Per WPTZ:

MONTPELIER, Vt. —  A majority of nearly 7,000 Vermonters completing opinion surveys on Town Meeting Day said they favor same-sex marriage. 54-percent said they support allowing gay couples to marry while 37-percent were opposed.

That represents an 8-per cent jump in support for same-sex marriage in the last year, noted Johnson State College political science professor and state Sen. William Doyle of Washington County who compiles the results each March.

This is not a scientific sample intended to represent the opinions of all Vermonters, but an 8% jump in support among a similar demographic is a major deal.

Crossposted to Birding New England

The first time I ever saw a Pileated woodpecker, it was a breathtaking sight.  The pair of them were feeding in the large maple in our yard and when they flew off, they were nearly silent.

It took me a few years before I managed to actually capture them in photo, but I’m glad I was able to pull it off.  Since then, I’ve managed to get photos of them with limited success.  

I think, though, that my favorite thing about the Pileateds is their range of sounds.  They have a fairly standard woodpecker “laugh” (which I think of as more of a high-pitched rattle), but unlike the hairy and the downy woodpeckers, their call is a trill which remains constant in pitch.  While the Hairy Woodpecker makes a call that you can hear trilling and then trailing off, changing pitch at the end, the Pileated’s is constant throughout, making them easy to hear from a distance if you get the knack for it.  

Then there’s another call they make which is more like a staccato slow chatter that is such a deep pitch that it rattles the bones a bit.

I’m going to close with one more photo at the end.  When Pileated’s dig into trees, they do major excavating, creating huge holes in the trees, digging out large chunks of wood.  The photo below is of a pileated in mid-excavation, with the actual piece of wood still in its beak:

As usual, all these photos are smaller versions.  Clicking on them brings you to the site with the full sized versions and more details.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Per reuters:

“I must say, I’m a little envious,” Bush said. “If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.”

“It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks,” Bush said.

Words completely fail me.

First, let’s start with the notsofarback machine:

• Mission Accomplished: Jim Douglas Kills Composting in the Intervale, in which it’s discussed how the Intervale composting center is being shut down by environmental regulators.
• Good thing we’re not talking about left leaning composting operations, in which it’s discussed how a series of construction sites are not compliant with state regulations but are in “a period of education rather than enforcement.”

Now let’s fast forward to Friday afternoon, at which point VPR aired a piece on how there have been questions raised about political pressure that led compost operation to close.

Let’s take a look, shall we?

…The non-profit Intervale Center says it can’t afford to meet new regulatory hurdles for the compost operation, which handles 20,000 tons a year of organic waste.

Now questions are being raised about the political pressure on the Intervale that led to the decision to close.

VPR’s John Dillon reports:

(Dillon) …The Douglas Administration says it has been very sensitive to keep politics out of environmental enforcement at the Intervale. Governor Jim Douglas said enforcement isn’t even being handled by his administration now.

(Douglas)“And now the Attorney General has assumed responsibility for enforcing it. And if the Attorney General believes it’s something that ought to be pursued, I certainly respect his judgment.”

(Dillon) Intervale officials say they’ve tried to work out the various legal issues with the state. But there are questions about how flexible the state has been – and whether politics are involved.

Now, we pause, to draw special attention to the emphasized text below.  Apparently, the media is reading us:

On the Green Mountain Daily blog it was stated recently that Agency of Natural Resources Secretary George Crombie told the Intervale that he had the center in a — quote — “noose.” For some at the meeting, the meaning was clear: Crombie was going to tighten the regulatory vise on the compost center.

Intervale Director Kit Perkins was there.

(Perkins) “It was upsetting. But I certainly didn’t get it out publicly. This is not my initiative here. But I will tell the truth and say yes that was said at the meeting.”

(Dillon) Crombie has said publicly that the Intervale is the wrong place for a composting operation.

But Crombie said he did not use the word noose to describe his agency’s hold on the Intervale.

(Crombie) “No. No. I would not do that.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, the phrase “I would not…” is not really the same sort of denial as “I didn’t.”  It’s more like an, “I can’t imagine that I’d say such a thing.”  But the thing is, we have one witness who didn’t try to use this to make political hay.

More from the VPR piece:

(Dillon) Tom Moreau is the general manager of the Chittenden Solid Waste District. He was at the meeting between Intervale officials and Secretary Crombie. Moreau didn’t want to characterize the meeting.

(Moreau) “If I get asked by anybody in authority, his boss, somebody from the attorney general’s office, I will tell the truth. And it will be very clear what I heard.”

(Dillon) Moreau said he’s been dealing with state regulators for 30 years. He said this case is different.

(Moreau) “I’ve seen less cooperation on this than I have on most every other environmental problem than I’ve been associated. And I don’t know the reason for that. I’m just not going to speculate. I just don’t know the reasoning for it.”

So really, this is interesting to me.  It seems from Moreau’s comments that this isn’t just about a guy who’s a bit of a pain when it comes to regulations.  It sounds more like someone who’s doing a political hatchet job on the Intervale.

Douglas has a couple options here.  If he wants to maintain credibility when he claims that he’s not interested in politicizing regulation, then he can see to it that this incident is investigated.  If, instead, he wants to do damage to lefties, then he can do nothing.

But the idea that, as Douglas claims, he wants to “keep politics out of environmental enforcement,” then I think he has some serious explaining to do.

Crossposted to Daily Kos.

As part of a comprehensive package to control the costs of prescription drugs and regulate inappropriate marketing tactics, Vermont recently passed legislation that provides strong privacy protections by limiting the use of personally identifiable prescription information for marketing purposes unless doctors and other health care providers explicitly agree to waive the protections. The law, S.115, includes a physician opt-in provision at the time of licensure or renewal. This provision, managed by the state’s professional licensing board, allows a prescriber to choose to have his or her identifying information used for marketing and promotion of prescription drugs. The Vermont Medical Society supports the measure.

Taken from a fact sheet from the Prescription Project (link to pdf file)

That legislation’s just been pushed back.  

The reason why?  

Read on.

Previously, regulars at Vermont’s Green Mountain Daily have written fairly extensively on Pharmacy Phishing, the practice of the Vermont State Police doing fishing expeditions of pharmacies statewide to scan for information that might tie people to patterns of illegal drug use, even though it would give them illegal access to the personal data of a great deal of innocent individuals as well.

This article isn’t directly about the pharmacy phishing scandal, but it is about the practice of treating medical and prescription data like something to be shared readily and easily.  This time it’s not directly about patient data (though there are some risks of that being released) but the prescribing practice of doctors and the ability of sales people and other entities to use those practices to inappropriately influence and assail doctors.

So let’s start with Friday.  A group of us at GMD received a copy of the following e-mail.  I apologize for the size of the quote, but I can’t find it online anywhere, so I’d like to include the whole context.

VERMONT ENACTS ‘TEMPORARY REPEAL’ OF

PRESCRIPTION DATA RESTRAINT LAW

MONTPELIER, VT, March 6, 2008 – Vermont Governor Jim Douglas yesterday signed into law what he described as a “temporary repeal” of a law passed last year that restricts the collection and use of provider-identified prescription data. The new law defers the effective date of Vermont’s data restriction law until July 1, 2009. Prior to that date, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston is expected to rule on an appeal by New Hampshire of a federal district court decision that found comparable New Hampshire legislation unconstitutional.

Notwithstanding the change in the effective date, a lawsuit filed by IMS Health, Verispan and Wolters Kluwer Health challenging Vermont’s data restriction law is scheduled to be heard in federal district court in Brattleboro Vermont on July 28, 2008. In legislative hearings, the Vermont Attorney General’s office has described the chances of successfully defending the law as an “uphill battle.”

The New Hampshire law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court in April of last year and the state has sought to appeal the decision. Oral arguments before the First Circuit Court of Appeals were held in January, and a decision is expected by mid-year.

“We are pleased that the effective date of Vermont’s data restriction law has been deferred. These types of laws serve neither to improve healthcare nor lower healthcare costs,” said Robert H. Steinfeld, IMS senior vice president and general counsel. “This kind of legislation is inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional values that protect the free flow of information. It’s also contrary to the current national movement toward more information and greater transparency in our healthcare system to enhance patient welfare and outcomes. It doesn’t serve the public interest to impair the free flow of important, accurate information to the healthcare community.”

In a separate legal action, Maine’s Attorney General is now seeking to stay proceedings in that state’s appeal to the First Circuit of a Maine federal district court decision issued in December 2007 preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of a similar data restriction law in Maine. He is seeking the stay pending the First Circuit’s decision in the New Hampshire appeal.

Other states, which have considered their own data restriction laws, have moved away from these proposals upon closer analysis of their merits, and in light of the two previous federal court decisions invalidating such laws on First Amendment grounds.

IMS Health, Verispan and Wolters Kluwer Health are health information companies that collect and analyze provider-identified prescription data and then sell information, analytics and consulting services to government agencies including the DEA, FDA and CDC, departments of health, academic researchers, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and generic drug manufacturers.

The three companies and others maintain that provider-identified prescription data has great public health value. The data is used to study prescribing trends, monitor the safety of new medications, support safety-oriented risk management programs, prevent prescription drug abuse, expedite drug recalls, recruit for clinical trials, and study treatment variability and outcomes.

Provider-identified prescription information is completely patient de-identified and patient privacy is fully protected by federal law under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. In addition, IMS Health, Verispan and Wolters Kluwer Health add further safeguards, including encryption, to ensure that patient privacy is vigilantly safeguarded.

The source of this message is a press release from IMS Health, Verispan and Wolters Kluwer Health.  These are companies which make a practice of collecting data from doctors and using them for various purposes, but primarily information collection for the purposes of aiding salespeople.

So let’s be clear about this.  When Robert Steinfeld, Senior IMS VP, claims that  “this kind of legislation is inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional values that protect the free flow of information,” he’s trying to pretend that this has something to do with the constitution.  When the government of Vermont capitulates to these corporate opportunists, he’s giving them support for a practice to which they have no claim to advance as a right.

In fact, here is the specific part of the legislation which has been nixed:

A health insurer, a self-insured employer, an electronic transmission intermediary, a pharmacy, or other similar entity shall not sell, license, or exchange for value regulated records containing prescriber-identifiable information, nor permit the use of regulated records containing prescriber-identifiable information for marketing or promoting a prescription drug, unless the prescriber consents . . .   Pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmaceutical marketers shall not use prescriber-identifiable information for marketing or promoting a prescription drug unless the prescriber consents as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(You can see the full text of this legislation here)

Now, there are open question as to why Gov. Doglas may have chosen to nix the above language.  It could be that he’s trying to avoid a costly lawsuit by getting ahead of the curve.  If so, he’s failed.  The companies involved are ready to proceed with the lawsuit, regardless of the executive order.

To me, the more likely scenario under this administration is that it simply doesn’t give a damn about privacy rights.  If you look at the  history of this administration and medical data, you can see a pattern of complete and utter disregard for privacy with respect to prescriptions.  What’s more, as I wrote last month, Republicans have been trying to scuttle this aspect of the legislation.  They failed (miserably) at the attempt, but where they failed, Douglas has been able, with the stroke of a pen, just delay the roll out of it.

A final sidenote: I don’t know if I’m just looking in the wrong place or if I’m just not good at navigating the State of Vermont’s web site, but I can’t find anything on the Governor’s site indicating his temporary restriction.  

I wonder if this is something he doesn’t want getting a lot of publicity.

Per the Rutland Herald:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review Entergy Nuclear’s “fitness for duty” program during an scheduled security inspection after the second violation in the past six months.

An administrative assistant whose job duties include testing Entergy Nuclear employees at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant for possible drug and alcohol use was suspended for two weeks after she was found to exceed allowable alcohol limits, according to the NRC.

So let me get this straight: the woman responsible for making sure people at VY aren’t doing such thing as, say, drinking on the job, has been, well, drinking on the job.

This is the sort of thing that makes me all twitchy.

Much to my surprise, I discovered that it is legal to put political signs (temporarily) on public property in Vermont.  It is not, however, legal to just leave them on the road.  Per the Vermont Secretary of State Office:

• Signs should be removed immediately after the election.
  
  Signs may not be attached to trees.
• Signs may not interfere with, imitate or resemble any official traffic control sign, signal or device or appear to attempt to direct the movement of traffic.
• Signs may not be located in a way that prevents drivers from having a clear and unobstructed view of official traffic control signs and approaching or merging traffic.
• Signs may not be positioned so that they are readable primarily from a limited access facility (which includes the interstates and ramps and some other highways-such as US 7 between Bennington and Dorset).
• Signs must be in good repair and securely affixed to a substantial structure.

That last one is very relevant.  I’m not trying to pick on Clinton’s campaign here, because I’m sure Obama’s campaign is doing this as well; today we spotted a group of Clinton supporters waving signs in a traffic median.  When we returned home, they had left, but they left a bunch of signs just sticking into the snow.  According to this, that’s illegal.  I would be shocked to find that they’d come back to remove the signs the day after the election, too.  That almost never happens.

So, just a word to the campaigns: play nice, don’t leave your signs just sitting all over the damned place, and don’t (as I saw today) stand in the road while you hold up your sign.

One of the reasons Clinton was doing well in earlier debates was that she was able to sort of jump in and take charge, and did some good push back against Wolf Blitzer’s stupid questions, making her look like a leader.

She could have done that last night, and blew it.  

Quite simply: when Russert started going after Obama about anti-Semitism and Farrakhan, etc., she could have stopped it.  She could have done the classy thing and said “you know, this is ridiculous.  Let’s debate actual issues, and not pull this sort of nonsense with one another.”

But that’s not what happened.

I made the mistake of, just for a moment, thinking that she was about to do that but, not so much so.  When she was given an opportunity to respond, she instead piled on, trying to draw an obscure lexical distinction.   Instead, this is what happened (including much of Russert’s original race-baiting questioning):

The very worst part of this is that Clinton seems to think she’s achieved a victory here.  At the end, when she’s smirking about it, she looks like she thinks she won because she got Obama to agree with here.

I was an Edwards supporter and when he dropped out, I was truly undecided.  Both candidates had done things to earn my respect, and both had presented issues of concern for me.  At this point, though, I think either one would make a decent president, and either one would be far better than McCain.

So for me, this boils down to two things:

• who’s got the better chance of winning in November;
• who is conducting their campaign in the fashion which I find to be the most ethical and moral.

Generally when faced with those two items, I an presented with a choice between two candidates, one of whom I would think of as being the most ethical and one of whom I think of as the most electable.  This happened in this cycle when I was stuck between Edwards (most ethical) and Obama or Clinton (more electable).  

I no longer have to concern myself with choosing between the two.  Obama has demonstrated himself to be conducting his campaign in a fashion which is civil, acceptable to me and appropriate, and he’s also doing so in a fashion which is clearly a winning strategy.  

I don’t mean this to pile on to Clinton.  I think, in a lot of ways, she’s run a very strong campaign and has done well despite a serious disadvantage in funding.  I think she is, overall, a good Senator and would make a great Secretary of State if the next President were inclined to offer it to her.

But she’s really lost this one, and this sort of petty squabbling over minor definitions makes her seem smaller than she is.  It makes her seem immature and vindictive.  It does not serve her, and it does not serve the country for her to pull this crap.

And really, that’s it for me: if she can’t figure out how to criticize a candidate who is generally liked and respected, without just attacking him, she’s not going to do any better against McCain.  Obama’s figured out how to respond to Clinton’s attacks with geniality and humor.  

It’s over.  It was mostly over before this debate, but last night sealed it.  Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont will just confirm it.  

And I really can’t see how her campaign doesn’t get that.

Per the Rutland Herald:

The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant another green light Monday in their quest to keep the 1972 reactor operating for another 20 years.

But at the same time, the staff outlined 51 conditions that Entergy Nuclear must meet before 2012, when its current license expires.

Most of the special conditions or “commitments” deal with the aging of key metal components in the plant and how Entergy proposes to manage them. According to a summary released by the NRC late Monday, Entergy has already agreed to the conditions.

This is so not what I wanted to wake up to today.

before I head off to bed:

I have no idea where this came from.  It got posted to Kos and I stole it.