All posts by JulieWaters

What Sourcewatch can do for you

There’s a piece in today’s Burlington Free Press about the possibility of banning BPA.  BPA, or Bisphenol A, is a chemical frequently used to line tin cans and to harden the plastics in water bottles and pre-packaged meals.  There is serious controversy as to its use and there are some very good arguments for banning it.

But that’s not why I’m writing this.  I’m writing this because of three words that pop up in the article: American Chemistry Council.  

Fortunately, I’d recently been watching Rachel Maddow:

>

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And I thought I wonder what “American Chemistry Council” really is?

So I looked them up and Sourcewatch gave me an answer:

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is a top trade association representing North American chemical manufacturers. ACC represents represents nearly 150 companies and has a $100 million budget. The group spent more than $2 million on lobbying in 2003.

and…

Bisphenol-A Website is a website “sponsored by the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group” of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to respond to concerns about the health impacts of the use of Bisphenol A in plastic products.

I don’t mean to nit-pick.  I actually think the Free Press article is mostly excellent. But… okay, I do mean to nit pick, but… seriously… when your piece’s defense of BPA comes from an organization which is an industry flack, you should state who they are when you quote them.  “American Chemistry Council” sounds, on the surface, like a research and development group.  It’s a lobbying group for the chemical industry.  

It is not intended to inform.  

It is intended to promote.

“Hippies from the 60’s”

I never thought I’d do this, but I’m about to quote USA Today, which is a truly craptacular news source.  They did, however, get this quote (don’t go to the link yet):

“They’re hippies from the ’60s who want to be against something.”

So, here’s your quiz for the day: who said this and to whom was he referring?  Think you got it right?  Post your guess in the comments, then click on the link to find the answer.  You’re on the honor system here.  (This is referenced in the comments in another piece on GMD, so some of you may already have the inside info)

I have to admit, I was surprised by this.  

Compare and Contrast







PaperBrattleboro ReformerRutland Herald

HeadlineNRC: Tritium leak no danger to public healthNRC: Yankee could have done more

Lead Paragraph

The potential radiation dose to a member of the public due to the migration of tritiated water into the Connecticut River is less than .01 millirems a year, according to a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Michael Colomb, site vice president at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon.

Federal regulators said Friday that Entergy Nuclear had failed to complete expected but voluntary industry-recommended actions to prevent tritium leaks or other radioactive problems at the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor.


These two pieces cover the same story, but in very different ways.  Just the headline itself presents a significantly different picture, and the lead paragraphs are significantly different.  They both cover so much in common, referencing VY Communications Director’s comment that they agree with the NRC’s assessment of their program.  They reference the voluntary nature of the program, but the Reformer jumps right on pro-VY spin, leading right away with hey, lucky us, no one’s in danger, whereas the Herald addresses some major shortfalls in VY’s response.

There are reasons that I read more than one paper.  This is a big one.

Reformer piece on early child care cuts misses the big picture

Disclaimer: I know many of the people and/or organizations I reference in this piece.  Nothing about this is personal about any of them.

Today’s Brattleboro Reformer has a nice, acceptable piece about early childhood educators struggling with budget cuts, but it misses some key elements.  I’m not going to quote from it here, because there’s very little in the piece which goes beyond the surface treatment of the issue.  

The two people they chose to talk to weren’t bad people to talk to, but they present a limited picture.

I also want to say that I don’t know what the version of the piece the reporter submitted looks like.  This may be criticism of his work or the editing or some combination.  I just don’t know.

But, really, the concern I have is with the people they didn’t talk to, or at least who didn’t make it into the printed version.

As I’ve posted before, there’s an effort to unionize child care workers in Vermont.  A comment from them would have been great here.  

There are people in Waterbury who are responsible for administering these cuts.  Why not ask them about where we’re headed?

There are local Resource and Referral Agencies.  They weren’t available for comment?

There are individuals who work as child care providers who aren’t members of the legislature and have no power base.  Are none of them available to talk?  

I guess I just read that piece and felt kind of empty after.  I think we can do better than that.  This issue is important enough that I’d like to see more than “cuts to early childhood are bad, and here are two people we talked to with some knowledge who can tell you why.”

I figured I should write this up before some of our more colorful writers got hold of it.

So we’re in a bit of a budget crunch.  Money is tight, and we’re trying to find ways to become more efficient.  Salaries are being cut.  People are facing layoffs.  

But we can afford this:

The state of Vermont plans to spend $120,000 to buy Internet blocking software to prevent employees from accessing pornographic and other inappropriate Web sites while at work.

Really?  

Look, I have nothing against stopping people from downloading porn with equipment purchased with my tax dollars, but… let’s be clear about this.  The state already has software which can monitor your content.  People do get fired on occasion for spending time at work surfing porn.  But still, we apparently need to spend $120,000 on an outside consulting company to, I guess, be extra certain about it.

And let’s just remember: $120,000 for an outside consulting project is never just $120,000.  

Is this what everyone was so afraid of?

I’m going to start this out saying that I am not looking particularly favorably at the leadership of the Vermont House right now.  The Challenges for Change idiocy they are supporting is dangerous, foolish and wrong.  

I have a lot to say about that, and I will get to it in another post.  Today’s piece is about last year at this time.  On April 7th, 2009, the Vermont legislature passed marriage equality into law, overriding a veto by Jim Douglas and removing restrictions from marriage based on gender or sex.  

So this note is partially a thank you to the legislature for what they accomplished and a reminder that sometimes steadfastly opposing the governor when he is on the wrong side is very much the right thing to do.  

It’s also a plug for the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, which was instrumental in the process of getting the veto overturned.

The rest of this is mostly personal, but its’ not irrelevant.  Some of it I’ve written before.  Some of it is new.

Right now, we’re trying to get our taxes done.  We’re married, but it’s not recognized at the federal level, so we still have to file our federal taxes as individuals.

Vermont’s taxes, however, are based on federal taxes, which we need to file jointly to get the right numbers for Vermont.

This means that we have to do a separate federal return as a married couple, which we will not file, and base our Vermont tax form on THAT document.  Nice.

But still, I feel lucky.  At the very least I didn’t get invited to a fake wedding while other people attended the real thing.  But I digress.  There are places where people do not only view lesbianism as bad, but as enough to render you unfit for simple human decency.  

Vermont is not such a place, and the simplicity of this is part of what I think can change the rest of the nation.

Back in September, I wrote about going to the town clerk’s office the very first day that same-sex marriage licenses were being given out in Vermont.

We did the formal ceremony in Mid September.

It was quiet, mellow and really kind of nice.

Before the ceremony everyone told me that marriage changes everything, that no matter how much you think it won’t, it changes you.

Maybe so. But if so, I just haven’t noticed it.  Just like before, we take time off from work to help one another when it’s necessary.  When we have bills to pay, we pay them together.  It’s all just… there, just like it’s been for more than a decade.

I know I’ve only been married for a short while, but honestly, what’s most special about this for me is the ordinariness of it: the week before the ceremony, people asked me if I were nervous. I really wasn’t. The week after, people asked me how it went. And then everything went back to normal.

What I love about being married isn’t the idea of it being special or different. It’s the idea of it being just ordinary.

And honestly, I think this is what scares opponents of same-sex marriage more than anything else. They want to call it “special” rights. They want to call it an attack on traditional marriage. But the fact of it is that it’s just what it is: two people who made a choice for themselves. In our case, it was two people who made a choice for themselves, had a nice quiet ceremony and had a surprisingly uneventfully pleasant party.

So let me just say this: pretty much everyone I know, even people I know who are really conservative, seem genuinely happy for us.

I think this is where the people who oppose same-sex marriage will, in the long run, fail: not because they’re wrong (which they are) but because when ordinary people know same sex couples who are married, they can see exactly what is there: people who care for one another in the quiet, dull, and ordinary ways everyone else does. When groups claim that same-sex marriage will destroy something, it’s prevalent on them to prove it. When they make such unrealistically and obviously false claims, all it takes is an act of truth to prove them wrong.

Married life, for me, is still just life.  

Exeunt Enexus (UPDATED)

Entergy’s plan to spin off its debt into a shell separate company is over.  Enexus is no more.  

This is a major victory.  Even with the support of the Douglas administration, this company was unable to pull off a major fast one on the public.  It doesn’t fix everything, but it leaves a parent company with large resources still responsible for the cleanup of VY, and leaves us with one less scapegoat to deal with.

A few choice quotes from today’s Rutland Herald:

“Ever since SpinCo/Enexus was first mentioned, I understood this was a carefully-hatched Wall Street scheme to ensure Vermonters paid for stockholders’ profits at Entergy,” said Shumlin…

…and…

Entergy issued a press release saying it was starting immediately “to unwind the business infrastructure associated” with Enexus.

UPDATE: I am a doofus.  The entire section below:

I tried to find that press release.  I went to Entergy’s web site and did a search for “Exenus.”  Here were the results of that search:

Your search – exenus – did not match any documents.

No pages were found containing “exenus”.

Was due to a typo on my part.  I was trying to be clever, and I tanked.  My apologies to everyone.    The rest of what I had to say however…

I suspect that that unwinding of the “‘business infrastructure associated’ with Enexus’ will take approximately seven minutes.  

…still stands

“Code of Entegrity” (some blog items write themselves)

I’m sorry, I really am, but there is no possible way I could see the phrase “Code of Entegrity” written as a serious line without going a little off the rails.

So… this “Code of Entegrity” is something that came up in this piece from the Rutland Herald, talking about how an “in house” investigation cleared all Entergy employees of wrongdoing with respect to Entergy’s misleading of public officials regarding the existence (sorry — “Exestencegy”) of underground pipes.

Specifically, Entergy’s internal report states that “no one made any intentionally false statements in state regulatory proceeding” but that “certain Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee personnel did not clarify certain understandings and assumptions, which resulted in misunderstandings, when viewed in a context different from the one understood.”

Let’s highlight that phrase:

…certain Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee personnel did not clarify certain understandings and assumptions, which resulted in misunderstandings, when viewed in a context different from the one understood.

So I’m thinking a game is in order.  What do you guys think might be the tenants of the “Code of Entegrity.”

I’m thinking:

  1. don’t get caught;

  2. drop your friends when things get hot;

  3. run when you can.

Sometimes, when you speak up, people listen


Office of the Speaker of the House

Representative Shap Smith

ADVISORY

April 2, 2010

CONTACT:

Tom Cheney, Office of the Speaker

(802) 828-2245

tcheney@leg.state.vt.us

David M. Coriell, Office of the Governor

(802) 828-3333

david.coriell@state.vt.us

Alex MacLean, Office of the Senate President Pro-Tem

(802) 828-3806

amaclean@leg.state.vt.us

Legislature and Executive Branches to Hold Public Hearing on Challenges for Change

Tuesday, April 6, from 5:00-7:00 pm,  the Legislature and Executive branches will hold a joint public hearing in the House Chamber on the Administration’s Challenges for Change Proposals.  The hearing is an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the proposals and offer its perspectives on how to improve outcomes in state government.

Participants will have 2 minutes to testify.  A sign up sheet will be available 10 minutes prior to the hearing.  Written comments may be submitted at the hearing emailed to challenges@leg.state.vt.us.

What: Challenges for Change Public Hearing

Where: House Chamber, Vermont State House

When: Tuesday, April 6, 5:00-7:00pm

###

Thomas Cheney

Aide to the Speaker of the House

115 State Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05633-5201

Office: (802) 828-2245

Fax: (802) 828-2220

I can’t make this, but if you can, please post indicating your intent and why you’re going.