We’re just about a month out from the one-year anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that precipitated nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi.  

It bears mentioning again that, while any effort to apply lessons learned  to current nuclear operations seems to be advancing without appreciable urgency, there is plenty of evidence that industry and government agents in Japan and here at home hastily circled the wagons even before the affected population had been warned to evacuate.  

The grisly truth is that, in the aftermath of one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, protecting economic interests has been given a far higher priority than human health and safety.

In a February 2 interview conducted by CCTV host Margaret Harrington, Maggie Gundersen of Fairewinds Assoc. points out that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission…that’s our guys…knew how serious the situation at Fukushima was, fully nine days before residents were ordered to evacuate!

So effective has the effort been to deflect negative messaging from Fukushima that, if one does not go well out of one’s way to find information about radiation impacts, or even the progress of stabilization efforts at the devastated facility, one is unlikely to know anything at all.

We are dependent on the efforts of independent investigators, like Fairewinds Associates, who, facing a desperate information void, have seized the initiative to do the thankless work of analysis and public education that so-called “regulatory” agencies and governments have completely abdicated.

Shining the Light on the Triple Meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

Those in the capacity of decision makers would much rather present a benign picture in the short term so that as much economic “hay” can be made on the nuclear nickel as possible.  They will leave it to a later brain-trust to confront whatever legacy of disease and devastation lies ahead, once it is no longer deniable.

On January 7, none other than the Economist carried this observation about the first government commissioned report concerning Fukushima, and how unlikely it is that the nuclear energy cabal will embrace any of its lessons:

Such reports are, after all, confidence-building exercises. They are meant to reassure the public that, by exposing failures, they will help to prevent them from being repeated. In the case of Fukushima Dai-ichi there is still plenty to be nervous about. Although the government declared on December 16th that the plant had reached a state of “cold shutdown”, much of the cooling system is jerry-rigged and probably still not earthquake-proof. On January 1st a quake temporarily caused water levels to plunge in a pool containing highly radioactive spent-fuel rods…Until somebody in power seizes on the report as a call to action, its findings, especially those that reveal sheer ineptitude, suggest that the public has every reason to remain as scared as hell.

                            ______________________________

While we’re on the subject, I wanted to share an interesting website that a friend passed along to me.  Together with a roster of articles on current technical issues at nuclear plants all over the world, it includes this live, rather chilling video window on the wreckage of Fukushima Daiichi.  Notice how the only sound is the whistling wind and the whitecaps breaking against the nuclear shoreline.  Brrr!

Bruce Lisman’s vanity proj– er, campaign stalking hors– er, public policy organization, Campaign for Vermont, continues to crank out opinion pieces, press releases, and radio advertisements. And while I appreciate CfV’s copious ad buys on my favorite radio station, WDEV, I must also note that its true character is coming into sharper focus.

For those just joining us, Lisman is a native Vermonter who made a fortune as a top executive for cratered Wall Street giant Bear Stearns. In retirement, he has returned home with the avowed goal of promoting the greater good of the Green Mountain State through a “nonpartisan” effort called Campaign for Vermont. Which, although it claims to be a broad-based coalition, seems to be centered entirely on Mr. Bruce Lisman. For instance #1: Bruce’s oddly unfocused smiling face appears on every webpage. For instance #2: CfV’s position statements, although supposedly a group effort, are entitled “The Lisman Perspective.”

There are many other indications that the CfV is (a) solidly Republican, and (b) an attempt to whitewash Lisman as a potential future candidate for office, in hopes of avoiding the fate of rich-guy flameouts Rich Tarrant and Jack McMullen. I outlined these signs in two mid-December diaries, “Lismania” and “Lismania II.”

So now, on to the latest, including a fourth word in the CfV nameplate, and two new (very obviously anti-Shumlin) radio ads.  

The Lisman campai– er, CfV, is going through a bit of an identity crisis these days. On its website, it calls itself “Campaign for Vermont.” But on its new radio ads, it goes by the name “Campaign for Vermont Prosperity.” Which is a better indication of the group’s priorities, equating improvement with economic growth.

Yes, certainly, we do need a strong economy. But when you make “prosperity” your clarion call, you’re declaring yourself in the conservative camp on issues like taxes, regulation, land use, environmental protection, and nuclear power.  

Next, there are Lisma– er, CfV’s two new radio ads, on the subjects of education funding and health care reform. And both are attacks on Governor Shumlin that sound exactly like Republican campaign ads.

On school funding, CfV asserts that “we will pay more in property taxes this year” because “Governor Shumlin has cut state support for education funding.” The truth: Shumlin’s budget does call for a reduction in state education funding, but (a) he hasn’t cut anything, that’s up to the Legislature, and (b) if the cut goes through, it’s up to local districts whether to raise property taxes or cut their own budgets. Now, in my opinion, Shumlin should balance his own budget without passing the buck to school boards. But Lisman’s assertion is untrue.

On health care, over a background of dramatic, ominous music, we are informed that the Governor intends to “severely limit our choices in health insurance coverage,” and that no other state in the country “would limit health insurance choices so dramatically.” That’s the worst possible way to frame Shumlin’s plan, of course. Those who support the effort take pride in Vermont’s leadership on health care reform. And the ad assumes that the health-insurance marketplace can be counted on to produce a wealth of wonderful options for Vermonters to choose from. Which is laughable, but it’s the basis of the Republican position on health care reform: let the free market do its work, and a thousand flowers shall bloom. Trouble is, the free market has a long and disappointing track record of producing crappy, expensive health plans full of loopholes.

But you won’t hear that from Bruce Lisman, stealth Republican. The more we see of the Campaign for Vermont Prosperity, the less it looks like the unbiased, nonpartisan, public-interest group it claims to be. I don’t see Lisman running for office this year; the timeline is too short. But I do expect him to run for Governor in 2014 if a Democrat (presumably Shumlin) occupies the office.

(One more little thing: the CfV website includes a list of links to Vermont media — print, radio, TV, online. The “online” list includes Vermont Digger as well as conservative outposts True North Reports, and Vermont Tiger. But not Green Mountain Daily. Gee, Bruce, that’s not very nonpartisan of you.)

The person who wrote the following Vermont State webpage’s wintertime recreation press release “Fishing is Hot on Lake Champlain… and some memorable fish have been caught in recent weeks” probably didn’t have strontium or cesium in mind. But it certainly blends well with the Vermont chief radiologist’s news that a fish from Northwestern Vermont’s Lake Carmi tested positive for low levels of strontium-90 and cesium-137. The preliminary results are in the same range as found last August in a Connecticut River fish near Vermont Yankee. Bill Irwin, chief of radiological health for the Vermont Department of Health says this provides proof of what he had already decided … err hypothesized:

"We take this as some evidence that all fish in Vermont are likely to have radioactive cesium and strontium at these levels and that, as we’ve hypothesized, it is from nuclear weapons fallout and the releases of Chernobyl. All of us are glad to have proof and not just conjecture."

Good news! Call the tourist board to announce all the Vermont fish contain radioactive strontium 90 and cesium! However, if this shows the Lake Carmi fish was contaminated by nuclear weapons fallout and the Chernobyl disaster I shouldn’t think it takes our leaking Vermont Yankee out of contention as an additional source for contamination of Connecticut River fish.

The Lake Carmi fish had cesium in edible and inedible parts, and strontium only in the sample’s bones, head, fins and scales. By comparison, the Vermont Yankee fish had high levels of strontium 90 in the bones and small but measurable levels in the meat.

A fish taken from the Connecticut River in 2010 had the highest levels of strontium-90 in bone that his department has seen in any samples.  

"In that same sample we did find very low but measurable amounts of strontium-90 in the meat of the fish," said Irwin, which could have been a sampling or contamination error. "But we don’t know that."

The Lake Carmi fish as “proof” (not all “evidence” is “proof”) reminds me of the line from the Nick Danger comedy skit where a supposed time traveler says “I have proof I’ve been to Ancient Greece! See, look at this grape!”The Vermont chief radiologist found a grape.

Just remember, Bill Irwin is a culturally-sensitve guy looking out for you and your radiological health:

"There’s no danger in eating the fish," said Irwin. "Should we ever find that there are reasons to restrict diet from any sampling for any kind of radioactive or toxicological events, we would keep in mind different cultures have different diets."  

Ever wonder how much local fish Bill Irwin eats?

Well, a few days ago I posted a diary about the Kurt Wright campaign slamming Miro Weinberger for seeking campaign cash from “Washington elites,” as opposed to soliciting only Vermont elites, which I guess is a purer form of filling the moneybags. (Weinberger netted $8,000 from a gathering of 70 “Washington elites,” many of whom had strong Vermont ties; that’s a decidedly non-elite average gift of $114.29.)

I pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of any Republican slamming an opponent on this subject, since the GOP is the Grand Champion of big-dollar, out-of-town fundraising.

So now, the Weinberger folks have felt compelled to strike back at Wright. And pardon me if I’m underwhelmed. The big scoop on Wright, per Andy Bromage on the Seven Days staff blog:

According to public campaign reports, Wright raised $850 from four out-of-state corporate political action committees for his 2010 campaign for state representative. He accepted $200 each from Pfizer PAC in New York City; Anheuser-Busch Co. PAC in Whitehouse Station, N.J.; and ENPAC (the corporate PAC for Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Corp.) in Jackson, Miss. He also accepted $250 from GlaxoSmith Kline PAC in Phoenix, Ariz.

The Weinberger campaign, which described its D.C. fundraiser as a gathering of Vermont “ex-pats” and family friends, dug up the same information and is now accusing Wright of hypocrisy.

Eight hundred and fifty dollars? Come on, Eileen. That’s a drop in anybody’s bucket. Does Weinberger really think this will help him win the mayoralty, when (non-felonious) fundraising brouhahas never seem to make any difference with the electorate?

(Now, on the theory that you should never let an attack go without a response, here’s how I would have addressed Wright’s original accusation: “We fought a tough five-way primary for the party’s nomination. We face an opponent with deep pockets and the support of some very wealthy people. So as part of our campaign effort, we reached out to fellow Vermonters and friends who happen to be living in Washington.” And leave it at that.)

Wright continued the pointless exercise by positing a difference between running for Mayor and running for the Legislature — outside money is okay for the latter but not for the former — and that’s absolute nonsense and he should stop it.

This whole thing was minuscule to begin with, and it just keeps getting smaller and smaller. It doesn’t help either man. They would be better served — and would look more like the kind of leader Burlington needs — by simply dropping the matter and getting back to the issues. If anybody is gaining anything from this, it’s Wanda Hines.

It’s less than a week after the giant Komen fiasco and people are still asking what seems like an obvious question: How could such a principled, benevolent organization get so badly led astray?

If you look at the people at the top, the people making the decisions and pulling the strings, not only is the answer obvious, but the question is seen as badly misguided.

We’ll touch lightly on the big boss, who went on MSNBC in the midst of the controversy to lie about their decision, and has so far paid no price for her actions.

Let’s just take one step down the corporate ladder, though, and see who’s running the organization.

First in this rogues’ gallery must be Karen Handel, a right wing former Georgia Secretary of State who was endorsed by Sarah Palin to “fight what the federal government will want to do to our states” when she ran for governor. Even before she was hired by Komen, Handel was saying  “since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.”

Another key player, an outside consultant rooted in the extreme right, is the odious Ari Fleischer, whose prior job was telling lies for George W. Bush. When Komen was looking for a new Senior Vice President for Communications and External Relations they called on Fleischer to run the search. According to a source with first-hand knowledge, Fleischer drilled prospective candidates during their interviews on how they would handle the controversy about Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood. You might consider that a pretty normal question, except that Fleischer was already on record as an enemy of Planned Parenthood. In his book, Taking Heat, Fleischer criticized Planned Parenthood as a partisan, ideological organization that receives undeserved positive coverage in the press. In 2001, Fleischer said that the Clinton administration verged too far to the left on family planning efforts because “if Planned Parenthood wanted it, the previous administration favored it.”

Finally, from the outside the anti-woman, anti-choice forces were supported by Charmaine Yoest, who runs Americans United for Life, who has been attacking Planned Parenthood for years. Americans United for Life has, for the past year, aggressively pushed Congress to end Planned Parenthood’s federal funding. It has also drafted model legislation that states can use to bar abortion providers from receiving federal funds. Nine states have passed such laws, although the Obama administration has blocked their implementation. If you think this is the end of her war against Planned Parenthood, think again. Ezra Klein reports that she darkly warns that she will be “be looking at their other supporters.” It was her work that got the bogus Congressional witch hunt against Planned Parenthood started.

So there you have it. The Komen organization is closely tied to a variety of anti-woman hate groups, and there isn’t any sign that’s going to change anytime soon.

As y'all know, our current plans to go forward with a single-payer health care system is not exactly welcomed by all. Although there are certainly arguments that can indeed be made against it, perhaps licking the corpse of Ayn Rand is not the best way to go about it, when you're trying to make your case to those who don't share your "selfishness is a virtue" worldview.

  From over at VTDigger, an op-ed from Tom Licata, who seemingly convinces himself that he's oh-so-damn-clever by rewriting a segment of Rand's gawdawful paean to Social Darwinism (and the real Bible to the current crop of DC GOP nutters), Atlas Shrugged, to frame his opposition to the new healthcare plan (in the voice of brain surgeon, Dr. Thomas Hendricks):

These legislators supposedly consider only the “welfare” of the patients,  with no thought for those who are to provide it. That a doctor should  have any right, desire or choice in the matter seems regarded as  irrelevant, selfishness; his is not to choose, they say, but “to serve.”

I have often wondered at the smugness at which Vermont’s Legislature  asserts their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will,  to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind — yet what is it they  expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?

The Vermont Legislature’s moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims.

Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn.

 To that, we say:

Licata may indeed think he’s being clever, but he certainly isn’t a brain surgeon. That’s for sure.    

I don’t know if you’ve heard of them, I never had until today, but there’s a new hate group to pay attention to on the American scene.

It’s called One Million Moms (you can pretty much always tell the hate groups by their wholesome names, eh?) and they seem to be a subsidiary of the American Family Association.

But it’s a group of mothers, right, so they must be agitating for beneficial, motherly values, right? Like nutrition programs in the schools, or free health care for low-income women, or early education programs?

Afraid not. Apparently what One Million Moms want is for J.C. Penney to fire Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson.

OMM began contacting JC Penney after the store announced that comedian Ellen Degeneres would become the company’s new spokesperson. Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of its customers are traditional families. As consumers, what we find tragic is a corporate office and customer service department that not only transfers customers to voicemail, but even hangs up on them rather than verses hearing their concerns.

Since JC Penney won’t listen to us nationally, it is time we let them hear from us locally!

J.C. Penney says no, they’re sticking with Ellen.

A spokeswoman for the retailer declined further comment on the issue but did say in an e-mail to Reuters, “jcpenney stands behind its partnership with Ellen DeGeneres” and added that its announcement of the agreement last week sums up the company’s view of the popular TV personality

What’s most striking to me about this call to action is the way they phrase it. In their eyes, lining up with the intolerant bigots is “decid[ing] to be neutral in the culture war”!

Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m going to take their advice. I will contact J.C. Penney, and I’ll tell them that as a longtime customer I’m glad that they’re not caving in to pressure and discriminating against Ellen DeGeneres for her sexual orientation.

Maybe you want to do the same.

Oh, those wacky conservatives. Always good for a laugh. (It’s either that, or cry.) Two items, submitted for your consideration:

1. Bob McDonnell, pretty-boy Governor of Virginia, posits a creative new take on the Republicans’ economic argument. From Talking Points Memo:

“Look, I’m glad the economy is starting to recover, but I think it’s because of what Republican governors are doing in their states, not because of the president,” McDonnell said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Geez louise, the brass-plated balls on that guy. Look, Bob, I realize that if the economy continues to improve, the Republicans have absolutely no argument for replacing President Obama. But, really now. What you’re saying is that Obama deserves blame for anything bad that happens to the economy, and none of the credit for anything good. To be charitable, I could call that “magical thinking.” But to be honest, it’s completely illogical and two-faced.

And, as the TPM story points out, there’s no evidence whatsoever that the economy is doing better in red states than in blue. It’s simply not true.  

2. From the National Review’s website, NRO writer Daniel Foster whinges about the backlash against the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?”

Calm down there, Danny. Let me explain how the First Amendment works, in words I hope you can understand.

The Komen Foundation has a right to decide how it spends its money. Everyone else in the country has a right to react to that decision and decide where to give their money. Nobody held a gun to Nancy Brinker’s head, nobody held her puppy for ransom.  

Conservatives are so incredibly hypersensitive to criticism or counter-argument. They talk so tough, but when they get some pushback, they go crying to Mommy. Stop it, Daniel, you’re embarrassing yourself and your cause.  

This item came out several days ago, but I just noticed it and felt it should not be allowed to go by without comment.

So the Kurt Wright campaign is all upset because Miro Weinberger had a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., that netted $8,000. So notes Andy Bromage on the Seven Days staff blog.

Now the campaign of Republican candidate Kurt Wright is using his rival’s jaunt to D.C. to criticize Weinberger for being an “elitist” who is bringing “Washington politics” to a local Vermont race.

… “It’s a sad day for Burlington when you have someone who’s going to reach out to the type of politics that are in D.C.” said Dave Hartnett, a Democrat city councilor from Burlington’s New North End and campaign spokesman for Wright. “I think it sends the wrong message.”

Side note before we continue: Mr. Bromage, please don’t use “Democrat” as an adjective. That’s a Republican thing. The correct term is “Democratic.”

One thing I never, ever, ever need to hear is a Republican campaign complaining about money. Republicans have been the driving force in making politics more and more expensive, and not caring at all where the money comes from. In fact, they argue very strenuously that the source of campaign funds doesn’t influence their politics. Which is absurd, but it is their argument. So I don’t need to hear from a Republican campaign on the relative purity of one funding source as opposed to another.

(Unless Kurt Wright wants his fellow Republicans to forswear all that Koch Brothers money.)

Hartnett admits that Wright will have a very well-financed campaign — $40,000 or so — but that’s okay because he’s raising it the good old Vermont way: from the usual group of conservative moneybags. Angelo Pizzagalli, Ernie Pomerleau, Bruce Lisman, et al. Whereas Weinberger is taking money from Washingtonian elites. Er, sort of:

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy headlined the 70-person soiree, which took place at the home of his former chief of staff, Luke Albee. Co-hosting was Bob Rogan, U.S. Peter Welch’s chief of staff.

Weinberger spokesman Mike Kanarick noted that the attendees were “‘people who have connections to Vermont, deep affection for Vermont and Burlington’ or are Vermont ‘ex-pats’ living in D.C.” And aside from this D.C. fundraiser, there were 163 donations to the Weinberger campaign in January; 149 of them were from Vermont. Not bad, really.

Also, hmm, $8,000 from 70 people. That’s $114.29 per person. Not exactly elite-level giving.

So the “Washington elite” stuff is awfully thin gruel: is Pat Leahy really any more of an out-of-touch “elite” than Ray Pecor? It’s also tiresome on a tactical level; complaining about an opponent’s fundraising is kind of a kneejerk reaction, but it never seems to make any difference to voters. (I wish it did make a bit more difference, but it doesn’t.)

In short, it’s a tired, ineffectual, hypocritical wheeze.

And seriously, Andy Bromage, stop using “Democrat” as an adjective.

Freedom of religion is an important value in American society, right?

This week, if you’re the Catholic Diocese of Burlington, apparently freedom of religion means the freedom to rape little boys with impunity.

It’s hard to believe, but that’s exactly what they’re arguing. According to the Burlington Free Press, in a brief filed in the United States District Court this week, here’s what they say: “The State cannot infringe on a protected freedom by imposing damages and penalties that the church cannot pay,”  . . .

“If the protections of the First Amendment are to mean anything, the government should not be allowed to shut the doors of a church and put it up for sale,” church lawyers Kaveh Shahi and Tom McCormick wrote.

Yes, you read that right: if they are required to pay damages to the victims of their criminal conspiracy to cover up rapes by their employees, and to move their employees around to where they could rape more victims, that would be a violation of their freedom of religion.

In the view of their lawyers, making the church pay damages is taking away the right of Catholics to practice their religion.

Is it just me, or does this seem to put the Catholic seal of approval on child rape to an unprecedented degree?

Color me unsympathetic.