If I had thought much about it I would have assumed the ever vigilant Vermont Yankee management team might keep their corporate office’s door locked.

However in Brattleboro on Monday eleven women from an anti-nuclear group walked through an unlocked door and entered Entergy’s Vermont Yankee corporate headquarters.

The eleven protesters walked in and spread out yellow crime scene tape in the emergency operations press center conference room in order to make a citizens arrest before they themselves were arrested.  

The door they gained entrance through is operated by an electronic key system and people normally enter only when accompanied by an Entergy employee.

Larry Smith, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, said 11 people had been arrested Monday but declined to comment further about why the front door to the headquarters was unlocked.

Did I mention the door was unlocked and unattended?

All this follows after last September’s fire at VY headquarters. The fire at Vermont Yankee corporate offices in Brattleboro was termed brazen and suspicious. As far as anyone knows it is still under investigation.

Commenting on the fire last September spokesman Larry Smith said

"It's a little disturbing; it's unnerving. If the cause of the fire is determined to be deliberate, that's the most brazen, deliberate attempt on our property, or our employees or one of our facilities in our 39 year history."

Suggestion: Keep an eye on those unlocked doors, never know who might wander in.

Addendum to my previous post, entered as a separate post because (a) the original “Lismania” is plenty long enough already, and (b) I wanted to promote some good information out of the Comments, mainly from Doug Hoffer.

The more I look at the Campaign for Vermont website, the more it resembles a politician’s website. It’s billed as a public-spirited gathering of individuals from across the political spectrum, but Bruce Lisman’s name and face are ubiquitous. He’s on the home page in his hiker’s garb, and his smiling mug (w/oddly unfocused eyes) sits prominently in the right-hand side of every page, right next to the “Join The Campaign For Vermont” option.

The group’s “platform” is described as “a compilation of policy ideas from many Vermonters,” but it’s entitled “The Lisman Perspective.” (Which, btw, sounds like the most boring Robert Ludlum novel ever written.)

Then there’s the fact that Lisman is the only public face of the CFV. It’s supposed to be a broad-based gathering of selfless individuals — but Bruce Lisman is omnipresent in everything the group does, and his is the only voice you ever hear. I guess he’s sorta like the Borg Queen of Policy Ideas, subsuming everyone’s thoughts into his own. Either that, or he’s running for something.

This didn’t really strike me full-force until after I’d posted “Lismania.” Yeah, the Campaign for Vermont looks a whole lot like the precursor of a potential run for Governor in, say, 2014: a way of positioning a wealthy Wall Streeter* as a solid citizen with Vermont’s best interests at heart, rebranding conservative Republican ideas in a liberal state, and avoiding the fate of notorious political flameouts Rich Tarrant and Jack McMullen.

Finally, thanks to BP and Doug Hoffer for pointing out the solidly Republican nature of this “nonpartisan” initiative. Doug even did the spadework I didn’t bother to do:

A quick check found that together these individuals have contributed almost $250,000 to various political campaigns over the last 20 years (mostly the last ten). Of that, about 90% went to Republicans (state & federal). The largest recipients were the Vermont Republican Federal Elections Committee, Brian Dubie, and Jim Douglas.

If they contribute to the CFV as they have to Republican candidates and committees, then most of the money is coming from Messrs. Pizzagalli ($100k+ in political contributions), Lisman ($65k), and (Walt) Freed ($22k).

Bold prediction: the “Campaign for Vermont,” if it gains any traction, will morph into the “Campaign for Bruce” sometime in the near future.

*A wealthy Wall Streeter who has the cojones to assert, in The Lisman Perspective, “We also must diligently make sure that the principles of Main Street prevail over the excesses of Wall Street.” If he can say that with a straight face, my hat’s off to him.

Okay, so who is this Bruce Lisman who's suddenly unavoidable? He's all over the newspapers, and spending God knows how much money on advertising (though I do appreciate his support of my favorite local station, WDEV). He's touting the Campaign for Vermont, a new, nonpartisan Hands Across The Water nonprofit organization seeking A Better Future For Us All. 

I don't know Bruce Lisman from Adam. (Or Steve, for that matter.) But while I admire his dedication to pursuing a more prosperous and better-governed Vermont… and while there are certainly a lot worse things he could be doing with his bankroll (lookin' at you, Koch Bros)… I have to say that every time I read about him or hear him talk, I get the unmistakable whiff of farm-fresh fertilizer, if you know what I mean and I think you do. 

His goals are phrased in such a way as to be almost mom-and-apple-pie inarguable. “Campaign for Vermont” — who among us is against Vermont? His publicly visible supporters are hearteningly, Vermontingly, bipartisan. The Campaign homepage features a photo of Bruce on a mountain trail in full hiking gear, just like a real Vermonter. Other photos show a group of smiling multicultural children, a happy family, a construction worker, two people petting a horse, a child with a bushel of apples. Awwww. 

But the rhetoric, while artful, is full of dog whistles echoing conservative talking points. 

The language on health care is full of muted warnings about the possible impact of a single-payer system, the bete noire of conservatives. It posits the riskiness of single-payer in a series of hypothetical questions: What if it doesn't contain cost? What if it can't satisfy patients and providers? What if political pressure affects the quality or cost?

Boogeymen, one and all. “What if it's a disaster?” Well, what if it isn't? What if we cling to the current system, which is a proven disaster? CFV's vision of health care is all about the preservation of competition — because we can all see how well the free market has served us to date. You might as well tell us to stay in bed because there might be monsters in the closet, you never know. 

CFV's position on energy is heavy on conservative talking points with the overt conservatism stripped out. “Reliable, affordable, safe and clean” — words right out of the Vermont Yankee playbook, without actually mentioning nuclear power. CFV offers support for alternative energy, but also raises questions about reliability and cost, particularly when spending public funds on the effort. (Solyndra, anyone?) 

Its statement on education bristles with conservative attacks on the current system, couched in pleasantly neutral tones. It says the schools cost too much and aren't good enough. It appears to call, in polite language, for spending cuts, school choice, and disempowering the unions — more or less the John Kasich/Scott Walker agenda.  

The Campaign also wants to see a lot more transparency and accountability in government. Yes, that is a good thing. And Vermont institutions often fall short on these important goals. But when Lisman starts talking about measuring the outcomes of government programs, he is wrapping a nonpartisan cloak around the old conservative call for “running government like a business.” Well, Bruce, government isn't a business. And there are lots of government operations you can't evaluate on a spreadsheet or quarterly report. 

The CFV focuses its attention on the Agency for Human Services. It asks why we can't be told how many of “the most vulnerable” there are in Vermont, why they are “vulnerable,” (quotation marks are theirs) and whether AHS programs are achieving results. This isn't as bad as Newt Gingrich wanting to hire poor kids as part-time janitors, but it's the same tactic: go after the programs that help the poor. (They could have pointed to transportation spending, which is a merry-go-round of political influence and patronage. Road contractors are routinely among the most generous donors to local and state political campaigns.) 

And then there's Bruce Lisman himself. I don't doubt that he is firmly convinced of the purity of his purpose. And as I said earlier, there are a lot worse things he could be doing with his money. 

But is he the best messenger for this cause? I look at his resume, and I see a career spent on Wall Street, culminating with a top executive position at the late lamented Bear Stearns, victim of the 2008 Wall Street collapse. Profile pieces in the Vermont media paint him as a relatively good guy and basically absolve him of any of the nefarious dealings that almost brought down the global economy. But he was certainly in the power structure. And a top position at Bear Stearns doesn't exactly qualify him as a standard-bearer for transparency, social responsibility, good government, and a sound economy. 

And then there's his years of service on the UVM Board of Trustees, that paragon of openness, transparency, and quality. He's been off the Board for several years, so he can't be blamed for the Dan and Rachel Kahn-Fogel imbroglio or the liberal handouts of nondisclosure agreements, severance packages, and golden parachutes routinely used to sweep scandal under the Catamount-skin rug. But it is fair to say that he was part of UVM's power structure, and was in a position to change the culture. If he tried to change anything, he didn't exactly succeed. If he didn't try, then his credibility as the face of reform is severely impaired. 

But let's set aside the atmospherics of the message, and the questionable qualifications of the messenger. The sudden ubiquity of this Campaign makes me wonder: Who's really behind it? Where is all the money coming from? Why is CFV automatically given “centrist” credence and largely uncritical reportage? And, most importantly, where does it go from here? How will it seek to impact the political process? Is it a gathering of good and honest folk who simply want what's best for Vermont? Or is it a Trojan horse for a conservatism (and a Republican Party) that has fallen out of favor and out of power in our state? A new “rebranding” of policies that can't gain political traction in their present guise? And is Bruce Lisman selflessly promoting a better future, or is he the next Rich Tarrant, generously offering to share a rich man's wisdom and leadership with the unwashed?

I honestly don't know. And if anyone has a contrary view or a more informed opinion on Mr. Lisman, I'm happy to hear it. He and the CFV aim to be a significant political force in Vermont, and we should know who and what we're dealing with.

But I smell manure. 

Update: Progs decide not to decide, plan to reconvene caucus in January.

Just a quick update on the final caucus results: Miro Weinberger had 655, to State Senator Tim Ashe’s 530.

All is positive-smiley-unity-y by all accounts. Eyes turn to the Progressive caucus (also today, set to begin at 6pm) to see how the loss of Dem-Prog fusion candidate Ashe plays (apparently, Ashe has indicated he will support Weinberger for the position regardless of what the Prog caucus does, which realistically limits their options).

Blurt is providing live coverage. Check it out.

(State Sens. Ginny Lyons & Anthony Pollina are reported preparing a resolution for the next session of the legislature along similar lines, with the support of VPIRG. I don’t know whether the lengthy amendment process will happen in time to “save” what’s left of our Democracy, but it won’t happen if we don’t start the discussion now. And in the meantime, a campaign finance reform bill is stuck in Vermont’s Senate Rules Committee. That is something we can surely do something about sooner than later. – promoted by NanuqFC)

The Constitution of this country has served us well, but when the Supreme Court says that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. That is why I have introduced a resolution in the Senate calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I did not do this lightly. In fact, I had never done it before. The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often. In light of the Supreme Court’s infamous 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, however, I saw no alternative.

I strongly disagree with the ruling. In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign.

Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.

The ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy. It has further tilted the balance of the power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when the wealthiest people in this country already never had it so good. History will record that the Citizens United decision is one of the worst in the history of our country.

At a time when corporations have more than $2 trillion in cash in their bank accounts and are making record-breaking profits, the American people should be concerned when the Supreme Court says that these corporations have a constitutionally-protected right to spend shareholders’ money to dominate an election as if they were real, live persons. If we do not reverse this decision, there will be no end to the impact that corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy.

According to an Oct. 10, 2011, article in Politico, “the billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million — potentially much more — to conservative groups ahead of Election Day 2012.” Others are doing the same thing.

Does anybody really believe that that is what American democracy is supposed to be about?

Think about the consequences in Congress. When an issue comes up that impacts Wall Street, like breaking up huge banks, what will senators be thinking about when they decide how to vote? Every member of the Senate, every member of the House, in the back of their minds will be asking this: If I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big-money interest, am I going to be punished? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state?

It’s not just taking on Wall Street. Maybe it’s taking on the drug companies. Maybe it’s taking on the private insurance companies. Maybe it’s taking on the military-industrial complex. Whatever powerful and wealthy special interests members of Congress are prepared to take on — on behalf of the interest of the middle class and working families of this country — they will know in the back of their mind that there may be a flood of money coming in to their state. They’re going to think twice about how to cast that vote.

When the Supreme Court says that for purposes of the First Amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company’s bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger.

I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. But more needs to be done, something more fundamental and indisputable, something that cannot be turned on its head by a Supreme Court decision. That is why I proposed the constitutional amendment in the Senate as a companion measure to an amendment proposed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Deutch.

We have got to send a constitutional amendment to the states that says simply and straightforwardly what everyone – except five members of the United States Supreme Court – understands: Corporations are not people with equal constitutional rights. Corporations are subject to regulation by the people. Corporations may not make campaign contributions — the law of the land for the last century. And Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

Show your support for this amendment by signing here.  

 Loading ...

This gets funnier the more you watch it (even if it was done by a Ron Paul supporter).

Howard Dean on voting:

“The vote,” he often says, “gets you a C. If you're going to be a citizen you've got to do a hell of a lot more than vote.”

2011 version:

 “I tried to get in, but it was a zoo, so I gave up,” Dean said Thursday. “I stood in line for about 15 minutes. The line didn’t move. It was about 400 people long, and I just didn’t go in.

“Which now, of course, I regret.”

Cross-posted at Rational Resistance http://rationalresistance.blog…

Some of my comic book friends will be aware of the Bizarro World, a DC comics construct designed to be the opposite of earth. As Wikipedia teaches us: In the Bizarro world of “Htrae” (“Earth” spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states “Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!” In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: “Guaranteed to lose money for you”. (And this was before AIG and credit default swaps!)

We’ve long thought that conservatives have a backward, bizarro understanding of how the world works, and today we have some excellent evidence of that fact.

Let’s start with what’s going on on Congress. Yesterday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a resolution to block those power-mad regulators from adopting a rule regulating farm dust. After all, who wants our stout yeoman farmers crippled by the nettling impositions of the pointy-headed bureaucrats in Washington?

Only one tiny quibble, though: EPA had never proposed tightening rules on farm dust, and the agency said lawmakers were raising concerns based on a myth about the rulemaking.

. . .

In her letter dated Oct. 14, [EPA administrator Lisa] Jackson said that she decided to keep the 1987 dust standard in place after a review of the science, an analysis by agency scientists and recommendations from an outside advisory panel.

That’s right, the Republicans have protected farmers against an imaginary regulation.

I guess that’s better than spending their time on legislation that would actually do something, since we know how badly that comes up when Republicans get their way.

Or, to go to a more fertile hotbed of unreality, the right-wing talk radio.

You’ve undoubtedly heard something about President Obama’s speech earlier this week (although, strangely enough, it seemed to get a lot less news coverage than what any number of Republicans said this week).

Here’s what Rush Limbaugh said about it:

The elected president of the United States said in Osawatomie, Kansas, trying to be Teddy Roosevelt, that the United States of America has never worked. That is a quote, “has never worked.”

And here is what President Obama actually said:

Quote:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

As anyone with elementary reading ability can see, what has “never worked” in President Obama’s statement is the boldfaced language: that if we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes, especially for the wealthy, our economy will grow stronger and jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.

There are two important observations to make about this:

1. He is incontrovertibly correct.

2. The people who believe in the assertion about the magical powers of cutting regulations and taxes, regardless of what they say, care nothing about what trickles down to poor people. As long as the rich are better off, that’s literally all they care about.

But most importantly, we see that the only way Limbaugh was able to find to attack Obama’s speech is by attacking the opposite of what Obama actually said. What we see time and again is that the Republicans are not only unaware of reality, they are actively hostile to it.

So in closing, I think there’s only one thing to say: Hello!

This is why we love us some Bernie.

In what represents the first constitutional amendment he has ever proposed while in Congress, Senator Sanders is seeking to reverse the sweeping impacts of the Citizens United Decision handed down two years ago by the Supremes.

“There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by a constitutional amendment,” Sanders said of the effort to override the court decision that he labeled “a complete undermining of democracy.”  

Why is a Constitutional Amendment the only answer to the Citizens United decision?  

The “Saving American Democracy Amendment ” should have popular support amongst the cross-generational tide that has embraced # Occupy Wall Street and carried it to distinct political significance.  This popularity, which should extend broadly beyond Occupy sympathizers, even to include the more cautious denizens of the 99%, is unlikely to go very far in the people’s Congress.

There seems to be little appetite in DC for fighting the “good fights” when it is all most Democrats can do to simply resist the worst impulses of the hostage situation in which they find themselves, vis-a-vis the petty tyranny of the Republican right.

Nevertheless we celebrate Senator Sander’s absolutely necessary proposal, as this and a companion measure proposed in the House by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) represent the steadily building drumbeat for reform that will eventually become irresistible.  

While many may be tempted to characterize Bernie as a Don Quixote figure, forever tilting at windmills, I like to think that, understanding his unique position as an Independent in the midst of a gridlocked chess-game, he is maximizing the opportunity of his free agency to bring the peoples’ true voice thundering into the Senate chamber.  That is a powerful conduit which cannot indefinitely be ignored.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

It was so exciting to attend the organizing meeting of the Young Democrats of Vermont the Sunday after Thanksgiving. About 35 Democrats under age 40 met at the State House in Montpelier, voting on by-laws and electing officers. How cool is it that Kate Lapp is our YDV President at 17? Having young Reps in the legislature like Sarah Buxton and Kesha Ram has been an inspiration!

At this first meeting it was clear that the YDV will be promoting legislation that helps young Vermonters with issues like debt, helping young candidates with campaigns, and acting as a voice for young Vermonters.

So what’s next for this organization? I have made it one of my missions as chair of the Franklin County Democrats to make sure our county has a YDV chapter up and running by Spring 2012. By working with Republicans and Progressives in the county I’m hoping to get in front of students to talk about service and civic involvement in an exciting way and hopefully help a core of new young leaders develop. I’d like to provide campaign training to young volunteers for the 2012 season and encourage young candidates to get their names out.

If you’re under 40 and a Democrat in Vermont, talk to your county chair about starting a YDV chapter. Check out this vt.buzz article about the convention

http://blogs.burlingtonfreepre…

Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/group…