The NRC has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing a catastrophic failure that exposes the public to radiation at all US nuke plants.  MSNBC helpfully has ranked them based on the official data:

70. Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vt.: 1 in 123,457 chance each year. Old [1989] estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 252 percent.

Compare to your odds of dying in a year from various mundane things:

• Fall on and from stairs and steps: 1 in 175,448
• Drowning and submersion while in or falling into natural water: 1 in 184,970
• Inhalation and ingestion of food causing obstruction of respiratory tract: 1 in 343,179
• Firearms discharge: 1 in 375,801
• Air and space transport accident: 1 in 502,554

I'm not sure if I feel better or not…

ntodd

My friend Rosemarie Jackowski–who ran again last year for AG–just had a book published!  It's called Banned In Vermont: This is the true story of one of the largest arrests in the history of a small New England town-as seen through the eyes of one of the defendants.

If I might take a little liberty, here's an excerpt from Rosemarie's note to the reader (it's an unedited copy I have, so might not be exactly what's in the final version):

Resistance to war is not a one-day event. It is a lifetime commitment – a Historical Movement that passes from one generation to the next. 

This book was written to tell the true story of an anti-war protest in a small New England town. The protest led to one of the largest arrests in the history of the town.   

It is my hope that what I have written will inspire and entertain the reader. If this book makes you sad – and then makes you smile at other times, I have achieved my goal. 

It is also a hope that someone who reads this book will find a way to awaken a small portion of the sleeping national conscience.  Where I have failed, you might succeed.

…

On March 20, 2003 many people were so intoxicated with patriotism that they were more than ready to accept any military action. Others took a more thoughtful view. For some in the US and around the world, the knowledge that Iraqi children were being bombed was too much to bear in silence. The pain struck at the hearts and souls of many. Calling the deaths “collateral damage” did not change the facts or lessen the pain. 

…

I tell the story of [a mass protest in Bennington, VT] and the legal process that followed [the arrest of The Bennington Twelve].  The protest was brief – only a couple of hours. The legal process that followed took more than four years.

It is important to note that every legal case is different.  If any factor had been different – different Judge, different lawyers, different witnesses – the final result would have been different.  The fact that this case achieved a higher level of Justice than some other cases is a tribute to those involved – the Judge, the Defense Counsel, and maybe even the Prosecution, and ultimately the Vermont Supreme Court. 

Full disclosure: I did some gratis technical consulting on this project.  Well, not entirely gratis, as I did receive my free autographed copy in the mail today!  I just mean I'm not shilling it for profit, but simply because I think it's a story that needs to be told now more than ever.

Anyway, if you'd like more of a flavor of Rosemarie's writing, check out her articles at Press Actionand Dissident Voice.  Then buy Banned In Vermont.

ntodd

Our local Healthcare Is A Human Right campaign committee at the end of our meeting with Sen Sara Kittell. Prog candidate and Honorary Grandma Cindy Weed is holding my son, Super Campaigner and Activist Sam.

Vermonters, please don't forget there is a statewide public healthcare hearing on Monday, March 7th, from 6-8pm thanks to Vermont Interactive Television. Testify to the Legislature!

More info from the Workers Center: http://workerscenter.org/node/740

Find a VIT location near you: http://www.vitlink.org/

We'll also be having another meeting in a couple weeks with the legislators who couldn't make today's confab.  Gotta keep the heat on!

ntodd

Our traditional exercise of direct democracy this morning was grand.  Not only was it Sam's first Town Meeting (last year's would've been had the teething infant not melted down mere minutes beforehand), but there were dozens of highschoolers there as non-voting guests, which was a lovely thing to see (even if it was, as I suspect, a civics class assignment or somesuch).  Turnout was so good overall that I ran out of my Healthcare is a Human Right literature.

On a large scale, I'm not a big fan of direct democracy–witness California, for example, as the people let their passions tie their own hands with regard to revenue, and the Tyranny of the Majority tramples civil rights with Prop 8–and generally prefer some sort of republican, representative form of self-government.  But at a sort of atomic level, you can't get much better than what we manage each March in most of our small communities in Vermont.

Thomas Jefferson had a vision of governance that was not entirely dissimilar from what we have here:

I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength.

1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.
2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it.

But this division looks to many other fundamental provisions…These little republics would be the main strength of the great one. We owe to them the vigor given to our revolution in its commencement in the Eastern States, and by them the Eastern States were enabled to repeal the embargo in opposition to the Middle, Southern and Western States, and their large and lubberly division into counties which can never be assembled. General orders are given out from a centre to the foreman of every hundred, as to the sergeants of an army, and the whole nation is thrown into energetic action, in the same direction in one instant and as one man, and becomes absolutely irresistible. Could I once see this I should consider it as the dawn of the salvation of the republic, and say with old Simeon, “nunc dimittas Domine.” [“Dismiss him, O Lord” from the Canticle of Simeon. – ed.] But our children will be as wise as we are, and will establish in the fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment.

Was this ever scalable in the United States back then, let alone today?  Perhaps not, but I'm thankful that we can with few exceptions still do this in Vermont.  I'd like to think our form of government is part of why our state tends to lead the way on things like civil rights and healthcare–because we have an opportunity to politically engage with each other so much–even though one of the biggest debates in Fletcher today was how best to provide an electronic option for voters to receive the town report…

ntodd

It's Town Meeting time!  That means folks with the Healthcare is a Human Right Campaign will be passing out fliers, asking you to pose for the photo petition and answering your questions about Vermont's current healthcare reform bill and how you can help win the civil rights battle of our time.

Those of us in Franklin County will be not only talking to our fellow Vermonters at Town Meeting, but also our elected employees this week.  Senator Sara Kittell and Representative Dick Howrigan have agreed to meet with their constituents on Thursday at 1030AM at the St Albans Library so we can share our healthcare stories, hopes and concerns as Vermont moves forward.

A lot of work has already been done.  Let's finish the job!

ntodd

Will Bunch interviewed in Salon:

The American economy was doing very poorly in the early 1990s, there was a recession during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. Bush 41's presidency basically collapsed because he was forced to increase taxes to deal with the continuing deficits that were a legacy of Reagan. There was high anxiety among the American people starting in Reagan's second term about the loss of jobs in manufacturing, the growing clout of Asia — so all of these things really caused Reagan to be viewed pretty negatively at the time.

Bill Clinton campaigned very aggressively against Reaganomics. When Clinton was able to get some of his economic policies through Congress in the first two years of his presidency, Time ran a cover with a picture of Reagan upside down, and it was about the death of Reaganomics. That was the tone in the early '90s, before this conservative campaign to build what I call the Reagan myth got started.

There's been plenty of hagiography and myth-busting leading up to this Holiest of Days (a unique confluence of Super Bowl Sunday and Reagan's 100th Birthday), but I can't help adding just a smidge more to the mix.  As we in Vermont work out the details of our single-payer implementation, including debating payroll taxes and such, there needs to be an honest discussion about raising revenues to safeguard the common weal in very ugly economic times.

Sadly, I don't see a lot of political courage, let alone reliable memory, when it comes to tax increases.  Governor Shumlin appears to still suffer from this:

Let me be clear — Vermont's biggest problem is not that our income taxes are not high enough — they are too high. Our problem is not that our sales tax isn't high enough — It's too high. Our problem is not that our rooms and meals tax isn't high enough — It is too high.

I'll set aside his glaring omission of the regressive property tax burden and simply take serious exception to his notion that our income taxes are too high, at least when it comes to the top marginal rate.  It's almost like many Democrats today have internalized Reaganomics Bullshit or suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

Let me be clear: Reagan proved you can, and must, raise taxes during economic downturns.

After his disastrous first tax cut, Reagan raised taxes seven times–the economy improved.  George HW Bush raised taxes to address the massive deficits he–left by the Voodoo Economics he mocked before getting the VP nod.  Bill Clinton raised taxes and gave us a surplus–remember those days of prosperity, deficit hawks?

And let's not forget Vermont's Republican Governor, Richard Snelling.  Some of his political descendants might dismiss Snelling's raising taxes on the rich as anachronistic, but we've seen over the last 30 years that Laffer was wrong and the only path to recovery is making wealthy people to kick in.

So how about it, Mr Shumlin?  Would you rather be on the right side of history as well as the side of ordinary Vermonters, or not?

ntodd

1989:

Failing to appreciate or plan for the possibility of repression was an error in itself, but it also freed the students to indulge in whatever provocative action seemed enticing. Inflammatory gestures such as erecting, opposite Mao's Mausoleum, a “Goddess of Democracy,” a replica of America's Statue of Liberty, doubtless antagonized the regime while not changing any facts on the ground. In short, while the students were familiar with the most obvious forms of nonviolent action – occupying public spaces, hunger strikes and playing to the international media – their decisions in using these sanctions did not reflect “any significant degree of strategic thinking…”

The failure of strategy at the moment of crisis kept echoing throughout its aftermath. The government's use of repression taught the wrong lesson to many about how rights and democracy should be pursued. In 1999 one former protestor called himself “a victim of June 4,” since he was fired and prevented from getting another job; he had decided that “the only path for China was. . .cautious, progressive liberalization.” Even the flammable Wu'er Kaixi, who fled China and later had to pump gas and wait on tables in California, succumbed to lower expectations. Explaining why he hoped that Beijing would not be forced to acknowledge its Tiananmen savagery, he said that doing so might only set back gradual reforms. And he wanted to return home. “I think if everything goes okay, I'll be able to go home in five years. If something happens, if there are demonstrations and another crackdown, it will take longer.”

1991:

Journalists…played their part in the resistance on the first day of the coup.  One of the first acts of the putschists had been to suspend freedom of the press.  Only one television station in Moscow was allowed to operate, and the printed press was told to print exclusively declarations of the State Committee for the State Emergency.  Nevertheless, Yeltsin's “Appeal to the Citizens of Russia” was printed on page two of a late edition of Izvestia, one of the Soviet Union's largest-circulation newspapers.  The appeal had been printed against the direct order of the editor, but the paper's staff insisted they would burn the presses if it were not included.

Other Russian citizens were informed of Yeltsin's defiance by watching the evening news on the “official” television station.  One segment, titled “Moscow Today,” was designed to demonstrate how calm the capital city was after the regime change.  The program showed that, indeed, most of Moscow was calm and operating normally.  But the segment also included footage from the White House and excerpts from Yeltsin's speech on the tank.  The response from the coup leaders in the Interior Ministry was immediate.  “The story on Moscow was treacherous!” the editors of the program were told.  “You have given instructions to the people on where to go and what to do!”

2011:

Tanks and armored personnel carriers fanned out across the city of 18 million, guarding key government buildings, and major tourist and archaeological sites. Among those singled out for special protection was the Egyptian Museum, home to some of the country's most treasured antiquities, and the Cabinet building. The military closed the pyramids on the outskirts of Cairo – Egypt's premier tourist site.

But soldiers made no moves against protesters, even after a curfew came and went and the crowds swelled in the streets, demanding an end to Mubarak's rule and no handoff to the son he had been grooming to succeed him.

“This is the revolution of people of all walks of life,” read black graffiti scrolled on one army tank in Tahrir Square. “Mubarak, take your son and leave,” it said.
Thousands of protesters defied the curfew for the second night, standing their ground in the main Tahrir Square in a resounding rejection of Mubarak's attempt to hang onto power with promises of reform and a new government.

…

There were no clashes reported between protesters and the military at all, and many in the crowds showered soldiers with affection.

One army captain joined the demonstrators in Tahrir Square, who hoisted him on their shoulders while chanting slogans against Mubarak. The officer ripped apart a picture of the president.

Popular revolts, both violent and non-violent, can of course fail.  It's as yet unclear whether events in Egypt will be more like Russia in 1991 (ElBaradei as Yeltsin, the military standing aside?) or China in 1989 (using tweets instead of faxes, lacking strategic cohesion?).  I'm heartened that the resisters have distributed a good plan via offline channels, so hopefully the former precedent will hold sway despite the clear US government interest in the survival of a strategically important allied regime in the region.

I might as well note that this month marks the 25th anniversary of the People Powered Revolution in the Phillipines:

After the election Cory Aquino spoke to a crowd of one million people at a rally in Manila. She proposed a seven-part program of nonviolent resistance, including a one-day work stoppage and a boycott of Marcos-controlled banks, stores and newspapers. She urged people to “experiment with nonviolent forms of protest” and declared: “…if Goliath refuses to yield, we shall keep dipping into our arsenal of nonviolence and escalate our nonviolent struggle.” The revolution had begun.

On February 22, 1986, Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos defect from the Marcos government. Enrile and Ramos barricade themselves in the Defense Ministry headquarters in Manila, along with a small group of sympathetic troops. They say they are prepared to die rather than continue supporting the corrupt Marcos regime.

…

Of course it started with 47. Assemblies of protest of support:

Opposition to the policies or acts of an opponent, or support for certain policies, may be expressed by public assembly of a group of people at appropriate points, which are usually in some way related to the issue.  These may be, for example, government offices, courts, or prisons.  Or people may gather at some other place, such as around the statue of a hero or villain.  Depending on the particular laws and regulations and on the general degree of political conformity, such an assemblage may be either legal or illegal (if the latter, this method becomes combined with civil disobedience).

…

Aquino educated her audience, provided them with a strategic framework and specific tactics.  Her appeal was to the people, not her opponent.  Even had there been no media coverage of that event, she reached a million citizens directly and launched a successful revolution.

The Filipinos could have reacted completely passively, just accepting the old dictatorship and the games Marcos played in stealing the election.  Or they could have opted for violence.  Instead, they doubled their chance of victory by resisting nonviolently:

Our findings [using data on major resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006] show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.

 

There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.

Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime. Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining…We assert that nonviolent resistance is a forceful alternative to political violence that can pose effective challenges to democratic and nondemocratic opponents…

Mubarak is an autocrat and a US ally, just as Marcos was.  While it's not my place, let alone Washington's, to really weigh in on the actions of sovereign people, on balance I hope we see peaceful regime change.  There's no guarantee a better one will be put in place should the uprising prove to be successful, but that's always a risk.

And in light of Egypt, and Tunisia, and the countless other examples of successful popular movements throughout the world, I join Chris Hedges in wondering what, exactly, will motivate us to rebel against corporate power here at home…

ntodd

PS–I'm not sure what's happened with the Pax Americana template, so some of the links will appear blank, but content is actually at the bottom of the pages.