Slight correction: The ranking was not in Money Magazine, but on the website CNNMoney.com, which is a co-operative effort of CNN, Money Magazine, and Fortune Magazine. I’ve changed the references.

Following up on BP’s earlier post “Lisman’s hour between doom and gloom,” here’s some more good news for Vermont – -and bad news for Bruce, I guess.

CNNMoney.com has just posted a list of the ten most entrepreneurial states, as measured by the number of business startups (per capita) in 2011. And little old Vermont is #8.

Yes, Vermont, sworn Socialist enemy of business, quasher of the entrepreneurial spirit, smothered of enterprise through a deadly combination of Big Brother regulation and confiscatory taxation. Vermont, home of unwashed hippies, spoiled trust-fund kids, and lazy do-nothings sucking on the public teat. That Vermont is one of the most entrepreneurial states in the country.

Well, what do you know. Vermont’s on a list that includes low-tax havens like Texas, Florida, Alaska and Idaho. So tell me, CNNMoney, what makes Vermont so startup-friendly?

Smaller biotech, bioscience, environmental engineering and other tech companies are drawn to Vermont’s vibrant venture capital network and state funding for startups.

…Many innovative firms get their start in incubators based at the state’s top-notch schools, like the University of Vermont’s Fletcher Allen Medical School. Such academic powerhouses also help produce a highly skilled workforce for entrepreneurs to hire.

The list does cite Vermont’s high tax rates as a downside. But somehow, the state’s doing very well in spite of those taxes. Hmm, in fact, Vermont’s high ranking might lead me to believe that taxes aren’t the only, or even the most important, factor in making a state business-friendly. Properly-spent taxes contribute to a positive business climate through higher education, worker training, social stability, and adequate infrastructure.

(I’d take it even further and argue that single-payer health care would be an absolute boon to startups. One of their biggest concerns is health-care coverage for themselves and their employees. If you took that burden away, even at the cost of somewhat higher taxes, I believe it would be a net positive for startups and small businesses.)

Still, I have to admit I’m a bit surprised to see Vermont in the top ten. But the ranking got some affirmation from a Vermonter in the know: Cairn Cross, co-founder and managing director of FreshTracks Capital, a Vermont-based venture capital firm. “This is not a surprise to me since I spend my hours on the ground working with Vermont’s startup community,” he told me. “Anecdotally, I would say this is one of the best times ever to start a business in Vermont, and Vermonters are indeed starting businesses at a greater rate per capita than their peers across the country.”

Which is not to say that we don’t have our issues and our struggles. But here’s another reason for optimism. And for belief in the virtues of the Vermont way.

The complete CNNMoney list, from 1 to 10: Arizona, Texas, California, Colorado, Alaska, Missouri, Nevada, Vermont, Idaho, and Florida.

Like many women from my generation, I have often wondered what happened to the imprint of radical feminism that was left on American political culture as ‘sixties activism evolved into pragmatic action in the ‘seventies .

In this election cycle, Republicans seem determined to roll back the clock on women’s rights, and it appears that the outrageous scope of their overreach may have reignited the timbers that have smoldered quietly for so many years.  

The appearance of those gutsy “Nuns on the Bus” takes me back to some of the good Sisters of Charity at Immaculata  high school in Chicago.

It was these ladies who first radicalized me in my teenage years.  Not all of them, by any means; but a few key role-models carried views on social responsibility, pacifism, fairness, feminism…and even activism… that kept them on the cusp of contemporary relevance.

We were encouraged to think for ourselves and demand answers to tough questions. Post Vatican II, there seemed to be a renewed commitment throughout much of the American Church to charity, tolerance and enlightenment, rolling back hundreds and hundreds of years of intolerance and repression.  

Like “radical” feminism, that age of enlightenment in the Church was all too brief; and at the death of John XXIII, conservative forces within the Church quickly whipped it into an about-face, from which it has been marching steadily backwards ever since.

Immaculata is long gone, now.  Ironically, the limited success of feminism in popular culture was probably responsible for its demise.  The idea that girls and boys had different, and therefore separate, educational needs in high school fell from favor; and the overall decline of the Catholic Church under strict conservative control sealed the deal.

The Vatican is understandably chaffing as the American sisterhood once again takes up the reigns of social justice.  With its priesthood under fire for the most offensive possible systemic corruption, Vatican strategists can ill-afford to force a schism among the sisterhoods; but if this new sense of social mission and organized strength begins to expand in the sisterhoods, we could be looking at a dramatic shift in the political weight of the Church.

From where I sit, very much on the outside looking in;  I say, “Bring it on, Baby!”

 Here are two different outlooks on Vermont’s economic state from two groups that are normally of the same tribe. In the Campaign for Vermont’s June Email newsletter (find full copy after the jump) Bruce Lisman is going full heavy on the gloom.

SNAPSHOT VERMONT: “…an uneasy feeling hangs in the air”.

Lisman continues

“the sense of abundant opportunities has gone away and optimism is waning. Too many Vermonters are just getting by and private sector employers, who create jobs that fuel state government with taxes, are cautious.

This contrasts with the qualified, but noticeably more upbeat assessment found in the Vermont Business Roundtable’s CEO Economic Outlook Survey. After laying out some routine qualifiers the Roundtable chairman says

“The Roundtable’s survey results indicate an increasing degree of optimism in the economy when compared against the previous quarter,”

Key findings from the second quarter of 2012 over the first quarter of 2012 include:

An expected seven percent increase in stable company sales;

An expected six percent increase in stable capital spending; and finally;

An expected five percent increase in stable employment levels.

Vermont Business CEO’s see stable sales, an increase in capital spending and five percent increase in stable employment levels yet Lisman and the Campaign for Vermont are full of foreboding; their sense optimism is waning and an uneasy feeling hangs in the air they say.

What’s up with Bruce, what could the problem be?  

Well since he was an investment banker maybe a little wild speculation is appropriate.

I was told about neuroscientist John Coates’ study of testosterone and other hormone levels of trading floor bankers The Hour Between Dog and Wolf. Haven’t read the book but his findings apparently suggest that spikes in hormone levels affect behavior in ways that make the financial boom and bust crisis cycle almost unavoidable. Post crisis says Coates the financial industry becomes filled with anxiety and a sense of imminent danger, a "clinical population" of the psychologically battered.

Maybe post Wall Street crash Bruce Lisman needs to tune-up his hormone level. Aw, better keep it simple and assume Lisman’s Campaign just wants to sound like a little Mitt Romney or Randy Brock.    

                                             June 19 2012

JOIN US!  SNAPSHOT VERMONT: Despite the fact that most Vermonters are working, an uneasy feeling hangs in the air that hard work equates to barely keeping ones head above water. The sense of abundant opportunities has gone away and optimism is waning. Too many Vermonters are just getting by and private sector employers, who create jobs that fuel state government with taxes, are cautious.                                                                                              Vermont's population and their real personal income per capita have been flat lined, with both growing at less than .03 of one percent annually over the past decade. For Vermont businesses, this means that the number of customers and the dollars they can spend is essentially stagnant, or declining.(http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000lk.html)                                                                                       Despite the current state of our economy, since the start of the recession in 2008, and exclusive of federal funds, the state budget has grown by $390 million or 13.7%. This doesn't even take into consideration embarking on a new health care scheme with costs that are still unknown, and stands in stark contrast to the income stagnation over this same period experienced by Vermonters.

(http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/appropriations/fy_2012_-_FY12_Total_Appropriations_Comparison.pdf)(http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/appropriations/fy_2013/FY09 – FY13_Appropriations_History _final.pdf (page 31))                                                                                                                                                   WE CAN DO BETTER YOU CAN HELP  GET INVOLVED WITH CFV                                              Contact us at:info@campaignforvermont.org  Campaign for Vermont is putting progress before partisanship and uniting Vermonters.

Visiting JD Ryan’s five before chaos is always fun, especially to see how deftly he handles right wing trolls.  But JD is not just a keyboard commando; he has been involved with urban exploration for years now.  The photos he brings back from his field trips to abandoned buildings are quite haunting. In this interview, JD brings historical depth and humor to the work.

Initially, JD’s forays into urban exploration involved psychiatric hospitals. In 2010, he visited King’s Park Psychiatric Center, the Kirkbride, and the Cheney and Snow buildings at Hudson River State Hospital. These massive institutions represent an era when segregation of people with mental health trouble was the norm.

This spring JD travelled to the Catskills to visit the borcht belt, a series of resorts in New York. Though these buildings served a much cheerier purpose, JD’s photos capture the heaviness of times past.

So visit five before chaos for the politics, stay for the urban exploration, godlessness, and films of questionable quality. oh yeah, and the music. Here is a piece he wrote combined with asylum photos. The result is morosely beautiful.

How dare those gutter-dwelling Democrats, resorting to “personal attacks” in a news release criticizing Randy Brock and his special guest, Maine’s Tea Party Governor Paul LePage.

I put “personal attacks” in quotes, because the accusation comes from the VTGOP, and it’s nonsense.

LePage won the Maine governorship narrowly in a three-way race with less than 40% of the vote. Since then, he’s taken a hard-right course, including the passage of insurance-industry-friendly “health care reform.” He’ll be headlining a Brock fundraiser later this week.

The Dems called the LePage invite a sign of Brock’s “allegiance to a radically conservative Republican agenda.” VDP chair Jake Perkinson added:

If Vermonters want a taste of what Randy Brock would do as governor, they should look toMaine, where Governor LePage is overseeing a massive effort to cut essential public services, eviscerate collective bargaining, and make affordable health care even farther out of reach for Mainers.

Perkinson had a solid basis for his words, since LePage is, in fact, a hard-right conservative. And there is, in fact, a solid Brock/LePage connection; Brock is consulting on health-care issues with Tarren Bragdon, the baby-faced ideologue who masterminded LePage’s health care plan.

After the jump: Sombody call an amberlamps! We got us an outbreak of BKS!

But the Dems’ release prompted a sudden onset of Bunched Knicker Syndrome at the top of the VTGOP, with Brock calling it “one of a series of nasty personal attacks coming out of the Vermont Democratic Party,” and VTGOP chair Jack Lindley really going over the top, railing at “the flamethrowers at the Vermont Democratic Party” and “the name callers who dwell in the bowels of the Vermont Democratic Party.”

Let me explain something to Randy and Jack. (I use their first names because they’re acting like children.) The Democrats’ attack was against LePage’s politics, and by extension Randy Brock’s. It was not, in fact, personal at all*.

Your attack on the Dems, on the other hand, was very personal and had nothing to do with policy or politics. “The bowels of the VDP,” indeed. You, good sirs, need to take a look in the mirror before you get out your flamethrowers again.

*Just for contrast, here’s a good example of a personal attack. The story goes that when Lyndon Johnson was running for Congress early in his career, he wanted to spread a rumor that his opponent enjoyed carnal knowledge with pigs. His campaign manager objected, “Lyndon, you know that’s not true!” Johnson replied, “I know, but let’s make the son-of-a-bitch deny it.”

Now there, Randy and Jack, is a personal attack. For your homework, compare and contrast with Jake Perkinson’s issue-focused news release.

The Senate today rejected an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to let states require clear labels on any food or beverage containing genetically engineered ingredients.

The vote on the amendment to the farm bill was 26 to 73.

“This is the very first time a bill on labeling genetically engineered food has been brought before the Senate. It was opposed by virtually every major food corporation in the country. While we wish we could have gotten more votes, this is a good step forward and something we are going to continue to work on. The people of Vermont and the people of America have a right to know what’s in the food that they eat.”

In the past year, 36 bills dealing with the labeling of genetically engineered foods have been introduced in Vermont, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia.

The Vermont Legislature considered a bill that would have required labels on genetically engineered food products. Despite House Agriculture Committee support, however, the measure was stymied after the chemical giant Monsanto threatened to sue the state.

Read the complete text of the update here.

______________________________________________________________________________

In 49 countries around the world, including all of Europe, people have the opportunity of knowing whether or not they are eating food which contains genetically engineered ingredients. In the United States, we don’t.  That is why I have introduced, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer, an amendment to the agriculture bill which will give states the right to require labels on good products which are genetically engineered.

All over this country people are becoming more conscious about the foods they eat and serve their kids.  When a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her family.  

Poll after poll during the past decade showed that nine out of 10 Americans agree that food with genetically engineered ingredients should say so on the label.

Almost 1 million Californians signed a petition to get labeling of genetically engineered food on this November’s ballot.  They want the right to know what is in their foods.  

Vermont state legislators this year tried to pass a bill that would have required foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients to disclose that information on the label. There was a huge public response.  The Vermont House Agriculture Committee heard from 111 witnesses in favor of the bill. Hundreds more showed up at the Statehouse to show their support.

Of course, there are those who disagree. Monsanto, one of the world’s leading producers of genetically engineered foods, doesn’t like the idea.  It is also the world’s largest producer of the herbicide Roundup as well as so-called “Roundup-ready” seeds that have been genetically engineered to resist the pesticide.  So, once it seemed like the bill was headed for passage, Monsanto threatened to sue.  The strong-arm tactic worked. Despite passing out of the House Agriculture Committee by a vote of 9 to 1, the bill went nowhere.

This week in The United States Senate we have an opportunity to affirm the right of California and Vermont and all states to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients.  Simply put, this amendment gives people the right to know.  It says that a state, if its Legislature so chooses, may require that any food or beverage containing a genetically engineered ingredient offered for sale in that state have a label that says so.

The amendment also requires that the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and secretary of U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

There are strong precedents for labeling. The FDA already requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes. If you want to know if your food contains gluten, aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, trans-fats or MSG, you simply read the ingredients listed on the label.  The FDA also requires labeling for major food allergens such as peanuts, wheat, shellfish and others.  

Unlike people in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, Russia, New Zealand and other countries where labels are required, Americans don’t know if the food they eat has been genetically altered.  

There was concern among scientists at the FDA in the 1990s that genetically engineered foods could have new and different risks such as hidden allergens, increased plant-toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease. Those concerns were largely brushed aside. Today, unanswered questions remain. In the United States, resolutions calling for labeling of genetically engineered foods were passed by the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association.  In Canada, a landmark independent study by Canadian doctors published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology found that toxin from soil bacterium engineered into corn to kill pests was present in the bloodstream of 93 percent of pregnant women. There is a great need for additional research because there have never been mandatory human clinical trials of genetically engineered crops, no tests for carcinogenicity or harm to fetuses, no long-term testing for human health risks, no requirement for long-term testing on animals, and only limited allergy testing. What this means is that, for all intents and purposes, the long-term health study of genetically engineered food is being done on all of the American people.

The Consumers Right to Know about Genetically Engineered Food Amendment is about allowing states to honor the wishes of their residents and allowing consumers to know what they’re eating.  Americans want this information.  It is time that Congress affirms the right of states to give it to them.  

(Here’s a topical piece of video satire that deserves a spot on our front page. – promoted by Sue Prent)

What appears to be a video Skype call between Board of Directors members of Lockheed Martin has recently surfaced on the internet. This leak adds some valuable context and insight as to Lockheed’s motives in trying to bed-down their F-35’s at Burlington International Airport. As of this writing, no official explanation for the leak has been offered thus far from Lockheed representatives.

Hey there, alternative energy fans — here’s the news you’ve been waiting for. A Canadian pipeline company may be looking to transport oil from the Alberta tar sands across northern New England from Montreal to Portland, Maine.

The plan from Enbridge, Inc. would retrofit existing pipelines to provide an eastern conduit to overseas markets. Which shows you what a powerful economic force the Alberta tar sands have become: they’re looking far and wide for ways to get the oil out of Canada.

This idea has been out there for a while, according to NH newspaper Foster’s Daily Democrat:

One of Canada’s largest pipeline operators, Enbridge, Inc., developed a plan in 2008 to reverse one of its existing lines to begin moving tar sands oil east from Western Canada, where the industry is set to boom.



Enbridge’s Line 9, which starts in the western part of the country, would be capable of delivering tar sands oil to Montreal if the company reversed the flow of the entire line.



…To move the tar sands oil on the final leg of the journey from Montreal to Maine, the company proposed utilizing the existing Portland-Montreal Pipe Line.

The plan was shelved when the economy hit the skids, but environmental groups say there are signs that Enbridge is on the move once again. (They’re holding a news conference this morning in Montpelier to showcase the issue.) Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Varey says the project remains sidelined, but that might change in the future:

“It’s one of those things where, if the market demand is there, there is the possibility that we would be bringing Canadian oil to those markets,” in the Northeast, she said.

After the jump: the ugly realities of tar sands oil… and a map of the PMPL.  

The National Wildlife Federation outlines some of the potential risks of tar sands oil in the PMPL.

The plan would have exposed American treasures to the risks of a tar sands oil spill. These include Sebago Lake, which supplies Portland, Maine with its drinking water; the Connecticut River, New England’s largest; the Misissiquoi River, historically valuable to tribes and tributary of Lake Champlain; and other critical resources.

If you’d like a sample of the potential damage from a tar sands oil spill, just Google “Enbridge” and “Kalamazoo River.” Back in 2010, an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in southwestern Michigan, sending 1.2 million gallons of oil into the river and one of its tributaries. Cleanup efforts were extensive, expensive, and only somewhat successful. FWIW, the Michigan Department of Community Health has concluded that there’s no long-term health risk to area residents and no sign of contamination in nearby wells. (Of course, Michigan’s government is headed by notoriously pro-business Governor Rick Snyder, so draw your own conclusions.)

Take particular note of a whistleblower in the Kalamazoo River cleanup: former contractor John Bolenbaugh, who claims he was fired after he complained the cleanup wasn’t being done properly. He’s planning to sue Enbridge for wrongful termination, and has posted information and videos online that support his case.  

Tar sands oil is particularly nasty stuff. When it’s spilled into a body of water, it doesn’t float — it sinks. A report from Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute asserts that the nature of tar sands oil greatly increases the risk of leaks and spills:

There is strong evidence that tar sands pipeline spills occur more frequently than spills from pipelines carrying conventional crude oil because of the diluted bitumen’s toxic, corrosive, and heavy composition. Tar sands oil spills have the potential to be more damaging than conventional crude oil spills because they are more difficult and more costly to clean up, and because they have the potential to pose more serious health risks.

Its study of historical spill data concluded that, if the Keystone XL pipeline were built, it could generate up to 91 major spills over a 50-year period. And that would be a new pipeline, built for the purpose of transporting tar sands oil. What are the additional risks of retrofitting an older pipeline?

At this point, the Enbridge plan is still on the shelf. But there’s a whole lotta dirty oil in western Canada, and economic realities dictate that it’s going to find an outlet somewhere. Might just be in our own backyard.  

*smoke but no fire reports say

Like some kind of welcome back celebration for returning spokesflack Rob Williams Vermont Yankee is running at reduced power due to a smoky electrical generator problem.

According to Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams, there was an electrical failure in one of the two motor generator sets, which controls the reactor's power by varying the flow of reactor cooling water.

Oh, and of course, nothing to see here, no danger, no problems. But it is kind of smoky in here and it could have been the same problem from last time but who knows…

"This is not related to plant safety," Williams told the Reformer. "The plant will remain online at the reduced power output until the investigation of what happened is complete and proper repairs are made."  

On Sept. 30, 2011, the plant was forced to reduce its power output after one of its recirculation pumps had an electrical problem.  

Williams said it's unclear at this time if it's the same pump or not

Something of a stunner in Sunday’s Times Argus regarding the Democratic primary for Attorney General. Well, it stunned me at least.

The thesis of the (paywall protected) front-page story, written by Peter Hirschfeld and entitled “Yankee one key to AG primary,” is that Vermont Yankee will be a big issue in the race — maybe the biggest one. That didn’t surprise me, but thesis part 2 did: that VY will be an asset for Bill Sorrell.

If I recall correctly, he lost the case and has been criticized for his courtroom strategy. But even so, Hirschfeld posits that the anti-Yankee vote may break strongly for Sorrell in August.

“Generally speaking, if there’s somebody who wants to see Vermont Yankee shut down, Bill Sorrell has really positioned himself best with those voters,” said Cheryl Hanna, a professor at Vermont Law School and expert in constitutional law.

…high-profile voices at two of the state’s leading anti-nuclear organizations – Vermont Citizens Action Network and Vermont Public Interest Research Group – seem to be signaling a preference in that community for Sorrell.

The pro-Sorrell feeling arises from two factors: (1) early statements by Donovan that seemed lukewarm, or even negative, toward the anti-Yankee legal case, and (2) loyalty to Sorrell as the man who fought Entergy in court.

Even though he lost. Seems a bit backward to me; Donovan is being downgraded for his words (which he has since amended), while Sorrell is rewarded for taking action that failed.

After the jump: a dissenting view from the anti-Yankee camp.

This feeling isn’t unanimous; Arnie and Maggie Gundersen* of Fairewinds Energy Education — prominent opponents of Entergy Nuclear — are going with Donovan.

Note: Maggie is a fellow GMD front-pager. I have not discussed this diary with her; the commentary and analysis are entirely my own.

[Arnie] Gundersen is as critical of Sorrell as he is supportive of Donovan. Gundersen said Sorrell’s refusal to secure outside counsel at the outset of the Yankee case was “absurd.”

“You’re going up against an attorney (for Entergy) being considered for the Supreme Court and you don’t get outside help?” he said. “That’s a fundamental mistake.”

Gundersen said Sorrell also bungled an investigation into whether Entergy executives lied about the existence of underground pipes at the Vernon plant.

Gundersen isn’t the only one who’s questioned Sorrell’s handling of the case. Pat Parenteau of the Vermont Law School has also said that outside counsel should have been retained for the initial trial — a step Sorrell has now taken for the appeal.

Parenteau said [Entergy attorney Kathleen] Sullivan had dominated the trial, and had gotten almost everything Entergy had sought from the judge.

“Kathleen Sullivan cleaned the deck and the state got out-lawyered,” he said. “She put on a better case.”

To my mind, the recent support for the appeal from nine states and the National Conference of State Legislatures reinforces criticism of Sorrell. The states are concerned with Judge J. Garvan Murtha’s reference to legislative debates, rather than simply evaluating the law that came out of the process.

At trial, Sullivan introduced numerous pieces of legislative debate. The fact that so many other states are getting involved says to me that Judge Murtha’s use of legislative debates was a highly unusual step, and that Sorrell may have been able to block it or counteract it more effectively.

Maybe someone in the anti-Yankee community can explain the apparent loyalty to Sorrell. To me, it seems like re-upping a general who lost a key battle. You can applaud his valor, but do you really want him in charge of the next fight?