FIRST, A POLITICAL BULLETIN: Paul Beaudry, the conservative radio talk show host on WDEV in Waterbury, has resigned from True North Radio and is preparing to run for Congress.

“I have given my two weeks notice,” after four years hosting the call-in show, Beaudry said in a telephone interview Sunday evening. Though he said there was still some chance he would decide against running, he described himself as “super-strongly considering it, and doing all the things necessary” to prepare.

That included, he said, laying the groundwork for raising money and hiring staff for a campaign to defeat Rep. Peter Welch, the heavily favored Democrat who will seek a third term in November.

First, Beaudry would have to win a primary against Keith Stern of Springfield, but even Stern’s campaign manager conceded that Beaudry might be the favorite.

“Because Paul is well known he’s going to have some financial support we don’t have,” said Andrew Glover, “and unfortunately money wins the election.”

To counter Beaudry’s name-recognition and financial advantage, Glover said, the Stern campaign would argue that Beaudry is too “ultra-conservative” to have any chance against Welch.

“Keith can get the swing voters, Glover said. “Paul can’t.”

Beaudry, who is 47 and lives in Swanton would almost certainly be the most conservative Republican statewide candidate in years. But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t win the primary. In Vermont, as elsewhere in the Northeast, moderates have drifted away from the Republican fold, some affiliating with the Democrats, others redefining themselves as independents. As a result, a larger proportion of the GOP primary electorate is well to the right of center.

Beaudry said he would run as a “staunch conservative” to balance Vermont’s “bunch of liberals down there” who only want to “spend and spend and spend.”

Beaudry has been a firm supporter of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. He has also devoted several programs to attacking the proposed Wild and Scenic designation of parts of the Missisquoi and all of the Trout River, calling it a “big government land grab.”

The radio program will apparently go on with another host. Beaudry said the owners of True North Radio, whom he would not identify, were already working with a potential substitute for him on the program. Ken Squier, the President and CEO of WDEV, who said he heard of Beaudry’s plans just the other day, also said the program would continue Like some other shows on WDEV, the station itself does not produce True North Radio, but simply sells it air time.

NEXT, A BIT OF PEDANTRY: On Vermont Public Radio’s Vermont Edition last week, Ken Page, the executive director the Vermont Principals’ Association, had some incisive comments about the school and school financing situation.

He also said – not once, not twice, but thrice – that there were “less students” in Vermont public schools these days.

Okay, we all know what he meant: there aren’t as many students as there were a few years ago. But it’s reasonable to expect a senior educator say what he means in proper English. Otherwise, why expect the kids to use proper English?

There are fewer students than there used to be.

That’s not hard, is it?

And it isn’t just pedantry, either. There are no doubt several reasons why English-speaking men and women have made contributions disproportionate to their numbers in science and literature. But surely one of them is the language itself. Its vast and ever-expanding vocabulary gives English-speakers the power to express themselves with more precision and nuance than perhaps any other language.

Maintaining the distinction between ‘less’ and ‘fewer’ is important because maintaining distinctions keeps one in the habit of…maintaining distinctions. And that’s key to precision and nuance.

FINALLY, AN UPDATE: For those who may not have noticed, Gov. Jim Douglas did what the News Guy predicted he would do (see Broken Date, March 26)  and did not veto the bill moving the date of this year’s primary from September 14 to August 24.

No, he didn’t sign the bill http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Passed/S-117.pdf (S. 117), either. He just announced last week that he would let it become law without his signature. That way he gets to express his displeasure with the new law without doing anything to stop it.

Doing anything to stop a bill that had overwhelming support of the Democratic majorities in both houses might have upset “the general collegiality of the (Legislative) session so far,” the Governor said.

He  didn’t say, but probably knew, that refusing to move the date could put the state out of compliance with federal law, risking a voting rights suit from the U.S. Department of Justice and other messy complications.

He did repeat his earlier contention that turnout would probably be lower in August, and that it was not “in the best interest of our representative democracy to have a summer primary.”

He’s right, even if September 14 is still in the summer, scientifically speaking; the autumnal equinox doesn’t occur until September 22 at 11:09 PM. But socially speaking summer ends on Labor Day, September 6 this year. Before then, lots of people are still away on vacation, and even though absentee voting isn’t that complicated, the turnout for an August primary is likely to be dismal.

So why was there no discussion about moving future primaries (too late for this year) to the spring? A majority of states have their primaries before mid-June, when the summer gets under way. Another six states vote earlier in August, and three other states – Alaska, Arizona, and Florida – will be voting the same day as Vermont. The old argument against spring primaries was that they made the election campaigns too long. But these days the campaigns are long anyway.  May or early June is a convenient time for the voting public and would give the winning candidates enough time to organize their general election campaigns.

As has been noted here before, sometimes very smart people act in ways that are…oh, for now let’s just say that are not very smart.

As has also been noted here before, some of these very smart people are senior officials at the University of Vermont.

Their very-smartness is proven not simply by their advanced degrees, fancy titles, high salaries and sumptuous offices, but also by their obvious success as senior officials at UVM. The university is bigger than it was a few years ago. Its larger student body has higher SAT scores. Its larger faculty earns more money. The entire institution has a higher reputation in academia nationwide. These officials must be very smart people, indeed.

So why do they want to suppress freedom of speech on campus?

Well, that’s a stupid question. All people in power want to suppress free speech in their realms to avoid being criticized, ridiculed, and opposed. This instinct applies to governments, corporations, foundations, universities, churches, and the Kiwanis Club. So let’s re-phrase the question.

Considering that this particular attempt to suppress free speech on campus is possibly illegal, probably unconstitutional, certainly confrontational, and therefore doomed to fail, why did the very smart senior officials at UVM decide to make themselves appear to be not simply would-be tyrants but bungling tyrants?

In fairness, the University has not circulated a document entitled “Proposed Policy to Suppress Free Speech on Campus.” Furthermore, the document that was circulated by UVM’s Provost and the General Counsel’s office – the “Interim Policy on Solicitation,” has not been vetted by a lawyer for either the News Guy nor the UVM faculty. It is conceivable, then, that the policy does not attempt to suppress free speech on campus, but only seems so to attempt.

Meaning the folks who composed it brought trouble down upon themselves unnecessarily. Still not smart.

But not likely, either. Laymen though they may be, the News Guy and the professors can read. And if the words on the page are not designed to give University officials the power to decide what may or may not be espoused, opposed, posted, organized for (or against) or debated, they’re a mighty good imitation thereof.

To be sure, colleges should have policies restricting commercial solicitation. Students ought not be bothered in dormitory rooms, study halls or library stacks by peddlers of software, soap, or sandwiches. But this policy statement is not limited to commercial solicitation. It also covers “Noncommercial solicitation,” which “includes, without limitation, petition drives, public opinion polling, membership drives for recognized groups and organizations, preaching, proselytizing, political organizing, political canvassing, and political campaigning.”

For such activity, the policy says, “prior approval” of the University administration is required. As Alan Gilbert of the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union pointed out, “prior approval is prior restraint,” which is Constitutionally questionable.

Not that the university shouldn’t impose some reasonable restrictions on where political activity could take place; the petition-gatherer need not pursue students into their dorm rooms or laboratories. But on all campuses certain areas are recognized as public forums. At UVM, these would include the big bulletin board outside the Bailey-Howe Library and the Green between the library and the buildings fronting Main Street, including the massive new Dudley Davis Center.

But the solicitation policy asserts that “Because of its fragility and its designation as a historic landmark, the University Green’s availability for solicitation is limited.”

Come on! This doesn’t meet the laugh test. As pointed out by David Shiman, the education professor who heads United Academics, UVM’s faculty union, “the University Green has historically been the agora for campus and community,” the place where debate, demonstration, and, yes, even confrontation, have taken place. It is the obvious site for them to take place. Requiring individuals or organizations to get “prior approval” before expressing themselves on the Green would constitute a blatant inhibition of free expression.

(Full disclosure: The News Guy, very part-time adjunct faculty at UVM, is a member of the union).

To give the credit which is due (which is minimal) the solicitation policy does promise a version of “viewpoint neutrality,” saying, “(i)n those instances in which the University, through the official and deliberate action of authorized officials, chooses to open a designated forum for public expression, the University will not discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of those engaging in expression allowed within that forum. Defamation, obscenity, and other forms of unlawful speech are prohibited in all instances.”

Oh, now UVM hot-shots proclaim themselves arbiters of which speech is and is not “lawful.”

And no “defamation”? The heart of debate is defamation. All authority should be defamed, starting with presidents (of the United States and the University) and extending to almost everyone else, including the writer of this post.

Besides, as Shiman points out, the “neutrality” pledge is belied by another clause stating that the “approval of solicitation activities will generally be subject to applicable time, place, manner, and subject matter provisions unless, in the considered judgment of the responsible administrative official, the proposed activities are unlawful or are likely to be disruptive, to cause undue interruption of the essential operations of the University, or to infringe significantly upon the rights of University community members or members of the public lawfully using campus grounds or facilities, such as rights of privacy, personal security, or reasonably unimpeded ingress and egress.”

“These grounds for denial,” Shiman wrote to the Administration, “are so vague that the clause about neutrality becomes meaningless. The University…asserts that they may deny permission whenever they want. This is unprecedented for any university, other than perhaps a tightly controlled religious institution.”

Not unreasonably, Shiman wondered whether one of the administration’s goals was to stifle union organizing efforts. Labor organizations are not official university-recognized entities, and under the proposed rules their on-campus activities might have to “be sponsored by authorized University officials…”

or University-recognized student groups or organizations,” which, he noted, could “have a particularly chilling effect for union drives.”

Interim Provost Jane Knodell said it was not her office, but the General Counsel’s office which was in charge of the solicitation policy, and referred the News Guy to Deputy General Counsel Tom Mercurio. Mercurio did not return a phone call, nor did UVM spokesman Enrique Corredera. They might not have had time. Or they might not have wanted to try to defend the indefensible.

OK, it’s an “interim policy.” Perhaps before making it final, the very smart people of UVM will remember that universities are and ought to be places of vigorous, spirited, even if sophomoric (after all, some of the participants are actual sophomores) debate. The folks who run universities should encourage such activity, not stifle it.

Otherwise, they aren’t even slightly smart.

.

Mt. Mansfield. photo by Jared C. Benedict

Today’s opus will be presented as three un-related chapters, each with its own title, as follows:

1—Vermont the Healthy?

Among Vermont’s other distinctions, it seems to be Number One in health-consciousness.

In the latest Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, Vermont scored 69.1 on the “healthy behavior index score,” higher than it did last year and 1.3 clicks ahead of second-place Hawaii.

This does not prove that Vermonters are healthier than anyone else. In fact it doesn’t prove anything; it’s survey research, which provides indications, not incontrovertible fact.

The indications are that Vermonters take care of themselves better than other Americans. They are less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, most likely to eat lots of fruits and vegetables.

That’s the good news. The not-so-good news is that being best in America does not necessarily men being very good. Overall, the survey found that the “nation as a whole (is) dropping substantively on the Healthy Behavior Sub-Index, from 63.7 in 2008 to 62.6 in the first half of 2009.” In fact, “Mississippi, whose score ranks among the bottom 10, is the only state to record a statistically significant increase in its healthy behavior score.”

So there’s little justification here for Vermonters getting a swelled head about their (relatively) good habits. To begin with, there doesn’t seem to be all that much specifically “Vermontish” in these results. Almost all the states in the Northeast scored reasonably well, as did the Rocky Mountain states and the West Coast (except Washington State and Nevada.). To some extent, then, being health-conscious is a regional habit.

And probably an educational habit. More than 35 percent of adult Vermonters graduated from college, more than in all but five other states. College graduates tend to be more health conscious, not to mention more affluent. Not only do they know that they ought to go to the gym, they can afford the membership.

On the other hand, Vermont is the most rural of the states in the top ten, and there is ample evidence (such as this 2005 study in Pennsylvania) that rural residents don’t have the healthiest habits. They are more likely to smoke, less likely to exercise, and they gobble up lots of fried foods.

Meaning that perhaps it is the residents of Chittenden County and a few others outposts who take good care of themselves. But the survey didn’t get down to the county or town level.

The Gallup survey says it provides “a daily measure of people’s well-being…based on the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health as not only the absence of infirmity and disease but also a state of physical, mental and social well-being.”

Whereupon we segue, as the TV folks would say, into……

CHAPTER TWO: VERMONT THE GOOD?

One way lots of Vermonters stay healthy is by doing stuff outdoors. That’s not in the Gallup survey, but we know from many sources that people in this state are more likely than most other Americans to hike and camp out, to paddle a kayak or canoe, to work in their gardens or in the woods.

Now comes evidence that all this activity not only helps make a person healthier. It can him or her a better person – kinder, more generous, less selfish. Contact with nature, says a new study “brings individuals closer to others, whereas human-made environments orient goals toward more selfish or self-interested ends.”

A bit of skepticism is in order here. Psychology lacks the precision of physics. Studies such as this one – conducted by psychologists Netta Weinstein, Andrew K. Przybylski, and Richard M. Ryan – sometimes conclude with the conclusions the studiers wanted to find before they started.

But these folks have credentials – Weinstein is a clinical psychologist at the University of Rochester – and their findings sufficiently intrigued the editors at the interesting, lively, new Miller-McCune Magazine that they wrote about them in an article called “Immersion in Nature Makes us Nicer.”

Why would it? Writer Tom Jacobs reports that “Weinstein and her colleagues suggest the answer lies in an enhanced sense of personal autonomy. ‘Nature affords individuals the chance to follow their interests and reduces pressures, fears, introjects and social expectations,’ they write.

Introjects? A term the meaning of which seems to be in dispute but is related to making too big a deal of oneself.

If both un-confirmable and un-refutable, the notion does seem to make some sense. Not there aren’t some very nice couch potatoes and a few avid white-water paddlers who are real stinkos, but connecting with the natural world (and this includes spending time with your house plants)would seem to reduce stress, encourage a contemplative outlook, and keep one on an even keel (except, literally, in that kayak in white-water).

And speaking of even keels, we segue to….

CHAPTER THREE: ET TU JACOBE?

Did everybody note that even Gov. Jim Douglas would not come right out and say what he (almost surely) knows is true: that this business about “death panels” in the proposed health care legislation is some combination of dishonesty and insanity?

Asked about it at his press conference last week, the Governor, as reported by Terri Hallenbeck of the Burlington Free Press in the paper’s Vermont Buzz blog, would only note that the argument was “an example of the kind of rhetoric that’s distracting us from fundamental reform.”

“But he did not come out and denounce the death-panel debate nor would he say he felt confident the proposed legislation didn’t include death panels,” Hallenbeck wrote. “He said that like most members of Congress he had not read every word of the legislation.”

No condemnation here of Douglas, who was doing what he had to do. Oh, it would have been admirable for him to have said (in somewhat more diplomatic language), “this stuff is crazy.”

But that would have been dangerous, and what is interesting is why it would have been dangerous.

In the latest polling on the subjects (NBC News/Wall Street Journal), 45 percent of the respondents said they thought the health care proposals before Congress “Will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly.”

Those proposals will allow no such thing.

Checking the polls’ “internals, “ it’s reasonable to conclude that the percentage in Vermont is smaller, probably closer to a third, roughly the percentage of Vermonters who voted for John McCain last year.

In other words, that third is Douglas’s base. A politician can not afford to tell his base that they are (not to put too fine a point on it and using the term in its colloquial rather than its clinical context) out of their minds.

Or, more gently, that they have allowed themselves to believe outright lies.

But maybe “allowed is less accurate than “affirmatively chosen” to believe outright lies, which leads to the question of why so many people would so choose.

A complicated question, perhaps pursued another time. Meanwhile ponder what it means that a sane and responsible governor fears to suggest that some of his constituents are acting in a manner neither sane nor responsible.