( – promoted by odum)

VPR came out with a report just shortly ago that the Senate Health & Welfare Committee voted the bill unanimously out of committee. It goes on to report on the key parts of the bill, mainly the creation of the 5-person GMC Board as well as setting up the health exchange. 

There is one piece of the legislation that does concern me a little bit. Even after the House had changed the name of the legislation and striken out the mention of single payer, the Senate Health Care Comittee added an amendment by Senator Mullin. Bob Kinzel reports that “the key to winning the support of everyone on the committee was a provision that calls for a comprehensive study before the state considers adopting a single payer system.”

I had to wrap my head around that for the moment and ask myself the question. Was this a bit of deja-vu? Hadn't we already done something similar in commissioning the Hsiao Report? (Update: DH points out in comments the difference between the Mullin amendment and the Hsiao report. Thanks for the correction) Isn't that a comprehensive study of different models of single payer systems for Vermont and have a recommendation for the model that would best serve the state? I gave the legislation voted out of the Senate Health & Welfare Committee a quick look (it's 135 pages) and I don't see a reference to a study, but I'm in a bit of a rush and haven't looked at it deeply, so correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Also, Sen. Baruth had a post a few days back relating to this problem. He says, “The first of these threats has been institutionalized by this point: the House and Senate have agreed to move the Administration’s single-payer plan in a two-stage process, with the empty structure and the resulting questions on the front end, and all of the details, figures and final answers on the back end. That leaves pro-reform elected officials defending against anything and everything for a period of 18 months, minimum.” 

The problem with putting in a study before adopting a single payer system is the delay that Baruth is worried about. I don't know about what others think, but this seems to be a strategy of a death by a thousand cuts, and the Senate Health Committee seemingly is going along with this. Delays and stalling tactics will increase pressure and doubts on the legislature and governor, imperiling the original intent of the administration and leaving us with just with a vastly diminished reform. Am I being a bit too worried here or does this worry have any merit to it?

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been ‘curious’ to hear what Arnie has to say about the most recent turn of events. The caption says it all-there is nothing more to add:

Fukushima Accident Severity Level Raised to ‘7’: Gundersen Discusses Lack of US Radiation Monitoring Data from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

Nuclear Engineer, Arnie Gundersen, discusses why TEPCO’s announcement of an increased accident severity level should not be a surprise.  He also discusses similarities among the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima nuclear accidents and how Governments are once again limiting public access to accurate radiation dose information.  Lastly, Gundersen responds to the overwhelming number of email inquires regarding the Fukushima accident.

If you’ve spent any time in the liberal news-web at all, you know who Lt. Dan Choi is. Choi was discharged from the military two years ago “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and became the highest profile activist in the nation for its repeal. Here’s a bit from his wikipedia page:

Choi received a discharge letter following his coming out on The Rachel Maddow Show. In response, Choi penned an open letter to U.S. President Barack Obama and the United States Congress.[11] In the letter, Choi challenged the morality and wisdom of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, writing that the policy is “a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.”

Despite his appeal and a Courage Campaign petition signed by almost 162,000 people,[12] on June 30, 2009, a panel of New York National Guard officers recommended that Choi be discharged from the military.[13] As of February 2010, Choi was serving again in his National Guard reserve unit, the discharge having not yet been “finalized”.[14] On June 29, 2010, Choi’s discharge was finalized.[1]

Choi is among 59 gay Arabic linguists, along with nine gay Farsi linguists, who have faced a discharge from the U.S. military from 2004 through 2009, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.[15]

Here’s Part 1 (the video portion) of my sit-down with Lt. Dan Choi before his talk last week at Norwich University in Northfield, on April 5th. Lt. Choi talked freely about a range of topics over the course of our 20 minutes or so. In this video segment, he talks a bit about his impressions of Norwich University before going on to discuss the nature of this historical moment we find ourselves in vis-a-vis equality (and what a privilege it is to be a part of it). He also gets a kick out of my calling him a celebrity (he – in progressive activist circles he’s a superstar!), discusses activism in general, and spends some time on the question of why, during the Tea Party backlash, progress on GLBT rights still seems to be creeping forward. Choi discusses how the activism around equality in the 21st century is more about personal identification, rather than than making legislative demands, and talks about the “honor” implicit in the act of coming out.

Part two, where Choi discusses his Christian faith, among many other topics, will be in good ol’ fashioned text. Look for it in the next couple days.

Obama’s budget deficit speech will be a huge topic of conversation over the next few days.  Most progressives, not just those here in Vermont, will be curious to know how Bernie Sanders responds, so I’m posting his official statement verbatim:

“The very serious deficit crisis that we are in today is the result of the severe recession caused by Wall Street greed, two unpaid-for wars, huge tax breaks for the rich, the bailout of giant banks, and an unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program written by the insurance and drug companies.

“Meanwhile, while the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations are doing extremely well, the Republicans want more giant tax breaks for the very rich as they move to balance the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children and by cutting environmental protection and infrastructure. This is morally unacceptable and very bad economics.

“President Obama is right in suggesting that any serious effort toward deficit reduction should require shared sacrifice and that the pain should not simply be felt by working families and the most vulnerable people in our society.

“During the coming weeks I will be working with members of the Senate and the House on a deficit reduction proposal which cuts spending in those areas of government which are wasteful and unnecessary, while at the same time asking the wealthiest people in this country and the most profitable corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes.  I am especially interested in ending those loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthy to shelter income in tax havens overseas, costing the U.S. Treasury an estimated $100 billion a year in revenue.”

For questions, you can contact: Michael Briggs or Will Wiquist (202) 224-5141

   Black Rain

they’re doing it again

in ’44 & ’45

they sent us

balloons with bombs

then we dropped

the Big One

here in Vermont

the rain is not

to be swallowed

higher levels

of radioactivity

measured near

Vermont Yankee

can now be blamed

on Pearl Harbor

America under attack

candidates will

spread the word

plutonium orbits

in the kazes

diving down

here and there

like banzai capitalism

candidates know

how a good disaster

can stimulate

yes there is money

to be made in death

the ultimate victory

unconditional surrender

demanded by a nature

too stupid to care

what it does

because no one

can stop it

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

Absolutely jaw-dropping. From the comments:

Rep. Till addressed the Democratic caucus today concerning the brouhaha with his survey. Basically, he was angry with the fact that the survey had been tainted by “contaminants”. He referred to the fact that some members of the caucus had accessed it, as well as maybe some others in the building. He admitted that he was naive in the way he developed the survey, trusting perhaps that it would be only answered by physicians, but now on second thought said he should have put in some failsafe mechanisms like perhaps requiring some form of identification.

He was looking to rescue the survey and make it salvageable in some form, and asked that any in the caucus who took it come forward or if any member knew of people who had taken it to notify him. If from what VT Buzz, the BFP political blog, said, Rep. Jewett had indeed taken the survey, and he was in the room as Rep. Till gave his address to the caucus. Talk about an uncomfortable moment.

Also interesting was the mention that websites had provided a link to the survey. Anyhow he mentioned how much time and effort he had put in (100+ hours in his reckoning) and around $1000. He was upset at how advocates had compromised the survey. C’est la vie. There is still more to this story as Dr. Till tries to resurrect the credibility of his survey.

Boo frickin’ hoo. Is this guy for real?

So let me see if I have this right: Till is complaining about being victimized because the online poll he tossed up with the stated goal of defeating the “single-payer religion” as he put it hasn’t worked out the way he wanted? That people have objections to a now-famously invalid exercise in political propoganda? This guy thinks he’s the injured party?

Puh-leeze. And pretending to be ignorant about the validity of wide-open browser-driven “polls?” Who doesn’t know that this isn’t a valid way to do a real survey? What else does Till not understand about the real world’s painfully-obvious? As one GMD reader suggested, this defense is reminiscent of George Bush and the supermarket scanner.

But I don’t think he’s that ignorant. After all, he laid out what the point of his survey was – not to get a dispassionate sense of the opinions of physicians, but to develop a tool to scuttle health care reform.

Which means he’s really just whining that he was made to look bad. It takes a lot of cojones to call out Jewett like the commenter says was done in the caucus – or perhaps just a complete disassociation from reality. (NOTE: Jewett – and probably Michael Fisher as per the morning’s VPR report – were not explicitly called out, but challenged by inference based on media reports. Thanks ec.) Jewett, who is one of the lawmakers Till cynically and dishonestly attempted to manipulate through this exercise in clumsy persuasion, is now being rhetorically bullied by Till for doing the responsible thing and checking out the reality of the poll himself – for not shutting up and falling into line when told to by his better from Jericho. If lawmakers didn’t feel insulted by the phony survey, they should feel insulted by his clumsy efforts to intimidate them in the caucus in a feeble effort to resuscitate it.

Finally, he’s bemoaning the wasting of his 100+ hours and $1000 that went into the “survey.” WTF!?!? The questions seem to have been generated right out of his agenda-purposed head, and $1000? He clearly didn’t use more than the features of the survey monkey “pro” version – so we’re talking about a whopping $32 if its run two months. Nor did he hire a proofreader, as there was a mistake on the first page (the survey has been shut down now).

So what’s with all the time and money? Is he wining and dining the folks he wants to fill it out or what? In any event, I think a second career as an accountant is probably not in the cards.

This guy’s sense of personal entitlement is astonishing. Time to dial down the ego and live with the fact that this one goes in the “loss” column, Dr. Till. You blew it – badly. It’s way past time to walk it back if you want to maintain any hope of salvaging a single vote from your base next time around.

Is this the next phony “survey” likely to be in circulation at the Statehouse, following George Till’s online survey monkey nonsense?

This one has been created by a prominent employer benefits administrator in Vermont, Hickok and Boardman, and distributed to their employer clients statewide. Not necessarily their issue, but a quick search of the Secretary of State’s site reveals that President Scott Boardman of H&B (who are also in the real estate business) to be a longtime Brian Dubie and Jim Douglas campaign contributor, so…

Here’s the link to the online survey which, again, seems to have no restrictions on who can take it, or how many times (assuming you delete your browser cookies or restart your computer before taking it again): healthcare-reform.questionpro.com.

On the Till survey, since our initial report on the absurdness of it all, there have been a couple media reactions. VPR this morning discussed the issue head-on. No surprise there, as they take their jobs as journalists pretty seriously.

The Times Argus and Rutland Herald seem to have doubled down, though. I dunno – maybe it’s Pulitzer-Prize winner Moats’ issue with us blogmaniacs, or maybe it’s right-wing publisher Mitchell’s political determination. I suspect the latter in the case of this weekend’s op-ed which uncritically references the Till survey (paywall – no link available).

However, neither notion accounts for Vermont Press Bureau reporter Peter Hirschfeld’s equally uncritical accounting. He references questions around the survey in his weekend piece, gets a quote from Till and counter-quotes from single-payer advocate Dr. Deb Richter.

The problem is, this isn’t a he-said-she-said situation. The Till “survey” was objectively ridiculous. In fact, you can find such online surveys routinely ridiculed, and they are never – never – cited by reputable media outlets as legitimate. Never. (See jvwalt’s diary here that includes reference to the Vermont AP’s explicit rejection of the survey) Hirschfeld chose to play simple stenographer here instead of reporting, and it’s a shame. If he was uncomfortable stating the objective reality that the Till survey was bunk himself, he could easily have put a call into any academic anywhere who could have told him that online, browser-driven surveys like that aren’t just un-scientific, they are anti-scientific. Unfortunately, he didn’t – just chose instead to leave it hanging out there as though reasonable people might consider it to be legitimate. In doing so, he did not fulfill his responsibility as a journalist and did his profession no favors.

Perhaps he was acting under orders of Publisher Mitchell? Who knows, but I no longer believe that Hirschfeld is promoting his own agenda when he does something like this. I think he’s better than this, and was just sloppy. Live and learn.

But I know that having the Times Argus and Rutland Herald powers-that-be wax intellectual and professional while promoting the merits of a half-assed survey monkey poll is… well, as a Vermont media person myself, it’s embarrassing. Do we have to embrace such hokum and make ourselves look like backwoods clods? Ouch.

Andy Bromage over at Seven Days has a great article this week on corruption in Vermont's crime lab involving fraud in DataMaster testing procedures.

The gist of the article is that the lab technician in charge of doing tests on the state's fleet of DataMasters, the device used to test breath samples for alcohol content, engaged in a variety of stratagems to make sure that the machines would appear to be operating correctly to measure the blood alcohol content even if they weren't.

Two leading criminal defense attorneys, David Sleigh and Frank Twarog, are now using these improprieties to attack the validity of lab results used in DUI cases in Vermont.

If you're a regular viewer of any of the myriad of Law and Order shows on TV you know about the Brady rule. Based on the Supreme Court decision of Brady v. Maryland, it requires prosecutors to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Among other things, evidence that evidence being presented against the defendant may not be credible is specifically covered by case law applying the Supreme Court’s Brady decision.

This body of law was addressed by the Supreme Court just last week, when they allowed a conspiracy by New Orleans prosecutors to conceal evidence to go unpunished.

There is a revealing quotation from Washington County State's Attorney Tom Kelly at the end of the article:

“If we were convinced that we had invalid evidence, we wouldn’t use it,” the prosecutor says. “I have not encountered any problems with the machines, but again, it will be up to the courts to decide whether the challenges have any merit.”

The problem is that the prosecutor isn’t the one who gets to decide. Even an honest prosecutor could review some particular piece of evidence, conclude that it wouldn’t affect the strength of the State’s case, and decide not to turn over the evidence. After all, the guy’s guilty!

They wouldn’t be prosecuting him if he weren’t, right?

It sure makes you wonder how many convictions were based on fraudulent DataMaster evidence, doesn’t it?

Like a movie with the dialogue and action out of sync, official updates about the unfolding disaster at Fukushima Daiichi seem to trail at some distance behind the analysis provided by Vermont’s nuclear watchdog Arnie Gundersen.

Today, just as a new 6.6 aftershock rattled the stricken region, the evacuation zone around the ailing plant is finally being expanded beyond the initial 20-mile radius.  

Continuing our practice of bringing Arnie’s valuable insights to the GMD community, we offer the following close look at the science undermining the integrity of the fuel rods:

Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen demonstrates how Fukushima’s fuel rods melted and shattered from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

No, I haven’t had an epiphany regarding our leadership. We want to trust them and we want to believe what they say. It’s just that we’ve been led down the primrose path before, so we’d have to be certifiably nuts not to be a little bit skeptical.

I was listening to Larry Kudlow, who caught my attention with a different take on John Boehner and his leadership. He’s quite impressed with what Boehner has accomplished, pointing out that the 38 billion dollars are cuts to the base line budget. That translates to some 500 billion dollars in budget reductions over the next ten years. It sets the spending back to pre-2008 levels. That is hugely important. But it’s only part of the story.

The DeMarxists, Harry Reid, Barack Hussein Obama et al, got it put to them. They got their clocks cleaned. Not only that, but it set the stage for the battle over Paul Ryan’s budget proposal later on this month. You’ll never see it on network TV, or PBS and the liberal print media. It was actually fun to watch… Obama and Reid placed all their eggs in the basket when they banked on the Republicans taking it on the chin for shutting down the government once again. It was also fun watching the Lame Stream Media decry a few tourists who may be discomfited by our national monuments being closed. It was a tawdry exercise in yellow journalism, but no more than we’ve come to expect from the LSM.

There was a lot of speculation among Patriot friends of mine about just how gun-shy Boehner and the Republican establishment were going to be over an impending ‘government shutdown’. They got their noses bloodied the last time they allowed the DeMarxists to control the issue and paint the Republicans as heartless baby killers. Ironic, since the DeMarxists are themselves directly responsible for the murders of millions of unborn and near-born children, many of them black babies.

Boehner didn’t flinch. It’s no secret that I’ve been critical of John Boehner’s leadership. It’s also true that I’m impressed with his handling of the situation. He was determined, did not waver, earned the respect of his membership, and managed to give the DeMarxists a bloody nose in the process. He also managed to keep Obama and Reid from whacking military spending… which they clearly stated was their intention.

All in all, I have to give the Republican leadership high marks on this one. It is but the first of many battles to come, and we Patriots cannot take our eyes off of government for a second. Don’t underestimate the amount of weight we can swing on these issues. The Patriot Movement is here to stay, and we are a huge political force to be reckoned with.