Huh boy. Two of Randy Brock’s closest political buds are standing right behind him, shoving him toward Governor Shumlin, and bravely shouting “Let’s you and him fight!”

That would be “Angry Jack” Lindley and Darcie “Hack” Johnston, the two loudest members of the VTGOP’s conservative wing which, as you may recall, lost their grip on the party last November with the election of Phil Scott’s choice, David Sunderland, as state party chair. They are now loudly urging Brock to run for Governor — which makes me question Randy’s choice of friends — and Johnston is urging Mr. All Directions, Scott Milne, to raise his hands above his head and slowly back away from the campaign. Sounds like they’re trying to relitigate their defeat for party control.  

(If November’s moderate putsch is imagined as the least interesting possible remake of “Star Wars,” with the plucky rebels ousting the entrenched powers, then this is “The Empire Strikes Back,” with Lindley as the pale, forbidding Emperor Palpatine and the Hack as his enforcer, Darth Vader.

Darth Johnston. I like the sound of that.)

This news was first reported by the Mitchell Family Organ’s Neal Goswami, and then by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, who has much more detail on this pint-sized battle for the VTGOP’s soul.  

Angry Jack kicked things off with a letter explaining exactly why Brock would stand a better chance against Governor Shumlin this time around. We’ll get to his Stretch Armstrong reasoning in a moment, but first, let’s consider the Hack’s pearls of wisdumb.

“Vermonters should unite around Randy Brock to have the best opportunity and maybe the only opportunity to run a successful campaign against Peter Shumlin,” Johnston said. “I’m absolutely saying Scott Milne should not run.”

Nice. And we should take Johnston seriously because of her long track record of… complete failure? I think the VTGOP would be well advised to do the opposite of whatever the Hack suggests.  

Besides, isn’t she, er, managing a campaign two thousand miles away? Yep.

Johnston is currently managing Arizona gubernatorial candidate Frank Riggs’ campaign.

I wonder if Riggs is aware of the Hack’s frenzied moonlighting in Vermont politics. I also wonder how much he’s paying for half of her attention. Well, one-third, actually, since she’s also fronting Vermonters for Health Care Freedom.

Anyway, back to Johnston’s insights on why Scott Milne should butt the hell out.  

“Any other candidate at this time will only make it impossible for Randy Brock to raise the resources to prosecute a campaign against Peter Shumlin,” she said. “A Republican primary will keep donors on the sidelines both in Vermont and outside of Vermont, and in order for a candidate to be viable against Peter Shumlin, they need the ability to raise significant resources very quickly. Raising those resources after the primary on August 26 is too late.”

BWA HA HA HA HA HA. Cough, choke. Hee hee hee. Snort. That’s rich.

Perhaps I need to remind Johnston, who managed the miserable Brock Titanicampaign in 2012, that Her Man absolutely failed to “raise the necessary resources” last time around. She oughta know; she was the #1 drain on the Brock for Governor pocketbook, charging over $100,000 in pay and expenses to an effort that spent a little more than $600,000 — and half of that was Brock’s own money!

Most potential donors sat on the sidelines throughout Brock’s campaign, and Johnston failed to “raise significant resources.” And now she wants her buddy to get back in the ring for Round Two? With friends like these, Randy Brock needs no enemies.

But wait, says a voice from the corner. It’ll be different this time around. Really!

Angry Jack explains it all in his letter touting a Brock candidacy. A letter, according to Goswami, “distributed by Darcie Johnston.” Cozy, eh? And what kind of figgerin’ gives Brock a solid chance in 2014?  

Though Shumlin bested Brock by a 58 to 38 percent margin in 2012, Lindley wrote that “the electoral math of a non-presidential year” would benefit Republicans. Without President Obama or Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) or Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) up for reelection, turnout could be lower than it was in 2010, when Shumlin barely beat then-lieutenant governor Brian Dubie, Lindley argued.

Well, there’s just a few tiny little problems with that “analysis.” First off, 2010 came at the tail end of Jim Douglas’ reign as Governor, which featured the seemingly likable Dubie as his #2. (Dubie had done a very good job of concealing his conservatism behind the genial surface of the Douglas Administration.) Dubie also had an established profile of his own, as a four-time winner in statewide races. (Brock, by contrast, has a 1-2 record.)

Another key difference: Shumlin wasn’t the incumbent in 2010, and in Vermont, incumbents pretty much always win. (Notable exception: Brock’s loss to Tom Salmon in the 2006 race for Auditor.)

Lindley goes on to argue, correctly, that Shumlin’s popularity has waned. True, but not nearly true enough to raise the sunken S.S. Brock from far beneath the electoral waves. And Angry Jack fires some shots at those who might derail a Brock candidacy — including many in his own party.

“What will it take to sweep out the careless Shumlin administration and install a new leader like Brock?” Lindley asked. “First it will take the VT GOP to fully endorse Brock’s candidacy, it will take independents (including the business community) to recognize that balance can only be achieved by electing a new governor, and moderate Democrats will need to realize that their agenda is at risk of derailment due to Shumlin’s reckless management style and longterm impact.”

Not-so-veiled message #1: Scott Milne should butt the hell out.

Not-so-veiled message #2: The GOP donor base (ahem, “including the business community”) has to stop playing nice with the Governor and give their money to Republicans.

Not-so-veiled, and really stupid, message #3: Moderate Democrats would do better with Randy Brock as Governor than with Peter Shumlin. To which I can only say, “what the fuck?”

It’s not really surprising that the Hack and Angry Jack* are still mad about their sidelining, and itching to get their hands back on the VTGOP tiller. What would be surprising is if anyone takes their counsel seriously. After all, the two of them have a long and undistinguished record of failure to excite the Republicans’ donor base and constituencies. Heintz once paraphrased Johnston’s many critics as decrying “her dismal electoral track record, her history of scorched-earth tactics and her reputation for being politically tone deaf,” which sounds about right to me. And as for Angry Jack, he’s the one who “led” the VTGOP down from the heights of the Douglas Era into the empty-coffered doldrums of the Shumlin Era. Which featured, among other things, the resignation of Mike Bertrand as the party’s Executive Director in March of 2012 because he hadn’t been paid in more than three months.

*Hmm. Sounds like an 80’s buddy-cop TV show.

Such “leadership” is the very reason that Lindley and Johnston were put out to pasture last November. Nobody in the VTGOP should believe anything they have to say. And above all others, Randy Brock should especially beware of “friends” bearing tainted advice.  

So, good news of a sort on the Vermont Health Connect front. Per VPR’s Bob Kinzel, the Shumlin Administration has reached agreement with its technology contractor (Acme Buggy Whips, if I recall correctly) that VHC will be fully operational by July 2.

However…

But the Shumlin Administration says they’re ready to push that date back if any serious technical problems emerge in the next four weeks.

Yeah, there’s always a hedge. Still, the end appears to be in sight. I call it good news. And the Administration has learned the hard way not to overpromise on this thing. Their caution is prudent.

Kinzel doesn’t stop there, naturally: any news story on health care reform is required to include a comment from reform arch-nemesis Darcie “Hack” Johnston. She brings the benefit of always being available to represent her pet cause. The drawback, of course, is that she has nothing new or relevant to say.

Well, wait. She actually said something kinda surprising this time.

She says Vermont should have put the federal exchange model in place right from the start.

Say, that is news! Darcie Johnston says Vermont should have straight-up adopted Obamacare.

Until now, I believe she saw both Obamacare and Shummycare are job-killing, bureaucracy-fostering succubi of our precious freedoms.

No, I don’t seriously think she’s changed her mind. But I take this statement as a tacit admission that the reform train has left the station, that repealing HCR is off the table. Quite a comedown for the Hack. And really, a nice “get” for Kinzel. Although he seems to have completely missed the revelation; he just reported it and moved on.

Can’t say I blame him; it’s so rare that Johnston has anything new to say.  

(With apologies to all who now have the Greatest Hits of Bobby Goldsboro stuck in your head.)

A rather curious thing showed up on Channel 3’s news earlier this week: a lovely little puff piece about the maybe-candidacy of Scott Milne, second-generation head of Milne Travel and son of Marion Milne, an authentic political hero.  

Which says nothing about the strengths or weaknesses of her son, as yet untested in state politics and actively pondering his acid test: a run for Governor. “As we first told you,” as Channel 3 is ever-quick to point out. Their scoops are rare and precious things indeed.

The station called WGOP by the late great Peter Freyne couldn’t resist following up on its scoop — and giving Milne some free publicity — by “covering” a singularly odd event: a visit by Milne to a diner in White River Junction. A visit attended by a WCAX camera and reporter Adam Sullivan, who managed to wangle an interview with the non-candidate at an empty table. As far as can be told, no other reporters were present.

How, I wonder, did this happen? Did Milne’s non-campaign organization arrange the diner meet-and-greet? Did they invite Channel 3 and only Channel 3? Was there collusion between Republican-friendly TV station and local businessman who does a ton of advertising in local media? (And is Channel 3’s go-to “expert” for stories on travel.)

Something smells, and it’s not the Friday Fish Fry at the Crossroads Cafe.

As for the alleged substance of this journalistic handjob, Milne slipped a cagey hint to Sullivan:

“I have a great idea that I want to do it, Adam,” Milne said.

Ooh, “Adam.” Way to be fake-friendly with the media, Scotty!

Sullivan and Milne then dipped into my suggested treasure trove of travel-related metaphor:

Milne is seriously considering a run for governor of Vermont. He likens the current state of affairs in the Green Mountain State to a sinking ship.

“These seem pretty good in Vermont right now, but somebody has got to keep an eye out for the icebergs and figuring out how we get around them,” Milne said.

Ah, Captain Milne, a reliable guide through the treacherous waters engulfing our Ship of State. He can get you to Fenway Park by bus; surely he can get Vermont to a prosperous future. Heed his warning: The buffet on the S.S. Shumlin might look tasty, but there’s salmonella lurking in the lobster salad.  

Milne’s line about things seeming pretty good right now reminds me of then-Governor Douglas’ fervent warnings that the Legislature was driving Vermont off the cliff, if you don’t mind me switching travel-related metaphors in midstream. (Oops, I did it again.) The linked warning came in 2009, and we’ve been waiting for the Douglas-promised Doomsday ever since.

(At the same time, Republican Rep. Heidi Scheuermann echoed Douglas’ warnings of imminent catastrophe, in language almost identical to that of today’s VTGOP:

… the budget that was passed increased spending at a rate greater than inflation, raises taxes by over $26 million and leaves us with a $200 million hole the next two years.

So, five years ago we faced disaster any day now. Funny, it keeps receding just over the horizon. Scheuermann then bemoaned the “imbalance” of political power and predicted that Vermonters would punish the Dems in the 2010 election. Yeah, still waiting for that to happen. And the Republicans are still pushing this tired, failed meme of “restoring balance.”)

Oh dear, I seem to have left Scott Milne and Adam Sullivan sitting at a table. Where he was, ahem, mourning the partisan imbalance in Montpelier.

“If you believe that you need balance in Montpelier, that balance is the best way forward, there is really an easy way to do that and that is to change the governor,” Milne said.

Some things never change.

To sum up: non-candidate Scott Milne acts like a candidate in a highly prepackaged setting. WCAX just happens to be on hand to chronicle a few handshakes and a substance-free interview. It broadcasts the segment, giving Milne a nice chunk of free media. To quote The Church Lady, “Isn’t that special?”

A man*, successful in one field of endeavor,should approach a different field with caution and humility, not mistaking his singular skill for a universal mastery, easily applicable wherever he might turn.

* I say “man” deliberately because this is pretty much a male phenomenon.

Case in point for my boomer compatriots: William Shockley, Nobel Prize winner in physics, whose reputation came to grief on the unfriendly shoals of eugenics. If that’s too dated a reference for you, I suggest the musical career of Shaquille O’Neal.  

And now, turning to the subject of our story, we consider Bruce Lisman, the celebrity rapper of Vermont politics. Let me be clear: I’m not considering Lisman’s policies or opinions, merely his political acumen — or, should I say, his conspicuous lack thereof. The culmination of Lisman’s three-plus-year record of missteps and missed opportunities came in early May when, out of the blue, the former Wall Street Wise Man acknowledged to VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld that he was seriously considering a run for Governor. This clueless and pointless salvo, quickly but only partially recanted, came at just the right moment to sink the gubernatorial ambitions of Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, who’d been his number-one ally in the Legislature. Beyond that, it capped a Year Of Lost Opportunity for the development of a centrist political movement (supposedly his goal in politics), and dealt significant blows to Lisman’s own Campaign for Vermont and the nascent moderate wing of the VTGOP. All for seemingly no real purpose, since Lisman formally pulled out of the race for Governor only a short time later.

This latest, and multifaceted, political boner cements Lisman’s place alongside two other Titans of Business who believed they could saunter into the political realm and ascend immediately to the top: Rich Tarrant and Jack McMullen. Unlike those two famous flameouts, Lisman’s political shortcomings were camouflaged (for a time) by his decision to bankroll an advocacy group instead of a candidacy for office. But now it must be said: Bruce Lisman is fully as ignorant of politics as Richie Rich or Six Teats.  

It’s true, Lisman has managed to establish a prominent place in our public life through the sheer force of his fortune. His willingness to spend over a million bucks has bought him a public policy organization and some notable alliances among the Good People of Vermont. But without his money, Campaign for Vermont would not exist. It’s an open question whether it will ever exist, in any meaningful sense, once it is weaned from Lisman’s inexhaustible teat. And I apologize for creating that mental image.

So Bruce Lisman has paid dearly for his perch as a generally accepted mover and shaker — to the point where Vermont’s political media paid a huge amount of attention to his every twitch during the run-up to his non-candidacy. But as a political force, he and CFV are largely barren of accomplishment.

Do I overstate my case? Well, let’s look at Bruce Lisman’s record, in purely political terms. Please note: I have no inside source in the Shelburne Councils of War; all this is based solely on my observation of Lisman’s public activity.

He launched Campaign for Vermont with a never-ending, costly array of advertisements directly attacking Vermont’s Democratic leadership. Mind you, he never said “Democratic,” and thus preserved a fig leaf of nonpartisanship. But the meaning was unmistakable. His political career began by needlessly offending the established powers that be.

Didn’t do any good, either. The CFV wave of advertisements spanned the winter and early spring of 2011-12, before the beginning of serious campaigning, and had no apparent effect on the public policy debate that year.

And not only was Lisman the (then-unacknowledged) sugar daddy of CFV, he was its one and only public face from inception until March of this year. His prominence raised valid, and still unsettled, questions about CFV’s true purpose: was it, as he insisted, a grassroots movement whose positions rose up from the ranks? Or was it, as appearances suggested, a rich man’s toy, a vehicle for his personal aspirations?

There’s also CFV’s distressing tendency to claim credit for every development or discussion on one of its pet issues, even when CFV was a Brucie-come-lately to a long-running debate.

Let us not forget CFV’s membership rolls, where bipartisanship is redefined as a dash of liberals in a stewpot of conservatives. Lisman and CFV clung to its fictional bipartisanship without ever altering course or even making cosmetic changes. I would have suggested finding an established liberal to serve as a high-profile representative of the cause. (Which would have required Lisman to share the spotlight. By all appearances, he was unwilling to do so. Which, again, feeds into the very reasonable suspicions of his true motives.)

The fact of this rightward tilt was not at all helped by CFV’s employment of spokespeople with solid business and/or Republican connections, such as former Douglas Administration functionary Jason Gibbs and noted black-hat lobbyist Shawn Shouldice. (Who is no longer employed by CFV, but seems to be putting out press releases on Lisman’s behalf.)

A canny political mind would have avoided CFV’s early missteps, adjusted course when necessary, avoided making enemies without cause, and made strategic alliances within liberal circles to lend credence to its nonpartisan claims. Instead, CFV kept on doing the same counterproductive stuff. And Lisman kept on spending his own money, belying his characterization of CFV as a grassroots effort.

Bruce Lisman may be a financier par excellence, but he is not a competent political mind. He is our Celebrity Rapper, our Wile E. Coyote, spending his time and treasure on repeated orders from the Acme catalogue of failed political maneuvers. The ultimate proof is his course of action — er, more like a random series of meanderings — over the past nine months or so. If he’d pursued a politically sensible course, he could have made a huge difference in Vermont politics. Instead, he may well leave the stage with little or nothing to show for his million-dollar investment.

Let’s return to last fall, when Lt. Gov. Phil Scott tried to move the VTGOP in a more moderate, or at least more inclusive, direction. It was a battle, as you will recall; even though the conservatives’ nominee for party chair was perpetual loser John MacGovern, Scott had a hard time carrying the day for his man, David Sunderland.

Meanwhile, quietly, behind the scenes, Bruce Lisman was starting to give some serious cash to Republican causes. He bought a pricey table for the Chris Christie fundraiser in December, and cut some generous checks to GOP groups. He denied his contributions were a declaration of party affiliation, but did he give a dime to Democrats? Nope.

At the same time, as his protestations of nonpartisanship were vanishing in the wind, Lisman was still clutching the reins of CFV. In late 2013 the group posted two job descriptions, and said the new employees (CFV’s first paid staff) would spearhead its first-ever lobbying push in Montpelier. And then the jobs remained vacant. And the legislative session began. And the jobs remained vacant. Crossover Week came and went. And the jobs remained vacant. Finally, in mid-March, CFV finally filled one of the two positions, while keeping the other empty for now.

Its new Executive Director, Cyrus Patten, is a 31-year-old with no record of political involvement, let alone the smarts and connections needed to be an effective lobbyist. And even as the legislative session waned, Patten’s first task was not to prowl the State House corridors, but to prepare CFV for a transition to a stand-alone organization without Lisman’s deep pockets to keep it afloat.

Perhaps as a result of the delay in hiring staff and Patten’s OJT, the group’s top legislative priority, ethics reform, was foundering on the rocks of lawmakers’ self-interest. Give CFV credit for pushing the issue forward, but after that, there was precious little follow-through. That’s how it appears, in any case.

Finally we come to Lisman’s latest blunder: his spectacularly ill-timed musing about a run for Governor. It came at precisely the worst possible time: when his top ally in the Legislature, Heidi Scheuermann, was mulling a candidacy. I’m speculating here, but it’s logical to assume that Scheuermann would need Lisman’s vocal and financial support to have any hope of running a competitive race. It’s also logical to assume that Lisman’s public dithering convinced Scheuermann to back off. (From what I’ve been told, she was extremely close to running. And her withdrawal came as a surprise — shock, more like it — to many Republicans.)

And only then did the Lisman bull exit the Republican China Shop. The collateral damage included the immediate ambitions of Scheuermann, a founding partner in CFV. If I were her, I’d be rethinking my alliance.  

Now let’s go back to an imaginary last nine months, and see how things could have unfolded if Lisman was half as smart politically as he is financially.

Last summer, CFV begins the staffing process and Lisman eases toward the exits. Scott and his crew make their plans to change the VTGOP’s direction. CFV hires an executive director in the early fall, and Lisman starts playing footsie with Scott under the table.

At this same time, Obamacare and Vermont Health Connect are in serious, perhaps mortal, peril. This provides a perfect opportunity for Lisman to declare, reluctantly, that a change is needed in the corner office, and that he’s lining up behind the new Phil Scott VTGOP — not as a candidate, but as a high-profile force for moderation and good government. The aura of CFV rubs off on Scott and friends. Lisman courts the Republican right by cutting checks to GOP causes.

Scheuermann enters the 2014 legislature as a potential candidate for Governor. Lisman openly champions her cause. The collapse of meaningful ethics reform adds fuel to the Lisman/Scott fire. As the session continues, Scheuermann becomes the front-runner. Lisman forms a superPAC to run issue ads and other “educational” activities slamming the Dems and Governor Shumlin, and pours a whole lot of money into it.

With the promise of a Lisman-backed gubernatorial candidacy, Republican hopefuls emerge to run for some or all of the other statewide offices, cementing a solid VTGOP ticket. It’d still face long odds, but it’d be a solid sign of progress toward a rejuvenated party. Lisman becomes a high-profile player in Republican politics — probably even the number-one power broker. CFV, to the extent it remained feasible, would be a demonstrably nonpartisan ally for a centrist Republican movement. Lisman and CFV help cement Scott’s hold on a new, center-right party.

The Democrats would still win this fall, but the Republicans would have every hope of being competitive in 2016 and beyond.

And all it would have required was a little more insight and a little less ego from Bruce Lisman. Instead, Bruce E. Coyote jet-packed into a rock wall, had a giant boulder fall on his head, saw the nitroglycerine explode in his face, and plummeted helplessly over a cliff, landing far below in a little puff of smoke.

And if Bruce E. does ever decide to run for public office, I predict he’ll achieve the same level of success as Rich Tarrant and Jack McMullen.  

Pity poor David Sunderland, the frantically busy, trolling-for-candidates chair of the VTGOP. GIven a sow’s ear of an electoral outlook, he did his best to sell it as a silk purse when he spoke with VTDigger’s Anne Galloway about his party’s “spirited attempt to win seats in the Statehouse.”

Er, Dave: is that “spirited” as in “energetic,” or as in “ghostly,” “spectral,” “dead”?  

Anyhoo, let’s see how Sunderland spins it.

The Republicans have recruited 36 new candidates running for House seats (with at least 74 running altogether) and they believe they have a shot at regaining enough seats to tip the balance of power in the Statehouse.

Two thoughts. First, 74 candidates for 150 seats is good news? And second, “tip the balance” as in, claim a majority???

Nah.

After three less-than-stellar election cycles – the state Republican Party hopes to push the Democrats out of their super majority status in the House.

A decidedly minimal definition of “tip the balance.” As for the Senate…

The GOP holds seven seats in the 30-member Senate, and they hope to gain at least three more. Republicans are targeting Sens. Don Collins, D-Franklin; Ann Cummings, D-Washington; Eldred French, D-Rutland, and John Rodgers, D-Essex/Orleans.

I could see them taking two; Collins barely won in 2012, and French was appointed to fill a vacancy. Knocking off Cummings, I think, is a pipe dream, even though Pat McDonald will be a relatively attractive candidate. I have no idea if Rodgers is vulnerable.  

But even so. Let’s say, best case, the GOP takes three in the Senate. They’re still stuck at one-third of the seats. And knocking the Dems from supermajority to “really substantial majority” isn’t exactly a dramatic leap toward electoral relevance.

The Dems aren’t sitting still, of course. They’re hoping to hold serve and perhaps even add a few seats. They’ll have a substantial organizational edge, which will help them target races where a Dem incumbent is threatened, or where a Dem challenger might win.

Meanwhile, still no news on the VTGOP’s desperate search for statewide candidates. Phil Scott may have precious little company on the ballot.  

This could have been the year of a Republican resurgence, with Scott offering a moderate face and Sunderland (a pretty conservative guy) to bridge the center/right gap. They’ve got a couple of big issues on their side: widespread dissatisfaction with property taxes and continued uncertainty about single-payer health care. Plus, there’s no Presidential or (U.S.) Senatorial race to drive Democratic turnout. Even with all those apparent advantages, the GOP’s best hope is to chip away at the Democrats’ huge Legislative majority.

It’s sad, really.  

There should be plenty of discussion of gun control following Saturday night’s murderous spree by a wealthy white social misfit in Santa Barbara.  

The highly emotional comments by one victim’s distraught father provide ample opportunity for expansion on the subject, but I will leave that for others to do.

If past experience is any predictor, how this young man with a long history of mental illness managed to arm himself and conceal those weapons from a police welfare visit just weeks before the rampage will fuel both the arguments of gun control advocates and aggressive NRA counterpoints until the inevitable next incident resets the clock of inaction once again.

In this, as in several recent mass murder incidents, the perpetrator used social media as a platform from which to gather a crowd of virtual witnesses to his personal torment; or to leave behind a testimonial rationale for his crimes.

When murder isn’t even an issue, bullying and suicide have become all too frequent among the impersonal, yet invasively intimate behaviors springing from social media.

Hyper connection isn’t just about the cozy circles we see in Google commercials.  It is equally about narcissism and extreme isolation.

Too much of a good thing isn’t a good thing at all.

The introduction of each new communication platform has been met with earlier and earlier adoption by a willing public, anxious never to be left behind.  Our children play an especially important role in media marketing; and we have completely embraced the idea that, as a natural extension of valuable information technology, in order to “succeed,” they must have all communication media at their fingertips.

When my twenty-seven year old son was five years old, our family got its first computer.  Even though it was second-hand and we were years behind Silicon Valley, we thought that, for Vermont, we were ahead of the curve, using “Mario Teaches Typing” to familiarize our kid with the keyboard.

When he was in second grade and we acquired the internet (for “research” purposes, only, of course) our son became the first member of our household to use e-mail.  

Unlike most of his friends,  Jesse didn’t have a TV in his room; nor did we have Nintendo in the house.  The computer sat in a room that was shared by the whole family, as did the telephone.

We had the Atari/ Nintendo discussion every Christmas and always managed to find ways to avoid acquisition.  

When Jesse was in middle school, first pagers, then cell phones began to appear in the pockets of twelve year olds.  They made some sense for kids whose parents worked far from home, but we had a small home business and Jesse could always do his telephoning from the house.

The end of media control came for us when Jesse entered high school and was required to have a lap-top computer issued by the school so that he could submit homework on the school network.  The laptop entered his bedroom and that was that.

He was fourteen by then and had spent a great deal of time socializing the old fashioned way, so he was ready to take charge of his own media exchanges.    

“Facebook” was just a printed book with pictures of the kids he saw daily at school.  Eventually, the online version became available to college kids; then to high-school kids; then to everyone.

Obviously this slow adoption would be virtually impossible now.  I’ve seen parents at AT&T discussing “plans” for their pre-schooler; and even pets and inanimate objects have Twitter accounts!

This institutionalized navel-gazing may be fun or even informative for the vast majority of users; but if, for even a few troubled souls, it may be dangerously enabling, we have to ask ourselves some tough questions about

how much of our children’s social interactions we want to sacrifice on the altar of technical competitiveness.

It isn’t difficult to imagine a kid who is vulnerable to mental illness becoming so isolated by anonymous experiences on the internet, and the uncensored opportunity for personal power through social media, that he creates in his own mind a cosmos of which he is the center and the only person of consequence.

Is it any wonder that the random body count seems to be growing even as personal communication opportunities do the same?

If you didn’t catch HBO’s Vice last night, you missed an important piece of reporting.  

One segment of Vice, “Playing With Nuclear Fire,” gave a vivid portrait of the horrifying radiation news from Fukushima that has been suppressed by the Japanese government and nuclear industry in order to protect their selfish interests.  

The news media has, for the most part, acted as passive receivers of official reports, applying no scrutiny of their own, so that the American public has remained under-curious about this enormous and continuing crisis.

I had read the obscure reports about deformed and dying butterflies; but in this program we actually see them.

Coverage provided by Vice of the rapidly multiplying barrels of radioactive water at the crippled plant, and the mountains of bags of radioactive earth and debris stockpiled around the Japanese countryside, is a chilling reminder that we have a huge and unresolved problem even without a nuclear accident here in the U.S.  

There simply is no safe place where existing nuclear waste can go; nevermind any that we may produce in the future.

This is just a taste of the entire segment, but I would urge our readers to watch the  program if you can.

You won’t be disappointed.

Heard from one of my far-flung correspondents:

The Vermont Chamber of Commerce’s Business and Industry Expo took place Wednesday and Thursday. Making the rounds was one Scott Milne, majordomo of Milne Travel and the Vermont Republicans’ last hope for a credible gubernatorial candidate.

Mr. All Directions was working the floor: meeting, greeting, chatting up and gladhanding the assembled high and mighty. Which, in itself, wouldn’t be that unusual; he might simply be soliciting business for his agency. However…

Milne was accompanied by a guy with a professional-quality video camera, recording Scotty’s every move. And I can think of only one explanation for that: he’s gathering footage for future campaign commercials.

If, of course, he actually becomes a candidate. He is still publicly insisting he has not made a decision, and won’t reveal his intentions until June 12, the filing deadline. His uncampaign operation will gather petition signatures in the meantime, just in case he hears the clarion call of his fellow Vermonters to lead them out of the wilderness.

The slogans almost write themselves: Let Milne Be Your Guide To a Prosperous Future. Scott Milne: He Knows the Way To Go. Milne: Charting a Path to Vermont’s Tomorrow.

In other news, Vermont’s Pundit Emeritus is raising the white flag on the VTGOP’s behalf.  

Eric Davis, the go-to guy for all things politics*, made a brief appearance on VPR’s Vermont Edition today. I haven’t heard it yet, but I gather that Davis had some free advice for Vermont Republicans: forget about statewide races entirely, and concentrate on a relative handful of possibly winnable House and Senate races.

*His lofty position appears unchallenged since most of our media outlets finally concluded it was too embarrassing to keep hiring Chris Graff, due to his obvious conflict of interest as well-compensated chief spokesflack for one of our leading employers, National Life.

Setting the bar painfully low, methinks. But the VTGOP might be reduced to that strategery by all the empty slots that may well appear on its ticket. One well-connected source confirms my previous speculation that the VTGOP has yet to identify any candidates for Secretary of State, Auditor, Attorney General, or Treasurer. (Obvious hint to political troublemakers of the Emily Peyton mode: quietly gather petition signatures and grab a Republican ballot spot. Paging Annette Smith… Annette Smith, please pick up the wind-powered courtesy phone…)

The pain of such a failure would be mitigated if Milne can be cajoled into staffing the top of the ballot and taking one for the team. Still, if more than half its statewide slots are empty (or filled by opportunists… too bad Karen Kerin’s dead), it’ll be a truly embarrassing day for the party that ruled Vermont for more than a century.

One good thing: It’ll give the Progs a whole lot of chances to renew their automatic ballot status. Maybe even get some high visibility and OJT for a new generation of Progressives. Hell, somebody’s got to keep the Dems honest.  

The Freep finally got a response from H Brooke Paige about SCOTUS' rejection of his Quixotic birther-not-birther suit:

Paige said Thursday he would ask the nation’s highest court to reconsider its decision, but acknowledged getting it to change its mind on the matter is unlikely.

“It saddens me to see our Constitution being treated as a list of suggestions, a smorgasbord of ideas or worst of all treated with the same respect afforded toilet tissue,” Paige said. “I can almost hear the Founders and Framers groaning in their graves.”

That's pretty defeatist for Paige, who greeted SCOV's dismissal of the case almost with enthusiasm last year: “[It's] as positive a ruling as I could have anticipated.”  Maybe reality is finally sinking in after SCOTUS has refused to hear birther arguments over two dozen times?

The article also notes that Paige has not pressed the usual eligibility case, which relies on the ridiculously debunked theory that Obama wasn’t born in the US, but rather:

[Paige] based his challenge to Obama on an interpretation of historical papers the country’s framers relied on at the time the Constitution was written that said a natural-born citizen was someone who was born of parents who were both American citizens.

Our friend has famously called birther arguments “sheer flights of fancy.”  His “interpretation of historical papers” is also quite fanciful, but points to him once again for acknowledging that Obama was born in Hawaii (which is part of the US). 

Sadly, the larger reality still evades Vermont's Best Birther.  Obama's president because he is a natural born citizen.  It's that simple.

Paige might be able to hear the Framers groaning in their graves, but I'm fairly certain that they are not only silent, but also that they'd appreciate SCOTUS' making independent decisions to grant cert (per the Court's Rule 10).  The Judiciary ain't a separate, coequal branch for nothing.

That branch has, whenever presented an opportunity to agree with Paige et al, has declined to do so, either by explicitly ruling against birther arguments or through other procedural mechanisms.  Probably because they have pretty decent reading comprehension.  And naturally none of this means the Constitution is just a suggestion or somehow disrespected: judges at all levels are doing their jobs by interpreting history and law, and just happen to disagree with some major crackpots.

Perhaps we should take a collection to buy Paige this book.  It's time for him to break his nasty habit and move on to something more productive.  At some point you have to recognize that the problem's not them, it's you…

ntodd