Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon is vowing to do whatever is possible to block Patrick Leahy’s Protect IP act I covered last week. This is a bill slammed as an absolute disaster by civil rights advocates, as well as those concerned with the safety and security of the internet. It is a disaster of a bill that is little more than an inexplicable (and poorly thought through) gift to Hollywood and the recording industry at the expense of virtually everyone else.

Thankfully, Wyden is taking it seriously – even threatening a filibuster if his hold is not honored. Leahy, however, is not taking Wyden very seriously. From Politico:

The bill is championed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Leahy said this week that he isn’t worried by the threat of a hold. He predicts that the bill will score a victory in the Senate. He noted that his patent reform bill, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which passed and was signed into law earlier this year, had to overcome a hold before getting to the floor.

“We’re ready to go, and we’ve got a huge number of bipartisan supporters on it,” Leahy said. “It will certainly pass the Senate once we get it up.”

Obviously, this bill is an attack on everything GMD is, and the very internet which allows sites like ours to flourish, so it’s hard not to get pretty livid about this. If you feel the same, Wyden is working with advocates and has set up stopcensorship.org/ to fight the bill. Signers of the petition to prevent passage will have their names read aloud into the congressional record during any filibuster on the issue.

I’m not optimistic about this, but it’s all we can do, as far as I can see. Check out Wyden’s video below, and use the “Raise Your Voice” link at the bottom to contact legislators – particularly Sanders, as I think Leahy is not only drinking the kool-aid on this one, he’s making it and serving it to colleagues.

So, yes, Governor Peter Shumlin got awarded a greenest governor title from some group called “Opportunity Green” (boy we are running out of names, aren’t we?). And yes, that is going to generate controversy, particularly given the acrimony over the wind development projects he supports.

But I’d still argue that he deserves the award. Sure, that’s in part due to the fact that it’s a relative award (if not Shumlin for greenest gov at this point in time, then who, pray tell?).

But it’s more than that. His energy plan is solid, if not revolutionary. On the other hand, there are not-insignificant worries. Development interests with political ties put onto land use commissions. Highly worrisome comments about rivers.

And then there’s the wind debate – but whichever side you fall on that issue, the fact that we’re having it at all could be seen as further justification for giving Shumlin such an award.

Consider: There is a clear method and trajectory to Shumlin’s energy approach – and part of that method is velocity. His close association with Green Mountain Power could be seen as corporate/political croneyism, sure – but it’s equally valid to look at it as a means to an end. After all, if part of his envisioned means is (as it seems to be), moving in some key transformational ways at top speed, he could see GMP as his vehicle for change. That doesn’t preclude GMP from seeing Shumlin as a means to power and influence, but it could be that there’s a synergy in play here – for good or ill – rather than garden-variety croneyism.

But we should remember that for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and part of the Shumlin approach is clearly to sprint towards an energy portfolio that includes large-scale wind in a significant capacity. That’s generating the most contention right now, but it’s clearly contention within the sphere of pro-active environmental policy-making. What we’re arguing about is what approach is more-better green as policy; what path gets us to more energy sustainability faster, and whether one method or another may do more harm than good, in the bigger picture.

So yeah. Give him the award. He’s doing something pro-active (whether you believe it’s misguided or not) and nobody else in his position is. And he’s certainly got us talking, debating – and organizing.

Once lauded as the “Cyber Senator,” Vermont’s Senior Senator is now the sponsor of a controversial bill that would give the worst kind of sweeping and poorly defined powers to corporations and the government to choke private websites based on what these notoriously aggressive corporations deem to be even a hint of copyright infringement.

The Senate bill S.968, or the PROTECT IP Act, and the House bill H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act would not kill the web, but it would go a long way towards making it a corporate-defined marketplace rather than the free information and association zone that has so defined twenty-first century international activism and culture.

The twin bills constitute, quite simply, one of the scariest attempts to consolidate corporate power over individuals that I’ve ever seen, as well as a potential disaster for cybersecurity by inviting haphazard tampering with the internet DNS system.

This video sums up much of the problem:

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

This is the second time Leahy has tried this. Previously it was the  Combating Online Infringement and Counterfiet Acts (COICA). According to attorney James Sykes, “The most controversial provision of COICA, requiring broadband providers to block access to targeted sites, does not appear to be in the bill.  It seems the bill targets only the sites themselves, but the end result is the same, pulling the plug on websites that either sell counterfeit goods, or give free access to copyrighted materials.  This means that the government can pull the plug on sites like “wikileaks” if they provide free public access to copyrighted material.”

One wonders who among his Vermont constituency is clamoring for this action enough to warrant his herculean efforts on the matter.

The Brookings Institution says, aside from the obvious free speech and corporate power issues, the bill will “set back other efforts to secure cyberspace, both domestically and internationally.” Google is against it. Lawyers have called it a “legal nightmare.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that the bill’s clumsy language invites “risk of extreme and unintended consequences”. Lord knows regular folks aren’t interested.

Who’s left?

Currently, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) has a hold on the bill, but historically, you can only count on such a hold being respected if it’s applied by a Republican, so watch out.

A Leahy-Welch one-two punch is on the cusp of succeeding in delivering more transportation aid to Vermont in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene by removing the $100 million cap on federal emergency highway assistance, as well as allowing the state to be fully reimbursed for emergency repairs extending beyond the 180 day limit.

Sen. Leahy got the waivers, along with a $1.662 billion replenishment to the Federal Highway Administration emergency fund, included in the Transportation Appropriations Bill.

The original House bill did not include the provisions, but Rep. Welch successfully pushed to have the additions included in the conference committee report, which was just voted out of the full House on a vote of 298-121.

The Senate is expected to send the final bill to the President’s desk this evening. No doubt Governor Shumlin and the state Legislature are breathing a sigh of relief.

Rep. Welch: “This time, Vermonters are in need. Across the state, we are working together to help ourselves, but we can’t do it alone. Today’s news means Vermont will get a much-needed helping hand from the rest of the country.”

Sen. Leahy: “We want to get Irene way, way behind us, and this bill will bring that day to us sooner.  Repairing our transportation network is the key to restoring Vermont.”

Full press release from Leahy’s office after the flip.

Congress Thursday Evening Takes Final Steps

To Approve Crucial Post-Irene Emergency Transportation Aid Needed By Vermont

. . . Leahy Provisions Will Mean Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To Vermont In Road And Bridge Aid

(THURSDAY, NOV. 17) — In a vote of 298 to 121, the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday afternoon passed the final agreement on the annual Transportation Appropriations Bill, which includes provisions added by Senator Patrick Leahy to replenish the federal government’s depleted transportation emergency fund, along with the cost waivers he authored that will mean tens of millions of additional dollars for road and bridge repair aid in Vermont.  The Senate is expected to promptly take its final vote on the compromise bill to send it tonight to the President’s desk for signing.  The Senate vote is likely this evening, over the next two-to-three hours.

Leahy said, “We want to get Irene way, way behind us, and this bill will bring that day to us sooner.  Repairing our transportation network is the key to restoring Vermont.  We need these emergency funds and these cost waivers because our small state would be stretched too thin to do this alone.”

Facing stiff odds, Leahy added key transportation emergency funding waivers for Vermont in September to the bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee and then worked to secure Senate passage.  The counterpart House bill did not include the Leahy waivers, so Congressman Welch pressed House leaders to accept the Senate-passed provisions, and Leahy similarly worked with Senate conferees.  Senator Sanders also supports the Leahy waivers, and Governor Shumlin has said they are indispensable to Vermont’s recovery.  Leahy is number two on the Senate Appropriations Committee and also a senior member of its transportation subcommittee.

Here is a summary of the Leahy provisions in the final bill –

   Leahy worked to add $1.662 billion to the depleted Federal Highway Administration emergency fund, upon which Vermont will depend for help in repairing and rebuilding roads washed away or damaged by Irene-related flooding.  The emergency highway account today is almost empty.  Also vital to Vermont are several cost-waiver provisions Leahy added to the bill, which would save Vermont millions of state tax dollars by allowing Vermont to:

o    Be reimbursed for more than the current $100 million per-state limit on federal emergency highway repair funds, which is especially critical as Vermont’s repair costs are expected to exceed the current cap;

o    Be reimbursed 100 percent for emergency repairs beyond the current limit of 180 days.

   The bill also includes another high priority for Vermont: Leahy’s legislation to move heavy trucks off state secondary roads and onto the state’s Interstate highways for the next 20 years.  This will help Vermont businesses and communities struggling due to the large number of state and local roads heavily damaged during the flooding disaster.  Leahy’s Vermont provision is paired with a similar change for Maine, authored by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Imagine the reaction to this news report:

Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to stop “Tea Party” protests from city parks and other public spaces. …according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.

Imagine for a moment the congressional hearings, fuming political observers, activists calling for Presidential impeachment on every channel, finger-wagging editorials from every major newspaper. A rebirth of the militia movement, and a political debate – still early in a presidential election season – drowning out discussions of every other issue.

That’d be big news, eh? Of course, this is the actual story:

Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict “Occupy” protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night’s move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.

The response to this story from the media and elected officials on the flip:

See previous diary for the details, but the long and the short is that, due to a final round closer even than the literal “50%+1” threshold, and apparent questions over the validity of another round given that so many voters have left, the Burlington mayoral candidate from the Democratic Party will not be named tonight.

Instead, the top-two vote-getters Tim Ashe and Miro Weinberger will return within a month (on a date to-be-decided), for a final head-to-head runoff. Howard is emphasizing repeatedly that both candidates are on board with this, probably to avoid any “rotten-Dems” style conspiracy theories (yawn).

Funny. Weird. Also kinda cool. Probably a good kumbaya move, but a one-on-one dynamic in the coming weeks will be very different than a four candidate free-for-all. The kumbayas may not last until the next vote.

A side note: there were voters who were turned away due to missing the 2:00 PM registration deadline laid out in the caucus rules. Bet some of those folks are kicking themselves now.

And along those lines, it’s not clear who will be deemed eligible for voting in the follow-up caucus. Party officials could limit it to people who had registered for today’s caucus, or they could throw it as wide open as they want.

LATEST-LATEST UPDATE: Oh lordy. Howard just came out and announced they’re going to recount the ballots, and if nothing changes, they will adjourn the caucus meeting and reconvene for a final vote later in the month.

Wow. What is going on behind the scenes? Somebody’s pissed they can’t their supporters back for another round of voting I guess.

---

LATEST UPDATE: Huh? Round 4? Burlington Chair Steve Howard just announced there will be a round 4, since nobody got a majority of the votes. I’m not sure what that means – there must have been some blank or weird write-in votes? because 540+541=1081, and 50% of 1081 is 540.5, so 50%+1 is actually 541.5 (I’m speculating the reasoning here).

Therefore, to truly meet the 50%+1 threshold, the winner with 1081 votes cast needed 542 (since 541.5 is not attainable).

SO the takeaway is: if Burlington can find a way to find the flaw in what seem to be straightforward election rule-language, they will. Ah well. Mental note: 50%+1 is stupid.

---

Looks like everybody else is embedding the CCTV live feed, so I guess I will too…

If you’re there, let us know (although I guess there’s probably no easy way to do that).

I stayed home, so I’ll repost results as they pop up online.

Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 3 recount
Ashe 458 Weinberger 391 Kranichfeld 354 Lorber 106	Ashe 471 Weinberger 390 Kranichfeld 356	Ashe 541 Weinberger 540	Ashe 540 Weinberger 540 Spoiled: 5 votes

The first round amounts to little more than a pre-real-voting straw poll, but Lorber bowed to the inevitable and dropped out, according to reports.

ROUND 2 thought: Why did only 15 of Lorber’s 106 voters vote in the next round? What happened to the other 91? Geez. I guess democracy is for pouters, too. And what’s with Miro losing a vote? Somebody in the bathroom?

ROUND 3 voting thought: 7 Days tweeters say the room has been emptying. If a sizable number of Bram’s voters do what Jason’s voters did and just bail when their candidate comes up short, this is all Ashe – and will mean there is no meaningful anti-Prog force within the Democratic caucus, despite the assumptions of many long-time party insiders. Very interesting. We shall see…

So today’s the big day, where Democrats in Burlington caucus and choose their candidate for mayor. If nobody was going to stream the event, I was going up there to do so for GMD, but since VPR is going for it (link), I’ll probably stay home.

But it’s also a moment of truth of sorts for Seven Days, the Burlington newsweekly. Seven Days garners a lot of its readership due to its political coverage, and that coverage of this particular race has, of course, brought about this disclaimer which has become a regular feature on its letters page:

Full Disclosure

State Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden), a candidate in the Burlington mayoral race, is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Routly is not assigning or editing stories or columns about Burlington politics for the duration of the campaign. Seven Days staffer Andy Bromage now has that role.

It’s always been a point of tension, made even more difficult by the fact that Seven Days works not simply to cover local politics, but tries to be provocative. It’s been an issue – and a point of much murmuring – with Ashe the city councilor, Ashe the state senatorial candidate, and Ashe the state senator. But Ashe the mayoral candidate was apparently the breaking point, of sorts, bringing forth a more comprehensive and ongoing disclaimer.

The truth is, it has always been more of a conflict of interest/editorial integrity issue than Routly and Seven Days have wanted to acknowledge. It’s more of an issue now than this small disclaimer can cover – after all, we’re not simply talking about a reporter, or even just an editor, we’re talking about a publisher in Routly. A founder. An owner.

I’m not bringing this up to beat up on Seven Days. Nor would I suggest that their coverage of the mayor’s race has been inappropriate – it’s been good, fair, and even-handed, so far as I can tell. I’ve both beat up on Seven Days and sung its praises in the past. In this case I’m doing neither. In fact, I feel for the folks up there and have no good sense of how they should handle this conundrum.  

It’s hard to imagine Seven Days of all places simply choosing not to cover the mayoral race – or the State Senate. And yet, I’ll be dammed if I can come up with an alternative solution that satisfies the demands of basic journalistic and institutional integrity and not just in the abstract ethical context. In the concrete sense of the credibility of the 7 Days brand – everything and anything written that is positive or complimentary about Ashe in any political context on the pages of 7 Days is already looked upon with automatic skepticism by readers of all political stripes in my experience (and anything negative is likely questioned as well, in a reverse-psychological sense).

If it wasn’t already, that little disclaimer will be woefully inadequate should Ashe become the Democratic nominee for mayor today.

Should Ashe actually become mayor of Burlington, forget it – it’s virtually impossible to imagine any way Seven Days can cover Burlington politics with any credibility.

And I feel bad for them. What’s Ashe supposed to do, ditch his ambitions? What’s Routly supposed to do, ditch her career?

It sucks, but there it is (might be interesting for commenters to brainstorm solutions…).

It may not matter. Ashe is likely to start the voting with a plurality, but will probably not make it to the nomination stage due to the runoff voting system, which will allow votes of the other three to coalesce against him.

The fact is, Ashe losing today could well be the best thing that could happen to Seven Days.

Of course, he could then run as a Prog or and Independent anyway…

As a Veterans Day tribute, I’m embedding the 2009 documentary entitled “The War at Home,” made by Norwich University Communications Students. It’s an effective and moving film (despite the intrusive and relentless background music you have to deal with) made up entirely of interviews with veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well worth a watch – even of just a part of it, if that’s all you have time for.

War at Home, The (59 min.} from Norwich Television on Vimeo.

I have no information on this besides what’s being reported. Witnesses are claiming this incident, which took place at 2:00 this afternoon, was a suicide, but according to WCAX, there’s no official word in that regard from police.

Here’s the basics from WCAX:

Occupy Vermont organizers and participants say the victim was very smart, though he didn’t have a whole lot to say and spoke through his actions. Organizers say they did not know the man had a gun. They said the group had made rules about not having alcohol or drugs at the park, but the issue of restricting guns had never come up because they didn’t think they needed to.

Reportedly, the man was known to other protesters, and fired the shot in one of the tents. His identity has not been reported.