pity us all
for a world
gone wrong
pity life
and love
snow covers
intentions
faster now
in a blink
we give up
caring
surrender
to doom
sell out past
and future for
one more day
have no need
of passion
hope or desire
couple merely
not to think
snow covers
our graves
already dug
time catches up
passes by
Peter Buknatski
Montpelier, Vt.
Sue Prent highlights our DC-3's view on Vermont Yankee:
We believe that Entergy should respect and abide by Vermont's laws and the MOU signed with the state in 2002, which require approval by the Vermont Legislature, and then the Vermont Public Service Board, for the plant to continue to operate beyond 2012.
Now she calls this a no-brainer, but that's only the case if there were no threat to corporate profits and the politicians who are funded by them. Fortunately, I don't think those will hold sway with the current Democratic governor and legislature because, as Leahy, Sanders and Welch note, state law governs this and it'll be an uphill battle to change it or get an extension under it.
The Memorandum of Understanding from 2002 is rather important because under terms of Entergy's purchase of Vermont Yankee, they agreed that the Feds have no jurisdiction over the plant's operation beyond March 21, 2012. Paragraph 12:
The signatories to this MOU agree that any order issued by the Board granting approval of the sale of VYNPS…will authorize operation of the VYNPS only until March 21, 2012 and thereafter will authorize [Entergy] only to decommission the VYNPS…[Entergy, et al]irrevocably agrees: (a) that the Board has jurisdiction under current law to grant or deny approval of operation of the VYNPS beyond March 21, 2012 and (b) to waive any claimeach may have that federal law preempts the jurisdiction of the Board…
The default action, therefore, is that VY must be decomissioned. Doesn't matter what Entergy says. Doesn't matter that they got NRC rubber-stamping or not. Absent any positive Board approval, the plant shuts down about 364 days from now.
However, the Board is subject Vermont law, which according to Act 160 stipulates:
No nuclear energy generating plant within this state may be operated beyond the date permitted in any certificate of public good granted pursuant to this title, including any certificate in force as of January 1, 2006, unless the general assembly approves and determines that the operation will promote the general welfare, and until the public service board issues a certificate of public good under this section. If the general assembly has not acted under this subsection by July 1, 2008, the board may commence proceedings under this section and under 10 V.S.A. chapter 157, relating to the storage of radioactive material, but may not issue a final order or certificate of public good until the general assembly determines that operation will promote the general welfare and grants approval for that operation.
Please note the reference to 'general welfare'. That's what should drive this discussion above all else, and the Senate has already determined that extending an aging, flawed, mismanaged plant beyond it's original life expectancy does not meet that requirement–S.289 was shot down 26-4 last February, and voters didn't see fit to turn out the Democratic majority so it's highly likely that the decision will not be reversed.
That won't stop people from trying, which is a good thing in a democratic republic. Unsurprisingly, the GOP rep from Vernon/Entergy is leading the charge:
[Freshman Rep. Mike Hebert] said it’s “improper” for the Legislature to have the power to decide Vermont Yankee’s fate. Instead, the authority should go to scientists, at places like the Vermont Public Service Board or the NRC, who know what they’re doing, he said.
It's amusing to see a Republican of all people get religion on science when the party generally is hostile to things like evolution and climate change (Herbert didn't complete his Politcal Courage Test so I don't know his overall posture toward science). It's disturbing that they think the People don't have the ability or right to determine what promotes the general welfare.
Nevermind the increasing levels of radiation further from Fukushima. Nevermind the odds of a disaster in Vernon. I'm not concerned about the science and safety statistics at the moment.
I'm not even concerned that we can create more economic benefit by shutting down the plant and making aggressive investments in sustainable energy.
What concerns me is that a legislator wants to remove the People's voice from the process. So I'm glad that the DC3 are reminding everybody of Entergy's agreements and the primacy of Vermont law. They really remind us to stayy vigilant and ready to fend off cynical ploys to lock us out when the public good is at stake.
ntodd
It was the usual cast of characters: child care providers who want to organize, advocates for and clients of social services, activists for healthcare and other civil rights, senior citizens, and the occasional quasi-libertarian crank and vitriolioc public access show host. All braved the “sudden” spring snow storm (one we'd expected that seemed to be vaporware until just before the event) to participate in a town meeting on the economy with Senator Bernie Sanders.
Ericka and Sam were there to show support for the Healthcare is a Human RIght campaign. I was there for the free dinner. Ironically, I didn't get any dinner because I was too busy working the crowd with my friend KC, asking folks to participate in the our photo petition.
I don't have anything to share about the post-dinner town meeting part because of probably the most important detail from my POV: the turnout was way heavier than expected to the point that the fire marshal required a significant number of folks to leave. We volunteered to go because the large, noisy crowd was starting to wear on Sam–he's always extremely well-behaved and has been to myriad campaign events, but never quite like this.
It's okay that we couldn't stay because you already pretty much know the script anyway. That's not to dismiss the value of such interactions, just that after you attend a few of these things it gets a bit predictable. We go to show solidarity, do a little work and try to get other people engaged.
My only disappointment was that we couldn't see any fireworks from some segments of the crowd I knew were there to harangue our dangerous socialist senator. You know who I'm talking about, in general if not the particular: the type who accosts, say…a nice write-in candidate for high baliff at the polls on election day, the type who thinks they deserve what they get and everything else is theft, the type who makes a show of carrying around a copy of the Constitution but is taken aback when you quote a clause that's contrary to their cries of unconstitutionality.
Anyway, Bernie's staff was mortified that the venue they chose–the St Albans Historical Museum–was not adequate for the crowd. To me, though, that was the biggest takeaway from the event. So many people, mostly from St A and Georgia judging from our petitioners, were willing to come out in dreadful weather because they're concerned about the state of our economy and to interact with their elected employee.
It was a little disappointing to see so few of our local pols there. Senator Sara Kittell was moving about–she always makes an effort to get out and talk to people. I also saw former Rep Jeff Young but didn't get a chance to chat with him, and we sat with one of Sam's favorite candidates, Progressive-Democrat Cindy Weed from Enosburg. Dick Howrigan gets a pass because I've been talking to him regularly on the phone and he's a bit under the weather.
No Dickinson or Brock? Well, of course not. They would have to talk to people who actually want to preserve the safety net and even raise taxes on their base! The horror.
As I said, there were a few people I knew aren't on board with any progressive agenda, which is great. I think these sorts of gatherings tend to be self-selecting–we only had one Republican participate in a candidate forum on healthcare and other issues last fall, for example–so I applaud the folks who come out when they know they'll be in the minority. Would that more voters engage in between elections.
Most of the people we talked to were eager not only to get more info about H.202, but also to have their photos taken for the petition and learn how else they might be able to help move the bill along–even with details still to be hammered out, they were very supportive of universal healthcare and want to be part of the process. A few were not sure about things and just asked for literature. We've been doing a lot of outreach, of course, and providing people with raw data, analysis, etc, but if you aren't following this closely and see mostly GOP claims about “unknowns” and “socialism” and little about the benefits to you and your community, then it's not surprising if you're a little leery of reform.
And that's pretty much it for me. I'm sure other people will write up stuff about the town meeting portion. And I hope everybody drove safely afterward–we saw two accidents between St A and Fairfax on our way home.
ntodd
Sometimes you’ve just got to re-state the obvious. Entergy doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “no” and the NRC seems to be suffering from short-term memory loss.
In light of the Fukushima crisis, our “DC-3” (Leahy, Sanders and Welch) have issued the following joint statement:
“It is hard to understand how the NRC could move forward with a license extension for Vermont Yankee at exactly the same time as a nuclear reactor of similar design is in partial meltdown in Japan. We believe that Entergy should respect and abide by Vermont’s laws and the MOU signed with the state in 2002, which require approval by the Vermont Legislature, and then the Vermont Public Service Board, for the plant to continue to operate beyond 2012.”
Our thoughts exactly.
Vermont nuclear expert, Arnie Gundersen, of Fairewinds Associates, has been a frequent guest on the national media throughout the past week. Now he shares with us his analysis of what satellite views of the damaged reactors might be indicating about the potential for recovery of the situation. Mr. Gundersen is a valued friend of GMD so I am sure he will not mind me referring to him in the familiar.
Among the visual clues that Arnie notes is the fact that no workers are visible anywhere on the site. This is obvious reason for concern, since Tokyo Electric and the Japanese government have not been consistently candid about the facts on the ground and the visuals cast some doubt on their insistence that emergency workers are still laboring at the plant .
The roof structure over Unit #1 has been destroyed and there appears to be nothing but rubble below. Arnie says that if there was water in the containment chamber it would be visible in the photo as a glimpse of blue.
Unit #2 appears at first glance to be intact. But, on closer inspection, there appears to be a plume of steam rising from an aperture on one side. If steam is indeed escaping, he says,
“that isn’t a good sign.”
Then there is Unit #3, which is
“totally obliterated and in danger of melting down.”
Unit #4 has a crack in the side of it, where the nuclear fuel pool is believed to be dry.
Additionally, Arnie points to an area where the floodwater meets the perimeter of the facility. There would have been service water pumps installed on that perimeter, that were intended to provide emergency cooling water. Those pumps are gone. As Arnie explains, this is called “a single point of vulnerability.” Even if the diesels hadn’t been flooded, absent those service pumps, emergency water couldn’t have been supplied throughout the plant in any case.
Looking at the general condition of the site at this point, Arnie thinks it is expecting a lot to assume that there is an intact interior system to take up and deliver the water. It is likely that
“the pipes and pumps and valves inside are not working, or at least not working well.”
Should the most optimistic assumptions about the interior plumbing be true and water can successfully be delivered to the interior of the reactors, one must remember that this will not be normal cooling water, but brine.
“They’ll have to gerry-rig a system to pump seawater inside.”
Assuming that they succceed in doing that.
“Pumping saltwater will build-up contaminants on the nuclear fuel that ‘s likely to clog the nuclear fuel and make cooling it that much harder to do.”
We are extremely grateful for the insight Arnie is providing on this critical situation and promise to keep our readers updated as we learn more.
Sodexo the institutional food service giant has filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against the Service Employees International Union(SEIU). The SEIU is accused by Sodexo, in US district court Virginia of a “strong-arm” scheme in it’s effort to unionize 80,000 non-union employees. The SEIU says the suit is a bogus attempt to draw attention away from Sodexo’s anti-union activity.
“…It is not about which union represents Sodexo workers, but about whether Sodexo workers can bargain collectively at all,”
Sodexo’s RICO complaint claims
“This case is not about traditional union organizing. It is about a group of powerful labor organizations that have abandoned the traditional legal framework for organizing employees into unions, in favor of old-fashioned, strong-arm tactics to get what they want,”
Speaking of strong-arm rackets, the old established law firm handling the suit for Sodexo is Hunton & Williams (since 1901!) has been up to some other interesting projects lately.
They have found themselves under intense scrutiny since their questionable plans for corporate clients were outed by “Anonymous” the online entity. The plan made public was an attempt to profit from channeling funds for corporate clients (Bank of America, US Chamber of Commerce were named) to investigative security companies. The ultimate aim was discrediting anti corporate critics and thus to disarm potential problem makers.
Hunton & Williams stood to be the channel for $2 million in monthly subcontractor payments […]build a lucrative practice around investigating critics such as U.S. Chamber Watch and WikiLeaks, and it worked with three private security companies in a partnership they called “Team Themis,” the e-mails say.
Lawyers saw “potential for huge gains” as a result of liberal anger, one security employee wrote in an e-mail.
After being exposed Hunton & Williams claims to have ended it’s involvement in the project.
HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies the firms approached by Hunton & Williams as part of “Team Themis” are now under Congressional scrutiny A dozen congressman including Vermont Congressman Peter Welch signed a letter suggesting investigation. The letter says in part
HBGary Federal emails also revealed that the security contractors along with Hunton & Williams had also “planned a campaign to sabotage and discredit critics of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” as well as the trade union federation Change to Win, the Center for American Progress and other organizations
I’m sitting in the overflow room at the David W. Curtis awards, which is the big annual fund-raising event for Vermont Democrats. Turns out I have the media table to myself. Whodathunk?
It’s an interesting time to attend the annual see-and-be-seen event in Burlington. For the first time in a decade, Dems have it all; the House, the Senate, and the Governorship – and yet, it’s times like this that really bring the breadth of this party – for good and ill – into focus. In attendance is the Governor who steadfastly refuses to consider new taxes on wealthy Vermonters before looking at social service cuts. Also in attendance are the Democratic legislators who, despite the Governor’s position, are looking to new, progressively-taxed revenue to protect Vermonters from those cuts. And all of them working to bring universal health care to the state. Blue dogs are here, as is newly minted Democratic Senator Anthony Pollina. It brings the brave new political world into political focus.
Honored tonight are award winners Michael Obuchowski, Barbara MacIntyre and Arthur Berndt. Without question a worthy crop of recipients. All were ably introduced by David Curtis’ son, Vermont Legal Aid attorney Chris Curtis, who gave a great intro speech. I am among those who hopes Chris develops political ambitions. Great guy.
Below the fold for liveblogged observations as they come, including keynote speaker Al Franken…
7:52: Senator Leahy is up. made reference to Vermont showing up all the media who predicted early in the last election cycle that we’d elect a Republican Governor in 2010. Clearly he doesn’t read GMD enough. We predicted a Dem would emerge from that primary and be strengthened by it, ultimately being victorious.
Leahy is introducing Al Franken.
7:55. Bummer I left my flip camera in my car when I jumped in Caoimhin’s truck to come up here. Franken promised a Bernie impression.
Franken just told us how glad he was to be in Vermont “the state that borders both of the States where the shot heard round the world was fired.” Ha! Making fun of Sarah Palin never gets old.
He’s continuing with layers of comical a-history, leading up to a comment about how it all explains how we “know that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.”
8:00 Franken relates a list of similarities between Minnesota and Vermont, after noting VT Dems propensity for having Minnesota Senators speak at their fundraisers (Sen. Klobuchar was last year’s guest). List of comparative similarities ends with this laugh line about our shared tendency to elect folks outside the 2 party system: “How can you not gasp at the similarities between Jesse Ventura and Bernie Sanders.”
8:04 In the midst of being serious, he starts making jokes about running into Sen. Leahy at dead shows in the 70’s. Says he met Pat Leahy at a Boston Garden show in the early 70s when Marcelle Leahy was known as “Mountain Girl.” Big laughs.
8:07 References to the Wisconsin situation. He also encourages boos at the mention of “Citizens United.”
As far as Wisconsin goes, he states that passing the anti-worker law there broke the law.”
Also gets in a thank you to AFT, saying “efforts to build the foundation of a healthy early education for children … through expanding collective bargaining is commendable.” Much applause. Lots more comments promoting early childhood education. Beats up on Republicans for cutting Head Start.
8:17 “It has to be Democrats.” “It has to be us.” “It has to be us here in this room” to stand up for what’s right. Makes jokes to Bernie about how to categorize him… “you know, I don’t know your culture… I don’t know quite what to say about Bernie, here, but I’m gonna do an impression when I’m done here.”
8:19 Wraps. Does Bernie impression to much laughter. Can’t believe I left my flip camera. It’s pretty damn good. Little too gruff, but good.
8:22 Now Bernie’s up. Says he’s going to do a Franken impression (it was just a joke… at least that’s what I assume!). Thanks Chair Judy Bevans for doing a great job. Thanks crowd for “years of service in the democratic process, both big ‘d’ and small ‘d’.” Still blows my mind a bit to hear that from Bernie Sanders.
8:34 Losing battery…. gonna wrap soon. Sanders gets the crowd going. Warns of the barrage of advertising we can expect in this state as single payer advances, as big right wing interests want to scuttle it.
Unexpectedly, he calls for Yankee to be shut down, coupled with a renewable energy push.
After teasing the crowd again about his Franken impersonation, he closes by saying he’ll save it for next year.
8:37 Bevans introduces Peter Welch. He notes the huge turnout (definitely biggest ever…. people are pretty crammed in.)
Welch covers a lot of issues, spends a lot of time taking Republicans to task for attacks on Planned Parenthood.
10:58 – final update Back home now. Sorta got turned around there at the end with computers and web access and such. Shumlin spoke after Welch, then I slipped out. Good times, and we may have some video after all. Cross your fingers. Also, I’m trying to get a copy of Franken’s comments to post. Cross your other fingers.
Note: I’m posting this to more than one site, but most (though not all) of what I’m talking about concerns an overlap between multiple sites, so it seems best to just say it everywhere.
So…
I like to argue. By “argue” I don’t mean this:
I mean debate, discuss, argue, and yes, even fight, for what I believe.
I am aggressive. I am direct, sometimes brutally so, and when I have the time to invest in it, I can do this extremely well.
I don’t have the time I used to have. Between work, music, photography, other work, and volunteer work, I can’t invest as much time in a solid argument as I used to, but still, it’s something I kind of love to do.
And I love being involved in high-level discussions with people who disagree with me. And by high-level, I don’t mean this:
I mean honest discourse. I expect when people disagree, they’ll get heated. I expect when people disagree there will be some passion. But I don’t expect there to be personal attacks, and I don’t expect there to be lies and misrepresentations.
Well… no. That’s not quite it.
I expect those things, but I argue as though they are not going to happen. I give people the benefit of the doubt. I give people the option to fail, but I do not want them to fail. I want the discourse that challenges me to be honest, respectful and fair. I say this knowing that, as a rule, this does not happen. But still, I try.
When people do fail to live up to this (admittedly high) standard I do, on rare occasion, falter. I am human, and sometimes I can be rude, petty and annoyed. Mostly, even when I annoyed, I do not go with the other two, though my directness and refusal to budge on matters of fact, combined with my willingness to point out inherent contradictions within an argument, can easily be taken for rude. And, honestly, sometimes that rudeness is intentional, especially when I am simply fed up with someone’s deceptive claims, outright lies, or personal attacks.
But the fact of the matter is that I treasure these differences– I think we can challenge one another without attacking one another, grow from one another without belittling one another, fight for what we believe without disrespecting one another.
Not everyone agrees with me on this. That’s okay.
The other day, I met Shap Smith, speaker of the house in our little green mountain state. I was up in Montpelier for the day to do a photography gig. There wasn’t a lot of downtime, but there was a little. I’ve seen Shap a few times, but never talked to him other than to say hi. I’ve attacked Smith a few times in the past. Recently, talking about his moratorium on raising taxes (which I think I called “foolhardy”) and his involvement in Vermont’s “Challenges for Change,” which I still think is just a fake substitute for making real and serious cuts.
The thing is, I like Shap. I’m not always thrilled with him, but I think he’s a good speaker, and I expect he’s got a lot of forces pushing him in ways that are not at all easy or comfortable.
It turns out he knew me already. We’d e-mailed once or twice, but I didn’t realize he’d recognize me. We chatted, briefly, and I found myself just being extremely direct with him– I think what I said was that I know how hard a position he must be in, but I also know how important it is that he gets pushed just as hard from the left as he must be from the right, and that I see that as part of my job– to push him, sometimes extremely hard, to do the right thing.
Politics is a tricky business. It gets personal. It gets ugly. But it’s the way of things.
I know I’m being a little vague here about the backstory behind this. I’m doing that for two reasons: first, I don’t want this to descend into a “who was right” argument over things that happened in the past. Second, though this springboarded from some recent interactions I’ve had, it’s really not about that any longer and I don’t want it to be about that.
So.
I’m going to ask: when we argue with one another, when we disagree, can we do this without attacking on insulting one another? Can we do this without making unfounded accusations, but instead focus on facts and evidence?
And to be clear: I’m not talking about the people who are waging war on us. We don’t need to sit down and have a respectful conversation with Randall Terry. We don’t need to attempt high minded conversations with Scott Walker. These are people who have abandoned all pretense of working towards finding solutions, and I’m not talking about people who come here trolling in order to disrupt.
I’m talking about us.
I’m talking about people who have similar (though probably not the same) goals, but are focusing on grievances and personal matters. I’m also not talking about liking one another or agreeing. I’m talking about the most basic level of respect required to have normal human discourse.
So who’s in?
This April 9th, it will be 35 years since we lost Phil Ochs, the best political folk singer of the sixties (much better than Dylan; Dylan not in his league).
In Montpelier this month, the Green Mountain Film Festival is featuring the film about Ochs: There But For Fortune.
To honor Phil, I am posting here one of my favorites by him: “Love Me, I’m A Liberal.” This seems to be the appropriate blog for it.
(Hey Michael: Notice he didn’t entitle it, “Love Me, I’m A Liberal Fuck.”)
So, Here it is. Food for (critical) thought:
Love Me, I’m A Liberal
Phil Ochs–1966
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when the shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I’d lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don’t talk about revolution
That’s going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
And I’m glad the commies were thrown out
Of The AFL-CIO board
And I love Puerto Ricans and Negroes
As long as they don’t move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang there heads in shame
I can’t understand how their minds work
What’s the matter don’t they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
I read New Republic and Nation
I’ve learned to take every view
You know, I’ve memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I’m almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There’s no one more red white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
I vote for the Democratic Party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
And I’ll send all the money you ask for
But don’t ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal
Yes once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to those socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But now I’ve grown older and wiser
And that’s why I’m turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a lib-er-al
(Thank you for that, Phil. What do you think of Obama and what’s going on with the Left now? “A Small Circle Of Friends?” Right. RIP.)
Peter Buknatski
Montpelier, Vt.
