Hey, our unemployment rate just went down!  Go Vermont!

Except…

…according to the Brattleboro Reformer, since Vermont’s unemployment rate fell below 6%, we’re no longer entitled to federally subsidized Tier 3 benefits.

What does this mean?

Actually, I’m not entirely certain because despite my fairly high degree of literacy and post-graduate education, I can’t fully decipher the explanation on the department of labor’s web site.

I think what it means is that Tiers 4 & 3 are now closed to unemployed workers, meaning that we’re left with tiers 1 & 2, which I think are still available to us (though the web site doesn’t actually make that entirely clear).

What I do know is that regular state extended benefits are not currently available, leaving us to rely entirely on the federal tiers.

The 6% rate I referenced above?  That’s not an increase in net employment.  It’s based on people who are looking for work.  If you are no longer eligible for unemployment and no longer looking for work because you have simply given up, you are no longer unemployed.

So when people fall off of unemployment and end up going on food stamps because they don’t have any other options left?  That actually makes our unemployment numbers go down, and triggers a loss of benefit in the process.  In other words, the poor, already screwed, just got screwed a bit more.  

Yay us?

There’s a fairly subtle line between ignorance and hatred that can be difficult to discern from time to time.  If, for example, a barber refuses to cut the hair of a black man…

I am a black physician looking for a change of scenery after 30 years of working in a major U.S. city.

While visiting other medical practitioners in Bellows Falls, I thought I would have a haircut. I walked into a local barbershop.

Two gentlemen were playing cards inside. I asked them if the barber was in and one of the men said the barber was not. So I returned an hour later and the same person who said that the barber was not in was cutting a Caucasian patron’s hair.

I am very pleased to know that I would not want to work or live in Bellows Falls with the above behavior of your local businesses.

Darryl Fisher, MD,

Silver City, N.M

…may not be hateful of blacks, but that doesn’t mean this incident (which has been confirmed by the barber) was handled well or with any grace or tact.  We had a demonstration in Bellows Falls on Saturday to process this incident, possibly respond to it and address it.  It was fascinating, frustrating, and challenging, and I’m not sure if there are good ways for me to describe this well, but I will do my best to try.

So the focus was not on the barber himself.  Most of us seemed to be working under the assumption that he was just someone who did an extremely poor job of handling a situation which was unfamiliar to him.  Not all barbers know how to cut all hair types and if he’d simply said “I’m sorry– I don’t know how to cut your hair,” this would have probably never become an issue.

But it did, and now we’ve got African Americans getting the impression of Vermont as being racist, and we’ve got townspeople in Bellows Falls feeling like they’re unfairly being associated with an incident which, regardless of intent, comes across as racist.

When I said above that the focus wasn’t on the barber, I meant that, and it was a little easier to keep the focus off the barber himself, before I read that he…:

…seems angry that Fisher spoke out about what happened.

“What does he have to go stirring this up for?” he said, adding that he believes black people are more racist than white people.

[…]

He said he’s not worried about the negative publicity affecting his business. A few customers mentioned the letter in the paper, he said, but they tended to bring it up as if it was “a big joke.”

So.

Uhm.

Okay.  The point still isn’t about the barber, but dude?  Seriously?  You’re not helping.  

[sigh]

Anyway, back to the point.

This is hard to address, and it came out easily how hard this is to address based on the conversations that took place during and after the small rally.  Several of us talked about the complexity of prejudice and how much of it there is across multiple levels.  Someone pointed out that there seems to be a lot more prejudice against gays in Bellows Falls than blacks.  Someone else mentioned the dangers of oppression olympics in which you try to figure out who has it worse.  I just suggested that that’s probably because there’s a lot more of us who are visibly queer than visibly non-white, so it’s easy to see homophobic actions directed at people in the town.

But here’s the thing: I’ve seen racist incidents in Bellows Falls in the past.  At one business, I heard one (white) employee making a joke to an African American co-worker (who didn’t respond but looked visibly uncomfortable) about watermelon and fried chicken.   It is not uncommon at all for me to hear people use the phrase “Jew ’em down.”  I routinely see homophobic comments being made by teenagers.  

Vermont’s a strange place.  People from outside the area think we’re super liberal.  About some things, we are, but there are plenty of people here who are afraid of people who are not like them, whether it be non-whites, transsexuals or the homeless.  It’s not something we like to talk about, but in the past, we’ve even seen anti-gay incidents even in Burlington.

Vermont’s unusual, but it’s not immune from these issues.  Before I read the barber’s additional comments, I was willing to attribute the incident to simple ignorance.  I can’t do that now, and maybe it’s for the best that I can’t so easily escape the fact that my area, just like any area, has racist elements to it.  Vermont elected Obama by the highest percentage of any state in the union (though DC beat us by a fairly large margin) but that doesn’t mean we’re post racial.

What this incident and its follow-up tell me is not that there was a single incident in Southeastern Vermont with racial overtones, but that there’s a large enough population supporting a local business’s inartful handling of someone from a different ethnic group to give its owner the impression that the proper response is to be more overtly racist.  

This, for me, just went from being a matter of concern to a serious problem.

Per the Brattleboro Reformer’s Josh Stilts:

The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant was shutdown Sunday night after a small leak of radioactive water was discovered in the system pipe section in the turbine building.

At about 7 p.m., the plant ceased operation. An investigation by plant technicians and engineers identified a leak of approximately 60 drops-per-minute from a pipe in the feedwater system piping.

I wonder how much power we get from a plant that shuts down so often.

So the election was an interesting diversion, and I don’t want to diminish the importance of it but we still have a lot of the same players at hand, even if the board is in flux.

I was going to take a break for the rest of the week, but, oh well.  Here goes:

It was no real surprised today when I saw a headline which read VY plant’s closure likely to affect grid.

Well, sure.  Any time you remove or add a power source, it will affect the power grid.  The article notes that:

The computer simulated assessment from the Independent System Operator (ISO) New England reports Vermont and New York could face overloads — defined as more electricity flowing through the system’s equipment than it can handle, which could lead to the lines heating up, sagging, possibly melting and eventually shutting down — in the system if the nuclear facility goes out of service once its license expires in roughly 17 months.

That sounds like a problem.  It’s not irrelevant, but it’s not exactly unexpected.  The article itself, somewhat down the page a bit also notes that:

Chris Dutton, CEO of Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. (VELCO), said problems within the state would likely revolve around low voltage issues — such problems are likely resolvable with minor equipment modifications in different substations.

[…]

However, simulated findings showed potential deficiencies were expected to rise under certain conditions in 2018 absent improvements to the grid, which were similar with or without Yankee in operation.

In other words, these are issues we need to resolve regardless of whether or not the plant continues operation.

And these modifications that need to be made?  Did anyone involved in the state’s electric grid start planning to make these modifications once it was, you know, enacted in law that Vermont Yankee would not be relicensed?

I originally wrote this for Daily Kos, intended for a non-Vermont audience, so there’s a lot in here I’ve written about before, but it’s all worth saying again.

This piece stems from a comment that set me on edge this morning– I talked about Vermont maintaining its Democratic control of both houses and regaining control of the Governor’s office and was told that Vermont was lucky.  Here’s what I wrote:

Not Lucky.

We worked our assess off for this on multiple levels.  This was one of the most engaged and active races we’ve seen here since Dean’s last election to Governor here.

Elections aren’t about luck.  They’re about extremely difficult, scrappy work and careful planning.  We have tea party groups here, but they don’t have power, not because we are more left wing than the rest of the country (we are not) but because our left wing is extremely active, engaged and inspired.  

The original commenter apologized for the comment, which I respect.  This piece isn’t about that or meant as a rebuke.  It just got me thinking and I feel as though the broader issue of what it takes to build movements and foster change is worth discussing.

Political change doesn’t generally come from luck.  It comes from years, sometimes decades, of work.  Nor does this work guarantee victory.  It just makes you more likely to win.   A lot of people all over the country worked ridiculously hard in this election and lost, big time.  It’s brutal, painful and can just wreck your day, if not your whole damned year.  I once worked on a union drive for two years, that our opposition managed to dismantle with $30,000 of taxpayer money and two months.  It was devastating.  Sometimes no matter how much work you put in, you lose.  But not always.  And that’s what makes the work worth it.

So let me tell you a story:

Ten years ago, we enacted Civil Unions here and the aftermath was horrendous.  Howard Dean came incredibly close to losing his seat.  The State House changed hands, moving into Republican control.  

In two years, all that was reversed.  Dean stepped down to get ready for his presidential run and we ended up with a Republican nightmare in the Governor’s seat while Democrats regained majorities in the State House.  Since then, the Vermont Freedom to Mary Task Force has been incredibly active.  Nine years later, in a state in which civil unions were a source of bitter, divisive controversy, not only did the legislature upgrade civil unions to full marriage equality, but they had rebuilt majorities to the point where they managed to override a veto by our conservative governor.

This wasn’t something that just happened by luck or circumstance.  Things changed.  The Freedom to Marry Task force engaged candidates and worked to keep them in office while doing broader educational issues.  (Full disclosure: I did some temp work for them a few years back).  They built a movement to push civil unions to the next level.

In the meantime, anti-gay rights groups were losing steam, not because they were unwilling to work, but because they had nothing left.  They were wrong because they predicted dire consequences that never came to light.  

When marriage equality was passed, they targeted candidates for defeat, focusing on primary challenges to Republicans.  They failed.  The vast majority (over 90%) of candidates who supported marriage equality won re-election and Peter Shumlin, the man who sponsored the legislation and worked his ass off to make it law, just got elected Governor of Vermont.

This didn’t happen by luck.  This happened because the Freedom to Marry Task Force put an immense amount of effort into supporting the Shumlin campaign and the campaigns of those who supported marriage equality.

Similarly, groups such as UPV/AFT‘s Early Childhood Educators United’s (again, disclosure: I have multiple ties with this organization, both professional and personal) Kids Count on Me campaign did work supporting candidates at multiple levels.  They met with politicians, understood their positions and promoted the candidacies of those who supported their goals.

Movements happen because of sweat and tears.  They happen when we work for them.  We write.  We talk.  We walk.  We knock.  We communicate.  We call.  We do.

We are not lucky.

We are active.

We know the numbers here.  Republicans are not more popular than Democrats.  But they did better in many races in terms of turnout.  A lot of them voted.  Not as many of us did.  

We won in Vermont, because we were active, interested and engaged.  We had a five way primary which brought diverse candidates together to do honorable battle with one another.  The one with the highest negatives won, despite those negatives, and yet still we took the day, because we, and they, worked so very hard to do the right thing and to build the future we need to thrive as a state.  Most of the people who voted for Peter Shumlin were not in love with him.  But they could see the lay of the land and know that having him in office was so much better than the alternative.  He received 25% of the vote in the primary, but all four of his opponents worked to see him elected.  Not hoped.  Not wished.  Worked.

Just as I was writing this, I got this note from Peter Shumlin’s campaign, and he says exactly what I’m trying to say:

This victory is your victory and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. This was the best get-out-the-vote effort ever executed in the state of Vermont. We won, in part, because of the many volunteers and dedicated organizers that assisted them in reaching out to neighbors, knocking on doors, making those phone calls and emailing friends. The hard work that you put in over the course of these many months convinced Vermonters that we had the best plan for the future of our state.

We’ve got a new governor.

We earned it.

Back in August, I pointed out that attempts to primary Republicans who supported same sex marriage had fallen flat, noting that:

You had your grace period.  We gave Vermont time to get comfortable with same sex couples receiving some state recognition.  That time is over.  No one cares.  Everyone’s moved on.  There are more important things for us all to deal with than whether or not some lesbian couple in the Northeast Kingdom needs your permission before they can marry.

Just to drive the point home, I would like to quote Vermont First:

Based on preliminary and unofficial election results, it looks like 86 of the 89 House members who voted to override Governor Douglas’s veto of the marriage equality bill were re-elected to their seats…  On the Senate side, 18 of the 19 Senators who voted for the bill (and not against the override) were re-elected — or 95%.  

You’ve lost the battles.  

You’ve lost the war.

Learn a lesson from Brian Dubie: be gracious in defeat.

In case there’s any question as to who’s on the right side here.  You have this guy:

We have George Takei:

On the heels of the new Rasmussen Poll with a 50-45 lead of Shumlin for likely voters, Shumlin did two stopovers this afternoon; one in Springfield and then the next in Brattleboro.  We did canvassing in Brattleboro so we could get to the rally in the afternoon.  

Shumlin was in incredible form today, but I’ll start with the other two speakers.  Steve Howard opened.  I will say that I’ve never seen Howard speak before and he’s quite good, and I wish that were more reflected in the polls.  He’s a good guy and right on the issues, but doesn’t seem to be able to get that reflected in high numbers in polls, which I have trouble understanding.  Howard gave a great short and quick stump speech and then introduced Vermont’s favorite Congressman, Peter Welch:

Welch spoke briefly, and without a lot of depth, but it was an introduction and that was appropriate.  I got to meet him briefly after, which was very nice.  In person, he’s a very kind and attentive man, but in the meantime, he was introducing the man we all believe should be our next governor.

And then came Peter.

Peter was on fire today– going after Dubie and his campaign tactics, without for a moment being hostile about it, but drawing stark and clear contrasts (I have a couple brief video clips to post after they’ve uploaded).  On VY, on choice, on jobs, on health care.  

It was incredibly refreshing to find a politician willing to be so directly and openly left wing and progressive in his expression of his ideas and policies.  In a climate when so many Democrats are running from their record, this is someone who openly embraces it and loves to talk about it.  I’ll also note that I’ve argued with Peter.  He’s fun to argue with because he stands his ground, but listens and thinks about what you have to say.  I’m looking forward to having a governor who isn’t about personal grudges and quiet agendas hostile to the very ideas of government itself, and it’s clear that this is a man who’s not about the ideology, but about the people, not about the grudges but about getting the job done.  

And I’ll just say, at the risk of y’all getting sick of hearing it from us, this takes work, and if you want this to happen, you have to help.  You have to talk to people you know, and explain to them what’s right about Shumlin (Jobs.  Education.  Choice.) and what’s wrong about Dubie (take your pick) and make it clear how important this is.

A couple very quick video clips:

Note: I originally was writing this as a comment and realized it was involved enough to be a stand alone piece.

Something which separates us from the right wing, which does a fairly good job of clamping down on criticism of its own, especially in Vermont (can you imagine anyone here ever even daring to primary Douglas from the right?), where the tea party has little statewide power (the crazies couldn’t even successfully get rid of Kevin Mullin, and that’s in Rutland) we’ll be watchdogs for a Shumlin administration.  

I very much want Shumlin to win.  I’ve heard stories about him, some of which might be true, and some of which most definitely aren’t.  

I don’t care, because we’ve got a Vermont media which is already kind of hostile towards him and will be quite willing to go after him whenever he does something improper.

But more importantly, we’ve got us.  We’re the angry mob that’s going to push him hard to hold him to his promises and make him live up to the expectations he’s created, and we are not going to have any patience for him if he starts to waver.

The right won’t police their own, because first and foremost, they’re invested in power.  We’re not.  We’re invested in results and being relatively powerless ourselves, we’re invested in what happens to those on the low rungs of the social ladder.

So yes, there are people who talk (accurately or not) about Shumlin’s lack of ethics, but we’ve seen Dubie’s willingness to blatantly lie in the middle of debates in the full light of day.  I do not want to contemplate what will happen once he’s got the protection of the office of Governor and a full phalanx of communication people paid for by the state of Vermont.  

I know people who just don’t like either candidate and it depresses them.  Seriously?  Suck it up.  I supported Clinton, and he signed the freakin’ Defense of Marriage Act.  Politics isn’t pretty.  But it is important.  You don’t like either of them?  Grow up.  You don’t need to like them.  You just need to know who’s going to do the best good for your state, for your community.

I don’t care if he’s a panderer (and if he is, at least he panders to the right side: you wouldn’t get Dubie supporting same-sex marriage or the closing on schedule of VY, even to pander).  I don’t care if he’s “ethically challenged.”  (name me one single politician running for governor anywhere who isn’t).

If you take this seriously, and you’re left wing in any sense of the word, you know that’s not Dubie and you know it’s going to be him or Shumlin.  So yes, if we had IRV, you could do this differently.  But we don’t, at least not today, and we have an actual clear and simple choice to make: you can make a protest vote (or not vote at all).  That only serves to marginalize your interests further and leaves you with the functional result of being no different from having stayed home.

Or you can be an adult, support a candidate that not only has good ideas and has actually successfully gotten things done in Montpelier, even if there are things about him you seriously dislike, or you can (functionally or actually) just sit it out.

I’m voting on Tuesday.  I love early voting in principle, but for me, I have a kind of an undeservedly romantic notion about voting.  We almost always vote on election day, and kind of enjoy standing in line with people who are doing the same.  I’m not voting for the man I think would be the best possible Governor for Vermont.  I’m voting for the man who’s a hell of a lot better than the remaining options, because I’m old enough to see where things stand and know just how important this is.

How about you?

From the Free Press:

The video shows Salmon doing field dexterity tests and submitting to a roadside alcohol breath test that recorded an 0.095 percent blood-alcohol content. The legal limit for driving in Vermont is 0.08. Salmon, according to the video, initially tells the officer he had two drinks, but later admits he had five.

At one point, Salmon asks the officer if he knows who he is.

“You know I am the state auditor, right?” he asks. “You know, like state treasurer, governor or lieutenant governor.”

The trooper responds that he understood who Salmon is and is just “doing my job.”

Over in the comments thread in a Vermont Tiger piece, David O’Brien goes to bat for Entergy, yet again.  In the midst of a blatantly anti-Shumlin screed, he throws out the following:

Does anyone find it ironic that Entergy management is continously described by Senator Shumlin as dishonest and not to be trusted? I must say Entergy has been tough to work with, nobody knows that more than I. However, when we went after them aggressively about the flawed disclosure of unerground pipes, Entergy conducted an internal investigation and disciplined five high ranking employees, at least two losing their jobs permenantly.

Funny how that discipline took place after Entergy was pushed on the issue and it was revealed that there had been misleading statements.   And funny how, at least one of these people who lost their jobs, “permenantly” wasn’t as much fired as he was reassigned.  Jay Thayer, in fact, is now “on Loan” to the Nuclear Energy Institute.

You’d think that O’Brien would know this, considering that he and Thayer are friendly enough to have Thayer over to his house for a holiday dinner.