As regular readers already know, I have very recently  joined Fairewinds Energy Education; nevertheless, the following represents my own personal opinions, which are shared independently.

The Nuclear Energy Institute is not to be confused with any objective regulatory body.  An unapologetic interested party, The NEI is an industry association whose primary purpose is to further the interests of those businesses for whom nuclear energy and its products represent a significant portion of their worth.

So, anything that emanates from their central nervous system may be assumed to represent a strong bias.

Sometimes that narrow, almost oblivious focus betrays itself in funny ways.  Take for instance this, clipped from an NEI press release:

Nuclear Energy Institute employees, along with members of Women in Nuclear and the North American Young Generation in Nuclear, facilitated a nuclear fuel cycle game during the Technology Student Association’s annual conference earlier this summer.

Visiting the NEI website, we discover that there is even a downloadable game, presumably a downsized version of the “facilitated” one, available for play by amateur engineers.  

Touted as “A Plant In Your Pocket,” the concept produced gales of laughter all around our household.

What isn’t very funny is the fact that Entergy continues to play games with the communities surrounding Vermont Yankee.

Meeting with state and local representatives, VY’s Emergency Preparedness Manager, Mike McKenney, told them that Entergy is asking the NRC to reduce their responsibility for emergency planning to the perimeter of their own property, as of April 1, 2014

Asserting that, once the fuel is removed from the reactor and placed in the spent fuel pool at the end of December, all the associated risk is pretty much over, McKenney made the following remarks:

“Any offsite emergency support will be limited to local police and fire departments, ambulance services and hospitals,” he said. “At that point, we will become your typical industrial-type facility.”

In previous decommissionings around the nation, the NRC has allowed operators to reduce their emergency response obligations because the dangers associated with storing spent fuel aren’t as significant as those associated with an operating reactor, said McKenney.

“You no longer have the motive force and high temperature associated with the steam.”

Unfortunately, the difference between “not as significant as…with an operating reactor” and non-existent is rather substantial.

Whatever position the NRC has taken B.F. (Before Fukushima) must certainly be reconsidered in light of that unanticipated disaster.

Much of Entergy’s “confidence” that  there will be no significant danger of radiation release from the spent fuel pool is based upon the assumption that a constant temperature will be maintained in the pool.

However many things could precipitate a loss of constant temperature, including but not limited to simple equipment failure, power outages due to extraordinary storm events, and malicious intent.

Most of these could be adjusted for by an alert and competent staff, but Entergy is also asking to reduce staffing; and what happens if several of these factors come into simultaneous play?

We don’t have to look any further than to Fukushima to observe the worst case scenario for an analogous spent fuel pool where, due to a catastrophic chain of errors and events, criticality proved unpreventable.

Entergy is looking to cut costs wherever it can, now that it’s rung the last bit of value from its VY cash cow.  

The good people of the surrounding communities should take every reassurance of innocuousness from these people with a grain of salt…and maybe a  bottle of iodine tablets.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for playing. Please leave your expectations at the door.”

Peter Galbraith, a former Vermont State Senator who was once a diplomat, resigned to take on a private role in support of Kurdish, Syrian and Iraqi issues. He recently advocated that an independent Kurdish state, free from US backed Iraq government, should have access to revenue from Northern Iraqi oil fields.

Galbraith, however, is still a hands-on participant in the local Vermont political scene. A few days ago, the now former State Senator was the moderator at a recent 90-minute Democratic forum, featuring four candidates seeking his old seat in the senate. The candidates included Roger Allbee, a brand new Democrat. Allbee is a former Republican member of the Douglas administration, and ran for the VT House in 2004 as a Republican.

So Galbraith has not publically endorsed anyone, but he may have a preferred replacement in mind. He and Albee, his possible successor, took a walk last month:

While Galbraith would not yet offer a direct endorsement, he appears to support Allbee's bid. The incumbent [Galbraith] senator joined his Townsend neighbor [Allbee] at Brattleboro's Gallery Walk Friday evening as the latter collected signatures to win a place on the ballot. Galbraith said that he looks forward to returning to the role of “citizen,” but may one day seek a return to public office. [added emphasis]

It must be small comfort to the other three candidates that Galbraith didn’t offer a direct endorsement of Allbee. Roger Allbee left the Republican Party he once identified with, saying the party of former VT Governor and Senator George Aiken “no longer exists.” So if Allbee can mint himself as a Democrat, can Peter Galbraith be moderator?

Galbraith stepped down only weeks before and is almost as new to his role as “citizen” as Allbee is to his as Democrat. So one has to wonder who chose Galbraith to moderate the forum of candidates wishing to succeed him. But someone thought it a good idea. As moderator, Galbraith asked a question about a subject dear to his heart as Senator,voting to ban direct corporate contributions to candidates. An exchange followed on the subject and he and Sen. Jeanette White reportedly

re-enacted a little of their legislative “argy-bargy”.[…]The short story: Last year, Galbraith supported a bill to ban such contributions. White did not. The Senate also supported banning corporate contributions. Later it reversed its decision.

Even out of the State Senate, the odd “argy-bargy” event and Galbraith follow each other. Keep an eye on Kurdistan.

I keep getting directed to “The Contributor” instead of GMD…has it been hacked,

or is this a sign of things to come?

Well, pretty close to nothin'.

This chart by Steve Benen at Maddowblog is from April. Benen noted then that, in fairness, the picture was incomplete as the Congress hadn’t yet finished. Legislation passed isn’t the only indicator of success, but this paints a grim picture as the House and Senate now pack up for their five week long summer vacation.

I guess climate change legislation and a host of other issues will have to wait. But be prepared. The Republicans are making squawking noises and by fall the House of Boehner might actually attempt to impeach Obama.

We'll be amazed but not amused.

All 100 Senators, including Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, joined in passing a Senate resolution on July 17, 2014 supporting “the State of Israel as it defends itself against unprovoked rocket attacks from the Hamas terrorist organization.”

However, the facts differ.

A report issued by the authoritative “Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center” (ITIC) unintentionally debunked the Senate resolution more than a week before its unanimous consent vote in the Senate. The ITIC is a private Israeli think tank that “has close ties with the country’s military leadership,” according to The Washington Post. The weekly ITIC reports regarding rocket fire are frequently quoted on the Israeli government’s own web site.

Israeli forces assault West Bank and Gaza. Then Hamas fires rockets

The ITIC July 8, 2014 weekly report, “News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (July 2 – 8, 2014),” states:

For the first time since Operation Pillar of Defense [November 2012], Hamas participated in and claimed responsibility for rocket fire [on July 7, 2014].

During the three weeks before Hamas launched those rockets, Israeli forces cracked down on Hamas members in the West Bank and Gaza. “Operation Brothers’ Keeper” was supposedly to find and rescue the three teenage settlers kidnapped on June 12.

According to weekly reports issued by the Palestine Center for Human Rights (PCHR), Israeli soldiers and settlers killed 11 Palestinians and wounded 51 during 369 incursions into the West Bank between June 12 and July 2. Israeli forces raided hundreds of houses on the West Bank each week. Israeli forces also attacked 60 targets in Gaza and engaged in one ground incursion there, wounding 27 people in Gaza during those three weeks.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported on July 3:

Israel’s military operations in the West Bank following the abduction and killing of three Israeli teenagers have amounted to collective punishment. The military operations included unlawful use of force, arbitrary arrests, and illegal home demolitions.

The Israeli forces thus emphatically ended their side of the 19 month cease-fire in June, well before a single rocket was fired by Hamas.

“Operation Pillar of Defense” was the Israeli government’s 8 day aerial assault on Gaza in November 2012 that ended with an Egypt brokered cease-fire on November 20, 2012. Not only do ITIC weekly reports show that Hamas was not involved in any rocket fire at last until June 30, 2014, an article in the Jerusalem Post, “IDF source: Hamas working to stop Gaza rockets,” reported that Hamas was policing other groups in Gaza to prevent rocket fire. Thus, to the extent Israeli forces had observed the 2012 cease-fire agreement, Israeli government officials had scored major success at bringing Hamas rocket fire to zero and recruiting Hamas to police other groups.

Not only that. The facts show that Israeli forces had to work quite hard to get Hamas to end its side of this cease-fire agreement. Even the Israeli forces and settlers going wild on the West Bank from June 12 until June 30 was not enough to shake Hamas into launching a single rocket.

While all the attacks by Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza provoked rocket fire from other “terrorist” groups during June-which the ITIC reports had been almost zero during the previous month–the attacks at least up to June 30 did not provoke Hamas itself to fire rockets. To predictably accomplish that feat, Israeli forces had to go further. And they did.

Israeli forces finally provoke Hamas by killing Hamas members

The July 8 ITIC report divulged why Hamas launched and claimed its first rocket fire at Israel in more than 19 months on July 7: On that night Israeli forces had bombed and killed 6 Hamas members in Gaza. The ITIC report includes a picture of the six Hamas members.

The July 10 PCHR weekly report gives further details of the events that immediately preceded the July 7 Hamas rocket launchings. PCHR reports:

Between 01:00 and 16:00, the bodies of 5 members of the ‘Izziddin al-Qassam Brigades (the armed wing of Hamas) were recovered from a tunnel dug near Gaza International Airport in the southeast of the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah.  They were identified as: Ibrahim Dawod al-Bal’awi, 24; ‘Abdul Rahman Kamal al-Zamli, 22; Jum’a ‘Atiya Shallouf, 26; and Khaled ‘Abdul Hadi Abu Mur, 21, and his twin brother, Mustafa.  Another three members were recovered alive, but one was in a serious condition.  It should be noted that the tunnel was repeatedly bombarded by Israeli warplanes and tanks.  According to medical sources, the deceased inhaled toxic gases. The ‘Izziddin al-Qassam Brigades declared in an online statement that 5 of its members were killed as a result of airstrikes that targeted places of resistance activities.

On that night the Israeli Air Force also attacked approximately 50 more “terrorist targets” in the Gaza Strip, as described in the ITIC report.

Thus, reports from authoritative Israeli sources described the multiple provocations that the Senate resolution denied existed. Hamas launched and claimed rocket fire only after Israeli forces had engaged in nearly a month of intensive military operations in violation of the cease-fire agreement and only after Israeli forces had killed 6 Hamas members in Gaza.

Or did Hamas actually fire rockets on June 30?

However, uncertainty about exactly when Hamas rocket fire began is indicated in the July 1 ITIC weekly report:

During the operation the terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip escalated their rocket fire into the western Negev (52 rocket hits have been identified since the beginning of the operation, not including the mortar shells and rockets that fell by mistake inside the Gaza Strip). The IDF responded with the targeted killing of terrorist operatives and by attacking more than 60 terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip. Most of the rockets were fired by rogue terrorist organizations, although in one instance (June 30, 2014), Hamas operatives were apparently involved.

This July 1 ITIC report also states:

On June 30, 2014, 12 rocket hits were identified. Some of them may have been fired by operatives of Hamas’ military-terrorist wing. If Hamas was in fact responsible for rocket fire, it was the first time since Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012). (emphasis in original)

A June 30 article in The Times of Israel, “Hamas fires rockets for first time since 2012, Israeli officials say,” explains why Hamas “probably launched” the rockets on June 30:

At least 16 rockets were fired at Israel Monday morning [June 30], most of them hitting open areas in the Eshkol region, the army said.

The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.

A member of Hamas’s militant wing was killed in the attack, Gaza health official Ashraf al-Kidra said.

While Israel has maintained it holds Hamas responsible for all rocket attacks, officials have said that smaller groups, such as Islamic Jihad, are usually behind the rocket attacks, while Hamas squads generally attempt to thwart the rocket fire.

Hamas hasn’t fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012, and has yet to take responsibility for this latest barrage.

Regardless of whether it was June 30, after Israeli forces killed the Hamas member, or July 7, after Israeli forces killed six more Hamas members, the Senate resolution got it wrong. Israeli military operations that began soon after the three Israeli settler teens were kidnapped on June 12 ended what until then was an effective 19 month cease-fire. There is no controversy that Israeli forces then finally provoked Hamas to end its side of the cease-fire either when they directly targeted and killed a Hamas member in Gaza on June 30 or when they directly targeted and killed six more Hamas members and attacked 50 other targets in Gaza on July 7.

Israeli operations do not stop rocket fire; just the opposite

Israeli political and military leaders claim that their operations have been designed to stop rocket fire. For example, the Israeli Defense Force web site states:

On July 7, 2014, the IDF launched Operation Protective Edge in order to restore quiet to the region and stop Hamas terrorism. The single goal of the operation is to stop Hamas’ incessant rocket attacks against Israel’s civilians.

However, the facts show that the Israeli escalations not only never stop rocket fire, they actually dial up rocket fire. The biggest increase in rocket fire followed the July 7 launching of Operation Protective Edge.

Here are the facts:

∙ During the 40 days from May 1 to June 10, before Israeli forces launched Operation Brothers’ Keeper, a weekly ITIC report shows that Israel was hit by a total of 3 rockets, an average of 0.07 rockets per day.

∙ During the 18 days of Operation Brothers’ Keeper, the ITIC reports that 52 rockets struck Israel, an average of 2.9 rockets per day.

∙ However, in response to the Israeli onslaught on July 7 when Israeli forces killed the 6 Hamas members, rocket fire dramatically escalated: the ITIC reports that Israel was hit with 120 rockets on that single day.

∙ On July 25 the Israeli government reported, “since the start of Operation Protective Edge [on July 7], at least 2,400 rockets have been launched at Israel.” During those 18 days of the operation, that was an average of 138 rockets per day.

For comparison, during the 23 days of Operation Cast Lead, which lasted from December 27, 2008 until a cease-fire on January 18, 2009, the ITIC reports that 925 rockets hit Israel, and the average was 40.2 rocket hits per day. To get that operation going, Israeli forces had violated an effective cease-fire on November 4, 2008, entering Gaza and extra-judicially executing six members of Hamas, as reported in the New York Times. In the months before that violation, the cease-fire had brought rocket fire down to near zero, as reported by the ITIC.

Also, for comparison, the leap in rocket fire provoked by the November 2012 Israeli assault, Operation Pillar of Defense, was greater than occurred during Operation Cast Lead. During 2012 from January 1 until November 14, the date Operation Pillar of Defense began, the ITIC reports that Israel experienced 787 rocket hits-an average of 2.5 rocket hits per day. During the 8 days of Operation Pillar of Defense, 845 rockets hit Israel–an average of 105 rocket hits per day. Thus Israel was hit by 42 times as many rockets per day during Operation Pillar of Defense as were hitting Israel before its bombing of Gaza began. More than twice as many per day as even during Operation Cast Lead.

The cease fire that brought Operation Pillar of Defense to an end on November 20, 2012 was quite effective, bringing the average down to 0.09 rockets per day during the 13 months through the end of 2013, as derived from the numbers in a graph in the ITIC report .

Israeli officials have their hands on the rocket dial

These facts show that Israeli officials have control over the rocket fire dial: what works effectively to stop Hamas rocket fire is for Israeli forces to observe the cease-fire agreements the Israeli government signs. Conversely, Israeli government officials can provoke rocket fire by violating those cease fire agreements and launching lethal military operations on the West Bank and Gaza. What has been most effective to very dramatically dial up rocket fire is for Israeli forces to launch a massive military operation, as show in December 2008, in November 2012, and in July 2014.

Senate resolution flawed

The Senate resolution names Hamas in nearly every one of its deeply flawed paragraphs. Yet it fails to mention any of the facts about Israel’s military operations in the West Bank and Gaza that preceded Hamas launching any rockets. Nor does it mention the Israeli government’s misleading incitement campaign following the kidnapping of three Israeli settler teens.

Israeli officials deceived the Israeli public

As Jewish Daily Forward Editor J. J. Goldberg wrote in an editorial in the Forward on July 10, “ How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza:”  

Only on July 1, after the boys’ bodies were found, did the truth come out: The government had known almost from the beginning that the boys were dead. It maintained the fiction that it hoped to find them alive as a pretext to dismantle Hamas’ West Bank operations.

The truth came out when part of the recording of the emergency call from one of the teens was widely circulated on WhatsApp and social media on June 30. The Israeli government then lifted a gag order on part of the recording. A July 1, 2014 report, “ Recording of teen’s emergency call released,” in The Times of Israel, includes a partial transcript and The Jerusalem Post posted part of the recording in which one can hear the gunshots. Putting that together with the blood stains and bullet shells found in the burned out car Israeli authorities must have known that the three teens were dead. Israeli officials suppressed that information and organized a campaign to rescue the three boys “to bring the three Israeli teenagers home safely and as soon as possible” as described by IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz.

The frenzy whipped up by Israeli political and military leaders based on the fiction that Israeli forces were seeking to rescue the three teens led to what Netanyahu himself decried on July 4 as “murder, riots, incitement, vigilantism,” including the kidnapping and gruesome murder of  16-year-old Palestinian Mohammad Abu Khdeir on July 2. Police injured 170 Palestinian demonstrators in East Jerusalem protesting after an autopsy revealed that Abu Khdeir was burned alive. After describing the Israeli operations that caused Hamas to pay a “heavy price” on the West Bank, Netanyahu acknowledged in his speech on July 4, that “in Gaza we hit dozens of Hamas activists and destroyed outposts and facilities that served Hamas terrorists.” Thus Netanyahu himself acknowledged the provocation denied by the US Senate resolution.

Imagine in reverse

Let’s turn this around for a moment: Had some country used some pretext to whip up a racist frenzy, attack Israel, and subject the Israeli public to a massive military crackdown including 369 military incursions into Israel and a total of 110 bombing attacks on Israel during which 11 Israelis had been killed, 78 wounded, and 700 arrested, and then had six Israeli soldiers been killed in a single air and ground military operation, would the US Senate have omitted mention of all such facts and voted by unanimous consent that responding Israeli forces were “unprovoked?” Would the US Senate have twisted the facts to vote that the country attacking Israel was defending itself and that Israeli forces were the ones engaging in “belligerent actions?”

Why did the Senate get this so wrong? Why did Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy allow their names to be used for pro-war propaganda so at variance with the facts?

This is a substantially updated version of an article that appeared on Counterpunch on July 24, 2014.

James Marc Leas is a Vermont attorney and is a past co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild Free Palestine Subcommittee. He collected evidence in the Gaza Strip from November 27 to December 3, 2012 as part of a 20 member delegation from the US and Europe and co-authored several articles describing findings. He also participated in the National Lawyers Guild delegation to Gaza after Operation Cast Lead in February 2009 and contributed to its report, Onslaught: Israel’s Attack on Gaza and the Rule of Law.

Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders (I) may not hail from a populous state; and he may not benefit from the weight of a major party propelling him forward;  but he is looking more and more like a force to be reckoned with in the hallowed halls of Congress.

Sanders has long been known to be a formidable advocate for veterans’ best interests.  Having assumed the role of Chairman of the Senate’s Veterans’ Affairs Committee in January 2013, Sander’s arrival on the scene came just as that advocacy experience was called for in the wake of revelations that VA hospitals (and, by extension, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs) has failed in its mission to provide promised relief to former service members who were in need of timely healthcare.

Now, it appears that Sanders and his counterpart in the House, Republican Jeff Miller, may have negotiated enough common ground to bring some much needed relief to the situation:

The chairmen of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs committees have reached a tentative agreement on a plan to improve veterans’ health care…Sen. Sanders and Rep. Miller continued negotiating over the weekend. Aides said they “made significant progress” on legislation to overhaul the VA and provide funding to hire more doctors, nurses and other health-care professionals…

Amid the deliberate gridlock that has paralyzed Congress since Obama’s election, and even more so over the past year; the injection of an identified ‘Independent’  to lubricate the process seems to have been just what the doctor ordered.

Of course there is no question that, when veterans’ rights are at issue, both major parties should be highly motivated to play nice.  But Republicans have the smell of extinction in their nostrils as they observe the changing demographics of twenty-first century America.  

That smell has prompted sane Republicans to cower in the corner, allowing the fringe to run amuck with some pretty crazy and losing positions on long-over arguments like minority civil rights, women’s civil rights and even funding of essential services.  

So even when it’s logically in their best longterm interest to be reasonable and allow common-sense legislation to move forward they have sometimes scuttled the whole thing for pure cussedness.

On other issues as well, Sanders’ voice rises above the din to reach the ears of a public hungry for straightforward decency.  He is plain spoken and direct; never stooping to hackneyed expressions of sham patriotism or constituent flattery.

I was opposed to seeing Bernie run for president until recently.  I thought he could do more good just exactly where he is than by hitting the campaign trail, Don Quixote style.

But then I started reading how the vast sums of money going into media buys post-Citizens United will limit and shape the very conversation in the 2016 election cycle; so that things like Climate Change and poverty may be pushed right off the podium by the wishlists of moneyed special interest groups demanding expanded drilling, heterosexual hegemony, a ban on abortions, vouchers for education, military expansion; or anything simply to change the subject and monopolize voter attention.

If that is what is likely to happen when candidates face off in presidential debates, I would just like to see them try to hijack Bernie Sander’s ten minutes of voter attention!

So I’m changing my tune and joining the swell of support for a Sanders presidential run.  It may be our last chance to get the people’s word in edgewise.

I don’t fear invasion from the income- and sales-tax-free haven, but I still keep an eye out for unusual activity across the border. After all, I can see New Hampshire from my kitchen window.

 It was no surprise that, due to the Ukrainian conflict, the entire New Hampshire congressional delegation is supporting US sanctions on Russia. The US sanctions President Obama authorized by executive order are not broad based, mostly involve banking issues, and do not restrict ordinary trade or investment — unless a prohibited party is involved. Experts in this case (as in other cases like North Korea, Iran, and Cuba) question whether international sanctions are useful tools to achieve the desired results.

Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, however, has no doubts; she’s notably more hawkish and favors widening sanctions against Putin’s Russia. She (along with Arizona’s Senator John “bomb, bomb, bomb … bomb Iran” McCain) are calling for substantial arms shipments to the Ukrainian government. Ayotte additionally recommends shaming our allies, the EU, into harsher actions.

“And the Europeans — if they aren’t willing to do the right thing, in light of this commercial plane going down and the innocent people that have been murdered — I think it’s up to the United States to really put on the pressure to shame them into stepping up their economic sanctions,” the senator declared. [added emphasis]

 So it was surprising to read that in her backyard a major New Hampshire utility is buying Russian coal. The two-football-field-length bulk carrier Doric Victory sailed 4,000 miles to sell 38,500 metric tons of coal in Portsmouth. Perhaps embarrassed, power plant owner PSNH is very tight-lipped about the specifics future of Russian coal purchases.

While the New Hampshire utility refused to say how much coal was purchased, a bill of lading showed that 38,500 metric tons of “steam coal” were delivered. “A shipment of coal was contracted from Russia that met our operational and economic needs,” was all the utility was willing to say in an email.

 Perhaps before her next trip to Ukraine, or call for arms shipments, or Fox News interview, Senator Ayottte (R-NH) might — just for the heck of it — want to take a glance out her window at New Hampshire before dishing out the shame overseas.

This isn't the kind of headline you usually see here, but there's a reason today. First, the headline:

Afghani mullah rapes ten-year-old girl; family wants to kill her

The story is every bit as horrific as the headlline leads you to believe, but that's not my point here. After all, the atrocities committed in the name of religion are limitless.

It is the kind of thing I'll share on my Facebook page, though, and here's the response I got from Ben Eastwood, the Progressive Party's candidate for Secretary of State:

 Ben Eastwood Whats up with all the anti muslim posts infecting facebook lately? There are thousands of girls right here in America that are raped, abused and murdered by supposedly christian attackers, so why are there posts condemning islam, when our own rape culture is not exactly a shining example. Jeesum. Yes it is a tragedy, but it is hardly news worthy,

 Yes, you got that right. “Nothing to see here, folks, just a little girl raped by a religious leader.”

Oh yes, and someone who points out the crimes of religious leaders is, in Mr. Eastwood's eyes, “anti-Muslim”!

 If you've been paying attention you've heard about the child rape scandal in the Catholic Church all across the world. Not only were the crimes rampant, the magisterium of the church, right up to the very top, did everything they could do to cover them up.

 I have to wonder if Mr. Eastwood considers those of us who have criticized the Catholic Church for its crimes to be anti-Catholic.

If anyone's anti-Muslim here it's not us, but the man who apparently believes that child rape is the very essence of Islam.

And if Mr. Eastwood wants to tell us which child rapes are newsworthy in his view and which ones are not, well, we're all ears. 

I know comparisons are never perfect, and apples get judged against oranges all the time, but Scott Milne is to David Brat as Eric Cantor is to Peter Shumlin! Milne has compared his underdog run for governor to Tea Party professor David Brat’s victory in the Virginia Republican primary over well-funded House Majority leader Eric Cantor. While it’s true that Cantor enjoyed a massive campaign fund advantage, that’s about it for the comparison. When you feel like you don’t have a prayer, why not use the classic David and Goliath story rather than Cantor v. Brat?

To begin with, it’s correct that Milne is as short of funds as Brat – apples and oranges are both round. But one obvious difference is that Brat won a primary election against another Republican in a single congressional district. And how helpful is it for Milne to invite comparisons to a superior campaigner like Brat? Reportedly the Tea Party professor played the conservative crowd like pro.

David Brat knows how to work a crowd. […]Mr. Brat is friendly and animated. At barbecues and church gatherings he can be seen bounding about like a Labrador puppy, glad-handing old folks and kissing babies.

 That’s a far cry from candidate Milne’s cringe-inducing  rabbit copulating story.

Milne digressed into a four-minute, hare-raising discourse on his youthful adventures buying rabbits in Wolcott and rearing them for sale. […] he said to nervous laughter. Milne went on to describe how much his out-of-state relatives enjoyed watching his specimens copulate.

 Surprisingly, former Governor Jim Douglas embraced and refined the Brat analogy during the official kick-off on Wednesday.

Douglas told the audience that the size of a war chest doesn’t necessarily dictate the outcome of the race. “I have just two words: Eric Cantor,” he quipped, referring to the Republican majority leader of the U.S. House who recently lost his Virginia primary race.

 Two more words; Really, Jim? Well, I guess you endorse with the analogy you have, not the one you want.

Progressive candidate for lieutenant governor Dean Corren  has been invited to address the Democratic State Committee on July 26 in Montpelier.  

Recognizing the essential value of a Democratic endorsement, Corren will be making the case that he has a lot to offer  with his candidacy.

Says Democratic Party Executive Committee member, Selene Hofer-Shall:

“There is a lot of interest in Dean’s candidacy, particularly because he qualified for public financing, and his synergy with the Governor on healthcare.”

Corren has already demonstrated the ability to marshall popular support and set valuable precedent for campaign finance reform, by becoming the first candidate to qualify for matching public funding.  

This success has nettled the somewhat dozy Phil Scott, who has apparently gotten a little too accustomed to going unchallenged.

Nose out of joint, Scott sniffed petulantly about opposing public funding because he doesn’t want to “burden taxpayers,” thereby betraying his not-so-nice-guy side, while demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the democratic purpose of public funding.

And Corren knows just exactly what he can bring to the Democratic table that, for all his centerist camouflage, Republican Scott most certainly never will:

“Democrats and Progressives alike want to make sure we follow through on creating a real comprehensive VT healthcare system.  Vermont needs a Lt. Governor who will help make that happen.  That’s the overriding reason I got into this race, and why I am asking Democrats to write me in on the primary ballot in August.  Working together is the best way to get the job done,” said Corren.

As Corren points out, Democrats endorsed two other “outsiders” in the last election, Independent ,Bernie Sanders and Progressive, Doug Hoffer.

Those endorsements turned out rather well for Democrats, and Corren is hoping that similar support can be mobilized around his candidacy, with or without the grumpy old men of the Blue Dog fringe.