(There it is, in living black and white.  Inquiring minds want to know if this is indeed Vermont’s Bruce Lisman:  Mr. Transparency. – promoted by Sue Prent)

I recently read an article claiming that Campaign for Vermont’s founder and primary funder, Bruce Lisman, is a member of the Wall Street fraternity Kappa Beta Phi. When I inquired today whether Bruce was still a member the Campaign shut off my ability to comment on their Facebook page. While the Campaign purports transparency and ethics for thee, it appears they aren’t ready to be quite as transparent themselves.

Here’s a link to the story I tried to question them about.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli…

And, here’s a list of the members of “Kappa Beta Phi: Wall Street Chapter”. Notice Bruce Lisman is listed as a member since 2001.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli…

Why would they be so threatened by such an inquiry as to shut off access to those asking questions?

What are they hiding?

UPDATE: Paul Heintz writes about Lisman’s involvement here:

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/Off…

The good citizens of Burlington won’t go to the polls for another couple of weeks, but one candidate has already bitten the dust. Per Alicia Freese of Seven Days:

Ryan Emerson, the Democratic candidate for a city council seat in Burlington’s Ward 2, has withdrawn from the race. Emerson announced his decision Tuesday afternoon, the day after Seven Days inquired about past allegations of domestic violence brought against him.

On two separate occasions in 2005 and 2006, a Chittenden County judge issued relief-from-abuse orders against Emerson, after Sarah Hart, the mother of his child, complained of allegedly violent behavior.

Eeps. A couple of points before I get to the main event.

First, Freese and Seven Days are, rightly, getting pummeled by commenters for naming the victim and going into extensive detail about the case. Did 7D need to publish her name and all the particulars? Not really. I’m sure she hoped this episode was safely behind her; now it’s all been brought back, in living color. Seven Days did allow Hart a fig-leaf of privacy; she has since married and they didn’t reveal her new last name. Gee, thanks, Seven Days.

Second, Emerson must have known this could come out during the campaign. He should have put it out there himself at the beginning of the campaign. If he thought he couldn’t overcome the stigma, he shouldn’t have run in the first place. I believe in second chances, but these incidents happened less than ten years ago. He should have waited longer.  

Okay, now for the main event — from the viewpoint of a political blogger.

How did this happen to come up exactly two weeks before Election Day? The timing is suspiciously perfect if one’s intention is to torpedo a candidate. Long enough to let the scandal set in, too short for the candidate to overcome it.

Freese doesn’t say how she came across this tidbit. One possibility is that Seven Days decided to do criminal background checks on all the candidates in Burlington. I don’t think so, because they would have done it sooner.

Which leads me to ratf*cking. Somebody tipped off Seven Days in hopes of derailing Emerson’s campaign. And somebody succeeded.  

Who stands to benefit from Emerson’s implosion? Well, most obviously, incumbent Progressive Councilor Max Tracy, who gets to run unopposed. Take a load off, Max; your work is done.

I’m not saying he was the leaker. I am saying that the most likely culprit is someone in the Progressive Party. The Progs will keep one of their precious Council seats, having rid themselves of a well-connected Dem with a lot of campaign experience. (He was on Shumlin’s team in 2010; managed T.J. Donovan’s near-miss in the AG primary in 2012; and headed Beth Pearce’s triumphant campaign for Treasurer that same year.)

Second suspect, deliciously devious: The Republicans. Prog/GOP alliances of convenience are common in Burlington politics. With the GOP in danger of being entirely shut out of City Council, it’s in the party’s interest to maximize Prog representation. They also wouldn’t be at all sorry to kneecap Emerson’s political career; at age 27 he’s already a well-established politico with a track record of success. You’d have to call him a rising star — well, you would have before this revelation.

This conspiracy theory becomes even more plausible when you recall that the chair of the Chittenden County GOP is one Jeff Bartley, last seen winning a lawsuit against former U.S. Senate candidate Len Britton. I recapped Bartley’s dismal career in a previous diary, but one item is worth mentioning in this context: When Bartley was only 20 years old, he was hired by the Rich Tarrant-for-Senate campaign, where he was responsible for a phony political blog called VermontSenateRace.com. It was designed to look legit, but it was just a front for pro-Tarrant (and anti-Pat Leahy) propaganda. Unfortunately for Bartley and Tarrant, Peter Freyne uncovered the scam.

Again, I’m not saying Bartley was the leaker. But his party indirectly benefits, and he’s got a track record.

In any event, whoever the leaker was, congratulations to Max Tracy on a hard-won victory.  

VTDigger’s hit-or-miss political columnist Jon Margolis served up a home run this morning: a generous smorgasbord of hints, rumors, carefully worded statements, and (probably) feints on the number-one subject of pointless political speculation of The Year 2014:

Who’s running for Governor on the Republican ticket?

Margolis starts out by saying it’s “a mystery man. Or perhaps a mystery woman.” But even so, having given away the ending right off the bat, he still manages a column that’s both informative and intriguing.

Heading the Intrigue Parade is Don Turner, the House Minority Leader, who says there is a person, identity TBD, who has “made a commitment to run for governor.” Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott wasn’t quite as singular as Turner, but he says he’s been informed that “there will be a candidate.”

Well, duh. It’d be awfully damn embarrassing if there was a blank on the GOP line. But it’d be almost as embarrassing if the party had to resort to the likes of John MacGovern or Jack McMullen or… hmm… Wendy Wilton. (“Hey, look! We got a lady candidate!”)

Or, good God in Heaven, party treasurer Mark “Acorn” Snelling (the nut fallen from a mighty oak), who told Margolis he is considering a run for Gov. Considering all he hasn’t done to rebuild the party’s finances, he’d be only a slight improvement on the retread losers named above. His only asset is the distant echo of name recognition from his father’s time in the corner office — which ended almost a quarter-century ago.

Next hint:

Both Turner and Scott (and a few other Republicans who didn’t want to be identified) suggested that the mystery person does not now hold public office, and is more likely a business person.

Hmmm, a “business person.” That leaves out those two free-market stalwarts who’ve ensconced themselves firmly in the nonprofit sector, John “El Jefe General” McLaughry and Rob Roper. It could be one of a number of former Jim Douglas functionaries who skedaddled to the private sector. Neale Lunderville? David O’Brien? Tom Evslin?

Seems unlikely.

I’ll add a couple more qualifiers of my own. It has to be someone self-deluded enough to think s/he can defeat Governor Shumlin, and deep-pocketed enough to self-fund a competitive campaign.

Rich Tarrant or one of the Webgrocer Tarrants? Perhaps, but my money’s on another guy. Here he is, suitably disguised to preserve the mystery.

In case you haven’t got it, the reveal… after the jump.  

Didja guess?

Our old friend, Skip “The Gas Man” Vallee. Stalwart Republican donor, past candidate for office, possessor of a goodly fortune, narcissistic enough to have pondered a challenge to Bernie Sanders last time around.

Considering all the fuss Skippy made over Bernie’s “high gas prices in Chittenden County” expose, I’d say he has to be itching for another chance to take on a high-profile Democrat. And itching badly enough to open up his wallet for a campaign.

If he’s interested, I’m sure the VTGOP would be happy to let him have the top spot. At the very least, he’d make it an entertaining — even though uncompetitive — campaign.

C’mon, everybody! The Gas Man for Governor!

The most frequently read article in the February 5 issue of Seven Days was a story of a long-simmering neighborhood battle. On one side is instrument maker Adam Buchwald, who crafts mandolins and guitars in his Burlington home studio. On the other is one of his neighbors, Barbara Headrick, who claims the noise from his workshop is affecting her quality of life and property value. Three points argue against her:

— No other neighbors are bothered.

— One neighbor admits she sometimes plays really loud rock music with the windows open, and Headrick has never complained.

— The neighborhood is near the UVM campus, and a lot of noise and litter is generated by “drunk and screaming college kids” who are “a regular feature of life there.”

But still, Headrick believes the noise of Buchwald’s power tools is uniquely impactful. And who are we to doubt her?

Well, in this case she seems a far less sympathetic figure than her woodgrained neighbor. But how is her case any different than those of, say, the Therriens or the Nelsons, the two most renowned victims of “Wind Turbine Syndrome”?

I put it in quotes because there is no scientific evidence for such a syndrome.

The Nelsons and the Therriens appear frequently as spokespeople for the anti-wind movement, telling their harrowing tales of turbine noise inside their homes. Somehow, though, the noise is never apparent whenever a reporter visits either home. And the wind farm near the Nelsons’ home passed its most recent noise tests with room to spare.

And, like Barbara Headrick not minding a blast of Led Zeppelin or a puking frat boy, the Therriens live near Interstate 91 but the freeway noise doesn’t bother them. Not even the notorious Jake brakes on big semis. That’s no problem, but the turbines threaten to drive them from their home.

I can’t explain the targeted sensitivities of the Nelsons or Therriens. But, as on Prospect Street, they seem to be uniquely afflicted; we haven’t heard similar stories from any of their neighbors.

What I do know is that whenever scientists look for evidence of an actual Syndrome caused by the somehow singular noise from wind turbines, they find no evidence.  

Wind Turbine Syndrome has been identified by a single doctor, Nina Pierpont. She happens to be a pediatrician who claims to have discovered an adult illness. She happens to be married to a prominent anti-wind activist. And the study “proving” Wind Turbine Syndrome, according to Popular Science Magazine, “had a small sample size of phone interviews with no control group or proper peer review.” The sample size: 38 people from a whopping ten families.

Ten.

Pierpont’s selection process was flawed; she included only families that had at least one member with symptoms who lived near a recently built turbine. This, as any scientist would tell you, guarantees an association between turbines and illness. An association created by the study’s inherent bias, not by actual evidence.

Okay, I can hear the Windies saying “Hardy har har, why should we believe a popular magazine, even if it has the word ‘science’ in its title?”

Well, there have been at least ten independent scientific reviews of the available evidence on the subject. Each of the ten has concluded that noise complaints have “far more to do with social and psychological factors in those complaining than any direct effect from sound or inaudible infrasound emanating from wind turbines.”

Some passages from the tenth review, conducted by the British Acoustics Bulletin:  “the degree of annoyance is only slightly related to noise level”; “the fact that someone was complaining was mainly determined by the personality of the individual”; “fear of the noise source can increase annoyance”; and “adverse feelings . . . were influenced by feelings of lacking control, being subjected to injustice, lacking influence, and not being believed”.

The review found two factors that tended to enhance the likelihood of a person claiming to be a sufferer: Being able to see turbines and not liking them; and whether the person derives any financial benefit from the turbines.

And then there’s a 2013 study by Simon Chapman, a public health professor from Sydney University. He found a curious geographical quirk about claims of Wind Turbine Syndrome:

The report… found that 63% [of Australian windfarms] had never been subject to noise or health complaints. In the state of Western Australia, where there are 13 windfarms, there have been no complaints.

The study shows that the majority of complaints (68%) have come from residents near five windfarms that have been heavily targeted by opponent groups.

In other words, when anti-wind activists start spreading tales of Wind Turbine Syndrome, people start feeling its effects. Without the tales, the Syndrome is amazingly absent or ineffectual.

Many of the wind-noise studies, having been written by notoriously cautious scientists, conclude that “there is insufficient evidence” that turbine noise causes health problems. Wind opponents seize on this wording — just as creationists bray about the “theory” of evolution — and say that more research will find new evidence. However:  

Chapman said that if wind farms did genuinely make people ill there would by now be a large body of medical evidence that would preclude putting them near inhabited areas. Eighteen reviews of the research literature on wind turbines and health published since 2003 had all reached the broad conclusion that there was very little evidence they were directly harmful to health.

A panel of independent experts, assembled by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Public Health, conducted a study of the scientific literature on the health impacts of wind turbines. Its report was released in January 2012. One of its conclusions:

There is no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”

No evidence. That’s the conclusion reached over and over again, whenever experts examine the issue. It’s just like the “debate” over climate change: a huge quantity of evidence and the vast majority of experts all on one side, and a tiny minority of both on the other.

I don’t doubt that Don Nelson is truly bothered by the nearby wind turbines, just as Barbara Headrick is bothered by her neighbor’s woodshop. But all the evidence suggests that the culprit isn’t the turbines or the power tools; it’s the immense power of the human mind. And just as I believe Adam Buchwald should go on making guitars, I believe Vermont should continue to approve and construct wind farms.  

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that the bill’s lead sponsor, Republican Heidi Scheuermann, is a “founding partner” in Campaign for Vermont. This doesn’t qualify as an ethical breach, strictly speaking; but she’s clearly using her official position to promote an organization in which she is a prominent member. I think her CFV membership should be noted when she seeks to promote its agenda within the Legislature.

There’s a bill before the House to enact new ethical guidelines for state lawmakers, statewide officeholders, and appointed officials. H.846 would also create a state Ethics Commission and prohibit former public officials from lobbying the Legislature for two years after leaving state government.

The bill is modeled after Campaign for Vermont’s own widely-touted ethics reform plan, and is co-sponsored by 24 Representatives. Fourteen are Republicans, nine are Dems, and one is listed as a D/R. The lead sponsor, per VTDigger, is Republican Heidi Scheuermann of Stowe.

Governor Shumlin has yet to take a public stance on the bill; he has issued carefully-worded support for ethics standards on elected officials only. Which would leave a big fat hole for gubernatorial appointees and other unelected types to slide through, as some of his former officials have done.

But our esteemed Governor doesn’t have a monopoly on convenient omissions in this sphere, not by a long shot. Today, a goodly percentage of the tiny Republican caucus is lining up behind ethics reform, but the Patron Saint of Vermont Republicanism had a very different view:

I don’t think we need a new bureaucracy to monitor the performance of our public officials. I think Vermont is a state where we can be proud of  the people that serve in all branches of government, people who for the most part are above reproach, people of integrity and people who follow the constitutional  edict of serving the public and acting in the public interest.

Yes indeed, those words came from the maw of then-Governor Jim Douglas, as quoted by the late great Peter Freyne back in April 2007.  

Douglas was in favor of a code of ethics; he just didn’t want a new body dedicated to, ahem, enforcing the code. His Administration set the bar very high for potential ethical conflicts, as many state officials crossed back and forth, and most of ’em fled state government in Douglas’ final days for cushy posts in the private and nonprofit sector, many of which involved contact with state government.

So I ask this question of Heidi Scheuermann and her fellow Republicans eager for ethics reform now that the Democrats are running the roost:

What would Jim do?  

Last August, I wrote a diary entitled “How green is Vermont, really?” In it, I argued that Vermont’s reputation as a stalwart protector of its environment was vastly overblown — that our actual track record is a decidedly mixed bag.

My central point was that our two biggest environmental advantages have nothing to do with our earthly stewardship; it’s a simple matter of low population and lack of exploitable resources. As examples of poor stewardship, I pointed to our clean-water record (recurring toxic algae blooms on Lake Champlain, inadequate treatment of storm and sewer water, and a complete lack of effective oversight of our smaller bodies of water), the amount of particulate matter we pump into the air via residential woodstoves, decades of complete non-regulation of junkyards (only corrected four years ago), and our addiction to driving, particularly in low-mileage trucks, SUVs and all-wheel drive vehicles.

Well, a couple of recent items in the news have confirmed — indeed, amplified — my views. Our traditional Vermont ways are often harmful to the environment, and only our small population saves us from being a blight upon the earth. And even with our current population, we are inexorably degrading our environment.

The first item is from the January 22 issue of Seven Days. In an article on potential regulation of woodstoves, Ken Picard reported that Vermont has “the highest rate of adult asthma in the country – 11.1 percent of the population suffers from it.” And, as I noted last August, the vast majority of small particulate emissions come from woodburning. In short, our air quality would improve overnight if we got rid of every woodstove and outdoor wood boiler in the state and replaced them with an equivalent number of biomass plants with up-to-date emission controls.

It’s doubtful that Vermont would tackle this festering problem on its own. Instead, the EPA is proposing tough new standards for woodstoves and other wood-fired heaters. Even if those rules go through, it’ll take decades for our current stock to be replaced by products that don’t pollute the air.

The second item was, of course, Wednesday’s come-to-Jesus meeting between lawmakers and the US EPA, in which we were lectured on our abuse of Lake Champlain and warned that we will have to make serious (and costly) changes to avoid federal sanctions and mandates.

This is a development you’d expect in Texas or West Virginia. But solidly green, crunchy-granola Vermont as an environmental outlaw? We ought to be ashamed.  

And, frankly, the state and our advocacy groups ought to make this our number-one environmental priority. But we probably won’t, because it’ll be difficult and expensive. And it will impinge on a core Vermont tradition: small-scale agriculture. The big sources are pretty much under control.

As Environmental Commissioner David Mears noted, “Most of the pollution that’s going into the lake comes from the landscape.” More specifics from the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck (Gannett paywall warning):

Cropland accounts for the single largest share at 35 percent with pastures adding another 4 percent. Development accounts for 14 percent, as do forests. Erosion of unpaved roads brings in 5.6 percent.

… As a result, efforts to reduce phosphorus will likely include requirements for road and bridge construction and regulations on farms, requiring small farms to be certified as medium and large farms are and ensure that they follow standard manure management and other practices.

The shoreland protection bill currently making its way through the Legislature will also play a part. But this isn’t going to be easy, especially when the largest problem, by far, is agriculture. The festival of circular finger-pointing has already begun, and it’ll get a whole lot worse.

And I haven’t even mentioned how we’ll raise the money to pay for all of this.

Champlain pollution, like our belching chimneys and high asthma rates, is mostly a product of our current Vermont lifestyle, not large industries or overdevelopment. Yes, parking lots and rooftops play a part. But we have relatively few of both. It’s what we’ve been doing and are doing now that’s turned Lake Champlain into a petri dish for toxic algae blooms.

In order to become the Good Stewards we like to think we are, we cannot be satisfied with trying to preserve our current status. We have to make significant changes in how we live and how we use our landscape. Some of our Vermont traditions will have to go — or will have to change substantially. Like, for instance, our addiction to low-mileage trucks and FWDs and the quantity of miles we drive: the solution to that problem is a switch to electric-powered vehicles and the widespread construction of renewable energy sources. Yes, even wind turbines.

Last August, I wrote this about our environmental movement:

The unspoken guiding principle seems to be this: If it’s old, traditional, familiar, or small, it’s good (or at least acceptable). If it’s new, shiny, different, or (gasp!) corporate, it’s bad and we need to resist it.

And there’s where our self-satisfaction becomes counterproductive. Not everything old, traditional, familiar or small is good; not everything new, shiny, different, or even corporate is bad.

I believe that more than ever. The much-protested new and shiny things, like ridgeline turbines, solar farms, biomass plants, and even that natural gas pipeline, are less of a threat to Vermont’s environment than simply continuing to do what we’ve been doing. And on our own, we have clearly lacked the political will to make meaningful changes. That’s why our water and air problems are being tackled, not by good-heated Vermonters, but by bureaucratic regulators from the federal government.

Environmentally speaking, Vermont needs to get its shit together. It needs to stop being so smug and self-satisfied. And it needs to stop reflexively defending the familiar and rejecting the new.  

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

     We, in each of our towns, and throughout Vermont are, together, a community.  As Town Meeting approaches, I trust that all of us, regardless of our particular political persuasion, agree.  And as a community we do right to concur that one does well, when one’s neighbor does well.  This commitment to our friends, family, and fellow residents is old one. When the Green Mountain Boys evicted New York land surveyors, tax collectors, and sheriffs, I do not doubt that they too were motivated by this notion of self-preservation as inalienably linked to community; Freedom and Unity. More recently, we saw this belief manifest during the crisis following Irene. Two and one half years ago I was honored to see many of you from Waitsfield, Warren, Duxbury, Fayston, and beyond coming to lend a hand in Moretown during our hour of need.  Such acts of human camaraderie will never be forgotten.  In essence Vermont has a long and proud history of people reaching out in solidarity when their neighbors could use a hand.  We are, in a word, a people who embrace and honor the core value associated with the very notion of community as the foundation upon which rests the prosperity of the individual.

     Today, we can and do express our sense of community, not only in time of crisis, but also through a maturing social compact which gives form to the worth and well-being of our fellow citizens.  Maintaining and improving an equitable education system that gives support to children and families is one such expression.  Creating a Vermont controlled healthcare system that provides insurance and quality medical care regardless of job or lot in life is also such an expression. Guaranteeing that all working Vermonters are afforded the right to accrue paid sick days is yet another expression.



    It is for these reasons that I support H208, a bill currently in the Vermont House of Representatives that would guarantee all Vermonters the right to earn up to 7 sick days in a given year. As a Vermonter, I encourage you to support this noble effort too.

    The fact is, all people get sick some time or other; most of us a few times a year.  When this happens, when one has a fever, one should be able to stay home for a day and get better.  And if your kid is home sick, and if both parents have to work, one parent should be afforded the economic ability to care for the child during that time of need. How could one begin to construct a moral argument against this statement?  Either we are a community, and therefore embody the core truth inherent in the principle which is Vermont, or we are not. I assert that we are Vermonters.

    However, the reality is that thousands of low income people in these Green Hills do not have any paid sick days. When they get sick, they often must make a hard decision: work while their body and mind are turned against them, or stay home and miss one fifth of their weekly pay. For the many, this one few-and-far-between unpaid sick day means the phone will be shut off; the rent will be late; the kids will miss a meal. For those that do work when they are ill, not only does their productivity go down, but they typically infect their co-workers which, in turn, makes productivity sink measurably lower.  Therefore, as a community and as Vermonters, it is absurd to maintain a status quo which serves no human, neighborly, or long-term interest. For these and other reasons, H208 (paid sick days) is supported by both Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility and Organized Labor.  

    As a resident of Moretown, as part of the broader Mad River Valley community, as a Vermonter, I encourage all of you to take a moment to reflect on this human issue.  I encourage you to express your support for H208.  I also encourage our State Representatives to actively support this bill with no exemptions. Of course I would also welcome our Governor, Peter Shumlin, and our State Senators to likewise support this legislation. By doing so, they will all be casting a vote in favor of the Green Mountains’ working families and in line with Vermont’s long tradition of valuing our community over short term and private interests. After all, one does well, when one’s neighbor does well.

   Take Action To Support Paid Sick Day! Please click on the below link in order to send an email to your State Representatives to let them know that the People of Vermont support paid Sick Days for all workers!  

 http://afl.salsalabs.com/o/402…

As report in an article by Alan Levin on Feb 14, 2014 in http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…

“…the Federal Aviation Administration, which since 2007 hasn’t permitted commercial drones in the U.S. while it labors to write rules to allow them.”

Rules? It is simple. ‘Open Season’ should be the rule! Perhaps a bounty on the damn things is in order. Let the American people vote with shotguns whether or not they want the government, corporations or their neighbors looking into their windows of their homes, workplaces, their yards or their automobiles to see what should be private.

Oh! The police, the Defense Department, the NSA, the CIA, the entire government will object. Same vote!

The harm this technology will do to our society is far greater than the benefit to those who would use them.

Perry

Tough as our economic and environmental challenges may be, one need only look to Fukushima Prefecture to know we have been relatively lucky, so far.

In a new video release by Fairewinds Energy Education,  Arnie Gundersen tells us that recent reports from TEPCO indicate that the scope of damage to the spent fuel pool in the #3 reactor at Fukushima far exceeds anything that has been previously suggested in news releases.  

Much has been said about the commencement of efforts to remove spent fuel bundles from the damaged fuel pool of reactor #4.  Shifting the focus to reactor #4 was a shrewd way to avoid discussion of the much graver situation at reactor #3, where fifty-plus tons of debris have collapsed into the fuel pool following a detonation shockwave that represented the worst explosion that occurred at the facility.

TEPCO doesn’t want to talk about Unit 4 because it has no good answer to provide for what can be done about the radioactive mess at the bottom of the debris pile.

The implications are chilling, but the bad news is deeply buried in a recent corporate report entitled TEPCO’s Nuclear Power Plant Roadmap.  The company has provided no translation, so volunteer translators are assisting Fairewinds in making the information accessible to industry watchdogs around the world.

Bottom line?  Because bad stuff does happen, if events like the Unit 3 detonation shockwave can’t be planned for and a successful robotic response engineered into the original design, it’s madness to even consider the continued use of nuclear energy.

New TEPCO Report Shows Damage to Unit 3 Fuel Pool MUCH Worse Than That at Unit 4 from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

(Dedicated to Jen & Maggie and all the crew at Charlie Os World Famous who are boycotting the Olympics on the TV there.  And also boycotting Stoli vodka.  Also to Abby, PolitenessWoman.  I think you’ll like this, folks.  I turned it into a musical at the end.–PS)

Putin:  “Get that !@?/#!*@in’ queer bastard!  Slam the puck up his faggot ass!  Use your…”   ‘THUNK!’  Putin is struck in the head by a STEEL HANKIE.

Putin:  “Sonofafairybitchin’ priestfuckin’…”  ‘THUNK!’  Yet another STEEL HANKIE.

Putin:  “Who threw that?!  Where’s my Mafia Security Guards?!  How dare…”

PolitenessMan:  “I, sir, am the culprit.  Although, in this matter, you yourself, sir, brought about my action.”

Putin:  “And who the fuck are you anyway?!  I’d like to know before I have you shot!”

PolitenessMan:  “I, sir, am PolitenessMan.  And I am here to help you renew and redefine the proper old vestiges of dignity that befit a leader of a Great People.  And to guide you in your future conduct regarding Gays, Ukrainians, Chechnyans, and others, so that one day you will become so gracious a World Figure that historians throughout the ages will place you side by side with Lincoln, Churchill, FDR, and Jimmy Carter.  I am humbly at your service.  But please refrain from further vulgar and unnecessary use of the F-Word and all associated profanities, as our goals here must be addressed at a level commensurate with their import.”

Putin to his Russian Mafia Security Guards:  “Wait!  Wait.  Put your guns away!”  And to PolitenessMan:  “You say that you, PolitenessMan, can make me as great and famous and beloved as Lincoln?  And Jimmy Carter?”

PolitenessMan:  “It will be work, but yes, I can teach you the ways in which you will come to be revered as a modern leader of unmatched civility in handling all the crises that befall, not only your own people, but, ALL THE PEOPLE of the ENTIRE WORLD.”

Putin:  “Wow, PolitenessMan.  That’s all I’ve ever wanted.  To help save the World and be loved by everyone in it.  What can you teach me first?”  And to his Mafia Security Guards:  “Chill, boys.  Take a break.  Go drink some Stoli.”

PolitenessMan:  “First, Vlad, if I may call you Vlad…”

Putin:  “But of course, PolitenessMan.”

PolitenessMan:  “Thank you.  First, Vlad, it is necessary for you to apologize to the ladies of Pussy Riot, and to all the Gay women and men in your nation and the World.  And to then enact laws in Russia for the total equality of all Gay women and men, and, going one well-mannered step further, appointing a wide range of Gay women and men to important and distinguished positions in the Russian government, in Russian enterprise, and Russian science and culture.”

Putin:  “Hell, I can…excuse me, PolitenessMan…I can do that.  Consider it done.”

PolitenessMan:  “Good.  Next step is, lose the Russian Mafia thugs.  They are really not a good fit for a World Leader deserving of the very best in good manners and decorum from the entourage surrounding him.”

Putin:  “Done, PolitenessMan.  Shall I have them shot?”

PolitenessMan:  “No, no, no, no, Vlad.  Have them all dispatched to the Ukraine as your personal ambassadors of good will to assist the Ukrainians in deciding where they wish to fit in the New Polite World Order.”

Putin:  “Yeah.  I’ll tell them to let the Ukies do whatever they want.  If they want to become the 51st state of the United States, that’s fine with me.  To tell you the truth, PolitenessMan, the Ukies became buddy-buddy with Hitler’s Nazis when the Nazis invaded our country in the Great Patriotic War.  I’d just as soon cut them loose.”

PolitenessMan:  “There.  That is already at the higher and more refined stature of the StatesManShip you wish to embrace.  And have the Whole World acknowledge.”

Putin:  “Really, PolitenessMan?  I’m a StatesMan now?  Whoa!  Tell me what else to do.”

Politenessman:  “The Chechnyans, Vlad.”

Putin:  “Oh boy, PolitenessMan, that’s a toughie.  But, as you say, I am now a StatesMan of Stature.  Chechnya, you are FREE!  Long Live Chechnya!  How’s that, PolitenessMan?”

PolitenessMan:  “By God, Vlad, as Pickering and Henry Higgins would have put it to Eliza, I think you’ve got it!”

Putin:  “I’ve got it?”

PolitenessMan:  “You’ve got it!  You’ve got it!  I didn’t think you’d get it, but indeed you did!”

Putin:  “And now that I have got it, have got it, have got it, I’ll pass it on to Kim Jong-un and all his kids.  I feel like I’m a new man!  A new man!  A good man!  A man of taste and pleasantries thanks to all you did.”

PolitenessMan:  “And don’t forget the Japanese, the Japanese, of Nippon.  Tell them to apologize for all the World War II crimes they’ve kept neatly hid.”

Putin:  “Yes, PolitenessMan, I’ll do it.  I’ll do it.  I’ll do it.  Two years from now We and China and Japan will be The New World Kids.”

PolitenessMan:  “And now, Vlad, I must be going, be going, be going.  I have to see PolitenessWoman at her latest gig.  But don’t forget the Planet, the Planet, the Planet.”

Putin:  “Yes, I’ll help stop Global Warming and send my Mafia to Wall Street to equalize the economic grid.”

PolitenessMan & Putin:  “So on with the Olympics.  The Olympics.  The Olympics.  We love that Gay figure skating lady and all the jumps and twists she did.”

Putin:  “One more time, PolitenessMan!”

PolitenessMan & Putin:  “Yes, we are men of great good manners, good manners, good manners.  And all the World will thank us for the tastelessness we’ve undone, yes indeed we did.”

PolitenessMan:  “Now I have to say Good Day now.  Good Day now.  Good Day now.”

Putin:  “But come back next year to see me and all the nastiness I will have undid.”  Das vi danya, PolitenessMan!”

PolitenessMan:  “And a good and better and more well-mannered day to us all.  Adieu, Vlad.”

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.