I’ve had a lot of fun at the expense of Jack Lindley, chair of the Vermont Republican Party. But not today:
Jack Lindley, chair of the Vermont Republican Party, has been hospitalized in critical condition since Friday.
The Vermont GOP issued a statement Monday morning saying Lindley is at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.
According to party treasurer Mark Snelling, doctors are still trying to determine the nature of Lindley’s illness.
Best wishes to Jack and his family.
I read kind of a surprising story in today's Burlington Free Press. It's a note from the publisher, Jim Fogler, and the headline reads “Free Press partners with UVM”.
Here's what he says:
Now I know that the sports section has traditionally been called the Toy Department, and not quite taken as seriously as “real” journalism, but I can't help but be a little skeptical about this.
Doesn't this “partnership” sound like the dominant local newspaper signing up to be part of the public relations department of an institution it covers?
We've just seen earlier this month that The State, a newspaper in South Carolina, had muzzled one of their sports writers because the football coach at South Carolina State didn't like what he was writing about him.
Even though sports reporting isn't necessarily taken that seriously, corruption in the NCAA, big-time sports coverups of life-threatening brain injuries, and other issues have demonstrated that news consumers need unbiased and honest reporting on sports issues. Is this really going to be possible when the local paper is doing PR for the team?
The new discovery of a much simpler way to calculate what is likely to happen when two ultra-miniscule particles interact across very small distances (quantum scale) is making the news today. There is a whole lot of misunderstanding about this news, so I thought I’d try to use an analogy to help folks understand what it means – assuming I’m reading it correctly (I could, of course, be wrong).
The amplitu-hedron is a graph of possible interactions among particles at a scale so small it’s hard to imagine.
Think of it as a chart of the potential outcomes of all the possible crash scenarios of every single car on a very crowded highway at one moment. (AKA, if car 1 hit car 2, it might spin this way or that way, and car 2 might accelerate or slow and spin yet another way, and car 3 ….).
Plot out all possible scenarios for car 1 (got a flat and swerved, vs rear-ended the car ahead, vs got rear-ended, vs got clipped by a car changing lanes, etc. Repeat them all taking into account situations whether the driver panics, remains calm, is on the phone, etc., etc., etc.).
The resulting graph for car 1 will show that certain interactions (like hitting car 2’s bumper) occur in many of the possible scenarios, and certain interactions happen in none, one, or few scenarios.
When a the probability of a particular interaction appears more frequently for a given car, the line on the graph will have a greater amplitude (be higher) at the spot for that interaction.
Now if you overlay all the graphs for every single car’s possible accident scenarios into a single huge graph, you’re going to see a geometric shape that illustrates which interactions among the various cars are likely happen more or less often than others.
This does not mean that any or all of those accidents will ever happen, or has ever happened. It means only that you might be able to make an educated guess of which crash scenarios are more likely for any pair of cars.
The amplitu-hedron is that same graph, but for possible particle interactions for particles interacting at quantum scale.
Some interesting things were discovered when they started playing around with this new charting method: they discovered that the reason no one could get the math to work for gravity at such small scales is because they were adding math for things that aren’t relevant at that scale: space and time.
It turns out, that particles at that scale can interact with each other – even if they’re not next to each other, and even if they exist at different times. It’s a possibility, but it’s only one possibility, and for the most part, it’s rare.
Everything we can see, hear, or otherwise experience arises from the combination of all the interactions that have taken place among the particles of everything around us. Since the vast majority of interactions do occur between particles that are adjacent to each other at a given moment, the world we experience out here at the “macro” level appears to be one in which time and space are very relevant. For example, you notice when the particles in your shin interact with the particles of the corner of the coffee table. You would not notice if one or two particles out of those millions of particles didn’t interact at quite the same moment as the rest of them.
Some people are interpreting the fact that some interactions could occur when particles are not next to each other (in space or time) to mean there’s no such thing as space and time. That’s a serious misinterpretation.
All it really means is that space and time are not relevant to the calculations when you’re doing the calculations for the probabilities of particle interactions at this scale, so you have to do a whole lot less math than people thought, but space and time still exist.
One other cool thing to arise from figuring this out: Until now, physicists thought that if you added up all the possible probabilities for interactions between a pair of particles, they’d have to add up to 100% (or a probability of 1). Turns out that’s not true.
My take on this is that sometimes there may be no result at all when two particles interact. That’s pretty cool!
The news this week is that Martha Coakley is running for governor of Massachusetts. She already has an endorsement from EMILY's List.
But, Martha, just remember one thing. If the question occurs to you, “What do you expect me to do, stand outside Fenway Park and ask people to vote for me?“, the answer is “Yes.”
Does it sometimes seem like those road works projects that delay traffic go on indefinitely?
Well, according to State Auditor, Doug Hoffer, sometimes they sort of do.
In a new report examining two AOT projects, the state’s Number-Cruncher-In-Chief details how one of those project’s extended delay cost you more than just lost time in traffic.
The audit focussed on the Bennington Bypass, which was found to have been completed on-time; and a paving project in New Haven which ran thirty-five days over schedule.
Twenty-four of those excess days (a 21% overrun) were determined to be the contractor’s own responsibility, and therefore subject to charges that recover some money lost by the state:
When a delay is caused by the contractor, the Agency can charge liquidated damages to help recover costs associated with the delay and to provide an incentive for getting the job done on time. In this case, the Agency charged the contractor $45,600. to cover the costs of project oversight; equal to 1.2%of the original $3.8 million contract.
The state audit revealed that the liquidated damages do not include the cost of flaggers, signage and traffic control personnel required to cover the delay, all of which added $70,000. to the cost of the overall project.
Asks Hoffer:
Why should the state pay $70,000. for the contractor’ failure to finish the job on time?”
Why, indeed?
Another issue that was uncovered by the audit involves insurance.
“Our review of the contractor’s insurance certificates indicated that certain types of required coverage were excluded and coverage limits did not meet contract requirements,” said Hoffer
…and on four insurance certificates issued in connection with the contracts the state is not identified as an insured party. This omission exposes the state to risk.
If there are savings to be found anywhere in the state’s operating expenses, sooner or later Doug Hoffer will find them.
…and that’s the way it’s done!
State Rep. Margaret Cheney has a new job. She’ll leave the Legislature to become one of the three members of the state’s Public Service Board, which regulates utility and telecom issues.
And thus, she enters the curious Twilight Zone of the wind-energy debate — her image bifurcating into diametrically opposed concepts. You make the call:
Cheney no. 1 is a former teacher and journalist who’s in her third term in the House. As vice chair of the House Energy Committee, she is very familiar with the issues facing the PSB. She is, as VTDigger reported, “a leader in the Green Mountain State for renewable energy reforms and programs.”
Impressive. An ideal choice, it would seem.
But then there’s Cheney no. 2: a lackey of corporate interests, bought and paid for through campaign contributions. Her appointment is just another example of “crony capitalism,” and her tenure in the Legislature a “mistake” by the voters.
(Well, technically, three mistakes, since those darn voters kept sending her back to Montpelier.)
The first Cheney emerges from two sources: her long and very public record, and her colleagues in state government.
The second? Two guesses, and the first doesn’t count.
Cheney no. 2 is a golem created by opponents of ridgeline wind energy, or “Windies,” as I unaffectionately call ’em. They see her as a corrupt, soulless sellout, fundamentally unfit for public office.
Which tells you more about the Windies than about Cheney’s record or character. Because the Windies see everything through the prism of ridgeline wind. Those who oppose it are champions of the people; those who support it are unscrupulous crooks.
Let’s take a closer look at the Windy sociopathy on display in VTDigger’s Comments section, shall we?
“She opposes any participation of communities and towns in the siting and placement of energy generation.”
False. She might oppose giving veto power to a community — or to a dead-ender subset of a community — but she is not at all opposed to “any participation.”
“She doesn’t listen to anyone who opposes the corporate interests that have funded the careers of her, her husband or the governor with whom she shares party affiliation.”
“Doesn’t listen to anyone”? Come on, now. The Windies’ definition of “doesn’t listen” goes something like this: “fails to accept the righteousness of Our Cause.” I know; I’ve been accused of not listening to anti-wind arguments. Truth is, I’ve listened to them all; I simply find them unconvincing.
“Ms. Cheney has taken political donations from corporate energy players in Vermont. That is an alarming potential conflict of interest…”
This is one of the milder versions of a common theme: Cheney is a bought-and-paid-for puppet of Big Wind. But let’s take a closer look at this corporate largesse.
Margaret Cheney ran a low-budget campaign in 2012, raising and spending barely $1,000. She received $250 from Windy bete noire David Blittersdorf, and $200 from those soulless corporate hacks at Renewable Energy Vermont.
And that’s it.
$450.
Geezum. If that’s all it takes to buy Margaret Cheney, she’s the bargain of the century.
It’s nonsense, of course. To the Windies, the fact that Cheney isn’t a member of their tribe automatically tabs her as a corporate tool. There’s no middle ground.
“Cheney… is a leader for renewable energy reform and in this state that means charging full speed ahead to achieve 90% renewables…”
Well, f*ck yeah! If that’s her position, then I’m all for Cheney. Climate change is the single overriding environmental challenge of our age. Building a renewables-based energy system is a necessary step in limiting climate change, and our public officials should be praised for moving us in that direction.
That includes small, home- and community-based systems and an all-out commitment to energy efficiency — but it also includes larger installations as well. It’s not enough for individuals to button up their homes or build a windmill or go off the grid; we need solutions that will sustainably energize a technology-based society capable of feeding, housing, and employing hundreds of millions of people. If Vermont can play a small part in that effort, then we owe it to our planet and our fellow Earthlings to do so.
FInally, let’s hear from Dona Quixote herself, Annette Smith, who weighs in with a juicy anecdote supposedly illustrating Cheney’s corporate-vassal status:
She attended the PSB’s August hearing on GMP’s violations of the noise standard for the Lowell wind project. I thought, “good for her, a legislator is actually showing interest in what happens at the Board.” Then I watched as she sat with GMP’s people, and waved and smiled to GMP’s general counsel, who then came and sat next to her.
Aha! You see? Cheney is chummy with Big Energy! Worse, she “waved and smiled” at a corporate lawyer! OMG!
Cough.
What Smith doesn’t seem to realize is that the Statehouse is a very small place, and everybody knows everybody. I’ve seen people who are sworn political enemies greet each other warmly in the hallways, displaying all the markers of affection and friendship. During a recess in a very contentious floor proceeding in the Senate this year, I saw a Republican and a Progressive Senator (who were diametrically opposed on the issue in question) engage in a very friendly conversation, with no hint of the impassioned arguments that took place mere minutes before.
It’s a little bit disconcerting to the outsider, and I don’t know that I could act that way toward my political opponents. But it’s the way of the Statehouse, and Cheney’s actions are perfectly normal. Hell, if she saw El Jefe General John McClaughry in that hearing room, she’d probably offer him a handshake and a heartfelt greeting.
So no, the fact that Cheney is friendly with GMP officials doesn’t mean she’s in their pocket.
But then, the Windies’ only real question is: Are you with us or agin’ us?
And Cheney’s not with ’em, so therefore she must be agin’ ’em.
Nonsense.
Okay, this one is mine; and I’d like to make several points, right from the start.
1) I know Vermont doesn’t have a “gun problem.” The entire country has a gun problem; and, ‘last time I looked, we’re still one of fifty states…red and blue. As illustrated by the ease with which guns are transported state-to-state, single state solutions are ineffective at halting the spread of gun violence.
2) I am not advocating to do away with the Second Amendment, just for the freedom to discuss what I see as its lack of clarity and foresight.
3) I do not oppose gun ownership.
I will, however, passionately advocate against the NRA, which I think has stepped out of its formerly useful role into a very dark place.
To me, the NRA has become an enemy organization, attempting to corrupt the democratic process for their own corporate interests. I don’t see how they are any less of a threat to the stability of the nation than was the Communist Party at the height of its influence; perhaps more of a threat, because some of its accolades actually hint at justification for armed insurrection.
But where is the outrage? I suspect it’s there, but lawmakers are too cowed by things like recall threats to really give it full-throated expression; and the rest of us just don’t want to mess with gun-toting hotheads.
And before this gets anyone going, let me just add that I know there are hotheads on both sides of the argument. But, theoretically at least, only one side is armed.
If this frank analysis doesn’t make you chuckle, that may be part of the problem.
It is my opinion that the greatest danger to everyone’s Second Amendment rights comes from those who would test them to the extreme. There was a silent and self-limiting social contract in acceptance at the time of the Amendment’s adoption; one which simply no longer exists.
Anyone who insists that the eighteenth-century framing does not allow for some debate, is part of the problem.
When the NRA resists background checks at gun shows or other common sense regulations that the majority of Americans do favor; when they intimidate lawmakers and confront grieving communities following gun tragedies, they do greater damage to the heritage of the Second Amendment than I ever could by raising some common-sense questions about its parameters. Just raising the questions does not mean that I will win the debate; or that your rights will be diminished in any way.
When lawmakers in Iowa inexplicably profane both the Second Amendment and the Disability Act by declaring that the blind cannot be prohibited from carrying guns in public, and the subject can’t even be raised for debate; the spirit of the Bill of Rights has been dealt a far greater injury than my innocent questions ever could inflict.
Here is one of those gnawing questions that I’d like to ask: what have we become as a nation when an entire community (Nelson, Georgia) can be required by law to own and maintain a gun?
I thought we already had that assurance from the law of the land.
And… what happens to the family that is discovered to not have a gun, or fails to “maintain” the mandatory weapon? Just curious.
If the Second Amendment suffers a fatal blow, it will not be at the hands of those who are now asking simply for a common-sense reading. It will be at the hands of the NRA and those who would test it as extremely as possible.
Yes, I know; these are just “anecdotes” and not representative of gun culture in America as a whole; but they do affect entire communities, as few “anecdotes” are likely to do.
Yesterday on NPR, I listened to a dystopic projection by some economist on where the U.S. is headed in terms of income inequity. He saw the inequity growing and finally resolving into a society somewhat like Mexico, where roughly 17% of the population are millionaires and the remaining people live in permanent insecurity.
Not surprisingly, he forsaw that the ultimate growth industry in the future would be marketing!
He felt that we would resign ourselves to providing some sort of universal healthcare, and universal education that would uplift the meritorious; but for the most part, once you and your family landed in that lower strata, there would be no way out. He thought people would just learn to be content with less like so many have been in other societies.
Ha! thought I; you wish.
Unless you find some way to deprive the underclass of all the media opportunities to see how the other half (or in this case, the other 17%) lives, it’s just a matter of time before that vast underclass rises up to try and violently take what they cannot hope to have any other way.
Critical to this guys vision of the future was unlimited access to media (along the lines of an “opiate for the masses,” if you will); so that’s pretty much game-over.
And who will the first victims be? Not the fabulously wealthy, gated and guarded and flown from destination to destination.
As we see in our inner cities right now, the first victims will be other poor people who will endure an endless turf battle for what little is left for them.
And they will be armed like no underclass in history has been armed. Oh, the wealthy will have far more and better arms; but the poor will be armed and dangerous…no more so than to one another.
Of course the poor will still be needed to fight our wars; and there they will continue to be turned into deadly weapons themselves, courtesy of PTSD and barely rudimentary mental health care for veterans.
So let’s all try to grow up and see if we can have this difficult conversation before it’s too late…if it isn’t already too late to do so.
Congratulations to the little town of Georgia for wisely recognizing the need to establish size limits on new retail development.
In so doing, you place your community in line with the most forward-thinking planners, who already recognize that big box retail has had its day and will slowly go the way of the dinosaur, leaving behind concrete scars all over the countryside.
With this simple act, you reinforce your local economy and make a welcome statement about the importance to Georgia of maintaining human-scale development.
Dollar General, the national chain that is challenging Walmart as it expands rapidly and insidiously across the country, is in the process of locating a store next to the popular Georgia Market.
The proposed 20,000-sq. ft. ceiling on retail would not have prevented Dollar General from getting a permit for their modest 9,100-sq. ft. “entry” location; but arrival of the big box discounter certainly does add a sense of urgency to the mix.
Georgia, you have wisely chosen not to wait until the wolf is at the door before making some serious decisions about how you want your community to grow.
You have embraced a truth overlooked by too many towns when blindsided by big box suitors; that long term prosperity and livability for all of your citizens requires vision, planning and the courage to just say “no” to development projects that will irreversibly damage the character of your community.
Your children will thank you when they are spared the misery and expense of having to find new purposes for large scale retail shells once their original use has gone by.
They will thank you when visitors choose to come to Georgia for a unique shopping experience and the pleasure of bicycling, walking or driving through a community that has not been sacrificed to the demands of heavy traffic.
I will thank you by more frequently choosing to turn south on Route 7, rather than north, to continue my shopping beyond downtown St. Albans.
slaughter
then
kick the bodies
go through clips
two seconds to reload
fuck em
they’re gooks
spics
ragheaded motherfuckin’
shit
like nothing
I’m too short
to give a pity’s damn
about what it means
I’ll think about it
when I get home
when I see you
who sent me there
slaughter
no gun control
over there
you want me not
to make a fuss
I’ll bet
you want no war
in your backyard
just over there
unseen unheard of
the millions
of dead
like nothing
like a big pile
of your shit
after you pig yourself
then you go vigil
go make more profit
go run for office
laugh smiling
your skull would fit
so right in that pile
two seconds to reload
slaughter
then maybe
you’ll care
but not enough
I’ll bet
to do it all over again
make me do it for you
I’d like for once
to make you do it
take you out
show you how
it’s done
kick the bodies
go through clips
til I’ve shot your load
of shit
and you’ll think twice
about smiling
saying yes
we need
to do something
Peter Buknatski
Montpelier, Vt.
Spam diary. Content deleted, user thrown out on her fanny. -k9k