WGDR Radio (91.1 FM, Plainfield, Vermont) plans to preempt their usual programming in the afternoon on Wednesday (February 23rd) for some local coverage concerning homelessness and related matters within Vermont.

Live blog coverage, via CoverItLive, is scheduled to begin when WGDR does so at or around 2:30 PM (EST) and is planned to go until 6:00 PM (EST), which should be available on the WGDR Website and is also posted on Vermont Watch, here (Update: due to technical difficulties, the live blog player could not be directly embedded on the WGDR Website).

Word is Governor Peter Shumlin is planning on calling into WGDR sometime around or after 2:30 PM or so 3:05 PM (Updated).

It is also reported that Agency of Human Services (AHS) Secretary Doug Racine will be at the WGDR studio sometime during the day as well.

In addition, information has it that state Senator Anthony Pollina also plans to call into WGDR during its homelessness related broadcast.

Excerpts of information from sidebar of WGDR Website:

The Homelessness Marathon is an annual 14-hour radio broadcast featuring the voices and stories of homeless people from around the United States. The Homelessness Marathon features live call-ins all night long via a national toll-free number. WGDR invites everyone to come down to the station during the marathon. We are a “listening station” where people can gather in solidarity around the issue of homelessness. The station is on the Campus of Goddard College, Plainfield, Vermont.

[…]

Call Ruth Wilder at the station for more information about the special program, or if you want to participate. 802-322-1720

Listen to WGDR in the Central Vermont area on 91.1 FM or stream the station live, here.

Afterwards, live blogging of WGDR’s coverage during the 2011 Homelessness Marathon broadcast originating from Kansas City, Missouri will begin at 7:00 PM (EST) on Wednesday, February 23rd and, barring any technical difficulties or falling asleep, will continue until 9:00 AM (EST) on Thursday, February 24th, 2011.

The Homelessness Marathon’s mission is to raise consciousness about homelessness and poverty in America and around the world. We operate on a shoestring budget and the dedication of volunteers, so your contribution will really make a difference.

Elsewhere within Vermont, WVEW – 107.7 FM – Brattleboro Community Radio will also be airing the Homelessness Marathon as well as preempting their usual programming to provide hour-long local coverage beginning at 6:00 PM (EST).

Read an article about it (via The Commons), here.

One can also view the entire broadcast of the Homelessness Marathon, whose Website will have an embedded player streaming live video feed via Free Speech TV.

In the meantime, to learn more about this consciousness raising event, view a brief promo, here and, a short clip from a 2009 interview of Jeremy Alderson aka Nobody, here (via YouTube).

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here)

One wonders whether, if corporations are considered persons under the laws of the land, should not then people likewise be considered corporations as well?

Being that such would be completely absurd of course, neither should corporations be considered persons, who are afforded all the rights that ought be reserved to actual persons alone, not corporate interests.

Ours is supposed to be government of the people, by the people, for the people, not government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

Among the problems with corporations being granted rights of persons is they only want those rights and none of the responsibilities, obligations and duties that also go along with such or, at least only those they decide to pick and choose from, something which people do not have a choice about since one comes with the others.

When doing a search concerning a resolution currently before the state senate on the subject, I came across a good article (via Valley Advocate, here; Thursday, February 10, 2011; Northampton, Ma.):

Vermont: Corporations Aren’t People

Vermont lawmakers push back on High Court’s Citizens United ruling

By Tom Sturm

The wording of a new resolution brought to the Vermont State Legislature by state senator Virginia Lyons is stark and unambiguous: “The profits and institutional survival of large corporations are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings.” Corporations, the resolution continues, “have used their so-called rights to successfully seek the judicial reversal of democratically enacted laws,” leaving democratically elected governments “ineffective in protecting their citizens against corporate harm to the environment, health, workers, independent business, and local and regional economies.”

Lyons introduced the bill on the recent first anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision, which, through Byzantine interpretations of precedents that gave corporations “personhood” via the 14th Amendment, allowed them the same First Amendment rights as citizens are granted under the Constitution. President Obama somewhat boldly addressed members of the court at last year’s State of the Union Address, saying the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests-including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our elections.”

Much of the controversy surrounds another facet of the ongoing argument-the notion that money is equivalent to speech, and that therefore no limits should be placed on expenditures for political advertising during federal election campaigns. Many argue that even well-organized groups of individuals cannot hope to compete with the vast amounts of aggregated cash that corporations can produce as needed, and that most individuals do not own their own newspapers, television stations or the other media networks that offer a greatly amplified voice to the political views of corporations that do.

[…]

Read the article in full, here.

Information on the resolution can be found, here.

In addition, on Saturday, March 5th at 2:00 PM, Senator Bernie Sanders will be hosting a Town Meeting to discuss the issue of corporations being afforded the status as “persons” under the constitution, here.

View town meeting poster, here.

(cross-posted to Vermont Watch, here)

For those interested in learning more about what is brewing when it comes to town meeting day and politics at the local level as well as behind the scenes of the same, there are two candidates seeking to represent the residents of district three (3) on the Montpelier City Council, which has been the seat held by City Councilor Jim Sheridan for the last twelve (12) years (*Update*: Jim Sheridan is not running for re-election).

This could prove to be an exciting and rather interesting as well as, I predict, a close race between the two candidates and one well worth paying attention to during the next two short weeks leading up to the election.

Each of these candidates will bring a fresh perspective, energy and commitment of their own to addressing issues and problems facing the capital city.

After town meeting day and, no matter whom is elected to fill the district three seat, the council will have four (4) of six (6) city councilors serving at the same time who are under forty (40) years of agein their early forties or younger, not counting the mayor (correction).

These candidates also appear to already harbor ambitions to eventually seek to serve within the state legislature someday should the opportunity afford itself.

While this is her first run for political office, Angela MacDonald-Timpone is by no means a complete stranger to the world of Vermont politics as is often played out at the local level however. She had previously worked on the campaign and also on the staff of Bernie Sanders when he was serving as the state’s lone Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In addition, Mrs. Timpone reports having been a frequent visitor to his house and listening in on many political discussions while she was growing up due to living on the same street as him and his family back during the time he was Mayor of the City of Burlington.

To learn even more about the candidate, read both a brief profile as well as her responses to a variety of questions posed by yours truly to each of the two candidates, here.

In what will be his second run for political office within less than a year, the first being for one of the two seats the capital city has within the Vermont House of Representatives, James Merriam has now focused his efforts on seeking to represent the residents of district three (3) on the city council.

Mr. Merriam had previously served as the student representative on the Montpelier school board from 2005 through 2007.

To learn even more about the candidate, read both a brief profile as well as his responses to the questions posed, here.

Contact information is also provided on those same informational pages linked above in case anyone has additional questions for the candidates.

(cross-posted to Vermont Watch, here)

*Update*: After doing some further searching, had managed to come across word on the Bring Back Sarah Lavigne Facebook page set up on her behalf which indicates that as of the early evening of Monday, January 31st, Sarah had gained access to her account once again.

*Updated*: (with the usual edits)

Breastfeeding mom wants answers

By JOSH STILTS / Reformer Staff

Tuesday February 1, 2011

BRATTLEBORO — A local woman who had her social networking and business account disabled for posting pictures of her breastfeeding her son wants answers.

Sarah Lavigne, 36, of Marlboro, said she never though she’d be at the center of such a large controversy but that people need to understand that breastfeeding isn’t pornography.

In January, Lavigne had her personal and business pages removed from the social networking site, Facebook, for allegedly violating the website’s Terms of Use by posting a photo of herself breastfeeding her infant son, Basil Leoniak.

[…]

The group Bring Back Sarah Lavigne has 840 Facebook users who “like” the page and it’s growing daily.

Lavigne said she hopes Facebook reinstates her account if for nothing more than to be able to get contact information for people.

[…]

Read the entire article (via Brattleboro Reformer), here.

(the following was posted by me as a comment post to the above article and is shared here to both help raise awareness as well as to attempt to help spread the word to others who might be as concerned and outraged regarding these matters as I am)

Say what!?

Say it ain’t so Facebook.

Am glad I wisely dumped my account a while back or I’d be raging on Facebook for hours about this.

Both my son and daughter, who were born in the mid-80’s, were breastfed by their mother.

As I recall, when there was day-work available from the professional temp service she worked for as a bookkeeper or whatever was the job on a given day or week and it was for day-long, my daughter was oftentimes breastfed at their mother’s workplace around or during lunchtime on those days she had me bring our son and daughter there to pick up breast milk she had pumped out earlier.

This way the breast milk she pumped out could be brought home in our little cooler — that was just big enough to hold the reusable freeze packs and also breast milk — and then stored away when the three of us arrived back home and later used when needed.

Although this was not within Vermont, the city we lived in was a fairly conservative one compared to others elsewhere within Massachusetts at the time. Yet there was never a fuss raised by anyone, ever, at least not as I can best recall anyway.

Yeah, I was a stay-at-home dad during this time period, offering to do so since she wanted to work badly and she could also bring home much leaner bacon and way more of it than myself. No shame in that either. However, when we needed more income and work was available on my end, I also worked night shifts at times during that particular year or so. Anyway, I digress.

Back on the subject, …

Maybe the youngsters at Facebook were never breastfed, either that or they forgot their experience?

Because, if they were breastfed as well as managed to remember anything from their experience, they would well know breastfeeding is not only good as this article mentions, but it is also not something to ban or punish someone for doing.

They would also know, as the mother in this article said, breastfeeding photos are not pornography. Too bad the youngsters at Facebook can’t get a life and quit playing nanny over what is clearly nothing to be shunned.

If those involved in setting and enforcing policy at Facebook were actually breastfed however, it appears they are sorely in need of a lengthy and passionate heart to heart talk with their mothers. Imagine if only their mothers were in charge of Facebook and setting sound policy on such matters?

Who is in charge at Facebook, the lawyers or what? It is high time Facebook revised its “Terms of Use” policies and rules as well as then get all your[their] monitoring nannies on the same page. It also might help if they found one’s who were breastfed or at least have them be screened for whether they find breastfeeding photos as being obscene and as pornography.

Not really wanting too put words in the mouth of my ex-wife and probably catch trouble for doing so, I would not at all be surprised if she were to come across this article or word about it she just might be heard screaming: Get over it Facebook!

— 55-year-old proud Dad to two breastfed, well-raised and now grown and healthy as well as on their own adult, kiddos (their mother deserves all the credit of course).

P.S.

When going over the rusty memories within my mind from way back then again, had found myself not being quite sure whether the breast feeding mentioned happened while our son may have still been breast feeding or later, after our daughter was born. However, whichever is the case, am fairly certain that the rest of the story is as correct as I can best recall.

*Note*: made several, mostly minor, edits for the purposes of clarification and readability; also posted an update (P.S. at bottom of post); last updated on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 8:18 AM (EST).

(cross-posted to Vermont Watch, here)

Yesterday, during his interview on Vermont Public Radio (VPR) VT Edition (here) and in defence of Governor Peter Shumlin‘s budget cuts to human service programs, it was rather disheartening to listen to Agency of Human Services (AHS) Secretary Doug Racine make the veiled threat of going before the state legislature to offer alternative cuts to other programs they would find even more unacceptable than the ones already offered.

This would of course merely serve as a Hobson’s choice of sorts in terms of being a way to try to get the state legislature to accept the budget cuts to human service programs offered within Governor Shumlin’s budget or else.

This was a tactic often employed by the Douglas administration and is pure Douglas 2.0 on the part of the current administration. Shame on them!

As far as making other recommendations of what to do in terms of attempting to address the FY2012 budget shortfall, my own recommendations can be found, here (via vtdigger).

However, looking on the brighter side of things, it just warms the heart to know how much as well as how hard the Governor and his administration has been working on one of his recent top priorities in ensuring that small amounts of real maple sugar will be offered with servings of Fruit and Maple Oatmeal at McDonald restaurants located within Vermont (*updated*).

How sweet it is! — save for anyone who is diabetic or whom otherwise must refrain from consuming added sugars and the like.

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here)

The Vermont Legislature should consider adopting as well as enacting something along the lines of the following seven (7) recommendations when it considers addressing the current shortfall in terms of crafting the fiscal year 2012 budget:

1. Tap up to half of the rainy day reserve funds, not counting the Agency of Human Services (AHS) caseload reserve fund as is already proposed to be used;
2. Create a tax scheme along the lines of what former Governor Dick Snelling and the state legislature had wisely enacted back in the early 1990’s. This could be used to both help raise a portion of the current shortfall as well as ensuring to have a certain amount of those tax receipts be dedicated to help build back up the tapped rainy day reserve funds;
3. While still needing to find and make cuts to the Fiscal Year 2012 budget to cover the shortfall, this time around make sure to cut the fat where the fat truly exists: i.e., At the top and mid level regions of the higher paid and positioned bureaucracy across state government, starting within the administration itself and ensuring that the rank and file state workforce that delivers direct services to the citizens of the state are able to be held harmless: e.g., during these tight budget times, the state cannot afford nor does it need all the deputy commissioners at the department level across state government, including at the department of mental health;
4. In addition, put or keep in place a permanent cap on all salary increases, bonuses, merit increases or whatever they might be termed these days for those working in top or middle management positions across state government, including and starting with the administration. This policy should be kept in place until the economy fully recovers and, also not be ceased until all human services program cuts are then fully restored to what they were prior to the series of cuts that have been made within previous years as well as any forthcoming cuts;
5. As was done previously, cut salaries of higher level state employees receiving $60,000 or more. However this time do so by 10 percent (10%), beginning with members of the administration, including the Governor. It is certain there are others who are as well qualified and also willing to serve within those positions who could step in to take over for anyone not willing or able to take such cuts and who choose to leave their positions as a result;
6. Put an end to providing meal allowances and other such stipends for any and all state employees, including the Governor and members of the state legislature, etc.;
7. Severely restrict out of state travel allowances for state employees across state government, including members of the administration and the state legislature and recommend use of teleconferencing or use of other electronic means rather than attending meetings in person. In addition, also severely restrict allowances covering conference fees and the like for all state employees, including within the administration and state legislature, whether it be for instate or out of state conferences or other such meetings.

These are some of the places state government should be looking to cut first and foremost. Rather than beginning at the bottom and working their way up the food chain, they should be starting at the top and working their way down.

(This could be an entertaining discussion.  Have at it. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Thanks to the wry wit of Peter Freyne, former Governor Douglas‘ gifted moniker was Governor Scissorhands.

To my way of thinking, Governor Douglas had earned it as much for deeply cutting budgets as he might have done for his skill at cutting ribbons.

Speaking of deepening or rather impaling budget cuts, either view or read more on the subject, here (via WCAX News).

One is then left to only wonder however whether the moniker Governor Shumlin could eventually earn down the road someday will be that of Peter the Impaler?

Cannot recall who said it, however …

“One can never cut one’s way out of a recession, it is like trying to dig oneself out of a hole.”

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here)

Word is Rep. Anne Donahue (R-Northfield) will be a guest on the Mark Johnson Show tomorrow (Tuesday, January 25th) at 10:15 AM concerning the Tasers and Act 80 mental health/disabilities police training bill, H. 3.

The radio talk show itself starts at 9:00 AM and ends at 11:00 AM. Listen live locally on WDEV Radio 550 AM or 96.1 FM or, via streaming audio online, here.

For those who are not able to listen to the show segment live, later on Mark Johnson often posts archived audio clips of some interviews on his blog, here.

On Thursday, January 27th at 10:00 AM, the House Committee on Government Operations will have Rep. Donahue speak to them briefly regarding H. 3. Check the committee’s schedule, here.

Related information:

• 2010 Updated Act 80 Report from the Vermont Attorney General to the state legislature; note group recommendations beginning on page 4 (PDF version)
• Use of Force Preferences study (full text; via Schizophrenia Bulletin)

Read the following as an example of why Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training — which is what the following article refers to and is much more extensive than the Act 80 training — is better to do so sooner rather than later or, put another way, proactively versus reactively: Cardalls want mental health training for cops (via Salt Lake Tribune), here.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

(cross-posted from Montpelier Matters, here)

The following excerpt was found within Montpelier City Manager Bill Fraser‘s January 21, 2011 report to members of the city council concerning how they had decided to proceed regarding the request to purchase Tasers (here; via PDF version, Adobe Acrobat Reader required):

[…]

Tasers:

I will draft a proposed charge for a committee based on your comments and on the e-mail that the Mayor sent out. I assume we could discuss the charge at the next meeting and seek to appoint the committee right after town meeting.

[…]

Thus, anyone wanting to consider participating with any Taser community discussion committee that could potentially be formed, for if and when the city council decides the parameters for doing so, should let one’s city councilors, the Mayor and the city manager know as soon as possible.

The more interest expressed by members of the community for making this happen, the sooner things can begin to proceed.

View archived video of the Montpelier City Council’s Thursday, January 20, 2011 Taser policy discussion continuation (agenda item 5, actual discussion begins at 3:53 mark and ends at 1:13:51 mark; includes agenda; then later, during discussion on the proposed 2012 budget – agenda item 6, funding for the Tasers was brought up and discussed beginning at the 2:50:48 mark), here. Archived meeting agenda, here.

Read a brief report shared by Zack Hughes, here, as well as a longer one of mine, here.

View archived video of the Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Taser Policy Discussion (actual discussion begins at 5:32 mark and lasts for nearly 3 hours; includes agenda and attached related documents), here. Archived meeting agenda with attached related documents (agenda item 8), here.