Daily Archives: April 22, 2008

ENVY Cleanup bill needs support (UPDATE: Bill passed)

( – promoted by odum)

(UPDATE: After much heated debate, the House passed the bill.  -odum)

When Entergy Nuclear bought the Vermont Yankee reactor, they also got about $300 million in a fund collected from Vt electric ratepayers for the eventual cleanup of the Vernon site.

The total cleanup cost is estimated by Entergy at twice the amount now in the cleanup fund. (The final costs will probably be three times the current balance, when tritium contamination is included.)

The Senate, and the House Commerce Committee, have passed a bill requiring Entergy to pay up the fund before spinning off ENVY to a new “limited liability corporation”.

THIS BILL NEEDS YOUR HELP TO PASS.

S.373

AN ACT RELATING TO FULL FUNDING OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS OF A NUCLEAR PLANT

We need calls to state representatives today and tomorrow!

Don’t know what to say? Here are some suggestions:

Tell them you want them to pass the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Bill, S.373.

Tell them you want Entergy Nuclear to guarantee the full cleanup amount.

Tell them you don’t want the state of Vermont or electric ratepayers to be burdened with the costs of cleaning up a risky, old, costly reactor.

Then get your friends to call their representatives!

TWO WAYS TO CALL

1. Call the Sergeant-at-Arms in the State House to leave a message for your Rep. “VOTE YES FOR ENTERGY CLEANUP FUNDING, S.373.”

802-828-2228 Sgt at Arms

2. Vermont Legislative Directory – http://www.leg.state.vt.us/leg…

to find your representatives’ phone number.

Doyle Survey: Vermonters are pro hemp, pro equal marriage, and pro Douglas?

(Hmm…. very interesting, eh? – promoted by Christian Avard)

13,500 returns from 162 towns and cities

Senator Bill Doyle's Town Meeting Day Survey – March 2008

                                                                                                                                                      Yes%         No%       Not Sure

1) SHOULD DRIVERS BE PROHIBITED FROM USING CELL PHONES

1

71

21

8

WHILE DRIVING?

 

 

 

 

2) DO YOU SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE?

2

54

40

6

3) SHOULD VT TAKE THE LEAD IN ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE?

3

64

24

12

4) SHOULD VERMONT LEASE ITS LOTTERY?

4

6

74

20

5) ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT VERMONT’S ECONOMY?

5

33

44

23

6) DO YOU SUPPORT THE LEGALIZATION OF HEMP?

6

56

32

12

7) SHOULD JAIL TIME BE REMOVED FOR THE POSSESSION OF ONE

7

66

26

8

OUNCE OF MARIJUANA?

 

 

 

 

8) DO YOU SUPPORT A 4-YEAR TERM FOR GOVERNOR?

8

62

30

8

9) DO YOU SUPPORT A 4-YEAR TERM FOR LEGISLATORS?

9

43

48

9

10) SHOULD VERMONT YANKEE’S LICENSE BE RENEWED IN 2012?

10

42

31

27

11) SHOULD THE GAS TAX BE INCREASED TO IMPROVE OUR ROADS

11

37

51

12

AND BRIDGES?

 

 

 

 

12) DO YOU BELIEVE THE VT LEGISLATURE IS DOING A GOOD JOB?

12

40

34

26

13) DO YOU BELIEVE GOVERNOR DOUGLAS IS DOING A GOOD JOB?

13

42

39

19

14) CONSIDER EXPRESSING YOUR PREFERENCE FOR THE 2008

14

 

 

 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:

 

 

 

 

2,658 HILLARY CLINTON 274 MIKE HUCKABEE

5,383 BARACK OBAMA 2,172 JOHN McCAIN

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, we're all familiar with the ins and outs of the Doyle poll but, still, it's always interesting. 

 Interesting that people are generally pessimistic (44%) about the economy, but are happy with Douglas (42% vs 39%, anyway). 

Also interesting that Vermonters support hemp production, the decriminalization of marijuana under one ounce, taking the lead on global warming AND the relicensing of VY.  (Not that they're necessarily related, just that you wouldn't think it would shake out that way.

 

Bernie on Colbert Report last night

According to Colbert, he’s got “huevos rancheros”. Colbert was quite funny, going on about “dribble-down” economics and “the market will take care of poverty”. Bernie was… Bernie. All in all, it was a great forum for Bernie to get his message out there.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the embed to work, but you can watch it here.

UPDATE: kestrel has it working, it’s in the comments.

Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection releases report

Yesterday, the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection (really?  That’s it’s name?  I testified before it and didn’t even realize that that was it’s name) released its final report yesterday.  As was known all along, the commission was never intended to provide a recommendation of any sort.

The basic summary of the  report doesn’t provide any information that isn’t obvious to anyone who’s not an idiot or blinded by bigotry, but I’ll summarize just in case.  Per The Rutland Herald:

Although it didn’t make a specific recommendation on same-sex marriage, the report suggests that lawmakers look closely at some other relating issues, including Massachusetts’ experience since legalizing same-sex marriage, easing the state income tax system for gay and lesbian couples, the impact of raising children by same-sex couples, and what to do with those who have civil unions if the state moved toward full marriage rights.

“The commission recommends that Vermont take seriously the differences between civil marriage and civil union in terms of their practical and legal consequences for Vermont’s civil union couples and their families,” the report concludes. “Their testimony and the testimony of their friends and supporters was sincere, direct, impassioned and compelling. Act 91 represents Vermont’s commitment to the constitutional equality and fairness for these citizens and Vermont should preserve and protect that commitment.”

And to me, this is the relevant thing.  I don’t care about the commission’s recommendations or lack thereof.  I do care about the testimony.  What I saw of it (and live blogged about at the time) was, quite frankly, astonishing.  It wasn’t just that people talked about same sex marriage, but they talked about it without getting booed or catcalled.  They talked about events in their lives honestly and openly and the stories were incredible (the report itself is quite long (35 pages) and only contains excerpts from the testimony, but can be downloaded here.)

I will, however, present an interesting contrast.  From the testimony of Linda Maloney, an Episcopal Priest:

It goes without saying that the laws of the state should not be dictated by the principles of any one religion. State laws are for the good order of the state and the benefit of its citizens, and must not favor one group over another. So I think it is not valid to argue that marriage should be only between a man and woman because the Bible or other religious tradition says it must be so.

From the testimony of Rose Lepeltier:

I realize that a union between two consenting males or two consenting females does not at first view seem abusive or harmful as some other forms of sexual behavior which are legally prosecuted, but for our government to officially and legally open the door to accept and promote a behavior that goes against God’s warnings is clearly to invite distress in days to come.

From Donald and Lynette Cutting:

We are Biblically opposed to homosexual marriage and civil unions, not because we hate homosexuals but because we do hate the sin they are in, because God does. What they are doing is in complete opposition to God’s moral laws as stated in the Bible in many places. It also erodes the country, as families fall apart and there is more crime and heartbreak, kids committing suicide, using drugs, having sex and babies out of wedlock – all because we are not following God’s moral laws.

And really, this is what it’s all about: people want their government to enforce their religious beliefs.  

I think it’s time we stop catering to this increasingly small minority and just say you know, there’s no valid reason to oppose same-sex marriage, and there’s no reason to subject the constitution to the whims of those who think its role is to support their beliefs to the detriment of all others.