Culture Vulture

A commission of fairly distinguished Vermonters been organized and held its first meeting on Aug. 23 to study the touchy and sensitive subject of what it is, exactly, the state's residents think about allowing same-sex marriage, the next step beyond the state's groundbreaking Civil Unions Act passed in 2000.
It is — like abortion — a subject over which well meaning and clear thiinking people can disagree. It's also one that — like abortion — lends itself readily to overwrought, emotional outbursts of hysteria from all sides that enlighten no one and get us nowhere.
The commission members went to great lengths at their organizational meeting to state they want to hear from all sides on this tricky issue.They will probably produce a report by the end of their meetings that will prove thoughtful regardless of where they fall on the spectrum of whether or not to nudge the Legislature in one direction or another.
We've all come a long way since 2000, when the historic Civil Unions legislation was passed.

Despite the rantings of the far-right religious fundamentalist crowd, as a whole, the nation has been edging closer to a more common sense and tolerant view on this entire subject. And it's about time. Really — who cares if someone wants to formalize a relationship with a same sex partner, other than the people involved and perhaps their immediate families? It's really nobody else's business. Even the entire question of death and insurance benefits is really beside the point. Benefits would be paid to someone, so it's not like it's some big economic calamity to the nation as a whole or — God forbid — the insurance industry.
For the overwhelming number of people, a marriage will be of the traditional variety, beween a man and a woman. That institution is hardly going to be threatened by the relative handful of people who opt for something else. That's an intensely personal and private decision.
Here's the deal in a nutshell — it's a short life. Why not enjoy it the best you can? The caveat, of course, is that you can't enjoy it so much that you hurt other people. But it's hard to see where the harm comes in to society as a whole with gay marraige. It may be a startling sight, but ultimately — where's the harm? No one is talking about forcing unwilling partners to get hitched up. For heaven's sake, let's move on.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Have you noticed that a host of states, some major, some minor, are falling over themselves trying to ensure they hold onto, or in other cases latch onto, the perceived gold from being one of the early states to host a presidential primary? It won't be long before the first primary, or state caucus, a la Iowa, is held around Christmas of the preceding year before an election. Santa may indeed be coming to town, but he'll be wearing a three piece suit or just the right earth toned khakis and sporting an expensive haircut. The beard too, will have to go, big guy.
For years, the rhythmn of a presidential election was guided by New Hampshire's primary in February, followed by a succession of other state primaries in a host of large and small states. California's primary, in June, was still a big factor. There was time for a candidate to test the waters and survive for the long haul.
Then came Super Tuesdays, and the Iowa caucus in January, and megabucks in fundraising, to the absurd situation we are in now — the truly endless campaign. The major candidates have been talking themselves hoarse for months, but many have — probably wisely — avoided saying anything specific about what they would actually do if elected President.
So, now we have the astonishing spectacle of New Hampshire feeling left behind because Iowa has leapfrogged them in the Presidential primary sweepstakes, and by state law, must hold its primary at least a week before any other state does. But Michigan, a large industrial state with a diverse population that is far more representative of the nation as a whole, wants to get in on all that primary mania, specifically with an eye towards seeing candidate money flowing into the state. It wants to re-schedule its primary from Feb. 9 to Jan. 15, a full week before New Hampshire's one on Jan. 22. So now New Hampshire wants to move its up to Jan. 8.
Meanwhile, Iowa has a state law on its books that mandates that its caucus must be held at least eight days before any other contest. That takes us into the final week of December, 2007.

Enter Vermont. If New Hampshire feels empowered to impose its will on the U.S. electorate nearly 11 months before the actual election, why shouldn't Vermont create a caucus, or hold a primary, during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day? Aside from the ski areas, there's not much happening here that week, and it would provide a final end of year boost for the economy, especially for media businesses, and all other industries that have any kind of tie-in to traditional Vermont economic activities — think maple syrup, dairy farms and yes, even ski areas. Picture Hillary and Obama colliding at the chairlift and holding an impromptu debate — global warming, anyone?
But seriously, this is getting insane. We're going in the opposite direction of what should be happening, namely, making the election cycle shorter. Soon every state that holds a primary will want to frontload theirs to the point where the two finalists will be decided by Ground Hog Day, if not before. Then we have to endure 10 months of mumbo-jumbo until the November election. The eyes glaze over at the thought.
The election system is broken and needs to be fixed. Granted, this is an unsual election year — we don't have an incumbent officeholder running for re-election and a sitting Vice President who isn't interested in the job (thank God). But still, the fact that this campaign has lasted so long already, with fundraising such a major part of any serious candidates effort, and has so much farther to go, is sad. The only interesting moment to date was the Youtube debate — maybe we could limit candidates just to that type of format. It also begs the question of finding some kind of limit on how much money can be spent by the candidates, but that's an issue for another day.
How we shorten the election cycle to make it something much closer to the British model - which lasts a merciful six or seven weeks — without sacrificing freedom of speech and the demands of democracy — is the next big political science challenge of our generation.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 03:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that President George W. Bush hasn't visited Vermont yet during his presidency, now mercifully grinding to something of a conclusion. Some will no doubt mark the departure of Karl Rove, the "Genius" or "The Architect" as the day the music died for this administration, but there's still 16 months to go, so maybe the toxic Texan will still have a chance to visit the Green Mountain state.
The question is why bother. Let's start with the obvious: Bush is deeply unpopular here. He's deeply unpopular in a lot of places, as a 30 percent approval rating nationally will attest to, but those numbers are probably even lower in an uber-liberal state like Vermont, at least if you go by the make up of our congressional delegation. So maybe if he's feeling truly in a self-flagellatory mood, it might make sense, but otherwise, where's the upside?
With only three electoral votes in play, Vermont just isn't worth it, Rove might counsel the President on his way out the door.

And then there's the local Republican Party to consider here. Would any of them be wild about having Bush drop by for a meet and greet even on a some theoretically safe Republican bastion — Williston maybe, or the Northeast kingdom, or maybe, just maybe — Manchester? The Dems carried the town for the most part here last fall but it's as reliably Republican a town as they come these days. But while even in its discounted condition the Bush Presidency still carries the aura of the Presidency, there may not be a lot of Vermont Republicans eager to associate themselves with the current officeholder. Even Gov. Douglas might be just as happy if he didn't surface to muddy the waters further.
Still, it would bespeak a certain amout of nerviness on Bush's part, and provide a test of his famous unshakable mettle, if he were to chance a visit here. At this point, what is there to lose? It would show us he really does "go with his gut." And he wouldn't want to leave that blemish — of visiting all the states save one — on his record, would he?
If the Bushites do decide to make it an even 50, here's a few suggestions. Don't come during foliage season, Mr. President. The roads are choked enough. How about early November, or maybe mud season, when the Presidential entourage could by itself make a difference in the the state's economic output? Don't go to Brattleboro, despite its convenience to Keene, N.H., a state you conceivably might visit during the primary there, unless you want to do something truly counterintuitive and visit the food co-op. Now that would put the photo in the photo op.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 03:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here we go again.
I say again, because sharp-eyed readers of our sister paper, the Bennington Banner, may remember an occasionally off-beat column in the old arts section that used to feature the semi-lucid ramblings of the former arts editor, who in the fullness of time and the splendour of life, has re-surfaced as the Editor of the Journal.
Culture vulture returns!
More importantly, the Manchester Journal now has a blog site for you, our readers, to respond to and weigh in on. We hope this will become a dynamic interactive forum that allows you to comment on the news, the arts and everything else going on around the Northshire. Feel free to respond to the news, to the postings on this blog, and anything else that may be on your mind.
Well, maybe not everything.
We hope it's the start of a beautiful new relationship.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 04:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)