Friday, on Bob Kinzel’s VPR show VT Edition, the last caller asked Congressman Welch “How could you vote for a Homegrown Terrorism Bill that (targets) people like me who speak out (against the war)”.  His response? “There’s no such bill.”

The problem is, it seems that Welch is either voting for Bills in the House without knowing anything about them, or he just straight-up lied to the caller (and the rest of us).

The Bill, HR 1955, is very real.  And Peter Welch did vote for it.  Here’s a pretty good, level-headed take on what HR 1955 is and isn’t, and why organizations like the ACLU are very much against it.

Lowe’s seeks to fill wetlands; opponents object

Published: Monday, March 10, 2008

By Candace Page

Free Press Staff Writer

In one of the largest such requests from a private business, Lowe’s Home Centers is seeking state permission to fill in two wetlands and a wetland buffer to build a four-acre home improvement warehouse and garden center in St. Albans Town.

Crossposted to Daily Kos.

As part of a comprehensive package to control the costs of prescription drugs and regulate inappropriate marketing tactics, Vermont recently passed legislation that provides strong privacy protections by limiting the use of personally identifiable prescription information for marketing purposes unless doctors and other health care providers explicitly agree to waive the protections. The law, S.115, includes a physician opt-in provision at the time of licensure or renewal. This provision, managed by the state’s professional licensing board, allows a prescriber to choose to have his or her identifying information used for marketing and promotion of prescription drugs. The Vermont Medical Society supports the measure.

Taken from a fact sheet from the Prescription Project (link to pdf file)

That legislation’s just been pushed back.  

The reason why?  

Read on.

Previously, regulars at Vermont’s Green Mountain Daily have written fairly extensively on Pharmacy Phishing, the practice of the Vermont State Police doing fishing expeditions of pharmacies statewide to scan for information that might tie people to patterns of illegal drug use, even though it would give them illegal access to the personal data of a great deal of innocent individuals as well.

This article isn’t directly about the pharmacy phishing scandal, but it is about the practice of treating medical and prescription data like something to be shared readily and easily.  This time it’s not directly about patient data (though there are some risks of that being released) but the prescribing practice of doctors and the ability of sales people and other entities to use those practices to inappropriately influence and assail doctors.

So let’s start with Friday.  A group of us at GMD received a copy of the following e-mail.  I apologize for the size of the quote, but I can’t find it online anywhere, so I’d like to include the whole context.

VERMONT ENACTS ‘TEMPORARY REPEAL’ OF

PRESCRIPTION DATA RESTRAINT LAW

MONTPELIER, VT, March 6, 2008 – Vermont Governor Jim Douglas yesterday signed into law what he described as a “temporary repeal” of a law passed last year that restricts the collection and use of provider-identified prescription data. The new law defers the effective date of Vermont’s data restriction law until July 1, 2009. Prior to that date, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston is expected to rule on an appeal by New Hampshire of a federal district court decision that found comparable New Hampshire legislation unconstitutional.

Notwithstanding the change in the effective date, a lawsuit filed by IMS Health, Verispan and Wolters Kluwer Health challenging Vermont’s data restriction law is scheduled to be heard in federal district court in Brattleboro Vermont on July 28, 2008. In legislative hearings, the Vermont Attorney General’s office has described the chances of successfully defending the law as an “uphill battle.”

The New Hampshire law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court in April of last year and the state has sought to appeal the decision. Oral arguments before the First Circuit Court of Appeals were held in January, and a decision is expected by mid-year.

“We are pleased that the effective date of Vermont’s data restriction law has been deferred. These types of laws serve neither to improve healthcare nor lower healthcare costs,” said Robert H. Steinfeld, IMS senior vice president and general counsel. “This kind of legislation is inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional values that protect the free flow of information. It’s also contrary to the current national movement toward more information and greater transparency in our healthcare system to enhance patient welfare and outcomes. It doesn’t serve the public interest to impair the free flow of important, accurate information to the healthcare community.”

In a separate legal action, Maine’s Attorney General is now seeking to stay proceedings in that state’s appeal to the First Circuit of a Maine federal district court decision issued in December 2007 preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of a similar data restriction law in Maine. He is seeking the stay pending the First Circuit’s decision in the New Hampshire appeal.

Other states, which have considered their own data restriction laws, have moved away from these proposals upon closer analysis of their merits, and in light of the two previous federal court decisions invalidating such laws on First Amendment grounds.

IMS Health, Verispan and Wolters Kluwer Health are health information companies that collect and analyze provider-identified prescription data and then sell information, analytics and consulting services to government agencies including the DEA, FDA and CDC, departments of health, academic researchers, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and generic drug manufacturers.

The three companies and others maintain that provider-identified prescription data has great public health value. The data is used to study prescribing trends, monitor the safety of new medications, support safety-oriented risk management programs, prevent prescription drug abuse, expedite drug recalls, recruit for clinical trials, and study treatment variability and outcomes.

Provider-identified prescription information is completely patient de-identified and patient privacy is fully protected by federal law under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. In addition, IMS Health, Verispan and Wolters Kluwer Health add further safeguards, including encryption, to ensure that patient privacy is vigilantly safeguarded.

The source of this message is a press release from IMS Health, Verispan and Wolters Kluwer Health.  These are companies which make a practice of collecting data from doctors and using them for various purposes, but primarily information collection for the purposes of aiding salespeople.

So let’s be clear about this.  When Robert Steinfeld, Senior IMS VP, claims that  “this kind of legislation is inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional values that protect the free flow of information,” he’s trying to pretend that this has something to do with the constitution.  When the government of Vermont capitulates to these corporate opportunists, he’s giving them support for a practice to which they have no claim to advance as a right.

In fact, here is the specific part of the legislation which has been nixed:

A health insurer, a self-insured employer, an electronic transmission intermediary, a pharmacy, or other similar entity shall not sell, license, or exchange for value regulated records containing prescriber-identifiable information, nor permit the use of regulated records containing prescriber-identifiable information for marketing or promoting a prescription drug, unless the prescriber consents . . .   Pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmaceutical marketers shall not use prescriber-identifiable information for marketing or promoting a prescription drug unless the prescriber consents as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(You can see the full text of this legislation here)

Now, there are open question as to why Gov. Doglas may have chosen to nix the above language.  It could be that he’s trying to avoid a costly lawsuit by getting ahead of the curve.  If so, he’s failed.  The companies involved are ready to proceed with the lawsuit, regardless of the executive order.

To me, the more likely scenario under this administration is that it simply doesn’t give a damn about privacy rights.  If you look at the  history of this administration and medical data, you can see a pattern of complete and utter disregard for privacy with respect to prescriptions.  What’s more, as I wrote last month, Republicans have been trying to scuttle this aspect of the legislation.  They failed (miserably) at the attempt, but where they failed, Douglas has been able, with the stroke of a pen, just delay the roll out of it.

A final sidenote: I don’t know if I’m just looking in the wrong place or if I’m just not good at navigating the State of Vermont’s web site, but I can’t find anything on the Governor’s site indicating his temporary restriction.  

I wonder if this is something he doesn’t want getting a lot of publicity.

It’s March. The election is in eight months. That’s about 36 weeks. This from vtbuzz:

I’m sure many politically tuned-in Vermonters are surprised that we are sitting here in March without a known Democratic candidate for governor, but it indeed we are…

…What should the good voters of Vermont make of that? “You’re to make nothing of it,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Ian Carleton said.

I’m not sure who Carleton is talking to here. If his statement is a directive, he knows as well as anyone that rank and file Dems do not take directives well. If it’s simply face-saving rhetoric, a no comment would be better, as we’re rapidly entering the world of self-parody.

We’re past the point where the suggestion that concern – even panic – over the lack of clear candidates for the top two slots is somehow only for the small handful of political insiders or hobbyists, and that the greater population doesn’t care. First of all, that’s not true anymore, as I’m hearing the question from an ever-widening range of people.

Second (and most important), it has been going on long enough to begin setting in as a narrative among one subset of Vermonters that truly matter in this process – the press. Today’s media doesn’t bother with the pretense of not having opinions. They embrace opinions – wallow in them, really – so long as those opinions can’t be pegged as “partisan.” And the Democratic Party is flirting with a “keystone kops” narrative among the media that will dog them throughout the campaign season if something doesn’t change soon.

Some argue that none of this should be discussed without also discussing the lack of a GOP candidate against Peter Welch. That discussing the gubernatorial – and now the lieutenant gubernatorial – race, without discussing that lack is somehow engaging in a double standard. Not so.

Truth to tell, the Dems should dread the day when they are spoken of together. The fact is, the Vermont GOP looks like a disaster. Dems solidly have the House, the Senate, and 7 out of 9 statewide offices, if you count Bernie Sanders. The Republican Party in this state has, under its previous Chair Jim Barnett, all but abandoned the local races in it’s myopic focus on the re-election of Douglas, and as a passing thought, Dubie and the occasional other statewide race. As a result, it maintains little resemblance to a functioning major party.

The fact is that people aren’t talking about the GOP lack of a candidate, because – well, what do you expect? Try a free association test: see how many Vermont Dems you can name in a few seconds that could be competitive against Jim Douglas. You know the list; Leahy, Welch, Markowitz, Spaulding, Sorrell, Racine, Shumlin, Symington. Those are the easy ones. The ones that would make it a battle royal. You may have easily come up with others.

Now try the same game with Republicans versus Welch.

Crickets, right?

I mean, you have to really reach for any names at all – Brock? Walt Freed (remember him?) Skip Vallee, for pities sake?

Dems should stop complaining about the hand wringing over Governor. The fact is, people expect more from what otherwise looks like a healthy political party. The task now is to show them that they should.

And the task for us? Clearly, the time is coming to force a reaction. If Galbraith is to be the candidate, it’s time to shake him from what is clearly a subjective certainty that he has plenty of time until it becomes necessary to announce. One assumes that this assumption is based on an electoral clock nearly 30 years out of date. If he is to be a candidate – and a viable one – he needs to be capable of losing dyed-in-the-wool preconceptions that are no longer reflective of reality. Now is the time. Many months ago was the time. For my part, I have allowed him some leeway because of recent history. Galbraith told me, as he has told many others, that, during their 2007 meeting, Pollina told him that he would opt NOT to run for Governor if Galbraith did indeed get in the race.

In January, he apparently contacted Pollina again to both indicate he was moving towards a run and to re-confirm this verbal agreement. Pollina apparently informed him that he had, er, changed his mind.

For that reason, I’ve been loath to rush the Ambassador, given the seismic shift in the likely makeup of the arena. But the grace period is clearly over.

As far as Lieutenant Governor goes, Jim Condos has flirted with interest, as reported here. There is attempted recruitment behind the scenes, but again – it’s unclear at this point as to whether anyone is really serious. And it’s way past time for seriousness.

Boy, do we need some seriousness.

I think it’s safe to assume that Galbraith is in this thing. But he needs to truly get in this thing. If he’s not in it… well, whatever. I’m rapidly losing faith that there’s any real shot at taking out Douglas, given the totality of the tableau before us. A real shame given Douglas’s softness between the polling lines.

Lieutenant Governor? That’s more complicated, and in a Democratic wave year, Dubie is also vulnerable – especially given his do-nothing reputation. My sense is that, by a date certain, if there still is no sign of a candidate, we at the netroots should threaten to run a candidate, leaving the powers that be to decide for themselves which scenario they’d find more embarrassing – continuing an empty candidate slot well into election season, or having some nobody blogger or netroots activist as the only one willing to step in and fill the gap.

…”It may be the first time in history that the person who is running number two would offer the person running number one the number two position,” Daschle told “Meet the Press.”

Sounds like the Clinton plan is to skip third base in a run for home plate. 

More on the subject at “Clintons Push a Hillary/Obama Ticket.”

Cross posted at Montpelier Matters. 

Here in Montpelier we're lucky to have two hardware stores, right next to each other, where you can get great service, good selection, and competitive pricing, and, if you live in town, you don't even need to burn any gas to get there. I'm talking, of course, about our local Aubuchon and Somers Hardware, right on Main Street. Barre also has a great local hardware store, Nelson Brothers True Value. If your needs are a little more extensive you can get all your lumber and remodeling needs at Allen Lumber, and they deliver right to your house.

So what do we need with another Home Depot?

A local group, Citizens for Community and Local Prosperity is asking that very question. 

On Monday, March 10, you can hear Stacy Mitchell, theauthor of Big Box Sindle, speak at the Labor Hall in Barre. The event is at 6:00, it's free, and the author will be siging copies of the book.

For more information call 272-8543 or email CCLP AT vtlink.net 

OK–yesterday I provided a little break from the presidential campaign crap, but here’s what greets me as I begin my blog rounds this morning. (Um, this afternoon–the brain still says late morning.) It’s four days old, but the day job keeps me from keeping up as I’d like during the week. This is from Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire:

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Sen. Barack Obama’s Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates later this week, according to the Columbia Missourian.

Said Clay: “She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over.”

Not only is it not over until it’s over, but this kind of trying to make it so by declaring it so is something a lot of Obama supporters are doing these days, and it is an unsettling page from Bush’s play book.

It’s what Bush did in 2000, declaring he had won the presidency even though Gore had won the popular vote and lots still hung in the legal balance at the time.  It’s what he did about WMD in Iraq and with “Mission Accomplished.”  It’s what he’s freaking done his whole freaking life as far as anyone can tell, and so WHY in freaking hell can’t Obama supporters see that they are doing just what Bush has done and it is NOT a good thing and they need to sit down and take a few deep breaths?

I could go on (and on, and on) about how this kind of thing is emblematic of contempt toward democracy, democratic process, and just plain disrespectful of others, but I get really tired of the go-rounds.

I’ll go look now for more refreshing breaks from this kind of stuff.

( – promoted by odum)

Here are the top stories this week related to our soldiers here and abroad, taken from the Our Troops Newsladder.

The latest Army mental health survey brought back more bad news, with only 20% of troops describing their morale as high. Obviously, they are seeing things in Iraq differently than John McCain is. VoteVets.org’s Jon Soltz makes the case that someone should ask them why they see it so differently and how he can insist that they should stay the course. (vetvoice.com)

The same survey also suggested that civilian psychiatrists be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to assist the uniformed mental health corps. (military.com)

On top of all of all the mental health problems that soldiers are facing as they return from the combat zone is the No. 1 disability in the war on terror: hearing loss. 70,000 troops who have served are on disability for tinnitus (a constant ringing in the ears) and another 58,000 for hearing loss. (AP)

A new study found that among people suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction, those who also suffer from PTSD face worse outcomes and consequences from their chemical dependency problems. (Medical News Today)

The weekly newspaper at Fort Drum (already the subject of a damning report about its failure to treat troops from the most deployed unit in America for mental health problems) responded to a recent spate of DWIs by printing the mug shots of servicemembers on the front page. Maj. Gen. Michael L. Oates defends his decision to print the pictures to discourage other troops from drinking and driving, while Adrienne Willis, a spokesperson for Veterans For America said it seemed to unduly burden soldiers who are reeling from the stresses of multiple deployments in Iraq. (NY Times)

Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.

Cross-posted at Rational Resistance.

 How about a book by the stupidest fucking guy on the face of the earth?

The benefit of getting out of the administration early is that you get to retaliate against the truth by getting your story out earlier, and if you're Doug Feith, you probably need it, given that you were one of the prime movers and architects of the Iraq invasion.

Still, even Feith has the ability to commit a massive faux pas by blurting out the truth. We already knew it, but it's good to have it confirmed:

Among the disclosures made by Feith in “War and Decision,” scheduled for release next month by HarperCollins, is Bush's declaration, at a Dec. 18, 2002, National Security Council meeting, that “war is inevitable.” The statement came weeks before U.N. weapons inspectors reported their initial findings on Iraq and months before Bush delivered an ultimatum to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Feith, who says he took notes at the meeting, registered it as a “momentous comment.”

You might think that so many years later it hardly matters, but I think the truth is inherently important, especially as we debate the positions our presidential candidates took on going into the war in the first place.

(A refreshing break from the mind-numbing slog of Prez Politics. – promoted by JDRyan)

[Cross posted on BureaucracyBlog.com]

Here’s a great story for anyone tired of the talking heads and screaming commercials and internet flash predominating on news outlets covering U.S. politics these days.

In Thailand there are governmental and corporate bureaucracies to fight when it comes to projects like huge dams and coal fired power plants that would be a windfall for bureaucrats and stockholders, but devastate untold numbers of lives and homes, as well as the natural environment.

At the forefront of Thailand’s grassroots activism against corporate and bureaucratic greed are six women, profiled in an article in the Bangkok Post by Vasana Chinvarakorn  While being careful to say at several points that there are of course men who are activists, too, the article quotes Penchom Saetang:

“We have observed an intriguing aspect of grassroots movements here-the strength and dedication of the women involved with them. We don’t mean that men are not as active, but we’ve seen a difference, especially in the approaches and strategies used by men and women. While working with villagers to stop the Thai-Singapore industrial estate project at Pluak Daeng, we became aware that it was mostly the ‘aunties’ who worked tirelessly for the campaigns. A question then arose: ‘Why the women?’ And mostly of the older generations?”

In describing the collection of stories Penchom and two researchers, Sopida Werakultawan and Sukran Rojanapaiwong, have gathered in a project studying the work of the six women leaders, Vasana writes,

They reflect how a person can have a bigger heart than suggested by their physical size, ingenuity to overcome any hurdle and a drive that defies belief.

The stories as related in the article include Dawan, a villager who eventually uncovered massive government corruption, having started out by educating herself about wastewater treatment to the point of stumping the highly educated government “experts” on televised broadcasts. There are stories of smear campaigns to taint the women morally as a way of trying to get them to back off their activism. That has led, however to more activism, as one of the women reports that “…the Pak Moon people now take turns visiting each other’s families to give them moral support and to dispel any doubts that might have arisen as a result of the rumour-mongering.”

All such activism is indicative of what Penchom calls, “Jit Satharana (the public mind), a mind that cannot tolerate injustice, is willing to make sacrifices and looks toward the welfare of future generations. And it has nothing to do with “political ambition, nor planning to become a public figure’.”

What a concept.

May we all go forth and cultivate Jit Satharana and a drive that defies belief. And don’t dare underestimate older women while you’re about it.