Being a responsible citizen, the News Guy went to Town Meeting, and initially planned to write no new post for today. But events, minor though they were, intruded, requiring a few observations and clarifications.

At about 5PM, the phone rang.

Nobody on the other end.

“Hello, hello,” and finally came that delightful metallic tone of a recorded voice explaining that this was a political poll, and asking the respondent whether he had a favorable (press 1) or unfavorable (press 2) opinion about Sen. Patrick Leahy.

At which point, the respondent, being a politically sophisticated type, assumed the poll had been commissioned by a Leahy opponent.

A conclusion confirmed by the next question: Would you vote for Pat Leahy no matter who ran against him? (Or words to that effect. Notes were not being taken. It could have been something like, “regardless of who runs against him”).

Now, aside from Pat Leahy, his wife, his children, and a few devoted, down-the-line Democrats, who on earth is going to answer that question in the affirmative? Suppose Jonathan Papelbon were to quit the Red Sox, or Tom Brady were to retire from the Patriots, move to Vermont, and run for the Senate? What if Oprah moved here and wanted the job? They’d get lots of votes. Rare is the voter who would commit to a candidate without taking even a quick look at the opposition.

“That’s a pretty typical hard re-elect question used in polling,” said Dan Riley, the spokesman for Len Britton, the Republican running against Leahy, who was indeed the power behind the poll.

Well, not really. More typical would be something like, “do you think Pat Leahy has done a good enough job as senator to deserve re-election, or is it time to give somebody else a chance?”

But just because the question was unusual did not make it pointless. Britton can try to trumpet the likely result (look for a press release headlined, “80 percent might vote against Leahy”) to convince contributors that his is not a lost cause.

Which of course it is not. Eight months before the election, nobody’s cause is lost. Improbable, perhaps, but not lost.

_____________________________________________________________

Outside some polling places Tuesday health care activists were handing out little slips of paper with their motto, a phrase commonly heard but rarely examined in Vermont these days: “Health care is a human right.”

It is? Who says? And more broadly, who decides what is and is not a human right?

The questions bring up the recently quoted remarks of John Mackey, the chief executive of Whole Foods Market, that “it’s not intrinsic in the nature of human beings to have a right to health care.”

Mackey is right, of course. But then it’s not intrinsic in the nature of human beings to have the right of free speech, freedom of religion, security against unreasonable search and seizure, or the power to choose the folks who will govern them.

These are all artificial inventions, or what the folks in parts of academia would call social constructs. They come neither from nature nor heaven, but from people in particular cultures, notably ours.

Intrinsic or not, it’s up to human beings to decide what rights they and their society should have. In America we have in effect (because we’ve never spelled it out) decided that health care is a human right for those old enough, poor enough, or, needless to say, rich enough.

For everybody else it isn’t. Yet.

___________________________________________________________

Some clarifications of recent items are in order here, including a clarification of a clarification. Monday, the News Guy corrected the previous Monday’s post that said the recent statewide poll taken by Research 2000 for WCAX-TV had a four percent margin of error.

Actually five percent, said the correction.

Actually five percentage points, which the numerate among you will understand is not the same thing. This is one of those stupid errors which is stupider than most stupid errors, being an error the News Guy has often corrected when committed by others, making it especially foolish of him to commit it himself.

Almost as embarrassing was the typo in Monday’s other correction. Why the spell check did not catch “secondary sourc” remains a mystery (but not an excuse; we can’t rely on spell check). Perhaps there is such a word is “sourc”? Whichever, this was supposed to be a” secondary source.”

More substantively, Monday’s post reported that the spent nuclear fuel stored at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant site in Vernon could remain dangerous for 24,000 years.

Worse than that, emailed Margaret Gundersen of Fairewinds consulting, which deals with nuclear power issues. That 24,000 years “is the half-life of the nastiest radioactive isotopes,” she said, “but it takes roughly 10-half lives for the radioactivity to decay completely and for the radioactivity to be equal to what is natural background.  So, mathematically, 10-half lives of 24,000 years means 240,000…years.

This becomes a question of personal responsibility. The News Guy wants to make sure that his error has lulled no one into thinking he or she can wander around the grounds of the abandoned Vermont Yankee plant as early as the year 26,010. That could still be dangerous. Unless the waste has first been removed to Yucca Mountain, Nevada (but don’t hold your breath for that one) or elsewhere, do NOT, under any circumstances, walk around that area until the year 242,010.

Assuming, of course, that human beings then are still counting years under the same system. Assuming that is, that human beings have not either (a) evolved into a possibly more rational species; or (b) completely destroyed themselves and their surroundings.

As regular readers may recall, every once in a while this site pauses to revisit some earlier items, make necessary clarifications and corrections, offer some random thoughts, and deal with items that may not warrant the full News Guy treatment.

This is one of those once in a whiles.

Monday’s post about public employee retirement funds identified Terry Macaig only as “the most liberal” member of the commission State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding created to study the matter. Macaig is also: (a) a Democratic House member from Burlington; (b) on the staff of the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA); (c) a long-time employee of the State Health Department.

In other words, he has a personal financial interest in the public employees retirement system, a fact that does not render his views invalid, but that should have been included in Monday’s post. (And thanks to VT Digger for the heads-up on this).

Not that the background of everyone else on the commission proved them to be entirely objective. For instance, Gov. Jim Douglas’s appointee was Douglas J. Wacek, the retired President and Chief Executive Officer of Union Mutual of Vermont Companies, and general poobah of the Vermont corporate/financial establishment.

A vested interest of class and ideology rather than a personal financial concern, perhaps. But no less likely to guide one’s conclusion in a direction that might not be entirely in the public’s benefit.

_________________________________________________________________

Friday’s post noted that the American Automobile Association “does not favor” legislation that would ban hand-held cell phone use while driving.

That was correct, but Tom Williams, AAA’s Northern New England Regional Manager, wants it understood that his organization does not oppose the bill, either. It’s neutral.

AAA does favor “a total ban on portable electronic communication devises including cell phones for junior operators,” Williams emailed, along with “strong support” for “primary enforcement” of the seat belt law and the proposed ban on texting while driving.

_______________________________________________________________

In that same post (A Man’s Car is (Not) His Castle), the news guy declined “out of kindness” to name a businessman who had spoken at a public hearing held by the Senate Transportation Committee. Clearly implied, if not overtly stated, was that the anonymity was a kindness because the fellow had said something (“I don’t believe the statistics”) quite ignorant.

In the” no good deed goes unpunished category,” a commenter (scroll down to that post to read the whole comment) raises a valid point and asks a legitimate question: “It may be kind not to name the businessman, but is kindness part of your remit?”

Good as the question is, first we have to deal with this “remit” business.  In context it seems to mean “mission,” “mandate,” “task,” or something like that. Sounds impressive, a word that might be used by a professor of English literature back when C.S. Lewis or E.R. Dodds was at Oxford. Or were they at Cambridge?

Alas, it also seems to be wrong, though the News Guy remains open to further testimony before rendering a final verdict. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (the “compact” version, for which even younger readers need a magnifying glass), the noun “remit,” found on page 429 of Volume 2 (P-Z) is defined as a pardon (as in, remitting a punishment) or as a reference of (anything) from one part of a book to another, or from one authority to another (remitting a case from a lower to a higher court).

Nothing about it being a synonym for “duty” or “obligation” or anything like that.

Enough semantics. The basic question remains: Should kindness be part of the job here?

On one level, kindness should be part of everybody’s job every day.

Except maybe a reporter’s.

As the commenter said, this guy, private citizen though he may be, voluntarily stepped into the public domain. When you, whoever you are, step into that domain, we, the news chroniclers, are supposed to show you no mercy.

That’s actually the usual theory, practice, ethic, policy, and (who knows, maybe) remit here. It was not followed in this case because, so far as could be determined, it would be a one-shot appearance for the businessman. It wasn’t as though he had joined some organization and was going to be a regular advocate for or against anything, a la, the Tea Party folks.

So he got a pass. It probably won’t happen again, and the commenter was both alert and correct to object.

_____________________________________________________________

In a housekeeping note on February 1, the News Guy took note of “the demons who, it seems, occasionally usurp control at Word Press,” forcing it to disobey orders to publish a new post at a specific time.

“Plans for subjugating these demons are afoot,” that post proclaimed. “Meanwhile, be assured that every Monday Wednesday, and Friday, the News guy will either: (a) have a new post; or (b) make known that there will not be a new post, and also explain why.”

The demons have in fact (we think) been subjugated, which is an unscientific way of saying that the system has been updated.

So what happened?

Ten days later, on a Wednesday, early morning readers clicked in to find neither a new post nor a notice that there would not be one.

It would be tempting here to report that the demons staged a comeback, or that system failed again. In candor, it must be revealed that the guy operating the system failed again, having gotten confused. He is, in the cyber world, easily confused.

The News Guy is happy to report a substantial flow of new subscribers. It is gratifying.

It would be even more gratifying – and make possible more trips to Montpelier and elsewhere – if more of you who have recently joined the ranks of subscribers would also join the ranks of donators.

It’s easy to do. Just look up near the top right quarter of the screen, under “Pages,” and click on “donate.”

It will tell you all you need to know to…remit.

Due to unavoidable obligations both personal and professional (some hot stories coming) the News Guy was unable to post today.

Check back Friday