In case you didn’t know, Bernie’s the chairman of the new Subcommittee on Green Jobs and New Economy. And in the new DOD appropriations bill, he’s secured 5 million dollars for a massive solar project for the VT National Guard. From his office:  

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today announced a $5 million grant for the Vermont National Guard that could result in the largest solar energy project in the state and one of the largest in New England.

“This project will not only help the Vermont National Guard reduce its electric bill and carbon footprint, but will be a major step forward in moving our state toward a greener economy which relies more and more on sustainable energy,” Sanders said.

“There is little doubt in my mind that in the years to come the energy mix in this state will be very different than it is today – with a far greater reliance on sustainable energy.  I hope that this project becomes a model for what can be done and a catalyst for further action,” he added.

[snip]

Although the project is still in the design phase, it is likely that the centerpiece will be a large array of solar photovoltaic cells at the Vermont Air Guard’s facilities at the Burlington  Airport to generate a significant amount of the facility’s electric power.

Hopefully, this will create some decent jobs as well as be an exemplary green energy project. Hats off to Senator Sanders.

I remember reading about this a few weeks ago, but it seems like more places are picking up on this. Dick Cheney will be the guest of honor at the American Museum of Fly Fishing in Manchester, VT this spring fall. Yeah, that Dick Cheney, the guy whose idea of “hunting” involves throwing a bunch of birds into a field and firing away (sorta like Gov. Douglas' ideas of fishing involves having a toadie bait his hook for him). That same one behind one of the biggest fish kills in the west. The man just breathes anti-environmentalism, perhaps because not even nature could create something so toxic. 

Apparently, it's pissing quite a few people off:

“The entire fly fishing community is appalled and disgusted,” said Ted Williams, conservation editor at Fly Rod & Reel magazine.

“We all need money, but to apply green lipstick to this Darth Vader of fish and wildlife is whoring – it's grotesque,” Williams said. “It's as if the Holocaust museum held a dinner to honor [Nazi war criminal] Klaus Barbie.”

Steve Wright, a former commissioner of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, blasted the invitation, calling Cheney “one of the great enemies of healthy fish and wildlife conservation in the U.S. over the last eight years.”

Cathi Comar, executive director of the Vermont-based museum, said some of the critics “sent me nasty e-mails, calling me names, pretty inappropriate names, I have to say.”

One board member also resigned in protest.

Apparently, the museum is sticking with it for now, as they are not a “conservation or environmental organization.” Forget the fact that if things kept going following Cheney's line of thinking, fly fishing would indeed eventualyl be just that – a museum piece. And Cheney can supposedly “raise them a lot of money”. From who? Greenwash groups? Jim Douglas? I have a hunch this isn't going to happen, and if it does, we won't even know about it until Cheney has long returned to his underground lair.

When has Hamas attacked the United States or been caught spying on us?

Answer: Best as I can tell … never.

Next question: When has Israel attacked the United States or been caught spying on us?

Answer: USS Liberty, do a google search for “israeli spies in the us”.

Question: Why is Obama parroting the neo-con foreign policy that says all things Israel are fantastic and the rest of that part of the world is made up of sub-humans?

Answer: Best as I can tell it’s because he believes it too.

Israel is a terrorist nation with nuclear weapons.

From the Times-Argus:

Looking long-term, Smith said he has ordered several legislative committees to begin reviewing how state government can possibly restructure itself in a sustainable fashion, building on his and Shumlin’s proposal from earlier this month to reorganize the Agency of Commerce and Community Development.

Smith said areas of possible restructuring the committees will investigate include health care programs, state corrections, energy efficiency, the court system and the state’s revenue system.

The Democrats’ plan was championed Thursday by the Vermont State Employees Association, the union that represents state workers, in a statement released from Director Jes Kraus.

“VSEA also appreciates that Rep. Smith and Sen. Shumlin are outlining a forward-looking plan to address Vermont’s serious fiscal concerns,” Kraus said. “To date, the governor has still not offered any real plan beyond a body count.”

Good for the Dems . . . they should take a look at public safety in general (including police, fire & EMT), public transportation, and secondary education, too.  We need to plan on a more regional basis.  Not just for service that state employees provide directly, but for all public services we pay for through federal, state and local taxes . . . because they ultimately are interconnected.  

I don’t know the ideal geographic or population base (50,000?)to work from, but we could certainly look at things from a more regional planning perspective and still have greater “local” control than just about anywhere else in the country.  The question is how local do we want it to be, and how much are we willing to pay for?  

Perhaps small counties — like Grand Isle and Essex — could even be aborbed into neighboring counties.  Again, the relative distance has changed tremendously since our state was established in the 1700’s.      

County              Population       Area (sq mi)

Addison (Middlebury)      35,974            770

Bennington (Bennington)   36,994            676

Caledonia (St. J)         29,702            651

Chittenden (Burl)        146,571            539

Essex (Isl. Pond)          6,459            665

Franklin (St.Albans)      45,417            637

Grand Isle (Alburg)        6,901             83

Lamoille (Stowe/Morris)   23,233            461

Orange (Randolph/Bradfo)  28,226            689

Orleans (Newport)         26,277            697

Rutland (Rutland)         63,400            932

Washington(Barre/Mont)    58,039            690

Windham (Brattleboro)     44,216            789

Windsor (WRJ/Spfd)        57,418            971

(Thanks for writing this up. – promoted by JulieWaters)

The senate has a narrow definition of conflict of interest.Threading the needle .

The scale and the finesse are perhaps different but here are the same basic ethical moves of Blagojevich dressed up in a conservative New England suit.

The reason Senator Judd Gregg’s bi-partisan ardor suddenly wilted may not have been formed in the conservative conscience he claimed to have suddenly remembered  possessing . After removing his name from consideration to the cabinet post and trying to explain his change of heart on the stimulus bill Gregg said in an interview that the stimulus should focus more on how we control real estate values A subject he appears to be familiar with .”I have said I think we need to put more targeted effort on the real estate side, where we balance and basically look at how we control the price of real estate, so people have more confidence in the value of their home.”

In New Hampshire the former Pease Air force base closure brought some opportunities to Judd Gregg and appears to have done well for his brother .His brother Cyrus is a partner in a company called Two International Group  that has built a dozen buildings at the former base since it closed and was re-purposed .Brother Cyrus is said to be a major player at the base

Reports say that he(Sen.Gregg) collected from investments at the former base $240,017 to $651,801 at the same time arranging for federal aid to the former base of $66million.

Gregg’s investments in the partnerships date back at least to 1999, when he had $15,001 to $50,000 invested in 222 International Drive LP, according to his Senate reports….By 2007, Gregg had a total of $465,000 to $1.05 million invested in four businesses: 222 International Drive LP, Say Pease LLC, Say Pease II/IV LLC and Say Pease VII LRC, according to his most recent Senate report.

“I’ve throughout my entire lifetime been involved in my family’s businesses and that’s just the way our family works,” he said. “We support each other and our activities.”

By putting government money into the former base, Gregg helped it become a desirable place for employers to locate, making developments there more valuable.

Said Senator Gregg ..“I am absolutely sure that in every way I’ve complied with the ethics rules of the Senate both literally and in their spirit relative to any investment that I’ve made anywhere,” Say Pease ,indeed

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com…

http://www.google.com/hostedne…

An interesting but unrelated transaction that took place before the attempted appointment to commerce

Two International also develops properties elsewhere in Portsmouth, recently selling a $1 million-plus condominium at its One Harbor Place development to J. Bonnie Newman, Judd Gregg’s former chief of staff. Gregg agreed to become commerce secretary if the Democratic New Hampshire governor named her to succeed him.

I just finished reading yet one more screed laying out how we need a predictable process in our state’s development and environmental permitting structure.

Here’s my problem with that: if applying for a permit is predictable … why do we need a process at all? If you’ve checked all the right boxes, some bureaucrat should be able to check next to “Approved” .. right?

Of course that’s how the Douglas administration would have it. Even to the point of suggesting we allow for self oversight.

But all the above assumes there is only one side to present, and I know that’s the Douglas’ administration line … after all Business Knows Best … right?

Predictability in permitting processes is simply code for doing away with citizen participation. Formalize the process, decide ahead of time which science is and isn’t good and restrict who can participate … this is what is being discussed.

Predictability in permitting processes is about closing the door on more information and local control.

Right below this piece, you’ll see an event announcement.  

Today’s Rutland Herald discusses this event with a little detail on the science behind it:

A study of cancer occurring in children living near Germany’s 16 nuclear power plants show that the reactors pose a serious risk to young children, a German pediatrician said Thursday.

Dr. Winfrid Eisenberg of Herford, Germany, has been speaking throughout Vermont for the past two weeks, citing a German study in 2007 that showed a definite link between nuclear power and childhood cancer, particularly leukemia.

What’s being referenced here is the KiKK study, and I strongly encourage people to read about it, discuss it, and think about it.  It’s highly technical and several hundred pages long, and in German, so I don’t expect everyone to read the whole thing (I haven’t), but the data itself is interesting.  There’s a good background site on the study here.

After the fold, I’ll be explaining a little bit about the scientific method and how it applies to this study.

Okay, I’m going to summarize a little here, but still try to get the gist of it:

On a basic level, we have three tools to use in assessing the nature of a scientific phenomenon.  One is case studies, which are detailed interviews of individuals or small groups.  They can’t be used to assess cause and they can’t be used to generalize, but they can be used to get a lot of detail which can give us ideas about other approaches.

Correlational research (such as surveys) will allow you to look at collections and links between a variety of factors.  A lot of the research on nuclear power and health effects is correlational.  A problem with this is that we can’t really determine cause from correlational work.  We can see that two factors tend to occur in coincidence with one another but we don’t know if one causes the other.

The example I use in my classes is this:

It’s widely known that there’s a high correlation between churches and bars in a given community.  I.e., the more bars you have, the more churches you have.  Now– this can be explained several ways.  It could be that churches are repressive and drive people to drink.  It could be that bars get more people to drink and do things they regret which drives them to churches.  

The more likely explanation however is that neither causes the other but simply that the larger a population you have the more of a perceived need there is for both factors.

So, in reality, correlations can’t really prove anything other that some sort of connection exists.

We’re still in that place.  The KiKK study tells us that the closer people live to power plants and that the younger those people are, the higher the incidence of leukemia is, but it doesn’t tell us that the nuclear power causes leukemia to nearby residents.  

The third approach is experimental design, which is actual manipulation of factors in order to see what changes.  I.e., (we would never do this, so it’s just an example) intentionally increasing the radiation levels in some homes to see how it impacts the health of its inhabitants vs. those whose radiation levels haven’t been increased.  In this particular research we can actively assess cause because we’ve changed something in order to see what factors are affected by that change.

Now let me get back to the KiKK study: what it can’t do is say for certain that nuclear power plants cause leukemia.   What it does do, however, is make a very compelling case that the power plants are the likely culprit.  The populations they investigated are small (which means that other factors could skew the data a bit) but leukemia is very rare and the number of children with leukemia in residence near nuclear power plants more than doubled what would have been expected based on statistical averages.

One thing I want to caution people about when discussing this: please don’t use this study to claim that nuclear power causes leukemia.  We don’t know this.  We suspect it, but we don’t know it.  What we do know is that nuclear power plants tend to have more leukemia surrounding them than places without power plants, but a power plant is an extremely complex system and its effect on the surrounding environment is not limited in itself to simply the nuclear materials.

All this provides context for surrounding issues: the decommissioning fund, whether or not to extend the license, etc., but in the meantime, we’ve got some fascinating research which bolsters the case against using nuclear power, but is not conclusive.

Science is a process, and one that teaches us over time if we allow it to.  This is good science and fascinating research, but for anyone who thinks that they can grasp the gist of this research from a six-paragraph news piece, please yourself a favor: if you use it to argue for a position, take some time to investigate it, read about it and understand the science before you just jump in and do yourself more harm than good by arguing for something you don’t understand.

(I’ll be posting a little more about this shortly. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Tonight was the last of 19 Burlington mayoral debates leading up to Tuesday's election. The debate was sponsored by Democracy for America, Green Mountain Daily, and the UVM College Democrats. Speaking to a packed house, candidates Bob Kiss, Andy Montroll, and Dan Smith handled a wide range of questions, from the first president they voted for, the underfunding of Burlington's pension fund, and, yes, frolf at Leddy Park.

Speaking to a packed crowd at Sapa's Tea and Coffee, the candidates really got a chance to distinguish themselves. GMD was on the scene in the person of front pagers Maggie Gunderson and Jack McCullough, and front pager emerita NanuqFC. GMD had planned to live blog the event, but internet connectivity problems prevented it. Here, though, are some impressions from the debate.

Who's who: Incumbent mayor Bob Kiss finally cashed in on his strategy of downplaying expectations, and showed himself to be the most charismatic of the group. And no, I am not kidding. Bob was animated, knowledgeable, and effective in making his points. Andy Montroll got in some good points, but if he was trying to show off his technocrat cred he came in second to the Mayor. And Dan Smith: very likeable guy, but from his answers it's pretty hard to figure why he doesn't make it official and run as an R.

Some highlights:

Question 1: Who was the first president you voted for?

      Kiss: Humphrey.

      Montroll: Carter.

      Smith: Clinton.

 Question 3, from Maggie Gunderson:

 How to deal with Parks and Rec?

Frolf at Leddy Park?

     Montroll: We should be able to do it somewhere, but we need to find another place, not Leddy Park.

     Smith: I support things that get our kids off the couch. We could do a course at Leddy. “When someone throws out an idea, instead of saying, `Why?' we should start saying `Why not?'”

     Kiss: “It pays to pay attention to the details.” If you walked through the park you would see the impact of cutting down trees. “Open space isn't wasted space.” Maybe the neighbors should have gotten more consideration.

 Part Two: How do we rectify the inability of Parks & Rec to work with neighborhood groups?

     Kiss answers in term of the Farmers' Market rent fight: As soon as I heard about this I was talking to the Parks Department. This is a discussion to reach an agreement, not a fait accompli. I won't support raising market rents by four or five times.

     Montroll: My first reaction to the Farmers' Market increase was that it's outrageous. When people go to the mayor they need to know they will be heard.

     Smith: The rent shouldn't go up by 400% or 500%. The broader question, though, is how to restructure government so everyone has a sense of common cause.

Waterfront: What's your five-Year vision?

     Smith: Here is where he really sounds like a Republican. It's not so much the content, as the way he talks about it in terms of economic development, including marina services, hotel access, a revitalized Moran Plant. “20% public access is better than 100% boarded up.”

     Montroll: We need to protect our values and open spaces, public spaces and uses.. We need a publc, community process. Uses might include a small hotel, but not a convention center.

     Kiss:Bob took the opportunity to review the history of the waterfront and his involvement in it since 1972, and the constant struggle between the push for commercialization of the waterfront and the drive to create public uses which has resulted in the boathouse, Echo, the park, and the outstanding, nearly complete, public space we now see. “We're open for business, but we're not for sale.”

HOW do we make Burlington more bike-friendly?

     Kiss: It's a question I've been asking ever since I moved here. It's still a problem. The police chief gets reports every day, and a bicycle or a pedestrian is hit by a car almost every day. This spring you will see more efforts, including training.

     Montroll: People want to be out on their bikes or on foot, but we prioritize cars. We ned to establish a shared priority that says that bikes are as important as cars.

     Smith: As a regular, three times a week cyclist, I see the problem. We need to invest in roads in a way that accommodates bicycles and pedestrian. More than that, we need to find ways to grow so that we can afford the necessary investment, and we need to reemphasize density in the downtown; people will walk or ride if they can live downtown. “Traffic accidents don't happen just because our roads are narrow; it's because our roads are bad.”  I thought this was his best answer because it tied the personal to a broader vision.

As I said, overall it was a good showcase for the candidates. I read each one of them as a “what you see is what you get” kind of guy. Neither of the challengers can match Bob Kiss's scope and depth of knowledge of the job, and city isues. I was actually expecting to see 15-year Council veteran Montroll give Bob a run for his money on this point, but not the way I saw it. 

I give the debate to Kiss on points, but other observers might have seen it differently, so feel free to chime in.

In even more bad news for VSAC, the Obama Administration today announced an end to subsidized student lending as it directs it's resources to direct government lending.  

This is a seismic shift in the student lending industry, and one that will push VSAC out of the loop.

Reports in Forbes, Bloomberg and CNNMoney tell the story. 

Obama Calls for End to Loan Subsidy for Sallie Mae, Citigroup 

By Jonathan D. Salant

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama would end government subsidies for student loan providers such as Sallie Mae and Citigroup Inc., with the government becoming the sole provider of federally backed college lending.

The government currently offers direct loans through colleges, as well as guarantees loans made by private lenders such as New York-based Citigroup and Reston, Virginia-based Sallie Mae, officially SLM Corp.

SLM Corp. fell as much as 37 percent after Obama’s budget was released. Shares of SLM, known as Sallie Mae, fell 36 percent to $5.36 at 11:29 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

Obama said shifting to direct student loans would save more than $4 billion a year, which would be used for more student aid. Private companies would service the loans. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed legislation cutting subsidies to providers by $20.9 billion over five years.

Overall, Obama’s proposed budget provides $46.2 billion in budget authority for education, which he called one of the three major challenges the U.S. must address.

“In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity – it is a prerequisite,” Obama told a joint session of Congress on Feb. 24.