A couple days ago I read the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) had named both Rep.Charlie Bass(R) and Rep. Frank Guinta (R) of New Hampshire to their “Most corrupt members of Congress” list (ten Republicans, four Democrats). At the time I paid more attention to “local” seven-term Congressman Bass’ ethical problems from financial involvement with an energy pellet manufacturing company and legislation that he sponsored that may have benefited the firm.

But up and coming freshman Rep.Frank Guinta is the one I should have looked at, as he has a Vermont connection. Guinta not only made  CREW’s list of fourteen most corrupt congressmen but he will be special guest at the Vermont Republican Party at their Harvest Dinner fundraiser. According to VtBuzz the Vermont Democratic Party is understandably calling attention to this event and suggesting that the Vermont Republicans repudiate Rep.Guinta’s questionable ethics rather than honoring him at their Harvest fundraiser.  

Guinta is said to have fudged the facts around some campaign finance money by making a series of loans to himself. He loaned his campaign $355,000, yet his financial disclosure forms revealed that he didn’t have sufficient assets to cover this generous amount. Later he amended the disclosures to include his formerly unidentified ‘mystery’ bank account containing a balance of a quarter-million to a half-million dollars. He claimed his failure to disclose the account was “an inadvertent oversight.”

Commenting on the issue, Vermont Republican Party Chair Pat MacDonald noted that

“there has been no action taken.”

[against Guinta] and after mentioning an award Gunita won and some of his committee assignments, she adds

“We are just very excited to have him.”

He is no Reince Priebus but no doubt Guinta could offer some helpful firsthand do’s and don’ts on handling campaign funds. So who would be the watchdog that barks first, Jim Condos or Tom Salmon, hmmm?

(Town forests is something that gets talked about, but tribal forests? Here’s an interesting conversation that hasn’t hit the radar screen yet – what do you think? – promoted by odum)

See Luke Willard, Nulhegan Abenaki leader, call for the creation of Tribal and Town Forests across Vermont!

Luke Willard, former Chief of the Northeast Kingdom’s Nulhegan Abenaki Tribe, and current Vermont Commissioner on Native American Affairs, spoke in front of a large crowd at the VT Moving Plant rally. Mr. Willard, speaking on behalf of the Nulhegan Abenaki, the VT Sierra Club, and the Our Forests Our Future campaign demanded comprehensive conservation through the creation of new town and tribal forests. Watch this historic speech now!

    *On September 24th, 2011, over 1500 Vermonters rallied in the State Capital of Montpelier (population: 7800) to demand action on Climate change, and to support community forests, green (union) jobs, energy efficient homes and buildings, 100% renewable energy, local/healthy food, and green transportation. This was quite possibly the largest environmental demonstration in the history of the Green Mountain State. In addition to the Abenaki, the speakers included Mike Morelli of the Iron Workers Local 7 (in support of green jobs), Governor Peter Shumlin, and US Senator Bernie Sanders. The event was organized by 350Vermont, and was endorsed by the Vermont Sierra Club.  

Pat McDonald, the chair of the Vermont Republican Party, put the state's Republicans squarely in the Ebenezer Scrooge wing of the party exemplified by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

It's not surprising that Eric Cantor would publicly take the position, “Screw the flood victims! No aid without tax cuts,” but it's a bit surprising that the Republicans in Vermont would take that same line. Sure enough, though, that's what she's doing. As Bob Kinzel reported on VPR this afternoon:

She also wants [Shumlin] to pledge not to increase any taxes for recovery programs and to begin to implement Republican plans to reform education financing in the state. (McDonald) “We've got to make some really tough decisions going forward to get people back on their feet to get businesses open and people back to work.”

McDonald's so-called action plan, posted on the state Republican Party's web page, calls for freezes and cuts to all other state programs to prepare to return some taxpayer dollars to the state treasury. She also wants to use the crisis to push “education finance reforms” that state Republicans have been pushing for in recent years to attack local control and slash state support for schools, and to raid the Housing and Conservation Board.

 Republicans in Congress last week have been threatening to shut down the government because Democrats in the House and Senate want to provide hurricane and flood relief to states that were hit hard by Hurricane Irene, including Vermont, although late developments suggest that a deal may be in the works. As Cantor put it right after the storm went through:

he believed any additional funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster response budget should be taken from other government programs. The FEMA budget is reportedly under strain after relief responses to the Midwest tornadoes and Virginia earthquake.

But McDonald? There are people in Vermont still working hard every day to clean up after last month's flooding.

There are people in her own town of Berlin who have been made homeless by the flooding and are still looking for help. But what's her plan? Use the catastrophe that Vermonters are suffering for an opportunity to push her agenda of cutting taxes and undermining public education.

I just have one question for Pat McDonald: Have you no shame?

(Case in point. – promoted by Sue Prent)

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee reported output at only 36% this morning. The reactor was forced to reduce power after one of the recirculation pumps, which cool the aging reactor, failed Sunday night.

ENVY has 24 hours to repair the pump, or it must shut down the reactor.

A planned shutdown for refueling had been scheduled for early October. ENVY changes out 1/3 of its fuel every 18 months.

As the end of the 18 month fuel cycle nears, the build up of fission products within the fuel bundles makes it more difficult to control the reactor. ENVY has reduced power slightly each week over the last several weeks. Last week, the reactor operated at 96% power.

Of course, that’s still 15% higher output than the Fukushima-style GE reactor was originally designed for. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Public Service Board allowed ENVY to increase output by 20% in the middle of the last decade.

Susan Smallheer is following the story at the Rutland Herald.

http://rutlandherald.typepad.c…

Fairewinds Introduces a Japanese Language Edition and Identifies Safety Problems in all Reactors Designed Like Fukushima from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

While, here at home, a recent fire in the office of Vermont Yankee has both sides of the relicensing controversy eyeing each other suspiciously; in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, the NRC has just released a report detailing concerns about those other Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors, which are identical to the one operating at VY.

In a new video analysis that appeared simultaneously on the brand new fairewinds.jp Japanese site, Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates discusses three key issues that were neatly excluded from the NRC report .

These include fatal design flaws in the Mark 1 BWR containment which were identified long ago.

It is apparent from NRC correspondence dating back as far as the early ’70’s, not long after the Mark 1 had been put into widespread use, that they became aware of the problems in a timely manner.

In the case of  the Mark 1 “pressure suppression containment,” which was recognized to be ineffective, the NRC chose not to impose an outright ban on the design because to do so might curtail the prospects of a nascent nuclear industry.  

When it was later discovered that hydrogen build-up could cause an explosion, the industry was allowed to make a voluntary modification, adding a vent that was supposed to alleviate the problem.  As Arnie points out, by “proactively” making the modification on a “voluntary” basis, the industry excused itself from scrutiny it would have undergone from both public and regulatory inquisitors, had the NRC acted to make the modification compulsory.

Before the Fukushima accident, neither the vents nor the containment had ever been tested.  At Fukushima, they were tested three times and failed.

Another design issue raised by Fukushima but ignored in the NRC report, is the location of the control rods in the bottom of the reactor rather than at the top where they are located in pressurized water reactors.  

To  put it simply, this effectively makes the reactor bottom a sieve, with sixty drill holes into which hollow metal tubing has been inserted.  If, in the event of an accident, the core melts,  how long do you think it takes for those hollow metal tubes to dissolve, leaving sixty convenient down-spouts through which molten core can flow?

By contrast, in pressurized water reactors, with their top-loaded control rods, the bottom of the reactor vessel is thick, solid and uninterrupted.

So…one more reason why it’s crazy to allow those Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors to continue operating…right?

Not if you’re crunching numbers in a computerized cost/benefit analysis model that has, itself, a fatal flaw.

… And this is what it appears the NRC has been doing!  

Watch the video; you won’t be sorry.  Or maybe, you will.  

The Vermont AFL/CIO elected a new President, denying incumbent Jill Charbonneau a second term. The results were:

Ben Johnson: 3203

Jill Charbonneau: 2548

At 36, AFT Head Johnson may well be the youngest Vermont AFL Chief ever (anybody know?). Johnson’s ascension within and AFL that has been working to enhance it’s limited historical clout signals increasing influence for the Vermont AFT, and likely more resources for the AFL, given AFT’s deeper pockets.

Readers may recall the controversy that arose in labor circles around Charbonneau last election, in regards to Vermont Yankee:

When the IBEW announced it would participate in a press conference opposing the efforts in the Senate to hold Entergy accountable, the AFL did not release a statement.

And yet, here was the newspaper photo from the press conference… (where you can see) see the director of the state AFL-CIO (participating in the pro-Yankee display).

So what was he doing there?

To put it mildly, some members of the AFL Executive Board were not happy.

…After the AFL convention, who directed AFL staff to stand in support of relicensing at the press conference, in defiance of the desires of the group?

According to insiders, that was likely acting Vermont AFL President Charbonneau

( – promoted by odum)

Nice of Larry ENVY to start pointing fingers – before the fire marshal’s investigation is complete – for the fire at the ENVY office in Brattleboro.

Smith wasted no time in pointing at the anti-nuke folks.

Although tensions have been high regarding the continued operation of the nuclear power plant, this was the first time someone had put people’s lives at risk, Smith said. He added that he was shocked that someone could be so selfish as to put their agenda before someone’s lives.

[from VPR] (Smith) “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 in our 39 year history.”

Right, lives were in such danger at corporate headquarters at 3 a.m.

“When the first crew arrived the sprinkler system was active and there was smoke in the first floor of the building,” [Fire Chief Michael Buccossi] told the Reformer. “Fire damage was minor as we were able to extinguish it in a short amount of time, but there was moderate water and smoke damage to the building.”

The usual anti-nuke spokespeople all seemed to fall right in line with the suggestion that some anti-nuke person or group had broken in and started the fire.

[Dan] DeWalt said setting fire to a building as a form of protest is “highly counter-productive.”

“We’re trying to win allies here,” he said. “I don’t think an act of violence or of destruction can win allies. The power of our movement is in our non-violence.”

Given that the state is now battling the worn out and obsolete plant’s continued operation beyond March, 2012, it just wouldn’t make any sense for the grass-roots anti-nukes to even consider such a thing.

Bob Stannard, spokesman for Citizen Awareness Network, which also opposes Yankee’s continued operation, agreed with DeWalt […]

“This whole process is all about playing in the confines of the rules of the game,” Stannard said. Setting a fire is pointless and not to be condoned, he added.

After dumping that thought, my next one was to wonder whether someone staged the break-in and fire in order to dispose of inconvenient records or test results that can now not be produced. Nor, if I understand the news coverage correctly, can tests be run in the basement lab.

We have our plant servers and computer systems. And there’s a quality control lab where we test instruments and other nuclear grade equipment. ~ VPR quoting Larry Smith

What a shame. No current data, more delays in releasing test results now done out of state … gosh, who’s the beneficiary there?

Hey, who started the fire?

What fire?

The one they’re not talking about.

Who’s They?

The fuckers that started the fire.

Listen, I don’t know anything about no fire

or what the fuck you’re talking about.

At least I’m talking about it.  You’d think they’d be talking about it.  But I can’t find anything on the web about the fire.  Except that it happened.

And when was this?

Few days ago.  Tuesday.

Old news now.  No wonder they’re not talking about it.  Who cares?

Man, you don’t get it.  This was a really important fire.  There should be some news about it.  But there ain’t.

How ’bout them Red Sox?  Assholes!

Jesus Christ!  You know, some day, if this shit keeps up, we won’t be able to find out what the Red Sox are doing. Just like the fire.

What?  There was a fire at Fenway?!  Why the fuck didn’t you say so!

Hey, where’re you going?

To a TV.  Fox News, whatever.  Got to find out about this fire!

Jeez, look at him go.  Should have said “where’s the fire?”  

What fire?

Excuse me, lady?

I heard you just now as I was passing.  Talking about a fire.  What fire?

Oh, that.  Nothing.  There’s no fire.  I was just talking to myself.

Well, you shouldn’t talk to yourself out loud about fires.  People might get the wrong ideas.

Jeez.  Do ya think?

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, vt.

I talked about this years ago, but I’m in a mood today so I’m going to rant. There’s a political, conventional-wisdom axiom I’d really like to see consigned to the graveyard. Unfortunately, it’s forever in chic in Democratic Party circles, and adherence to it explains a lot of what has been wrong with the Democratic Party since LBJ.

It’s the most destructive quote in politics:

“Politics is the art of the possible.” -Otto Von Bismarck

As I’ve said in the past, this single line and the sentiment behind it sums up the steady marginalizing of anything that could be considered visionary by so many elected Democrats. It is the poison of cynicism masked in rhetorical elegance. It is both the implicit permission to surrender on policy, as well as a suggestion that working towards truly far-reaching goals is immature and unrealistic.

Why? Because if something becomes too hard to achieve politically, it casually gets dismissed under this Bismarckian axiom as “impossible,” and therefore impolitic. If something requires too much out-of-the-box thinking, it too is “impossible” and tossed out by the purveyors of conventional wisdom and timid officeholders. It’s a one-size fits all cop-out that allows politicians and those who consider themselves to be political sophisticates to cast any failings of vision, courage, and commitment as virtues.

If only the following were as readily quoted:

“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

This can be a cynical quote too – but it doesn’t have to be. It’s actually a much more versatile quote. Sure, it says we are often stuck between a bad choice and a worse one. If you can’t accept the reality of that, you’re simply not paying attention. But that’s neither the beginning and the end of the quotation, nor our politics.

Taking risks is also unpalatable. Pushing politically explosive solutions can be unpalatable. Being the first, lone voice for change in an institution mired in inertia (such as the Congress) is highly unpalatable. In fact, revolutions of any shape, size or flavor are always unpalatable.

But when the alternative is “disastrous,” the choice is clear – or at least it should be, if we can heave the Bismarck nonsense.