Sitting here with my wife looking at two papers and listening to NPR. Here are the things getting us animated.

• Entertaining visual from Louis Porter with pics of “all” the announced or “rumored” names for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, with lines connecting them on sometimes random points (relationship line connects Markowitz and Dubie because they “both supported the Abandoned Babies Bill”… as opposed to someone on the chart that didn’t?) Not quite “all” though – a couple names are missing; former Vermont CARES Director Tim Palmer and Barre Mayor Thom Lauzon, both of whom have had rumored interest in Lieutenant Governor, although Lauzon seems to have dropped off the rumor circuit of late.
• The Argus/Herald is all about how we shouldn’t underestimate Brian Dubie today (here and here). Fair enough. My question now is whether or not this is all a warm up for a Dubie-media lovefest that glosses over the significant problems he presents for Republicans as a candidate.

  I imagine we all have a bad feeling about the answer to that question.

• From one Montpelier Resident to Gesine Bullock-Prado. I am not a chimp, and you are certainly not Jane Goodall, thank you very much.
• I will not eat ground beef from the supermarket anymore. And neither will you, after you read this from the NYT. Gruesome, scary stuff: “unwritten agreements between some companies appear to stand in the way of ingredient testing,” meaning that what you buy in the store as “ground beef” is actually ground up parts from all over the place that may or may not have been tested for e coli (which comes from cow shit), which can kill or paralyze you. Unless you’re lucky, and your meat’s been treated with ammonia. Lovely.
• It’s the 50th anniversary of the Twilight Zone. Yeah, they dont all hold up to repeated viewings – but lots of them do, and what a piece of television.
• Finally, Hirschfeld reports on the rich-folks whine fest this week. Yes, yes. They’re all being taxed so much that they’re having to get by on being less rich than they’d like to be. A great quote:
  

  “How is it we have a culture in state politics that seems to see successful entrepreneurs and risk-takers as selfish and evil?” (Winooski marketing firm owner Kevin) Owens asked.

  Not all, Mr. Owens. Only those of you who sound off in selfish ways because you’d rather see the burden thrust on those who can’t afford it. It’s really quite simple. I’m torn between Jesus’ quotes about seeing the speck in your neighbor’s eye instead of the log in your own, and the line about how difficult it is for rich men (eye of a needle, and all) to enter heaven. Heck, I’ll take both.

This isn’t about Vermont, but it’s about a great place that Vermonters can visit, so I figured I’d throw it up, but I wanted to leave the front page with more relevant, Vermont-related stuff.

Parker River Wildlife Refuge, on Plum Island in coastal Massachusetts is probably one of my very favorite places to bird.  It hosts several hundred species of bird throughout the year, and its salt marshes allow for a great deal of variety.  September is one of the best times to visit, and last weekend was no exception.  Not only did we get a series of birds, we got one new life bird and some fairly tricky to find warblers.  

But one of the real highlights was a visit to the refuge banding station.

I’ve never seen bird banding before– it’s more than I thought.  They capture birds in nets, which are patrolled regularly (you’ll see some birds in nets in the photos below), and put them into temporary holding bags.  The birds get annoyed, certainly, but they are released generally unharmed.

Before that happens, however, several things need to take place.  The birds are banded, such as in this photo:

The bands are supposed to last for the life of the bird.  They’re coded with unique identifying numbers which allow us to know if the birds have been captured and released in other areas and improve our understanding of migration paths.  They also are measured for a variety of characteristics (age, overall health, etc).  You’ll see below that one of the birds in someone’s hand has a fairly wet head.  Wetting the head allows researchers to look at the bird’s skull; in may cases, a first year bird doesn’t have the same skull configuration as an older bird (the second layer of their skull hasn’t grown in yet).  

In some cases, such as in bird #20 below, they did some detailed measurements of the differences between lengths of some of the wing feathers to get a definitive ID on it.  

All in all, it was fascinating– I learned so much more about the details of birds and bird physiology than I expected, and since the banding station is fairly far away from traffic, we got some of the more reclusive birds that I don’t normally get to see just hanging out at the banding area.  

So– about the photos below: I’ve decided to make this a Sunday bird quiz.  I will preface by saying that all the photos below were taken at Parker River, and they were all taken last weekend, which can help you narrow down some of the choices.   If, however, you aren’t in the mood for a quiz, you can click on the image to get to a larger version of it, with details about the bird (exact species, etc), assuming I’m correct.  

Bird 01, a bit of nuisance

Bird 02, first I’ve ever photographed of these

Bird 03, fall plumage of a common bird

Bird 04, a common flycatcher

Bird 05, which looks like its name

Bird 06, which is a little tricky from this angle

Bird 07, which I only see in Spring and Fall

Bird 08, which I also only see in Spring and Fall

Bird 09a, a relative of bird 9b

Bird 09b, a relative of Bird 09a

Bird 10, which does what it’s called

Bird 11, which is clearly not amused

Bird 12, which is very difficult to ID for some

Bird 13 (not easy)

Bird 14, which are fun to watch

Bird 15, one of my favorite sparrows

Bird 16, which are adorable

Bird 17, which is feisty and beautiful

Bird 18, which is incredibly small

Bird 19 (this one is not easy either)

Bird 20, which I still have yet to photograph in the wild

Bird 21, which is subtle but solvable

Bird 22, which I rarely photograph in the wild

Bird 23, which I hear more often than I see

Hope you enjoyed the quiz.  I also have a quick personal plug.  I’m selling a 2010 calendar of birding:

As well as one on my night photography:

If you’d like to support my photography, buying a calendar is a fine way to do so.

( – promoted by odum)

The Vermont Medical examiner  found Wednesday that  a 23 year old female prisoner held in Swanton last August died of a heart condition caused by anorexia,bulimia and because she was denied her medication to treat it. “Denial of access to medication”while in State of Vermont custody was a cause according to the Vermont medical examiner. An independent investigation by the state Defender General’s Office found that a nurse ordered to give Ellis potassium for an eating disorder failed to do so.

An investigation is still underway but a state prison official has stated quite clearly

The Department of Corrections’ staff never dispenses medication – a task he said is carried out solely by Prison Health Services, the private contractor that gives medical service to the state’s prisons.

A private contractor provides health services to the Vermont State Corrections Dept.

Prison Health Services (PHS) a subsidiary of American Service Group a Tennessee based publicly traded company. They have provided services to Vermont for the last four years. In 2006 while renegotiating a money losing contract with the state (a bid described at the time by a state officials as “possibly too aggressive”) in the face of a one million dollar loss they were faced with substantial fines and penalties for not meeting contract obligations. Replacing the required registered nurses on some shifts with licensed practical nurses was one area of concern.  

Recently PHS has defended itself regarding the Swanton death in state custody but will not seek to renew their contract. A PHS spokesman says of this “It’s a business decision” The Corrections Commissioner also states the obvious “I suspect they now know that in all likelihood they would not win the bid again,”

America Service Group Inc. of Tennessee parent company of Prison Health Services, Inc and Correctional Health Services, LLC

has a market cap of $150.1 million; its shares were traded at around $15.9 with a P/E ratio of 30.4 and P/S ratio of 0.3. The dividend yield of America Service Group Inc. stocks is 1.2%.

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

http://www.vermontguardian.com…

Do you know what a “dead peasant” policy is? You would if you were the widow of a former employee of Amegy Bank, in Texas, which collected approximately five million dollars after he died of cancer. These policies as “often secret” and “taken out by companies on unwitting employees, which can yield sizable corporate tax breaks.”    In her article, Ms. Schultz opens as follows:  “For years, American companies have taken out life insurance on millions of their employees, harvesting tax advantages that fatten their coffers and collecting death benefits when they die.  Now, some family members are crying foul.”   Pretty scummy, huh?

What about plutonomy, a word so strange the spell check program here doesn't recognize it? According to  an internal 2006 Citigroup memo regarding “America, which has turned into a modern day plutonomy”. With the wonders of the internets (sic) I was able to unearth at least part of the report, which frankly pretty much reinforces things that are plainly obvious.        

In a “plutonomy”, according to Citigroup global strategist Ajay Kapur, economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few.

If it were someone on the Left pointing out this uncomfortable fact we would have been accused of fomenting class struggle. What if it's a giant bank, which is not only describing, but celebrating this key fact of the world economy? As usual, accusations of “class struggle” seem to be reserved for those of us who point out who's winning.

I learned about both of these concepts, and many more, from Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, which opened last night at the Savoy. In addition to the victims, like families losing their homes to rapacious banks; and villains who have gotten rich off the taxpayers; Moore presents us with heroes, including Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and the workers at Republic Door and Window, who staged a sit-in at their factory until the company agrees to pay them the Trade Readjustment Act money it owed them.

You might say this is standard Michael Moore fare, and I guess that would be right. Still, the combination of outrage, humor, and insight into things you've never heard of make this worth seeing. A love story? Well, that is something I question.

Who would you say is the most repugnant corporation in American corporate history?  Is it Enron, who gave record amounts to the Bush-Cheney machine and bankrupt millions of investors?  Halliburton, the shameless war profiteer?  Or Wal-Mart, the company that has done more than any other to drive down wages in America and has set a new low for how it treats its employees?

It’s a tough choice.  The competition is fierce.  But lately I think Wal-Mart has been giving the others a run for their money, especially when it comes to cooking the books, deceiving the public with smoke-and-mirror statistics, and generally screwing over citizens and taxpayers.  It’s no secret that Wal-Mart treats its employees horribly, but Progress Ohio has uncovered troublesome data showing that the retailer is costing the Buckeye State taxpayers tens of millions on health care and welfare.  

You see, Wal-Mart claims that only 2.6% of their workforce and their dependents rely on Medicaid – that appears to be a flat-out lie. If Wal-Mart’s figure is correct, we would expect only 1,385 Ohio employees to be on Medicaid.  However, more than 15,000 of Wal-Mart’s Ohio employees and their dependents are on the program.  Unless Wal-Mart’s Medicaid enrollees have 10 dependents each, Wal-Mart’s official number is suspect beyond reasonable doubt.

That’s a lot of dough in a state that is under a lot of economic stress.  Wal-Mart makes billions each year and Ohio is suffering mightily, yet Wal-Mart would rather enrich executives (4 out of 10 of the richest Americans are Waltons) and send billions to China rather than provide decent benefits to hard working Americans in Ohio.  What is wrong with this picture?

If this concerns you as much as it does me, please join me at WakeUpWalmart.com  to help get our priorities straight in Ohio and America once again.  

The Ohio Benefits Report has been altered from the original publication. Appropriate changes were made to this diary to reflect those changes on Oct. 6, 2009.

I don’t have the exact quote, as the podcast isn’t up yet, but during the discussion of Brian Dubie’s announcement, Mark Johnson casually asked his guest (Kristin Carlson of WCAX) why he would choose to dribble such big news out over email, as opposed to a press conference – wondering aloud if he was afraid to face a roomful of reporters. It’s a good question. At Blurt, Shay Totten seemed to accept Dubie’s explanation that it was simply an “unorthodox” approach “not confin(ing) interviews to a single press conference” and “trying (not) to play up the announcement more than it needed to be.” (UPDATE: Totten has since responded with an entire post on this. It’s a good read. -OT)

But that’s weak, weak tea – at best. More likely they heard Johnson’s comments and tried to head off further criticism.

Because Johnson was right on. There is no good reason to make such a major announcement in such a lame manner – except to avoid the scene. He could’ve met with all the same reporters at exactly the same times he did (and will) after all. Dubie does well in one-on-ones where he can turn on the charm. He does not do well in a press conference setting, with its increased pressure and where he has to be quicker on his feet – and he knows he’s in serious danger of Democrats using the same kind of “blathering press conference” ads against him that his buddy Douglas used to sink Peter Clavelle in ’04. Remember – this is also the same Dubie who ducked debates as long as possible for the same reasons. This is not a You Tube era candidate.

Dubie was not being mavericky with his email announcement, he was reminding us all of just what a problematic candidate he is for the Republicans.

This is Banned Books Week, the annual observance of challenges to freedom of expression and thought sponsored by the American Library Association. This wek the Vermont chapter of the ACLU sponsored a read-in, at which Vermont authors read selections from banned or challenged books.

Lending their voices — literally — to the cause, 13 Vermont writers including Ron Powers, David Macaulay and Tom Bodett gathered in a steepled small-town church to read passages for a rapt crowd.

''It's a chance to sort of live out one of my fantasies, which is to do a book that gets banned,'' said the 62-year-old Macaulay, the author of ''The Way Things Work.'' ''Nothing would make me happier.''

The celebration of Banned Books Week is an opportunity to think about librarians and all they do for freedom of thought, including challenges to the so-called Patriot Act, and their perennial struggles to keep books on the shelves where library patrons can read them and use their own brains to evaluate the ideas they contain.

In addition to our event in Vermont, I'd like to focus on two libraries. One is a school library in which a parent challenged a children's book called The Million Dollar Kick. A mother objected to a single paragraph that she found difficult to explain to her 3rd grader.  The book will not be removed from restricted access until the family no longer has any children at the school. Just like that, with no apparent explanation, the rest of the readers of the school will be blocked from access to the book. Sure, it's still in the collection, but the fact is that if it's not on the public shelves the patrons won't see it, won't know about it, and won't read it. This seems like a pretty craven surrender by the schools. Of course, it's in Texas, so I can't imagine they get much support for freedom of thought down there.

On the other hand, we have an excellent example of a librarian standing up for his patrons' rights in the context of a book called Uncle Bobby's Wedding. As you might guess, it was a challenge to a book about the narrator's uncle's same-sex wedding for the usual reasons. Jamie Larue, a librarian and blogger, has posted his thoughtful, respectful response to the challenging parent, and I'll just give you a little taste of it.

Your third point, about the founders' vision of America, is something that has been a matter of keen interest to me most of my adult life. In fact, I even wrote a book about it, where I went back and read the founders' early writings about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What a fascinating time to be alive! What astonishing minds! Here's what I learned: our whole system of government was based on the idea that the purpose of the state was to preserve individual liberties, not to dictate them. The founders uniformly despised many practices in England that compromised matters of individual conscience by restricting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech – the right to talk, write, publish, discuss – was so important to the founders that it was the first amendment to the Constitution – and without it, the Constitution never would have been ratified.

How then, can we claim that the founders would support the restriction of access to a book that really is just about an idea, to be accepted or rejected as you choose? What harm has this book done to anyone? Your seven year old told you, “Boys are not supposed to marry.” In other words, you have taught her your values, and those values have taken hold. That's what parents are supposed to do, and clearly, exposure to this book, or several, doesn't just overthrow that parental influence. It does, of course, provide evidence that not everybody agrees with each other; but that's true, isn't it?

Not all the comments are positive, although most are. Not everyone will have the same reaction, or will want to respond to a book challenge in the same way. What I think is good is that the writer lays out the substance of the challenge, responds directly to it, and explains and defends the principles of freedom of thought on which access to library material depends.

I bet you have some banned books in your house. Take a moment this week to appreciate the centuries of struggle that have enabled you to enjoy them.

So, the challenger has announced. Given the history of Democratic candidate messaging in recent years (y'know – being milquetoast when they should be bold, mushy when they should be firm, nasty when they should be gracious, vague when the should be detailed, detailed when they should be vague, etc.) it seems worth checking in with how our Dem pretenders to the throne respond, if for no other reason than to start hammering out those bad habits early.

Here, then, are the report cards (candidates, as usual, in alpha order). Mr. Totten was kind enough to collect responses from the two announced candidates who did not send us a press release. No 'F's handed out, but some serious improvement required on a couple of these… next time we'll hopefully get straight 'A's on the basics from everyone, so we can start moving into more nuanced, “advanced” critiques. Heh.

But we're expecting another couple hats in the Democratic primary ring, no? I dropped emails to likely candidates Peter Shumlin and Matt Dunne to give them the opportunity to be criticized as well… of course I didn't mention I was giving out grades, but I had to be fair to the previous three after all…

[Cross-posted to Broadsides.org]

Well, that was boring. I’m speaking, of course, of Brian Dubie’s announcement this morning that he’s seeking an electoral promotion from his current position of Lieutenant Governor to just-plain Governor. With all the flare that an email can produce, Dubie’s staff hit the “send” button and – voila! – the Dubester was in the race.

In political campaign circles that kind of announcement is what is technically called a “dud.” No, make that a big dud. Because Dubie had Vermont’s political and media elite almost wetting themselves in anticipation of his decision, and he squandered the anticipation by having a private moment with his webmail program. So let that be a lesson, Vermonters: When the heat is on, Dubie hides.

Dubie’s announcement went ripping through the media and Internet shortly after 9:00 am this morning. I got my first word of it via WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, and then saw numerous Internet posts thereafter. But when WDEV’s Paul Beaudry stepped up to his “I’ll pay you for some airwaves” show at 11:00 he was acting as if he was sitting on a scoop.

“We might be breaking some very big news for you shortly, people,” Beaudry told his listeners. “News that you’ll probably be hearing here first.”

Um, Paul, everyone already knew. You dope. But it should give us all one more reason to file each and every one of his silly rants under the category of “delusional.” And that’s being kind.

But let’s get back to Dubie. This will be his last election because he will lose it. His political mentor, Governor Jim Douglas, decided to step aside because he knew he was facing a tsunami of challenges (and challengers) in 2010. Vermont’s economy is going to get much worse between now and next year’s election, layoffs will continue at an even more dramatic pace, and the Democrats – lame as they are – are throwing all kinds of money and talent at the race.

Douglas is no dummy. Dubie is. Because it’s almost as if Douglas stuck out his leg, tripped him, and then called out with a snicker: See you next fall (nyuck, nyuck).

The only chance Dubie has is if he can convince his old friend, Anthony Pollina, to recall – and repeat — their warm embrace on election night 2002. In case you forgot, that was the night Dubie first claimed his statewide title after a three-way race with Pollina the Prog and Peter Shumlin the Democrat. Strangely – and nearly unprecedented as far as I know – after Dubie’s victory was announced, Pollina walked to Dubie’s campaign headquarters to give him a big congratulatory hug. Weird.

One thing’s for sure, a major campaign with Brian Dubie as a key player will be an absolute hoot to follow. The guy’s a walking goofball – a strange combination of Gomer Pyle and Don Knotts. And that, my friends, is exactly why Dubie decided to hide in his office and make his biggest political announcement of his career via email.

But, sooner or later, Dubie’s going to have to take the stage. And I can’t wait.  

(cross-posted from Beyond VSH blog, here)

The very nature of self-determination as well as independence would seem to dictate not merely having freedom of choice, but rather also include both the freedom and the right to ensure one’s self-defined and self-expressed wishes, choices and decisions are not defined, limited, narrowed or controlled by outside influences, no matter how well-intended or well-meaning.

Each person needs to decide as well as do what is best for themselves and, as such, they are the only one who actually knows what that is during any given moment or circumstance.

When it comes to health care and, most particularly concerning mental health treatment and related matters, save (i.e., except for retaining one’s own) true and actual freedom of choice regarding such decisions, this means that like most anything else in this life there are truly no absolutes, nor should there be any imposed on any person(s) by anyone else.

Hence, in order to ensure true parity between health care and mental health care treatment systems (versus merely addressing how these separate and unequal systems and services are paid for under the pretense of parity), the use of force and coercion within the mental health systems needs to be completely done away with before these systems can truly become ones of empowerment for everyone involved. This would be real change, since it is what is sorely needed and because it is also very long overdue.

Whether on an inpatient, outpatient, or community basis, the use of force or coercion in mental health treatment is clearly wrong. Force and treatment do not go or work together. In fact, each works in opposition to the other.

Treatment that is free from the use of force or coercion in all forms embodies what is essential to what often becomes termed as recovery: i.e., person-hood, self-determination, hope, faith, responsibility, and independence, as well as interdependence.

Force and coercion only works to foster and enforce dependency, victimization, anger, violence, helplessness, and irresponsibility.

Force and the fear as well as the intense anger and even rage that it creates does not ensure safety or security; rather, it is the use of force that destroys them. Using force is easy. Choosing alternatives to force may at times appear to be difficult, yet it need not be impossible. Many options are available when force and coercion is not the governing paradigm.

If the force/coercion paradigm were no longer in place, the power imbalance that currently exists would cease or, at least its base — or, otherwise the basis for it — would lose its authority.

Resources currently being employed to bolster the force paradigm could be better and more readily used instead to meet the basic human needs of individuals; needs that are either not met in a way of a persons choosing or not met at all.

The varied needs of people within the mental health system include, yet are not limited to: non-segregated, non-congregate housing; tenant-based rental assistance programs; home ownership programs (designed by persons they are meant to assist and packaged to assist persons living on very low incomes); income; food; properly funded peer support programs and services; training; employment; quality health care, including dental care, etc.; and, transportation.

Meals on Wheels, personal assistance services (modeled along the same lines as someone with a physical disability would be eligible to receive), and Part B-Independent Living Services as well as other such essential programs and services can play meaningful and vital roles in supporting individuals labeled with psychiatric disabilities to live independently in communities as well as living situations of their choice.

To accomplish such however would take a major shift in resources to fund these and other much-needed programs and services. That said, the money for doing so already exists and is instead being spent in one form or another elsewhere, typically in the most costly fashion and often in a manner or mode that is too little, too late and, in addition, could be termed as well as considered deliberate indifference.

What will be required is the political will and courage to redirect funds in order to meet the needs of those the system is supposed to be serving, but is currently failing; not merely by political leaders or bureaucrats either, but by every citizen.

We must do several things, including but not limited to these:

• End civil commitment and abolish the insanity defense for persons labeled with psychiatric (or emotional) disabilities;
• Hold people fully accountable for their actions if a crime is committed and then proven within the criminal justice and correctional systems, regardless of whether or not an individual is labeled with a psychiatric disability;
• Shift resources to fund a system that helps to meet the needs of individuals labeled with psychiatric disabilities in a way of their choosing and make mental health systems completely voluntary;
• Use a voucher system to allow people real choices both in selecting care and/or service providers and the actual care and/or service that they may choose to receive.

Often there are concerns raised about what should be done if someone is out of control, troubled or in need of treatment when their state of mind and/or behavior is being questioned.

While the issue appears to be complicated by several factors, including current constitutional law regarding an individual’s rights in criminal proceedings, it is my belief that people can be held more accountable by changing how they are treated, by abolishing the insanity defense, and by ending civil commitment of individuals labeled with psychiatric disabilities.

Being out of control or labeled with a psychiatric or emotional disability should not be an excuse and violent or other criminal acts should not be tolerated if a person is proven to have committed a crime.

If no crime is proven to have been committed however, yet the person appears to be out of control or troubled, they should be offered voluntary assistance only or otherwise be left alone. In addition, more tolerance and understanding of others and their differences is actually needed, not less of it.

If an individual is not committing a crime, but her or his actions are annoying others, then they should not be detained or interfered with — just like anyone else. Being annoying, out of control, or being labeled with a psychiatric or emotional disability in itself should not be grounds for imposing society’s will.

We should not be able to hold people accountable for actions that we think that they might do at some future point in time.

People should, however, be held fully accountable for proven criminal violations of the law.

In addition, the justice system should never be misused simply to compel forced or coerced mental health treatment when no actual or real crime has been proven to have been committed by an accused person either. There needs to be serious protections against such being allowed to happen as well as stiff penalities imposed and enforced upon those who falsely report someone else of a crime the person in fact did not commit in order to compel treatment for that individual.

In closing, it is my strong belief that it is possible for us as a state and society to finally rid ourselves of the terrible burden of force and coercion within the mental health system.

Doing so would be very liberating to mind, body and spirit on both an individual and collective basis, especially when sharing with and supporting each other as we journey into the unknown together.

Morgan W. Brown is an advocate, writer and blogger living in Montpelier, Vermont.

Author’s note (Wednesday, September 30, 2009): the above commentary is drawn various previous writings of mine including commentary entitled Self-determination and independence versus force and dependency published in the Spring 1991 edition of the National Empowerment Center (NEC) newsletter (here), which was drawn from original commentary that was initially written and then edited into various versions during the period of late 1986 and early 1987.