Tom Salmon: In Search of the Lost Chord?

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Tom Salmon has done it again. See his latest effort on behalf of Entergy at vtdigger.

http://vtdigger.org/2012/01/31…

Here is my response.

There he goes again. First, Mr. Salmon said, “As state auditor, it is my duty to evaluate the performance of state government. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that state government has wasted a lot of taxpayer money…”

Recent events regarding energy policy and Vermont Yankee are the result of elections and legislative action. Decisions by our elected officials are unavoidably subjective and cannot be audited like a state program. Mr. Salmon’s comments were about policy decisions. The fact that money was spent reflects choices made by our elected officials. That’s their job; not Mr. Salmon’s.

Mr. Salmon also said, “PSB Chairman Jim Volz and members David Coen and John Burke have the duty to remain objective in the face of shrill, arrogant anti-nuclear zealots who could care less about the practical issues involving energy policy.”

Wow. It’s ironic at best that Mr. Salmon – who routinely ignores the statutory limits of his own job, feels the need to lecture the members of the PSB about their responsibilities.

more below

This is reminiscent of Mr. Salmon’s bizarre ex-parte communication with a state judge over a year ago when he complained about “insincere” public records requests and told the judge how he should do his job (and suggested that there be “boundaries” for public records requests).

Mr. Salmon often says he is “unemotional.” Presumably, this means he is objective. So when he uses words like shrill, arrogant, and zealots, we have to wonder where he left his objectivity.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Mr. Salmon has compromised his objectivity. In august of last year, he called for Burlington Telecom to be auctioned and made unflattering remarks about Burlington’s elected officials. At that time, his office was conducting a legislatively mandated TIF audit of Burlington. To make such remarks during an audit of the city compromised his objectivity.

A year ago Mr. Salmon said he didn’t want to be State Auditor anymore and hoped to run for U.S. Senate, Governor, or Lt. Governor. Having changed his mind, he now seeks to change the definition of his job so he can do what he wants without giving up his very well-paying job. This is not what taxpayers expect of their State Auditor (and what is he not doing while pursuing these other activities?).

This is just the latest in a series of press releases and media events by Mr. Salmon about Vermont Yankee. Perhaps he should resign and register as a lobbyist for Entergy; this press release certainly reads like it was written by Entergy.

Clearly, Mr. Salmon would prefer to be a legislator or chief executive. But he’s not. He’s the State Auditor and he should act like one.

The NRC says: “… we mean it.”

 The NRC is feeling good about itself.Sounding pumped, like a lean mean nuclear regulatin’ machine on their “blog” where they declare:

“When the NRC says we consider new and significant information, we mean it.

The story is, errors in recently submitted information were found during a review process for equipment replacement at an existing plant in the Southern US. Based on this new significant information the NRC found that designs for a new Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) plant might have similar errors. What’s the upshot of these NRC discoveries?  It could mean the NRC must revise reports and/or have the applicants make changes to design control documents which will delay their final decision on design certification. New information comes to light, consideration given to the new facts, followed by regulatory action. Has a watchdog stirred?

more after the fold

“We mean it” yips the NRC watchdog. Well, ok calm down. So let’s say significant new information about potential seismic activity near an existing plant (let’s call it Indian Point-which rhymes with Vermont Yankee) was readily available; the NRC would of course considerate it in the ongoing re-licensing process.

Well not exactly as a former oil industry geologist writing in a Vtdigger.com opinion piece points out:

Judging by Indian Point, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be forcing us to base Vermont Yankee’s geologic risk analysis on antiquated data:“Much new seismological information is available since their initial approvals (of Indian Point) in 1973 and 1975. Nevertheless the US NRC, so far has not permitted any new information to be used or old information on which the original licenses were granted to be contested in considering extension of licenses,” according to a 2008 study by researcher Lynn Sykes.

New York State has an aggressive attorney general who has called upon the NRC to do a comprehensive seismic review as part of their Indian Point relicensing process. The New York AG must have considered significant the findings from 2008 by Columbia University seismologists. They found that two intersecting fault lines near Indian Point were capable of creating a 7.0-magnitude earthquake. Despite this, none of this significant information is incorporated into the current NRC process.

Now remember clearly the NRC claims:

When we say we consider new and significant information, we mean it”.

Well, except when there are significant fault lines involved.  

Boycott the Susan G. Komen Foundation

Breaking from all over: The Susan G. Komen Foundation has announced that it will cut off all funding for breast cancer screenings to Planned Parenthood.

Or, to be more specific, they conveniently just adopted a new policy barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.

You know what Planned Parenthood is. It’s the group with chapters all across the country that provides health care to women and men in such vital areas as family planning and cancer screening. In so doing, Planned Parenthood has probably done more to reduce abortions than any other single organization.

And SGK? The behemoth plastering every product and event it can get its hands on with pink, and spending over a million dollars a year bullying any other organization that even comes close to its “For the Cure” trademark.

Planned Parenthood received $680,000 in 2011 and $580,000 in 2010 from Komen for breast-cancer screening and related services. Nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams were supported by Komen grants.

This is a new low. While they claim they are trying to protect the purity of their funding, it seems more likely that they’re trying to protect themselves against association with the anti-choice, anti-sex attacks leveled against Planned Parenthood.

The Susan G. Komen message boards are being flooded with comments from women protesting this betrayal of women’s health concerns. I encourage you to add your voice.

There are also “Boycott Susan G. Komen” groups popping up on Facebook, and here’s where I suggest caution. If you read the group descriptions, at least one of these groups is an anti-choice cause basing its attacks on the fact that SGK was giving money to Planned Parenthood. The group to join is the one I just linked to, not the Boycott Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, which is the anti-choice group.

So today would be a good day to join the Facebook group, let them know how seriously you take this attack on choice and women’s health, and contribute to Planned Parenthood’s Breast Health Emergency Fund.

Nominations to replace Rep. Weston are in

Burlington Representative Jason Lorber just tweeted that the local Democrats are forwarding three names to Governor Shumlin to consider as a replacement for the (sadly) outgoing Burlington Representative Rachel Weston: Jill Krowinski, Autumn Barnett, and Curt McCormack.

I have no doubt that any one of those three would make an excellent Representative.

…but…

GO JILL!

(Weston is leaving Vermont for a new position in Jordan promoting women’s political participation.)

Ouch!

VTdigger is carrying a retraction today that bears some discussion.  This is not to pile blame on ‘Digger for its mistake in posting a press release that was later found to have come from a known hate group, but to consider how easy it is to perpetuate lies and distortions in this era of instant news coverage.  

Publisher Anne Galloway explains that the release, which concerned the purported results of a “survey” on attitudes toward undocumented workers, came to VTdigger from what has usually been a ‘reliable source.’  

The information was distributed by PRNewswire, a commonly used mainstream media information source, and it was also published in The Sacramento Bee.

We received an email from Brendan O’Neill, an activist with Migrant Justice, within minutes of posting the FAIR press release. O’Neill who is an advocate for Mexican migrant workers in Vermont pointed out that FAIR has a dubious reputation. The organization is described as a “hate” group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization, based in Montgomery, Ala.

At least Galloway had the good sense and dignity to promptly remove the scurrilous press release and issue a heartfelt apology.

VTdigger is, after all, of somewhat limited resources, and mistakes can happen; but I was curious to see just how many distinct times this “survey” was referenced on Google by different venues.

The answer is: plenty.  I gave up counting at forty.  

How many times must a lie be repeated before it assumes a mantle of “truthiness” that no amount of daylight can dissolve?

FDA Plays Footsie Too

We’ve focused recently on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s historic conflict of interest.  Although the name and peculiar autonomy the Commission enjoys would both suggest that it is a scrupulous servant of the public good, whose sole function is to ensure that all aspects of nuclear energy production in this country are held to the highest standard of safety; it has long been apparent that the NRC is primarily a servant of the industry it is charged with regulating.

In another example of a regulatory agency that seems to be corrupted by its intimacy with the industry it monitors, we are learning that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) spied on the personal e-mail of a group of six of its scientists and doctors who raised concerns to Congress about medical devices approved by the FDA, that might cause injury to patients.  

All six of the spying victims have experienced harassment or dismissal since their whistleblower status was discovered through the e-mail surveillance.

This revelation, that the FDA mistreated whistleblowers at the possible behest of industry, comes just as a petition is circulating online to once again demand that the President withdraw his appointment (made in 2009) of a former VP and lobbyist for Monsanto, Michael Taylor, to serve as Food Safety “czar” to the FDA.  

It was Mr. Taylor’s lobbying efforts that were central to allowing Bovine Growth Hormone (rGBH) to enter our milk supply.

With industry so deeply embedded in our federal regulatory agencies, it begs the question: how far can we actually be from the regulation-free landscape that Republicans have been clamoring for for years?

Vermonters For Quality Mental Health Press Conference Excerpts

On January 25, a coalition of groups and individuals calling itself “Vermonters for Quality Mental Health” held a press conference at the State House to voice their concern about the Shumlin Administration’s plan to replace the acute mental health beds at the antiquated Vermont State Hospital with only a 16-bed facility in central Vermont and some additional acute beds in private hospitals in Brattleboro and Rutland. VSEA is assisting the coalition with getting its message out and would like to share this short 10-minute video with you.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Odum: “I’m a purity of the process guy”

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

This interview takes place just before Odum announced his goodbye to the GMD community. It has been tough not to notice, however, that he has been more prolific than ever. So fret not, as his bid for Montpelier City Clerk does not culminate until Town Meeting Day, John will still be GMD’s heart and soul for at least the month of February.  

First we discussed John’s print journalism gig at The Bridge. Then we reflected on Odum’s ode to odious 2011, and how the Occupy Wall Street movement has already improved the political dynamic in 2012. Next we previewed the statewide races, in particular Governor Shumlin’s rock star status and the GMD Oddsmaker. We turned to another rock star who’s up for re-election, Senator Sanders, considering his lack of opposition as well as his recent “corporations aren’t people, my friend” legislation.

Finally we discussed the Republican Presidential primary and the supposed inevitability of Romney. John nailed it and said South Carolina would determine whether we in Vermont would have a choice between Romney or Paul or a Romney-Gingrich-Paul choice on our primary day. (John assumes Santorum will be out.) Then I asked John if he advised voting in the VT Repub Primary, and he said no, that after crossing over years ago and voting for Fred Tuttle, he felt bad about it.

Funny though, the guy who now needs to win big in Florida is decidedly NOT a “purity of the process” guy. Here’s Romney defending his own crossing over to vote in Democratic primaries:

I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot. And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took. I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot.

So it looks like Vermonters will have a chance to apply Romney’s own logic on Town Meeting Day. So what say ye GMDers? Purity of the process or a chance to vote against a walking corporation?

oh and John, This blog will be a bit like the Enterprise without James Tiberius Kirk at the helm, but I know you’ll make a great City Clerk. And note that he is on record as getting leftygeek.com up and running by Town Meeting Day!

THE FIRST VERMONT PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL (for links to the candidates exploratory committees, refer to the diary on the right-hand column)!!! If the 2008 Vermont Democratic Presidential Primary were

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

2011 Changes to Voting Rights: Unnecessary Solutions to Non-Existent Problems

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

by Jim Condos

Vermont Secretary of State

Posted:

On the Huffington Post, 1/20/12 05:18 PM ET

I am mindful that it is an important election year — and as Vermont’s Secretary of State, there is one item of particular distress to me — the suppression of voter participation in the United States.

Yes, the very basis of our democracy is under siege — under the guise of preventing voter fraud!

In 2011, legislation was introduced in 40 states to limit voter participation in the following ways:

•mandating photo IDs in order to cast a ballot;

•reducing early voting days — in some cases from 45 days to 7;

•repealing election day registration;

•restricting student voting;

•repealing voter-verified ballot paper trail for all voting machines;

•restricting voter registration drives by placing obstructive burdens on filing.

Frankly, these changes threaten the very fabric of our democracy.

According to a report by Wendy R. Weiser and Lawrence Norden at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law,

“These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election.”

These legislative changes also place disproportionate burdens upon other groups including the elderly, overseas, and military voters.

(Note: The balance of this diary is included beneath the fold)

The Brennan Center has analyzed the changes made in 14 states and showed how more than five million eligible voters attempting to cast ballots in 2012 will find it difficult or impossible. Proponents of this wave of voting “reforms” are citing voter fraud as the rationale, but every study that has been done, even ones conducted by the advocates of reform, show no evidence to support this. In 2007, after a five year effort to review whether “voter fraud” was a problem, the US Department of Justice found virtually no evidence and further stated that the few cases brought forward were found to be mistakes made in filling out forms or understanding vote eligibility rules — none of which would be deterred by voter ID legislation.

Although we, as a nation, have struggled with the issue of voting rights for a good part of our history, ensuring voter equality and increasing voter participation have always been a priority. In 1788, when the US Constitution was ratified, the electorate was limited to white male landowners. In 1870, the fifteenth amendment prohibited the use of a citizen’s race, color or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting. In 1920, the nineteenth amendment prohibited preventing any citizen from voting based on their sex. In 1961, the twenty-third amendment granted the District of Columbia three Electoral College votes. In 1964, the twenty-fourth amendment abolished the poll tax. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act to bar literacy tests, ban overt racial discrimination, and require the Department of Justice to review and pre-approve any election law changes in states with histories of racial disenfranchisement. Finally, in 1971, the twenty-sixth amendment set the minimum voting age at 18. We have worked too hard to pass and enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to turn back the clock now.

These were important milestones for American democracy, propelling our country forward as a more inclusive, open society, where all eligible adult citizens could exercise their right to vote; culminating in the 2008 Presidential Election with more voters participating than ever before — a turnout more racially and ethnically diverse than ever with a greater number of young and low-income voters casting ballots.

As a nation, we should be proud of a greater participation of eligible voters in our electoral process. Instead, we are seeing states attempt, and sometimes succeed, to reverse this trend. Democracy and access to voting should not be a partisan issue, but it appears to be heading in that direction. I urge my colleagues around the country to ensure the placing of undue burdens on our rights as US citizens is halted and reversed before our democracy is further eroded.

Denying eligible voters the ability to use their constitutionally protected right to participate is the real voter fraud.

HUMANIZE OR EUTHANIZE

A conversation that is under the radar might surprise some… the ‘exit strategy’ conversation.

The health care topic seems to be getting a lot of attention these days. In Vermont the Death with Dignity Bill was to be considered by the Legislature during the current session. It is now reported that the Bill will be put on hold. Physician assisted suicide is a controversial topic. Moral, philosophical, and scientific considerations are included in the debate.

In complete disclosure – I believe that all life is sacred. That puts me on one side of the argument – sort of. I also believe that if pain is so intense that it does not respond to any drug, compassion might be the preferred stance. Moral conundrums always make life complicated. To gain some clarity on this question, I recently had a conversation with a doctor. I chose a doctor who is highly respected for her humanitarianism. My question was whether or not pain could be so horrific that nothing would relieve it. I suggested putting the patient in a coma. The doctor told me intractable pain is something that can happen, and then she quickly expanded her answer. She said it is extremely rare. That is reassuring. It seems to me, a patient in pain should be given anything that works – morphine drips, pot, absinthe – anything if it can relieve intense pain. When nothing works, we have to rethink the moral dilemma.

The final decision about any medical procedure should be the right of the patient. To insure that this actually happens during a medical crisis, a health care advocate is necessary – not a health care contact. A ‘contact’ person is someone who exists for the convenience of the hospital. An advocate has a totally different role. The advocate can save a life or give permission to pull the plug. Your health care advocate is the most important person in your life. Usually, this is a loved one in the family – a spouse, a son, a daughter, a parent. In this culture the role of ‘family’ has been trivialized. Now many have no family in the same geographical location where they live. How can they have the ‘protection’ of a health care advocate? A less than perfect solution would be for every hospital to have on duty 24/7 a Patient Advocate who is not employed by the hospital and not in the chain of command of the hospital. This is necessary to avoid conflict of interest. Having a hospital Patient Advocate is like putting a band aid on a fractured skull, but it might be better than nothing.

Another solution would be to match those without an advocate with a compassionate member of the community. A project such as this could be taken on by church or civic groups.

Does pre-planning take care of end of life issues – maybe, or maybe not. An Advance Directive is only as good as the advocate who has the responsibility of insuring that the written requirements are met. Without a dedicated advocate, the Advance Directive is just another piece of paper.

The case of 30 year-old Ronald Comeau made nation-wide news a while back. He really needed an advocate as the decision to pull the plug was being considered. This case fascinated the nation when it was reported across the country.

Another more recent case proves that an advocate is necessary even after death. This case is sometimes referred to as the ‘Case of the Body Snatchers’. Even being rich and famous is not a guarantee of justice after death. The body of Alistair Cooke, British Journalist and host of Masterpiece Theater, was one of many that were not protected as required by law. The cutting apart of human bodies, so that human tissue, skin, and bone could be sold was a thriving business – for a while. It is not known how widespread this criminal activity is today.

Sometimes an advocate should even be present during dental procedures – as in the recent case of the Massachusetts dentist who used paper clips for root canal procedures. He is currently being prosecuted.

And then there are the murders in nursing homes – two have been publicized in Vermont lately. Is this just the tip of the iceberg? How many go unreported? No one will ever know. As a volunteer in a nursing home, I saw some things that were very troubling. But, on the other hand, I was impressed by some of the staff who did the real work of caring for the residents. Those staff members were kind and compassionate, and probably underpaid. Even with dedicated workers, a nursing home resident needs an advocate – one who will visit at unpredictable times. A reputable nursing home in Pennsylvania stopped feeding a resident. When the family questioned this, they were told, “Well, he was going to die anyway”.

One of the most important duties of an advocate is to guard against medical errors. My mother’s life was saved twice when we caught medication errors by the Hospitalist – the doctor assigned by a hospital in Pennsylvania. My mother’s personal physician would not have made these errors.

Medical personnel are among the most highly respected and valued members of the community. Excellent doctors saved my life twice. Most of us are blessed with dedicated doctors who are not paid what they are worth. Some surgeons and GPs are grossly underpaid. Too much money in health care goes to the top – pharmaceutical company CEOs, insurance company CEOs, hospital CEOs. Health care will not improve until the insurance companies are eliminated. Price controls on pharmaceuticals are needed. In Vermont, too much tax payer money is being drained from the system by the committee of experts hired to design the new system. Every dollar spent on administration, is a dollar that does not go to patient care.

A conversation that is under the radar might surprise some… the ‘exit strategy’ conversation. Some, while still in their prime years, look ahead and recognize the sad reality of living in the United States. Elder abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly are on the increase. In Vermont, the backlog of cases means that many will die before their case gets to the top of the pile. A law suit has been filed. “Vulnerable adults are people incapable of protecting themselves from the nephew who steals the Social Security check or the caregiver who leaves the woman with physical and cognitive limitations sitting in her feces,” said Barbara Prine of the Disability Law Project. For many, there will be no justice.

The prospect of inadequate health care, loss of the family home due to medical bills, and isolation all contribute to a distrust of the future. Add to that, the sometimes not too subtle message, that ‘old people’ are using up too much of medical resources and thus ‘stealing’ from their grandchildren. The guilt trip this places on the elderly is very painful. Not only the elderly, but also the disabled and those who need ongoing medical care, are marginalized in our culture. While having safe conversations, some admit that they are prepared. They have a plan for self-authorization when the time comes – before it is too late to take the necessary action.

This conversation is often with healthy, emotionally stable, middle aged people, living at home with their families. For one, money was the big issue. We have all seen families impoverished with health care expense. For another, in a nursing home, it was the poor quality of care he was receiving. He did not have a terminal illness, but he actively searched for a doctor who would assist him in suicide. He was not successful in finding one. He needed an advocate so that his quality of life could be improved. My friend did not need some exotic expensive medical procedure that could not be provided. All he needed was a compassionate humanitarian to come forward.

And then there is the man in Wayne, New Jersey. He was found dead in his home after being dead for a year. Maybe his life could have been saved by an advocate.

ROSEMARIE JACKOWSKI

Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist and peace activist. She is author of BANNED IN VERMONT.

dissent@sover.net