks talk to each other?

So which editor writes the headlines? I don’t know, but don’t let reporter Louis Porter off the hook. From the second paragraph of the piece:

What was not included in his tough proposed budget, drafted to fill a more than $150 million hole in next year’s spending, were any increases in broad-based taxes

Interesting qualification, “broad-based.” Thing is, it doesn’t mean anything. There’s no hard and fast definition, but I have no doubt that the term has been dutifully parroted from the Douglas administration, which in this case is BSing so brazenly (we won’t raise taxes except when we will) that we’ve passed firmly into up is down and black is white territory. Here’s Charlie Crist of Florida engaged in the same “broad-based” parsing. The St. Petersburg Times writer, rather than parroting their Governor’s line, properly called it “distortion.” At any rate, I think “middle class Vermonters” is a pretty broad category.

So Louis Porter and the headline writer served as PR mouthpieces for the administration yesterday. It almost doesn’t matter what the rest of the piece said after those headlines and the semi-qualified restatement in the article’s opening thesis (which is not to say that the rest of the piece covers it in any meaningful way… it all reads like Douglas spin). And its not like it was a trend, here; Terri Hallenbeck’s analysis was perfectly professional. The AP wire report also made no such claim, as half of its six sentences explain the Douglas tax increase, with nary a sign of any no new taxes claim, “broad-based” or otherwise.

If the administration was trying to pass a naked untruth to a reporter as the truth, that in itself should be the news.

The Times Argus and Rutland Herald should be ashamed. “Outrageous” doesn’t begin to cover it. This goes beyond simply misplaced “advocacy journalism,” as the papers promoted an outright untruth in the service of the adminsitration’s public image.