Well, well. Press release posted on Vermont Digger: “Vermonters for Health Care Freedom Announces Wennberg as Executive Director.”

Wennberg is a former Vermont Commissioner of Environmental Conservation [under Jim Douglas], a former Rutland City Mayor, and a public policy consultant. Wennberg assumes the responsibilities of VHCF from founder Darcie Johnston on March 1, 2012. Johnston is leaving the organization to focus on her consulting business.

Seems rather sudden. Why, just the other day, she was hosting an “informational session” in the NEK under the flag of convenience “Vermonters for Health Care Reform.”

My guess? She’s been a longtime advisor/consultant to Sen. Randy Brock, the putative Republican gubernatorial candidate*. At last notice, he didn’t have a campaign manager. You do the math.

*VT GOP chair Jack Lindley said last week that “the ship has sailed” regarding other candidates, and that Brock will be the Republican challenger to Gov. Shumlin.

TJ Walker remarks on the statement by Rush Limbaugh about women who take birth control.

http://youtu.be/IUv_Laj_ukc

“Where am I?”

“You’re in The Village.”

“Who’s side are you on, and how did I get here?”

“That would be telling.”

“What do you want?

“We want Information.  In-For-Ma-Tion.  IN-FOR-MA-TION!”

“You won’t get any from me.”

“By hook or by crook, we will.”

“Who are you?”

“The new Number 2.”

“Who is Number 1?”

“You are Number 6.”

“I am not a NUMBER!  I am a FREE MAN!!”

Number 2:  “Ha-ha-Ha!  Number 6, you’re killing me.  Haven’t you ever heard of Gitmo?  The Patriot Laws?  The War On Terror?  That America is a battlefield in that War, and you are just another Prisoner?  Have you heard of Drones?  Tasers?–Here, in The Village, we prefer to use ROVER.  Have you been reading the papers, latety, Number 6?  Watching FOX News?  A Free Man?  That’s rich.  I’ll have to pass that on to Number 1.  Now, down to business, for it is business along with information, that runs the engine of the planet.  So tell me, Number 6, why did you write that Letter To The Editor, and refuse to use your Happy Meal Card at McDonald’s?  And why did you RESIGN from Citizens For A New America?”

Number 6:  “You can go to Hell!”

Number 2:  “Ah, Number 6, you’re a real hoot.  Look around you.  Talk to the people here.  Read our paper.  Others before you have been, let us say, UN-MUTUAL.  But they have found peace here, as will you, once you come to see that resistance is futile.  In the meantime, take a stroll around.  And don’t do anything UN-MUTUAL.  There are cameras everywhere.  In the trees, in the sky, in your bathroom, in your ice cubes.  Ha-Ha-HA!  A Free Man???  I love it!”

Number 6 is led away.

Number 2 to aide:  “Free Man.  Humph.  Dumber than a box of rocks!  But he’ll make a great Number 1 in 2017.  You know, Number 18, I think our current Number 1 can use this Freedom message.  Why, we can make it bigger than Hope and Change.  Yes.  Excellent plan.”

Number 18:  “Well, as for freedom and all that, sir, I must report that Number 99 has been stirring up the older residents again.  She’s in the clinic now under guard.”

Number 2:  “Hmmm.  I had such hopes for her.  Especially after Michele tanked-out.  Ah well, nothing left for her now but Degree Absolute.  Get the chambers ready, Number 18.”

Number 18:  “Yes sir.  Will you require any assistance besides your manservant?  Number 99 has quite a violent streak.”

Number 2:  “Humph.  She’s only a woman.  Have you ever known anyone to have not been broken by Degree Absolute?  Perhaps I’ll start out with this Free Man/Free Woman baloney.  Ha-ha-HA!  Yes, I love a good Degree Absolute on a morning’s rainy day.  Ha-ha!  Harh!!”

(And that, kiddies, is how Number 99 went to the White House in 2017.  And how she saved the United States from Degree Absolute.  Have a nice day.)

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.  

So, Andrew Breitbart, right-wing blogger, provocateur, professional Angry Man, and patron of the execrable James O’Keefe, has died at the age of 43. He left a wife and four children, who I’m sure are in a state of shock and grief.

And he left a thoroughly detestable public legacy. He was a bully. He played a major role in the coarsening of political debate, and helped push the Republican Party further and further to the right. He fundamentally perverted the concept of “journalism,” using it as a partisan cudgel with absolutely no regard for the truth. He provided a high-profile platform and backing for a variety of snakes and weasels, most notably James O’Keefe. He killed a fine organization in ACORN and soiled the reputation of Shirley Sherrod, among many others.

I can’t say this about many people, but America’s public life will absolutely be better off without Andrew Breitbart. He joins the ranks of the Thankfully Dead, alongside Father Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Lee Atwater.

If you’d like to read a more measured Breitbart remembrance from a lefty, see Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. He’s a bigger man than I. Or maybe it’s that he knew Breitbart personally, so he has a different perspective. Me, I only knew the public figure, and that’s what I can evaluate. Speaking of him purely as a public figure, I’m glad he’s gone.  

by Dan DeWalt

In a sort of surreal thrill ride of an opinion piece circulated recently, executive director of the Brattleboro Development Credit Corporation Jeffrey Lewis,  led us on an historically charged adventure in search of violence, war, economic decay and culminating in a public relations nightmare. What’s puzzling is why he tried use Entergy Nuclear’s  litigation against the state of Vermont as his example.

First, he dismisses the Attorney General’s legal arguments in the face of “a well reasoned decision” by Judge Murtha without offering any evidence. How reasoned is Murtha’s embrace of Entergy’s argument based on proactive clairvoyance, when it flies in the face of a Supreme Court ruling penned by Samuel Alito that instructs the lower courts to consider the text of the laws, rather than some notion of legislative intent?  Why did Murtha not seem to take into account the testimony of Entergy’s own management, saying that the legislature voted no because they couldn’t trust Entergy not to lie to them not because of radioactivity safety concerns.

From the hands of the good judge we then slide into the world of Clarl von Clausewitz’s 19th century military strategy. Seeing no Henry Kissinger on the horizon to perform some miraculous last minute diplomacy, Mr. Lewis despairs for the lost chance and concludes that violence is the inevitable next step.          

‘” “War” wrote Clausewitz, “is an act of violence to compel

  our opponents to fulfill our will.” Exactly.”‘

Exactly? Suddenly, the state of Vermont’s efforts to defend itself from litigation, as well as its normal process of crafting and passing legislation are re-defined as acts of violence? This logic would have to extend to citizen actions, so that puts us on a par with terrorists in his eyes. The only trouble is that among the myriad groups and individuals from across the entire region who are putting their energies into the defense from Entergy, with all of their diverse and even divergent ideas about how best to meet their common goal, the one message that has been universally embraced is that of non-violence. That would be the opposite of violence. It means that no matter how outraged we may be at the hubris and arrogance of a Louisiana company’s actions, we will not allow that outrage to color our actions when we speak out against them. If people are arrested at Entergy’s corporate headquarters, they will do so by stepping over some boundary. That step will be taken with respect for the law officers who are present, and with respect for any one else who is there, including VY employees. If we are looking for violence, we’d find it more quickly by looking at Entergy’s record of walking away from an entire region when  damage repair from hurrican Katrina proved to be too expensive to their profit margin. The people who were stranded and abandoned without power in the aftermath of a giant storm felt the collateral damage, but Entergy couldn’t have cared less.

Instead Lewis cites  “policy consistency” as his first example of collateral damage.  Most would refer to this as an election result. In this case, the Douglas administration, which had served as an Entergy cheerleader, was replaced by a Shumlin administration that has been consistently clear about where it would stand on the VY question. The  state government has never been anti-nuclear power or anti-business. What they are is anti-bad-business. Our governor and representatives know a snake oil salesman when they see one and they know that a healthy business climate depends upon a healthy business community. Entergy is a runny nosed germ-fest in Vermont’s business community. Even Entergy’s peers in the nuclear industry have complained about how Entergy is giving them a bad name with its lax practices. Vermont is interested in promoting businesses that will not lie, pollute or put peoples’ health at risk. Knowing that Vermont cares about such things is enough to attract many businesses who recognize that quality of life is important for good employee retention. If the state’s vigilance at preventing corporate malfeasance saves us from being visited by another corporation that behaves badly, we will all the the better off for it. Our economic future lies in our citizens’ entrepreneurship and energy, not with corporations milking us for profits.

Mr. Lewis advocates diplomacy, equating Entergy and the state as two equally empowered actors. But Entergy is not an equal to our state. Entergy is a for-profit corporation that is required by law to answer only to its stockholders. The state, on the other hand, is us. It is charged with protecting our interests and reflecting the wishes of a majority of the population. Its legal and moral duty is to represent and, in this case, protect us from danger, whether it come from flood, fire, or corporate malfeasance. The state is charged with legislating and executing our laws, not to negotiate deals with bad actor corporations. In Vermont, Entergy will be in breach of contract after March 21. They knew when they bought the plant that they had to get another Certificate of Public Good after 3/21/2012. Rather than earn it, they want the judge to force the state to give it to them. The idea that we would agree to give Entergy close to 20 more years of operation in exchange for a pledge to fully fund the decommissioning fund is laughable. Entergy has already shown its willingness to lie. To trust them would be the height of folly. Besides, the NRC, not the state has jurisdiction over the decommissioning fund.

The PSB has recently asked Entergy what it intends to do with the spent fuel, since it has no permit to add more to the on-site storage after March 22. Instead of  dreaming about cooperating with Entergy to engineer a soft landing in twenty years, let’s let them concentrate on the hard work of answering the questions that remain in the domain of our regulators. Let’s not mistake Entergy for anything other than just another company trying to take advantage of a small state. Let’s stop trying to demonize legitimate state actions and citizen concerns by cavalierly calling them acts of violence. Its good for a laugh for all the wrong reasons and debases the discussion. If someone wants to root for the corporations against the people, then they should do so; trying to disguise the bias as an objective viewpoint doesn’t fool anybody.

(Late add 3/1, 12:00 noon: We’ve received a response from one of the groups mentioned in this diary. See addendum below.)

We’ve blogged at length on GMD about the Campaign for Vermont, the public-policy nonprofit that seems to be a vehicle for promoting its founder Bruce Lisman. (Who is also its sole funder, according to Andy Bromage of Seven Days. Lisman won’t divulge how much money he’s spent on CFV, which is a bit strange for someone who promotes transparency in government.)

Lisman and CFV first came to my attention through their ubiquitous radio ads on WDEV and elsewhere. Lately, another “issue ad” has been filling the airwaves: a spot urging Vermonters to reject the wireless “smart meters” that CVPS plans to start installing in the near future. The ads warn of a possible loss of privacy and potential health effects of exposure to wireless transmissions.

The group sponsoring the ads is called “Wake Up, Opt Out.” I did a little digging on the Interwebs to see what I could discover about them. I found some very curious, very interesting stuff; it raises some important questions, and makes me doubt the group’s bona fides.  

After the jump: Two organizations, two PR guys from out of state, and a dearth of financial information.  

The head of “Wake Up, Opt Out” is Jesse Mayhew, a PR/communications professional from Northampton, Massachusetts. Mayhew is co-owner of an ad agency/PR firm called Brave One. His partner in the firm is Lukas Snelling.

If that name rings a bell, it’s because Snellling is head of “Energize Vermont,” another advocacy group fighting another energy initiative in Vermont — wind power.

“Brave One” touts itself as an expert shop on “cause marketing” and corporate social responsibility (CSR for short). Its clients include businesses large and small (Capital One and Energizer are on their client list), and some nonprofit organizations.

Corporate social responsibility is a strategy of corporate self-regulation whose goal is compliance with legal and ethical standards. A three-word slogan is often invoked: “People, Planet, Profits.” Depending on how you see it or how it’s implemented, CSR could create meaningful change in a corporation — or it could be a way to whitewash a firm with a bad image and forestall tougher government regulation.

“Cause marketing” involves a cooperative effort between a for-profit business and a non-profit organization, with the aim of benefiting both. One example: a credit card company donates a small amount of money to a nonprofit for every card transaction. The charity gets some bucks, the company gets some positive PR and maybe even an uptick in card use.

In short, Mayhew and Snelling operate in what I see as a big fat ethical gray area. They may be encouraging corporations to move in positive directions, but they certainly never question a corporation’s basic purpose or business plan. Call it corporate responsibility, or call it greenwashing. Really, it could be either. Or both.

So we have two Vermont organizations opposing new energy initiatives, claiming to be gatherings of concerned Vermonters, but headed by PR guys from Massachusetts. Both groups have the same goal: raising questions about the safety and environmental consequences of renewable-energy projects, and fomenting opposition to the projects.

Mayhew has refused to answer questions about the cost of the “Wake Up, Opt Out” campaign or its funding sources. That troubles me greatly. I could not find any information about Energize Vermont’s funding.

I realize that each group has attracted some support from authentic Vermonters, and that some in the GMD community are opposed to wind or smart meters or both. I’m not making any judgments about the merits of these causes. But I do have serious questions, and serious qualms, about Mayhew and Snelling and the organizations they head.

Do they operate out of sincere environmental concern, or are they front men for astroturf organizations? Are they funded by donations from concerned citizens, or are they bankrolled by traditional energy industries like coal or oil? Or nuclear?

We don’t know. And as far as I can tell, the Massachusetts boys aren’t telling. If they are authentic public-interest groups, they should be willing to open their books.

______________

Addendum: This diary has brought a response from John Liccardi, President of Energize Vermont. He posted it in the Comments below, but I felt I should include it in the diary itself since many GMD readers skip the comments. His statement:

I’d like to thank Mr. Liccardi for responding, and apologize for mischaracterizing his organization. Haven’t heard anything yet from “Wake Up, Opt Out.”

Here’s a headline from WCAX:

Should illegal farm workers get Vt driver’s licenses?

The article summary reads:

They don’t live in Vermont legally, but illegal immigrants want the right to drive here. And several state senators support the idea. Why the idea is so controversial.

So here’s the problem with this framing: the phrase “illegal immigrants” is that it classifies the people themselves as illegal.  You can argue that they’re here illegally and you can argue that it’s against the law for them to be here, but you can’t legitimately call the people themselves illegal.  They are human beings.  They are not acts.  They are behaviors.  They are people.

And, frankly, when media outlets frame things in these terms, it feeds easily into right wing and anti-immigration arguments.  In fact, the use of the term “illegal” to refer to undocumented workers frames pretty much every argument about their presence here.  It’s shoddy and reprehensible journalism to lead your piece with such a thorough and non-objective approach to the issue.

I just got a call (around 6:45 on 2/29/2012) from “Independent Voter Research.” The poll asked five questions about the Vermont Republican primary scheduled for next Tuesday.

The call was completely automated. First, a voice said something like “This is a survey from Independent Voter Research.” There were five questions. I didn’t record the call, so this is from memory and is probably not totally accurate:

Will you be voting in the upcoming Vermont Republican presidential primary on March 6? Press 1 for yes and 2 for no.

Regardless of whether or not you’re planning to vote in the primary, which candidate do you support? In alphabetical order, the choices are press 1 for New Gingrich, press 2 for Ron Paul, press 3 for Mitt Romney, press 4 for Rick Santorum.

Which political party do you most align yourself with? Press 1 for Republican, press 2 for Democrat, Press 3 for independent.

For statistical purposes only, please indicate your gender. Press 1 for male, press 2 for female.

For statistical purposes only, please indicate your age. Press 1 for 35 and under, press 2 for 35-45, (I don’t remember all the categories).

Thank you for your time. You can reach us at 866-540-3140

Calling 866-540-3140 reached an automated voice that said “Thank you for calling Independent Voter Research. All agents are unavailable,” then a busy signal.

Googling the number found this article from Rolling Stone: Romney camp tapped volunteers for deceptive polling effort in Michigan.

Apparently the polling is connected to the Romney campaign. The call I received today presented the poll as an “Independent” poll, and there was no disclosure that it was connected to the Romney campaign.