This is entirely personal, but I thought it worth posting to explain why I haven’t been posting much at all as of late, and some of the fairly complex turns my life has taken over the Summer and Fall so far.  

I know some of you have been following my myasthenia gravis stories on KosAbility and other places so I figured I’d give you all a follow up.

To summarize my last two weeks:

To get to the tumor properly, they had to cut open my chest, which means a fairly long recovery time as it is.  

That was almost two weeks ago.  

There was a complication which meant going back in again (some food fluid was going through my thoracic duct, which is not where it should be going), which involved going back in and, in advertently, accidentally breaking one of my ribs (which at least she was able to fix internally by wrapping it and making sure it got back in place).  

Both of those operations left me with tubes, and I had to stick around in the hospital until all the tubes were ready to come out.  That happened yesterday, but I’m still in a bit of pain and will be for some time.  Currently, the broken rib is far more painful than anything else, and I know how that works since it’s happened once before.  I’m hoping that it will heal faster since she was able to set it back in place immediately, whereas last time it happened, it just healed on its own and never went properly treated.  

I cried in front of strangers yesterday, twice– first when one of the doctors told me I could get the last tubes out during the day and go home, and secondly when my surgeon checked in on me.  I hadn’t originally planned to go with her, but I am so glad I did.  I need to figure out if there’s an appropriate gift to give the person who gave you your life back.

And I mean that seriously– I am currently, and who knows if this will last, symptom free as far as the Myasthenia Gravis goes.  My eyes are wide open.  I can speak fluently (though slowly and with care ’cause of the pain) and without slurring.  I have no double vision.  

Right now, I am just in a bit of (though not as much as you would expect) pain, and taking small amounts of medication when I need it (I’ve had exactly one pain pill since I got home and that’s fine for now).  I can’t lift anything heavy– even my laptop is a problem right now, but I have a good workstation set up in the front with a comfy chair.  When I say “workstation” I mostly mean a place to watch videos, compose some music, blog, e-mail, goof off on Facebook and do a very small amount of actual work on occasion for my regular job, which I’ll be going back to in two weeks, probably 1/2 time and then full time after that.  

And I’m just kind of really in a good mood, despite the 11 days in the hospital (some of them particularly bad), despite the fact that I have very little I can accomplish right now, I think I need to be okay with just playing for a time and letting everything come back into swing.   I haven’t even blogged much because it’s been difficult, but that’s coming back again, and I’m feeling like I missed a lot on the political front, but maybe I can start catching up.

Thanks everyone for listening.  

(I have to disclose that I identify myself as a Vermont Progressive Party member and currently serve as Chair for St. Albans City.)



If Governor Shumlin’s ears were burning yesterday, it could have been because he was so often the topic of conversation at Saturday’s Progressive Party Convention in Montpelier.  

But that is not to say that he was anything like the focus of the Convention, which elected a roster of officers including Martha Abbott (who was reconfirmed as Chair), passed the revised party platform, and endorsed three significant resolutions.

The first resolution, in support of labor, represented more or less exactly the same one which Democrats failed to introduce at their State Committee meeting two weeks ago.

The second, supports restrictions on corporate funding of political campaigns, and encourages local citizens to petition for similar language to be included in the vote on Town Meeting Day.

The third, is an expression of solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.

The agenda of the Convention was shaped around those topics.  Guest speakers included Chicago-based political podcaster, Norman Goldman  and labor organizer, Steve Early.

Based on feedback he has received from around the country Mr. Goldman believes that there is growing interest in forming a national Progressive Party with Vermont’s home-grown example as the model.  He said that California may already be poised to begin the initiative.

Mr. Early asserts that, in step with Occupy Wall Street, the time is ripe for a mutually beneficial alliance between the Vermont Progressive Party and labor to promote a statewide agenda consistent with the interests of both.

Once again, it was a pleasure to join a gathering that focussed primarily on policy, with political pragmatism a decidedly secondary consideration.

UPDATE: Initial University response

11/20/2011 12:24 PM

 Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the police action on the quad on Friday,

November 18. You may have already seen the message from Chancellor Katehi

expressing her concern about this action (available via http://ucdavis.edu/). The Chancellor

has committed to form a task force composed of students, faculty and staff to review this

incident, with the expectation that a report will be provided to her within 30 days of the

formation of the task force. Your complaint to me, which I will treat as a whistleblower

complaint under the University’s Whistleblower Policy, will be reviewed through the task

force process.”

Thank you,

Wendi Delmendo

Wendi Delmendo

Chief Compliance Officer — General Campus

University of California, Davis

wjdelmendo@ucdavis.edu

You may have seen this video of brutal treatment inflicted on peaceful demonstrators by the University of California campus police.

Fortunately, there is a way to respond.

The University of California has a system to report and correct behavior that is counter to the values of the university.

Welcome to the University of California's systemwide intolerance report form.

The University of California's Principles of  Community are grounded in our mission of instruction, research and  public service. We value diversity, affirm the inherent dignity of every  person and uphold  communities of justice. We strive for a campus and a  world free of discrimination, intolerance and hate. We are equally  committed to freedom of expression, critical inquiry, civil dialogue and  mutual respect.

If you experience or observe behavior that is inconsistent with our Principles of Community, please report it.

If you know of any instances of intolerant or violent behavior on campus you might want to report it using their handy online form.

My description of what I witnessed:

On November 18, 2011, a large group of armed men menaced and attacked a group of unarmed students sitting in the Quad. The mob were carrying firearms and other lethal weapons. Without provocation the mob discharged chemical weapons at a number of unarmed students, although the students had made no threat of violence and posed no danger to any person.

The bias involved was apparently the desire of the armed mob to suppress unpopular political opinions on campus.

The university promises me that they will investigate my report and get right back to me:

Thank  you for reporting your concern. The  information you provided will be treated  with sensitivity and addressed  as appropriate. If you provided your contact  information, we may  contact you directly. If not, please check back on your  report in 2  weeks to see if we have any questions or follow-up information for  you.

Your Report Key: 2577753955

 If you are aware of any incidents of bias, intolerance, or violence on one of the campuses of the University of California perhaps you would like to let the university know about it. After all, if they aren't aware of the problem they can't fix it, right? 

So, yes, Governor Peter Shumlin got awarded a greenest governor title from some group called “Opportunity Green” (boy we are running out of names, aren’t we?). And yes, that is going to generate controversy, particularly given the acrimony over the wind development projects he supports.

But I’d still argue that he deserves the award. Sure, that’s in part due to the fact that it’s a relative award (if not Shumlin for greenest gov at this point in time, then who, pray tell?).

But it’s more than that. His energy plan is solid, if not revolutionary. On the other hand, there are not-insignificant worries. Development interests with political ties put onto land use commissions. Highly worrisome comments about rivers.

And then there’s the wind debate – but whichever side you fall on that issue, the fact that we’re having it at all could be seen as further justification for giving Shumlin such an award.

Consider: There is a clear method and trajectory to Shumlin’s energy approach – and part of that method is velocity. His close association with Green Mountain Power could be seen as corporate/political croneyism, sure – but it’s equally valid to look at it as a means to an end. After all, if part of his envisioned means is (as it seems to be), moving in some key transformational ways at top speed, he could see GMP as his vehicle for change. That doesn’t preclude GMP from seeing Shumlin as a means to power and influence, but it could be that there’s a synergy in play here – for good or ill – rather than garden-variety croneyism.

But we should remember that for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and part of the Shumlin approach is clearly to sprint towards an energy portfolio that includes large-scale wind in a significant capacity. That’s generating the most contention right now, but it’s clearly contention within the sphere of pro-active environmental policy-making. What we’re arguing about is what approach is more-better green as policy; what path gets us to more energy sustainability faster, and whether one method or another may do more harm than good, in the bigger picture.

So yeah. Give him the award. He’s doing something pro-active (whether you believe it’s misguided or not) and nobody else in his position is. And he’s certainly got us talking, debating – and organizing.

For The Rich, Right & Repulsive:

   OCCUPY ME

(A CEO’s Lub Poem)

Occupy me babie

You are the only one

I swear

Though I have in the past

Occupied others

It was only

An outsourcing

Only until they had

Nothing left

While I needed

So much more

You are the one I want

Occupy me

And I will

Occupy you

Be my sweet little

Bean counter

Find for us

The treasures

My passion

Longs for

A lovebed of riches

The ecstasy

Of having

It all

Climaxed

In the eros

Of our mutual

Lust (oh god…whew…)

Our salacious greed

To touch and feel

And kiss and lick

And penetrate

Each other’s

Secret places

Til we find all

The hidden assets

Of our love

And For The WHITE Yuppie Left And The Left-Out:

We Only Want Poems From Ourselves

hey, fuck you!

we’re talking

to ourselves here

we didn’t ask

for your opinion

we have important

Revolutionary Work

to do

The People

are depending on us

you know,

all those little

poor people

and black people

and gay people

and regular dumb-shit

working people

they don’t know how

to read or write

they don’t know how

to think

so Our Work

is IMPORTANT!

please do not submit

any more criticism

after The Revolution

we will put you

in the gulag

we have to go now

because the police

asked us nicely

to evacuate our offices

seems that there’s a mob

of yahoo lowlifes outside

chanting some shit about

Occupying The Left?

you see what you’ve done?

we’re going  to report you

to our Support Group tonight

God…I need a martini……………….

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

BREAKING: This afternoon Montpelier City Manager Bill Fraser issued this press release, stating that Chief Anthony Facos has withdrawn his request for Tasers for capital city police.

I want to express my personal appreciation to the Mayor and Council, the City Manager and police chief, the Taser Study Committee, and all the concerned community members who came out to advocate for this result, and for all the work they did on this issue.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 18, 2011

William Fraser, City Manager

Yesterday morning, Chief Anthony Facos asked to withdraw his request that the Montpelier Police Department carry tasers and asked that the City Council discontinue any additional hearings or discussion on the issue.  I agree with his request and consulted with Mayor Hooper.  She also thinks that the discussion should be discontinued.

Chief Facos and I continue to believe that tasers could be an important and appropriate tool for the safety of our police officers and citizens.  The City Council has been working very hard to find a balance between concerns about the devices and concerns about officer safety.  Their sincere dilemma is indicative of the division within the community about this issue.  Despite our opinions about tasers, the Chief and I both feel that a positive and productive relationship between the Police Department and our citizens is far more important.  The International Association of Chiefs of  Police (IACP) and the Vermont Attorney General both emphasize the importance of local support in relation to successful implementation of tasers.  We wish to maintain community confidence in our fine police force.

This issue was proposed with the budget in December of 2010, nearly a full year ago.  The heated debate needs to conclude.  It is time for the business of city government and effective law enforcement to move forward without this distraction.

We appreciate the opportunity to bring this issue forward and the absolute diligence with which the Mayor, City Council Members, the Taser Committee and many citizens have engaged in this issue.   I appreciate that Chief Facos has always, and continues to, put the interests of the community first.   We look forward to continuing our work with the community to ensure that  Montpelier is a safe place for our citizens and our employees.

William J. Fraser, ICMA-CM

City Manager

City of Montpelier  

39 Main Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

( – promoted by odum)

Here is something we all can agree on: Federal deficits are a serious problem.

Here is something no one seriously disputes: Today’s big deficits were caused mainly by big tax cuts for the wealthy, two unpaid-for wars, a horrible recession caused by Wall Street greed, and an expensive prescription drug program rigged to favor pharmaceutical companies.

Here is something we should not agree to do: Cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

There is surprisingly broad consensus among Americans (except inside the corporate-dominated D.C. beltway) on what to do about deficits. In poll after poll, strong majorities favor making the wealthiest Americans, who, in many cases, have never had it so good, share the sacrifice and pay a little more in taxes. Increasing taxes on the wealthy is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and independents. A majority of Republicans and people in the Tea Party movement also support taxing millionaires to help bring down deficits. Even many millionaires say they should be paying higher taxes. At a time when many profitable corporations pay nothing in federal income taxes, there also is widespread support for closing corporate tax loopholes. Taking a hard look at mushrooming defense spending also enjoys widespread support.

For far too long, the Washington agenda has been set by powerful corporate interests and a right wing that do not represent the needs and aspirations of most Americans. For too long, the Democrats have gone along with Republican demands and caved in to these powerful special interests. The American people are frustrated and disgusted. They want Democrats to fight back.

As a Thanksgiving deadline nears for action by the powerful Super Committee on deficit reduction, I hope (but doubt) that Republicans will listen to the American people and support deficit reduction in a fair and responsible way. I hope (but doubt) that Democrats will not once again capitulate just for the sake of an agreement – but that’s been the pattern.

In December – when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House and the White House – Congress and President Obama not only extended Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy but also gave new breaks to heirs of the super-rich.

In April – with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats still in the majority in the Senate – Republicans threatened to shut down the government and delay the processing of new Social Security benefits for senior citizens unless their demands were met. Democrats went along with $78 billion in cuts from the president’s budget request.

In August, in an outrageous display of unprincipled gamesmanship, Republicans put the United States on the brink of bankruptcy. Instead of invoking clear 14th Amendment powers to honor our nation’s debts, the president and most Democrats agreed to a $2.5 trillion deficit-reduction package.

That’s how we got to where we are today.

Incredibly, throughout all of these negotiations – in December, in April, in August and again today –the wealthiest Americans and the country’s major corporations have not yet been asked to contribute one penny toward deficit reduction. That is despite huge cuts in life-and-death programs for working families.

The American people have had it. The Occupy Wall Street movement is growing. A virtual popular uprising forced Bank of America to drop an unpopular $5 monthly debit card fee. On Election Day 2011, in Ohio and many other states the American people said NO to right-wing extremism and corporate greed.

The American people are very clear. They do not want Democrats to reach another ‘grand bargain’ with representatives of the rich and powerful that eviscerates the most successful and popular social programs in the history of this country. They want Democrats to stand up for the 99 percent, not the 1 percent.

If the president and Democrats on the Super Committee go along with cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the three pillars of the New Deal and the Great Society, and permanently extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent, the American people will shake their heads in disbelief. They will arrive at the reasonably valid conclusion that there are no significant differences between the two parties controlled by corporate interests.

This is a pivotal moment in American history. The rich and large corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. Now is the time to answer the question that the Woody Guthrie song poignantly asked, “Which side are you on?” The Democrats must answer boldly that they are on the side of working families and the middle class and that they will fight to protect their interests.

What if the super committee ends in stalemate? Across-the-board, automatic cuts are set to kick in. That so-called sequestration wouldn’t start, however, until 2013. That would make 2012 one of the most important election years in modern American history.

If Democrats stand with ordinary Americans and make it clear that they are prepared to take on the wealthy and the powerful, they could win both houses of Congress. They could give Obama a fresh infusion of boldness as he enters a second term in the White House.

Somehow I recall a few years ago millions of Americans chanting, “Yes, We Can.” Now is the time to hear their voices.

Once lauded as the “Cyber Senator,” Vermont’s Senior Senator is now the sponsor of a controversial bill that would give the worst kind of sweeping and poorly defined powers to corporations and the government to choke private websites based on what these notoriously aggressive corporations deem to be even a hint of copyright infringement.

The Senate bill S.968, or the PROTECT IP Act, and the House bill H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act would not kill the web, but it would go a long way towards making it a corporate-defined marketplace rather than the free information and association zone that has so defined twenty-first century international activism and culture.

The twin bills constitute, quite simply, one of the scariest attempts to consolidate corporate power over individuals that I’ve ever seen, as well as a potential disaster for cybersecurity by inviting haphazard tampering with the internet DNS system.

This video sums up much of the problem:

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

This is the second time Leahy has tried this. Previously it was the  Combating Online Infringement and Counterfiet Acts (COICA). According to attorney James Sykes, “The most controversial provision of COICA, requiring broadband providers to block access to targeted sites, does not appear to be in the bill.  It seems the bill targets only the sites themselves, but the end result is the same, pulling the plug on websites that either sell counterfeit goods, or give free access to copyrighted materials.  This means that the government can pull the plug on sites like “wikileaks” if they provide free public access to copyrighted material.”

One wonders who among his Vermont constituency is clamoring for this action enough to warrant his herculean efforts on the matter.

The Brookings Institution says, aside from the obvious free speech and corporate power issues, the bill will “set back other efforts to secure cyberspace, both domestically and internationally.” Google is against it. Lawyers have called it a “legal nightmare.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that the bill’s clumsy language invites “risk of extreme and unintended consequences”. Lord knows regular folks aren’t interested.

Who’s left?

Currently, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) has a hold on the bill, but historically, you can only count on such a hold being respected if it’s applied by a Republican, so watch out.

A Leahy-Welch one-two punch is on the cusp of succeeding in delivering more transportation aid to Vermont in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene by removing the $100 million cap on federal emergency highway assistance, as well as allowing the state to be fully reimbursed for emergency repairs extending beyond the 180 day limit.

Sen. Leahy got the waivers, along with a $1.662 billion replenishment to the Federal Highway Administration emergency fund, included in the Transportation Appropriations Bill.

The original House bill did not include the provisions, but Rep. Welch successfully pushed to have the additions included in the conference committee report, which was just voted out of the full House on a vote of 298-121.

The Senate is expected to send the final bill to the President’s desk this evening. No doubt Governor Shumlin and the state Legislature are breathing a sigh of relief.

Rep. Welch: “This time, Vermonters are in need. Across the state, we are working together to help ourselves, but we can’t do it alone. Today’s news means Vermont will get a much-needed helping hand from the rest of the country.”

Sen. Leahy: “We want to get Irene way, way behind us, and this bill will bring that day to us sooner.  Repairing our transportation network is the key to restoring Vermont.”

Full press release from Leahy’s office after the flip.

Congress Thursday Evening Takes Final Steps

To Approve Crucial Post-Irene Emergency Transportation Aid Needed By Vermont

. . . Leahy Provisions Will Mean Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To Vermont In Road And Bridge Aid

(THURSDAY, NOV. 17) — In a vote of 298 to 121, the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday afternoon passed the final agreement on the annual Transportation Appropriations Bill, which includes provisions added by Senator Patrick Leahy to replenish the federal government’s depleted transportation emergency fund, along with the cost waivers he authored that will mean tens of millions of additional dollars for road and bridge repair aid in Vermont.  The Senate is expected to promptly take its final vote on the compromise bill to send it tonight to the President’s desk for signing.  The Senate vote is likely this evening, over the next two-to-three hours.

Leahy said, “We want to get Irene way, way behind us, and this bill will bring that day to us sooner.  Repairing our transportation network is the key to restoring Vermont.  We need these emergency funds and these cost waivers because our small state would be stretched too thin to do this alone.”

Facing stiff odds, Leahy added key transportation emergency funding waivers for Vermont in September to the bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee and then worked to secure Senate passage.  The counterpart House bill did not include the Leahy waivers, so Congressman Welch pressed House leaders to accept the Senate-passed provisions, and Leahy similarly worked with Senate conferees.  Senator Sanders also supports the Leahy waivers, and Governor Shumlin has said they are indispensable to Vermont’s recovery.  Leahy is number two on the Senate Appropriations Committee and also a senior member of its transportation subcommittee.

Here is a summary of the Leahy provisions in the final bill –

   Leahy worked to add $1.662 billion to the depleted Federal Highway Administration emergency fund, upon which Vermont will depend for help in repairing and rebuilding roads washed away or damaged by Irene-related flooding.  The emergency highway account today is almost empty.  Also vital to Vermont are several cost-waiver provisions Leahy added to the bill, which would save Vermont millions of state tax dollars by allowing Vermont to:

o    Be reimbursed for more than the current $100 million per-state limit on federal emergency highway repair funds, which is especially critical as Vermont’s repair costs are expected to exceed the current cap;

o    Be reimbursed 100 percent for emergency repairs beyond the current limit of 180 days.

   The bill also includes another high priority for Vermont: Leahy’s legislation to move heavy trucks off state secondary roads and onto the state’s Interstate highways for the next 20 years.  This will help Vermont businesses and communities struggling due to the large number of state and local roads heavily damaged during the flooding disaster.  Leahy’s Vermont provision is paired with a similar change for Maine, authored by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine).