Two Viral Reasons Why I'm A Proud Green Mountain Boy

Madelyn Linsenmeir, shown here with her son Ayden, died
of an opiod overdose recently. The obituary her sister wrote
has gone viral. 

Two incidents originating in Vermont went viral in the past week, and both cases make me incredibly proud to be a Vermonter.

This is true even though one of the incidents involved a tragedy, the other basically focused on a national crisis

MADELYN ELLEN LINSENMEIR'S OBITUARY

The more viral of the two incidents regarded the death of Madelyn Ellen Linsenmeir, 30, whose obituary described how her addiction to OxyContin affected her and her family, and ultimately killed Linsenmeir.

Part of the blunt, loving and heartbreaking obituary read as follows:

"It is impossible to capture a person in an obituary, and especially someone whose adult life was largely defined by drug addiction. To some, Maddie was just a junkie - when they saw her addiction, they stopped seeing her. And what a loss for them. Because Maddie was hilarious, and warm, and fearless, and resilient. She could and would talk to anyone, and when you were in her company you wanted to stay.

In a system that seems to have hardened itself against addicts and is failing them every day, she befriended and delighed cops, social workers, public defenders and doctors, who advocated for and believed in her 'til the end."

The obit also said that using drugs "is not a choice or a weakness. And chances are good that someone you know is struggling with it, and that person needs and deserves your empathy and support." 

It now seems that practically everyone across the nation has read that obit. It asked for donations to the Turning Point Center, which helps addicts in Vermont. The Turning Point Center is now being swamped by donations and messages.

Adding more to all this was a Facebook post by Burlington, Vermont Police Chief Brandon del Pozo.

He said he had a "problem" with the Linsenmeir obituary and here's why, as del Pozo wrote on Facebook:

"A family member with a talent for expression wrote her the honest and moving obituary she truly deserved. It went viral. It's being read across the country. It's in People, the Globe, HuffPost, and the Daily News. My problem with it is that it's a much better obituary than the rest of us deserve."

"Why did it take a grieving relative with a good literary sense to get people to pay attention for a moment and shed a tear when nearly a quarter of a million people have already died in the same way as Maddie as this epidemic grew?

Did readers think this was the first time a beautiful young, beloved mother from a pastoral state got addicted to Oxy and died from the descent it wrought? And what about the rest of the victims, who weren't as beautiful and lived in downtrodden cities or the rust belt? They too had mothers who cried for them and blamed themselves."

The entire Facebook post by del Pozo, is a must read, just as Linsenmeir's obit is.

Vermont has been hit hard by the opiod epidemic.  In 2017, 107 people died of opiod-related causes, the vast majority of them being overdoses, says the Vermont Health Department.

There's plenty of blame to go around for the opiod deaths in Vermont and the rest of the nation. There are some real efforts to combat this. But it's not enough. The Linsenmeir obit, and to a somewhat lesser degree del Pozo's Facebook post, has got the whole nation talking about and confronting the opiod epidemic. At least everybody is tweeting about it, if nothing else.

The obituary was written by Linsenmeir's sister, Kate O'Neill, who told NPR: "Our hope also now lies with policymakers and politicians and the people who can make the change necessary so that these deaths stop happening. Let's put our money where our tweets are."

Once again, Vermont leads. Compassionately.

LAMOILLE COUNTY, VERMONT'S MUSICAL CAMPAIGN DEBATE

Vermont House candidates Zac Mayo amd Lucy Rogers are competing
against each other. But they ended a recent debate by
performing a duet with each other. 

Up in Lamoille County, Democrat Lucy Rogers and Republican Zac Mayo are aggressively competing against each other for a seat in the Vermont House.

Recently, Rogers and Mayo had a debate at the local library. The back and forth was reportedly respectful, and both candidates seemed to have the smarts and the goods to be decent legislators

But what happened at the end of the debate shocked locals. And that event was so shocking, it's now nicely jarring people across the nation. This, too, has gone viral.

Both candidates asked the moderator for a bit of additional time at the end of the debate. They didn't say why they wanted it, but the moderator basically shrugged and said OK.

Rogers and Mayo then began moving tables off to the side. She brought out her cello, he brought out his guitar, and the two candidates from opposing parties performed a duet in very nice harmony.

The song they chose was "Society" by Eddie Vedder. The lyrics challenge materialism and greed and excess competitiveness.

CBS Evening News picked up on this story and broadcast it to the nation in their "On The Road" segment. CBS reported there wasn't enough tissue to go around in that library for the teary-eyed audience when the candidates did their performace.

That's because politics is getting worse and worse. Lord knows it's all noise and bitterness and attack ads and hate and vitriol. Rogers and Mayo gave us, and the nation a needed political salve, a needed other way.

I don't live in Lamoille County, so I can't vote for either one of them. I'm not sure which one has political opinions most closely match my own. But whoever wins, Vermont will be well-served.

Or, as CBS said, the election has already been decided. It was a landslide victory for civility.

Here's the video of the CBS report:

Sadly, Arizona Republic Learns That Any Opinion Warrants Death Threats

In the current sad state of affairs, the staff at the Arizona
Republic newspaper has been getting numerous death
threats for endorsing Hillary Clinton. The paper's
editorial on it reaction to the threats is a must-read

An editorial in the Arizona Republic newspaper is going viral for a very sad reason.

Another editorial several days earlier in the traditionally conservative newspaper in the conservative state of Arizona endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.  

Until now, the paper has always endorsed the Republican candidate, but the Arizona Republic's editorial board couldn't stomach Donald Trump.

Sure, some conservative readers of the Arizona Republic got mad at the Clinton endorsement, complained loudly about it, even canceled subscriptions.

All that is fair.

But a number of people -not just a few - lobbed very gross death threats against the people who work at the Arizona Republic, thereby continuing a strange, awful new tradition in America:  Threaten to kill anyone who doesn't share your worldview.

In this past Sunday's editorial, Editor Mi-Ai Parrish listed the threats the Arizona Republic received for the "high crime" of endorsing a Democratic presidential nominee for the first time in 125 years.

Among them:

"You're dead. Watch your back."

"We will burn you down."

"You should be put in front of a firing squad as a traitor."

I know, it's just a bunch of yahoos who make these kind of threats. Still, it's a sensitive subject, especially at the Arizona Republic.

Back in 1976, a car bomb killed Arizona Republic investigative reporter Don Bolles  because somebody was pissed off that he was looking into a crooked land deal.

You have to take death threats seriously.  

A 1976 car bombing killed an Arizona Republic
investigative reporter who was looking into a shady land deal.

Still, you absolutely have to read the Arizona Republic editorial on the death threats, if you haven't already.

The editorial has gone viral as a master class for all of us on First Amendment rights, civics, civility, and the need for a free press. And it's a tribute to all the good employees at the Arizona Republic.

The Arizona Republic is still a conservative paper. I'm an East Coast liberal. I bet I could find a ton of Arizona Republic editorials that annoy me, that I disagree with, that I think are dumb.

That's fine. But how does one make the leap from being annoyed at something you read to want to kill the person who wrote it, and all the people who work in the building with that author?

Something is wrong in this country, and it's not the editorial page at the Arizona Republic.

Slowly, People Come to Terms with Gay Marriage.

I've seen lately too great examples of how the country is coming to terms with gay marriage.

It'll still be controversial for awhile and many people and organizations are clearly still trying to figure out how to place it within the normal fabric of life. They have to, because that's where it seems to be headed.

The front page of the Laurel Call-Leader
in Mississippi that caused such a controversy

The process comes in fits and starts, especially in conservative parts of the country. What happened recently in Mississippi is really interesting.

In the heart of conservative Mississippi, a local paper, the Laurel Leader-Call carried a front page story recently about a same sex couple getting married there.

Yes, I know gay marriage is not legal there, but it was a commitment ceremony, basically a marriage. One of the two women has a brain tumor, the couple worried time was short so they decided to go for it.

The paper did an article on the event because it was the first time such a thing had happened around Laurel.  They used the word "historic" in the headline, because nothing like it had every happened before in Laurel.

This being a particulary conservative part of the country, many Leader-Call readers were up in arms about the article.

The paper's editor, Jim Cegielski, was fed up with some of the reaction, and wrote one of the best editorials, at least in terms of journalistic integrity, that I've seen in awhile.

(In the above link, it's a bit complicated to get to the actual excellent editorial. Go up to where it says "Page 1, scroll down to "Page 4/5" then click on the editorial you see on the upper right. That's what you want to read.)

In it, he attacked the vitriol of some of the critics. The great thing about the editorial is it was an ode to free expression, and he kept his opinion of gay marriage out of it. Read the editorial and you still will have no idea what Cegielski's opinion of gay marriage is.

What he did attack was some strange thinking going on among people who criticized the article.
One line of attack was that the paper called the marriage "Historic."

And as Cegielski pointed out, it was historic, since it was the first time it happened in Laurel, as I've noted.

The most delicious part of Cegielski's editorial was when he slammed people who worried about children who would see the gay marriage article.

"We have stories about child molesters, murders and all kinds of vicious, barbaric acts of evil committed by heinous criminals on our front page and yet we never receive a call from anyone saying 'I don't need my children reading this.' Never. Ever. However, a story about two women exchanging marriage vows and we get swamped with people worried about their children."

According to media blogger Jim Romenesko, the Laurel Leader Call is now in the happy throes of a backlash against the backlash about the gay marriage story.

The paper is winning new subscribers, mostly from outside Mississippi and the Laurel area. So many people are looking at the paper's web site that it crashed late last week. (It appears to be fixed now)

All because an editor was committed to his duty to inform, no matter if his readership liked the news or not. Well played, Mr. Cegielski.


Another Case Ends Well.

There was another gay marriage incident in the media recently that ended both well and fairly for all involved.  It worked out that way because people thought with their brains and heart, and not with mindless hate and bias.

As BuzzFeed explained it, photographer Anne Almasy decided to try advertising in Wedding Unveiled magazine. She didn't want to submit a standard issue groom in tux, plastic smiling blonde bride in white photo for the ad.

Instead, she used a photo of two women marrying each other. The photo is striking, and helps show off Almasy's artistry, which of course is the point of advertising in a publication like Wedding Unveiled. You want to show off your strengths in your advertising.

Said Almasy:

The photographer's advertisement that was rejected,
then accepted by Wedding Unveiled.

"..... I wanted to publish a photo that says something about me as a photographer, about my philosophy, about my heart for photographing these momentous (and often wonderfully ridiculous) celebrations.. I chose this picture because, to me, it says love. It says home. It says joy."

The magazine's editors politely declined the ad, saying they feared peple weren't ready yet for same sex wedding photography.   

Dismayed, Almasy wrote back, in an open letter:

"I don't shoot gay weddings or straight weddings, Christian weddings or Jewish weddings, good weddings or bad weddings. I photograph PEOPLE on their wedding day.

...

Are there people who might have been offended or put off by this ad? I'm sure there are. But this ad wasn't for them. This ad was for people who love black and white photography; this ad was for people who love a portrait taken in a warehouse stacked with bags of coffee beans; this ad was for people who love big puffy dresses; this ad was for people who love love.

My heart breaks because you could not see that this couple's wedding portrait is every bit as beautiful and valuable as any other couple's.

My heart breaks because you could not see beyond your fear, and into the warmer, brighter future that WE are responsible for building.

Someone has to be first.

Someone has to forge ahead.

Someone has to march.

Someone has to refuse to move to the back of the bus."

There was a fair amount of hue and cry over the editorial decision not to run the ad. Then Wedding Unveiled editors Terry Ireland and Brooke Thomas thought about it some more, in light of the criticism and questions they got.

They wrote on the magazine's blog:

We hope that you will allow us the opportunity to address an important issue that has angered and disappointed many people. We are incredibly sad that same sex marriage is still an issue in our society. When we were faced with the decision of whether or not to publish Anne Almasy's advertisement, we acted in a manner that does not reflect our personal beliefs. We truly believe that all love is beautiful and that all people have the right to marry.

You might ask that if we feel that way, then why did we make this decision? Honestly, we knew that everyone would not share our belief that all people have the right to marry. The issue is very sensitive and it is also very divided. We knew that it was possible that people would be offended if we published the ad and we knew that it was possible that people would be offended if we did not. We are so sorry that we acted out of fear and uncertainty. We had never been faced with such a decision and we should have acted with our hearts.

We are two women who operate a small business that we care deeply about. We love all weddings. We love all people and would never want to anger, offend or disappoint anyone. We are deeply moved by the outpouring of love and support for Anne. We are so sorry that we have disappointed you and we ask for your forgiveness. If Anne would still like to run her ad in Weddings Unveiled, then we would be proud to publish it.

Almasy quickly forgave the editors, congratulated them on their change of heart and submitted her advertisement.  She said:

"I cannot tell you how completely stunned, humbled and honored I am that you took teh time to truly read my letter and chose to side with your hearts. I couldn't have imagined a better outcome......I will gladly stand with you in this fight for equality, and would be thrilled to move forward with this ad in Weddings Unveiled.

All's well that ends well, at least in this case.