Does somebody tell these kids to wrap themselves in the U.S. flag when they win a medal?  Is that somewhere in the handbook? Around my house, we joke that they should be wrapping themselves in one of those novelty beach towels that have a gigantic dollar bill printed on one side.

Now, I don’t want to take anything away from the individual achievements of the athletes, or from the pure pleasure of watching the human body perform at its outer limits; but a little perspective is definitely warranted every time this particular circus comes to town.  Probably even before Germany attempted to use the 1936 Olympics to “sell” its population and the world on a certain brand of racial superiority, marketing has been the underlying agenda of the Olympics.  In the 2010 Olympics, we are looking at a multi-billion-dollar global marketing engine with many corporate drivers.  Nationalistic sentiment is simply a branding device, cooly superimposed on the product vehicle in order to speed consumption.  

At a time when there is widespread poverty among U.S. children, marginal education for most of them and very little left in the way of social “safety nets” to offset their complete lack of opportunity; why do we embrace the fantasy that the U.S. Olympic team represents the most talented and motivated young people in the country?  There is absolutely no acknowledgment anywhere in the mainstream media of the social inequities which guarantee that the vast majority of young people in this country are simply eliminated from the performance pool before they even take their first steps. Corporate sponsors are there only for the few who already have a demonstrated potential to sell product.  They aren’t reaching into the ghettos and slums to offer training to untested youngsters, no matter what heart-warming fiction the public is willing to believe.

Olympic athletes are largely the spawn of affluent families who can afford to devote the time and resources necessary to produce a world-class athlete. I have no problem with that.  It’s a simple reality.  I’d just like a little truth in advertising.

Here’s a video “thank you” to Montpelier’s Valentine Phantom, with an added thanks to Dar Williams for a great concert in Barre last night (the first concert my wife and I have seen together in the -*gulp*- ten years since we became parents).

And sorry JD for missing the tamales again.

The linked “Boycott AP” graphic on the right hand side was put on this site, as well as many other blogs, when the Associated Press announced a new policy of charging for any quotations or excerpts from any AP wire story – even those as small as five words. Where this clearly flew in the face of Fair Use law and precedent, the AP was going to use its corporate muscle to essentially bully their unilateral approach into reality despite the law by targeting small blogs that couldn’t afford to defend themselves for legal action.

At any rate, there was pushback, a furor, and many of us decided to start the boycott AP bit in solidarity with our targeted comrades. Shortly thereafter, the AP backed off the targeted blog but seemed to continue with their announced new “policy.” Some of us kept the image and the link (and the boycott) up, some of us backed off.

But it’s been a while now – a year and a half since the court action was dropped – and they don’t seem to be furthering this nonsense after all. Given that (and given the fact that only GMD and a small handful of other sites are maintaining this boycott), I’m removing the image and link and calling it a victory. I suppose in retrospect it was a victory a year and a half back… I just didn’t quite trust it 100% at the time. Call me cynical.

Yippee!!

23-year-old Vermonter Hannah Kearney just completed an amazing run to take home the Gold Medal in the women’s moguls ski competition – the first US Gold of the 2010 Olympics.

Now if we can juts get the media to stop referring to her as a New Hampsherite (we Vermonters just don’t get no respect).

From her bio at usskiteam.com, Kearney describes herself as:

Just one member of a sports-oriented family – Mom’s the recreation director in Norwich, brother Denny is a first-rate hockey player (and, before focusing on the ice, he was an outstanding baseball player – and Dad coached his Babe Ruth team)…When she was sidelined in ’07, she took over a 7-year-old Rhodesian Ridgeback dog, Lola, from an elderly women who couldn’t care for her…Gotta-have when she travels: family and friends’ photos plus knitting supplies…Kearney was national junior moguls champ in ’02 but it got lost between the two Juniors Worlds titles and being an Olympic forerunner at Deer Valley in ’02 (being a forerunner, she said, “gave me something to strive for”)…Played trumpet in the school jazz band into her sophomore year… Enjoys riding horses, cooking, playing soccer and reading…She’s not much for watching sports on TV – “I’d rather be playing some sport than watching it”…”Fried Green Tomatoes” is (still) her favorite movie…

Congratulations!

I’ve been thinking about immediacy and the nature of the term “no immediate threat,” since I’ve seen it pop about the news quite a bit lately.  Here is some sampling of the hits you get from google when you search for +”Vermont Yankee” +”Immediate Threat”:

#

SentinelSource.com |Douglas: Tritium is no threat

Feb 12, 2010 … Vermont Yankee will remain open during search for leak’s source … “Even finding it in drinking water would not be an immediate threat.” …

keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/02/12/news/local/…/id_390109.txt

[…]

Possible tritium leak at Vermont Yankee – NashuaTelegraph.com

Feb 6, 2010 … Vermont Yankee plant officials said they found levels of tritium in a sump pit at the … “There is no immediate threat to public health.” …

www.nashuatelegraph.com/…/possible-tritium-leak-at-vermont-yankee.html –

[…]

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant Tritium leak tied to pipe – Berkshire …

Vermont Yankee plant officials said they found levels of tritium in a sump pit at … said on its Web site, “There is no immediate threat to public health. …

www.berkshireeagle.com/northeastnews/ci_14345760

[…]

SentinelSource.com |Vermont Yankee

Feb 13, 2010 … of a radioactive substance from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. … wells and poses no immediate threat to public health or safety. …

www.sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/02/13/…/id_390245.txt – 8 hours ago –

[…]

Lawmakers frustrated with feds over Vermont Yankee …

Feb 13, 2010 … Lawmakers frustrated with feds over Vermont Yankee … drinking-water wells and poses no immediate threat to public health or safety. […]

www.burlingtonfreepress.com/…/Lawmakers-frustrated-with-feds-over-Vermont-Yankee – 11 hours ago –

[…]

012910vy_tritium

Jan 29, 2010 … There is no immediate threat to public health, but this event is of high concern … Vermont Yankee, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, …

healthvermont.gov/advisory/2010/012910vy_tritium.aspx

[…]

Why do you think the phrase “immediate” is consistently preceding the word “threat” in the contexts above?  

“Immediate” is a fairly specific term.  It means instantaneous.  Evacuations take place immediately.   High and low tides, which work over a matter of hours are not immediate.  Immediate refers to floodgates opening.

To put it simply: the fact of VY’s tritium leak not being an “immediate” threat is less of a concern to me than that those defending VY seem to consistently want to emphasize the word “immediate.”  

The question we need to be asking is not whether or not this is an “immediate” threat, but whether we’re willing to wait until it becomes one to stop it.  

This is simple: if someone runs a nuclear power plant (or for that matter, any power plant) and discovers that the plant is leaking dangerous waste and weeks later can’t even figure out where that waste is coming from, that plant needs to be shut down until the source of the leak is contained.  Not tomorrow.  Not three days from now.

Now.

This isn’t something to be negotiated, politicized or teased out.  It’s just human decency at the most basic level.  

[more good questions for the candidates — promoted by NanuqFC]

The Governor (and the Chamber & friends) are advocating for the reinstatement of the 40% capital gains exclusion. Can you tell us your view of this proposal? My thoughts are shown below.

Fiscal impacts – 1:  The exclusion cost the state $51 million in foregone revenue in 2006.   How will the state make up for the loss of $50 million+ in the out years?

Fiscal Impacts – 2:  Eliminating the exclusion was part of a deal that lowered the marginal rates.  To reinstate the exclusion without raising the marginal rates allows the wealthy to have it both ways. Do you think this is fair?

Jobs:  Most of the underlying assets are invested outside Vermont and have no impact on jobs in the state.   Note: Private sector jobs grew 25% in the decade before we had the exclusion.  And even if you think states taxes matter, only four states have this type of exclusion so Vermont is at no disadvantage.

Equity:  In 2006, 51% of the benefit went to the 340 filers reporting more than $1 million in taxable income (one-tenth of one percent of all filers).  How can we justify giving so much money to so few while the state is struggling to meet its obligations (and is laying off state workers)?

Small Business:  Some argue that capital gains taxes are unfair because the filers are being taxed on the inflation adjusted value of the asset.  Here is what the CBO said about this:

“Because of inflation, the difference between the sale price of an asset and its basis overstates the income that the asset holder earns; taxes are thus imposed on phantom income created by inflation… At the same time, gains are treated favorably by not being taxed when earned but when realized, which is often many years later. Because money today is worth more than the same amount of money in the future, deferring payment of capital gains taxes is a powerful advantage and can overwhelm the disadvantageous effects of inflation, especially for assets that are held a long time. Finally, realizations of long-term capital gains…are taxed at rates lower than those imposed on regular income. The result is that even after inflation is taken into account, capital gains are generally taxed at effectively lower rates than are most other forms of income.”  (Emphasis added)

Migration:  Assertions about people leaving are speculative and unsubstantiated.  In addition, if the exclusion is so important, where is the evidence that wealthy people moved to Vermont after the exclusion was adopted?  

UPDATE:  The following post is from last month. Since this posted on the 14th of January, the Brain-Trust in  the Douglas/Dubie administration has revisited their brilliant approach to privatizing state security.  The Administration’s Brain-Trust, which originally tried to outsource assault, battery & unlawful restraint (for starters), and then have Vermont’s taxpayers foot the bill, has at least attempted to solve this latest act of unthinking incompetence.

The solution? (you’ll love this) the Brain-Trust decided to redefine the word “confrontation” in the Request For Proposal for Security contract (“RFP”) and just hope the whole thing will go away.  

(See the original post below the fold for the background detail).

This is what happened after this post originally ran. During the question period for companies seeking to bid on the security contract, a savvy potential contractor sent an inquiry to the Department of Buildings and General Services. The question to B&GS was what does “the term confront” mean relative to “confronting persons” seeking to access a building without authorization or what does confront mean in the context of dealing with “physical confrontations.” (See Question # 4 of question list to B&GS).  



It’s All So Simple –

So what does “confront” or “confrontation” mean? Well we are still not sure, but guess what it does NOT mean? According to the Brain-Trust in the Douglas/Dubie administration the answer is: “confront simply (simply?) refers to investigating . . . “Physical engagement is prohibited.” In other words, imagine crime-stopping (“simply imagine?”)as a game of touch football. Now, leave (“simply leave?”) out the touching part. — Don’t you just love the use of “simply” when someone says  something so confusing that it makes no sense whatsoever?

How does this all work now? Basically, it looks like the administration is giving a wink & a nod to all bidders by saying “Tell us your training and procedures for applying necessary force in relation to crimes on State property and explain your security personnel’s methods and training for making a citizen’s arrest.”  However, when you engage in “necessary force” or make a “citizen’s arrest” as part of your crime-fighting duties just remember: Physical Engagement Is Prohibited.  OK, everyone clear on that!

What ever happened to “sorry we screwed up and this is what we meant to say?” Is that so hard? Is it really all that difficult to just say “forget about that ‘necessary force’ and “citizen’s arrest” bullshit because we just screwed up”?  

Tell me again, how many months until we can return a level of competence to the Governor’s office? After almost 8 years of Douglas/Dubie, it is truly time to put a few grown-ups back in charge.

NOTE: The following is the original January 14 post.  Some of the links may no longer be operable since the Administration pulled or stopped linking some of the reference.

In a notice posted by the administration’s Department of Building and General Services, the Douglas/Dubie administration announced its intention to skirt reason, abandon common-sense, accountability, jettison its oath to uphold the law and did we mention tossing “common sense?” They continue to  operate in an alternative universe.

This latest administration stunt involves publishing a Request-for-Proposal (RFP) seeking bids from private security firms. The RFP claims that it will be awarded based, in large measure, on the private company’s:

ability to train its guards to make “citizen arrests” (see RFP section 3.6.4.1 @ page 7)

corporate protocols for “citizen arrests”

corporate procedures training its security guards to handle “the force necessary” to handle suspected crimes on public property.

There’s more – there always is .  .  .

Before considering what the Do-Less & DooBE-inCompetent Administration is asking private guards to do (while wearing official “looking” uniforms and while employed by the State and on State property), consider the issue of “citizen arrest.”

First, in Vermont, “citizen arrest” has a more precise term. Several precise terms in fact.

Under Vermont law, a typical term for citizen arrest is “Assault.”

Another one of those legal-eagle words that judges, juries, cops and prosecutors use when describing a citizen arrest” is “Unlawful Restraint.” (Substantially restraining the movement of another person without the person’s consent).

Now, for those of you joining us late, or for those of you who are but mere distracted and highly paid members of a GOP administration sworn to uphold Vermont law, assault and unlawful restraint are crimes that can carry big fines and nasty prison terms.

Aside from the criminal penalties, in a tort case for civil damages, a “citizen arrest” is what a judge more commonly refers to as “assault and battery” and “false imprisonment.”

If the administration wants police officers on State property arresting people, then hire sworn and trained law enforcement officers certified to do the job.  However, if arresting citizens is not critical to the job of locking doors and inspecting parking lots at state buildings or Interstate-91 rest areas, then perhaps the State should just issue pagers and cell phones to the private guards and tell them what constitutes a 911 call.

The “Statewide Security Services” RFP link, as of today’s date, is HERE.

Page 7 of the RFP, with the highlighted language, is HERE.

 Loading ...

In today’s Rutland Herald there’s a piece called Bridge agreement concerns Vt. firms.  What’s the concern?

A labor agreement pending in New York would virtually exclude Vermont contractors from landing work on one of the biggest infrastructure projects in recent memory, according to a trade organization that represents more than 150 firms in the Vermont construction industry.

Adopting such an agreement for the $75 million Lake Champlain bridge replacement project, according to Cathy Voyer, executive vice president of Associated General Contractors of Vermont, would force contractors to play by union rules, and effectively preclude this state’s non-union shops from bidding on the work.

The piece goes on to note that:

Unionized companies represent about 5 percent of Vermont’s construction industry, Voyer said. “If you’re not a union contractor, then you have to agree to change your employment practices to either become a union contractor or allow the union to take control of your employees,” Voyer said. “It basically requires contractors to grant union officials monopoly bargaining power over all their employees.”

What’s at issue here?  Project Labor Agreements.

What does a PLA do?  It defines acceptable wages and benefits for a given job.  It’s a way of ensuring that when we put civic money into a big project that it provides real and meaningful benefit to the people who work on that project.  

See, if you read this piece, it looks as though the plan being discussed will exclude non-union shops from participating.

Here’s the thing, though: it doesn’t.  It merely requires them to hold their employment standards to a certain level.  This makes for a better bid process, because it prevents the contractors with good and solid labor practices from losing out to other companies which will just go for really low bids and pay their employees lower wages and benefits.

The most interesting thing, however, is the tacit admission here that union benefits and wages are better than non-union ones.  Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any fuss at all over this.

Well, that is very interesting. Once again, for the sheer devil of it, I tried posting  a response to the “Happy Is…”piece.  It had not had any new comments in a day or so, so I thought I’d test the waters.  My first comment went from “pending” to posted in about half-an hour, so I posted a second comment adding that I didn’t think this sort of material did much for Huff-Post’s credibility.  Now I have just discovered that both posts have been removed! Is anyone else game to test the gatekeepers themselves? If so, let me know how you fare.

I just have to share something that completely cracks me up.  A couple of days ago, I was scanning through Huff-Post and came upon a curious post entitled “How Happy Is…How I Met My Life Partner.”  Don’t ask me why; maybe it was the curious nonsequitur, but I went ahead and read the post by one Sophie Keller, identified as a “happiness expert;” and it was a doozy!   How exactly did Ms, Keller acquire this remarkable expertise? The article says that she began her journey in high school by taking up a life of self-help experimentation that ran the gammut:

So through my teens, while my friends spent their money on drinking and clubbing, I spent my money on self-development.  I started at 14, when my best friend and I learned to do TM (Transcendental Meditation) and religiously meditated twice a day until our late 20’s.  At the same time, I started to experience all different types of therapy: hypnosis, NLP, Gestalt Therapy, Transactional Analysis, Alexander Technique, Rebirthing, Psycho synthesis, Body Mind therapy, Pilates, Shamanism, Life Coaching, Reiki, Rolfing, etc.  Additionally, I took part for years in numerous group personal development trainings, as well as many other body works. (Believing deeply, as I do, in the mind-body connection.)

Drinking and clubbing weren’t exactly options in my teen years; and you couldn’t buy much therapy with the proceeds from baby-sitting; so it’s safe to assume that we didn’t exactly move in the same social circles. But hell-bent on her path to Mr. Right, Ms. Keller, apparently, still had her work cut out for her:

After 18 years of working on myself, I knew that I had cleared all the past issues that were stopping me from making my life work completely. I had dropped all masks and was completely authentic in who I was. And then, just when I was least expecting it, my husband, Oliver, came along. That complete letting go meant that I was ready for him.

The remainder of the piece is sort of an infomercial about how she has used a “conglomeration” of what she learned to create her own practice and is now about to share that happiness expertise with readers of Huff-Post in a weekly feature on how to find one’s “ideal partner.”  I honestly thought it might be a sly humor piece.  No comments had posted yet, but two were pending; so I sent my own:  “You’re kidding, right?  How could eighteen years of compulsive navel-gazing make you better prepared to share someone else’s life?”  I checked back a little later and found that there were now NO comments, pending or otherwise!  Interesting.  Electronic glitch?  I posted again and checked back after another hour or so.  There were a small number of innocuous responses up, many with encouraging replies from Ms. Sophie; and none pending.  I checked my profile page for clues.  It showed that I had posted to Ms. Keller’s article, but the actual postings  had been expunged from my  list of comments.  I tried again, for the sheer devil of it; each successive attempt was less barbed than the one before.  I wanted to see if there was a threshold for acceptance or if I had been permanently banned from the happiness guru’s inner sanctum. Looks like I’m on the outs for good.  I notice, however, that as time went by and comments were few, she finally began to allow not just the odd wry remark, but even some more blistering than my own, to stand unexpurgated.

I had heard of people’s comments being blocked, but never experienced it myself.  I assumed you had to say something REALLY bad to get the boot from HP!  Now I’m not so sure.  Can someone please tell me if Huf-Post bloggers each moderate their own response forums?  If so, it certainly seems like Sophie Keller truly has found the secret to happiness after all her years of self-discovery: Don’t let anyone say you’re wrong!