Back when I was supporting Edwards, one of my major concerns with Obama was in his support for “clean coal.”  I wrote about it at the time, over at Green Mountain Daily.  Here’s what I wrote:

There’s a great diary over at MyDD which outlines some serious problems with an energy bill which is cosponsored by Obama.  The first is a bill to support liquid coal.  From the diary:

We don’t know how to sequester mass quantities of carbon dioxide created during coal liquefaction yet. Even once we figure that process out–a solution that will no doubt reduce the net energy output of the coal to fuel process itself–we’ve still got a dirty fuel that increases greenhouse emissions compared to petroleum.

There’s also a draft bill up for discussion that includes a provision which will screw us, as Vermonters, over, along with a lot of other states. 

Per The Rutland Herald:

A dozen states, including Vermont and Massachusetts, would be blocked from imposing new requirements on automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under a draft energy bill being prepared for a vote later this month.

The “discussion draft” would prohibit the head of the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a waiver needed for a state to impose auto pollution standards if the new requirements are “designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

This is bad.  The first bill has quite a few Democratic sponsors and presents a serious danger.  The second is only in draft form, so it’s got a much better chance of being modified before it makes it into being an actual bill, but they’re both representative of how much work we have to do to deal with the existing archaic mentality when it comes to proper energy usage.

I hadn’t heard much from Obama on the clean coal front lately; I was hoping maybe he’d figured out what a bad idea it was.  Apparently not.  Talking Points Memo has a pro-coal ad going up in Kentucky, in which he promotes his legislative record in support of “clean coal:”

Think Clinton’s any better on this?  Not according to her website:

…Hillary will urge all of the nation’s stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.

Here’s Chelsea promoting “clean” coal in PA:

And please, don’t even get me started on McCain.

This is royally screwed up.  No matter whom you support, you should be telling them what nonsense “clean coal” is.   Greenpeace has its number:

Despite over 10 years of research and $5.2 billion of investment in the US alone , scientists are still unable to make coal clean. The Australian government spends A$0.5 million annually to promote Australia’s ‘clean coal’ to the Asia Pacific region. “Clean coal” technologies are expensive and do nothing to mitigate the environmental effects of coal mining or the devastating effects of global warming. Furthermore, clean coal research risks diverting investment away from renewable energy, which is available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now.

The first CCT programs were set up in the late 1980s in response to concerns over acid rain. The programs focused on reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), the primary causes of acid rain. Now the elusive promise of “clean coal” technology is being used to promote coal as an energy source.

(also see their myths and facts about clean coal)

It’s time all our candidates get off this bandwagon and it’s past time we start challenging them when their debates are sponsored by lobbyists for the coal industry.

If you study behavioral psychology, you’ll learn about a concept called “the extinction burst.”  

The specific example I use when I teach is this:

You’ve got a child who is throwing tantrums.  In the past, the tantrums have gotten the child attention, which is exactly what the child wants.  Therefore, you have been providing positive reinforcement to that child’s behavior.  It’s “positive” because you’re adding something (attention), not because it’s good.  It’s “reinforcement” because it increases the behavior.

The much more effective approach to reducing tantrums is negative punishment.  “Negative” because you’re removing something and “punishment” because it reduces the behavior.  When we talk about “punishment” in behavioral psychology we don’t necessarily mean anything specific; it’s just any act in a behavioral context which reduces the frequency of a given behavior.

But here’s why many parents don’t use negative punishment: the extinction burst.

You have a child who’s throwing tantrums and you decide to reduce the tantrums through not paying attention.  You try to ignore them completely.  This will generally work.  But before it works, it gets worse.  The child, knowing that the tantrums have worked in the past, thinks that the tantrums are just not loud enough.  

So they get worse, before they fade out entirely.

This last ditch effort to make the tantrums work is the aforementioned “extinction burst.”  It’s perfectly human: something that has worked in the past is losing its power so you don’t try something different.  You do what you’ve been doing all along, but push harder.

Here are some examples of the extinction burst in action:

USA Today:

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters – including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

Yahoo News:

With virtually no chance of catching Obama in the popular vote or among pledged delegates, Clinton and her strategists have pinned their hope on persuading superdelegates – elected officials and party activists – that she would be the stronger Democrat to run against McCain.

Harold Ickes, who heads the Clinton campaign’s outreach to superdelegates, has acknowledged discussing Obama’s controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, with superdelegates, saying Wright’s incendiary anti-American sermons and other comments could alienate voters in the fall.

Talking Points Memo:

Camp Hillary is rejecting the new plan floated today by Michigan Dems that would seat the delegation by awarding 69 delegates to Hillary and 59 to Obama.

A Recommended post at MyDD:

On May 20th, BO will stand before us – place the crown on his own head – and tell the people who have yet to vote that he’s our nominee because he’s reached some magic number of pledged delegates.  Screw Michigan and Florida.  Screw the Superdelegates.  He figures he’ll have the majority of the pledged delegates so to hell with Hillary and to hell with the millions who have voted for her and are looking forward to deciding this according to the RULES as laid out by our party.

Another Recommended post at myDD:

So…yes, it appears that Barack Obama is very scared.  Scared of the people in Florida, Michigan, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico; scared of the Democratic process; and possibly scared that more of his skeletons will pop out of the closet before June.  I can’t really say, don’t know what he’s thinking, but Jeez, Senator, let Democracy be!

Sorry to say, it’s going to keep getting uglier and more shrill before we can move past this and accept that we’ve got a nominee.  

That’s how the extinction burst works.

UPDATE: see the comments thread on this post on MyDD to see other examples of the extinction burst in play.  

I don’t know if anyone else noticed this, but did you see the McCain numbers from last night?

Indiana:

McCain     317,837   77%
Huckabee    41,018   10%
Paul        31,481    8%
Romney      19,480    5%

Yup. That’s right. He’s their nominee and yet still almost 1/4th of his party is opposing him. In North Carolina it’s even worse:

McCain     381,138   73%
Huckabee    62,917   12%
Paul        40,275    8%
No Pref     20,305    4%

No challenger, and yet he still loses a forth of his party, and Obama gets more than double the votes he receives. This is *good* for Democrats.

I’m just so fed up with this crap.  Between the legislature, the governor, the governor’s race, etc… I mean… just, argh…

So I propose we bypass reality.

Imagine the legislature you wanted.  What would their legislation look like?  What would it accomplish?

I’ve got several things on my mind right now:

• introduce a real economic stimulus package, which means investing in jobs programs and training, preparing Vermont’s population for more locally based economies instead of offering us meaningless tax rebates and buzz words;


• offer major incentives for companies that invest in renewable energy technologies that are based in Vermont;


• a fully funded health care system that doesn’t require you to be without insurance for a year before you can participate;


• more investment in locally produced arts & music;


• double the funding for subsidized child care in Vermont;


• ban all unsolicited robo-calls made for any purpose;

What’s on your list?

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.

by I know there is talk here and there about an Obama/Clinton ticket being the perfect combination.  The problem is that while she brings strong demographic assets to the campaign, but also brings a major political liability to it, in the form of her husband.  

Bill Clinton has made this combination impossible.  It’s not because of incidents like him ranting about Obama for 50 minutes or accusing Obama of playing the race card.

Any of those things, in fact, would prove irrelevant if not for one factor:

Absolutely no one can put any control whatsoever on him.  

If Bill weren’t part of the picture, Barack and Hillary could reconcile their differences and put on the proper face and play nice with one another, creating a unified party.  But no sane politician would put anyone on a ticket who’s so directly connected with Bill Clinton.  He’s just too much of a loose cannon in this race to be expected to behave appropriately, responsibly or (dare I say it) politically.

I think Obama knows this by now, which is one of the reasons he’s being so cagey about this.  Presidential candidates need to have a vice presidential ticket which is willing to submit to some control.  It’s admittedly a bad role for the VP candidate; it hurt Edwards in 2004 to be in that position and left Lieberman so bitter that what was left after the process was nothing more than a decaying husk of humanity, forced to roam the Senate, attaching himself to other politicians and bleeding them dry for his own survival, like…

Hmm.

No, I think Lieberman was always like that.  But I digress…

So this is what it boils down to: if Obama wants to win in November, he needs to pick someone who covers some of Clinton’s demographics, but doesn’t present the world with someone who’s so emotionally invested in the race that he can’t keep a lid on his darker instincts.

We need Clinton to go back to being a foundation leader who tries to inspire people to do better, not a public humiliation for his party and his legacy.

Per Beta News:

A team of experts headed by security guru Ira Winkler was hired by an anonymous power company to test the security of a power grid’s network. The door was practically held open for them.

In a matter of hours, the team infiltrated the grid’s supervisory, control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks using simple phishing tools: social engineering and browser exploits.

What sort of special technology did these people use to get the necessary information?  They got employees to hand it to them.  Per Switched:

They relied on human nature to get initial access, finding the e-mail addresses of many of the plant’s employees and sending them a supposedly corporate e-mail that indicated their worker benefits were being cut. They were directed to a URL to get more information. That URL was, of course, bogus and simply resulted in the installation of malicious software.

On the plus side, many of these security vulnerabilities are relatively easy to fix.  If only companies were willing to take the scheduled downtime to fix them.  Once again, per Beta News:

Winkler says that these SCADA systems suffer the same vulnerabilities any system does that runs on the same standard operating system and server hardware. Companies have perpetuated the weakness of these systems by not performing important software upgrades because they would force downtime.

And lest you think that the worst thing that can happen is a minor power outage, I will add this one more passage from Beta News:

What could be done given the level of access these white hats obtained would not be limited to simply shutting down a grid, like a group of hackers managed to do for 17 days to a “practice network” in California in 2001. In comments to CNN last year regarding a leaked video of a staged hack that resulted in the self-destruction of a power generator, Joe Weiss of Applied Control Solutions said, “What people had assumed in the past is the worst thing you can do is shut things down. And that’s not necessarily the case. A lot of times the worst thing you can do, for example, is open a valve — have bad things spew out of a valve.”

Just when I was thinking there weren’t enough things to worry about…

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.

I just, really, am at a bit of a loss here.  Per the Rutland Herald:

Gov. James Douglas wants to stimulate the state’s economy by borrowing money, shifting investments and loosening the permitting process for new construction.

The governor’s economic stimulus package, which he unveiled on Saturday, calls for little new state spending, causing some to wonder how effective it would be.

Douglas has repeatedly said he will not support an increase in broad-based taxes, and recently the state has been faced with making $25 million in cuts to the 2009 budget in response to falling state revenues.

At the Vermont Home and Garden Show in Essex Junction, the governor presented a proposal to help Vermont weather a national recession. His plan relies to a large extent on additional state bonding, shifting teachers and state employees’ retirement systems investments into VHFA bonds and relaxing the permitting process for new homes.

Homes.

Right.

Because the housing market is really what we should be relying on at this point in time?

Really, does anyone else here feel like we’ve all gone down the rabbit hole?  

Anyway, I have a different idea: perhaps we could, you know, study our state’s economy so that when we, I don’t know, end up with a $25 million revenue shortfall, it doesn’t put us in such a state of shock.

I’m not a genius when it comes to the economy, but nor am I a moron.  It does not take a genius to see that when faced with an economy that’s in a downturn, it is unwise to invest in a market which is in virtual shambles.  

In the meantime, however, I think I understand why one of the initial moves in response to this is to start cutting the benefits to those who are most defenseless in a poor economy.  It’s because we’re morons.

Seriously, how on earth did Republicans manage to convince anyone that they understand the first thing about economics?  It’s not like we end up with anything but shell games from them.  Borrowing money and just shifting investments?

How about we actually invest in our state?

I don’t have a lot of info here, but I did just get a copy of this constituent e-mail, from Mike Mrowicki, all around good guy (full disclosure: I knew Mike long before he was in the legislature, and he’s always had my respect and admiration, so anything I say about him is most likely colored through rose-tinted glasses):

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:55:36 -0400

From: “Mike Mrowicki” <mmrowicki@leg.state.vt.us>

Subject: Re: budget news URGENT

Hi ,

We  just  got some updated  numbers, which are a  Democrat response to the

Administrations’ proposal from Wednesday.

The good  news is that AHS  cuts have been mitigated down to $5M (down

from $20M)

This also includes keeping  the $800k for subsidy increase in the budget.

The negotiations will take place  next week and things  are  open to lots

of possibilities happening, but it looks better  than it  did Wednesday.

I’ll keep you posted

The $5m in cuts are still a bitter pill, but far better than the original proposal.  If anyone else has more details, please share.