Over the weekend, VTDigger posted a lovely little profile piece about one of our best frenemies, El Jefe General John McClaughry. The author, Dirk Van Susteren (no relation to Greta, I trust?), presented El Jefe General as a good ol’ Vermonter who lives out in the country, plays pickup basketball, is known to pinch a penny, and even has a faithful canine companion* (named Lassie, how original). And who actually has a sense of humor! — conspicuously never on display during his paid commentaries on WDEV, most notable for their bellicosity and poor audio.

*Perhaps El Jefe General doesn’t realize that the dog is the socialist of the animal kingdom, happily accepting a dependent relationship with its master; whereas the noble feline, while accepting the blandishments of home and hearth for convenience’s sake, maintains an air of self-reliance. (And, judging by the millions of wild birds killed annually by house cats, that self-reliance remains in a state of actuality undiminished by the daily acceptance of Fancy Feast.)

McClaughry, as Van Susteren informs us, recounts his story with a blend of “humor, introspection, and yes, pedantry.” The latter, I certainly believe.

Feel free to read more about El Jefe on your own time. What struck me, beyond the skilled feature writer’s ability to reveal the humanity in anyone (next weekend: “Goin’ Fishin’ with Assad”) is that this is the latest in what’s becoming — or threatening to become — a trend in Vermont political journalism: the exceedingly friendly treatment of prominent conservatives.  

It started a few weeks ago when Paul Heintz painted a tender and largely uncritical portrait of Darcie “Hack” Johnston, the “skillful” political operator who hasn’t won a campaign outside of her former relationship with Jim Jeffords.

The reader has to wade through accolades like “intense, hardworking person” (from Randy Brock, whose gubernatorial campaign paid handsome sums to Johnston for little or no benefit) and “She knows the political game” (from ex-Jeffords staffer Bill Kurtz) and an account of her anti-health care reform activities before getting to the heart of the matter: that since Johnston began her all-out attack on Shummycare, public support has actually increased and opposition has declined.

Fast forward to last week, when the Freeploid’s Nancy Remsen valiantly attempted to perform CPR on the moribund political career of Wendy Wilton.

Remsen, for those unfamiliar, rendered uncritical (and unwarranted) acclaim to Wilton’s perspicacity as an evaluator of single-payer health care, in spite of Wilton’s (1) obvious partisanship, (2) previous, highly-touted and disastrously wrong estimates, (3) the measurable differences between her current estimate and that produced by the “independent” consultancy, Avalere, and (4) the obvious problems with Avalere’s work, which produced a highball figure based on a number of “coulds,” “possibles,” and other uncharitable assumptions.

And now, with the McClaughry piece, we have three stories shining the best possible light on prominent Vermont conservatives. Plus, lest we forget, the broad acceptance of VTGOP chair David Sunderland as a moderating figure despite his hard-right record.

This isn’t enough to declare a trend, but it’s almost certainly the beginning of one. After all, the prospect for 2014 looks like this: either the Democrats will win, or the Democrats will win big. That’s it. The best the VTGOP can hope for, realistically, is to take back a few marginal seats in the legislature. Whoever they nominate for statewide office, aside from Phil Scott, is pretty much doomed from the gitgo.

So too in the 2014 legislative session. The policy debates that matter will involve Democrats and maybe Progressives. The Republican super-minority will be irrelevant.

But political reporters can’t very well say so, because they’d lose their precious aura of objectivity. So they have to cover Don Turner’s press conferences and overstate the Republicans’ role in the political arena, point out the areas where they might, possibly, potentially, have an opportunity to gain some slim partisan edge. And they have to shine a little light on leading conservatives, rather than pointing out that they’ve pretty much driven the VTGOP into a ditch.

Coming soon to a media outlet near you: Rob Roper, youthful free-market tactician and humble Vermonter; Randy Brock, the potential Comeback Kid of 2014 (ha); Can Lenore Broughton Finally Buy an Election?; and Mark Snelling, favorite son of an honored political family.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Gack.  

Previously published on Marc Estrin’s blog http://marcestrin.blogspot.com/ on THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2013

This letter serves as as a good introdudtion to the facts driving the F-35 controversy.

Stever Allen is a real estate professional who did  statistical work demonstrating lower property values near the airport and a slower rise in values than elsewhere.

STEVE ALLEN’S ANALYSIS OF F-35 IMPACT

————————————————

Dear Mr Germanos,

The South Burlington and Winooski City Councils are to be commended for arranging public forums on the proposed F-35 basing.  The opportunity for public process and the Council’s willingness to listen to resident concerns and opinions on the basing is most welcome.

The Air Force recently released a revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement, relating to proposed basing. After reviewing the revised DEIS, and other relevant information, I want state my strong and complete opposition to the basing of the F-35 jets at the Burlington Air Guard base, because of the damaging impact it will have on our communities. The reasons for my opposition are as follows:

Reliability of the Data

The revised DEIS includes estimates of housing and population impact based on 2010 Census data. The estimates are significantly higher than the figures presented in the initial Draft EIS. However, the estimates are still incorrect and significantly understate the number of housing units and people that are located in the high noise zone. Using the reliable data source of municipal assessments / tax parcel data, the properties have been identified by property owner, address and indicate the number of housing units affected is substantially greater than reported in the revised DIES. This irrefutable data indicates that the Revised DEIS understates the number of housing units, located within the 65 db DNL zone (Scenario 2), by 505 units and understates the population affected by approximately 900. The EIS must be revised to accurately reflect the impact of the high noise on our homes and residents.  

Safety  

A huge land area, encompassing thousands of homes and families is located within the designated accident potential zone area. The DEIS states that the F-35’s will have a significantly higher risk of crash, as compared with the F-16’s.  The very recent crash of an F-16 in Arizona at Luke AFB illustrates the risk.  Fortunately, this crash was in a rural area and not a populated area, and there were no casualties. The high crash zone near the Burlington Air Guard space is the most densely populated region of our entire state.  In other communities, the Air Force has gone to court to prevent residential development from occurring in Accident Potential Zones. This same standard of safety should be applied in this case.

Health  

There is credible evidence that children are at much higher risk of negative health impacts due to high noise levels. The DEIS does not adequately address the impact on the health of children and should be amended to include recent studies, including the study completed by the World Health Organization. Over one thousand children will be impacted.

Education  

Several schools are located within the 65 db DNL zone and would be negatively impacted by high noise levels. The South Burlington and Winooski school boards both oppose the basing because of the negative impact on their hundreds of students. The DEIS did not even consider the presence of the recently developed Community College of Vermont, located in downtown Winooski. This multi million dollar facility, serving hundreds of students, would also be impacted by the high noise.

Property Values

There is an abundance of evidence confirming that airport noise has a detrimental / negative impact on property values. The DEIS only briefly examined this issue; on one hand, recognizing the impact on property values, but neglecting to quantity the impact. There are many academic studies, as well as local market evidence, that should be reviewed in order to assess the impact of the basing on property values. There are thousands of housing units in the proposed 65 db DNL zone. The loss of equity for these mostly modestly priced homes could be financially devastating for the owners. The potential loss in home values must be considered as a cost of this basing and examined more closely in the EIS. The analysis should identify the value of the residential property which is located within the high noise zone, and estimate the potential loss in value of this property, as well as the potential cost to mitigate the noise damages, if mitigation is possible.

Municipal and State Tax Revenues

Related to potential property value loss, is the potential loss of municipal tax revenues. The DEIS did not address this issue.  The EIS should quantify the potential loss of state and municipal tax revenues as a significant impact of the proposed basing.

Quality of Life  

Because of the high noise levels, the quality of life will be significantly diminished for over 8,000 residents, including many disadvantaged families, elderly residents and children. The repeated exposure to excessive jet noise, up to 28 times a day, will greatly diminish the quality of living for these communities.

Stigma  

If the F-35’s are based in Vermont, the 65 db DNL noise zone in Winooski will be expanded to include nearly 80% of all housing units in the City.  Large sections of South Burlington, Burlington and Williston are also impacted.  Aside from the very real negative impacts of high noise on property values, health and quality of life, the high noise levels will also bring the collateral Federal label to our communities and homes as being “incompatible with residential use” and “incompatible with educational use”. The FAA and Department of Defense both have policies which explicitly define this.  I believe that this will stigmatize these communities and homes through the perception that they are a less attractive and safe place to live. The affected neighborhoods and communities will be burdened by the negative reputation imposed by this Federal “label”.  Who would want to live in a community or home which has been labeled as “incompatible with residential use”?  Who would want to send their children to school in a community which carries this label?

Available Alternatives

As the DEIS informs us, there are several potential sites that are better suited to the F-35 basing. I fear that the decision is being controlled by politics.  I understand that “mission” is a controlling element in the basing decision and I am afraid that this somewhat vague term will be used to make Burlington the top choice, despite it being the worst choice from an environmental standpoint. If the Air Force and Air Guard are serious about transparency, there should be an investigation in the selection process, specifically focusing on the glaring “mistakes” in the application, which led to Burlington being erroneously selected as the preliminary top choice for the basing.

Support for Guard

The Air National Guard has a commendable record of service to our country and state. As a community, we can support the Air Guard without supporting the F-35’s. The DEIS indicates that only a small number of jobs will result from the basing, even under the most expansive plan. Air Guard leadership has publicly stated that it is unlikely that the base would ever close, while recognizing that the mission could change. The host of economic benefits associated with the ANG will continue, even if the mission is changed.  Most importantly, the marginal benefits of the F-35 basing should be weighed against the costs. For the affected communities, the costs are enormous and the benefits are minimal.

Steve Allen

87 East Spring Street

Winooski, VT  

November 10, 2013                                                                                                                                                

South Burlington, Vermont

To:       Secretary Eric K. Fanning – Acting Secretary of the Air Force      

and     General Mark A. Welsh III – Chief of Staff of the Air Force  

Re:  Request to withdraw the F-35 from bed-down consideration at the Burlington, VT airport.

Dear Secretary Fanning and General Welsh,

As a U.S. Army veteran of the Vietnam War era, I am writing to urge you to remove Burlington from consideration for bed-down of the F-35 during this basing round.   I do not oppose the building of the F-35 but I do oppose the intended quantities due to national domestic fiscal and budgetary problems and cost overruns as well as the plane’s myriad developmental problems.

My family has a proud tradition of serving in our nation’s military.  I will reveal that tradition to avoid being considered anti-military – because, in fact, I am quite the opposite. My father fought in the U.S. Army Expeditionary Force in WWI all the way from Paris to the Meuse River in some of the worst battles of that war. He was confined to a British hospital with his face and head totally bandaged for seven weeks from mustard gas exposure – then returned to the battlefield in the Argonne Forest. My brother John flew a total of 31 missions as a navigator of B-17 bombers as part of the U.S. Army Air Corps’ Bloody 100th, which sustained the largest percentage of casualties of all B17 bomber groups over Germany. His plane once crash-landed in France. My brother Leonard was en-route to Japan for an invasion as part of the Army’s 82nd Airborne when the atomic bombs were dropped, ending the war. He served as an occupation troop and developed serious mental problems, partly as a result of his military service. His life ended in a mental institution. My brother Ed served in the Korean War as a military policeman. He returned with a just single kidney, the other having required surgery, acquired tuberculosis after a year and a half stay in a Colorado sanatorium, and had frost-bitten toes. He could never get a job in civilian life after discharge.

So I ask you, just how much does one family have to give for their country to be considered patriotic?  Yet I and others like me have been so labeled because of our opposition to the F-35 bed-down proposal for Burlington. And how much does one have to give to their country without being expected to also endure the result of the basing of extremely loud military jets in a densely populated civilian metropolitan area – with all the negative effects resulting from that. I had believed the military existed to protect us – not damage our health and lower our quality of life.

My wife and I live within the 65 dB DNL noise zone of the current F-16s here and within the projected 65 dB DNL perimeter of the F-35s. We have experienced the extreme effects of the noise from these aircraft. When children in the vicinity at times scream and cry and hold their ears when these planes take off, one does not have to revert to health studies showing harm to humans to understand that something is wrong with having these warplanes based in a populated area.

There is a large and growing body of residents in Vermont that is very angry about the politically- rigged and flawed process of selecting Burlington for the top choice among other qualified locations and because of the EIS process in ignored critical substantive data.

http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/21…

I believe there are so many deficiencies and omissions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of such magnitude as to render it illegal. If the FEIS remains as it is, litigation will be warranted.  (See attachment for comments to Nick Germanos project manager for EIS.)

Adding to those reasons is the very questionable behavior, distortion, lies, attempts at humiliation of basing opponents amid accusations of being unpatriotic, and near libel from supporters of the F-35. Such simply disgusting behavior is making me ashamed to have served in the military. I have never felt that way, even when raw eggs were thrown at me when I was in uniform in the U.S. during the war in Vietnam. The Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) itself has led in distorting the arguments of opponents of the F-35 (which have been taken from or derived from the EIS itself) and clearly made an attempt at intimidation at the latest Burlington City Council meeting – all of that on the record. This represents an intrusion of the military into civilian life and decision-makers at the local level.  The Air Force is getting a larger black eye out of this than anyone else, and it will get worse. (See attachment – Burlington City Council meeting on Oct. 28.)

Given that the Burlington airport has a short runway, we can draw major lessons from the crash on June 26, 2013, an F-16 Class a Mishap at Luke Air Force Base – a crash very relevant to the F-35 bed-down proposal in Burlington.   About 80% of single engine fighter Class A Mishaps turn into crashes. The F-35 has a poorer glide performance than the F-16 due its undersized wing and heavy weight.  Burlington has scant unpopulated buffering at either end of the runway – as does Luke Air Force Base – but primarily a heavily-populated residential area, which presents extreme danger to residents. This is exacerbated by Burlington’s shorter runway which barely meets minimum length standards for a safe F-35 take-off. Placing this plane at Burlington would be consciously and unconscionably irresponsible.

To propose bringing this warplane to the Burlington airport, situated in the most populous city and neighborhoods in Vermont, is just plain insane – particularly so early in its cumulative fleet flight hours history. The cost and likely build schedule of these planes will almost certainly not allow the fleet to exceed some 100,000 hours of flight time before their intended deployment prior to 2020 – the time of intended full deployment in Burlington.

The majority of residents in the neighborhoods around the airport have been opposed to bringing the F-35 here for several years now. (If the VTANG members and their friend and families are subtracted out of those 180 persons whom I door-to-door interviewed in January, about 70% are opposed – a more than 2:1 ratio.)

http://vtdigger.org/2013/03/19…

This is a controversy that is dividing our communities in ways never before seen in Vermont. The last Burlington City Council meeting about the F-35 had the largest attendance in the city’s history. And this controversy is spreading across the state.

http://vtdigger.org/2013/10/24…

http://vtdigger.org/2013/10/28…

The opposition to this plane has grown and become increasingly organized with more people expressing opposition to the F-35 bed-down, who never dared before,  as well as more frequently to the F-35 itself and they are not being unpatriotic by doing so. That opposition includes many enlisted men and officers, alike, who have served their country honorably.

I, for one, will fight against this plane coming to the Burlington airport until that proposal is defeated or until all avenues of protest are completely exhausted, including multiple law suits, the first of which have already been filed. If we lose on all fronts I will move out of the area.

Sincerely,

Ray Gonda                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           31 Berkley Street                                                                                                                                                                                                                           South Burlington, VT 05403

(802) 264-4886

Cc:

General Mike Hostage – Commander, Air Combat Command  

Secretary Kathleen Ferguson – Acting Assistant Secretary of the AF for Installations, Environment, and Logistics

Secretary Timothy Bridges – Deputy Assistant Secretary of the AF for Installations

Mr. Gerald Pease – Deputy Assistant Secretary of the AF for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health

Mr. Mark Pohlmeier – Chief Strategic Basing Division – Air Force Pentagon

Ms. Deborah Lee James – Secretary of the Air Force nominee – President, Technical and Engineering Sector

Published on Marc Estrin’s blog on MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2013

THE  SOUND OF FREEDOM

A common assertion among proponents of basing an F-35 squadron at our Burlington airport is that noise from military aircraft is perceived as “the sound of freedom.” This seems odd.

Freedom is complex. But for simplicity, let’s examine a most American summary — that of FDR’s “four freedoms”, a proposal for four fundamental feedoms everyone should enjoy: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

What do our military aircraft, noise aside, have to do with providing them?

Do these planes provide freedom of speech? No, the First Amendment gives us that.

Freedom of worship? Again, no. Again, the Constitution.

Freedom from want? Here, certainly not, and rather the opposite, as the enormous sums to develop, build, and support them drain the treasury for domestic needs.

Ah, fear. Surely they make us less afraid of “the enemy” — whoever that might be. But what enemy has the air or missile capability to attack us? None on the horizon. And our overseas attacks to pre-empt any capability seem to be creating more, not fewer, enemies, enemies whose tools are not targets such aircraft. Our fear, if anything, should be increased.

To me, freedom comes not from our warplanes, but from collaboration with nature and humans trying to be healed.

Tell it to the Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban? They too don’t hear the roar in the air as the sound of freedom. Nor the buzzing.

This was written by mar Estrin and published on his blog 2 http://marcestrin.blogspot.com/

Most of the noise concerning the F35 issues is about NOISE — and rightly so, as many Vermonters will be hurt, their lives and homes devalued and in some cases destroyed.

But let’s not forget another aspect, at the moment relatively noiseless, but in the long run, equally worthy of note: the military’s push for the F-35 is intimately connected with Obama’s plan to upgrade the US’s nuclear strike capability. The current F-16 fleet is incapable of carrying and delivering the newly-designed “smart” nuclear bombs. The F-35 has been designed to do so.

By supporting the development of the F-35, in Burlington or not, Vermonters are willy-nilly upholding the US’s evasion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — to which it is a signatory — which contains a pledge to slowly lower nuclear strike capacity to zero.

The anti-F-35 movement itself has bracketed this issue, in part because the local, clearly predictable effects will be so severe, but partly out of wariness about being seen as “unpatriotic”. What I think is unpatriotic is to allow one’s own country to be the linchpin and supplier of WMDs beyond any local nightmare.

Let this remain an undertone at least in the current symphony of noise.

Perhaps someone who knows Floyd or Cindy Nease better than I should be writing this piece. But here I am, to remind the Democratic Party and the lesbian and gay community that we need to rally round Floyd, our brother in grief.

It was Floyd Nease who, as House Democratic Majority Leader, rounded up the last 11 votes the House needed to override Jim Douglas’s ugly veto of the marriage equality bill in 2009, despite his private grief over the death of his mother on the morning of the vote. He has been a consummate Democrat of the kind we’d like to see many more in office.

And now, Floyd’s wife and companion of more than 40 years, Cindy, has died, last Wednesday, according to her obituary in Sunday’s Free Press, from “complications of 20 years of cancer treatment.” She was 62 years old and had been married to Floyd for 41 years.

The Neases came to Vermont two years before I did, and moved to Johnson. And Cindy dealt with two rounds of cancer. According to his “exit interview” in the Stowe Reporter, they would have been bankrupted but for the help of friends and neighbors.

His decision to run for the Legislature came after his wife struggled with cancer twice, and friends and neighbors rallied around the family, raising money to save them from the brink of bankruptcy.

Nease, then executive director of Laraway Youth and Family Services in Johnson, decided he could repay his community by serving in the Legislature.

I met Cindy a few times at Democratic Party events. She was a lively, engaged and engaging woman. I regret not coming to know her better.

Floyd decided to leave the legislature in 2011 and to decline a run for Lieutenant Governor at least in part to be more available to and spend more time with Cindy.

There will be an open house celebration of Cindy’s life from 1:30 to 5 p.m. in the dining hall of the Vermont Studio Center on Pearl Street in Johnson on Saturday, Nov. 30, 2013. […] The family asks that in lieu of flowers, contributions be made to Lamoille Home Health and Hospice, an organization that Cindy valued both as a member of its board and as a patient. Without their highly capable help, she could not have achieved her last wish, which was to die peacefully at home. To make a memorial donation, you may: write a check payable to Lamoille Home Health & Hospice and mail it, along with a memorial notation, to 54 Farr Ave., Morrisville, VT 05661, or donate online at: http://www.lhha.org/.

Our most heartfelt condolences go out to Floyd, their daughters and grandchildren, and to all those who were touched by Cindy’s life.

There's really big news from Wisconsin this week. The Freedom From Religion Foundation won a decision in the United States District Court in their case challenging a little-known law established specifically to provide government subsidies to churches.

 The law, known as the parsonage exemption, comes from 1954, the depths of the Red Scare, like the addition of “under god” to the Pledge of Allegiance, and the purpose was the same: to bolster religion, and Christianity in particular, against the onslaught of godless Communism. The 1954 bill’s sponsor, Rep. Peter Mack, argued ministers should be rewarded for “carrying on such a courageous fight against this [godless and anti-religious world movement].” – See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/19361-ffrf-gaylor-barker-overturn-%E2%80%98parsonage-exemption%E2%80%99-clergy-privilege#sthash.WixHGZry.dpuf

 The parsonage exemption allows churches to pay “ministers of the gospel” partly in salary, partly in a housing allowance, and exempts the housing allowance from income tax. FFRF observes that the parsonage exemption allows payment not only for rent or mortgage payments, but for home improvements and even swimming pools. In 2002 the value of this exemption was estimated at $2.3 billion in lost tax revenues over five years. On top of that, ministers are able to “double dip”, paying their mortgage with their tax-free housing allowance and then deducting their mortgage interest and property taxes from the income tax payable on their taxable income.

The court, in a very strongly written opinion, explains why this violates the First Amendment.  “However, the significance of the benefit simply underscores the problem with the law, which is that it violates the well-established principle under the First Amendment that “[a]bsent the most unusual circumstances, one's religion ought not affect one's legal rights or duties or benefits.” Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School Disrict v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 715 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).”

The judge reminds the reader that the Establishment Clause “protects the believer and the unbeliever alike”, and explains that if the First Amendment would prohibit a tax that is assessed exclusively on churches or ministers, which it does, it also prohibits a tax benefit conferred exclusively on churches.

 Assuming that the parsonage exemption applies to ministers of all religions, and not just Christian “ministers of the gospel”, what's so bad about it? After all, the government isn't choosing which religion to favor, right?

Here's a bit of an explanation. Take two people working for nonprofit organizations. One is a social worker, the other is a minister, and each one gets a total compensation package of $50,000. They both spend a lot of their time meeting with and counseling people who have family or emotional problems, helping to refer them to needed services, or coordinate those services with their families. The social worker gets his compensation in cash and is taxed on the whole thing, whereas the minister gets $30,000 in  cash and $20,000 in a housing allowance. She is taxed only on the $30,000 salary, and the only justification for that tax benefit is that in addition to the counseling and other activities that don't look that different from what the social worker does, her job also involves preaching, leading the congregation in prayer, and maybe proselytizing.

Can you imagine any possible justification for this scenario other than to make it easier for churches to do business? I sure can't. The decision, far from demonstrating hostility to religion, is simply a way to protect everyone's religious liberty by outlawing this particular example of preferential treatment the government has provided religion for far too long.

I do not know how to make replies to comments under my original article so I am using this space to make that reply.

The entire Burlington City Council (B.C.C.) meeting was taped by opponents of the F-35 and handed to Channel 17.  That tape will corroborate many or most of the things I stated in my original article describing that meeting. However, the camera cannot catch what is not in its field of view.

I was a bit puzzled by the discussion (in the comments to my original article) about partisanship which makes it appear that this publication may be highly partisan. So I will state my case without regard for anyone else’s sore toes as a result.

First, the Republican party in the state would ideologically support the F-35 build and its coming to Vermont. That is prima facie to be expected. I am aware that one possible Republican candidate for governor in the last race expressed reservations about it. But he did not represent the party’s views and he soon dropped that position.

I have voted democratic all my life except for the exception of voting for and helping Republican US Senator Robert Stafford in a campaign for a re-run for office the early 80s when he was chair of the Senate Environment Committee.

My focus here is that the Democratic political machine from the top in Washington, starting with Senator Leahy all the way down through Governor Shumlin and on to the local democrats on the B.C.C. – all of whom held to the party line.  This made public testimony a token formality – a sham. There was no intention to really listen to opponents testimony – including our legal expert, real estate and housing expert  and EIS experts.

The political theater was orchestrated between the business community, Mayor Weinbergers office , the state Democratic Party, the VTANG,  and the green ribbons campaign – to support the F-35 basing in Vermont.

We figured on four Progressive and four Democrat votes a few days prior to the meeting. From personal contact with them, we know that some of the Democrats on the council were leaning toward voting against the F-35 a week before. They abruptly did an about face in the last couple of days prior to the meeting to vote against all the proposals – even amendments to them – scorched earth!

I was told prior to the meeting by one Democratic councilors in a telephone conversation that pressure from the top in D.C. was the cause (of the later cave-in). One of the concerns was that if Senator Leahy became incapacitated sufficiently to affect his performance as arguably the Senate’s most powerful Senator that a mission might not be found for VTANG if the F-35s were steered away from Burlington. However, VTANG is a federally mandated entity – we cannot rid ourselves of it in any way and a mission will be found for it.

I am sure you are all aware of a test balloon made public by the Pentagon that suggested they may choose an active duty Air Force base for this first round of basing of the F-35. Senator Leahy subsequently called the Pentagon’s General Welsh to express his desire to see the F-35 sited as soon as possible – and that obviously means at Burlington – reversing his earlier repeated public statements that he has nothing to do with the decision. (We have done an FOIA request to obtain in part the record of that call). Senator Leahy has been an unabashed supporter of VTANG in very active ways for years.

For those of you who have not followed this controversy, go to VTDigger and enter F-35 or Leas, Greco,Fleckenstein or Gonda in the search box.

The Burlington business community, most of the Vermont legislature, Governor Shumlin, Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger all supported the F-35 coming here. All took actions to solidify that support, including Shumlin’s junket to Florida to listen to the F-35 and F-16 paid for by business interests in Burlington to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Even though the EIS indicates the F-35 is 4x louder than the F-16, sure enough Shumlin stated, in effect, that he was surprised the difference in loudness was hardly noticeable. (We have our own story about that one from witnesses at Eglin at the time: they said the F-35s flew especially quiet that day.)

So taken together with the actions of VTANG, the behavior of the B.C.C.’s chair Joan Shannon described in my original article, the last minute vote change of some democrats on the B.C.C., we are seeing the much referred to “Industrial-Military-(Political)Complex”in action here in little Vermont where town meetings and citizen democracy has been taken for granted.

To put it simply- we watched the Democratic political machine in action from top to bottom as it played self out over two years of opposition to the F-35.

The worst offender and hypocrite is Bernie Sanders. Here we have a “Progressive” talking out of one side of his mouth about the fat military budget and how poor folks are picking up the tab for that, but in his own back yard he supports this Washington pork while thousands of people in the noise zone are harmed by the warplanes there.

One has to wonder why the unqualified support from our federal delegation. I suspect several reasons. One, Democrats need to be seen as strong on national security to counter the conservatives’ traditional strength. Two, Senator Leahy has limited time left in office and may want to feel he has left a visible legacy here in the form of the F-35. Three, Senator Leahy’s family through marriage to a Pomerleau stand to rake in big bucks if and when the area where communities are being destroyed by houses being torn down are rebuilt with commercial buildings such as hotels. I believe Sanders and Welch follow Leahy’s lead.

Finally, a figure that I have seen is the federal delegation in total received $140,000 from the defense industry – primarily from Martin-Litton the builder of the F-35 in 2011 in campaign contributions (I may be wrong about the exact year).

Senators Leahy, Sanders, and Representativ a good documentary. It is a “60 Minutes” story waiting to happen.  e Welch – I know all of them and have voted for them every election.

However, their long-standing constant refusal to sit down with opponents of the F-35 to review the facts along with their support for the F-35 begs a question.  Why? All of the facts are on the side of the opponents. I believe they know that and this is the reason for their stone-walling- while harm to many of their constituents continues on a daily basis and will get worse when the F-35 arrives – if it does.

And this is in spite of the fact that this is not the AIR Force’s first choice. Political pressure has caused much of the EIS process to be flawed in order to point to Burlington as the first choice.

So I do not know what you folks are afraid of in giving my original article top billing. It puzzles me. I researched your biographies to see what you political leanings and backgrounds are and I see that it is “Democrat” for the most part.

I have always voted Democrat, except as noted above, but seeing the party’s action from all available evidence in this controversy has forced me to turn to being a third party supporter – and the best chance for a third party is the Vermont Progressive Party (along with several other opponents).

I do not know where that puts me in regard to Bernie Sanders though. If his run for president is a serious intention we will certainly derail that before it ever gets started right here in Vermont. We have the ammunition make sure that tanks.

But getting back to the issue of the intrusion of the military (VTANG) into civilian life – I have only touched the surface of it in my original article. It gets much worse than what I have written. What I have written is just the publicly visible part of their behavior – on tape.

Collusion with the business community and supporters of the F-35 is another aspect of this questionable behavior. Distortion of the facts is yet another issue they need to be called out on.

Individual personal behavior of some of them in uniform at Burlington ward meetings is also questionable by attempting to intimidate those testifying against the F-35. Put this together with the national Military Industrial Complex and now along with the Democratic political machine and it gets really interesting.

We will yet get a national story out of this. For those inside the opposition movement – they see this story has the makings of a good novel or at least

“So, who really killed Kennedy?”

“I think it was Joe DiMaggio.”

“Yeah?  No shit?”

“Yeah.  The clue was in that song from the ’67 movie, The Graduate.  You know, ‘Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?…’  That’s how I figured it out.  Cause everybody associated with the Kennedy assassination either died or disappeared.”

“Wow.  I never caught that.  Far out!  When do you think the government will tell us the truth?”

“Not for another fifty years.  After everybody  involved is long dead.  And their kids too.  By the time the truth comes out, the generation who hears it will think it’s old history, like Lincoln.  Hell, they’ll probably say: ‘Who was this Jack Kennedy? Some sixties rock star?’  Nobody cares.  People don’t want to know.”

“I always thought it was the Big Business pigs who had Kennedy offed.  They didn’t like the shit he was doing.  Too much unions and peace stuff.”

“That’s why they paid DiMaggio to kill him.”

“Who paid him?”

“U.S. Steel.  Remember the ‘steel crisis’ in ’62?”

“Yeah, yeah.  The steel workers’ union wanted a wage increase.  U.S. Steel and four other steel companies were fighting it.  Kennedy got it settled by having the steel workers agree to drop the wage increase demand, and U.S. Steel and the other steel companies to agree not to raise the price of steel–the price increase would have caused an inflation tidal wave on our entire economy.  But within days of Kennedy thinking he had things settled, the CEO of U.S. Steel announced something like a 4% increase in its steel prices, with other steel companies following suit.  Kennedy was something PISSED.  He felt double-crossed.  He went on TV and slammed the steel companies about holding profit above the national interest.  And he imposed a boycott on them–giving all the steel contracts on our Polaris subs and other Pentagon projects to Lukens Steel, the only steel company honoring the wage/price freeze.  Bobby Kennedy also sent the FBI after U.S. Steel execs who had pressured Bethlehem Steel to go along with the price increase.  Accused them of ‘price fixing’.  U.S. Steel and the other steel companies backed down.  No price increase.  But now those CEOs were pissed.  They never forgave Kennedy for humiliating and beating them, while at the same time making the union steel workers look like all-American saints.  Heavy-handed White House pressure, they called it.  Imagine Obama handling Wall Street like that now?  Yeah.  U.S. Steel.  Big Business.  Wall Street.”

“You got it. Nice to talk to someone who remembers the record.  Fucking Americans just don’t like to think about it.”

“Yeah.  Joe DiMaggio working for Big Business.”

“I was just shittin’ around about Joltin’ Joe.”

“I know.  And then there’s all that Castro, Diem, de Gaulle bullshit.  But the way Americans bought into the crazed lone assassin with the eagle eye and quick reflexes, and the ‘magic bullet’ crap, you’d think Lee Harvey Oswald could have played for the Yankees.”

“I know.  But he’s sort of playing for them now.”

“What?!”

“A-Rod.”

“Heh-heh.  Yeah.  Well, good discussion.  Glad we got that settled.  Especially on this particular day.”

“You know, when you tell people this, they give you that funny look, and then call you a ‘Conspiracy Nut’.  Assholes.”

“Well, the American people have become dim dim bulbs.  I’d rather talk the truth than play stupid.  Worse yet is being stupid.”

“Yeah.  Well, see ya.  Don’t let it get to you.”

“No.  I’m gonna talk a lot about it today to people.  That’s how I let it GET TO THEM.”

“Well, good luck.”

“Yeah, you too.  We’re gonna need it.”

(And that, kiddies, is the story of Nov. 22, 1963.)

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

Nov. 22, 2013

I just want to share, with my friends in the GMD community, a letter that I have sent to the St. Albans Messenger.

As Thanksgiving draws near, and Black Friday creeps up ever closer to the pumpkin pie course; I want to take this opportunity to wish local Wal-Mart shoppers a Merry Christmas.

You will now have the opportunity to prove what you and Jeff Davis have been insisting over the years: that downtown retailers can continue to thrive in the wake of Walmart.  I say that “you” will have that opportunity, because it is upon your continued patronage of downtown retail that this promise depends.

It’s great that there are no empty storefronts on Main St., but lest the illusion of full occupancy lulls us into a false sense of well-being,  I’d like to point out that the vast majority of new occupants are businesses that have moved from other nearby locations to fill the vacancies; and they almost all fall into the categories of giftshops, galleries, antique shops and resale stores.  Those are all great sectors which we are glad to have here; but, by themselves, they do not a healthy traditional downtown make.

In order to fulfill the Walmart promise of benignity, stores that have been serving the City’s practical needs throughout the years must survive, too.  For that reason, I have compiled a list of retail businesses of relatively long-standing on and near Main St. in the City that will serve as my own personal bellwethers as to how well that promise is fulfilled.

These retailers continued to uphold the practical meaning of “downtown,” supplying us with everyday needs like milk, bandaids, potholders and tube socks; and special occasion things like flowers, candles, chocolates and the occasional engagement ring.

In the foreshadowing of Walmart, we’ve lost a drugstore, a toy and book shop, and a couple of clothing stores; but these loyal retailers continue to demonstrate their faith in Main St.  For that they deserve a shout-out, a little of our own loyalty, and the benefit of our continued patronage:

East side:

Kevin Smith’s Sport Connection

Rail City Market

Maple City Candies

Eaton’s Fine Jewellery

As the Crow Flies



West side:

Howard’s Florist Shop

Moonshadows

Rite-Aid

J.C. Penney



All around downtown:

Food City

Betty’s Flower Basket

Ace Hardware

St. Albans Co-op



And let’s not forget Bob’s Meat Market up there on Barlow St.

If we can hang on to all of these faithful retailers, and add back a couple of replacements for the sectors that have disappeared, you might actually convince me that Wal-Mart won’t hurt downtown St. Albans; but that is up to local consumers.

If you saw Wal-Mart’s sign trunk drive back and forth in front of Rite-Aid offering incentives to move your prescriptions, and you did, you have already participated in phase-one of the gradual erosion of retail services to our central neighborhoods; because that’s the way it works.

You have the power of the purse; and with that power you can decide whether or not to prove us right in saying that Wal-Mart will destroy our local economy and the retail choices we still enjoy in our very own traditional downtown.

Go ahead and prove us wrong.