All posts by JulieWaters

Does anyone know anything about Utopian Wireless Corporation?

June 17, 2007UncategorizedJulieWaters

There was an article in the Rutland Herald the other day which was probably ignored by everyone but me. In
Vt. probes sale of broadcast spectrum, the Herald notes that the VSC did a no-bid deal with Utopian Wireless Corporation which the state is questioning, as it appears that the licenses are worth a lot more than Utopian paid for them:

“We estimate the value of these EBS license to be in excess of $500,000,” Smith wrote. “Vermont is home to numerous wireless broadband companies that are working hard to meet our rural broadband goals. Many of these companies are desperately seeking out licensed spectrum that will ensure their company’s future. It appears that Utopian’s mission is purely speculative in nature, with hopes of selling those assets to a larger national provider. It is unlikely that a national provider would have Vermont as a priority for building a wireless broadband network.”

I tried finding out about Utopian Wireless and came up blank, except for one interesting fact: they appear all over the country in meeting minutes from local school boards which are discussing similar deals: buying wireless networks from local school districts. Web searches for Utopian yield nothing in the way about the corporation, who’s in it, no way of verifying whether any of the officials involved in these transactions have any connection to the company, etc.

I do know they’re not local to Vermont, and I think that there’s real question as to whether or not a state entity should be making choice deals with out-of-state businesses without even giving local companies a chance to bid on the deal. It could end up happening that Utopian just turns around and sells the networks to someone else for a profit, a profit that could have stayed in Vermont’s hands.

Sometimes Small Things Matter

June 15, 2007UncategorizedJulieWaters

(“Small is beautiful.”

– E.F. Schumacher – promoted by Brattlerouser)

Per the, NYT:

Loading ...

Upcoming Energy Bills

June 5, 2007UncategorizedJulieWaters

(Meke sure you view this complete diary, as the the way the bill impacts Vermont specifically is detailed after the jump – promoted by odum)

There’s a great diary over at MyDD which outlines some serious problems with an energy bill which is cosponsored by Barak Obama. The first is a bill to support liquid coal. From the diary:

We don’t know how to sequester mass quantities of carbon dioxide created during coal liquefaction yet. Even once we figure that process out–a solution that will no doubt reduce the net energy output of the coal to fuel process itself–we’ve still got a dirty fuel that increases greenhouse emissions compared to petroleum.

There’s also a draft bill up for discussion that includes a provision which will screw us, as Vermonters, over, along with a lot of other states. Per The Rutland Herald:

A dozen states, including Vermont and Massachusetts, would be blocked from imposing new requirements on automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under a draft energy bill being prepared for a vote later this month.

The “discussion draft” would prohibit the head of the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a waiver needed for a state to impose auto pollution standards if the new requirements are “designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

This is bad. The first bill has quite a few Democratic sponsors and presents a serious danger. The second is only in draft form, so it’s got a much better chance of being modified before it makes it into being an actual bill, but they’re both representative of how much work we have to do to deal with the existing archaic mentality when it comes to proper energy usage.

Why I’m Glad I Worked for Paul Hodes

June 3, 2007UncategorizedJulieWaters

(Promoted, because positive, uplifting things are few and far between around here of late. – promoted by odum)

Per Daily Kos, a speech Hodes gave yesterday:

To be a Democrat in this modern age means to inherit a fearful nation and give it new confidence and new strength. It means creating policies that transform our nation into something stronger and more compassionate than it was before. Our great opportunity is to build on the legacy of the Democratic Party, adapt it to modern times and lead with strength and clarity. To paraphrase John Fitzgerald Kennedy, we look forward and not behind. We welcome new ideas without rigid reaction. We care about people, their health, their housing, their jobs, their schools, their civil rights, and their civil liberties. And we believe that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad.

More below the fold…

It would be easy to leave this work to the presidential candidates. But I believe that we must define this new vision. The challenges we face are both global and local, but they are all interrelated. How can we address immigration without addressing our trade policies? How can we deal with fanatical extremists abroad and protect the civil rights of American citizens at home? The United States earns the respect of the world when we act on our principles instead of violating them. We spend more on defense than all the nations of the world combined, but we have not bought more security.

Nationally, the middle class, the backbone of this country, is squeezed by globalization, corporate greed rewarding a few at the very top, and soaring costs for basic needs from gas to health care.

Our real security as a nation can no longer be measured by our defense budget alone. The true test of our greatness is whether we have the capacity and the will to adapt to change and innovate at a pace which keeps up with the change thrust upon us. In 2006, we responded in New Hampshire and across the country by sweeping new leaders into office. Some are frustrated at the pace of that change. Congress is a body that thrives on incremental change. I am impatient also. I can already feel the competing pressures as a member of congress that would sap my passion if I am not vigilant.

We made a good start in 2006 by returning the voice of the people to the people’s House in both Concord and Washington. But our work has just begun. We have a great opportunity as Democrats to seize this moment and rally the nation around us. I believe Democrats bring a fundamentally different world view to the business of governing. We recognize that we live together in an interrelated world, that cherishing freedom at home means acting morally abroad. We know that to project our power in the world, our cultural diplomacy and statesmanship are at least as important as our military might. To lead the world, we must stand on moral high ground. A nation which tortures its prisoners in secret prisons cannot hold itself up as a moral and compassionate world leader. We must lead with the force of our founding principles and strive towards equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the birthright of everyone, everywhere.

So, let us continue to revitalize our Democratic Party. Let us build new partnerships and new coalitions while strengthening our traditional ones. To those on the left, stick with us as we work to resolve the war in Iraq. To Independents and Republicans of conscience, welcome aboard because we recognize the value of fiscal prudence, free markets and common sense. We know that this is no time to rest on our laurels. We have the ability to rise to meet any challenge. It is time for boldness, policies and programs as large as the issues before us. As Martin Luther King said, we must respond to the fiery urgency of now. My friends, this is our country, this is our flag, and this is our time.

Extremism in the Pursuit of Goals

May 30, 2007UncategorizedJulieWaters

In a comment thread, I posed the following question:

So here’s the hard part: how do we engage in pressure tactics on Democrats (or any majority party) without being so extreme as to make ourselves irrelevant?

There was a time when the extremist groups served a really good purpose: to make the not-so-extremist groups seem moderate. I’m wondering if we can find a way to use the extremist rhetoric of the impeachment groups to our advantage.

When I was living in Rhode Island as part of the gay rights group there, we were trying to figure out how to push the legislature to not treat us as extremists. One suggestion was that we create a genuine extremist group: a chapter of Queer Nation and present a choice to the legislature: you can interact with the raving lunatics banging at the door, or you can listen to us, the rational people who want equal rights.

It didn’t matter much that some of the people in that room having the nice, rational, discussion, were also some of the same people sometimes out there banging at the door, because that wasn’t the point. The point was that sometimes you can push the debate in a fashion which makes your point of view more moderate.

Republicans have been doing this for at least thirty years now, and they’ve done a good job of it, at least in some areas. Focus on the Family can appear more moderate in comparison to Fred Phelps.

On the left, this seems to have happened with civil unions. Thinking about how much vicious resistance there was to civil unions in Vermont at the time, it’s amazing that now civil unions are now the moderate, mainstream choice. I remember watching that unfold while watching the legislature in MA wrestle with the issue only to discover that many of the anti-marriage folks were pushing for civil unions and saying that of -course- same-sex couples deserve equal rights, but not to call it marriage.

So if we’ve got people out there being self-righteous and arrogant about impeachment, how can we use it to our advantage? How can we frame the issue in a way which is useful, as opposed to condescending and ineffective?

Incompetents Masquerading as Eagles

May 28, 2007UncategorizedJulieWaters

Crossposted from Reason and Brimstone:

The Bush administration (that may be an oxymoron) would have you believe that we’re in Iraq to damp down terrorism, that they are the soaring eagles with their watchful eye. When you get down to the details, however, it doesn’t quite work like that. Years ago, my students asked me what I thought of the invasion of Iraq, shortly after it begun. I told them that from my point of view, it was a “strategic blunder” and that it would lead to a major groundswell in support in the Mideast for terrorist causes and it would, in the long run, do us much more harm than good.

Sometimes, I really hate being right. Per The New York Times:

Militants Widen Reach as Terror Seeps Out of Iraq
[…]
The Iraq war, which for years has drawn militants from around the world, is beginning to export fighters and the tactics they have honed in the insurgency to neighboring countries and beyond, according to American, European and Middle Eastern government officials and interviews with militant leaders in Lebanon, Jordan and London.
[…]
Last week, the Lebanese Army found itself in a furious battle against a militant group, Fatah al Islam, whose ranks included as many as 50 veterans of the war in Iraq, according to General Rifi. More than 30 Lebanese soldiers were killed fighting the group at a refugee camp near Tripoli.
[…]
Militant leaders warn that the situation in Lebanon is indicative of the spread of fighters. “You have 50 fighters from Iraq in Lebanon now, but with good caution I can say there are a hundred times that many, 5,000 or higher, who are just waiting for the right moment to act,” Dr. Mohammad al-Massari, a Saudi dissident in Britain who runs the jihadist Internet forum, Tajdeed.net, said in an interview on Friday. “The flow of fighters is already going back and forth, and the fight will be everywhere until the United States is willing to cease and desist.”
[…]
In an April 17 report written for the United States government, Dennis Pluchinsky, a former senior intelligence analyst at the State Department, said battle-hardened militants from Iraq posed a greater threat to the West than extremists who trained in Afghanistan because Iraq had become a laboratory for urban guerrilla tactics.

“There are some operational parallels between the urban terrorist activity in Iraq and the urban environments in Europe and the United States,” Mr. Pluchinsky wrote. “More relevant terrorist skills are transferable from Iraq to Europe than from Afghanistan to Europe,” he went on, citing the use of safe houses, surveillance, bomb making and mortars.

A top American military official who tracks terrorism in Iraq and the surrounding region, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said: “Do I think in the future the jihad will be fueled from the battlefield of Iraq? Yes. More so than the battlefield of Afghanistan.”
[…]

Way to go! We’ve got ourselves a training ground.

The Psychology of Conservation

May 27, 2007UncategorizedJulieWaters

( – promoted by odum)

Imagine two scenarios.

In the first, your electric company charges you a premium rate for power when demand is highest – typically on a super-hot summer afternoon when air conditioners everywhere are churning out cold air.

In the second, the utility gives you a refund for not consuming electricity during those peak-demand hours.

Which one would you be more likely to accept?

This is the question being asked by Robert Letzler, as reported in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, and its a fascinating one.

What do you think would be more motivational? How do you think this sort of approach could be used to influence how we deal with the task of encouraging people to be more responsible in their consumption habits?

I ask about all of this because it’s clear that something needs to change and while people, in the abstract, seem to like the idea of conservation, we don’t seem to be motivated in the more concrete fashions. I’d like to see what people think in terms of what we can do to change things.

The photo shown, by the way, is of a long-tailed duck. It’s from earlier this week, the first time I’ve ever managed to successfully photograph one.

You can learn a lot about the effects of climate change by getting into bird watching. Every thing is happening much earlier this year (i.e., nesting and breeding) than usual and who knows what effect that’s going to have on the broader ecosystem?

Loading ...