Shunned by the vaxxers

5 Replies

Was it something I said? Yes, I’m sure it was.

Sometime today, the Twitter voice of Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice cut me off. They blocked me from reading their Tweets.

Let me mark the occasion by reproducing the last Tweet I ever got from them.

Stay classy, folks. As your lobbyist Keith (my mistake, his name is Kevin, I know that, I’ve spoken with him often and have a lot of respect for him) Ellis is probably trying to tell you, you’ll attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Or as I Tweeted in response to the above:

And that’s when they cut me off.

Methinks the vaxxers are feeling the heat. The last rounds of the vaccine saga are playing out at the Statehouse this week and next. There’s one more day of testimony before the House Health Care Committee — including a long-awaited appearance by Dr. Harry Chen, Vermont’s Health Commissioner. After that, it remains to be seen whether H.98, a bill that would remove the philosophical exemption, will be heard on the House floor.

From what I hear, the votes could be had; but House leadership might decide to put it on ice for the year. They have the always-plausible “out of time” excuse in their back pockets, and Governor Shumlin has reportedly said he doesn’t expect the bill to reach his desk.

In which case, we’d wait till next year. Between now and then, either of two events would absolutely tip the balance against the philosophical exemption: a breakout of a vaccine-preventable illness, or a continuing decline in childhood vaccination rates. We’ll hope it’s the latter, not the former.

Bill Sorrell willfully distorts the record

Leave a reply

h/t to Fiona Apple.

h/t to Fiona Apple.

On Tuesday morning, our beloved Eternal General made an appearance on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show. Unlike last week’s sad excuse of an interview on VPR, Johnson actually grilled him long and hard on the questions surrounding his campaign finances.

But Johnson missed a big fat whopper that Sorrell told right off the top, and later repeated. I don’t blame Johnson for this; he’d have to have an amazing memory for two-year-old court rulings to have caught Sorrell’s dissembling.

At issue was the 2012 Democratic primary, and whether there was improper collusion between the Sorrell campaign and the Committee for Justice and Fairness, a Washington-based PAC that spent big on Sorrell just before the primary, which he won by a razor-thin margin.

Sorrell’s opponent in the 2012 general election, Republican Jack McMullen, filed a complaint against Sorrell, alleging improper collusion in the primary. Here’s how Sorrell characterized the disposition of that case:

I’m not guilty. The coordination with the Democratic AG’s Association, that was the subject of a lawsuit in Chittenden Superior Court filed against me back in 2012; the judge ruled in my favor.

He later restated his reading of the decision:

There was no violation there, my Republican opponent sued me and had no evidence to support that there was illegal collusion, and the Chittenden Superior Court ruled in my favor. Case over.

Well, actually, case NOT over.

In fact, the case was never investigated. It still hasn’t been investigated.

Continue reading →

The circus came to town

5 Replies

The corridors of the Statehouse were abuzz Tuesday. Seems that all and sundry were talking about the appearance of a real live Kennedy — RFK, Jr. to be precise. He was in Montpelier to testify about the evils of vaccines and the necessity for parental choice as the last line of defense against the predations of Big Pharma and the corrupt regulators in the industry’s pocket, all conspiring to strap ’em down and shoot ’em up.

I believe that’s the mission statement of the Centers for Disease Control. You know, the secret one they chant before their confidential off-site meetings with their Big Pharma masters. Yeah, them.

But I digress. Kennedy, a widely respected environmental activist turned vaccine truther crank, testified before the House Health Care Committee and also held a media briefing. Both attracted overflow crowds. I contented myself with a quiet afternoon at House Government Operations, listening to embattled liquor control chief Mike Hogan defend his honor. Well, not really, but more on that another time.

I decided it wasn’t worth the effort to cram myself into the Son Of A Great Man’s presence because when I heard he was coming to Vermont, I did some reading to find out what he was going to say.

Continue reading →

For a brief moment, the House Republican caucus turned into Beavis and Butthead

4 Replies

The House Republican caucus met Tuesday at noon, to be briefed on two bills — S.73, the so-called Rent-to-Own bill, and an economic development package that — huzzah! — actually had some Republican input.

S.73 has morphed into a multipurpose consumer protection bill. It would impose new regulations on rent-to-pwm stores, but it would also address some other holes in current law. One of its provisions is about Internet dating.

And here’s where the House Republicans (most of them, at least) turned into 13-year-old boys. There was snickering, singling, tittering, guffawing; all sorts of vaguely uncomfortable laughter. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?

It didn’t begin to dissipate until Rep. Heidi Scheuermann pointed out that this was a serious issue — that many people are taken to the cleaners by fraudsters posing as potential mates.

The bill, as it happens, would help protect against this kind of fraud. But the men of the GOP Caucus, well, they just couldn’t keep a straight face.

Rent-to-own: Fixin’ a hole

Leave a reply

This morning, I sat in on a House Appropriations Committee hearing on S.73, a bill that would set limits on the rent-to-own industry — an industry that’s virtually unregulated and preys on cash-poor Vermonters.

For those unfamiliar, RTOs offer household furnishings and appliances with very little cash up front, but interest rates that’d make a banker blush. Not to mention undisclosed fees and charges. According to Legislative Counsel David Hall, current state law gives the Attorney General rule-making authority; but RTOs write their contracts in a way that effectively puts them beyond the reach of current law.

Hey, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

The result is a Wild West marketplace that, according to VPIRG, results in consumers “paying many times the original price of the original item- far more than they would pay if they purchased the item from a traditional retail establishment.”

The bill would establish price caps and disclosure requirements on the industry.

Continue reading →

The case for vaccination

2 Replies

As the legislature moves ever closer to adjournment (still scheduled for Friday the 15th), one of the unanswered questions is, Will the House take up a Senate-passed bill that would eliminate the philosophical exemption to childhood vaccinations?

If you ask me, I suspect the House will leave it hanging till next year. Lawmakers could plausibly argue that the issue hasn’t gotten a full airing this time around, since the Senate passed the provision as an amendment to a barely-related bill.

Although, on the other hand, no amount of discussion and airing will satisfy the anti-vaxxer crowd, so why not just lance that boil?

We’ll see. But while the issue is still pending, I thought I’d present a short-form version of the argument for vaccination.

Vaccines work.

Well, maybe a slightly longer-form version.

Continue reading →

The vicious circle of taxation rhetoric

4 Replies

Ah, spring. The buddling of the trees, the blossoming of the daffodils, the abrupt transition from shoveling snow to tending the yard.

And the annual flowering of complaints from conservatives, businesses, and Peter Shumlin about how Democrats want to tax everything. Look at all these tax proposals: sales tax on services, new limits on tax deductions, sugary beverage tax, candy, tobacco, payroll tax, development fees and farm-fertilizer taxes, plastic bag fee, fee hikes for various professions, tax on vending machines, and I’m sure I’m missing a few others.

Take them all together, and you have a picture of Montpelier liberals trying to squeeze the lifeblood out of our economy by taxing everything in sight.

There’s a problem with that. Nobody in Montpelier wants to “tax everything.” Not a single Democrat, not a single Progressive. Here’s the reality.

Continue reading →

All Bernie all the time

1 Reply

A good newspaper covers the waterfront. It provides an overview of what’s gone on in the world, the things you need to know, things you might not otherwise know.

Those of us who still read newspapers appreciate the chockablock presentation of stories from the community, nation, and world. It’s a tangible StumbleUpon that gives you more information about the things you’re aware of and brings other items to your attention, making you a better-informed and more well-rounded citizen.

Well, the Burlington Free Press is here to say “Screw that mess.”

Today’s Freeploid, from the top:

Page 1: Bernie Sanders
Page 2: Bernie Sanders
Page 3: Full-page advertisement
Page 4: Bernie Sanders
Page 5: Bernie Sanders
Page 6: Bernie Sanders
Page 7: Bernie Sanders
Page 8: Bernie Sanders
Page 9: Bernie Sanders
Page 10: Bernie Sanders
Page 11: Bernie Sanders

Page 12: Editorial and op-ed about Bernie Sanders.

Finally, on page 13, the first non-Bernie content: a pair of opinion pieces about other subjects.

After that? Sorry, no room. The next ten pages are devoted to Sports, with the variety of content you expect from a good newspaper.

Continue reading →

Shumlin doubles down on bashing fellow Democrats

3 Replies

If you thought there was a chance that Governor Shumlin would tone down his insistence on last-minute spending cuts, well, think again. Earlier, he’d called two key Senate committee chairs on the ceremonial carpet to argue for tax reductions and spending cuts — in a spending bill that had already passed the Senate Appropriations Committee. This didn’t go over well with Democxratic lawmakers, per Paul Heintz:

Gov. Peter Shumlin’s erstwhile allies in the Democratic legislature lashed out at him Thursday for pushing new cuts after the Senate Appropriations Committee signed off on the budget.

“It’s insulting to the process,” complained one top Dem.

… “It’s been pretty lonely in there all winter,” Sen. Bobby Starr (D-Essex/Orleans) said, referring to the Appropriations Committee, on which he serves. “I woulda thought they would’ve been in at least a month ago, if not five, six weeks ago, offering some suggestions.”

House Majority Leader Sarah Copeland Hanzas noted that the House-passed tax and spending bills actually called for less spending than the Governor’s original budget plan. She called the gubernatorial disconnect “perplexing.”

Welp, the Governor is unbowed by all the pushback.

Continue reading →

Phil Scott asks some dumb questions

2 Replies

Apparently our humble & lovable Lieutenant Governor still has a bug up his butt about public financing of election campaigns. You may recall that Phil Scott had never uttered a word about public financing* until Dean Corren qualified for public funds last year, forcing Scott to actually put some effort into his campaign. The experience was traumatic enough that it birthed a “philosophical objection” to public financing in Scott’s mind.

*Correction: I’ve been informed that Scott has voiced objections on previous occasions. Sen. Joe Benning: ” I first heard him expressing his disagreement with public financing of campaigns when I met him back in 2010.” I thank the Senator for taking the time to write. I’d still like to know if Scott had ever expressed his disagreement on the public record, but clearly his concerns precede his 2014 campaign.

On Tuesday, Scott grabbed an opportunity to again state his “philosophical objection” to public financing, and raise a series of far-fetched questions about the law’s workings.

His testimony before the Senate Government Operations Committee drew no attention in the media because it was immediately followed by Attorney General Bill Sorrell’s appearance, in which he belatedly acquiesced to calls for an independent probe of his campaign finances. Yeah, that kinda overshadowed everything else.

Also, Scott’s remarks were immediately dismissed by the committee, which had convened to consider a single technical change in the law; there was no time for broader questions.

But before it vanishes into the mists of history, let’s recount some of Phil Scott’s testimony.

Continue reading →