Cross-posted from here

You will very rarely find me urging you to get in contact with your State Senator in order to give your support (or opposition) for a Bill that they will soon act on.  Put bluntly, it’s just not my kind of politics.  But S.28 is a different kinda beast altogether:  Introduced by Senators Ayer and Giard of Addison County, S.28 (or “An Act Relating to Retail Sales and Taxing of Specialty Beers”- who comes up with these names?) would lift Vermont’s current (and oppressively asinine) ban on malt beverages (beer) with an alcohol content higher than 8% by volume.  Matt, head brewer over at the Shed in Stowe, informed me last night recently that the House version of this bill was already passed, and this Senate version is due for it’s second reading fairly soon (maybe this week).  If passed, Vermont brewers (and drinkers) would join most of the country in being able to make, drink, and fall in love with beers containing an alcohol percent as high as 16!  Now, don’t misunderstand, this is in no way about being able to get drunker quicker (the behavior- or fear of it- that I believe brought about the initial 8% cap).  But, what it is about is providing Vermonters with the luxury of enjoy some incredibly tasty, complex, and delicious artisan brews.  For Vermont’s brewers, it’s the opportunity to be able to create- to craft- free from arbitrary restraints, in the same manner as other brewers throughout the country.  Lets face it, a good beer, well, is really enjoyable (in moderation, of course).  If S.28 passes, not only will there be a greater variety of good beers to choose from, but Vermonter’s will have the chance to add their own uniquely great concoctions into the landscape.  And we’ll finally be able to buy the Brooklyn Brewing Co’s “Local 1″ that friends are starting to get sick of hearing me mention.  If you enjoy beer, now is a great opportunity to contact your local Senator and tell them just how much more you’d enjoy beer if the State would lift the cap (so to speak) on alcohol percent.

Per the Rutland Herald:

The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant another green light Monday in their quest to keep the 1972 reactor operating for another 20 years.

But at the same time, the staff outlined 51 conditions that Entergy Nuclear must meet before 2012, when its current license expires.

Most of the special conditions or “commitments” deal with the aging of key metal components in the plant and how Entergy proposes to manage them. According to a summary released by the NRC late Monday, Entergy has already agreed to the conditions.

This is so not what I wanted to wake up to today.

I can't remember the last time our votes in Vermont were going to make a difference in the nomination battle, but that's where things stand this year and both presidential candidates have active campaigns in the state, so I invited both campaigns to join us at the Washington County Committee meeting tonight. I have to say it was a great discussion, even though we didn't give either campaign too much advance notice or preparation.

Actually, I'd invited Emily Polak, the Washington, Orange, and Caledonia County organizer for the Obama campaign, to join us a couple of weeks ago, back before I knew Clinton had staff people here; when I found that out last week I invited them.

Both sides were good enough to come. Emily, a young recent college graduate, was here for the Obama campaign, but she had to speak second, because the Clinton campaign was represented by Madeleine Kunin. Yes, that Madeleine Kunin, the first woman Governor of Vermont, former Deputy Secretary of Education, and former Ambassador to Switzerland.

 In other words, tough act to follow.

I thought this was great. Madeleine is a treasure, and people accorded her the respect she has earned. Her presentation was gracious, substantive, and informed by her personal knowledge of and relationship with both Clintons.

Then I invited Emily to speak, and she was great. Her presentation was also substantive; it was personal, informed by her perspective as a 25-year-old woman working at the job she's loved more than anything she's ever done, and infused with the enthusiasm that has infected young Obama supporters across the country. She definitely held her own following the Gov.  When she got done, Madeleine told her that she should run for office.

 I think people came away from the meeting feeling good about our choice this year, and about the future of the party. We heard from two smart, strong women, one of whom came from the years when our party was building, and one of whom represents our future.

 There's only a week left, so get involved:

Clinton campaign:

Steve Anderson

sanderson@hillaryclinton.com

(202)841-2237 

 Obama campaign:

 epolak@barackobama.com

rhill@barackobama.com 

(This is a variation on a diary I posted at Daily Kos recently…)

We’re making some jokes about it over at a diary of BP’s… but all joking aside, when, where and for what office will readers of this blog be stepping up to the plate to put all the words and ideas we so readily toss around electronically into action?

I remember when the question was first called for me. I was managing a road canvass for the Oregon League of Conservation Voters and was having an impromptu “turf meeting” in at a pizza place in Eugene with a canvass Field Manager for the fledgling Forest Conservation Council (I think – memories fuzzy….40 now, I tellya…). My friend was telling me that he was, for a second time, filing to run for a local state legislative seat. He had previously lost badly, but t didn’t seem to phase him. “I always encourage everybody to run for office,” he told me. “Even if you’re not likely to win, it gives you a great platform to get people talking about issues.”

His words have echoed around in my brain since.

Nowadays I’m older, and if not wiser, maybe a bit crustier. As such, I take the potential “spoiler” effect on other candidates more seriously than I did then, so I wouldn’t necessarily consider his advice to be axiomatic, but that’s not to say that it didn’t still hold a lot of wisdom.

But this is the era of “crashing the gate,” where regular folk are empowering themselves through the internet – either through blogging or even more simple forms of communication – all towards the singular purpose of shaking up our preconceptions of political classes and institutional absolutes. Now, when we don’t like the way public policy or institutional power is shaking out, we challenge it – both in the blogs and on the ground. Nowadays, if someone in power sneers at an activist “we’re doing all we can, now sit down and shut up,” the activist – from time to time – has the resources and the savvy to step and say “I don’t think so – move over.”

But when is the time right? And now that new blood is starting to become infused into the old body politic, is it enough to do as my friend said and simply run to amplify your voice? Is it important, now that it’s more possible to win, to try and make sure you actually do?

It’s a tough question. One I’ve always deferred because of my own shortcomings as electoral product. Still – there’s a nagging sense of responsibility in play as well. I started Green Mountain Daily because the Vermont Democratic Party, state Legislature and political culture needed the netroots revolution to arrive in the state, as we were falling behind, and the local political institutions were getting pretty crusty themselves. When nobody was even making a peep towards doing it, I stepped up to fill the vacuum. It hasn’t always been fun (NOTE: I just noticed how this reads – I’m speaking very specifically here about the the community blog scoop/soapblox, “Daily Kos” style, netroots organizing and incubating space – not blogs in general. Obviously there were already great blogs on the scene in Vermont before GMD came along. If anything, GMD was a bit of a latecomer to the party…sorry….don’t hit me Philip, JD, Jack, etc…).

So with all the nagging, cajoling and harassing I do of the political class and the state government, when does honor demand that I either find someone to step up to the plate, or – if none are available – when do I have to put up or shut up myself?

And what about all of you reading this?

For my part, I am very close to a decision to run this year for the Democratic National Committee at the Party convention. Not sure yet, and I haven’t spoken yet to the current holder of that position, since I’m not sure – but it seems like an obvious choice for somebody like me. Complain about the National Dem Party, why not be that National Dem Party – at least to the extent a single person can. If I decide to go for it, I’ll fully post my thinking.

So – who else is thinking about stepping up to the plate?

Lt.Gov. ?

I know it supposed to be early according to  conventional wisdom. Pretty soon it won’t be early anymore .

 

Rasmussen has a Vermont poll, and the numbers are even with the ARG poll: Obama 57%, Clinton 33%. It’s not a question of who’s gonna take the state anymore (if it ever was), its a question of delegate allocation and just how many of our state’s handful Obama can capture. We’ll try to have an estimate on that after the returns are in next week.

Ken Picard is generally a solid reporter, but not last week as he did a bit of a smear job on Sen John Campbell (D-Windsor) in 7 Days. Apparently on weeks like this where there isn’t something hot and heavy happening, he falls into the trap of…shall we say…creative overstatement. His report in last week’s Seven Days is entitled “New Law to Boost Coverage for State Workers Raises Ethical Questions” but should be entitled New Law to Boost Coverage for State Workers Gets 7 Days Reporter to Attempt to Raise Ethical Questions, as he tries to argue that a bill being pushed by Campbell is not the worker-friendly bill it seems, as it will benefit lawyers like Campbell by raising uninsured motorist coverage limits to “$5 million for a state employee injured or killed on the job” from the current $250,000. Campbell is currently representing such a client and feels that the family in question is poorly served by the current cap of $250,000. Picard makes the point that the increase would also be an increase in payout for the lawyers (like Campbell) representing these clients.

Thing is, the bill wouldn’t apply to the current case, so Campbell stands to gain a big fat nothing. From his perspective, it was simply a matter of his seeing the problem through his own professional experience, and attempting a legislative remedy. And Picard apparently knows that, as he states in the article:

“its provisions are not retroactive and would not take effect until the following calendar year…. several Vermont lawyers and legal experts consulted for this story say that as long as Campbell’s bill isn’t made retroactive, it shouldn’t raise any red flags.”

So whats the problem? Nothing. And Picard apparently couldn’t even find anyone he could quote for the article that claimed there was. Nevertheless, the stated thesis of the article,  “Should lawmakers be allowed to propose legislation that, directly or otherwise, may benefit them personally?” – is a point he is inappropriately and irresponsibly making at Campbell’s expense, just to make it edgier. Come on, Ken. You know better.

Rep. Tom Koch (R-Barre Town), Concern Troll. Koch is very concerned that Democrats may use ineffective campaign messaging against his candidate, Senator John McCain. In yesterday’s Times Argus, he writes:

If you think that linking McCain to Bush is a good campaign strategy, you are mistaken. McCain is his own man – an independent thinker who works with hard facts and solid principles, who will always tell you the truth whether you want to hear it or not, and whose very being is summed up in one word: integrity. This year, it is John McCain, not George Bush, who is running for president.

Heh. Hit a nerve, there I guess. Thanks Tom. We’ll all take that into consideration. We know you’re just trying to…ah…. help.

Gratuitous old friend promotion. Talented friends that go all the way back to my teenaged Kentucky days. This one’s a musician (with her husband). Definitely give her a listen. This one’s an artist. She has some really beautiful stuff. Check ’em both out.

( – promoted by odum)

The Vermont Democrats announced today that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) will headline this year’s David W. Curtis Awards on April 25th at the Hilton in Burlington. The annual fundraising event is Vermont Democrats’ premier event and the biggest fundraiser of the year.

Quick, name three things you know about Chris Dodd! Well, you probably know he’s a Senator for Connecticut. You probably know he was a recent presidential candidate; and you may even know he was widely supported by the firefighter’s unions during that contest. All of the above are widely reported and were fairly recently in the news.

Here are three cool things about Dodd that maybe you didn’t know:

1) He helped secure passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act ensuring that working families don’t have to choose between their job and their family (he’s now working to try to encourage that time off be paid time-off according to his Senate website) – as my wife and I recently had a baby I can attest to the importance of this federal protection;

2) He helped establish the “pay as you go” rules back in 1983 which ensured that any programs requiring budget increases enacted were disciplined by accompanying tax increases or budget cuts. It was this kind of fiscal discipline that enabled the Democrats and Bill Clinton to finally balance the federal budget, and later to begin an unprecedented era of budget surpluses (until the Bush Administration took a wrecking ball to their handiwork), and sound fiscal management. His work on this has helped to ensure that Democrats are now more trusted to handle economic matters than Republicans; and

3) He served his Peace Corps stint in the Dominican Republic in Moncion, a tiny hamlet in the northwest part of the country. I traveled extensively in the D.R., living there between 1998 and 2000 and teaching 5th grade in Santo Domingo. But, I also lived in Santiago for awhile (the second largest city in the heart of the country), and traveled to that area up near Monte Cristi and Dajabon (the northwest crossing into Haiti). It’s a fantastic, rugged country. Most folks associate it with the fine beaches, but I associate it more with the interior: miles of friendly people, rugged mountains (the highest peak in the Caribbean, Pico Duarte – Just over 7,000 feet and named for the father of the country), and backpacking everywhere. It’s a wonderful travel destination if you enjoy getting off the beaten path.

You can find out more about Sen. Dodd at his Senate website: http://dodd.senate.gov/

Should be a great night for Vermont Democrats. My dad would be delighted.

** UPDATE: MSNBC reports that Dodd is set to endorse Sen. Barack Obama at a news conference in Cleveland, Ohio later today. Here’s the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23…

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Some critics of Sen. Barack Obama are suggesting he may not be patriotic enough to be president. Specifically, some Republicans are criticizing his failure to wear an American flag pin on his lapel, and a reported failure (once) to cover his heart during the singing of the national anthem as indicative of a lack of sufficient patriotism on his part. Rather than actually questioning Sen. Obama’s patriotism, this is actually an old story that some are trying to resurrect to blunt Obama’s momentum as he speeds to the nomination and the Republicans attempt to find something (anything!) to try to define him.

Is it true? Is our likely standard-bearer a “Freedom Hater”?! A “USA, U-S-A” chant breaker?! A flag burning defeatist?

Not even close. Obama’s own explanation is more eloquent than anything I can post. His words speak for themselves:

“I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that’s what we have to lead with, our values and ideals.”

The truth is that millions of Americans go to work and school every day and don’t sport a flag pin on their lapel. Some do, for sure, and bully for them. I wager that most do not turn around and accuse their non-flag wearing friends and neighbors of being unpatriotic. The point is that patriotism is not measured by flair.

Ah, but they are not running for president, the critics might say. In this dangerous, post-9/11 world our leaders must literally wear their patriotism on their sleeve, they might say. Really? Did Abe Lincoln wear a flag pin throughout the Civil War? Umm, no. Does that make him any less of a patriot? I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of the man who saved the Union. What about Franklin D. Roosevelt, another wartime president? Did he wear a flag on his lapel? Nope. Sheesh, didn’t he worry that people would think he was an aryan sympathizer? Or, a Stalinist? Not likely. The simple truth is that those were serious men whose commitment to country was unquestioned because of what they said and what they did. Flag as fashion accessory was not a prerequisite for those times.

So what’s changed?

The first is that after 9/11 jingoism came back with a vengeance. Republicans quickly figured out that patriotism could be exploited to pass a foreign and domestic agenda that benefited the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. If you questioned the policy, you were quickly labeled “unpatriotic” in the name of 9/11. Fear ruled and people got in line. Politically, it was a master stroke. But is political manoeuvering “patriotic”? It depends. If the manoeuvers are used to benefit the vast majority, call for shared sacrifice (and actually do so), and/or are legitimately financing a military effort, then arguably yes. But, simply exploiting a catastrophe or tragedy for purely political gain – that is to pick up congressional seats, or secure a presidency, or to pass an agenda that has no clear benefit for most Americans or saddles future generations with debt – is not patriotic political expression.

Second, there is a great deal of frustration and anger that Americans were paid lip service by President Bush but were never called to serve, or sacrifice after 9/11. So, the frustration and anger of many Americans who see the flag (either on car bumpers, or on lapels) as indicative of patriotism is justified, but misdirected when levied at others who have not brandished the symbol. The frustration is shared and should be directed at the one responsible for failing to bring Americans together: George W. Bush.

After 9/11 many (most?) Americans truly wanted to come together in a show of unity. Many wished to share the burden and sacrifice of giving something back to the American community. But there was no call for sacrifice. Rather than instituting a national call for service (either civil or military, or both (note: Bush did call for national service… remember FreedomCorps?! But he has since largely abandoned any real effort to make service a priority)), or calling for taxation to fight our foes abroad, or planting victory gardens to increase food production while reducing transportation costs of food, or calling for massive recycling drives – all of which we were called to do during wartime(s) in the past, our President instead called on us to “go shopping.” Frustrating, indeed.

So, Americans being independent and enterprising took it upon themselves to show support. In many cases they did volunteer their time and/or open up their wallets for a variety of causes. Many enlisted in the armed services. And, many took it upon themselves to make a statement by either wearing or displaying an American flag symbol. Some did both. Some did one or the other. In almost all cases, however the display of the flag as patriotic symbol was a personal statement, but not a measuring stick by which to demean other Americans who chose to act with patriotism rather than simply display it.

So, is patriotic display absent patriotic action more valuable than patriotic action absent patriotic display? I think clearly the answer is no. Anyone who goes into public service -whether civil or military is engaging in a patriotic act. After all, the sweat of your labor is going into the support and maintenance of the very institutions on which this great nation are founded. However, it is not required to wear a flag to prove you’re committed to your cause.

Unfortunately, the display of a flag on the lapel of many politicians seems somehow less an act of patriotism than it is a sword or shield to distinguish oneself to voters. I wear a flag; message to voter: I am not weak on terrorism. The inference, of course, then is that if you do not wear a flag then you are weak on terrorism. This seems to be the root of criticism leveled at Obama.

In any case, Sen. Obama’s actions are the very definition of patriotism: community organizing in low-income neighborhoods in Chicago; service in the Illinois General Assembly; service in the U.S. Senate; a presidential campaign premised on the twin messages of hope and change all wrapped up in the confident, optimistic slogan: “Yes, we can.” This is perhaps the most patriotic campaign effort since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” campaign.

If Barack Obama can finally break through the cheap rhetoric of those who call unlabeled Americans “unpatriotic” and demonstrate that words and deeds signal more than simple pageantry, he would be rendering our nation a great service. We are traditionally a great and humble people. Patriotism is not a commodity, nor is it a monopoly owned by a political party. The very suggestion is unpatriotic.

Perhaps through this criticism (and his defense of it) Sen. Obama will reestablish that patriotism is an idea… a sentiment… a feeling; it is worn in the soul, not on the sleeve. That would make this patriot proud indeed.

** This is cross-posted with links to sources at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

Last week, the Legislature got hit hard by the education lobby to repeal Act 82.  Republicans joined Democrats and Progressives to repeal it.  Wisely, Speaker Symington saw the political fallout that would come from her caucus members flip-flopping and took it off the floor.  But it seems she thinks that House Ed. will come up with a good alternative.  I have my doubts, because both “cost containment grants” and “excess spending penalties” have serious problems.

So what was the education lobby hitting legislators hard with?  Federal mandates.

Federal mandates in education exist to an extent, but they’re overstated, and they’re not that big a cost driver.  I’ll give an example.  NCLB hardly affects 9-12 senior high schools at all.  And yet Spaulding H.S. spent 27 percent more in the five years after NCLB was passed.  My own high school spent 33 percent more.  These were typical experiences for 9-12 senior high schools.

School administrators get a lot of mileage out of excuses like federal mandates.