Jeff Segal at “The Big Money” (I’d never heard of it either… hat tip to TPM) reports on continued murmurings in California about legalizing and taxing marijuana, especially in light of their massive $15 billion budget shortfall, which may rise as high as $42 billion next year.

So what are the numbers? A national legalization effort would save nearly $13 billion annually in enforcement costs and bring in $7 billion in yearly tax revenues, according to a study by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron. Since California represents 13 percent of the U.S. economy, those numbers suggest the state could save $1.7 billion in enforcement costs and nab up to $1 billion in revenues. That doesn’t include any indirect revenues as, for example, rural farming communities grow or marijuana tourism, which has been lucrative for the Netherlands, takes off.

Of course it also doesn’t include the cost of creating a regulatory regime. And taking one nationwide study and extrapolating savings for a state based on its overall percentage of the economy is a crude calculus at best, but its probably helpful for a broad, ballpark notion of what such a legalization and regulation regime might generate in terms of revenues.

So what if we plugged Vermont, which represents a whopping .2% of the U.S. economy into that equation? Using the above logic, that would bring us down $26 million in enforcement costs, and up $14 million in increased revenue for a total budgetary impact of $40 million. Not a magic pill, but nothing to sneeze at.

First, a simple definition, per Wikipedia:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “knowing”) is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how natural phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction.

There is an old story about blind men and an elephant.  Wikipedia reports it as follows:

In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one’s perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.

Many of us treat science similarly, only being willing to acknowledge part of reality because of having limited information and being too blind to see beyond what we think is true.

I will tell a brief version of a long story that I have referenced multiple times in recent months: last fall, I fell ill, and my doctor was convinced of what the illness was.  He was wrong about this and consistently wrong because he failed to seek the necessary data to get it diagnosed properly.  Multiple visits led him to misdiagnose the illness in multiple ways, to the point where I would point out and explain where the pain was and he’d repeat it back to me as though I had referenced a different location.  He had, for whatever reason, lost the interest in inquiry.  Once he came to a conclusion, he blinded himself to the process of science, to investigation.   This was dangerous and, if it hadn’t been caught in time, could have cost me a kidney.  

Science is not just something abstract.  It is something that we must do in order to appropriately respond to the world around us.

I frequently hear such phrases as “science tells us that…”

A good example of this comes from an anti-abortion group in Colorado:

What Science Tells Us

The Colorado Personhood Amendment has a very simple, easy-to-understand scientific basis that has been known by medical experts for years. Notice that many of the sources below are at least 20-30 years old. Each conclusion is firmly grounded in scientific and medical fact. There is not even a hint of uncertainty…what is stated below is known as clear fact in the medical community. Today, our incredible technology-including 3D and 4D ultrasounds provides “windows into the womb” and allows you and me to see for ourselves what doctors, geneticists, and embryologists have known for so long…that every preborn child is a unique individual; a living person. And shouldn’t our laws protect everyone?

This, of course, is a perfect example of what I’m talking about: people using “science” to describe what is, at its core, philosophy.

This is similar to what proponents of “intelligent design” would have us believe: the idea that their philosophy of what’s behind the evolutionary process is somehow “science.”

I think, though, that in promoting intelligent design or anti-abortion policies as though they are science, those who would oppose science as a discipline and replace it with a religious perspective are tipping their hands.  Their insistence upon presenting their views as science is a tacit admission that science is something of value.  They understand that science is better supported and has a stronger foundation in truth than their own arbitrary belief system, so they think that they can best promote their views by pretending they are science.

That’s why it’s crucial that we understand science for what it actually is.

I’m writing about this because I so often hear people talk about science as though it is a thing, an entity, a collective knowledge.  Science is, at its core, a process of inquiry.

Science is grounded in a process.  It’s grounded in the idea that theories need to be tested and that tests don’t prove or disprove theories but instead support or fail to support a given hypothesis.

I will use, for example, a self-serving theory.  Let’s suppose that I, being a short person, want to convince you that short people have faster motor responses than tall people.  

So my theory is that because we have a shorter path from the eye to the hand (in terms of neurons), that the shorter you are, the faster your response time to a visual stimuli will be.

That’s a theory.  But in order to test this theory, I need to collect data.  I need to define my terms and explain what I mean so that other people can also test this theory.

So I may decide to conduct an experiment, or do a survey or some other specific process that will collect the data I need to support or fail to support (*not* prove or disprove) my theory.  But you can’t collect data to support or reject a theory.  Theories are just ideas: vague concepts about the way the world works.  

What you need to support or reject is a hypothesis.  A hypothesis is a fairly simple thing that a lot of people have trouble grasping at first.  A hypothesis is simply a statement that:

1. is a prediction of what will happen in a given circumstance;
2. is either true or false;
3. can be tested through observation

So if my hypothesis were “short people have slower reflexes than tall people,” that would fail requirement #1 above.  If, instead, I said that “when tested for response time, there will be a strong positive correlation between height and response time,” I have a workable hypothesis.

It is a prediction, because it suggests what will happen in the future.  It is true or false: either the event will occur as I’ve described it or not.  It is testable (I will explain this in a moment).

If, on the other hand, my theory is that “an intelligent being is behind the theory of evolution,” there is no hypothesis I can use to test this.  I can create a hypothesis that fits the first two criteria (“when the intelligent being chooses to change the nature of a creature, the creature experiences a process of evolution”) but there is no observable test that we can use which verifies the existence of this intelligent being.

Remember, as well, that science doesn’t tell us whether or not God, or any other entity, exists.  Science is merely the process via which we determine what does and does not happen under a given circumstance.  We understand the process of gravity extremely well.  But we can’t say that gravity is not the finger of God holding us onto our home planet.  We can merely say that, whatever gravity is, all the evidence we’ve observed gives us a fairly strong and consistent understanding of what gravity does.  I.e., you pick up a chair.  You let go of the chair.  In most circumstances, it will fall down.  You drop a penny from on top of a building.  Not only do we understand what that penny will do.  We understand, given enough data, the exact velocity of that penny at any given second along its travels.  This is important because gravity induces not only speed, but acceleration.  The further something falls, the faster it gets.

So back to my hypothesis.  I can test my motor response hypothesis in a variety of ways, but I will pick an extremely low-tech approach: I do not use gadgets, gizmos, bells, whistles or any other such thing.  

In fact, I can test this theory with a yardstick and a blackboard, pencils and paper, and a group of students.  (I have, in fact, tested this very theory with my students many times).

I tell them to pair up.  Each pair gets a yardstick.  The rules are simple:

Each one writes down their height five times, each on a separate line.

Then they do as follows:

One student holds the yardstick up so it’s dangling down, with the “0” pointing down.

The other places a hand at the bottom of the yardstick, with fingers and thumb apart.  The subject then looks at the top of the yardstick and waits for his or her classmate to let go.  As soon as the drop takes place, the student tries to grasp the yardstick.  Then, you check to see what number on the centimeter marker the student’s thumb has hit, and write it down next to the student’s height.

You do this with twenty students and pretty soon you have enough to either support or fail to support the hypothesis: the faster the student’s response time, the lower that student’s numbers on this score will be.  You put this on a scatterplot (that’s where the chalkboard comes in) and you see whether or not you have any sort of real correlation between height and reflex time.

This is some of the simplest science there is, and still I have trouble explaining to people why this is science.

Too often, we mistake science for its products.  People, when they think of science, think technology.  But Mendel’s work on genetics is science, even though there was no electricity, no blinking lights, nothing that most of us would recognize as science today.  If, on the other hand, you have a high tech clock that looks very sci-fi-ish people think that it’s science.  It’s technology, and it’s pretty neat, but it’s not science:

Science is experimentation, exploration, and inquiry.  There is nothing wrong with religion, beliefs or philosophical questions.  But they are not science.

If, for example, you want to spend time inquiring and discussing when, if you continually add grains of sand to the same location, it is no longer a loose collection of grains of sand and, instead, a pile of sand, well that’s a neat question.  It is, however, not a scientific question.  It is a question of philosophy.  It is about how we conceptualize piles, and sand, and grains.  

The question over whether light is a wave or a particle, is something that does, to an extent, belong in the realm of science, but it’s still a philosophical question.  What’s important to scientists is not what we call the behavior of light, but what that behavior is.

There are people out there who will diminish what science is and what it means by trying to present non-science as science.  They want to diminish the meaning of it, by expanding it beyond the realm of reason.  

I believe in science because it is true.  It has meaning.  It has power.

I believe in science because it is our best possible means via which to find a way to survive the coming energy crisis.  

I believe in science because even if we are not always wise enough to understand what we learn from it, ignorance is worse.  

I believe in science because I would rather live in a world of honest inquiry than one of fear and hatred of the unknown.  

When I was a child, I had a dream that still terrifies me to this day.  I dreamed that I was in a bubble, blissfully happy, stupid and ignorant of all around me.  I dreamed that I was safe, secure, and brainless.  I awoke from that dream in a sweat, horrified by the thought of it.

I believe in science because, if it comes to it, I’d rather live a short life with my eyes wide open than a long life afraid to look, so sure of what I know because I’ve only felt the elephant’s trunk.  I’d rather live a life of inquiry, even if mixed with frustration and anger, than one of blissful ignorance and safe security.

I believe in science, and I believe that people who refuse to do so are a bigger threat than we acknowledge and more dangerous than we care to admit.

I believe in science, and I believe that those among us who don’t are waging a war against those among us who do.

So I guess I believe that science needs a battle cry, too.  

And hey, because to believe in science as much as I do, you have to be at least a little bit of a geek, I’m ready to pick my cry and shout it loud.

HYPOTHESIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZE.

Amen.

( – promoted by odum)

We must finally ween ourselves from the truism that “growth” is synonymous with prosperity.  This anachronistic concept must join the sacred cows like “trickle-down economics” and “free markets are fair markets” for it’s turn on the reexamination table.  Worldwide pressures on food, water, fuel and infrastructure give ample evidence that we must finally abandon “growth” in favor of “sustainability” as the model for achievement in the twenty-first century.  Every day in some new way, we are reminded that the planet is at a tipping point: too many people, too few resources.

Here at home in Vermont, the same flawed assumption that growth equals prosperity informs Governor Douglas’ campaign to neutralize Act 250.  The Governor  characterizes his goal as “streamlining” the permit process, but it amounts to a broadside aimed at  environmental restraints.  He would like to give economic considerations equal weight in the Act 250 process; and these economic considerations would no doubt be shaped by that old totem, that growth necessarily brings prosperity.  By careful manipulation of the time-frame and cherry-picking the statistics, a developer can easily represent his project as economically “beneficial” to the community, thereby relaxing or releasing him from environmental restrictions.  Exclude the long-term negative impacts on infrastructure and community resources and  many questionable projects look awfully good  to local reviewers in towns struggling with budget shortfalls.

The Governor also seeks to remove some of the review hurdles that large-scale developers must negotiate to get their projects approved. What this might mean to Vermonters is an end to their right of direct participation in the permit process for large-scale development, and a reversion to the bad old days of full-bore, developer-driven sprawl.  Act 250, and the opportunities it provides for interested parties and groups to effectively join the discussion, is the one safeguard we have against permanent damage to our most valuable community resources: the land, the environment, and local economies.  It is a citizen’s interface, unique to Vermont, that recognizes the irreversible impact of land-use decisions, and the fact that all Vermonters are trustees of our collective future.  Once our waterways go beyond a critical point of contamination, and once our farmable tracts of prime agricultural soils are all gone, no amount of public investment may reclaim them.  More valuable than gold and precious metals,  these are the resources that are necessary for human survival.

To see the vital role that Act 250 plays in holding-back the floodgates of unregulated sprawl, one need look no further than the current struggle in St. Albans over a proposed  Wal-Mart superstore,  which would involve a tract of prime agricultural soil, three-tenths of a mile from the most vibrant organic farm in the region.   There are ongoing appeals in the Environmental Court with regard to this project, not just addressing the environmental and economic implications; but also citing numerous instances where conflicts of interest contaminated the permit process.  Had those conflicts not occurred, it could be argued that the project might have been rejected or altered before it became necessary for the Court to intervene.

If Governor Douglas truly wants to “reform” the permit process, let him take the first step by advocating for specific rules governing conflict of interest; and for stiff penalties against those who violate these rules.  Eliminating conflicts of interest  would go a long way toward reducing the number of appeals in Environmental Court,  without prejudicing the citizens’ right to due process.  So long as conflicts of interest are ignored at both the local and state levels, the taint of illegitimacy will crowd the Environmental Court docket with multiple appeals.

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

More than 100 Vermonters protesting Gov. James Douglas’ proposed budget cuts were met with heightened security at the Statehouse on Tuesday.

Mandatory bag checks at entrances, a bomb-sniffing dog on the first floor and an increased presence of security guards changed the atmosphere at the Statehouse as a coalition of organizations continued pressing lawmakers to reject Douglas’ cuts.

The article describes the security for the event as “vastly different than the same-sex marriage protest at the Statehouse last week,” which strikes me as funny because, despite what we’re told, same sex marriage is apparently not as scary as advocating for children.

Yes.  You heard me.  The protesters yesterday were advocates for children.  The group protesting was “Voices for Vermont’s Children.”

So here’s my question: in a budget crunch, with an economy that has the potential to cripple this state, how exactly do we determine how much money we’re going to spend on security?  Is this a wise use of our limited and dwindling funds?  Because it really doesn’t sound to me like this is about protecting anyone as much as it is about intimidation.

What is this all about ? No  pies were sighted in the crowd ?Who judges the “threat” level ?

Sergeant-at-Arms Francis Brooks, a former Montpelier lawmaker, is in charge of security at the Statehouse. He said Tuesday that there was no specific threat, but that he felt the heightened security was necessary because of the size of the protest group.

“A lot of people were coming, including some we don’t know,” Brooks said.

While the crowd was large Tuesday, there were no signs of violence. Security officials told members of the media not to photograph their faces as camera crews recorded the protestors move inside the building.

The security scene at the Statehouse was similar to occasions when Douglas would address the Vermont Legislature, such as his budget address last month. But it was vastly different than the same-sex marriage protest at the Statehouse last week, which attracted a crowd roughly twice as large.

“They shouldn’t be punished for their passion,” said Allen Gilbert, the executive director of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Visitors to the Statehouse shouldn’t be treated differently just because they are new faces.”

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

The Vermont Federal Recovery Office will be a single point of contact to coordinate recovery projects within the State of Vermont. The Office will be located within the Agency of Administration.Governor Douglas named as head of this office Jim Bush, the current Assistant Director of Program Development at the Agency of Transportation. Bush is a registered professional engineer in and has worked for the State of Vermont since 2004 following 35 years of service at the Federal Highway Administration.

It might be a good time to get out in front of what the plans are(shovel ready) ,as there is a large amount of money coming to Vermont which will be run through this new office of the governor’s. Even in its senate reduced size any state stabilization funds will be a large amount of money coming in.There is no reason now not think this money will be well spent but how,why and where this money is spent will be something to follow closely from the get go.The city of Burlington has available online many of it’s potential programs.How about a little transparency such as that with this new recovery office. Especially after the surprise revelation from the Herald/Argus that Governor Jim Douglas has morphed into a “radical conservative ” Republican.

How states have handled the influx of federal dollars will certainly be an issue during the campaigns.

The responsibilities of the governors’ stimulus “czars” or commissions vary, but their main job will be to work with local and state governments and community and business groups to make sure projects are selected in a fair and open process and deserve to get the federal funds.

On the Republican governors’ side, Vermont has created a Vermont Federal Recovery Office “to expedite projects when federal funds are received,” Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, vice-chairman of the National Governors Association, said when announcing the office.

http://www.stateline.org/live/…

Missed this yesterday, so I am quoting today from yesterday’s Prog Blog:

Entergy Resolution

Morgan Daybell  February 9th, 2009

Yesterday, the State Committee of the Progressive Party voted unanimously to support the following resolution, modeled after the resolutions being warned across the state for town meeting day:

   The State Committee of the Vermont Progressive Party requests the Vermont Legislature to:

   1. Recognize that the 2% of our New England region’s power grid supply that is provided by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plantcan be replaced with a combination of local, renewable electricity and efficiency measures, along with the purchase of hydro generated electricity, and excess power already in the New England electricity market;

   2. Given the viable alternatives and the risks posed by continued operation, ensure that Vermont Yankee will cease operation in March 2012, after having completed its 40 year design life by not granting approval for operation of the plant after that date and by not determining that further operation will promote the general welfare;

   3. Hold the Entergy Corporation, which purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002, responsible to fully fund the plant’s clean-up and decommissioning when the reactor closes, as the corporation pledged to do when it purchased Vermont Yankee.

Progressives in attendance pledged to support the town meeting resolutions, and the broader effort to close Entergy’s Vernon plant in 2012.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

You may recall a story we ran a little over a year ago:

Religious indoctrination in our public schools

by: Jack McCullough

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 00:00:31 AM EST

Well, the news today is that it is. In a story in today's Times Argus we read about Mel Downs, a parent in Irasburg whose daughter's teacher posts the Ten Commandments in his classroom, includes links to religious sites on his official school web page, and sends home materials like “Why Jesus Is Better Than Santa Claus”.

 Now we learn from the Times Argus that the parents, who objected to having the Irasburg public schools spending their time forcing Christianity on their kids, are now suing the school district. 

In a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on their behalf, the families accused Irasburg Village School teacher Wally Rogers of including religious books he bought with school funds in a reading program and creating incentives for students to read them.

They also said he posted the Ten Commandments on the wall, distributed religious materials and directed students to his Web page, which contained information on creationism. By allowing it, the school district violated their constitutional rights, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Friday.

Irasburg is a smal town, with just over 1,000 residents and barely 150 students in their schools. This can't be easy for these parents. I praise the parents for their courage in doing this.

( – promoted by odum)

In an oped discussing our very one-sided discussion/talk radio options (Another Right-Wing Conspiracy in Washington?, Washington Post, 02/08/09), Bill Press discusses the BS claim that non-Republican oriented talk (he call’s it progressive radio) doesn’t make money.

“Station owners complain they can’t get good ratings or make any money with progressive talk,” Press writes, rightfully following up with “but that’s nonsense. In Minnesota, independent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF (950 AM) profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM, 92.1 FM, just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1. Nationwide, progressive talkers Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller have proven that, given a level playing field, they can more than hold their own in ratings — and make money for their stations.”

I can tell you from personal experience that Bill Press is absolutely correct …

Year’s ago I hosted/engineered/produced/made coffee for a local morning talk show on WSNO in Barre. It was a show that focused on the central Vermont area with emphasis on Barre and Montpelier and to a lesser degree the smaller towns such as Barre Town, Berlin and Williamstown. (1450 on the AM spectrum is only a thousand watt output so coverage is definitely limited)

Because of this local focus, I decided to try and get out into the communities more. My first attempt was a Barre establishment (I’ll leave them out of this) that serverd morning fare. I talked to the business’ owner about setting up a live feed from the place and having a chance to talk to customers over the course of the show.

The owner liked the idea … very, very much.

I like the idea … very, very much.

I had listeners who enjoyed my show … very, very much (still hear from some a decade later who tell me this).

But the station’s management and sales staff (who I liked and still do) weren’t interested in the idea. They refused to pursue it despite several requests from me. After all, according to those I talked to, liberal talk like the show I was doing couldn’t make any money!

Funny, I was able to sell my own ad time on that show to various folks … one of whom is heard advertising on “True North” today.

So now WSNO sits in the middle of central Vermont with only high school sports for locally generated air time. The rest is piped in from the great flat lands of outside Vermont … and it’s all by a huge margin mostly right wing crank Republican oriented talk.

There is a conspiracy to keep non-Republican oriented talk radio off the air … some of it of the back room deal making kind, and some of it of the above ignorance based agreement in direction kind.

I’ve worked for/with Thom Hartmann: he and his wife grew his now nationally known radio show out of a home built studio and broadcast over a satellite feed ALL PAID FOR BY THEIR OWN MONEY! (Progressives really do make the best entrepreneurs … really.)

I’ve seen the honest side of this debate.

And Bill Press is right on.

What did they teach you about marijuana when you were a kid?

It's addictive.

It leads you to use other drugs.

It destroys your respiratory system.

It destroys your motivation.

So someone who smokes marijuana couldn't possibly have the aerobic capacity or motivation to train for and win 14 Olympic gold medals, right?

Today's bill is H. 150. Here's what it would do: 

This bill proposes to change the penalties for the
14 possession of small amounts of marijuana. A person who possesses one ounce
15 or less of marijuana would be assessed a civil fine of up to $100.00, while
16 possession of larger amounts would continue to be criminal offenses subject to
17 imprisonment.

VALID, the Vermont Aliance for Intelligent Drug Laws, which is sponsoring this legislation, is holding an advocacy day this Friday at the State House. Get out there and tell your legislators that you're not afraid to suffer the health problems that have prostrated Michael Phelps.