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?  

According to the FreePress, a neighborhood near the airport might as well be in the South Bronx as in South Burlington.  

Having already suffered the indignity of being judged expendable in the name of progress and security, the fragmented community has also now been targeted for urban assault games.  

Few details seem to be available as to which law enforcement bodies are involved or who called open-season on the devastated neighborhood, other than that permission for the use appears to have been granted by Airport management.  Maybe gunfire and explosions are expected to condition local ears to receive the roar of F-35’s without a whimper.  

South Burlington Police Chief Trevor Whipple says it wasn’t his force disturbing the peace.

He said the South Burlington police haven’t used the empty houses for training and added he is unclear which agencies have.

Beyond the obvious insensitivity, it seems astonishingly unprofessional and dangerous to conduct such exercises without a great deal of prior public notice and some opportunity for public comment.

We all recognize the need for police services, just as we accept the need for some amount of military capability; but lately in the Green Mountain State, the line between the two is beginning to blur as communities get themselves equipped with tanks, and Tasers become the accepted means to control drunks and unruly kids.

I don’t really understand this push.  

On the one-hand you have the argument that the state’s population is aging out; that there aren’t many young people left and we need to grow the economy to attract them back again.  On the other, is the fact that the larger the population in our towns and cities, the more policing services and equipment we seem to need; and the greater the opportunity for criminal enterprise to find a toe-hold as well.

We already have an inordinately large prison population; so large in fact, that we have to export it.  It’s a well-known fact that that burgeoning prison population is largely the result of unrealistic drug laws and a broken approach to mental health and addiction at the state and national level.

How can we be so anxious to “grow” our towns and cities without first fixing those population-related vulnerabilities?  

It seems that the popular wisdom holds that we should invite Walmart and other cheap employers to invade local economies, expand our vulnerable populations, and, at the same time, attract the parasitic criminals who feed on their poverty and our enabling drug laws.

This, in turn, forces an expansion of police presence and provides a golden opportunity for armaments makers to expand beyond the profits they have enjoyed during our interminable modern wars.

Is it any surprise that people…neighbors, actually…have come to be largely beside the point when our growing need for security must be satisfied at any cost?

Er, that’s about it. For those who love to pore over long lists of names in tiny print, the Secretary of State’s office has released the Draft Candidate List. Available as a downloadable PDF here.

I did a quick count of Republican candidates for the Legislature, and came up with 79 for the House and 18 for the Senate. (Might be off by one or two.) A bit more respectable than we initially thought, but it still means that the GOP won’t compete for nearly half the seats in the Legislature.

Otherwise, have at it. If you spot something interesting, by all means note it in the Comments below or write a separate diary.  

Tonight at 7pm Burlington has a historic opportunity to speak out in City Council and ask our local government reject Lockheed’s F-35 fighter plane.

City Council meets at Contois Auditorium on the second floor of City Hall 149 Church St in Burlington

To be part of the speak out you need to sign up at the table to the far left when you enter the auditorium

Please RSVP and invite your friends: https://www.facebook.com/event…

Some of the Many Reasons for Rejecting the F-35



Jobs:

The same number of Vermont tax dollars spent on education, health care, mass transit, or construction, creates many more jobs than military spending like the F-35. This according to 2007 and 2011 studies from the Economics Department at the University of Massachusetts. Twice as many jobs, at higher average pay, are created by spending money on education than on defense. The F-35 program sucks our Federal money away and employs fewer people. And more people will be left unemployed.

http://www.peri.umass.edu/file…

Noise:

Sound level, sound intensity, and loudness are explained in the Air Force draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The bottom line is, according to figures in the EIS, the maximum loudness of the F-35 is more than four times louder than the the maximum loudness of the F-16 both at takeoff and landing.

According to South Burlington City Council President and retired Air Force Colonel, Rosanne Greco in a must read Burlington Free Press Op-Ed:

“Noise is causing the demolition of homes. For example, 1,578 homes are currently in the noise contour area. So far, 200 South Burlington homes have been identified for purchase and demolition. 1,366 more homes, for a total of 2,944 homes, would be in this noise area if the F-35As were based here. And, the FAA home buy-out money is not guaranteed; nor is the airport under any obligation to purchase homes. In fact, last week, the airport said they were not going to purchase any more homes.”

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

See more about the neighborhood demolition here: http://7d.blogs.com/stuckinvt/…

Today’s Burlington Free Press describes the home demolition as having “turned a once-thriving neighborhood into a local Detroit of empty houses and empty lots by airport buyouts.”

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

Precedent:

The South Burlington City Council and School Board, as well as the Winooski School Board, have all formally rejected the F-35 being based at Burlington International Airport.

South Burlington School Board’s Statement:

http://sbsd.schoolfusion.us/mo…

CCTV footage of South Burlington’s City Council rejecting the F-35 can be viewed here: http://www.stopthef35.com/node/93

Lockheed’s weapons yield austerity for Vermonters:



The logic of military weapon’s systems like the F-35 can be best explained by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.”

The University of New Hampshire Carsey Institute reported in 2007 that over the last 15 years Vermont ranked second among all the states for fastest growth in income inequality. http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev…

Burlington’s middle class is “shrinking faster than almost anywhere else in the country” according to US Census data reported in a BFP cover story.

http://www.feedingchittenden.o…

Meanwhile our tax dollars are being diverted away from meeting our communities fundamental needs and towards $160 million per plane weapons systems we can ill afford.

Lockheed’s “F-35 was intended to be an “affordable” fighter-bomber (at roughly $50 million per copy), a perfect complement to the much more expensive F-22 “air superiority” Raptor. But the usual delays, cost overruns, technical glitches and changes in requirements have driven the price tag of the F-35 up to $160 million per plane, assuming the US military persists in its plans to buy 2,400 of them. (If the Pentagon decides to buy fewer, the cost-per-plane will soar into the F-22 range.) By recent estimates the F-35 will now cost US taxpayers (you and me, that is) at least $382 billion for its development and production run. Such a sum for a single weapons system is vast enough to be hard to fathom. It would, for instance, easily fund all federal government spending on education for the next five years.The escalating cost of the F-35 recalls the most famous of Norman Augustine’s irreverent laws: “In the year 2054,” he wrote back in the early 1980s, “the entire defense budget will [suffice to] purchase just one aircraft.” But the deeper question is whether our military even needs the F-35, a question that’s rarely asked and never seriously entertained, at least by Congress, whose philosophy on weaponry is much like King Lear’s: “O, reason not the need.” www.thenation.com/article/165832/confessions-recovering-weapons-addict

 I thought of writing something to go along with this but…one picture/graph is worth a thousand of my words.

The graph is from here.