Take over British Petroleum says Robert Reich former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton. “…under temporary receivership, BP would continue to have the equipment and expertise. The only difference: the firm would unambiguously be working in the public's interest. As it is now, BP continues to be responsible primarily to its shareholders, not to the American public.”

Reich argues that President Obama should take over British Petroleum giving the US authority until the gusher is controlled. He maintains that it is the only way the US public will be confident that enough resources are being put to use to stop the disaster.

No President, he says would allow a nuclear reactor owned by a private for profit company to melt down in the US while remaining under control of that company.

Here are his five reasons and a link to the full article :

1. We are not getting the truth from BP.  

2. We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher.  

3. BP's new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky.  

4. Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy

5. The President is not legally in charge.    

The President should temporarily take over BP's Gulf operations. We have a national emergency on our hands. No president would allow a nuclear reactor owned by a private for-profit company to melt down in the United States while remaining under the direct control of that company. The meltdown in the Gulf is the environmental equivalent.

It's back, and it's likely to be the biggest year ever. For its fifth iteration, the big grillin' fest moves back to its North Beach (Burlington) birthplace on Saturday, July 17th. Come participate in the Bastille Day (more or less) festivities with swimming, frisbees, food, mimes, fireworks, bungee jumping and much, much less (by which we mean no fireworks, bungee jumping, and probably no mimes unless somebody gets a chicken bone stuck in their throat or somesuch).

Tell your friends, spread the word, and stay tuned for updates…

The Libertarian GOP Congressman From Texas Cast the Sole ‘No’ Vote on a 2004 Resolution Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the Landmark 1964 Anti-Discrimination Law; Meanwhile, in Interview on Russian TV, Rand Paul Calls For Stripping Illegal Immigrants’ American-Born Children of Their Constitutionally-Protected Birthright of U.S. Citizenship

Tea Party-backed Kentucky Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul (right) isn’t the only libertarian who’s taken a dim view toward Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and other public accommodations. His father, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) (left), is even more vehement in his opposition to Title II — so much so that he was the only member of Congress who voted against a 2004 resolution celebrating the landmark law on its 40th anniversary. Meanwhile, in an interview on Russian television, Rand Paul called for stripping the American-born children of illegal immigrants of their U.S. citizenship — despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees citizenship for all persons born in this country. (Photos courtesy House.gov and Politico.com)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Tuesday, June 1, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

Like father, like son.

It turns out that Rand Paul, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for the Kentucky U.S. Senate seat now held by the retiring Republican Jim Bunning, isn’t the only member of his family who has argued that Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act wrongfully interferes with the internal affairs of private businesses and property owners.

So does his father, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), who ran unsuccessfully for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

In fact, the elder Paul’s opposition to Title II — which outlaws discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce — is so intense that he was the only member of Congress to vote against a 2004 congressional resolution honoring the landmark anti-discrimination law on the 40th anniversary of its passage.

Ron Paul stunned even his Republican colleagues when he delivered a speech on the House floor denouncing the Civil Rights Act, insisting that, contrary to the claims of its supporters, “the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the [law] increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

Meanwhile, Rand Paul, who’s maintained a low profile after igniting a firestorm of outrage on May 19 when he told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that he, too, opposed the law’s ban on discrimination by private businesses, is in hot water again, this time for telling a Russian TV interviewer that the American-born children of illegal immigrants should be stripped of their U.S. citizenship.

The younger Paul — whose comments on the Civil Rights Act were condemned as “absolutely appalling” on May 20 by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a veteran of the civil rights movement — said that the U.S. is “the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen. I think that should stop.” Rand Paul made his assertions in spite of the fact that citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. is a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

RON PAUL DENOUNCES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN 2004 SPEECH ON HOUSE FLOOR. . .

It was on June 24, 2004 when the House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring the Civil Rights Act on the 40th anniversary of its passage. The vote was a nearly unanimous 414 to 1. Incredibly, Ron Paul was the only member of the House to have voted “no.”

In his floor speech — which is published in full in the June 23, 2004 edition of The Congressional Record — the elder Paul said that the Civil Rights Act “gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.”

Ron Paul asserted that under the landmark anti-discrimination law “bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.”

The  Texas congressman went on to say that “the federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form — or not form — contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.”

He concluded his remarks by saying that, “While I join in sponsors of [this resolution] in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty.”

. . . AND AGAIN IN 2007 INTERVIEW ON ‘MEET THE PRESS’

Shortly after declaring his candidacy for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, the elder Paul made an appearance on the December 23, 2007 edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” during which, when pressed by then-host, the late Tim Russert, to clarify his remarks, insisted that Title II of the Civil Rights Act violated property rights.

“You’re not compelled in your house to [invite] strangers you don’t like,” Paul said, referring to Title II’s ban on discrimination in public accommodations. “So it’s a property-rights issue. This idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong.”

When asked point-blank by Russert if he would vote against the Civil Rights Act today, the elder Paul replied, “Yes — if it were written the same way, where the federal government has taken over property. It has nothing to do with race relations . . . It has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.”

RON PAUL ALSO SAYS LINCOLN WRONG TO GO TO WAR TO END SLAVERY

When Russert confronted him with a 2006 Washington Post article that read, in part, that “According to [Paul], Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery,” the Texas congressman replied, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, [Lincoln] shouldn’t have gone to war.”

Russert interrupted Paul to say that “We’d still have slavery,” to which he derisively answered, “Oh, come on, Tim! Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising is that it should have been done by doing what the British did — You buy the slaves and then release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?

“Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war,” the elder Paul continued. “That doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”

In the wake of the elder Paul’s public pronouncements on the Civil Rights Act and even on the Civil War to end slavery — combined with racially inflammatory articles published in a series of early 1990s newsletters that bore his name — is it any wonder that his 2008 presidential campaign drew support from avowed white supremacists, including former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard Don Black, who now runs Stormfront —  the largest “white-nationalist” site on the Web — as The ‘Skeeter Bites Report and other bloggers revealed in January of that year?

Is it also any wonder that, to this day, the 74-year-old Ron Paul has been steadfast in his refusal to either distance himself from the white supremacists who backed his 2008 campaign or to return their financial contributions? There are even reports that some of those same white supremacists who backed the elder Paul’s run for the White House are now supporting his son’s Senate candidacy.  

RAND PAUL: ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS’ AMERICAN-BORN KIDS SHOULD NOT BE CITIZENS

Meanwhile, the 47-year-old Rand Paul is in trouble yet again — this time over controversial remarks made in a Russian TV interview. Appearing on the state-run, English-language Russia Today (RT) network shortly after winning the May 18 primary, the Kentucky Republican Senate candidate said that the American-born children of illegal immigrants should not automatically become U.S. citizens.

The younger Paul told RT’s Dina Gusovsky that he believes that politics plays a big hand in the current immigration issue. “We shouldn’t provide an easy route to citizenship,” he said. “A lot of this is about demographics. If you look at new [legal] immigrants from Mexico, they register [to vote by a] three to one [margin as] Democrat[s], so the Democrat Party is for easy citizenship and allowing them to vote.

“I think we need to re-address that,” he said. He didn’t specify how, but there is a bill pending in the House with 90 Republican co-sponsors that would deny automatic citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants.

The bill, however, would clearly violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly says that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Not surprisingly, Ron Paul also favors denying citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants. In his 2007 interview on “Meet the Press,” the elder Paul shocked Russert when he called for a constitutional amendment to do so. “The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t in the original Constitution,” he said, “There’s a confusion on [its] interpretation.

“Individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they’re under the jurisdiction of the government,” he continued. “Someone who illegally comes into this country — say a drug dealer — is he under [U.S.] jurisdiction and their [American-born] children deserves citizenship? I think that’s awfully confusing, and I have a bill pending to change that, as well as a constitutional amendment to clarify that.”

WHY ARE THE PAULS SO INTENT ON ALIENATING BLACKS, LATINOS?

So explicit is the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause that no attempt to deny citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants has ever succeeded in court. And a constitutional amendment to achieve that purpose would require two-thirds supermajorities in both houses of Congress for passage — supermajorities which do not currently exist and are unlikely to exist even if Republicans took back control of Congress in November’s midterm election.

A constitutional amendment would also have to be ratified by a three-fourths majority — 38 — of the 50 state legislatures before it can become part of “the supreme law of the land.” Currently, the Democrats control a majority of 28 of the 50 statehouses. Chances for passage of such an amendment, therefore, is virtually nil.

Indeed, it would be politically suicidal in the long run for any politician to push for such measures. Already, Latinos are the fastest-growing voting bloc in the nation, especially in California and the Southwest. They’re also the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population overall,  according to the Census Bureau, with the Latino birth rate now outpacing that of whites for the first time in the nation’s history.

Republicans in California already have been paying a severe political price with Latino voters — who now make up 40 percent of the state’s electorate — in the 15 years since they successfully campaigned for Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using the state’s social services, health care, and public education, only to see it struck down by the federal courts as an illegal state intrusion into federal jurisdiction.

Next door in Arizona, a Latino voter backlash continues to grow against Arizona Republicans over the recent passage by the GOP-controlled legislature and signing into law by the state’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, of a measure to crack down on illegal immigrants in that state. Critics of the new law warn that it would lead to widespread discrimination against Latinos, including  Mexican-Americans, who make up nearly a third of Arizona’s population, according to the Census Bureau.

So why are Ron and Rand Paul — who both swear they aren’t racists — nonetheless seemingly bent on alienating African Americans with their denunciations of the Civil Rights Act and on alienating Hispanic Americans with their calls to deny U.S. citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants from south of the border?

And why has the elder Paul continued to turn a blind eye to the white supremacists who backed his 2008 presidential campaign — some of whom are now reportedly supporting his son’s Senate candidacy? Are the Pauls really that blind to the damage to racial and ethnic harmony that their positions — and their controversial supporters — are inflicting?

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

 Loading ...

The Cost of War Photo by Elida Gundersen

A few weeks ago, my daughter Elida Gundersen, who is a paramedic and photographer living in Charleston, South Carolina, and I met in Boston for some time off together.  We decided that we wanted to visit Old North Church and steep ourselves in true patriotic American history, which we had not done since she was a young child.

The Old North Church is still an active parish and had this amazing memorial tribute made of dog tags representing each American who has died in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

This Memorial Garden is to honor the men and women in the Armed Forces and the civilians who have lost their lives in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.  We pray for all victims of war.  May their souls and the souls of the departed rest in peace.

It was a startling and sobering memorial.

For those of us in Vermont many of us have friends, relatives, or sons and daughters serving overseas in our military. Memorial Day 2010 has extra meaning for members of the Vermont National Guard and their families because 1,500 members of the guard are in Afghanistan.

According to WCAX TV Many of these Vermont National Guard soldiers are based in a very hostile are of Afghanistan at the Bagram Air Field.

Guard officials are reporting that five Vermont troops were injured in an attack on the base last week. In total, a dozen Guard members have been injured since arriving in Afghanistan earlier this year.

“It’s special here in Vermont because of the deployment we have underway in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Vt. Air National Guard Brig. Gen. Steve Cray. “It is significant to take a day and recognize their sacrifice and pay a whole day to say, ‘Let’s think about what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan today and think about their lives and what they are sacrificing for us.'”

Seattle Times: Hard-hit Vermont builds second memorial for wars in Iraq Afghanistan

It should: Vermont has suffered a terrible toll in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, losing 36 men who were either native sons, transplanted ones or former cadets at Norwich University military college.

The monument isn’t in place yet but will be soon.

The soldiers’ relatives helped

to break ground Sunday on the Vermont Fallen Heroes Global War on Terror Memorial, to be built at the state veterans’ cemetery in Randolph Center. Paid for with private donations raised largely by the families, the $350,000 monument marks the sacrifice of those who served and the heartbreak of the loved ones left behind.

War is not pretty.  People die and when they return home also suffer challenging memories and as we know now many also suffer PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  Norwich University students and cadets have done an incredible job making a very difficult film about the heartache of this particular war.  

Making the documentary “The War at Home” was no easy task.

The film, which a group of Norwich University students recently completed and screened at the college on Sunday, features interviews with soldiers from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and explores the challenges they have faced returning to civilian life.

But getting the veterans to talk on camera was tough.

Thatcher Moats wrote a detailed story in The Times Argus in March 2010 about the Norwich Academy documentary film.

According to Moats in The Times Argus article,

Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t going to Veterans Affairs Medical Centers seeking counseling, he said. The few that were going were not in good enough shape to tell their story, Estill was told.

“These global war on terror veterans are not going for treatment,” said Estill. “What we expected to exist to tell the story didn’t exist.”

The 210 veterans who originally visited Norwich to talk about the war to Estill and his film students could not open up, so Estrill and the students created a special class called the Veterans Seminar specifically to help veterans talk about their war experiences.

In the seminar, surrounded by other people who had seen combat, the veterans began telling their stories. Within three weeks of the start of the seminar, many of the veterans agreed to continue talking – this time in front of Norwich film students with cameras.

The veterans were each presented with the same 34 questions, and their answers, captured on film and interspersed with still photos and video footage of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, forms “The War at Home.”

Vermonters continue to both work for peace, support our troops, and honor those lost in the war.  According to the Seattle Times,

Unlike other wars, for which memorials are generally erected in the aftermath, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have prompted the construction of war memorials while fighting continues. Dozens have been built, from Jackson, Mich., to Fort Bragg, N.C.

The new Global War on Terror memorial began as an idea among family members and took off with commitments of cash and in-kind services. Some gave money, services or discounts for their services. Among them: Rock of Ages quarry, in Barre; Granite Industries of Vermont; and Granite Corp. of Barre.

Made from Barre gray granite, the memorial will encompass a 40-by-45-foot area, with several elements:

– A field memorial called “Falling Leaves,” consisting of a semicircular pedestal with an M-16 rifle, combat boots, helmet and dog tags, and relief carvings of maple leaves, the citizen soldier and the Statehouse.

– A sarcophagus with the names of the 36 – and space for more – etched on top.

– Three monoliths – one for those who served, one dedicated to the families of the fallen and another containing a bronze plaque.

The Old North Church Garden is entered via a courtyard represented by a statute honoring Guardian of Freedom Paul Revere.

Paul Revere, Guardian of Freedom Photo by Elida Gundersen

The Sad Music of War Photo by Elida Gundersen

The last thing I want to say on Memorial Day 2010 is bring our soldiers home safely as soon as possible.  Especially here in Vermont where so many of the National Guard men and women have families in need of their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and sons and daughters.  

   Today's Yankee news

"The observed short duration and small volume of leakage from the drain line appears to indicate that the event did not result in any impact to public health and safety," according to an NRC statement.

Vermont Yankee by coincidence or design never fails to make a small headline sometime on Friday afternoon or some sleepy Saturday or Sunday morning. What are the odds? The latest caps a busy couple weeks getting the beast back online after refueling.  

The newest hi-jinks at the troubled plant comes on the heels of VY offcials misleading Vermont sate officials about under ground pipes leaking tritium and the state senate vote against re-licensing, strontium 90 was discovered in a fish near the plant and almost as a side show the entire unit was “Scrammed”, automatically shut down due to a switching problem during  power up.

Picture this power plant running for twenty more years, 2032?  Safe, clean and reliable headlines every slow news day.  

A new leak of radioactive material has been found and fixed at the troubled Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, officials said Saturday. Vapor and water containing 13 different radioactive substances was found late Friday coming from a pipe in a hole workers dug to find the source of an earlier leak.

"This was a new leak," Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said in an e-mail. "The leak has been stopped. … There is no threat to public health or safety." The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission also said the public faced no danger.

emphasis added,BP

As the first drops of oil from the massive BP Deepwater Horizon spill reach the fragile shores of the US Gulf Coast:

Senator Bernie Sanders has called for an end to US offshore oil drilling, combined with an energy proposal that will help us begin to break our addiction to the toxic brew.

“United States must learn a profound lesson from the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and make certain we protect our oceans from future disasters and transform our energy system away from fossil fuels.”

Senator Sanders’ proposal calls for increasing fuel mileage standards in US cars to 55 mpg. As a driver of a 7 year old Civic hybrid, I frequently get 55 mpg – even here in our lovely mountain state. So I know this is an easily achievable goal.

The improved fuel economy would translate into a savings of $1.43 per gallon of gas.  Opening all of America’s coastal waters to drilling would yield such a modest boost in petroleum supplies that the price of gas would dip by only 3-cents a gallon.

“Is 3-cents-a-gallon in the year 2030 worth the potential risk of another disaster like this?” Sanders asked. “I don’t think it is.”

When reading the press release today, after having seen the latest news on the Oil-Spewing Volcano of Doom^(TM) in the Gulf of Mexico, it struck me that if the “CAFE” (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards hadn’t been weakened by our former oil-company-tied Presidents, we’d probably be past that level by now. It made my heart sink to think how much we’ve lost – in terms of global climate change, soldiers in oil wars, and now much of the life in the Gulf.

I am bemused when people complain that it will cost more to produce cars that get better mileage. But they always stop analyzing cost at the edge of the dealership’s parking lot. That thinking misses so many of the costs that we pay in other ways by wasting gas in unnecessarily wasteful cars.

For example:

• As the price of gas increases, a car that uses less gas becomes less expensive every day relative to a car that gets average mileage (a 50 mpg car costs half as much to drive as a 25 mpg car).
• As our weather becomes less predictable, and insects (ticks, anyone?) that didn’t used to be an issue in one place or another find new homes in our warmer world, we face increased costs of associated diseases (mmmm, lyme disease) and crop destruction (who doesn’t like blue-stained pine?).
• As we watch an entire critical ecosystem be destroyed by risky exploration for more difficult to “harvest” oil, we face disruptions to the food chain for a large swath of the Gulf and Atlantic seacoasts.
• And finally, there is arguably the most painful and expensive cost of all: the cost of sending our kids to die in the Middle East to keep the gas pumps running.

Pushing manufacturers to cut all those costs is a good thing. It’s clear from their behavior in the lax regulatory days of prior administrations that they are disinclined to do the right thing out of the goodness of their own hearts. Coming up with new designs, doing serious R&D, and retooling assembly lines eats into profits (a little), though that’s recouped with the “more expensive car” thing later (and the added expense is then recouped by the consumer in terms of less money flowing out of wallets at the gas pump, coupled with reductions in the “hidden” costs listed above).

Yes, improving mileage will increase the cost of a car, but then we are more than willing to pay extra for iPod adapters and heated seats, so why not pay a little extra to keep our children safe from the clutches of war, keep our planet “human friendly,” and keep the base of our ecosystem from being slimed with the toxic salad dressing from hell?

 Loading ...

Reporter Susan Smallheer gets the the prize this week for Entergy Nuclear news stories. Writing in the Rutland Herald, Smallheer first broke the story of the fish caught in the CT River, laced with strontium.

VT’s radioactive Health Officer, Bill Irwin, claims the strontium couldn’t be from Vermont Yankee. Arnie Gundersen says it sure could be, and “I would check a hell of a lot more fish.”

As far as predictions and analysis go, I think Arnie’s got a better record.

http://rutlandherald.com/artic…

Susan’s next great story: sinkholes! For the last two years, engineers have noticed–and reported, five different times–sinkholes near the leak location. According to the NRC, Entergy Nuclear treated these as “trip hazards”, not indicators that something seriously wrong was happening underground.  Conveniently, when radiactive tritium showed up in the test wells by the river, those sinkholes helped Entergy know right where to dig for the leaks.

http://rutlandherald.com/artic…

Thanks, Susan. Keep asking questions.

[THE UPDATE, 05/30/10]

Another leak in those non-existent underground pipes was found:

Plant spokesman Larry Smith said late Saturday that radioactive water and vapor leaked from a pipe in a pit that workers dug to find the source of an earlier leak. The latest leak involved 13 different radioactive isotopes.

(Another radioactive leak found at Yankee, Barre/Montpelier Times Argus, 05/30/10)

But, as usual, nothing to be concerned about.

[END UPDATE]

It is much more fun to write about progress, but when the world is so full of bald faced liars and these same bald faced liars are feeding the imaginations of the public …  well … as tedious as it gets one must point out the bald faced lies.

Face it, by all available evidence the tag team of Louisiana Entergy Yankee and our very own Nuclear “Regulatory” Agency are, with the quiet acquiescence of the Douglas mal-administration, bound and determined to lie to us about seemingly any and everything.

Entergy Nuclear officials failed to investigate five sinkholes that developed outside the reactor building for the past two years that were near the site of what turned out to be the radioactive leak at Vermont Yankee, according to a state report.

. . .

“These sinkholes were basically small depressions that are not unusual given weather conditions that can result in frost heaves, etc., and cause a depression. These were categorized as trip hazards and were not linked to the leakage,” [Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission] wrote in an e-mail Wednesday.

(Official: Entergy ignored sinkholes, Barre/Montpelier Times Argus, 05/28/10)

LET’S BE PERFECTLY CLEAR ABOUT SOME THINGS!

(my emphasis)

The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant had a radioactive leak years before the one found last month, confirming a disclosure last week by a consultant to the Legislature that a plant employee told him of a previous leak at the reactor, federal officials say.

Donald Jackson, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission section chief, confirmed in a conference call between NRC officials and reporters Monday that the 2005 leak occurred in the same pipe system that is the focus of the search for the source of the current leak. “In 2005, within the confines of this pipe tunnel, there was a problem with one of the pipes,” he said.

(NRC confirms Vermont Yankee had earlier leak, Boston.com, 02/24/10)

Simultaneously, of course, Douglas and his cronies were busy poo-pooing the above revelation:

David O’Brien, commissioner of the Department of Public Service, said on Tuesday that a 2005 leak at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is not related to the current tritium leak under investigation.

(O’Brien: 2005 leak not related to current tritium probe, VtDigger.com, 02/24/10)

Louisiana Entergy Yankee, the NRC and Douglas and his his cronies all lined up to blow off the seriousness of the revelation regards 2005.

A leak of tritiated water was identified (in a piping system said to be non-existent a mere 4 years later), and that leak was temporarily fixed (no public record of it ever being permanently fixed) … yet when sink holes started appearing in the vicinity of the 2005 leak they were deemed to be worthy of no more attention than a frost heave in an early spring corn field!

How about a bit of a flashback (my emphasis of course)?

A tritium leak discovered at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon poses no danger to the public, said officials from both the Vermont Department of Health and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Despite the low significance of the danger to public health and the environment, Yankee personnel have been mobilized to determine the source of the leak.

“Yankee has assembled a multi-disciplined technical team to investigate the source of the elevated level,” said Yankee spokesman Rob Williams.

Vermont’s chief of radiological health, Bill Irwin, was notified of the leak as soon as it was discovered.

“They’ve been very open and forthright,” said Irwin.

. . .

“Yankee and the rest of the industry have been taking a proactive approach in groundwater monitoring including communicating the results,” said Williams. “So, while there are no regulatory requirements to report tritium at these low levels, notifications were proactively made to regulatory agencies and the public.”

The only other leak of tritium discovered at the plant was in 1976, said Williams, when contaminated water was found to have leaked into the river.

(Tritium leak found at VY, Brattleboro Reformer, 01/08/10)

And the whole time Louisiana Entergy Yankee was lying to the people of Vermont the NRC stayed tight lipped DESPITE HAVING BEEN ADVISED BY LOUISIANA ENTERGY YANKEE OF THE 2005 LEAK (that occurred in piping Louisiana Entergy Yankee denied the existence of)!

So where do the lies stop?  

Last fall we published a diary on the carpetbagger, Jack McMulleny side of Dan Freilich, who was in Vermont for a cup of coffee in the 1990's, and then moved back to run for Senate against Pat Leahy.

 Okay. Nobody owns any seat in Congress, no matter how long he's been there. He's entitled to run, just like anyone else.

It's just that the way he's doing it is weird.

For one thing, he's been putting up these videos on YouTube. Or someone's been putting up these videos. He posted one on Tuesday that I found from his Facebook page that was all about how long Pat Leahy's been in the Senate. Something about how many Rocky movies, Presidents, and a variety of other things we've had during the time Leahy's been in office. 

And then after getting a couple of comments on the video, somebody, either Captain Dan Freilich or “Captain Dan Freilich” posted a note on FB that said 

just to claify this is not an official campaign video, it was not endorsed by doctor freilich, it is merely social commentary created by an individual (as stated in the video).

 It sure looks like a campaign site to me, and I wasn't the only one who was confused. Aki Soga, the editorial page editor of the Free Press,  asked him (again on FB) I'm not clear. Is this your YouTube channel and are these videos by you?

To which “Captain Dan” replied, this should clear things up a bit., along with a link to another video on YouTube.

And the kicker is, you follow the links to these two videos on YouTube and what you get is the message that “This video has been removed by the user.” I've seen each of them once, but apparently I'm not getting another chance.

It does make you wonder what he's trying to clear up, who is posting these videos, photos, and other campaign stuff, and what message he's trying to convey.

I think I might not be the only one wondering, either. For instance, last Saturday at the Vermont Democratic Committee meeting, Freilich was given an opportunity to speak. He did okay, although not great. During the question and answer period, though, he had to admit that he had signed the petition to nominate Paul Beaudry, a right-wing Republican and radio performer (Vermont's answer to Glenn Beck?) to run for Congress against Peter Welch.

Again, nobody owns his seat in Congress, but what the hell is someone running as a Democrat doing supporting a right-winger like Beaudry?

Is this a campaign? If he's trying to make some substantive points, he's actually making some odd choices in the effort.

May 27, 2010

–

#7600 Public Hearing re Vermont Yankee — CANCELLED DUE TO POWER OUTAGE;

TO BE RESCHEDULED

Was scheduled for tonight Thursday May 27, 2010 – 7:00pm

In Re:  Investigation into:  (1) whether Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, “Entergy VY”), should be required to cease operations at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, or take other ameliorative actions, pending completion of repairs to stop releases of radionuclides, radioactive materials, and, potentially, other non-radioactive materials into the environment; (2) whether good cause exists to modify or revoke the 30 V.S.A. § 231 Certificate of Public Good issued to Entergy VY; and (3) whether any penalties should be imposed on Entergy VY for any identified violations of Vermont statutes or Board Orders related to the releases