From today's Burlington Free Press:  

Radioactive tritium has been detected for the first time in a former drinking-water well at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant  in Vernon, a potential indication that tritium that leaked from the plant has migrated to a deep underground aquifer, state, federal and plant officials said late Friday afternoon.

This new development might be the last straw for Brian Dubie: it’s finally prompted him to pretend to be concerned about the health and safety of the plant. and he says he can’t support the continued operation of the plant beyond 2012 until safety questions can be resolved.

This raises two questions:

First, when we learned that Vermont Yankee was pumping tritium into the ground water, and the rest of us, including Peter Shumlin, were calling for the plant to close on schedule, where did Brian think the contaminated water was going? Uphill?

Second, will the IBEW finally realize that pinning their hopes on a closet reactionary like Dubie was a bad move? And will they engage in a farcical display with a toy knife sticking out of their back at Dubie’s campaign events?

The Friday news dump included the word that radioactive tritium has been found much deeper under the Vernon reactor, in the aquifer used by nearby residents for drinking water.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc…

http://www.dailymail.com/ap/Ap…

Have you seen the lawn signs put out by ENVY supporters?

They read “VY4VT”.

It’s not clear if this is an attempt to influence public opinion, or a “feel good” operation to keep up morale to keep present employees from changing jobs before Entergy is ready to close down.

In any event, the signs seem to be sparking creative re-framing.

So far, my favorite is from my grandson, who says the signs should read, “Tritium4VT”.

Another friend suggested “26-4”, the vote count in the Senate when Entergy lost big time.

What do you think? What should those lawn signs say?

  WCAX reports the gubernatorial candidate’s negative ads are over. Their guest, longtime  analyst Chris Graff calmly lectured Vermonters:

“You try to run them early enough so that you can knock down the opposition, but not too close to the election so that you have time to build your candidacy back up."  

One of the signs they put forward as evidence is Brian Dubie’s simple declaration that he will now focus on his campaign and he proudly notes he has complied [sic] a jobs plan(26 pages,10 points!)  

"I am gonna focus on my campaign. My campaign is focused on my jobs plan that I've complied; 26 pages, a 10-point jobs plan," Dubie said.

Maybe negativity in candidate run ads will subside, but VtDigger warns: Expect the bitterness to intensify. One thing WCAX and Graff neglect to mention are elephants looming in the room that may pick up the slack in negativity. Several of them on Dubie’s side that may pick up the slack are, Haley Barbour’s Republican Governor’s Association (RGA), Green Mountain Prosperity and Crossroads Media. Crossroads Media LLC which has been commissioned to buy ads on Dubie’s behalf works “hand in glove” with  Karl Rove’s American Crossroads funding clearing house according to VtDigger.  

Last week the RGA placed a $201,490 bet on Dubie. Green Mountain Prosperity PAC made seven separate media buys on Sept. 28 and Oct. 1, according to filings from the Vermont Secretary of State.

As WCAX news declares the end of negativity should Vermont’s trusted news source walk down their hall to their advertising department and inquire about how many of Karl Rove and Haley Barbour’s ads are contracted to run on their station?    

The other night, I attended a candidate forum in White River Junction.  This was  a local candidate forum focused on:

• Developing a health care system that works for everyone


• Affordable childcare and access to quality early education


• Access to jobs and the impact of cuts to public services

This was part of a series of forums sponsored by the Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign – Vermont Workers’ Center,  Vermont Early Educators United – American Federation of Teachers and the Vermont Center for Independent Living.  All local candidates for state senate and house were invited, but only Democrats showed up.

In attendance were Dick McCormack (not pictured; he was late due to a class he was scheduled to teach), Charles Bohi, Mark Mitchell, Kevin Christie, Alice Nitka and Jim Masland.

What you’re seeing here is a picture of, Dawn Gieseke, Director of Rainbow Preschool in Woodstock and Member of Vermont’s Early Educators United asking them a very specific question.  She wanted to know if the legislators would support their right to unionize.  This is a yes or no question– you either support legislation which allows child care workers to form a union or you don’t.

For most, the answer was a fairly strong “yes,” with a couple simple reservations.  For Alice Mitka, it was more of a “probably,” explaining that she wanted to be certain of what it involved and that it would be fair.  That’s understandable, but the question wasn’t would the support the union but allow for the choice to form one.

And then there’s Charles Bohi’s response.

In Bohi’s case, his response started with him saying that in forums like this there’s often a question that he knows people won’t like the answer to.  He went on to talk about his fairly extensive union background, how he’s supported unions his whole life, detailing quite a long history.  If I can get the video, I will post it.

He then went on to waffle saying he couldn’t really support this because he didn’t know what form it would take and whether or not it would work in ways which were beneficial.

This is what he left out: the question wasn’t “will you support our union.”  The question was will you support our right to form a union.

There are unions I’ve been part of and unions I’ve left.  Not all unions are perfect.  But never for a moment would I say that people don’t have the right to unionize.  

Under current law, Child Care Providers can not unionize in Vermont.  It takes a simple act of the legislature to change that (it’s required to allow for an exception to anti-trust legislation).

I don’t care how much union cred you have in your history.  I don’t care how much good you think unions have done in the past.  If you refuse to support this unions right to organize and to work collectively with the state of Vermont, you are anti union.

( – promoted by odum)

Where: Tunbridge Fairgrounds

Why: WDEV Debate

Weather: Overcast with a light drizzle

After navigating his way through a small throng of overzealous Dubie co-pilots, candidate Dubie wandered over and shook the hand of my colleague and then turned to me:

Brian: Hi. I’m Brian.

Me: Hi. Nice to meet you. Where do you stand on card check recognition?

Brian: Well,  I’m a union guy, and I…

Me: Yeah, yeah. I know all that, but where do you stand on card check.

Brian: I’m against it (walks away and returns to adoring co-pilots).

All I needed to know. Thanks for being honest.

Although I didn’t see all of it, I did manage to catch somewhat random parts. The interesting thing about the debate was the interesting ideas that were brought out (plus one extremely important observation). I think this was a reflection of having the non-DemRepub candidates on stage and talking.

1) Em Peyton’s thoughts on the problems in our current banking system and possible solution really do deserve consideration – there really could be something there. Her concept regarding a state bank making loans and paying the interest to the state has merit enough to be taken seriously.

2) Cris Ericson’s idea about funding qualified teachers who want to run a small home school type curriculum is doable at an instant and would result in instant cash savings with delivery of a high quality education. As I remember Cris said up to 6 kids/young adults per such program. Much of the legal framework is already in existence ((link to Title 16: Education, Chapter 3: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 16 V.S.A. § 166b. Home study program here).

3) Peter Shumlin made an observation that rarely gets into public debates regarding economic issues and educational issues: a successful economy is likely to draw in more families resulting in what may be dramatic changes in our school age population. We’re so used to being beat with that drumbeat of a continuing reduction in school age population – but change the circumstances and the numbers really do change!

Vermont rarely has statewide ballot referenda because they need to be legislatively initiated, but in Washington State this year there are more than a few up for approval. Voters in Washington are almost overwhelmed by nine complex statewide ballot measures, a bond measure for school upgrades, and an effort for their first income tax since the 1930’s. Layered onto this complicated ballot voting situation is this season’s heightened nationwide level of distrust of newspapers, media and government in general. Confusion may rain in Washington come November.  

Searching for a solution that would bring in the public and involve them in the process, the University of Washington and the City Club civic group, a Seattle non-profit, searched for a solution and developed an online model

“which aims to spark a civil and objective discussion among Washington voters by letting them work together to write their own voters guide”.

Adapting something along the lines they describe might prove useful here in Vermont given the small media market and struggling local papers. Complex policy information might be examined and debated in a tightly structured public format online. An accessible, organized exploration of the implications of the Challenges for Change process during this last legislative session might have been helpful. The effort and expense would likely be a deterrent, but it might lead to more constructive public involvement than questionable reader’s surveys and online polls have.  

The Living Voters Guide (www.livingvotersguide.org) is a twist on the traditional voter's guide, with statements for and against. The tool takes the format of a pro-and-con list. In less than two minutes, users can choose an issue, slide a scale to indicate where they stand, and list pros and cons to support their stance, either by writing their own or picking from points added by others. Each pro or con is limited to just 140 characters, the length of a text message or Twitter update (though a longer, 500-character explanation is optional).  

Users must agree to ground rules that include using civil language, representing individual views rather than those of an organization, and registering for only one account.  

All this is meant to cut down on the grandstanding, trolling, flaming and other rude behavior that has become the norm on newspaper comment boards or discussion sites, as well as on gaming the system to strategically boost one point of view.

We can’t keep letting Republicans get away with telling lies like this:

“Substantially it’s completely accurate,” Douglas said in his description of Dubie’s advertising and campaign statements.’

Dubie’s radio ad says:

Shumlin’s plan would turn drug dealers and child pornographers out on the street, long before their sentences were served.

Child pornography is considered a violent offense under Vermont law; therefore, Dubie’s ad contains a lie.  Shumlin’s plan deals with non-violent offenders.

This type of behavior needs to be pointed out.  Douglas can be expected to back Dubie, yet he should stick to the facts.  By not doing so, he is disgracing the office he holds.

Douglas’s Quote:  http://vtdigger.org/2010/10/06…

Dubie’s Ad (start at 18 seconds):  http://briandubie.com/pages/se…

In the prior thread, there was discussion about how 7 Days disclosed all its polling and lack of participation, which is technically accurate, but missing a bit: it’s fairly easy to find a 7 Days article that references the poll results without talking about poor participation, such as:

http://www.7dvt.com/2010legislative-survey-results.  On that piece there is no mention of the poor results.  You have to go to the piece which does “analysis” of the findings for that.  It indicates a low response rate but doesn’t acknowledge that that low response rate is relatively poor:

Of the 400 surveys sent out, only 30 came back with legitimate answers – a response rate of 7.5 percent. That’s better than direct mail – for which a 2 percent return rate is considered successful – and not too much worse than the turnout for a Burlington election, which was 23 percent on Town Meeting Day. Honestly, we hoped for better.

Just to clarify here: direct mail has an entirely different goal than surveys.  Direct mail isn’t intended to assess opinion.  It’s intended to sell things.

Surveys which attempt to assess opinion generally use sampling, so having a small sample size is acceptable, but it depends on the size of the sample group and how much stock you want to take in the results.  A sample of about 100 people out of 400 would give you a fairly solid confidence interval.  A sample of less than 1/3rd of that gives you very little confidence at all in the results.

Honestly, the comparison of the results to direct mail response results isn’t just poor judgment: it represents a complete and total lack of understanding of what statistics are and how they work.  

That piece also makes an odd inference.  When referencing the “most ethically challenged” item, it doesn’t just report on the results, but actually tries to connect them to a specific event:

During last month’s Mardi Gras parade in Burlington, Sen. Peter Shumlin climbed aboard an anti-Vermont Yankee float  sponsored by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. No doubt he saw it as an opportunity in the wake of the Senate vote against the nuke plant. Turns out he may have used VPIRG polling information to his political advantage, too. Smart, affable and possessing sales skills some would describe as “slick,” the senator from Putney never misses an opportunity to advance his ambitious agenda…

This isn’t part of the survey.  It’s not part of anything involving the survey at all.  It’s just 7D waxing about Shumlin.  That’s fine, but it’s not analysis of the results.  It’s just opinion under the guise of information.

Which brings me to the last point about this survey’s “analysis:”  when you send out surveys like this to individuals with political ambition and goals, it’s very easy for a small group of people to game the survey to serve their own agendas.  

And to be fair: I expect this sort of nonsense from political organizations.  The Heritage Foundation routinely uses real data to create an “analysis” of the information designed and targeted to suit their political agenda.  It’s slimy, but I expect it from that sort of organization.

Media, on the other hand, has an ethical obligation to see to it that those doing “analysis” of their information actually have the basic competencies to do the job and to do so in a fashion which doesn’t serve a political agenda.  By performing this sort of “analysis” under the guise of a legitimate news organization, they are basically doing the work of the Dubie campaign by allowing them to take fake facts and present them as real facts.

There’s a lot I like about 7 Days, but the way they handled this?  I don’t know if it’s malice or incompetence at play here, but if it’s neither of those, it’s just reckless disregard for the truth.