The above image is not the seal of the city of Rutland. Well, most of it is. But the Latin motto at the bottom is a mischievous addition. “Quidam amici optimi mei sunt Musulmanus” translates, more or less, to “Some of My Best Friends Are Muslim.” The actual city seal does not feature a Latin motto at all; instead, across the bottom it says “A Town Sept. 7, 1761, A City Nov. 19, 1892.”
We’ll get to the history in a moment. But first, breaking news. This fake seal somehow ended up on the front cover of the city government’s annual report for the fiscal year that ended last June. You can’t see it terribly well, but here’s a picture:
You may or may not be able to make out the words, but it’s clearly the Muslim-friendly Latin, not that boring Town/City stuff.
Gov. Phil Scott has dug in his heels on the General Assistance emergency housing program, and it’s not a pretty sight. He used his Wednesday news conference to decry the Legislature’s failure to “come to the table,” but the real meaning of that phrase, in his mind, is that they failed to do precisely what he wanted them to do.
I’m sorry, but that’s not coming to the table. That’s jumping up and down on the table and holding your breath until you turn blue.
Look. First, the Legislature adopted a Budget Adjustment Act that included at least 90% of the governor’s proposal plus a few additional items that were almost entirely offset by savings in the Treasurer’s budget. Scott vetoed the bill. The Legislature then passed a new BAA that stripped away almost all their adds on one condition, and only one: That Scott agree to extend winter eligibility rules for the voucher program from April 1 to June 30. By the Legislature’s revised reckoning, the Department of Children and Families already has enough money to make that happen.
You know the funny thing about all those conservatives who carry pocket Constitutions everywhere they go, many of whom revere our founding document as divinely inspired?
The funny thing is, they have no idea what the First Amendment says or means. Are those pocket Constitutions ever actually read, or are they just fetish objects?
Latest example: The ongoing kerfuffle over a March 12 incident at the Statehouse, in which an event sponsored by the far-right Vermont Family Alliance was interrupted by a handful of dancing transgender folk. (To judge by available footage, it was the mildest, most unthreatening “disruption” I have ever seen in my life.) Eventually the meeting was shut down by the Sergeant at Arms. Conservatives instantly went into full tizzy mode over the trans folk’s alleged interference with VFA’s First Amendment rights.
I haven’t addressed this before because I thought it would go away (as it should), but the right-wing echo machine has cranked itself up to eleven. So I guess I have to explain this. Slowly.
The First Amendment guarantees your right of free speech. It does not guarantee your right to a particular platform. There is no Constitutional right to hold an event in Room 11 of the Statehouse, just as there is no Constitutional right to express your views in the pages of the New York Times or on a given social media platform or on a specific streetcorner or in a crowded theater.
The VFA folks could have gone out in the hall or out on the front lawn. Or anywhere. They didn’t have to be deterred by a few counter-protesters dancing around. Which, from available video evidence, is absolutely all they did.
The response to this feature’s debut was overwhelmingly positive, so here we are again. For those just joining us, every week I’m scanning the news coverage of Vermont and pointing out a bunch of items that might have escaped your attention. These could be news stories, essays, blogposts, podcasts, videos, or what have you.
This week’s subtitle is a reference to the second installment in a series, but also to a story that might turn out to be dramatically impactful — but has barely been covered by our mainstream outlets. Probably a matter of time before our own domestic empire strikes back.
The Statehouse Transgender Kerfuffle. This story began in the Vermont Daily Chronicle, the extremely conservative outlet for right-wing opinion and news of questionable veracity. A recent VDC story has gained traction in the wider conservative media ecosystem, which could lead to significant implications for our relations with the Trump administration.
And here it is. On Wednesday, March 12, the Vermont Family Alliance, a conservative activist group, tried to hold an event in the Statehouse promoting “detransition,” the allegedly growing phenomenon of people who’ve had gender affirming care subsequently deciding to return to their birth gender. Transgender activists disrupted the event, leading Statehouse officials to call a halt to the proceedings. This story has been relentlessly followed up by the Chronicle and been amplified by Fox News and other outlets as an example of the oppressive left trampling the free speech views of conservatives.
It’s a stupid story but if it filters up to the Trump White House, we might find ourselves in the crosshairs just like Maine Gov. Janet Mills or the University of Pennsylvania. I may be writing a full post about this, but I did want to spotlight it in this forum.
You may have heard that many sectors of the Vermont economy have been thrown into turmoil by Donald Trump’s ridiculous tariff war with Canada. From tourism to energy to craft beer and spirits to maple products to construction materials (when we’re already in a housing crisis due in large part to high building costs), we have begun feeling the pain from Trump’s Quixotic crusade. (Meaning no disrespect to the Man of La Mancha.)
One small response to the situation has come in the form of a state Senate resolution, S.R.11, “supporting warm and cooperative relations on the part of both the United States and the State of Vermont with Canada and urging President Trump to remove all tariffs that he has imposed against Canadian imports and to refrain from subsequently imposing any new tariffs against Canadian imports.”
Seems like something we can all agree with, no? Even Republican senators can see the harm that threatens their constituents from a trade war with Canada. And indeed, the vast majority of Republicans signed on as co-sponsors, joining all the Democrats and Progressive/Democrat Tanya Vyhovsky. A total of 27 names are attached to S.R.11.
Checking my math real quick, that leaves a mere three senators who haven’t signed on.
“Governor Nice Guy” is having a bit of a tantrum. The cause: legislative Democrats are making him look bad, and he doesn’t like it.
At issue, naturally, is the General Assistance Emergency Housing program, familiarly known as the motel voucher program. The Legislature passed a Budget Adjustment Act that would have extended winter eligibility rules through the end of June, thus preventing a mass unsheltering when the winter rules expire on April 1. Scott vetoed it, largely because he cannot stand the voucher program and would do absolutely anything to kill it once and for all. Except, you know, proposing an alternative.
Or, as House Appropriations Committee chair Rep. Robin Scheu put it, “We have been asking the Governor for four years to develop a plan to transition away from the hotel/motel program and create a long-term solution to homelessness. For four years we have received nothing from the governor or his administration.”
Anyway. Legislative leadership then made a counter-offer: They’re willing to drop virtually all of their (relatively minimal) spending adds from the BAA if the winter eligibility rules are extended. They say the Department of Children and Families already has enough funds to make that happen.
And ‘Governor Nice Guy” has shown them the back of his hand. Nope, not gonna do it.
In yet another blow against ethics and good government, the House has unanimously approved a bill that would roll back a provision in last year’s ethics reform bill.
You heard right. Unanimously.
And the bill in question was H.1, meaning it was the first piece of legislation to be formally introduced in the House this year.
Priorities, you know.
Per VTDigger, last year’s bill would require the House and Senate’s own ethics panels — you know, the ones that operate as complete black boxes concealed from public view? — to consult with the state Ethics Commission under some circumstances.
The key word being “consult.” No decision-making power or authority would be conferred upon the Commission. But even requiring consultation was a bridge too far for The People’s Representatives. H.1 was drafted to “cure” the “problem” with last year’s legislation. And the House passed it without ever taking a roll call vote. Everybody wanted this thing, but nobody wanted to be on the record.
It’s not that I don’t keep an eye out for the Bennington Battle Monument when I find myself taking the 279 bypass. And yes, “the 306 foot commemorative shaft” has been a feature of the local landscape for 134 years, and we do love us a long-established structure no matter its innate attractiveness or real-world feasibility. And yes, it does commemorate Vermont’s Revolutionary War-adjacent moment of relevance… although I do have to wonder if the second most phallic public structure in the world* (unofficial status) isn’t just a little bit triggering for some passers-by.
*See below.
But the news that the Monument was made of the wrong kind of stone, leaving its signature tumescence in need of restoration to the tune of at least $40 million? (The story appeared on VTDigger over the weekend, more than a month after it was initially reported by the Vermont Daily Chronicle.) It makes me conclude that we shouldn’t bother saving this Gilded Age tribute to toxic masculinity. I say tear the bloody thing down. Find another way to memorialize the battle if you must. Don’t waste tens of millions of dollars on an edifice that manages to combine ugliness with impracticality.
What could be more impractical than a massive outdoor monument constructed of highly absorbent limestone? In a state known for its granite and marble quarries, no less? The result: the ponderous pecker is sodden with an estimated 66,000 gallons of water. Given that fact, I suppose it’s surprising that it hasn’t already drooped over like a “Before” image in a Cialis ad.
One of my readers had an idea, and I thought I’d try it out. Given Vermont’s sadly diminished and atomized news media, would it be worthwhile to monitor our various news outlets and regularly provide a sampling of worthwhile items that might not have gotten much attention?
I thought about it, and put together a pretty lengthy list of news/commentary outlets in our state. And now I’m giving this thing a test drive. Let me know what you think. In no particular order, here’s a bit of an honor roll of stories from the past week.
Montpelier Council continues to dither over Country Club Road housing. The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus reports that city officials had hoped to gain “nice, clear direction” from City Council over how to redevelop the former Elks Club property east of town. Those hopes were dashed by a Council who ought to remember the old maxim, “The best is the enemy of the good.” Councilors approved a concept plan to build significant new housing on the site two years ago, but still can’t bring themselves to provide anything like nice, clear direction. And you wonder why we have a housing shortage.
Sewer work to clog downtown Montpelier. The Montpelier Bridge reports that a major improvement on a sewer line will hamper traffic on State Street for the next three months or more, starting on St. Patrick’s Day. Merchants, already suffering through a post-epidemic decline in office occupancy and foot traffic, are “concerned about the potential for economic disruption.” For most of the time, traffic on State between Main and Elm will be westbound only. You have been warned.
Milton housing prices through the roof. The Milton Independent reports that local housing supplies are very tight and prices are skyrocketing. The median home price in Milton has hit the $400,000 mark, which means you’d better be making six figures if you want to buy an average home there. And if you want to rent an apartment, make sure you’ve got a job paying at least $30 an hour. One effect: the school district is dealing with far more homeless children than it used to.
Following his surprise victory over David Zuckerman last November. Lt. Gov. John Rodgers was widely seen as the Great White Hope of the Vermont Republican Party, someone capable of succeeding Gov. Phil Scott. I don’t buy it myself; I think he’s more likely to be the next Scott Milne than the next Jim Douglas. someone who enjoys a brush with electoral success but can never repeat it.
And the primary reason for my belief is that John Rodgers simply does not give a fuck.
The first sign of this was his live interview on local TV the morning after Election Night, when he chose to make his initial public appearance as LG-elect looking like he’d just rolled out of bed and stationed himself in front of the camera wearing a decidedly non-gubernatorial white T-shirt.
The most recent sign is this: Back on February 4, I wrote a post entitled “Bad Grammar, Typos, and Plagiarism: Welcome to John Rodgers’ Official Biography.” In the first line of his bio, he is identified as “the 84rd Lt. Governor of Vermont.” That’s right, “84rd.” There followed a cornucopia of misspellings and offenses against the English language. It was an embarrassment, not only to Rodgers but to the state of Vermont.
You’ll never guess how he responded to this revelation.
The Vermont Political Observer. 