Not my words but this says it better than I could.

“Cannot you see, cannot all you lecturers see, that it is we that are dying, and that down here the only thing that really lives is the Machine?  We created the Machine, to do our will, but we cannot make it do our will now. It has robbed us of the sense of space and of the sense of touch, it has blurred every human relation and narrowed down love to a carnal act, it has paralyzed our bodies and our wills, and now it compels us to worship it.  The Machine develops – but not on our lives.  The Machine proceeds – but not to our goal. We only exist as the blood corpuscles that course through its arteries, and if it could work without us, it would let us die.”  ~ E.M. Forster, “THE MACHINE STOPS”

“Insects, birds, mammals, and fish have all been migrating to cooler zones for the past four decades in response to the cataclysmic climate disruption ignited by industrial civilization, but humans are the only organisms inhabiting this blue orb we call Earth who are not altering their behavior.  They live within an energy cocoon that keeps them cool in the summer, warm in the winter, stuffed with massed produced food from mechanized factory farms, and entertained by a virtual world of digital imagery.  As cracks and holes in the Earth’s biosphere grow ever larger, the natural response of capitalist carbon man ensconced within his protective energy shell is to try to put a price tag on what is being burned, i.e. fossil fuels, rather than deal with the deeper root cause of an unsustainable economic system and way of life which demands such exorbitant consumption of resources.”  This comes from Xray Mike79 at http://collapseofindustrialciv…

___

As I don’t know how to insert one, I invite you to view an accompanying graphic:

https://collapseofindustrialci…

I find this website (depending on the day) can be a realistic look at the tawdry mess our civilization finds itself in, and it offers none of the false solutions or techno-saviors we see in mainstream environmental thought today.  The technology will never save us if we can’t be bothered to save ourselves.  Like Xray Mike says…  ” humans are the only organisms inhabiting this blue orb we call Earth who are not altering their behavior.”

While this offers a dark view of the future, I find some peace in these cold, harsh truths.  I continually shrink my footprint and become more resourceful and self-reliant, but I don’t believe there’s any stopping the habits that my fellow Americans have become accustomed to.  We’ve become addicted to the idea that growth is good, big is better, and by all means, purchase the latest toys and keep the (air conditioning, wine, designer shoes, trip to a favorite vacation spot) coming…  

Franklin County Republican Chair Linda Kirker made one of her occasional forays into Messenger letters yesterday.  It was a predictable screed against taxes, “big government”  and the usual suspects.  In it, she insists that the Fed’s only role under the Constitution is to secure the borders and enable international commerce.

That’s it; end of story.  

She wants the states to independently handle everything else as they see fit and, presumably, according to their means.  Classic Tea Party will-o-the-wisp speak.

What was different this time is that Emerson Lynn’s editorial on the very same page did a great job of explaining how Congress’ reluctance to arouse tax nimbys (like KIrker) has left the national highway system approaching its own fiscal cliff on August 1, and what the lawmakers’ failure to support the highway trust fund would mean for Vermonters.

If nothing more than a coincidence, it was one I couldn’t resist.  Thus my letter in response:

The accidental juxtaposition of Emerson’s editorial on the state of American highways and Linda Kirker’s letter against taxation (in Wednesday’s Messenger) was fortunate and instructive.

Despite the fact that national Republican party politics have devolved into little more than opposition simply for the sake of opposition,  I don’t doubt Ms. Kirker’s personal sincerity here.  

Nobody likes to pay taxes; but there are other things most of us don’t like any better; like potholes, crumbling road shoulders and (God forbid) collapsing bridges.  

We don’t like flying into airports where we have no assurance that our plane won’t collide with one of hundreds of others trying to land or take-off.

We wouldn’t like buying beef and having to boil it until it turned grey in order to be assured that it was safe to eat.

We don’t want to find one day that we have to pay Fed-X rates in order to have a birthday card delivered to a favorite grandchild.

We wouldn’t like it if the the fish population in Lake Champlain gradually died off and it turned into a lifeless sea of green slime.

We certainly would want the Feds to send help if a forest fire, or an earthquake, or a storm event, or a nuclear accident, or a chemical spill was far too great for local

resources to address.

We wouldn’t like it very much if America’s international trade reputation became that of a third-world incompetent because we ceased to educate our population to a basic standard.

So long as investments in infrastructure, regulation and services are essential to maintaining a population of over three-hundred-million individuals in productive coordination, we will need to pay taxes.

Ms. Kirker has embraced the romance of the Constitution, but not necessarily the sense of the federation it codified

We could have done without federal taxation entirely; but then we would have frozen national infrastructure at the nineteenth century level, and could only enjoy our “freedom” as far as regional dollars alone could take us.

In a tiny state like Vermont, that wouldn’t be very far.As anyone who becomes  a member of Costco understands, buying goods and services in bulk saves money; buying those bulk items as a group saves even more money.  The larger that group, the more economical the outcome.

Yes, securing our borders is important;  and workable solutions rather than mere posturing would be appreciated.  

Yes, international commerce is also important; but if we want to be on the selling end of that equation more than the buying end, we have to maintain a twenty-first century infrastructure.

Federal government is not the enemy of the people; it IS the people…or would be, if gerrymandering, voter suppression and “purchased” elections hadn’t shaped the current Congress into a blunt instrument  of petulant inaction.

If the Republican Party could rededicate itself to its roots in justice, compassion, fiscal responsibility and environmental protection; and if it could focus its energy on action rather than reaction, it might find credibility among more than just a frightened fringe.

If it can not, the void its truculence has created in our two party system will eventually mean collapse of more than just the national highways.

Take heart, Ms. Kirker, the undocumented immigrants you speak of are coming here from Central America because our strong federation has brought a quality of life to the U.S. of which they can only dream.

Each state in Central America is an independent nation faced with crippling poverty, corruption, violence and lawlessness.  Its only resources are those it can muster locally, which will never be enough.

Have a look at the schools, the roads and the sanitation down there and then tell me again that we don’t benefit somewhat from our tax dollars up here.

… the answer, apparently, is “No.”

In case you missed it, last night I broke a bit of news on my blog, The Vermont Political Observer. I’d discovered that the VTGOP’s most recent talking point was without foundation. And since then, top Republicans have continued to promote their discredited argument.

The details: For several days, the VTGOP has been hammering Governor Shumlin with the results of a nationwide small-business survey that reportedly gave Vermont a grade of “F”.

I decided to look into the story. And what I discovered is that Vermont wasn’t included in this year’s grades at all. No F, no A, nothing.

Survey organizers had failed to get enough responses from Vermont businesspeople to be statistically significant, so Vermont was left out of the rankings. As it had also been in 2013. The one and only time Vermont qualified for inclusion was 2012, when it did, indeed, receive an “F”.

But 2012 ain’t 2014, and the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

And, of course, they’re not.  

Crossposted at The Vermont Political Observer, where you can also read my thoughts on the latest instance of the government/lobbyist Revolving Door.

Leaders of the Vermont Republican Party have done their best to set expectations for this year’s elections at an achievably low level: a gain of perhaps three Senate seats plus something close to ten pickups in the House. Well, now comes VTDigger’s Anne Galloway with an outlook on the legislative races;she quotes Vermont Pundit Laureate Eric Davis as projecting two or fewer gains in the Senate and two to four in the House.

And I say, “Bet the under.”

For those unfamiliar with sports gambling, the bookmakers set a “point spread,” which is basically the expected margin of victory. Say, Patriots host the Jets, and are made an 8-point favorite. In order to win a bet on the Pats, they have to win by more than 8. If you bet on the Jets and they lose by 7 or fewer points, you win.

That’s called “betting the under.” Davis has basically made the Republicans a two-point favorite in the Senate and two-to-four in the House.

And if I were a (ramblin’) gamblin’ man, I’d bet the under. The Republicans will not even manage to meet Davis’ projection.

The Dems have a huge disadvantage, in that they are defending a large quantity of seats, including (presumably) a number of marginal constituencies that could easily swing Republican. On the other hand, the Dems have many advantages:

Davis says the Vermont GOP’s inability to recruit statewide candidates for state treasurer, secretary of state, auditor and attorney general indicates the party has organizational and financial difficulties that weaken its chances for regaining seats in the state Legislature. The Republicans have one full-time staffer and $36,430 in cash on hand as of the end of May.

The Vermont Democrats have candidates for all but 16 districts, and most are incumbents, which gives the party a huge boost out of the gate. The party also has strong infrastructure, $119,429 in cash as of May 31 and four full-time staffers.

Jinkies, whatever happened to that Republican windfall from last December’s Chris Christie fundraiser? You know, the one projected by party officials to take in perhaps a quarter million dollars? Methinks the take was a hell of a lot smaller than that, based on (1) their current bottom line, (2) the fact that, as far as I can tell, the VTGOP never released a dollar figure after the event, and (3) a cursory look at VTGOP financial reports doesn’t reveal any influx of cash anywhere near six figures, let alone $250K.

Anyway, that’s a daunting list of challenges for Vermont Republicans.

But it doesn’t include the Democrats’ biggest advantage.

Which is the in-depth, state of the art voter-contact operation they can generate with their financial and organizational edge. You might recall a post-election report by Andrew Stein, then of VTDigger, entitled “Got Ground Game? How Data Drive Vermont’s 2012 Elections.” It detailed how the Democrats exceeded expectations through the use of newfangled voter identification, tracking, and persuasion techniques based on a firm foundation of “robust voter data.” These techniques are actually much more effective than the traditional methods of mass mailings and advertising.

Stein reported that the Dems were much more attuned to these methods than Republicans, who were still reliant on the stuff of traditional campaigns. And while the Republicans came out of 2012 well aware of their deficiencies, they are still drastically under-resourced, while the Dems maintained a sizable full-time staff between 2012 and now. Including John Faas, then a newcomer to Vermont who ‘creatd a database that shows Vermonters’ voting hsitory, contact information, any previous contact with the party, the districts voters live in and party-specific modeling information.”

Well, Faas has remained on the job ever since. You think the Dems’ data has gotten even better in the last two years?

If you are in inveterate politics nerd, I recommend a lengthy article from late April in the New Republic, “How the Democrats Can Avoid Going Down This November.” Reporter Sasha Issenberg goes through the history of campaign strategy and tactics, leading to the data-heavy 21st Century iteration which has fueled Barack Obama’s two successful campaigns and benefited Democrats across the country.

There’s a whole lot of information in the story, but I’ll pull out a couple of key points.

There are two kinds of voters in America, and I don’t mean conservatives and liberals. I mean “reflex voters,” who vote in just about every election, and “unreliable voters,” who tend to vote only in Presidential years. Lately, the Republicans have had an edge in Reflex voters while the Dems have a lot of Unreliables.  

The Reflex voters will show up no matter what. The traditional stuff of campaigns — advertising, mailings, phone banks, etc. — doesn’t make any difference for them. The key to successful Democxratic electioneering is getting Unreliables to the polls. And the traditional stuff of campaigns won’t do the trick.

What does work is personal contact. Which is extremely time-consuming. But modern campaign research has identified ways to get the benefit of personal contact through printed or emailed material, and to professionalize formerly volunteer-driven field operations. But for all this to work, you have to know which voters to target. And the Dems have built a vast database of their Unreliable voters, which has allowed them to invest their resources in closely targeted, proven effective techniques. In 2012, this resulted in larger-than-expected Unreliable turnouts both nationally and in Vermont. And larger-than-expected Democratic success.

By itself, these methods don’t win elections. But they make a measurable difference, and can mean the difference between defeat and victory in close campaigns.

Vermont Democrats sail into the 2014 campaign season with these advantages fully on their side. And that’s why I’m betting the under: the Dems will limit their losses and might even pull off a gain or two.

It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for Jeff Bartley, the VTGOP’s “Victory Director.” He’s fighting a steeply uphill battle against far superior forces, and he’ll be lucky to claim even a few victories on Election Night.  

Does anyone find it as amusing as I do that Republican Scott Milne is getting so little attention for his possible run for governor that he has resorted to doing a smear campaign on himself?

As Democrats yawn meaningfully, Milne is “telling all.”  Not only did he release a statement about youthful indiscretions that landed him three times in the pokey, but he also disclosed that he had a stroke in 2006.

In one breath, Milne insists he is just doing this in the interests of transparency and that he wants no distractions from the “substantial issues.”  In the next, he can’t resist taking a pot shot at Governor Shumlin who has, so far, shown singular disinterest in Milne’s checkered past:

“The Shumlin Administration spends more time hiding from the press than it does telling people what’s going on.”

Er…whatever, Man.  

Travel agent Milne must not get out much if he is under the impression that Peter Shumlin is press shy!

If this is the best he can do to get a flutter in the July papers, how is the very forgettable Mr. Milne going to make it all the way to November?

Will his version of an October surprise be something like:  

“When did I stop beating my wife?”

Only time will tell.

Please come back.  I’m bored here.  I think that’s the idea.  And you too, wdh3.  And what happened to Rosemarie?  And kestrel?  YAWN.  Not gonna get attention on Seven Days this way.  A Lib-er-al ‘chat-room’?  God help the people this election year, and especially in 2016.

HELLO??!  

It is in GMD’s interest NOT to become a borrr..ing site.  

Where’s the Vt, Workers’ Center?  Where’s the juice?  Where, OH WHERE, are the comments of yester-year?

And you too, katrinka.  Get your asses back here.  Or else we will all be reading only what we already know.

Lib-er-al Lefties.  This is how elections are handed to the NAZIS.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

 

After a long and challenging examination of the question, Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources has issued what seems to be the final  thermal discharge permit of Vermont Yankee’s operating life.

The decision navigates a narrow ledge of compromise, recognizing the flaw in the existing formula, which has allowed Entergy to represent themselves as compliant when they have not always been, but not replacing it entirely for the brief duration of VY’s operating life.

even though the agency concluded that the formula submitted in support of Entergy’s 2005 application was inadequate, because the plant will be closing at the end of the year, it will allow the plant to operate under the assumptions of the formula, but with conditions.

To put it simply (and I’ll leave it to the scientists to give a more accurate explanation) Entergy has been allowed to extrapolate an “average” water temperature from deep areas in the Connecticut River to represent VY’s overall discharge temperature.

Of course, shorelines, where the richest systems of life tend to be active, are also the shallowest areas.   Thermal discharges to the river in general would result in increases to the temperature of those shallower and more biologically active regions that would exceed the temperature measured in a deeper zone.   The difference might be as much as five to seven degrees, which is highly significant to sensitive river populations.

The ANR is acknowledging the error in Entergy’s thermal discharge model,  but allowing it to remain in place for the remaining months until VY’s planned shutdown.

Entergy had requested that the limits established in its discharge permit be modified so that it might avoid the expense of powering its cooling towers.  The ANR permit is tailored to give both sides of the argument a margin of victory.

New conditions of the permit included changes in allowable water temperature increases due to plant discharge in the spring and the fall… The summer limits were not changed, said (ANR Secretary) Markowitz.

She says that, under the circumstances, it is unlikely that Entergy will be forced to use its cooling towers; but the overarching verdict on the company’s science is clear:

“The draft permit upholds the Connecticut River Watershed Council’s contention that bad science underwrote the thermal discharge limits in the previous permits,” stated a press release issued on Wednesday.

It looks like the decision may be one that both sides can live with.

Though no one is saying so, faced with the likelihood that getting Entergy to do the right thing on decommissioning will be a long and expensive legal process, it appears that ANR is already shrewdly picking its battles.  

 _____________________________________________________________________

This seems like an appropriate time to announce to my friends at Green Mountain Daily that, as of this month, I have the pleasure of becoming a part of  the Fairewinds Energy Education team.  I will continue writing on all kinds of topics on Green Mountain Daily; but, when I write on the subject of nuclear energy, I will be sure to remind my readers of that association.

Crossposted on The Vermont Political Observer, where you can also read “The New State Hospital: A Milestone, But Not the Finish Line.”

One of the bigger surprises of last month’s filing deadline was the appearance of an old face in a new place: Roger Allbee, Ag Secretary under Jim Douglas and self-described “liberal Republican,” is running for the State Senate in Windham County.

… as a Democrat.

Well, last Wednesday I guest-hosted The Mark Johnson Show on WDEV, and I booked Allbee as one of my guests. I thought it worthwhile to try to pin him down on his move to the Democratic side.

The result, such as it was, has earned Allbee one of my coveted nicknames: The Artful Roger.

He bobbed and weaved, ducked and parried, and determinedly changed the subject at every opportunity. In a very genial way, I should add. It wasn’t at all contentious; he simply wouldn’t say much about it. If you’re a Windham County Democrat wondering about the sincerity of his party switch, well, you can keep on wondering. The Artful Roger didn’t lay any doubts to rest. Indeed, my conclusion is that he hasn’t changed a bit: he’s still a liberal Republican, and his positions are more or less in line with the likes of Phil Scott.

His case for his candidacy as a Democrat: “People who know me know that I have always worked in a very bipartisan manner, and even when I was Secretary, to bring things together.”

Want more?

I’m passionate about Vermont and the values of our community, and believe that with my knowledge of the state and my reputation for working with people on all sides of the aisle in a very bipartisan way, that I can bring my great passion and knowledge to the Senate. I know how it works, and have been there as Secretary and think that my values, my skill and my background can help make a difference.

Prospective slogan: “Vote for Allbee: He’s Very Bipartisan.” Alternatively: “Allbee: ‘Some of My Best Friends Are Democrats.'”

He says he hasn’t moved, but the GOP has moved away from him:

When I grew up in Brookline many years ago, party labels really didn’t mean much. People voted for the individual, and for what the individual believed in. I still believe that, but the Republican Party that I’ve known in the past, the Aiken party, the Dick Snelling party, that party has certainly moved in a way that it doesn’t represent my views today.

True enough, but with Phil Scott trying to make the party more inclusive, this seems like exactly the wrong time for a liberal Republican to jump ship. Allbee replied that he respects Scott, but still believes his views “haven’t been included as much as they should be” in the party. Which doesn’t really answer the question.

Then again, he gave no indication that he has actually jumped ship. When I asked about switching to the Democratic Party, he replied, “I can’t say I really did switch parties.”

As quickly as he could, The Artful Roger launched into a lengthy explication of what he sees as the three big issues facing Vermont: Health care reform, the public school system and how to fund it, and economic development. An explication that lasted more than five minutes.

And it sounded like the kind of stuff you’d hear from Phil Scott (or, Lord help us, Bruce Lisman): long on exploration, short on specifics, plenty of talk about “concerns” with current policies but no outright criticism, and invocations of a more balanced approach to stuff like taxes and regulation.

I redirected the conversation by noting that Allbee should expect skepticism about his candidacy, and asked him to convince me it wasn’t sheer opportunism — his only way to win in a very liberal constituency. His answer was more of the same.

I think people who know me and know what I’ve done and how I’ve worked collaboratively with others and know my personality and my values, know that it’s not opportunism, but it’s using my experience. Obviously there will be some who say that. So be it. I think I have a history of working with all sides, and supporting candidates like Pat Leahy and Peter Welch and working with them, even Bernie Sanders. Governor Shumlin asked me to stay on [as Ag Secretary], because I had the reputation of being collaborative and working on the issues. So some will say that, but my history demonstrates otherwise.

“Even Bernie Sanders.” Nice touch.

My conclusion: Allbee’s a nice enough guy with a lot of experience and knowledge. I think he’s more or less honest about running as a Democrat, although there’s clearly an element of opportunism at work. He’s running in a solidly Democratic county at a time when one of the two incumbents is stepping down, leaving an open seat.

Still, he’d be a fine Republican candidate — from somewhere else, like Rutland or Caledonia. But Windham? One of the most liberal counties in the state shouldn’t be represented by a neo-centrist.

Besides, the State Senate already has too many of these types, both Democrats and Republicans: centrists or center-rightists who’ve helped block a lot of progressive legislation during the Shumiln years. We really don’t need another Dick Mazza, do we?

Postscript. There hasn’t been any coverage of the Windham County race in the statewide media (except my own stuff in this space), which surprises me. I realize the primary isn’t until late August, but this is a slow time for political coverage and Allbee’s entry sets up perhaps the most intriguing primary race in Vermont: a four-way run for two Democratic nominations, including one incumbent (Jeanette White), two newcomers (Becca Balint and Joan Bowman), and Allbee. And with no declared Republican candidates, the winners of the Dem primary will waltz their way into the Senate.

(Promoted with great pleasure! – promoted by Sue Prent)

This was cross posted at www.bauervt.com.

Or what?

Democratic Senator Dick Mazza yesterday came out in support of Republican Phil Scott. VPR thought this is news. It isn’t.

Mazza is a long-time friend and supporter of the sitting Lt. Gov. That’s OK with me, he’s entitled to his opinion. What bothers me is his twisting of the facts.

From the VPR story:

Mazza says that if Corren wanted to run as a Democrat, and avail himself of all the benefits that designation carries, then he should have filed a petition to be in the Democratic primary.

“I don’t know what his platform is,” Mazza says. “I do know that he did not seek the Democratic nomination. He did not go on the ballot. And so that leads me to believe that he ran as a Progressive and was not interested in the Democratic platform.”

I have two problems with this, which I’ll get into below the fold.

The first problem is summarized by questions as obvious as algae blooms in Mississquoi Bay: How is Phil Scott “interested in the Democratic Platform?” Why can Scott be supported by filing as a Republican and Corren shunned by filing as a Progressive? Neither filed as a Democrat.

At least Dean Corren plans to ask for the Democratic endorsement, which is more than I can say for Scott.

The second is more personal and goes to the heart of the matter. I ran as a Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor. I reached out to Sen. Mazza. He did not return the call.

I walked in parades on Memorial Day weekend as a Democratic candidate with other Democrats. Senator Mazza did not walk with us, he walked with Phil Scott, which leads me to conclude that Sen. Mazza isn’t much interested in the Democratic Platform, either. His comment to VPR is disingenuous at best. He obviously isn’t interested in supporting anyone running against his buddy Phil, no matter which party they call home.

Blaming his support for Scott on the fact that Dean Corren filed as a Progressive is a steaming cow pie.

Sen. Mazza sits with the Lt. Governor on the Committee of Committees in the Senate, the most powerful committee in that chamber. I suggest that if he is not going to support the Democratic candidate as determined by the primary, he is not interested in the Democratic Platform and should be removed from that committee as the representative of the majority party in the Senate.

Crossposted on thevpo.org, where you can also find An Unfortunate Comfluence of Tweets, and whatever happened to Jim Douglas’ autobiography?

Semi-random thoughts upon the hiring of former Douglas Administration stalwart Neale Lunderville, who served as Governor Shumlin’s Irene Recovery Czar, as the interim GM of the Burlington Electric Department…

– When did Lunderville become Mr. Fix-It for Democratic administrations? Is there not a single Democrat with administrative chops who could be called upon to fill a leadership void in the public sector?

– Between his two government gigs, Lunderville was co-founder of NG Advantage, a firm that deals in compressed natural gas. He was there for less than two years. When and why did he leave?

– Since the Douglas Administration came to its merciful end, Lunderville has held (if I’m counting correctly) at least four jobs. For that matter, during the Douglas Years he moved around state government quite a bit. Coincidence, or is there a reason he keeps moving around? (Yes, I know the Irene gig was a short-termer from the gitgo. But even so, there seems to be a pattern here.)

– Lunderville was one of the more notable head-crackers in the Douglas Administration. And he comes to BED from a gig in the fossil fuel business. How committed is he to the ideals of a publicly-owned utility? Especially one with a strong commitment to renewable energy?

– The above question is even more crucial when, according to the Burlington Free Press, “Lunderville will conduct a strategic review of BED operations.” Will his ideological bent inform his strategic review, and shape his conclusions? Hard to see how it wouldn’t.

– He is said to be BED’s interim head, with a six-to-nine-month appointment. At the same time, though, Mayor Weinberger “temporarily suspended” the search for a permanent GM. Seems an odd decision; it often takes more than nine months to fill a top administrative position. Why wait? It seems likely that either Lunderville will stay longer than expected, or BED will soon be searching for another interim GM. Are the skids being greased for Lunderville’s permanent appointment?

Just askin’. Maybe some enterprising member of our paid political media could seek answers to some of these fairly obvious questions.

One further observation. The thing I don’t like about Shumlin and Weinberger hiring a Republican for a tough management task is the same reason I don’t like it when a Democratic President hires a Republican for Defense Secretary, or a military man for a non-military administrative post. It feeds into the stereotype that liberals can’t be effective, tough-minded leaders, and can’t be trusted with critical security and military issues.

Which is nonsense on both sides: there’s no guarantee a Republican will be a good manager, there’s no guarantee a general without the protections of rank and uniform will be an effective leader, and there’s no reason to think a Democrat, or even a Progressive, couldn’t handle a critical managerial challenge or keep our country safe. When Democratic officeholders hire somone like Lunderville, leaving aside the question of his qualifications, it feeds into those stereotypes. And that, in itself, is not a good thing.