UPDATE: In compliance with a court order the protesters have left the capitol.

http://www.isthmus.com/daily/a…

Just a short post tonight. I came across a blog you may find interesting, written by an activist involved in the occupation of the Wisconsin State House.

The information is fragmentary, but it appears that the protesters have taken the governor to court for his actions in barring access to the capitol in violation of the state constitution.

The Blog from Inside the Capitol Endures…

Keep checking back for updates.

In a daring move, Shumlin & the VT congressional delegation are lobbying president Obama to change the rules regarding decommissioning. Shumlin, claiming that the ‘Safstor’ option does not make sense, that there was not enough transparency concerning the details & that he, a senator at the time was not even aware of the option:

“And I’m asking the president, as is our congressional delegation, to re-affirm common sense.”

“But Shumlin – who served in the Senate at the time – said Safestor was news to him and the public until a few years ago.”

From VPR News:

Shumlin Lobbying For Yankee Decommissioning Rules Change

Thursday, 03/03/11

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail…

To anti-choicers, a woman is nothing but a container for a fetus.

From the Plain Dealer:

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Two fetuses will be presented as witnesses before an  Ohio legislative committee that is hearing a bill to outlaw abortions  after the first heartbeat can be detected inside a woman’s womb.

Don’t worry, kids. If you wind up being born you can look forward to having your rights trampled and your needs ignored.

You, me, and every other political dissident.

Let’s be clear about this: Fred Phelps and his whole family are scum. They should get cancer and die.

The Westboro people brought their circus to Montpelier a couple of years ago and I think the people of my town, particularly the high school students, handled it very well. In other words, treating them with the ridicule they deserve.

Still, they were right in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court was right in ruling in their favor.

You know the facts, so I won’t spend a lot of time on them. To gain publicity for their vile ideas, these people go to events, like military funerals, and hold up their vicious signs, and they hope they will either get on TV or provoke some kind of reaction from the sane people in attendance, who are justifiably offended by their odious display. When they did it at the funeral of Matthew Snyder his family sued them and got a judgment for five million dollars.

Now the Supreme Court has overturned the judgment, holding that their actions are protected by the First Amendment. The legal questions in this case were so easy that even Scalia and Clarence Thomas got them right.

You don’t have to like it, but here’s the thing about the First Amendment: we don’t need it to protect our right to say things that don’t bother anybody. We don’t need it except when we’re pissing people off.

And if you’re reading this, odds are that you find that you need to say things that piss people off.

What the Supreme Court said today is that you can piss people off and the government isn’t allowed to stop you.

We all need that.

Redistricting. By now, if you’ve seen a news paper or listened to VPR, you’ve heard that it’s that time of the century again when we reconsider our legislative boundaries. In the not too distant past, this sort of thing was prone to gerrymandering and other tricks done in smoke filled back rooms. One of the glorious things about the computer revolution is that increasingly the process is being brought to a more mathematical plane where redistricting decisions are made through the use of software tools to optimize legislative boundaries and ensure the creed of one person one vote. The more balanced we can make our congressional representative’s districts, the easier it is for us all to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard on an equal level.

In Vermont, we’ll begin hearing more about redistricting as the July deadline for new state senate districts draws near, but in the mean time, lets discuss the tools and methods our redistricting panel will be utilizing.

Vermont, like an increasingly large number of states, has opted to utilize a GIS solution for its redistricting process. GIS (Geographic Information System) is an umbrella term used to define any electronic system that can display geographic data. At its simplest, it’s a way of producing maps. In the hands of analysts, it’s a wonderful tool used to add context to numbers. It is one thing to present a spreadsheet of data indicating where the poorest Vermonters live and quite another to be able to analyze their distribution and see if the poor are clustered in certain areas, if those areas have adequate access to food banks and other services, and help to determine the best ways to focus future assistance.

In terms of redistricting, you can pull in all the data that is important to such decisions (roads, county and town boundaries, census population data, etc) and use that to determine what district boundaries should be. The software that Vermont appears to be using from the meeting minutes of the apportionment board is a product called Mapitude.

Mapitude is capable of working straight from the data provided by the US Census (via the Census TIGER spatial releases) and supports exporting the finished product to a google maps compatible format. All this means that if our state government chooses to do so, they can share the end result of the redistricting with us all so we can all inspect their choices. I have not yet seen any indication of what information will be shared when the final redistricting happens, but I sincerely hope they will share the mapitude plan files and other spatial data with us all, perhaps through VCGI. I’m hoping in the coming weeks to adequately annoy my representatives and senators with questions about the redistricting data. Hopefully you will as well.

Further Reading

Mapitude Sales Brochure

Virginia Districts – A sample of an online district viewing application from 2007

Use of GIS to Demonstrate Public Redistricting – A Cleveland State University study on the possibility of using GIS solutions to allow increased public participation in redistricting.

What is Autobound – An interesting slideshow presentation made by Oregon’s Redistricting Coordinator to Oregon’s State Senate Rules Committee on how a similar product, Autobound, is used in Oregon for redistricting.

2010 TIGER Data – The US Census TIGER gis datasets.

VCGI – Vermont Center for Geographic Information is our state’s clearinghouse for Vermont specific spatial data.

The following was testimony recently given to the House Human Services committee on H.97, the bill that would allow early education and care providers in both centers and private homes to organize as a non-traditional union that would bargain with the sate directly on policy relating to pre-K and their profession.

The testimony was delivered by Dawn Gieseke, director of Rainbow Playschool in Woodstock. (Again, full disclosure: I’m doing consulting work in support of this bill, which would be a huge step forward for labor and working folks in Vermont, just as they are under attack in other parts of the country):

I feel the need to define early childhood educators. We have often been referred to as babysitters (I am not sure if that reflects a very high opinion of babysitters or a very low opinion of early educators!) We are educated and experienced people working for the families in the communities of Vermont. We have a high work ethic and value what we do. In my center, every person holds a degree and meets or surpasses regulation for continuing education. We know quality, the people we work with, and the families we work for. We can provide the information that is essential to effective and productive decision-making. We need to have a voice at the table

About seven months ago, I received a visit from an AFT representative who told me that organizers would be coming around to learn about what Early Childhood Educators wanted to achieve in Vermont. At first, I was very skeptical. They used that word “Union” and it made me nervous.  I eventually met a few organizers. My skepticism quickly vanished as each one visited. I listened to them – listening didn’t mean I had to commit to anything, nor did it cost me anything. The organizers were always respectful of my time and answered all my questions. I was impressed by the fact that they all had the same answers and they were all on the same page. I didn’t feel that anything was being kept from me (they were not trying to get anything past me.) I attended some meetings with other providers. I realized that this growing group was more than just a professional organization getting together to discuss issues of the trade. The energy, commitment, and expertise of this group really had the power to effect change in our state – to improve the quality of child care in Vermont. If H.97 passes, then we will be able to come together and really effect change – not just make suggestions, but really have the power to make decisions that will benefit the children by improving the delivery of child care and education services.

Challenges of the Profession

There are many challenges that we face in our profession. Having a voice at the table can help us work to overcome those challenges.

· 40% turnover rate

o This is not just an economic issue for the individual providers who come into the high-pressure profession; it is an issue of quality education for the children. Consistency in care givers is extremely important. From my experience and contacts with child care workers, I know that part of the reason for the high turnover rate is the lack of respect for this profession. We have a lot of respect for each other (we know how educated, talented, and committed we are) – we need the respect from the rest of the community. A seat at the table will show us that the state knows what we already know – we have something of significant value to offer to the state in its role in policy-making decisions. We know the day-to-day challenges and successes.

· In 83% of Vermont families, both parents work.

o Child care is not a privilege, it is a necessity. The need for high quality child care has changed dramatically over the last several decades – the need has never been stronger than now. H.97 is very timely in that we, as early educators, can really make a difference by lending our expertise and knowledge to the policy process.

· We are connected to parents in our communities in a way that cannot be replicated

o One of the most important things that we bring to the table is our connection to the parents. We know what they are looking for in their children, and what the needs are of working families. We are there with the children everyday – that makes us the experts in this area. When given the chance, we will continue to make the children and families that we serve our top priority. It’s what we do already, but H.97 allows us to advocate for our families in a more effective way.

Examples of Changing Outcomes

If H.97 passes, child care workers will be able to effect change in many different areas of child care services. Here are some examples:

· Regulations – We will be able to contribute to the regulations under which we operate. Making them direct and clear to providers and parents.

o An example of where we could have been very effective involves a regulation related to napping. This is an area where there are 2 regulations that are in direct conflict with each other and they actually cancel each other out. This is something that could have been avoided if, in the development of the regulation, child care workers who are actually performing the day-to-day work could have been a knowledgeable and informative voice at the table.

· Professional development

o In 2009, charitable foundations in Vermont commissioned “A Study on Early Care and Education in Vermont.” The study found that “state-sponsored professional development efforts geared toward licensure and apprenticeships, while promising, also reach relatively small numbers of early childhood educators.” This is another area in which we can contribute to the decisions made regarding the professional development needs of our profession.

Speaking as a current Center Director and former Home Care Provider, it just makes sense to give us a seat at the table. It will only benefit the state’s role in regulating and supporting child care quality and services.

It was a surprisingly healthy turnout for a frigid Wednesday night.  About fifty people gathered in the Museum auditorium where Patient Choices Vermont introduced  the featured speaker, George Eighmey an Oregon attorney who was instrumental in passing the nations first “Death With Dignity” law.  Most of the audience was legitimately interested in what Mr. Eighmey could share about Oregon’s experience with physician-assisted end of life choice.  The remainder, wearing badges stating their opposition to physician assisted “suicide” were there primarily to challenge the speaker.

A Vermont physician, Dr. David Babbott opened the discussion with a run-down on H.274, Vermont’s own “Death With Dignity” bill, which is under consideration in the current legislative session.  Some key provisions of the Vermont bill in its current wording, are as follows:

. The patient must be an adult resident of Vermont; must be terminally ill; must be able to communicate consent; and must be deemed mentally competent.

. The patient must ask and answer in the affirmative twice, that he or she wishes to go ahead with the medication.



Mr. Eighmey began by saying the Vermont bill, as proposed, is an improvement over the Oregon bill, offering more safeguards which include requiring  two “non-related” signatures, additional record keeping and palliative consultation.  

After offering a little personal background and a history of the Oregon law, Mr. Eighmey addressed the myths that currently cloud the debate, using data from the Oregon experience:

Myth 1:  Women would be “coerced” into using the law more than men.  

Fact: In Oregon, 46% of the patients who choose the option are women; 54% are men.

Myth 2: The medication is unreliable and people will live- on after taking it.

Fact:  Of the 528 instances when this procedure was chosen in Oregon, only 3 patients did not die.  They awoke alert and aware of their surroundings.  One requested that the medicine be administered again.  All three died of their underlying condition within a very short time.

Myth 3 People will be coerced into taking the lethal dose.  

Fact: Mr. Eighmey says that he has worked with over 80% of patients who chose this option.  Invariably, it was the patients relatives who tried to persuade the patient not to take the medicine.  In fact, 9 out of 10 patients who start the process never complete it, but they take great comfort in knowing that it is available to them.

Myth 4:The patients who take the lethal dose will be the poor, enfeebled, uneducated and minorities.

Facts:  In Oregon, over 90% of the patients who chose this option had insurance.  Almost 89% are enrolled in hospice care.  Over 90% are caucasian. Most are highly educated, fiercely independent and belong to a loving family.

Myth 5: If given this option, patients will “rush into” dying when they might have more than six months to live.

Fact:  The prescribed process makes this impossible to do.  Almost 30% of the one-in ten patients who complete the process after beginning it, never take the medication.

Mr. Eighmey made a point of saying that this choice should not be called “suicide.”  It is simply the dying patient being given control of the circumstances under which his death takes place. It is also not to be confused with “euthanasia” since the patient is making the choice him or herself.

There were some good questions from the audience and a couple of deliberately disruptive grand-standing attempts.  

Among the good questions was one posed by someone who was concerned that this law might legitimize suicide in the minds of children and young adults.  Mr. Eighmey pointed out that there are tragic suicides going on all over the United States all of the time so “legitimization” is a non starter.  Mr. Eighmey, who himself lost a son to suicide, says that  what we need is a better mental healthcare system and preventive interventions.  What a Death With Dignity Law communicates to our children is that we have compassion for the frail and the dying.

One of the organized opposition challenged Mr. Eighmey with the fact that Oregon has a suicide rate that is 35% higher than the national average, to which he replied that Oregon with it’s dreary months of wet weather, and high homeless and indigent population, has had this rate of suicides for decades, despite the fact that the Death With Dignity law has only been on the books since 1997.

Someone else asked how the cause of death is represented on the death certificate of a patient who dies in this manner.  Mr. Eighmey says that the law regards this as a privacy issue, so the death certificate cites the underlying disease as the cause of death.

We can look forward to many heated debates on this topic over the coming months, and perhaps years; sbut Vermonters could not have a more sympathetic or experienced voice for Death With Dignity  than Mr. Eighmey.  Fortunately, he will be speaking several more times throughout the course of this tour:

Thursday, March 3rd

12:30 pm – 2 pm

Middlebury Town Hall Theatre

68 South Pleasant (Merchant’s Row – on the Green)

6:30 pm – 8 pm

Mark Skinner Library in Manchester Center

48 West Rd, just off 7A

Friday, March 4th

6:30 pm – 8 pm

Hardwick Memorial Building, 3rd Fl., 20 Church St.

elevator available at Police Dept entrance. Others enter through main door and go up the stairs.

On the Radio:

MARK JOHNSON SHOW

WDEV

Thursday, March 3rd

9:00 am – 11 am (not sure what time George will be on)

___________________________________________________________

A quick reminder to Franklin County residents that tonight at 6:30, at the Historical Society on Church St. in St. Albans City, Patient Choices Vermont will be holding a forum on the Death With Dignity Act. (See details below fold.)

This is an important issue, that will be presented tonight in one of Vermont’s most conservative districts.  If we want our legislators to support this bill, we have to turn out in good numbers to demonstrate that it matters to us. I will try to live-blog from the forum, but if I can’t I’ll update after the event.

Death with Dignity: From Oregon to Vermont

Patient Choices Vermont sponsors Speaker Tour with George Eighmey

Patient Choices Vermont is sponsoring a series of discussions with Patient Choices Vermont board member David Babbott, MD, and George Eighmey, who was instrumental in passing and implementing Oregon’s first-in-the-nation Death with Dignity Act. We’ll talk about the bill that was recently introduced in the Vermont House of Representatives (H.274).

WHO: Patient Choices Vermont board member Dr. David Babbott and George Eighmey (bio below)

George Eighmey (pronounced Amy) graduated from the University of Illinois Schools of Administration and Law with honors. He practiced law in Illinois and Oregon until 2000, concentrating in the area of estates and family law. George was licensed to practice before the Ninth and Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Oregon and Illinois Supreme Courts, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Federal Appeals Court. He served on the Urbana, Illinois city council as an elected member and he was an Oregon State Representative from the Portland, Oregon area from 1993-1999. During his term as an Oregon representative he served as vice-chair of the House Judiciary Committee, minority whip, and senior Democrat leader where he championed the passage of the Death with Dignity Act, Medicinal Marijuana and Alternative Medicine laws. George served as Executive Director of Compassion & Choices of Oregon; an organization dedicated to providing nonjudgmental information on end-of-life options for 12 years until retiring in September 2010. He continues to lecture on the subject of Oregon’s aid-in-dying law. He is an advisory board member of Odyssey Hospice, Signature Hospice, Equity Foundation, the Bosco-Milligan Historic Preservation Foundation and co-author of a chapter in the book – Compassion in Dying – Stories of Dignity and Choice. He has received honors from several human rights and attorney organizations.  

David Babbott, MD, is a retired professor of Medicine at the University of Vermont, where he taught medical students and residents for over a quarter of a century. Before that, he had a full-time clinical practice. A long-time advocate for patient choice at the end of life, Dr. Babbott has served on the Board of Directors of Patient Choices Vermont since 2003. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and is certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine. He has served as a Master of the American College of Physicians, and as governor for the Vermont Chapter.

Free and open to the public.

Wednesday, March 2nd

6:30 pm

St. Albans Historical Museum, 9 Church St. 3rd fl

enter thru rear of bldg. – elevator available. Will have snacks from Cosmic Bakery.

http://www.stamuseum.com/index…

More information is available at www.patientchoices.org, including a link to the bill and factsheets.

##30##

Patient Choices Vermont is an advocacy organization that seeks to educate Vermonters about end-of-life options and to influence policy, regulations and practice that affect the terminally ill. PCV works to promote the best possible pain control, palliative and hospice care, adn to enable terminally ill patients to direct their own end of life. More information can be found at www.patientchoices.org.

( – promoted by BP)

Legacy & print media do not usually venture into the blogsphere outside of their own publications, especially not to criticize & call out a blogger for what amounts to character assasination. Citizen journalism, bloggers & online publication seem to be viewed as a different breed of cat.

That said, I was quite stunned to open the Reformer this morning to a riveting editorial, no doubt, doing just that:

Shooting the messenger

Wednesday March 2, 2011

“If you can’t refute the message then try to discredit the messenger. That’s the tactic several Vermont Yankee advocates have taken to impugn the character and devalue the experience of Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear safety advocate who has been highly critical of the operation of the nuclear power plant in Vernon.”

http://www.reformer.com/reform…  

Apparently, the blogger of Atomic Insights made false statements concerning Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel member & VY critic Arnie Gundersen, claiming his resume is overblown plus other character assaults, and, due to this, not qualified to criticize Entergy or other nuclear professionals:

“My point in providing these details is to illustrate the inconsistency involved in having a man who is prone to inflate and exaggerate the facts about his own career experience repetitively speaking about the job performance and alleged lack of integrity of hundreds of qualified professionals whose production gets measured and evaluated every day by some very demanding inspectors.”

This was based primarily on a statement made by an unamed source:

 – “I think he exaggerated his responsibilities for projects at NU, 1972-6.”

http://atomicinsights.blogspot…

How he dared even go there after Howard Shaffer’s claim to state of VT that Mr. Gundersen is not a nuclear engineer & should not be allowed to make the claim failed so miserably is curious.

Anyone who has watched the ongoing debate over continued operation of Entergy Louisiana-owned Vermont Yankee & related events unfold, has witnessed an astonishing display of disinformation. Information dispensed by those who support continued operation has been inaccurate & misleading in their description of the issue & related issues. It has been an eye opener to say the very least.

Pronuclear bloggers particularly & other supporters, without exception have been typically less than accurate at best & more often, completely untruthful. Witness the Entergy Louisiana ‘VT4VY’ fearmongering campaign in which VT business supporters of VY are claiming they will not be able to stay in VT if VY is closed on schedule as electric rates will be unaffordable, when this has been proven to be false. VT electric utilities did not approve the PPA from Enexus because they could not guarantee the price would be affordable & has yet to do so. One of them, Stoweflake Resort owner does not even use power produced by VY. Butch Cersosimo reportedly uses a diesel generator to power his chip plant in Vernon. The IBM-is-leaving scare tactic continues to resurface.

Entergy & supporters have laid the blame for all of their woes upon lawmakers, those tasked with oversight & VT media, especially newspapers, claiming the issue has been overblown & inaccurately reported.  

Nice to see at least one VT newspaper tackling this ongoing issue by taking on irresponsible & untrue comments published by bringing it into the forefront.

Only a few days before the March 5th date Tom Salmon set to announce his plan to run against Senator Bernie Sanders some Vermont Republicans are fishing for other candidates.The Times Argus’ David Delecore reports

According to Barre Mayor Tom Lauzon, officials in the Vermont Republican Party have suggested he consider running for governor or the U.S. Senate next year, and he hasn’t closed the door on either possibility.  

“The answer is: ‘Yes, I am considering it,’” he said Monday when asked about the possibility he might run as a Republican alternative to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Mayor Lauzon says he is considering the governor’s race too but makes it clear the senate is his choice.

“The Senate race attracts me because people say it can’t be won and I think it can,” he said

After mentioning the obligatory period of soul searching the Mayor sets a date of June 1st for his decision.  

A little more subtle and from the sidelines but very much in the mix, our man Salmon might want to note the significance of new VPR commentator former Gov. Jim Douglas’ choice of the national deficit for his debut topic. He addresses the national budget, his association with the Domenici-Rivlin Commission from the Bipartisan Policy Center and speaks of the need for national leadership on this issue in the senate.Naturally he modestly reminds us of his leadership here in Vermont on this very issue.

The always sentimental Douglas shares his immediate thoughts upon first seeing his granddaughter in her crib:

Welcome to the world, I said; your share of the Federal debt is $50,000.

Sweet, but not what might immediately come to most people’s minds.