There’s a headline from today’s Rutland Herald which reads “Vermont’s bird population has increased by 17 new species, new survey shows.”

This sounds like a good thing, but when you read the article itself, the prognosis isn’t so good.  Some choice excerpts:

A new survey of Vermont’s bird populations shows that the state has breeding populations of 17 more species than it did in the late 1970s, but it also raises concern about the future of some species.

• The eastern meadowlark was spotted in half as many places in Vermont as it was 30 years ago.
• The common nighthawk has all but disappeared.
• Breeding pairs of four kinds of northern warblers weren’t found anywhere. Vermont’s first breeding bird survey helped establish the state’s list of threatened and endangered birds, according to ornithologist Sally Laughlin, of Cambridge, director of the first atlas and a member of the state Endangered Species Committee.

After the loon, peregrine and osprey were put on the list, the state developed programs to protect them to the point where all three now have healthy breeding populations.

These are major issues.  When bird populations decline dramatically, it’s generally a sign of major environmental changes.  When the Rusty Blackbird declines by 98% (see the photo: I couldn’t find this bird in Vermont; I had to go to New Mexico to get a photo of one), it’s a sign that things are changing.  

So, yes, we have more breeding species in Vermont.  These include the Tufted Titmouse and Northern Cardinal, both of which used to be uncommon in the Northeast.  They’re beautiful birds, and I’m glad I have the chance to view them, but it scares me that they climate here has changed to the point where birds that used to live a bit further south have become so prevalent in Vermont.

( – promoted by odum)

Amid our national primary obsession, and more pressing issues closer to home, this little statehouse accomplishment might easily be missed: the House last Friday passed a bill (which the Senate passed back in March) approving Vermont’s participation in a national grassroots effort to sideline the Electoral College.

If you aren’t already familiar with this effort, it stems from the Constitutional provision that each state gets to assign its electors as it sees fit.  Therefore, if we want to give them to the popular vote winner, we can; this initiative is to get enough states — ie, representing a majority in the EC — to agree to do this, with the contingency that it won’t go into effect until that critical threshold is reached.

At this point, IL, MD, and NJ have already signed on (which means we’re already 1/6 of the way to the goal) and Vermont could become state #4… if Douglas is willing to sign it.  Does anybody have any word on whether he’s likely to?  Or what would influence him — and what do you think the partisan effects of this might be?  After all, we may very well be seeing this experiment tried out as early as 2012…

Just to highlight one (less-mentioned) positive aspect of a popular vote: right now, states with the lowest registration rates and turnout have a disproportionate power.  As the 2004 data shows, Vermont has a higher turnout than the national average… in fact, we’re ranked #12!

My starting point regards Obama and his presidential bid has always been one of general support even though I’ve always known he would insist on doing some things that would make my head explode. But this whole Rev. Wright episode is changing me from a “leaning towards” to a “leaning away from”.

I’m not upset that Obama is trying to distance himself from Wright. Obama is not, cannot be and has never pretended to be the candidate of one Chicago church. His meme/theme has always been that of uniter, one America, etc; and when a fiery preacher steps forward with statements that cause public consternation it is Obama’s duty in many respects to calm angst that may be created regarding Obama’s agenda.

It’s not about pandering. It’s about being a national level politician and the responsibilities that entails.

I am upset, however, that in his quest to be the great uniter of all things Republican and Democratic Obama is losing touch with reality.

I’ve heard Wright mimic some well know white politicians manner of speech (Kennedy specifically) as illustration of the gross unfairness of criticizing black colloquial manner of talking. I’ve heard Wright address the possibility that our federal government would purposely introduce horrible, debilitating diseases into different populations (think Tuskagee, think marching unprepared military through radioactive fields for testing purposes).

And Obama seems so intent on his own message of coming together that he rejects the reality of Wright’s statements along with Wright himself. It appears to me Obama is losing touch with reality, and that cannot bode well for his future actions or decision making.

In South Africa when apartheid ended, the new government instituted a commission that was meant to put the past to rest and open up the future. They didn’t do this by pretending nothing bad had happened (ala Ford with Nixon, Clinton with H.W. Bush, W. Bush with everybody), but instead they insisted on a full accounting for individual actions before anybody, black or white, could carry on without worry of formal retribution.

In other words forgiveness only came with public confession and acknowledgment.

Obama seems to be trying to skip the accountability part of moving ahead. He seems to want to pretend that nothing bad was done by anybody. He wants to walk away from acknowledging unpleasant truths such as our government’s propensity for abusing various segments of the US population.

And that is why I’m starting to lean away from Obama.

Yes, I don’t like his stance vis-a-vis Iraq and other things, but I was willing to overlook a lot of negatives. I thought he might represent real change once in office. I am beginning to doubt that very much.

If you're a regular listener of “Democracy Now” you'll want to be in downtown Barre Saturday. 

WGDR event to feature 'Democracy Now!' host

April 30, 2008

By Mel Huff Times Argus Staff

<!– PHOTOS AND EXTRAS –><!– END EXTRAS –> PLAINFIELD – WGDR-91.1 FM was the first radio station in Vermont to run “Democracy Now!” the hour-long daily news program that the station's general manager, Greg Hooker, calls the station's “flagship.”

On Saturday, Amy Goodman, the host of “Democracy Now!” and her brother David Goodman, the co-author of three of her books, are coming to Barre to celebrate the station's 35th anniversary and promote their latest book. “Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times” was released on April 8.

 It's ten bucks to get into the speech at the Labor Hall at 6:30, and worth every penny. I've listened to Amy Goodman on the radio, read their books, and posted about David Goodman when he spoke at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library. If you're reading this that proves you care about getting more of the story than you'll hear from the MSM, so you should be there Saturday night.

You may not have heard much about it, but there is an industrial hemp bill pending in the Legislature. The bill is H. 267, and it passed the House by a large (veto-proof) margin. It's getting a lot of support from Rural Vermont. . Stll, it seems like a bill that should pass on the merits.

 It's now stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it's hard to picture it can get out in the few days they have left. Stil, I've spent enough time in the building to know that if there is the will to do something, it can happen very fast, especially at the end of the session.

HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO GET THIS BILL MOVING:
Please make TWO PHONE CALLS today. Please call the chair and vice-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee – Senators Dick Sears and John Campbell. Call them at 802-828-2228. Leave a message for each of them with your name and phone number and also a message that says 'please pass H.267.' Please call on Tuesday if you can, and Wednesday morning at the latest. Please DO NOT email these senators. Phone calls are most effective.

I think that most of us around here think that this bill should pass, so maybe we should do something about it. 

When the Rockefeller Foundation announced its $500,000 grant to B-Lab this winter, it described the start-up as “one of the newest social capital market infrastructure innovations.” (Rockefeller is now pursuing this idea further by exploring the viability of a “social stock exchange.”) The ultimate intent of launching an entire sector of B Corps, according to Kassoy, is to create transparent standards for good business and a changed legal environment which will allow investors, entrepreneurs and consumers to find each other, thus improving the scale and efficiency of the social capital markets. Among other things, this will require a strong B Corporation brand.

This from an article about B-lab (B for Beneficial) .A non-profit organization that will grant businesses a B rating for companies  that meet extensive standards for their environmental and social performance, scoring at least 80 out of 200 on the B-ratings scale. The article goes on to explain that this is not just greenwashing and that  B-rated companies must also expand their legal and fiduciary responsibilities beyond the interests of traditional shareholders to include a broader universe of “stakeholders” – employees, suppliers, consumers, community and environment.Social capital market infrastructure reads like a good fit with the new hot out of the oven L3C’s .  

B-Lab, a nonprofit organization based in Berwyn, Pa. that certifies individual B Corps and advances their collective potential as a meta-brand for socially minded consumers and investors. To become a B Corp – the “b” is for beneficial – companies must meet extensive standards for their environmental and social performance, scoring at least 80 out of 200 on the B-ratings scale.

http://www.citylimits.org/cont…