All posts by Sue Prent

About Sue Prent

Artist/Writer/Activist living in St. Albans, Vermont with my husband since 1983. I was born in Chicago; moved to Montreal in 1969; lived there and in Berlin, W. Germany until we finally settled in St. Albans.

Early endorsements, from VCV’s perspective

local/regional, Uncategorized, ,

Turning away from the portentous spectacle of national politics for a moment to focus on our regional races feels somehow reassuring today; yet there is a bit of drama and controversy to be found even close to home.

A couple of days ago, Vermont Conservation Voters ( VCV) released their list of early endorsements and some were disappointed to see that a favorite candidate didn’t make the cut.

It is important to remember that these are only the early endorsements, and they were reserved for legislators with demonstrated leadership on environmental issues, whose voting record on key legislation identified by the VCV  was over 90%, both in the current session, and for her or his legislative lifetime. Further endorsements will be forthcoming in the fall and will extend to many more individual legislators.

As a former board member for the VCV, I thought I might use the platform of GMD to explain how the sausage gets made, when it comes to endorsements.

Early endorsement from VCV would carry no weight if it was easily won.

In Vermont, we are blessed with a legislature that is, to a large extent, accepting of climate change science and supportive of responsible environmental safeguards. But even within that general consensus, opinions differ on how best to achieve those safeguards and where priorities should be established.

Clearly, Philip Baruth is one of the good guys; and his contributions will certainly be celebrated in the next round of endorsements. That being said, how fair would it be if, having forewarned legislators on what bills would be scored and, therefore, would figure into the early endorsement metrics, VCV made an exception for Philip?  How much credibility would VCV have if they held him to a different standard than every other lawmaker?

Philip is an experienced legislator who, I am sure, has a pretty good grasp of strategic politics.  I doubt that he is particularly surprised or crushed by the early pass. Every now and then, even the good guys, who are just doing what makes strategic sense to them, end up on the wrong end of the equation. It’s called ‘taking one for the team,’ and Philip is no stranger to the experience. He’s a courageous legislator who probably doesn’t need bouquets just for doing his job to the best of his ability.

Odum has well explained the minutiae of everyone’s voting records, so I won’t go into that all over again. Suffice it to say that Sen. Baruth’s score on just the votes that the VCV identified as critical for the current session ended up falling short of the 90% mark.

Informed by research and education, the VCV must pursue the environmental advocacy
positions that they feel best suit their mission, regardless of occasional awkward moments with their usual allies. Environmentally responsible legislators, like Philip, must also follow the course of their best judgments.

Mutual respect should be understood to be in effect, and mutual interest in what is best for the environment remains the goal in each case.

Trump: Pedophile and Rapist?

National, , , ,

The morning news dump brought with it a story from the Guardian in which Jill Harth breaks her long silence about a sexual assault by Donald Trump back in 1992.

The account given by Ms. Harth is extremely compelling and prompted me to research other allegations of sexual assault that have been seriously lodged against the Republican nominee over the course of his public life.

Perhaps the most disturbing example is his implication in the rape of a thirteen year old girl at a sex party hosted by his friend Jeffrey Epstein in 1994.

“Epstein has been named in multiple similar lawsuits over the last several years, served 13 months in jail, and is registered as a sex offender for life.”

Trump famously said the following about Mr. Epstein in  a New York Magazine profile some years ago:

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Rather than going into all the offensive details contained in a variety of reports concerning the alleged pedophile rape, I thought I’d cut straight to the chase by citing an analysis of the available evidence by Snopes which provides about as much objective perspective on the story as might be hoped for.

Once again, the available record suggests that the story is true, but one of these claims is the subject of current legal actions, and the other was only made public after the Trump campaign preemptively called the alleged victim a “liar;” so we cannot legally draw a line under his guilt. Of course, Trump uses that ‘l’ word as liberally as he does the other ‘l’ word: ‘loser.’

This verbal tic always reminds me of the old retort, “It takes one to know one.”

Then there is Ivana Trump’s charge, made during their divorce proceedings, that Donald indulged in angry rape against her when procedure to address baldness, performed by someone she had recommended, went horribly wrong. She later withdrew the word ‘rape’ from her testimony but the account remained pretty much the same. He aggressively forced her to have sex after subduing her by pulling her by the hair of her head…hair that was in roughly the same position on her scalp as had been affected by his own botched baldness procedure.

To me that sounds pretty much like angry rape. That his accuser later modified her allegation is not particularly surprising, considering that the two shared three children, a business relationship, a divorce settlement, and the clear understanding that nobody…absolutely nobody… crosses Donald Trump.

Why does the major news media seem to be avoiding discussion of these and other allegations of Trump’s predatory sexual appetites? Apart from very occasional sly jokes about his inappropriate remarks concerning his female offspring, virtually no mention has been made of this unsavory aspect of the candidate.

He has been free to call Hillary Clinton a liar, and to traffic in her guilt by association with Bill Clinton and his infamous indiscretions, but it almost seems as if there has been some agreement that his own accusers will receive network and cable silence.

Everyone knows of the smoke = fire scenario that eventually played out in the case of Bill Cosby; so, why isn’t more attention being given to an alarming pattern that appears to be emerging in credible stories about a man who is now just inches away from the Oval Office?

Norm McAllister in the dock again. Son opens mouth, inserts foot.

local/regional, , , , ,

Suspended Senator Norm McAllister is once again scheduled to answer charges of sexual assault and trafficking beginning on August 10 in the Franklin County Courthouse.

There is much fault that could be found with the way in which Mr. McAllister’s first trial was prosecuted, including the fact that the victim was forced to testify for many hours before the curious eyes of the press, while Mr. McAllister was allowed to sit the whole thing out without saying a word or even glancing at the assembly. It must be hoped that justice will be better served in the upcoming trial.

Norm Mcallister’s son Heath McAllister has, in the meantime, given us ample fodder for discussion with his comments to the media this week.

Defending his father, Heath is quoted as saying

“You’d have to believe he went from a loving husband of 43 years to some kind of animal…”

I agree that it is unlikely that Norm McAllister woke up one day at the age of 60+ and became a serial abuser. When an old man is discovered to be engaging in such behavior, it is almost certain that the pattern of abuse began many years earlier, and that there are other victims who simply have never come forward.

Heath McAllister went on to say that people are making too much of the extreme youth of the alleged victim.

“That’s not a big deal. You want to be disgusted that she was 19 and he was 63, knock yourself for a loop,”

Even if we accept his version of the story, in which she was 19 (not fifteen or sixteen, as she alleges) when the sexual contact began; according to her testimony, she weighed only 85 pounds, which is why he could easily pick her up and sling her over his shoulder like a bag of grain. The idea that she could “consent” to the relationship is outrageous. Now, at twenty-one, she is still a wee slip of a pretty girl, unlikely to consent to being violated by a portly, balding old man.

Apparently Mr. Heath McAllister sees nothing wrong with this picture.

That speaks volumes about the culture in the family, perhaps even in the McAllisters’ circle of friends.

The coup-de-grace, though, is this final admission:

“Did my dad talk like a pig? Sure. I don’t know how many men — what the hell, I’m in the list,” he said. “There’s been moments where if you took what I said out of context, it would sound horrible.”

The culture of misogyny and exploitation hangs heavy in those words. He thinks this is perfectly normal and acceptable.

Locking the perpetrator of such crimes away from vulnerable populations is only part of the remedy for sexual abuse; and, statistically, our society has a poor record of accomplishing even that much.

The real need is to address the underlying culture that enables such behaviors, interrupting the pattern before it takes hold among a broader community of family and friends. The simple reality is that women and girls raised in a culture of exploitation and abuse seldom seek or receive help. Captive to the culture of their tormenters, they simply accept that this is what they must survive.

The women who have spoken out about their experiences with Mr. McAllister deserve our respect and the same indulgence we allow to wartime victims of PTSD.

It is the very least that we can do.

Disadvantage: Zuckerman campaign.

local/regional, , ,

With less than a month to go until the Vermont Democratic Primary, I got a concerned call from one my Democratic friends who is supporting Dave Zuckerman (P/D) for Lieutenant Governor.  She had just learned that Dave’s campaign was denied access to the vote builder data base by the State Committee, and she wanted me to explain to her ‘why?’

Knowing that in a similar situation, Bernie Sander’s national campaign had been given access to the Party data base, I told her that I thought she might just be mistaken about the facts, but I said I’d see what I could find out.

So, after a little research, I reached out to Executive Director Conor Casey who confirmed what she had heard, and graciously agreed to answer a few questions for me.

As you can well imagine that voter data base has tremendous value to a campaign, allowing it to spare hard-won and often precious few fundraising dollars by sending literature and making calls only to voters likely to support the candidate. Without such select data finding voters susceptible to the candidate’s message is a little like looking for a needle in a haystack at so many cents per blade of straw.

Under contractual rules established by the national committee, access to the data base is provided to the campaigns of eligible candidates at a price; and he said that, even though the State Committee had endorsed him, the Executive Committee had decided that Senator Zuckerman did not qualify as a “bona fide Democrat” for that access.

This specific language seems to be the sticking point, and Conor quoted it for me from the contract:

“State Party shall provide all information in the State Party Voter File to all bona fide Democratic candidates for federal, state and local office in the state for both primary and general elections except that State Party shall not be obligated to provide such information to candidates in a Democratic primary in which there is a Democratic incumbent running for re-election. Such information shall be provided to candidates at a reasonable cost and upon such other reasonable terms and conditions as the State Party may deem appropriate provided that such terms and conditions are applied equally to all such bona fide candidates.”

The question of course is who exactly can be described as a ‘bona fide’ Democratic candidate.

Merriam-Webster defines ‘bona fide’ thusly:

1 : made in good faith without fraud or deceit <a bona fide offer to buy a farm> 2 : made with earnest intent : sincere. 3 : neither specious nor counterfeit : genuine.

Since the term ‘bona fide’ does not appear to be capitalized in the National Committee contract, I think we can assume that it represents a judgement call for the State Executive Committee rather than a status with legally defined parameters.

Conor said the decision to deny access to the Zuckerman campaign was based on his intention to run in the General, if successful in the Primary, as a P/D rather than as a full-throated Democrat or a D/P.

I then spoke with Sen. Zuckerman who told me that, in light of access to Democratic voter data given to Bernie by the Democratic National Committee, he didn’t quite understand why his campaign was not deemed similarly deserving.

In 2006 and 2012, when Bernie was running for the Senate, he competed in the Democratic Primary, but then chose to run in the General as an Independent. He was apparently still allowed access to the voter data by the National Executive Committee during the current Democratic Presidential Primaries.

Sen. Zuckerman, who is prepared to run as a P/D in the General (not a plain Progressive), questions why Bernie can be viewed by the Party as a ‘bona fide Democrat’ for purposes of access to the data base, but Zuckerman cannot. In closing our conversation he offered the following comment:

“While I think it is unfortunate that they have made this decision, my campaign is going strong, people are responding well to my message of social, economic and environmental justice.  People are more interested in policy and substance than establishment party politics.”

I spoke with Conor one more time and asked him to explain the difference between Sen. Zuckerman’s status viz-a-viz the Democratic Party, and that of Bernie Sanders. I was still trying to understand that ‘bona fide’ bit.

Conor explained that as Bernie always ran as an independent, he actually had no other official party status to conflict with the Democratic designation. It was the view of the Executive Committee that Sen. Zuckerman’s relationship with the Progressive Party represents a conflict of interest with regard to securing the data base against unauthorized sharing. He was quick to say that it wasn’t that the Executive Committee didn’t trust Sen. Zuckerman himself, but it was felt that too many members of a competing party, as Zuckerman volunteers, might legitimately have access to the data, even though they, too, would be bound by the confidentiality agreement attached to every purchase of the data.

Conor pointed further to the access to Progressive Party voter data that Sen. Zuckerman has but his Democratic opponents do not, as somewhat compensating for his loss of access to the Democratic voter data. Of course the volume of that Progressive Party data is dwarfed many times over by the data base in the possession of the Democrats.

And it can be reasonably argued that this is the Democratic Primary (not the General), in which, by definition, Sen. Zuckerman is only running as a Democrat. So his disadvantage in this regard, as compared to the other candidates remains considerable. Furthermore, the Democrats obviously prefer that he compete in the Democratic primary rather than give them a third party competitor (a so-called ‘spoiler’) in the General.

In the end there isn’t much Sen. Zuckerman could have done to satisfy that elusive requirement of ‘bona fides,’ but I had to point out to Conor that the Senators’s voting record in the Legislature is much more supportive of the Democratic agenda than is the voting record of certain ‘Blue Dogs’ who freely obtain access every election cycle to the voter data that Sen. Zuckerman is being denied.

With that Conor had to agree, musing out loud that perhaps there would be some merit to questioning the Blue Dog’s claim to ‘bona fide’ status…whatever that is.

My can of worms opened and duly released, I must thank both Conor and David Zuckerman for their cooperation with my not entirely satisfactory efforts to get to the bottom of this voter data dilemma.

Racism and Gun Culture: the Perfect Storm

National, ,

What happened last night in Dallas was tragic, but probably inevitable in a nation where racism and gun culture have long had the potential to seamlessly combine.

Plenty of attention, both useful and exacerbating, will be devoted to the role that racism appears to have played in this latest mass-murder, but I expect that far less will be said about the familiar signature of the lone gunman equipped to take out an army.

The penny has yet to drop on the likelihood that, following years of spectacularly bad news about the justice system and race in America, imbalanced and aggrieved individuals who exist in the black community just as surely as they do in the white community, have finally heeded the message carried by the NRA, and even Donald Trump, that the only way to deal with gun violence is to arm yourself and enter, guns blazing, into the fray.

Sadly, this day has been coming for a long time, as we allowed gun-rights advocates to dominate the regulatory conversation, and arms manufacturers took advantage of ginned-up paranoia to dump an arsenal of ever more lethal weapons on the streets.

On the books, gun manufacturers look like they’ve just been good businessmen, in the fine old tradition of free enterprise. In reality, the Wild West has been opening up all across America.

Who’d have thought that the disadvantaged and legitimately aggrieved might be listening to the same paranoid messaging that amps-up Trump rallies: “Don’t trust the government;” “Anyone who doesn’t look like you might be the Enemy,” “Arm yourself for Armegeddon.”

It used to be that white men were more likely to be packing heat than black men; but in just the two incidents within twenty-four hours that prompted the Dallas mass murder, both black victims of police shootings were found to be carrying guns; and that mere fact was cited by the shooters as a risk to their own safety that seemed to justify lethal force.

In neither case did the victim actually withdraw the gun from his person or threaten the detaining officer in any way. The mere presence of the civilian gun in the scene seems to have raised tension so much as to cost the carrier his life.

If history has taught us anything, it is that the pattern of shootings will continue and escalate into as yet unthinkable territory; and it may be too late to do anything about it.

Even common sense gun regulation, unlikely to ever get a vote in Congress, can only do so much to make us safer at this point.

By allowing the arguments of gun ‘rights’ advocates to twist and bend the Second Amendment into something it was never meant to be, we have, as a nation, surrendered our future to a perpetual cycle of unparalleled gun violence.

Anyone who thought that the poor and the downtrodden wouldn’t eventually arm themselves and turn their guns on their perceived tormenters was kidding themselves.

Welcome to the United States of Armerica.

Peter Welch gets it.

Uncategorized,

Apparently, House Democrats actually booed Bernie Sanders today when he didn’t commit to a speedy endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which comes as no surprise to his steadfast supporters.

The notable exception to this establishment fit of pique was Vermont’s own Congressman Peter Welch, a bold Bernie endorser, who today  restated Sanders’ own message, that this is not just about winning a single election:

A lot of members are anxious about when is he going to explicitly support Hillary,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “And what he’s saying is that’s an ongoing process. But if we want to win, we’ve got to take the long view that we need a platform that is going to genuinely create excitement for our nominee…What he said very clearly is we’ve got to beat Trump, and the way he believes we’re going to do it is by having a commitment to an agenda that excites people, including the younger people. And he’s working on that.”

Exactly.

Party stalwarts who seek to extinguish the Bernie phenomena, do so at their own risk. The vast crowds that turned out to hear Bernie on the campaign trail are building on a movement that first brought its aspirations to support Barack Obama; then, frustrated by glacial progress, evolved into Occupy Wall Street.

If their demands are callously exploited and swept aside once again for short-term political considerations, the Democratic party will have squandered an entire generation of support.

What better time to move forward with commonsense progressive agenda items that reflect the values of our increasingly diverse youth population, than when the Republican nominee is the most unpopular, even repellant candidate in recent history?

It’s now, or, quite possibly, never.

Burlington’s Open Meeting Problem

local/regional, , , , , ,

‘Sounds like it’s time for Sec. of State Jim Condos to bring his celebrated
Transparency Tour to the big city of Burlington.

I used to think Franklin County was the poster child for dodgy open-meeting practices, but this week, Miro Weinberger and company seem to be giving FC a run for its money.

On GMD, we’ve long questioned the wisdom of locating F-35 fighter planes in the densely populated area that is Burlington Airport. We’ve read the well-articulated concerns of neighbors and the glaringly deficient conclusions of officialdom.

We know that Burlington probably wouldn’t even have been considered for the siting if it were not for the concentrated efforts of Senator Leahy, the Chittenden County political elite and the development community, which seems to play a central role in local decision making.

Even assuming the best of intentions on the part of all of these interested parties, legitimate public concerns always seem to get short-shrift.

When such a controversial topic is discussed before City Councilors, one would think there would be special care taken to ensure that the rules governing open meetings are scrupulously observed, even to the point of over-compensation.

Even though the notice posted announcing the meeting stated that “no Council business will be discussed,” a quorum of Councilors was present (the minimum number of Councilors necessary to conduct Council business), and that of and by itself triggers the ‘open meeting’ requirement and all the rules associated with an open meeting.

To say that no Council business would be discussed is a bit disingenuous in any case, as a presentation by the Guard would undoubtedly involve some mention of the F-35 siting and questions and answers of interest to the public who are engaged on either side of the issue.

It is my understanding that, to remain within the confines of Open Meeting Law, either the public must be free to attend, or the number of Councilors in attendance must be below the number required to conduct a legal vote. If a quorum must be in attendance, the Council has no choice but to gavel a meeting before the public.

After that, if it can be justified under the limitations governing open meetings, the Council may go into Executive Session, excluding the public from the conversation. But there are strict rules governing the circumstances under which Executive Session may be convened. I believe the only allowable reasons are to discuss a city employee or legal matters which my be adversely affected by premature disclosure. They should be prepared to summarily explain why Executive Session is justified, and they must come out of Executive Session if a vote is to be taken.

In any case, maintaining public trust should be paramount in any question of excluding citizens from a Council gathering.

While the Secretary of States office is relatively powerless in enforcing open meeting rules, Jim Condos has recognized that Vermont has a problem in that area, and initiated his annual “Transparency Tour” not long after he took office.

Since receiving a polite reminder of the obligation to follow the open meeting rules a couple of years ago, I am happy to say that the City of St. Albans appears to have become much more conscientious. Apparently, the same cannot necessarily be said of Burlington.

As I have discovered, there is little legal recourse for the aggrieved in the event of an open meeting violation, so it is not surprising to learn that

“None of the community members…are currently pursuing any action.”

Somebody, please neuter Bill Clinton

National, Uncategorized, , ,

As a baby, was Bill Clinton dropped on his head?

No one has contributed more to Hillary Clinton’s credibility problems than ol’ Blue Eyes, himself. Unbelievably, with  his impromptu drop-in to the Attorney General’s plane, he’s done it again…big time!

It’s almost as if he does it on purpose.

It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that it was Bill’s bright idea to have a private email server!

I’ve never quite seen what some people like about this corn-fed romeo, but nobody thinks more highly of Bill than he obviously does of himself.

If I’d have been Hillary, I’d have left him facedown in the dirt many years ago.

She was obviously so much smarter than he, even as he occupied the Oval Office. Perhaps it was the subliminal knowledge of her fundamental superiority that egged him on to act out passive-aggressively in riskier ways.

Many would argue that his choices of where and with whom to misbehave on the most famous occasions were expressing a subconscious desire to get caught.

Should the worst come to pass and ‘Il Dumbi‘ beats Hillary in the General, everyone will undoubtedly blame Bernie.

They will be wrong to do so for several reasons, not least of which is the contribution to Hillary’s problems that Bill Clinton has made, not just every time he opened his mouth in this election cycle, but over the years of his administration and beyond.  He seems to have done his level-best to handicap any future ambitions of his long-suffering wife by acting on a mixture of impulse and arrogance that is not entirely unreminiscent of You-Know-Who.

Norm McAllister assaults the system…and gets away with it…again.

local/regional, , , ,

So, accused rapist/sex trafficker Norm McAllister will remain on the Republican primary ballot for senator even though his petition has been found to be deficient.  I hear fellow Republican candidate Carolyn Branagan’s cry of indignation and I share it!

Mr McAllister must be some sort of human detector for weaknesses in Vermont’s judiciary and legislative systems.

So far, he has succeeded in exploiting no less than five significant failures, and he hasn’t even come to trial yet to face accusations made by two more women.

1) The lack of meaningful protections for the vulnerable in the private workplace.

2) An apparent culture of “don’t ask; don’t tell” in the statehouse, where the extreme youth
of Mr. McAllister’s omnipresent ‘intern’ should have raised concerns and led to timely interventions.

3) The lack of a meaningful ethics policy governing legislators.

4) The lack of adequate provision in court for the PTSD disability common to victims of sexual abuse.

5) The lack of effective vetting practices to validate candidate petitions.

I’m sure there are more, but these spring most quickly to mind. Do not look for a grasp of reality anytime soon from this man because both Franklin County and the state of Vermont have yet to demonstrate any ability to bring his arrogance and his appetites to heel.

Update: Is this what scuttled the McAllister trial?

local/regional, ,

As I have already said elsewhere, I sat in disbelief last Wednesday as the Prosecution dropped the charges of multiple sexual assaults against suspended senator Norm McAllister.  This, after putting the fragile victim through something like five hours of clearly painful and humiliating public testimony while the accused, seated with his back to the curious crowd, was spared the need for any account of himself.

I was further dismayed to see so little concern over the decision expressed by conventional media. Emphasis seemed to rest on the Defense’s unchallenged assertion that McAllister had been “vindicated.” Attorneys for the two sides shook hands amicably and left the courtroom without really explaining what had happened.

The victim was simply abandoned to the tender mercies of public speculation.

It was therefore more than a little heartening to finally hear a piece on VPR this afternoon that showed more empathy for the victim than was exhibited in the immediate aftermath of the aborted trial.

From VPR, we learned that the Prosecution had made the decision to drop the case after the Defense pointed to something that the victim “lied” about in her testimony. We are told that the victim felt question asked was “too personal” and, in any case,  irrelevant to the case; but the prosecutor, nevertheless, decided to withdraw the charges when the victim admitted that she hadn’t answered truthfully..

I think I might know what this is all about and it really was a very poor reason to abandon the case. If I am mistaken, I would really like someone to set me straight.

Toward the close of the cross-examination, she was clearly reaching the end of her emotional tether.  Perhaps realizing she was that close to breaking, the Defense began to pressure her about physical evidence of the crime on her body, and in rapid succession she said, “no,no, no” to every intimate question that was asked.  Her body language indicated to me that they had hit a wall of resistance to any further indignity.  She’d had enough.

The other possibility that occurs to me is that the Defense succeeded in persuading the Prosecution that they could dispute a detail of the first attack as she described it, by referencing her Facebook page.

In her testimony, the victim said that her ponytail had been dyed purple at the time of the first attack. At the break, I overheard the Defense, first discussing among themselves; then,with the Prosecution, that this was “impossible” because photos on her Facebook page showed her with a purple ponytail a year later but not in any of the photos on her Facebook page that date to the time of the first attack.

Having had a teenager, I know, as probably most people do, that these colors can be applied rather spontaneously and disappear or are rinsed away rather easily. She could very well have had a purple ponytail at the time of the first attack too, but not been photographed with it.

It is, in any case, the kind of detail that could easily become confused in the memory of a girl suffering the mental anguish of rape and trying to suppress that memory in order to keep it secret.

If this is what caused the Prosecution to drop the charges, it is a pretty poor reason.

Either way, the inconsistencies in her testimony could have easily been explained by the Prosecution as consistent with PTSD from sexual abuse.