Back in the 90's, I was among those who who protested the launch of the Saturn-bound Cassini probe. Problem was, it was powered by a big honkin' piece of unbelievably toxic plutonium that, in the event of a disaster during liftoff, could end up sprinkled out over half a continent.

But there were others protesting it for a broader reason, and that reason was on display in some liberal blog posts complaining about the recent lunar mission that ended in a piece of the probe crashing into a lunar crater. The idea was to analyze the dust kicked up in the impact with an eye towards finding ice crystals that would both enhance our understanding of Earth's nearest neighbor, but impact long term discussions about returning to the moon someday (they found none).

Lisa Derrick at the generally sensible national blog Firedoglake bemoaned our “explod(ing) a bomb into the Moon,” and was echoed by the usually dependable former Vermont State Representative Chris Pearson at the Prog Blog, in asking “Ah, are we really bombing the Moon? Yes, yes we are.”

“This hardly passes the straight face test,” Pearson complained, without elaboration. The closest thing to a clear argument seemed to be the following: “Given our dramatic national debt and frightening economic times is this really the best use of community resources?” 

To Derrick, it was all about the aesthetics of “bombing” the moon. It was icky. SO American, to bomb things. Of course, to bomb something, one generally needs… well, a bomb. A bomb is defined as “a projectile, formerly usually spherical, filled with a bursting charge and exploded by means of a fuze, by impact, or otherwise, now generally designed to be dropped from an aircraft.”

There was, of course, no explosive charge to this project, hence, the moon was not bombed. Period. Derrick, Pearson and many others decided that it was more important to elicit a visceral reaction that might reactively put readers on their side before they even read the details, than to present their case rationally.

From a coldly strategic perspective, you can't blame them. They are, in fact, asking people to join them in straight-up anti-science. The presumably educated readers of their respective sites are not unfamiliar with anti-science silliness, they're just used to seeing it in its more stereoptypical form; right wing creationism and the like. 

But let's look at Pearson's presumed thesis and leave the moon-bombing hyperbole for a moment. That this project should be held to a standard of whether or not it's the “best” use of resources, demanding it justify itself against other programs (programs we are to infer it is bleeding resources from).

You remember when parents used to tell their kids to finish their vegetables because of those starving kids in Africa? That's the logic in play here. It's no different. If we spend less money on science, it doesn't then follow that those funds automatically go to feeding the hungry or health care for all. Imagine, for a moment, if that logic were applied evenly and consistently, and every bit of taxpayer spending became a Schindler's List moment. Repave the road? You'll let a dozen kids starve. Somehow I doubt that Pearson applied this reasoning when he cast his vote for, for example,  The “Do Not Mail” anti-junk mail bill.

The fact is that we all – left, right, center and whatever – see government as being responsible for certain things. We don't hierarchicalize all of those things or put them up against each other in our worldview – we expect government to do its part for all of them. On the left, one of those priorities is education, and education is about more than teaching elementary school – its also about educating ourselves. Science left exclusively to the private sector will only lead to science for profit, and that's why promoting science (along with the arts and the humanities) has always been a part of any rational, civilized and responsible government's role in promoting education. Always.

Do we need to keep an eye towards priorities? Of course. Science should not take more than a modest portion of our budget as compared to social services and infrastucture. Do we want to avoid frivolous spending on science? Absolutely. Should we try to be as cost-effective as possible on publicly funded scientific projects? Unquestionably.

This lunar project met all of those criteria. Every last one. It was efficient, relatively inexpensive, and was a significant effort to expand our understanding of our natural satellite that could lead to more scholarship, and practical applications down the road. It is not simply an example of the kind of science our government should be funding, its an example of that kind of science done well.

Obviously this has hit a nerve of mine (which is generally what  it takes to get me blogging about anything, of course), but I think it's worth calling out this line of rhetoric. The next time we feel just a little too cocky when we look down with scorn on anti-evolution numbskulls in Mississippi, we'll all have a couple examples to remind us that anti-science blather isn't necessarily bound to any geographical or partisan borders.

First: Go read Mathew Brauer’s post.

Second: “Net Neutrality” — a quick primer.  

ISPs (internet service providers), e.g., cable companies, AOL or any service that provides your internet access (Comcast, Verizon etc.) can control how data from websites goes through their network and can allow it go faster or force some sites to load at an extremely slow pace. As it currently stands, the cable companies/large telecomms, ISPs, are required – and they DON’T like it – to let data travel through their networks at the same rate of speed regardless of whether it is a website that generates more money for the ISP and regardless of whether the ISP wants people to have access to the information a particular website publishes. If Congress and the FCC do not protect Net Neutrality, consumers will likely find that ISPs will speed up websites that benefit them and slow down websites that they do not like for financial/content reasons. Some sites could be blocked or just be useless due to the consumer’s inablity to have the site load.

There is no good explanation for Congressman Welch signing a letter with 71 anti-consumer members of congress who are advocating federally sanctioned corporate denial of access to information and resources available through the internet.

For a good introduction to the relatively basic consumer protection regulatory steps the FCC is trying to accomplish, I recommend reading Julius Genachowski’s statement, which is located on the White House website.  Mr. Grenachowski is the chairperson of the FCC.

In contrast to the sentiments inexplicably expressed in the letter signed by Congressman Welch, Mr. Genachowski explains his pro-consumer and pro-equal access to the internet position by sating that

The key to the Internet’s success has been its openness.

The Internet was designed to be “future-proof” – to support ideas, products, and services that today’s inventors have not yet imagined. In practice, it doesn’t favor or disfavor any particular content or application, but allows end users, content creators, and businesses of every size and in every sector of the economy to communicate and innovate without permission.

Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges.

We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen one service provider deny users access to political content.



And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons for concern about even greater challenges to openness in the future, including reduced choice in the Internet service provider marketplace and an increase in the amount of Internet traffic, which has fueled a corresponding need to manage networks sensibly.



The rise of serious challenges to the traditional operation of the Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see technology used to shut doors to entrepreneurs instead of opening them. The spirit of innovation stifled. A full and free flow of information compromised.

[snip]

. . . I proposed that the FCC adopt two new rules to help achieve this.

The first says broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. The second says broadband providers must be transparent about their network management practices. . .

. . . I also proposed that the FCC formally enshrine the four pre-existing agency policies that say network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.

It’s well worth reading his full statement here.

The proposed regulations that give Congressman Welch and the other co-signers “concern” and make him “suspicious” are, in fact, simple no-brainers. Net neutrality is a critical protection for all consumers.

To a degree, (and for some of us, that degree is close to 100%), we all rely on, and are at the mercy of, the large telecomm monopolies that our federal government helped to create. Congressman Welch and the FCC need to ensure that access to information is protected and that we are protected from the telecomm giants. ATT, Comcast, Verizon, etc. have made no secret of their interest in censoring information or making it harder/more expensive to access.

We already know that AT&T their ilk want to screw us.  The issue then is what the FCC can and will do to give us some measure of protection. Now is not the time to weaken policies that are in place and which need to be make into federal regulations.  

Only my keyboard, my need to be informed and my curiosity are appropriate arbitrators of the news, information and data resources that must be available to me. Whether I have that right should not be controlled by Comcast or Verizon.  It should be vigilantly protected by my elected representatives.  

The proposed regulations that give Congressman Welch and the other co-signers “concern” and make him “suspicious” are in fact no-brainers. Net neutrality is a critical protection for all consumers.  To a degree, and for some of us, that degree is close to 100%, we all rely and are at the mercy of the large telecomm monopolies that our federal government help create. Congressman Welch and the FCC need to ensure that access to information.  

When it comes to the monopolies governed by regulations that determine whether these monopolies control – and the extent to which they control – information flowing to us and from us, this is the bottom line: Only my keyboard, my need to be informed and my curiosity are appropriate arbitrators of the news, information and data resources that must be available to me. Whether I have that right should not be controlled by Comcast or Verizon.  It should be vigilantly protected by my elected representatives.

Is this what Congressman Welch meant to say?

A rather long quote from Senator Franken because, it’s all good!  

. . . this is about entrepreneurship and innovation. Great innovations only take place on an even playing field, where the little guys can go head-to-head with the big guys. If we change the rules of the game to benefit the big guys, innovation will suffer.

So the issue here isn’t only what might be blocked [without net neutrality regulations], but what might never be developed in the first place. . .

First, censorship. Take a look at Iran. In Iran, every Internet provider uses filters to control the Web sites and e-mails that users can access. They use a technology called “Deep Packet Inspection” to filter every e-mail, Facebook post and Tweet that anyone sends, and – in real time – block content that’s deemed objectionable.

You might say, “Well, that’s a terrible situation, but it’s happening in Iran, and we are not Iran.” No, we’re not Iran, but that isn’t stopping several companies from taking the same or similar technology for a test drive.

. . . [I]in 2007, Verizon refused to allow the pro-choice group NARAL to send text messages to its supporters – even though they had signed up to receive them. Verizon’s explanation was that it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” messages. Like, for example, that a woman should have control of her reproductive system.

A second example: Comcast has used Deep Packet Inspection to block lawful peer-to-peer applications. . . during a live Webcast of a 2007 Pearl Jam concert, AT&T killed the audio for a few beats. Turns out the missing lyrics were critical of President Bush.

ISPs want to profit from a closed Net

Stifling openness on the Internet isn’t always about censorship. In the future, it could simply be a product of business at work – of ISPs turning a profit. The chief technology officer for BellSouth recently said, “I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first class ticket… I can get two-day air or six-day ground.” He asserted that the Internet should be the same way.

The CEO of Verizon made the same point when he said, “We need to make sure there is the right economic model… we need to pay for the pipe.” And one provider proposed a system where consumers could pay a cheap monthly rate for light Internet use, a higher fee for heavier use… but with an exception for people who accessed only the content created by that network provider.

That’s a business motive, but it has the effect of limiting speech, and as far as I’m concerned, free speech limited — or free speech delayed – is the same as free speech denied. Because the truth is that the Internet is the town hall of the 21st century.

In the 1997 decision Reno v. ACLU, Justice Stevens wrote:

   “Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.”

I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and on my fourth day in the Senate – my first hearing on that committee – we were dealing with the nomination of Judge (now Justice) Sonia Sotomayor.

I asked her specifically about whether she thought the American public has a compelling First Amendment interest in ensuring the Internet stays open and accessible. And if I could paraphrase her answer, it was “yes.” As noisy and messy as it may be, the Internet is a democracy. And because of that, it is a critical part of our democracy. But without strong legislation prohibiting ISPs from regulating content, that may not always be the case.

Let me add that among the people who would be hurt the most are rural users, who, like many in my home state of Minnesota [& Vermont], often only have access to a single ISP. If that rural ISP decides to favor or cut special deals with big companies-or with the companies that ISP also owns – then rural users would only receive the viewpoints that the ISP favors. ISP profit margins should never come at the cost of a free and open Internet.

(@#$!%&^*+. – promoted by odum)

UPDATE: It’s been a little while, but Congressman Welch got back to me on my two questions – why did he sign the letter, and does he still support net neutrality.  Here’s the response:

Dear Mr. Breuer,

I strongly support net neutrality.  The internet must remain open and available to all users.  It is essential to the free flow of ideas, creativity, participatory democracy and commerce.

We must also fight to make the internet as accessible in rural Vermont as it is in major metropolitan areas.  My signature on the letter to the FCC was intended to make that point.  We need net neutrality and we need universal broadband access.

I will be monitoring the FCC rulemaking process carefully and encourage you to do the same by visiting www.fcc.gov.  Please stay in contact with me as this process continues.

While I would quibble about the lengths at which the letter goes to push back against net neutrality, it’s an answer.  Doesn’t sit the best with me, but if Representative Welch believes that’s the way towards internet access in Vermont, it’s his choice to stand by.

After reading an article at Daily Kos, I was quite shocked to find our own congressman Peter Welch among the signees of a letter that threatens the preservation of net neutrality.  Representative Welch has joined alongside progressive superstars such as Walk Minnick, Dan Boren, and Heath Shuler in asking the FCC to abandon their plans to protect net neutrality.

The letter speaks for itself:

“…it is our strong belief that continued progress in expanding the reach and capabilities of broadband networks will require the Commission to reiterate, and not repudiate, its historic commitment to competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach.”

“…we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation.”

“…we remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve.”

I can’t believe that I’m writing this journal, because this is such a cut and dry issue.  You either stand on the side of the people, or you side with business giants.  

Does Representative Welch really believe this is the way we should push forward with internet?

I don’t claim to be an expert on this issue, but I feel like I have a pretty good sense of when we’re getting screwed, and this seems like a perfect case.



Read the whole letter here, and then let Representative Welch know how you feel.

SMALL-NOT-REALLY-AN-UPDATE: for what its worth, my messages about this letter never received a response (at least not in the window of time that I have traditionally heard back from his office on other issues)…

UPDATE 2:  I always assume everyone here reads Blurt fairly regularly, so I hadn’t thought to post this when I saw it yesterday, but figure I should now.

Shay Totten wrote a piece regarding this story, and his credentials were able to get him somewhat of an official response from the Welch team:

“Congressman Welch strongly supports net neutrality and believes the Internet should remain open and available to all consumers. At the same time, he wants to ensure the expansion of broadband access to rural areas throughout Vermont,” Heintz told Seven Days. “Congressman Welch continues to urge the FCC to act carefully and deliberately in enacting new rules that balance these two essential priorities.”

Now, I love to be a little optimistic about our public officials, but that answer to me is akin to “No Johnny, of course we don’t want to get rid of the dog, but it is always worth seeing if there is another family or shelter that can take him if we grow tired of him”.  Hell, I’m pretty sure the e-state initiative was about as progressive as this statement from Welch.  How/why does the congressman believe that destroying the little internet regulation that exists will make the telecommunications companies holistic?  

It may just be me, but I heard of a company called Fairpoint that got some regulations relaxed so that it could provide service everywhere, and they wound up doing an excellent job.  I bet if we loosen the reins on all of the companies, they’re definitely going to find interest in wiring up the most rural parts of our state.  But hey, it’s not like I’m a congressman or anything.

In case you haven’t heard, Montpelier has a bit of a financial scandal going on at City Hall.

(Mayor Mary) Hooper and City Manager William Fraser disclosed last Friday that the city had mistakenly cut a check from the water fund for $548,111 to Scott Construction on Dec. 22, 2004, for a water line improvement project. The amount should have been $85,775.

The $462,336 overpayment, which was cashed by Scott Construction, wasn’t detected by an audit in 2005 and was discovered by the city in 2006. The city has been able to collect $114,688 of that overpayment from Scott Construction over the years, but last week Chittenden Bank called in its $4.8 million loan to the company and foreclosed on Scott, making it almost certain no further funds will be recouped by the city.

The City Council has met several times since 2006 behind closed doors in executive session to discuss and approve action to recoup the funds. Hooper and most council members believed keeping Scott’s financial situation quiet was imperative to preventing a run on his assets and recovering the lost money for Montpelier ratepayers.

The City Council and City Manager recently had their face the music meeting with townsfolk. By all accounts, it was generally civil, but no one that I can find feels good about any of this – in particular how it was kept quiet for so long. There is a keen sense of betrayal on that point in active circulation in the Capital City.

The rationale for the “cover up” is not crazy; if word got out about the company’s tenuous financial condition, there could have been a run from creditors, forcing them into immediate bankruptcy and shutting down any chance to recover the funds by being dropped to the back of the line behind secured creditors. And all that is true. It’s a sound explanation.

But its not justification.

When we screw something up, there’s a temptation to keep it quiet until you can fix it. It’s a lot easier to fess up to a parent, a spouse, a friend – whoever – if we can say “I broke it, but I took responsibility and made it better, so its all cool.”

It can be an appropriate approach, but it includes a gamble; if you fess up to a screw-up immediately, you can expect a certain amount of grief. If you keep it quiet in order to fix it before reporting, you have to be sure you do fix it, as there is major interest compounding on that grief. If you can’t make good on that reparation or payoff, the injured party is going to be that much angrier for the lack of disclosure, which may be seen as intentional deception.

This is why, while it may be a gamble we as individuals can choose or choose not to take in our private lives, it is never, ever a gamble that public officials should be taking through our democratic institutions. This situation should make that clear. Intentions may have been good – they certainly weren’t bad – but accountability and transparency have to be axiomatic in public institutions to guard against incompetence and dishonesty, the former certainly being in play in this case. Decisions to hide such things, as rational as they may seem at the time, also get tainted by feelings of fear or trepidation (even panic), self-interest, frustration, anger, etc. – and that’s no way to run a public institution.

The City Council and the City Manager made the wrong call – a call in which they placed themselves further apart from (above?) the community than they’re supposed to be. Very simply, the information was not theirs to withhold, no matter the intent. Do I think they should resign? No. We elect humans, not robots, and as long as I personally see no intent to do wrong, then I personally see no reason for them not to fill out their terms. That’s me.

But there’s no question that re-election could prove challenging for these folks (including for Mayor Hooper in her other role as State Representative), as Montpelier residents will all be making that calculus individually. And right now, emotions are quite understandably high.

(Yes, the post says “part 1”, but part 2 will focus on the Burlington Telecom snafu)

( – promoted by JulieWaters)

  Did  the Vermont Public Service board just propose eliminating  the sales tax on the sale of 4,310 major appliances?

“Funds for  fridges” The State of Vermont has submitted for US Department of Energy approval a plan which would offer rebates on the purchase of new energy efficient appliances, including washers, refrigerators, air conditioners, and also certain gas furnaces and water heaters. Documentation that the old appliance was properly recycled would need to be provided.

The Burlington Free Press reports,

The proposal calls for rebates, ranging from $75 to $150, on efficient clothes washers, refrigerators and air conditioners. … The state’s plan allows for 4,310 such appliances to be sold through the rebate plan.

So far so good. Trade up to an energy efficient appliance with the aid of a government run program. However they hope to piggyback the program on the state’s one-day sales tax holiday. Perhaps cleverly generating publicity but also losing any revenue the state might have garnered from the increased sales of new efficient appliances over the course of the program.

If approved by the Energy Department the rebates would be  offered in a one-day event on Vermont’s next “sales tax holiday,” slated for March 10, piggybacking on the attention paid to the day free of sales taxes, the filing says. Efficiency Vermont would develop lists of the eligible products Jan. 1, the documents state.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

Cross-posted from Beyond VSH:

UPDATE: This story was also covered in today's Burlington Free Press. “In an entry on the blog “Green Mountain Daily,” McCullough wrote . . .”

Picture this: you're scooped up out of your apartment and taken against your will to the Vermont State Hospital. Waterbury. You've heard of it before, but now you're there. You don't know anybody there, you have to eat and drink whatever food they serve you, and you're stuck in the building twenty-four hours a day.

Eventually you start doing what they want you to do, mainly taking meds, and they give you off-ward rights. One of those rights, which is built into a lot of patients' treatment plans, is the right to go to the Canteen. It's not fancy, but maybe you can get some potato chips or order a sandwich or a burger; maybe you'll listen to the juke box or watch cable news on TV; maybe you just want to be off the ward for a little while. Believe it or not, the Canteen is so important it's written into Vermont statutes.

The superintendents of the Vermont State Hospital and the Training School may conduct a canteen or commissary, which shall be accessible to patients, students, employees and visitors of the state hospital and training school at designated hours and shall be operated by employees of the hospital and the school. A revolving fund for this purpose is authorized. The salary of an employee of the hospital or training school shall be charged against the canteen fund. Proceeds from sales may be used for operation of the canteen and the benefit of the patients, students and employees of the hospital or training school under the direction of the superintendents and subject to the approval of the commissioner. All balances of such funds remaining at the end of any fiscal year shall remain in such fund for use during the succeeding fiscal year. An annual report of the status of the funds shall be submitted to the commissioner.

A lot of people say that the Canteen is the best, or the only good thing about the State Hospital.

Now they're closing it down. Employees learned Tuesday that as part of the state's budget-cutting project the Canteen will be closed down in about a month. It enables the state to cut three full-time positions.

The only problem is, what do you do if you're stuck in the Hospital and you don't want to spend all day every day, including all your meals and snacks, on your ward? I know patients at VSH who basically get no time off the wards except the time they spend going to the Canteen. It may be the best part of their day. Forget about whether it's therapeutic, and I think it is, because it's just about the only chance to spend time integrated in the larger community, it's the best part of their day that the state is taking away.

I guess if the state has to cut, there are only so many chances to take something away from people who have nothing.

Evening Update: School board member and Mouth-of-Glenn Doug Isham apparently lost faith in his conservativeness a bit in light of this diary. I linked below to his public Facebook page, which listed him as a fan of three Michelle Malkin FB groups (’cause one is never enough).

By midday, his FB page had magically lost those links. Naturally, I adjusted the link to go to the Google cache version of the page.

But now its back, albeit with one fewer Malkin fan links. I guess three was just too many.

Why the sudden concern about being pegged as a Michelle Malkin devotee? I dunno, maybe because he’s a School Board member, and she’s historically been so great with kids…?

Some education the kids get in Winooski, eh? First we hear that the school board joins in with the right wing crazies to protect students from evil, socialist indoctrination by proudly becoming the ONLY school board in the State of Vermont to censor a speech by President Obama to schoolchildren.

But it aint getting any better.  

Word from the school is that the same day Glenn Beck trashed the cute and rather tame conservation video “The Story of Stuff,” School Board member Doug Isham brought up the topic at a board meeting, leading the Superintendent to drop it into the too-controversial-to-show-without-explicit-administrative-approval category, along with Presidential civics talks.

Beck says jump, Winooski schools jump. That’s twice now. If I were a school parent in Winooski, not only would I be starting to feel embarrassed, I’d be looking for some new school board candidates:

From: Stephen Perkins sperkins@winooski.k12.vt.us

Date: September 25, 2009 9:16:55 AM EDT

To: All Winooski staff wsd.staff@winooski.K12.vt.us

Subject: Controversial issue

It has been brought to my attention that a 20 minute video entitled “Story of Stuff” (two years old) is controversial in its content.  If you plan on using this video in class please contact your principal for clearance and potential opt out letters if necessary.  This is per policy.  Following this procedure will save us all some unnecessary aggravation.  I will not and do not have time to view this before the end of the day.  I am sure that this memo will cause many to view it that did not even know it exist.  

We are dealing with the effects of unbridled access technologically.  Because this title was brought to my attention,  I am following our policy.

I know…. what fun I must be having.  

Regards,

Steve

—

Stephen L. Perkins, M.Ed.

Superintendent of Schools

Curious about the video? Here it is.

On October 17, 1989, the Greater Bay Area Was Slammed By Its Strongest Tremor Since 1906 — a 6.9-Magnitude Shaker That Killed 63 People, Injured Over 3,700 Others and Wreaked Over $6 Billion in Damage; Two Decades Later, Many Public Structures have Been Braced, But Most Homes Remain Vulnerable

Officials of the California Department of Transportation survey the wreckage of the double-decked Cypress Freeway in Oakland on October 20, 1989, three days after a 6.9-magnitude earthquake — the strongest since 1906 — struck the San Francisco Bay Area during the height of the evening commute, causing the upper deck of the freeway — as well as a section of the landmark Bay Bridge — to collapse. Dozens of cars on the lower deck of the freeway were crushed, killing 42 people and injuring scores of others. Twenty years later, a newly-released survey found that while many public structures have bee retrofitted to withstand the next major quake, thousands of private homes remain highly vulnerable. (Archive photo courtesy U.S. Geological Survey)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Thursday, October 15, 2009)

NOTE TO READERS: This week marks the 20th anniversary of the San Francisco Bay Area’s worst natural disaster since the Great Earthquake and Fire of 1906: The Loma Prieta Earthquake, which killed 69 people and caused over $6 billion in damage. At the time, I was a copy editor for a San Francisco newspaper and lived across the bay in Berkeley. I was working later than usual when the quake struck at 5:04 p.m., right at the height of the evening commute. I consider myself lucky to be alive, for had I not had to work late that day — and had there not been 60,000-plus fans at Candlestick Park for Game 3 of the 1989 World Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A’s — the number of fatalities from the collapse of part of the Bay Bridge and of the Cypress Freeway in Oakland would have been much greater. In this special commemorative report, we take a look back at the disaster and look ahead to see what is being done to prepare for the next one.

By SKEETER SANDERS

It was a warm autumn evening  on October 17, 1989, a Tuesday. More than 60,000 die-hard baseball fans packed into Candlestick Park in San Francisco for Game 3 of the “Battle of the Bay” World Series between the Oakland Athletics and the San Francisco Giants. Hundreds of thousands of commuters were on their way home from work — many with their car radios tuned in to the pre-game show.

Millions more throughout the Bay Area and across the country had turned on their TVs to watch ABC’s coverage of the game. It was just past five o’clock — eight o’clock on the East Coast — as ABC announcers Al Michaels and Tim McCarver were discussing highlights of Games 1 and 2 in Oakland, both of which were won by the A’s.

Suddenly, just after the Candlestick scoreboard clock clicked to 5:04 p.m., the announcers’ booth — along with the entire stadium — began shaking violently. Viewers, who were watching a video of the previous game, saw the picture begin to flicker off and on. Many in the stadium crowd began to scream. Michaels then shouted, “I’ll tell you what, folks, we’re having an earth–”

Phfffft!

“–Quake!” never made it on the air. The power went out, cutting off ABC’s live feed before Michaels could finish his sentence.

FIFTEEN SECONDS OF SHEER TERROR

The greater San Francisco Bay Area had just been hit by a tsunami of roiling soil and rock generated by a gargantuan explosion 11 miles underground — as if seven 100-megaton thermonuclear bombs had gone off simultaneously — some 70 miles to the south at Loma Prieta in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

By the time the shaking stopped some 15 terrifying seconds later, a huge swath of Northern California from the Monterey Bay north to Sacramento and from the Pacific Coast east to Nevada had been turned — both figuratively and literally — upside down.

Sixty-three people were killed and more than 3,700 others were injured in the quake, which measured 6.9 on the Richter scale and was the most powerful temblor to strike the Bay Area since the Great Earthquake of 1906, which reduced all of downtown San Francisco to a pile of burning rubble.

Forty-two of those 63 deaths occurred in Oakland, when the upper deck of the double-decked Cypress Freeway collapsed onto the lower deck, crushing dozens of vehicles at the height of the homebound commute. The quake also caused a section of the inbound upper deck of the famed Bay Bridge to collapse onto the outbound lower deck. Several cars on the upper deck plunged into the gap, killing at least one driver and injuring a dozen others.

Were it not for the World Series game at Candlestick Park, traffic would have been much heavier on both the Bay Bridge and the Cypress Freeway and the death toll would certainly have been much higher.

Television viewers across the country soon got to watch an eerie repeat of history unfold live, as an entire block of the city’s swanky Marina District burned to the ground as a result of ruptured natural-gas mains, but unlike the 1906 disaster, the local utility company, Pacific Gas & Electric, was able to quickly shut off the gas and the water mains stayed intact, enabling a small army of firefighters and volunteers to prevent the blaze from spreading.

Nevertheless, for the next 18 to 24 hours after the quake struck, all of San Francisco and a huge swath of the greater Bay Area had to live without electricity, as the temblor knocked out much of PG&E’s power distribution network, forcing the Bay Area Rapid Transit system to shut down and most of the area’s hospitals, police and fire stations and radio and TV stations to fire up their emergency generators.

Yet throughout the disaster, the Bay Area dis not descend into total chaos. By the millions, residents rallied to rescue the trapped and injured, comfort the bereaved who lost loved ones and bring the region back to its feet.

Ten days after the quake, the World Series resumed at Candlestick Park, with the 62,000 fans paying tribute to the region’s police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other first-responders with a five-minute standing ovation in an emotional pregame ceremony that included a moment of silence for the 63 people who lost their lives in the temblor, followed by the singing en masse of “San Francisco,” the song immortalized in the 1936 film about the 1906 disaster.

And by the way, the A’s beat the Giants to complete a four-game sweep of the Series.

MUCH HAS CHANGED AFTER 20 YEARS — AND MUCH HASN’T

Two decades later, a lot has changed in and around San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area. Many schools, highways and other public buildings have been retrofitted to withstand another major quake of up to 8 on the Richter scale.

Other structures — including the Embarcadero Freeway along the San Francisco waterfront and the Central Freeway which cut into the city’s Hayes Valley neighborhood — were torn down after structural engineers found they were unsafe. The destroyed Cypress Freeway in Oakland is now a broad, tree-lined boulevard renamed in honor of former South African President Nelson Mandela.

But thousands of private homes and apartment buildings — particularly those built of unreinforced brick and masonry — remain vulnerable. Scientists warn that there is a more than 60 percent probability of a major earthquake of magnitude 7 or greater striking the region in the next 30 years.

Some of the most vulnerable buildings — built decades before state building codes were upgraded for greater seismic safety in the 1970s — are located in San Francisco’s densely populated Chinatown and Tenderloin neighborhoods. Others, located in the affluent Marina District and the bohemian South of Market area, are built on landfill reclaimed from the bay that can liquefy during a major quake, causing buildings to collapse.

If those buildings are not retrofitted, hundreds of residents in those areas could be killed and thousands more displaced if the long-dreaded “big one” hits — a quake equal to or greater than the 1906 shaker, geologists warn.

HOSPITALS STILL AT RISK

Hospitals in the region remain at high risk, having fallen behind state-imposed deadlines to retrofit their buildings because of the high cost. In San Francisco proper, only now are hospitals undergoing seismic upgrades, with most of the work not expected to be completed until 2015, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The 1906 earthquake struck before the Richter scale was invented, but is estimated to have been a magnitude 7.9 (For decades, it was believed that the monster temblor was an 8.3, but in a report released on the 100th anniversary of the disaster in 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey re-examined the amount of slippage on the San Andreas Fault and recalculated the earthquake at 7.9).

“We have been retrofitting public infrastructure, but in the Bay Area and California, we have done a miserable job of retrofitting where we live,” Peter Yanev, a seismic engineer and author who sits on engineering advisory councils at the University of California at Berkeley and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the Chronicle. “In San Francisco, there are hundreds and hundreds of buildings that are not retrofitted, and they are a risk to people’s lives.”

A SHARP REMINDER OF AN UNSTABLE EARTH

The region is streaked by at least four major earthquake faults: The 1,700-mile San Andreas — the most famous and feared fault in California — on which the Loma Prieta quake was centered; the Hayward Fault, on the east shore of San Francisco Bay, along which lie the densely populated cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond and Hayward; the Calaveras Fault, which runs through the hills between the Bay Area and the Central Valley; and the Rogers Creek Fault, which is really a northern extension of the Hayward, located north of San Pablo Bay.

There are at least a half-dozen smaller faults that bisect the Bay Area as well. Next to the San Andreas, the Hayward Fault poses the greatest risk of generating a major quake — and causing the greatest amount of death and destruction. Not only does the fault run through Oakland and Berkeley, but the University of California’s 60,000-seat football stadium in Berkeley lies directly on the fault and the BART system’s Concord Tunnel cuts directly through it.

As the Bay Area prepared to mark Saturday’s anniversary of the Loma Prieta quake, its residents received a another reminder of just how unstable the ground beneath them is: a 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck just south of the San Francisco suburb of Pleasanton shortly before 8:30 p.m. Tuesday night, followed by two smaller temblors in the same area.

The U.S. Geological Survey reported that the first quake was centered three miles south of Pleasanton. It was reported as having a relatively shallow depth of five miles.

About two hours later, two smaller earthquakes struck, each a magnitude 2.1 on the Richter scale. The first, at 11:18 p.m., had a depth of about 5.2 miles and was centered about five miles north-northeast of the town of Sunol. The second, at 11:27 p.m., had a depth of about 4.3 miles and was centered about eight miles south-southeast of Sunol.

There were no reports of injuries or damage.

# # #

Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

• Matt Dunne has launched http://www.vermontfuture.org/, which asks visitors:
  

  What are the best ways to help Vermonters find good jobs and lower costs at home? How do we preserve our beautiful state and build a better Vermont for the next generation? What are your ideas for running a more efficient government?

  Impressively, the not-yet announced candidate also sports a link to a Facebook group already boasting 365 members. This compares to 276 members for Deb Markowitz’s Facebook group and 126 members in Doug Racine’s. Whoa.

  Totten reports that Dunne has opened a campaign bank account and is still considering, but GMD hears that his campaign paperwork is already en route to the Secretary of State’s office. Look to November for a formal announcement.

• And speaking of November announcements, vtbuzz reports that Peter Shumlin is “99.99 percent in the race” and will announce some time next month, before the November 19th candidate forum hosted by the Vermont LCV.
• And Deb Markowitz has stirred up a lot of conversation with last week’s Manchester Journal interview, in which she drops a couple policy bombshells that raised eyebrows. First, she suggests reducing unemployment benefits to close the next budget hole (emphasis added):
  

  I was personally shocked by (State Auditor Thomas) Salmon’s proposal (to trim unemployment benefits from $425 per week to $300 per week). To resolve this deficit it’s likely everyone will have to give something. We may need to reduce benefits and we may need to rquire [sic] employers to pay in a little more to get us through – hopefully there will be additional money coming from Washington to help out.

  …and immediately follows that with something that isn’t going to make the NEA happy:

  JOURNAL: Is funding the teaching retirement fund via the property tax off the table?

  MARKOWITZ: I don’t know if it’s permanently off the table but certainly doing it the way Gov. Douglas proposed is off the table.

  I, uh, er, ah… seriously?

It has been brought to my attention that perhaps I should precede this diary with the following disclaimer which I already inserted further into the text.  I am an active and vocal member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, and have been for almost six years.  

I think most readers may have heard that a proposal for the largest Walmart store in Vermont, to be located in St. Albans, has been wending its way through the permit system for a number of years, steadfastly opposed by several entities, including a lion-hearted band of Franklin County residents, The Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, and the owners of Hudak Farm.  They have been joined and supported in this historic challenge by the Vermont Natural Resource Council. What you may not know is that the St. Albans Walmart struggle represents the longest continuous opposition to a store on a single site.  This dubious distinction came to light recently through the good offices of the  Boston Globe who did a pretty fair job of chronicling the epic struggle to date.  A smaller Walmart was first propsed for the site in 1993, but later denied an Act 250 permit by the Supreme Court of Vermont.

Some salient points that may have been buried in the length of the article bear repeating (after the fold)…

1)  There is a significant  family produce farm (Hudak’s) located just three-tenths of a mile north of the propsed site.  This is not, as the developer is fond of characterizing it,  merely a “farm stand.” The family actively farms both sides of Route 7 and has a thriving business.  The beauty of the farm makes it an attractive tourist destination, and the family contributes much to the local community.

2)  The current developer, JLD Properties of Williston, first optioned, and then purchased the property specifically for the purpose of building a Walmart store on the site even though he was fully aware that the previous developer had been denied an Act 250 permit for that purpose.  Mr. Davis is fond of presenting himself as the helpless victim of an unfair permitting process that continues to frustrate his attempt to profit from his investment.  He conveniently overlooks the fact that his arrogant insistence on a previously denied project puts project opponents in the position of having to waste time and resources to fight something that should be excluded from possibility, simply as a matter of settled law.

3)  The Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth have never opposed an appropriately sized and located Walmart in Franklin County.  In the name of full disclosure, I have to mention that I am an  active member of the NWCRG.  We oppose this project because its size and location make it a threat to the local economy, the environment, and to the social fabric of Franklin County. We would oppose a store of this size and in this location no matter whether it was Target, Sears, K-Mart, or Fred Meyer.

4)  The so-called “designated growth center” for which this  Walmart is proposed is merely a fiction of the Town fathers, who are not qualified planners and have arbitrarily concluded that both exits ofI-89 should be designated growth centers for the Town.  These designations are contrary to the intent of the Vermont statutes governing growth centers.   The actual traditional village center of the Town is located at St. Albans Bay,  about as far away from both highway exits as physically possible within the confines of the donut-shaped Town.

The current status of the Walmart application for Act 250, is that it has been approved by the District 6 Commission and that approval has been appealed by the NWCRG, the owners of Hudak Farm,    and the Vermont Natural Resource Council; all acting as a single voice.  It has also been appealed in a separate and different action by the owners of the Highgate Shopping Center and of Maplefield’s.  Judge Durkin of the Environmental Court heard arguments in those appeals this past June, and we are now awaiting a decision.  Still outstanding are complaints we have raised regarding several instances of conflicts of interest in the local and state permit  process, but Judge Durkin has declined to address those at this point.  Could this application go all of the way to the Supreme Court, as did the last one?  Quite possibly.

Stay tuned for updates.