Look at Glenn Beck (I never said this would be easy.) I’m not sure what he was attempting with his rally at the Lincoln Memorial Saturday, but it seems he has ambitions beyond being on Fox News forever. I try to put myself in his shoes. Here’s a guy who used to be a disc jockey and now he’s got a tee vee show, a radio show and his own “university” (however much damage his institution does to our understanding of that word). I’m sure there are people out there telling him he’s a prophet, naming children after him and so forth. It would be hard for me not to get a bit messianic if I was subject to all that and I think my grasp on reality is more tenacious than Mr. Beck’s.

Look across America. The current wave of Islamophobia has given an escape valve to the huge pressure of racism that has run beneath the surface of our continent since Mr. Columbus first made landfall. In Tennessee, western New York, Washington state and Connecticut racists are attacking (respectively) a mosque, a Sufi mosque (Sufis are like the Quakers of Islam, as mild and gentle a people as you’ll find anywhere), a Sikh (who is not a Muslim: what next – attacks on Buddhists?) and a hookah bar (one featuring belly dancers, no less – not exactly Sharia law, dude).

Now look at Vermont. Like Alaska, we had a contested result in our primary last Tuesday. Three Democratic candidates for governor were within two percentage points of each other when the counting was done. The second-place finisher, Doug Racine, called for a recount, as is his right.

Meanwhile, Mr. Racine has joined the first-place finisher, Peter Shumlin and third-place finisher Deb Markowitz in joint press conferences and campaign appearances to express the unity of their positions and to ask voters to support whichever of them ultimately becomes the party’s candidate.

Back in 2002, when then-governor Howard Dean declined to run for re-election, Mr. Racine was lieutenant governor and candidate presumptive. Mr. Shumlin (then and now) Senate majority leader, had hoped to run in 2002, but stepped aside for the good of the party. He ran for Lite Gov instead. Both he and Mr. Racine lost to the current incumbents Gov. Jim Douglas and Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, both Republicans.

Perhaps Mr. Racine should have returned Mr. Shumlin’s 2002 favor and stood aside for the good of the party. For whatever reasons, he chose not to, as was his right. Now the three former rivals campaign together. Two Democratic candidates that finished fourth and fifth last week also pledge their support to the eventual nominee. (Disclosure: I supported Mr. Racine in the primary.)

As for Mr. Dubie, now the Republican candidate for governor, I’ve met him and like him. I believe him to be a sincere man who wants what he thinks is best for Vermont. I disagree with almost all his positions, but that’s politics. (I’ve poked fun at Mr. Dubie, as recently as last week’s post. That’s politics, too.)

I do not like Mr. Dubie’s mentor, Gov. Douglas. I think he has brought an insidiously insincere style of Republican politics to Vermont. I think the people around Mr. Dubie want him to take up Mr. Douglas’s ways. I think they think it’s Mr. Dubie’s best chance of becoming governor.

The general election is still 61 days away. I’m encouraged by the civility and focus on issues and positions we’ve seen so far in Vermont’s 2010 election cycle. I wish the contrast with the rest of the country were not so great. I wish national journalists would pay more attention to the way we conduct ourselves.

There’s a Vermont bumper sticker that reads: “A small state can lead the nation.” Indeed, we must.

© Mark Floegel, 2010

This is bad timing for Yankee’s owner, Entergy of Louisiana, because the Vermont legislature is currently considering Entergy’s request to extend the 38-year-old plant’s license to operate for another 20 years. (Vermont is the only state in which the legislature has the power to intervene in a nuclear plant’s license.)

Even Governor Jim Douglas, who has been an unabashed Entergy supporter until now, demanded the firing of Entergy Vice President Jay Thayer. Mr. Thayer swore under oath that Vermont Yankee has no underground pipes. Then it was discovered that the tritium was leaking from – underground pipes. (Still a friend to Entergy, the governor has also called for a “timeout” to allow the corporation to rebuild the people’s shattered trust. After all, you wouldn’t want to decide whether or not to go ahead and get married after you catch your intended in bed with your best friend, you’d want to give it time to rebuild trust.)

It’s unclear at this point who is the dog and who is the pony in this dog-and-pony show, but Entergy did get rid of Mr. Thayer. (Which is not to say he was fired. He was placed on “administrative leave” pending investigation, which means he goes on vacation until this whole thing blows over; when he returns with a tan, he’ll be sent off to tell whoppers about some other Entergy facility.)

The new face of Entergy in Vermont is Curt Hebert, Jr., Entergy’s vice president of external affairs and former head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Mr. Hebert is known as a lifelong opponent of government intervention in energy markets. (Then why was he the federal government’s chief energy regulator, you ask? He was appointed by George W. Bush.)

So up here in Vermont, the public, press and politicians are seriously cheesed off at the out-of-state corporation that has mismanaged the state’s only nuke since it bought it in 2002 and has been caught passing misinformation again and again. What’s Entergy’s response? To send a bitter foe of government intervention to the one state where the government has more power to intervene than any other. It makes one wonder if Entergy’s CEO Wayne Leonard might be spending too much time in the radiation room.

Mr. Hebert’s greatest claim to fame is that he presided over the federal government’s deer-in-the-headlights inaction when the 2000-2001 energy crisis caused rolling blackouts in California. (Heckuva job, Curty!)

According to published accounts, Mr. Hebert – acting on Dick Cheney’s orders – covered up the market manipulation by Enron and others that led to the California and instead encouraged California to cancel its environmental regulations. Now his kind ministrations will be visited on Vermont. Oh boy.

To paraphrase Lord Acton, power corrupts and nuclear power corrupts absolutely.

© Mark Floegel, 2010

Big deal? Big deal. Civil unions, the not-quite legal equivalent of same-sex marriage, have been legal in Vermont since 2000. Since that happened, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa (just this week!) legalized same-sex marriage. Civil unions are recognized in New Jersey and New Hampshire and same-sex marriage legislation is pending in New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York and Maine. The city council of the District of Columbia unanimously passed same-sex marriage legislation. California has had an on-again/off-again relationship with the issue.

On the other hand, 43 states have laws explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriage and 29 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The federal government has a law on the books – 1996’s Defense of Marriage Act – absolving states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

As you might expect, this type of thing is drenched in politics, law and history. First, the politics. The Vermont legislature passed its same-sex bill Monday. Republican Governor Jim Douglas had his veto message already written. He announced his veto before the state’s House of Representatives even took up the bill. Tuesday, the legislature overrode the veto – by one vote in the House. It was the first time Mr. Douglas has been overridden (and only the seventh time its happened to any Vermont governor).

Mr. Douglas – a consummate politician – got out there early with his opposition to the bill, a nice gesture for his conservative base. But he didn’t lobby Republican legislators on the override vote, something he has consistently done in the past. Sounds like he wants it both ways, not unusual for a politician confronting a divisive issue.

Jim Douglas has company. Bill Clinton (of the flexible spine) signed the Defense of Marriage Act, then (oops!) forgot to mention it at all in his memoirs. Barack Obama, campaigning for president, said he supports full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, then said he thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman.

As Mr. Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand, even if a politician divided against himself can. Forty-three to seven is a lopsided division, but those numbers will change. In the next decade, the division will look more like 35-15, with the 15 pro-same-sex marriage states representing as many citizens as the 35 opposed. Then, or sooner, it will go to the courts. When it gets to court, the issue will likely not be gender or one person’s morality versus another’s or even civil rights (although there are strong arguments to be made there), but contracts.

Marriage, at its root, is a contract between two parties. It has to do with money and property. (Divorce is the dissolution of said contracts.) The Constitution says contracts made in one state have to be honored in the other states. When states representing half the nation’s citizens recognize a certain contract and states representing the other half don’t, you’ve got a problem.

And it’s not as easy as counting right-left noses on the Supreme Court, either. Should the court rule that one kind of contract need not be honored nationwide, it opens the door for playing pick-and-choose with other types of contracts, not the kind of fire the right-leaning end of the court wants to play with.

All this, of course, reminds us of history and the last time our house was so divided. For a while we thought we could go along with some slave states and some free states. But what happens when a slave escapes to a free state? Is the free state required to apprehend and return that slave? That was a contract question that made it to the Supreme Court. The court gave the wrong answer, so we fought a war to get to the right answer.

Which is not to say we will fight four years of pitched battles over same-sex marriage. It is to say history will show there’s an enlightened side and an unenlightened side in this debate and it doesn’t take much thought to figure out which is which.

© Mark Floegel, 2009

Over in Montpelier, America’s smallest state capital, legislators – about to return after town meeting recess – are bogged down (as are their counterparts across the nation) trying to cut spending quickly enough to keep pace with the plummeting economy.

While walking, the Democratic-controlled bodies have signaled their intent to also chew gum. In this case, the gum is a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Vermont has experience in this department.

In the much snowier winter of 2000, Vermont became the first state in the union to legalize same-sex civil unions. (No state had legalized gay marriage at the time.) We were inundated by partisans from both sides of the issue. The “anti” crowd predicted that if civil unions were made law, chaos would ensue, it would be the end of marriage as we’d known it, Vermont would turn into the new Sodom.

The law was passed; then-Governor Howard Dean (D) signed it behind closed doors. (Strange metaphor, Howard.) Then, people got hitched in something that was sort of, but not quite like, marriage. Chaos did not ensue. Marriage as we knew it did not end. Vermont is not new Sodom.

What did happen is Democrats lost control of the state house of representatives in 2002, thanks in part to anti-civil union backlash. Two years later, the backlash subsided and the Democrats took back the house.

In the years intervening, Massachusetts and Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage and California grapples mightily. Here in Vermont, the debate doesn’t exactly rage. There are, to be sure, opponents of same-sex marriage, but it seems the legislation will pass both deliberative bodies. Republican Governor Jim Douglas told an editorial board the other day that he sees no need to go beyond the existing civil union law – but he did not say he would veto the bill.

Mr. Douglas, whose wet finger is always in the political wind, will count votes when the bill passes. If he thinks a veto will be overridden, he will let the bill become law without his signature and Vermont will seep, rather than march, into the future. So be it.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage no longer predict doom will follow in its wake. Instead, we hear it might open the door to legalized polygamy. I don’t see that happening, for two reasons. One, although Vermont is the birthplace of both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, there’s not a big constituency for polygamy. Second – and more important – same-sex marriage is good law and polygamous marriage is bad law.

The only real interest a state should have in the marriage is law and order, with the emphasis on order. The law has an interest in seeing all citizens treated equally, regardless of whom they choose to marry. The law has an interest in seeing the most interested party (a spouse) has the right to make medical or legal decisions for an incapacitated person. The law has an interest in the orderly transfer of property upon a person’s death.

For all those reasons, it makes sense to allow a person to marry another person, regardless of whether they are of the same or opposite sex (or anywhere in between). In the case of polygamy, well, you can see where it would tend to confuse legal issues.

The other argument to which the “anti” crowd has been reduced is that one man and one woman are the necessary ingredients for making children. While I agree stable families are in society’s best interest, I haven’t seen any evidence that same-sex parents are less stable than dual-sex parents.

Worse, if the only justification for marriage is the production of children, a notion that sounds very Middle Ages, then not only should same-sex marriage be illegal, but also marriage for post-menopausal women or women who have had tubal ligations or men who have had vasectomies or people who are just plain infertile.

The problem with grasping at straws is, you wind up with a handful of straw. Law and order; equality before the law. Think about it.

© 2009, Mark Floegel

In the month since Barack Obama’s inauguration, we’ve been (mis)treated to some of the worst displays of puerile politics in recent memory, which might be amusing, if the stakes – both immediate and long-term – were not so high.

We all know the immediate stakes are the success of the stimulus package and the health of the economy. You know, can you keep your job, stay in your house, feed your family. Stuff like that.

The long-term stakes have to do with which party will run the United States in the remainder of the 21st century. It works like this: the Constitution says we will have a census every ten years. The next one’s due in 2010. Based on census information, state legislatures redraw congressional districts within their states. We all know this process, gerrymandering, is the worst example of political sausage making we have. Those of us who believe in good government long for the day when the courts step in and prescribe a fair system, so we don’t wind up with congressional districts that look like the Illinois Fourth.

That day will come. It won’t come in time to stop the next re-apportionment. So the question is: which party will dominate state legislatures in the years 2010-2015? Answer: whichever party stops playing stupid political games and at this point it’s unclear either party will do that.

The Republicans, the party of “no,” would rather wreck the economy than allow President Obama and the Democratic majority to accomplish anything. When times are good, people have more important things to do than watch Congress. When keeping one’s job depends on Congressional action (or inaction), voters pay attention and right now there’s not much love out there for the GOP in Congress.

Republican governors, like California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger and Vermont’s Jim Douglas are vocal about the need for federal money to keep their states going. Some Republican governors, like South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, Alaska’s Sarah Palin, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Texas’s Rick Perry, grumbled and criticized the stimulus package, then stuck their hands out for their states’ share.

It’s odd to watch normally lock-step Republicans acting all confused and fratricidal (i.e., like Democrats). I don’t think it will play well at the state-level ballot box in 2010.

On the other hand, the Democrats have a golden opportunity to screw up and they rarely let one pass. Howard Dean – a former Vermont governor – rode a wave of grassroots support to become chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2004, much to the chagrin of the DC beltway Dems. As chair, Mr. Dean forced his “50 state strategy” down the protesting throats of the congressional campaign committee. Rahm Emanuel, then chair of that committee famously left a meeting with Mr. Dean in a cloud of blue language.

After sweeping Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008, it’s clear Howard Dean was right, but beltway Dems have thick heads. Although Mr. Obama has gone to great lengths to be gracious to the likes of Joe Lieberman and Judd Gregg, he’s allowed chief of staff Mr. Emanuel to freeze Mr. Dean out of the new ascendancy, even leaving him uninvited even to the installation of his successor at the DNC.

Spats worthy of seventh grade are nothing new to DC and if Howard Dean doesn’t have a thick skin, he should. What is more important is that new DNC chair Tim Kaine acknowledge Mr. Dean’s vision and keep the pedal down on the 50-state strategy or he stands a good chance of returning to Republicans their dream of a permanent majority.

© 2009, Mark Floegel

Mr. Sand recently came under fire from the governor for allowing a first time marijuana offender to be sent to a drug diversion program. Gov. Jim Douglas asked state police in Mr. Sand’s jurisdiction to sent new marijuana cases directly to the state attorney general’s office.

Public sentiment was clearly on Mr. Sand’s side and the governor had to back down.

Saturday’s local paper carried a story about a star high school basketball player who pleaded guilty to marijuana possession and was given a nine-month deferred sentence (if he keeps his nose clean, the record’s expunged in nine months) and will face no sanctions from his school or team, because his crime was committed in the off-season.

Reading deeper into the story, we find the young athlete was not merely caught with a joint, but had cocaine, four digital scales and unexplained deposits in his bank account. So, it’s not a kid with a joint, it’s a coke dealer.

The athlete’s parents turned him in. A wrenching decision for them no doubt, but also a savvy one. If you find out your kid is dealing coke, don’t wait for the inevitable drug bust, because your kid will go to prison. Instead, get a good lawyer negotiate a deal with the state’s attorney before you surrender the kid to the cops and with luck, he’ll get off with a suspended sentence and will be out there starting for the local high school five.

No word as yet from the governor that he intends to intervene in high school sports.

As Vince Lombardi said, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”

Our leaders, however, who can see no interest beyond their own terms of office, will only commit to the stupidest of ideas.

Case in point:

This spring, the Vermont Legislature made global warming a priority. It passed a comprehensive bill to encourage energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources. Governor Jim Douglas (R), vetoed the bill, but promised to come up with an even better plan.

The governor established the commission on climate change, which in October proposed 38 ideas for reducing Vermont’s contribution to global warming, many of them similar to those proposed by the legislature.

Mr. Douglas ignored his own commission and is instead promoting the notion that the state government and the University of Vermont will develop what he calls “Vermont Green Standard,” designed “to define the financial value of offsetting CO2 emissions.”

Carbon offsetting does not do a damn bit of good; it’s only purpose is to sooth people possessed of superficial conscience and intellect. Paying someone ten dollars to plant a tree in Africa does not give you the right to drive a Hummer.

A couple of lads in England, appalled as you might expect by the concept of carbon neutrality, decided to expand the concept to marital infidelity. If you can spew carbon and pay someone not to, why not cheat on your spouse and pay someone to remain faithful or celibate?

Why stop there? Pay someone to diet while you binge, to take in orphans while you beat your kids or give to the poor while you cheat on your taxes? (Uh, I guess we already have that last one….)