To my many friends who think I’m a miserable luddite and a crack-pot for refusing to join the Facebook generation,  I would like to submit the following:

Facebook on Thursday began asking certain popular users to upload photos of their government issued identification cards to help the social network test a new accounts verification service.

Now, I would not dream of suggesting that the fathers of social media could be up to no good; but think about the trajectory of gradual reveals we have been subjected to over the past few years.  

We’ve learned of identity theft, data mining, accidental data sharing and access denial.  And now this.

After each unpleasant surprise, we get ourselves up, dust ourselves off and start all over again, with “version X.0” which, we are assured, “will fix all previous issues.”

It’s all good; because, to hear people talk, Facebook and it’s truncated step-child Twitter, have become absolutely essential components of twenty-first century living.  

Apparently, no one can run a business, have a career, or enjoy any decent relationships  without an active virtual presence in social media.  

Of course, Facebook claims that once the user’s identity is verified through a screen-shot of a government issued ID, the virtual record will be deleted, but that requires an inordinate amount of trust on the part of the user; and how many times have we been told that nothing is ever completely expunged from the internet.  

In fact the whole argument for the scheme sounds rather less than convincing.

“This update makes it even easier for subscribers to find and keep up with journalists, celebrities and other public figures they want to connect to,” Facebook said in its statement to TPM, although it is unclear exactly how verifying accounts will do this, unless Facebook posts a “Verified” badge or other mark on their accounts, a la Twitter and Google Plus.

But Facebook has not given any indication it intends to do this, raising the question of what good “verifying” an account will do for subscribers

It’s unlikely that anyone will put up much of a fuss as this experimental “feature” gradually morphs into a basic requirement for all users. In 2012, most users couldn’t bear to be parted from their virtual selves.

But how would our 1990 selves have regarded a future in which, like sheep, everyone would be herded into one big virtual corral and conditioned to surrender their trust to the whims of an anonymous controller?  

I think I actually saw that episode of the Twilight Zone and it didn’t have a happy ending.

Originally posted by BP with the title Will AG Sorrell be appealing? on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 17:00:00 PM EST. The original has been copied here, then deleted to deal with a software glitch.

Well we don’t know yet and the drama plays out on several fronts. But hidden behind the online pay-wall at the Rutland Herald is news that the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance has an online petition going in addition to door to door efforts. The petition urges Attorney General Sorrell to appeal the federal ruling against the State of Vermont about retiring the Entergy’s aging Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The petition online has almost 500 signatures.

Petition:  Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is old, unreliable and not only an environmental liability but an economic liability to the state of Vermont. The people of Vermont want Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to shut down on time.

We thank our Legislature and the Governor for standing for us and voting, in February 2010 to shut VT Yankee down by declining a Certificate of Public Good passed March 21, 2012!

We urge the state not to back down; to fight for Vermont’s democratic process and to continue to fight Entergy.

We urge the Attorney General appeal Judge Murtha’s bad decision.

Here’s the link … But if you wish to “sign” act promptly because Sorrell has said he will decide soon what action to take.  

I’ve copied the comments from the original diary here:

Done!

This should really be a no-brainer.  

by: Sue Prent @ Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 17:53:15 PM EST

Dunno

I’ve never found him to be remotely appealing.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

by:JulieWaters @ Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 18:09:52 PM EST

😉

by:Sue Prent @ Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 18:31:09 PM EST

     

He will

Yes he will appeal and yes he will lose again.  Time to change horses.

by: reelvermonter @ Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 19:38:21 PM EST

Ayuh.

by: NanuqFC @ Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 23:17:04 PM EST

not happening

comfortable to hide behind the Courts decision and very bad time to look like you are throwing away good money after bad.  

public pressure never really tweaked Bill in the past.   we don’t need your steeeenking petition.

there is no one who would/could successfully challenge him if he decides to run again.

OK, who?

by: Inigma @ Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 21:08:40 PM EST

David Sleigh

by: NanuqFC @ Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 23:20:19 PM EST

Rosemarie Jackowski For AG!!! n/t

by:PeteySweety @ Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 11:43:41 AM EST

No Commitment

The current attorney general was never committed to the case against Entergy, or he wouldn’t have lost. All No-Soda Sorrell is interested in is policing poor people’s sugar intake. In overreaching beyond his job’s boundaries, Sorrell is Salmon’s next nearest rival.

by:Aurora Borealis @ Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 23:33:39 PM EST

Donovan vs Sorrell

I have a history with the issues around VY.  I’ve been lobbying to close the plant for five years.  I was unhappy that we lost the suit to Entergy is district 1, but after sitting through the entire trial I can say this with confidence.  We got a bad judge who bought into the glitz and glitter of an expensive law firm.  It didn’t help that the closing attorney had a horrible cold.  These things mattered.  The state put on a very good, logical case.  Curt Hebert’s testimony alone should’ve been enough to convince the judge, but he had his mind made up before that trial began.

Now, regarding this article.  I’ve been a fan of GMD for a long time and will continue to be a fan for a long time going forward, but I would take issue with this piece.

Mr. Donovan has not “amended” his position.  He came out ambivilent on the Entergy suit and only changed his tune when he realized that he would need the anti-nuke constituency to win the primary.

He has publicly stated that he was “mentored” by Burlington’s proclaimed king maker; Harlan Sylvester.  Do we believe that Sylvester supports closing down VY, or single-payer, or GMO labeling or any other progressive issue?  I don’t, and if this is the man to whom Mr. Donovan is aligned then I sincerely doubt if he does either.

You may ask why would I support Bill Sorrell after he lost the single most important case that I care about?  That answer is simple: he is absolutely THE best person to take this case to appeal.  His career is on the line with this case.  For him it’s a “must win” deal.

For Mr. Donovan it doesn’t really matter.  He’s expressed little interest in the case and should he take it forward and lose he can always say that it was Sorrell’s fault.  His heart and soul is not in this no matter what he’s saying now.

I have some experience in what I say. Mr. Donovan began reaching out to me during the last legislative session.  He said he wanted to buy me a coffee and talk about VY and the case.  I told him that I was in the building every day and to just give me a call and we could meet.

He reached out to me 9 times yet never set up a meeting.  The ninth time he called me at home after the session was out and I told him that it was too little, too late.

It’s the same way I feel about his new-found interest in the VY case.

by:Bob S @ Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:11:13 AM EDT

Seems the BearCat armored personel carrier / thing is drawing some resistance over in NH:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

It’s not quite a tank. But the quaint town of 23,000 — scene of just two murders since 1999 — had just accepted a $285,933 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to purchase a Bearcat, an eight-ton armored personnel vehicle made by Lenco Industries Inc.

But those plans are on hold for now, thanks to a backlash from feisty residents.

Wish VT could have been out front on this and forced the VT State Police to let the Feds keep their $$. (but I do wonder if the VT Bearcat has the little piggy graphic…)

Scroll to the end and watch the promotional video… its scary / sad that this is where we are headed.  

A minor kerfuffle in a North Carolina school lunchroom has turned into a massive, artificially-constructed “controversy” on the right wing. I first came across it on Vermont Tiger, GMD’s Internet Brother From Another Mother. Seems that a four-year-old girl had her home-packed lunch taken away by a lunchroom staffer, allegedly because it didn’t meet nutritional guidelines. So instead of her mom’s turkey sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice, the girl was given a cafeteria lunch that included chicken nuggets.

Immediately the cries went up: School Lunch Nazis! Government strikes down motherhood! Nanny state! The New York Post ran a photo of Michelle Obama next to its story entitled “Lunch nazis on the attack.” Vermont Tiger’s Geoffrey Norman seized on the story as an example of America’s journey “down that long, doleful road to serfdom.”

His commentary didn’t contain a link to the original story, so I had to find it on the Google. And what I found was a classic example of a tempest in a teapot. Well, actually, more like a teacup. Or a thimble. Or a wet spot on a napkin.

First of all, the story was originally reported on Carolina Journal, an online enterprise of the John Locke Foundation, a right-wing nonprofit organization. (Think “Ethan Allen Institute” with a drawl. And more money.)  So, consider the source.

It concerns an incident that happened on January 30. According to CJ, the girl had her lunch taken away by a “person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the… classroom that day.”  The girl’s mother says her daughter was instead given a prepared lunch that included chicken nuggets among other items, and that she was charged $1.25 for the lunch.

After the jump: the complicated truth behind a simple story

A spokesperson for the state’s Division of Child Development said the homemade lunch, as described, should not have been a problem, that the staffer shouldn’t have taken away the lunch, and that the parents shouldn’t have been charged.

It’s still unclear exactly who took away the lunch. WRAL-TV reports that the school system said it never took the lunch away or forced the girl to eat cafeteria food.  Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes said that if a preschooler’s lunch is lacking in balanced nutrition as outlined by the USDA, the school is supposed to offer supplemental items for free. Somehow, the girl wound up in the regular lunch line:

“I don’t know whether the child was confused. I don’t know whether the teacher gave poor direction. I don’t know, but again, that child thought she had to go through the line,” he said. “If there’s a mistake, that’s our mistake.”

Some details remain unclear. But it certainly looks like an isolated incident, a simple screw-up in a crowded lunchroom. The school district wasn’t involved, the state wasn’t involved, the federal government wasn’t involved, and Michelle Obama sure as hell wasn’t involved.

It’s important to remember that this whole thing is like an inverted house of cards. It’s based on what the four-year-old told the mother who told a reporter who reported the story which then blew up on the Internet. It all goes back to the child, and it all depends on her recollection of a single event from two weeks ago.

Thanks to the right-wing echo chamber, though, this little story has been turned into a prime example of Government Gone Wild. And given conservatives’ love of a good meme that supports their opinions and prejudices, the North Carolina School Lunch Nazi is sure to enter the pantheon of right-wing boogeymen, along with the Cadillac-driving welfare queen and the fraudulent ACORN voter-registration drive.

There’s a cautionary lesson for all of us. When you read something that affirms your beliefs or preconceived notions, please take a closer look. You might find a very different reality behind the convenient myth.  

 Vermont’s once controversial bottle deposit bill is now an accepted part of life that has kept piles of bottles off roadsides for 30 years. Since the original bottle bill, tons more plastic containers are manufactured every year for a variety of new uses and enter the plastics food-chain. Many of these new use containers are not covered by the current bottle bill .Now to deal with these developments several versions of new and expanded bottle bills are dancing their way through the legislature. However the future of any expanded bottle bill is in doubt.  

But Gov. Peter Shumlin said he opposed expanding the bottle law, which he called one of Vermont’s “old dinosaurs.”  

“I would like to see us as a state move to a policy where everything gets recycled and where we have one-stop recycling where we don’t have to take some items to a grocery store and other items to your green bins,”  

Supporting the legislative bottle bill changes is a report by VPIRG that says unredeemed deposits could generate $1.27 million a year and gain 100 new jobs for the state.

According to VPIRG, this program has an 85 percent recycling rate and its expansion is supported by 86 percent of the state.

Seems as if even an “old dinosaur” bottle bill with an 86 percent support number could almost run for office and win.    

Lots of cheery news from a joint Legislative hearing on Wednesday 2/15 concerning efforts to clean up our increasingly turgid Not-Quite-Great-Lake. The takeaway, as reported by Dave Gram of the AP:

It may take decades for Vermont to clean up Lake Champlain, where phosphorus flowing in from farms, sewage treatment plants and suburban lawns has fed toxic algae blooms in recent summers, lawmakers were told Wednesday.

…Despite working to reduce phosphorus-laden runoff for more than a decade, Vermont cannot show it has made much progress, Environmental Conservation Commissioner David Mears said in an interview. Asked how long it might take, he said, “Decades is the right scale to think about it.”

Lawmakers were getting an update on efforts by state and federal officials to set new clean-water standards for Lake Champlain, in the wake of the Conservation Law Foundation’s successful lawsuit over the old standards, which were too lax. For those keeping score at home, CLF settled the suit in 2010, EPA started working on new rules about a year ago, and it remains a work in progress. Or possibly a case of bureaucratic Four Corners Offense, trying to run down the clock as much as possible before setting new and unpalatable standards.

Several factors are contributing to the the bleak outlook. One is a lack of resources at the state or federal level to tackle such a massive cleanup. Another is the non-point-source nature of lake pollution: so many farms, so many lawns, so many rivers and streams, so much development along waterways.

And then there’s an issue that may be about to get worse.

Another problem facing the lake is silt from erosion in the rivers feeding it, Buzz Hoerr, chairman of a Vermont citizens’ panel that oversees the lake, later told a House committee during a separate hearing.

…He said Vermont needs to “get away from the culture of drainage” that had governed too much river management during the last 200 years and “just slow things down.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene, are we really going to see political support for “slowing things down”? There’s already been significant pressure for enhanced drainage to help prevent future floods. Irene is likely to remain a powerful political totem for some time to come, and if the choice is between protecting Champlain or preventing a future Irene, I’d guess that most politicians are going to choose the latter.

In any case, bad news all around for the health of Lake Champlain. And this story deserves more publicity than I think it’s going to get.  

     Green Mountain Daily Community,

Over the past two weeks, hundreds of Vermont residents like you have sent messages supporting Governor Shumlin’s bold energy plan. It’s working — we are very close to making Vermont the leader in clean energy. We need to keep the pressure on this week as the legislature takes up the 2012 energy bill!

Go to the below link to take action for renewable energy now!

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

    Right now, the Vermont House Committee on Natural Resources is moving to put hard numbers in the energy bill. We need to send a strong message today that Vermont should aim for 90% renewable energy by 2025. This is a goal we can reach, and we need Vermont’s legislature to commit to an increase of 25 megawatts of clean energy annually.

    Send a message today. Tell key lawmakers to commit to 90% renewable energy by 2025, with 25 MW of clean energy added annually. Let’s make the Green Mountain State the green energy leader in America.

Go to the below link to take action for renewable energy now!

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

    These hard number commitments will ensure that we not only make the governor’s Comprehensive Energy Plan a reality, but that we do it 25 years sooner. The bill being worked on in committee now is make or break, and we can’t wait. If we don’t have these numbers, we will fall short of our goal.

Together we can keep sending the message that Vermonters demand a clean energy future. Take action today and let lawmakers know it’s time to step up and go big on renewables!

Thanks,

David Van Deusen

Conservation Organizer

Vermont Sierra Club

Anti-health care reform activist Darcie Johnston has taken a short break from updating her Facebook page and then deleting it, to produce a couple of new radio ads for her lobbying group “Vermonters for Health Care Freedom.” It must have been a short break indeed, because they are about the worst, most poorly produced radio spots I’ve ever heard. And I’ve worked at some rinky-dink stations in my day.

The ads target (respectively) Representatives Paul Poirier (I-Barre) and Mark Woodward (D-Johnson), pressuring them to support legislation that would force the Shumlin Administration to shorten its timeline for preparing a final health care reform package, so the details would be available before the November election. The ads complain that “Governor Shumlin and the Democrat legislators are trying to pull a fast one” by delaying the details until after November, and urge listeners to contact Poirier or Woodward.  

But the ads are almost unlistenable. There’s no background music; it’s just a woman reading copy for a minute. Poorly-written copy at that. The woman (I suspect it’s Johnson herself) is obviously untrained in speaking on radio; the emphasis is all over the place, the delivery is forced and too fast, there are odd pauses and breaths, and the tone is abrasive. There’s an audible hum in the background, which means it wasn’t recorded in a professional environment.

Johnston also issued a news release trumpeting the new ads, under the title “Vermonters for Health Care Freedom goes to the air waves to encourage Representatives Poirier and Woodward to support releasing health care financing before November election.” Which tells me two things: (1) she doesn’t know how to spell “airwaves,” and (2) she doesn’t know how to write a good headline.

I hate to give Johnston any more pageviews, but I recommend listening to one of the spots as a prime example of how not to do political advertising.

I hope her undisclosed donors didn’t pay too much for these ads. Whatever they paid, they didn’t get their money’s worth.

Addendum 2/16: The Vermont Democratic Party has issued a press release about Darcie Johnston’s unfortunate Facebook post, readable at Vermont Digger which notes that she has close and longstanding ties to State Senator (and presumptive Republican Gubernatorial candidate) Randy Brock. It characterizes her as a paid Brock advisor since 2004. If true, then Senator Brock might want to rethink the relationship. The Facebook post and these awful ads certainly call into question her qualifications as a political operator.

By the way, Johnston posted a comment under the press release, in which she basically falls back on the “I was only kidding” defense. She actually says “I meant no offense to ANYONE.” (Caps hers.) So I guess it’s our fault if we’re offended. Again, is this someone you’d want working for you if you had serious political aspirations?

February 15th, 2012, Montpelier, VT -The Vermont Sierra Club, with three thousand members across the state, agrees with the great majority of Vermonters: We, as a state and as a people, need to move aggressively in the direction of renewable energy reliance/production. If we are to be successful in our fight against environmental degradation and climate change, we must move in this direction as fast as possible; we support 90% renewables by 2025, with at least 25 new mega watts a year.  Furthermore, our renewable energy future must include well sited and appropriate wind power development.

    While the Vermont Sierra Club recognizes that there are legitimate issues to be debated concerning the merits of any specific wind farm project, we do not feel the “tourists-won’t- come-here-if-they-can-see-windmills” argument is one of them.  Therefore, in the interest of more accurately framing the parameters of the wind energy debate, we have asked some of our neighbors in surrounding states (NH, MA, CT, RI, NY) to express their views on this alleged issue to our Governor via email.  Thus far (starting on February 1st), the overwhelming and unmistakable message has been, “I am a tourist, and I support wind farms in Vermont.”  Well over three thousand people in surrounding states have emailed Governor Peter Shumlin in order to tell him that they and their families would be more likely to vacation in Vermont if we were to become the leader in renewable energy reliance/production, including wind.

“Wind power is a plus for the environment because it helps reduce carbon emissions, it can provide livable wage jobs, and it supports our tourist industry,” said Steve Crowley, Chairman of the Vermont Sierra Club.

    The Vermont Sierra Club has also generated hundreds of emails, from Vermonters, telling the Governor and key legislators that they too support increased renewable energy production, including wind, and want to move in the renewable direction as fast as possible.  

    David Ellenbogen, Chairman of the Political Committee of the Vermont Sierra Club contends, “Vermonters and others who enjoy our state understand that our’s is a working landscape.  The notion that tourists would reconsider visiting Vermont because of the visibility of suitably located turbines is simply unfounded.”

    While the Vermont Sierra Club supports well sited wind development, it has not taken a position, for or against, any of the specific wind projects that are underway or currently being proposed.

###

*Below is the template text sent to the Governor from out-of-state:

Subject: I Am A Tourist, and I Support Wind Power!

Body: Governor Shumlin,

I am writing to show support for the bold plan to move Vermont to 90% renewable energy by 2050. I am also writing because I am not a Vermonter. Rather, I am a supporter of clean energy, and a potential Vermont tourist.

If Vermont pursues this ambitious energy plan, including an increase in wind generation, know that my desire to visit will not diminish. Rather, my family and I would be more likely to visit Vermont and support your efforts towards a greener tomorrow.

Vermont has an incredible opportunity to be a leader in renewable energy. It would be fitting for the Green Mountain State to also be known as the Green Energy State. I hope that my own home state may soon follow your lead.

Thank you, Governor Shumlin for being a leader on this issue. Please take this letter into account when deciding the appropriate role for wind power in Vermont.

*Below is the template text sent by Vermonters to the Governor and members of the VT House and Senate Energy Committee:

Subject: I Am A Vermonter, and I Support Renewable Energy Now!

Body: Governor Shumlin and Lawmakers,

As a Vermonter, please know that I support the broad outlines of the governor’s comprehensive energy plan and its stated goal of achieving at least 90% reliance on renewable energy sources by 2050. This is the kind of leadership we need if we are to combat climate change and end our national addiction to dirty coal and fossil fuels. I want to thank Governor Shumlin for his leadership on this issue.

As a voter, I also want to encourage the governor to support all efforts to transition in this direction as fast as possible. If we can achieve this goal faster I would firmly support such efforts.

Finally, by building our green energy future — including well-sited wind projects — we not only help protect our environment, but also create good green collar jobs for Vermont’s construction workers. You can count on me to stand with the governor as we create livable wage jobs for Vermonters by building a renewable energy future. Let’s keep getting tough things done!

###