My early morning dog-walk was accompanied by a line of Canada Geese obeying the irresistible command of nature to go south.

A little later, a single goose honked its solitary cadence as it hurried due north.  I had the brief fancy that she had forgotten something, like a pokey gosling or a pot on the stove; and she was rushing back to set things right; then would restart the journey alone.  

Whatever the reason, she’ll be southbound on the righteous path in no time; because that’s just the way it is;  a nice, reassuring reminder that there is some overarching predictability to the universe, come what may.

The debate last night was painful to watch.  Jim Lehrer deserves much of the blame for being unprepared, but who cares about that because the way analysts are parsing the outcome, it would seem the American voter cares more about style than substance.

“Mr. Obama looked like he didn’t want to be there.”

“Mr. Obama looked irritated.”

“Mr. Romney looked confident and glad to be there.”

Except for some pretty questionable “fact checking” sidebars, immediate “analysis” of the debate on all the channels that I checked focussed almost entirely on how comfortable the candidates looked!

Why wouldn’t a sitting president, with all the cares and secrets of his office, be simply overjoyed to be spending his twentieth wedding anniversary, live on-stage, trying to worm specifics out of his super-rich opponent?

Always an optimist, I was stunned to learn that debate analysts gave the win to Romney: Romney, who invented his way through the whole thing, defying math, contradicting his earlier position statements, and blithely avoiding questions of substance with the condescending assurance that he would “take care” of everyone.  

Then I remembered why…

The only purpose of the debates is to influence that tiny fragment of likely voters who remain undecided as of this date.

They are all that anyone cares about because the difference between Democratic and Republican platforms is as day compares to night.  Anyone with an ounce of gray matter has already chosen their candidate.    

Those still undecided voters are more likely to base their vote on “curb appeal” or what they had for breakfast than anything even remotely related to substance; kind of like you might choose a movie at the cineplex. No doubt, their eyes simply glaze over when the debating candidates come too close to specificity on points of policy.  

Two more debates (three more if you count the Biden/Ryan meet), and it will be all over except for the weeping.

If Obama pulls off the win, we’ll be euphoric for a few days and then settle into the glum job of prodding and coaxing him to deliver on some of the progressive agenda items that lagged during his first four years.   It’s unlikely that the complexion of Congress will be much improved, so gridlock is likely to continue.

If Romney wins (heaven forbid), that win will likely be tainted by some heavy charges of voter suppression and a new round of calls to revisit the validity of the electoral college model.  

Congress will still, most likely be in gridlock, as Democrats pivot to head-off what is likely to be a push by the extreme right to enforce what they will consider a mandate to dismantle the federal government.

The rich will get still richer; the poor will get still poorer.   And further economic melt-down will be accompanied by a newer, more militant generation of “Occupy” protests.

But those “low information” voters will not trouble themselves to understand why; and four years from now, as the bruised and battered former-American-middle-class limps to the polls once again to choose a president, the outcome will once more be left to the whim of a singularly unfocussed few who will continue to invest more attention in voting for “Dancing with the Stars” than they do on national elections.

Whimsy: the fatal flaw of this democracy.  That’s just the way it is.

The story that got buried in the Freeps election coverage this AM is, as usual, GMD’s to highlight.

Democratic candidate for auditor, Doug Hoffer, who is known for exhaustive investigation of facts and figures, has discovered that, for all his protestations about “transparency,” Republican Vince Illuzzi’s track record in the Legislature is somewhat less than stellar.

Hoffer noted that “for the last six years of Senator Illuzzi’s tenure as chairman of the Institutions Committee (1999 – 2004), there are only 12 recordings of committee hearings. In contrast, the Finance Committee produced 346 such recordings during the same period. Shockingly, only one CD was produced by Mr. Illuzzi’s committee for an entire biennium (2001 – 2002).”

As Mr. Hoffer points out, decisions made by the Institutions Committee represent “tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds,” and one would think that a full record of deliberations would go with the territory.

Illuzzi counters that the discussions are too arcane for the layman to understand, so recording them in detail serves no public purpose!

The Free Press seems to think this is the end of the discussion, but I hardly agree!  There will always be people like Doug Hoffer with the financial sophistication and civic investment necessary to sift through those recordings on behalf of the rest of us.  We, the taxpayers, deserve the protection that affords us from political deal-making that may not always be in our best interests.

Which brings me back, once again, to my primary objection to Vince Illuzzi as auditor.  I am not talking about his somewhat quixotic tendency to eye higher office, which causes him to lack commitment to the job at hand; nor am I speaking of his intention to be what amounts to a “part time auditor.”  It is his very experience in the legislature that disqualifies him, in my book.

No elected office in state government should be more free of political baggage than that of the auditor.  The auditor’s job, unlike that of legislators, is not to compromise.  Deals traded on political capitol and the network of byzantine allegiances may work to free gridlock in the legislature, but they have no place in the auditor’s bag of tricks.

The best person for the job of auditor is the one who has both the skills to do the job and as few political strings attached as possible.  That person, hands down, is Doug Hoffer who approaches the job with a long history of effective, independent policy analysis, but without the encumbrances of political courtship carried by Vince Illuzzi.

And the best expression of these values comes in Doug Hoffer’ own words:

“I intend to post the entire office budget online including information about contracts with outside contractors, as well as the contracts themselves. I plan to tell Vermonters the cost of every audit in order to weigh the costs and benefits. And I will post a list of current and planned audits and reviews, as well as their anticipated completion dates

All of state government should be transparent, but the Auditor’s office has a special responsibility because of its charge. Vermonters deserve an Auditor who is committed to openness and I promise to do all I can to make that happen.”

George Plumb’s curious choice to attack the VNRC on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary celebration for not protecting the environment enough leaves me completely dumbfounded.

In a letter that has been reproduced on Digger, in the Messenger and who knows where else, Mr. Plumb quotes piecemeal, and takes exception to a sentence from a BFP interview with Elizabeth Courtney, former executive director of the VNRC,

“It is commendable that we’ve found a way to grow our economy while maintaining the health of our environment.”

He somehow manages to interpret this  as a “claim” by the VNRC rather than a positive outlook on Vermont’s better record of environmental stewardship, on balance with growth pressures, than that of any other state.

What he neglects to include is the grave proviso that tempered Ms. Courtney’s statements.

Earlier in the same interview, she plainly states:

“I am no Pollyanna; I do believe we are in big trouble,”

and goes on to express her agreement with Bill McKibben’s characterization of the state of our environment:

“Our almost but not quite finally hopeless predicament.”

Mr. Plumb, who is associated with Vermonters for a Sustainable Population seems to have some sort of personal grudge against the VNRC (or, perhaps Ms. Courtney?)

The remainder of his diatribe focusses on how good Vermont  used to be, rather than providing a practical vision for the future.  Apparently he is angry that the VNRC in its fifty-year history has been unable to stop all unfavorable growth and sprawl in the state rather than curb and redirect some of its momentum.

That would be a tall order, Mr. Plumb; especially for an organization that must depend upon the generosity of like-minded donors to fund all of its efforts.

I write from some experience as a member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth who, for an extended period of nearly twenty years, has relied upon the help of the VNRC to combat a single imposing threat of big box sprawl from the largest Walmart siting in the state.

The VNRC fought this same project twice, all the way to the Vermont Supreme Court; successfully the first time.  Against all reason, they were forced to fight it a second time and finally lost in the Supreme Court.  I can promise you that no effort was spared.

And the St. Albans Walmart struggle represents just a small piece of the overarching work of the VNRC, which tackles land use and water issues all over the state, all the while advocating for effective legislation to enable positive environmental initiatives.

Exactly how many similar battles does Mr. Plumb expect the VNRC to be able to tackle with its extremely limited resources?

To  paraphrase a popular truism, Mr. Plumb:

If you can’t say anything nice about an organization that is doing precisely the work for which you seem to be advocating, you are part of the problem.

As anyone who still subscribes to the Free Press has observed, in its new tabloid format, familiar features have been shifted to accommodate the USA Today brand of journalism-lite.  Bits  of news and opinion appear bundled together under headings like “Innovate”…which is where I found two articles that would have formerly been carried as “Opinion,” now represented in the “Innovate” section as “Creative Corner” and “How We’re Doing.”

Annoying.

The first piece (“Creative Corner”?) asks “Is Vermont politically risky as an emerging market?”  It was written by one Allison Kingsley, an assistant professor of Management at the University of Vermont School of Business.

More about Ms. Allison’s effort later, but first a few words about the only other piece on that page (“How We’re Doing”) penned by a familiar name from the now defunct Vermont Tiger, Assoc. Prof of Economics (also at UVM) Art Woolf.

As usual Mr. Woolf attempts to extrapolate from whatever data happens to be convenient, that Vermont is in a terrible economic state when compared with the rest of the nation.  Except that…it isn’t.

In this particular instance, Mr. Woolf employs a familiar modelling error in order to make his point.  The headline is alarming:

“VT. government employment outpaces other states.”

Accompanied by one of those suspicious bar graphs that attempt to make small differences between quantities look much larger by dramatically increasing the slope per increment,  Mr. Woolf argues (as he has so many times in the past) that  Vermont has too many “government employees”  serving its population, in relation to other states.

As per usual, Mr. Woolf fails to account for both the better outcomes in Vermont than in other states; and for the fact that our small but highly dispersed population immediately requires more teachers to serve that population, and more government service interfaces  for the same reason.

Ms. Kingsley, in her article, keeps insisting that she is “new here” and seems to concede that maybe she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.  I agree with her on that score alone, and wonder why the Free Press would represent Ms. Kingsley’s piece as anything other than “Opinion.”

in tandem with Mr. Woolf, Ms. Kingsley seems to make the case that Vermont is bad for business because the public is too invested in their government and regulatory system.  To wit:

Groups with ideological agendas have strongly felt preferences, tend to leverage public pressure effectively, and typically focus on politically salient or “hot” issues. In Vermont, anecdotal evidence suggests that businesses largely confront interest groups distrustful of the private sector and hostile to business interests. Environmentalist and anti-growth groups opposed the Circ-Williston highway proposal that IBM advocated. Walmart battled VNRC and buy-local groups for 18 years in St. Albans. Employee unions fought Fletcher Allen. VPIRG and NEC confronted Vermont Yankee and Entergy.

She suggests that the “problem” with Vermont is the fact that “one party” (may we assume she means the Democrats?) dominates in the statehouse and in the administration…by virtue of the fact that they were elected to do so!  So, perhaps DC-style gridlock would be preferable?

Once again, Ms. Kingsley’s arguments are defied by the facts.

Vermont’s regulatory brakes are generally acknowledged to have spared the state from the worst effects of the collapsing real estate bubble; and current economic indicators suggest that not only is Vermont an attractive place to do business, but incomes are actually rising here at a faster rate than almost anywhere else in the country.

Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin observed about his Republican opponent, Randy Brock in Wednesday’s WDEV radio debate, that he seems not to want to embrace the positive indicators for the state.

Shumlin criticized Brock for ignoring the state’s assets and the many positive signs about the economy. He quipped that Brock seemed to be running to become “pessimist in chief.”

The same could be said for Mr. Woolf and Ms. Kingsley, both of whom seem determined to find fault with an environment which, on the whole, seems to be working rather well.

In American media, where the practice of false equivalencies has been elevated to a kind of perverse political correctness,  one icon of children’s edutainment thinks our kids deserve to know the straight truth.

Back in the 1990’s, PBS’s Bill Nye the Science Guy, made science fun for our kids.  Remember Naked mole rats?

“They’re mole rats…and they’re naked!

Now, Bill Nye is taking on the grown-ups, challenging climate change deniers, and objecting to the Christian right’s encrouchment on science education.

Squaring-off against Creationists, Nye warns that replacing scientific facts with Christian lore in children’s education is not just a disservice to those children, but also a threat to America’s competitiveness in a world of increasingly sophisticated scientific knowledge.

“The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old,” Nye said in an interview with The Associated Press, citing scientists’ estimates that it is about 4.5 billion years old. “It’s not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs.”

Not surprisingly, he’s getting a lot of grief from folks like the founders of the Creation Museum, whose stock in trade is flim-flam; but science and rational thought seem to have found a new champion.

I can’t help getting in another plug for the VNRC’s 50th Anniversary Celebration this Saturday, September 22, at Shelburne Farms.  

These are the good people who brought out the environmental activist in my pot-luck and sensible-shoes self.  I owe them; we all owe them.  For doggedly fighting the good fight to protect our precious natural resources and local economies, all Vermonters owe them.

Buy a ticket and feel good about being a contributor. Then, enjoy local food, beverages and music in the beauty of Shelburne Farms.  Come to hear the words of Van Jones, Maude Barlow, Bill McKibben and others.  Come to immerse yourself in the company of like-minded folks who see a positive, prosperous future for Vermont; one that springs from its respect for the natural environment and sustainable communities rather than the path of short returns.

(A 50-year anniversary gets more than a day on the Front Page, as a reminder of who’s been fighting the good fight, even when it becomes a delaying action.)

The Vermont Natural Resource Council is celebrating its 50th year of service to the twin causes of environmental protection and sustainable living.  It could be argued that the VNRC is one of the key reasons why Vermont has come to stand head and shoulders above the rest of the country, in terms of responsible living; and deserves some of the credit for the state successfully building a green “brand” to compliment that initiative.

Theirs has often been a thankless job.  I have first-hand knowledge of this bitter truth, as the VNRC came to bat for the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (for whom I serve as spokesperson) when we undertook to protect the local St. Albans environment and economy from an “unstoppable” big box Walmart development on prime agricultural soils.  

That struggle lasted ten years, against all odds; and even though we failed to prevent permitting for the global giant, in the course of our effort much important groundwork was laid for revitalization of the traditional downtown of St. Albans, and many significant precedents were negotiated that will, in the long run, mean better land-use decisions going forward.

On Saturday, September 22,  Vermonters have a chance to say “thank you” to the VNRC, by purchasing tickets in support of the organization and attending the 50th anniversary celebration at Shelburne Farms, featuring Van Jones as the keynote speaker.  

Jones is president and co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, a platform for bottom-up, people-powered innovations to help fix the U.S. economy. He has a 20-year track record as a successful, innovative and award-winning social entrepreneur.

The event will feature local food and drink, music, and a number of other distinguished speakers, including Bill McKibben, John Ewing of Smart Growth Vermont, and (a personal favorite of mine) Canadian activist Maude Barlow, author of an eye-opening volume on our imperiled water supply, “Blue Gold.”  

Here, again, is the ticket link.

This event succeeds in combining many of my “favorite things.”

I’ve already mentioned the significance of the VNRC to me; and my enthusiasm for the work of Maude Barlow.

Even if you are not familiar with “Rebuild the Dream,” anyone who is a fan of “Real Time with Bill Maher” has no doubt seen Van Jones articulate the position of science on environmental issues most eloquently and persuasively on a number of occasions.

Bill McKibben needs no introduction to GMD readers.  Apart from his international reputation for climate activism through 350.org, Bill has long been known to drop into these pages from time-to-time.

John Ewing, and Smart Growth Vermont, will also be known to most in the GMD community.  Their powerful visioning on behalf of economically strong and sustainable communities for all Vermonters recently increased its impact when Smart Growth Vermont formally joined forces with the VNRC.

Vermont entrepreneur Will Raap, formerly CEO of Gardeners Supply and current advocate for “Slow Living,” and World Resources Institute founder and Vermont law school professor Gus Speth round out the roster of great speakers.

Then there is the opportunity for a fall visit to one of Vermont most beautiful locations, Shelburne Farms.

Add local food and beverages and local music and you have a venue that is worth many times the price of admission!

I have to assume that every single candidate for statewide office will consider this a premier event and be sure to join the crowd of several hundred environmentally conscious Vermonters that will be on hand and skew “most likely to vote” in the upcoming election.

Like the DJ’s used to say: “Be there or be square.”( cue echo effect)

Denial continues to be the biggest obstacle to effectively addressing the continuing risks at Fukushima Daiichi.

This is the inevitable outcome when corporate interests control what amount to national security risks. TEPCO is still trying to make money…or, more correctly, not to lose so much money.

In spite of everything, the  #1 priority of the company continues to be shielding its controllers from “unnecessary” financial exposure.

This priority flies in the face of its obligation to the wronged Japanese people.

Despite the fact that the Governor of Fukushima has said in no uncertain terms that neither Fukushima Daini nor Fukushima Daiichi will ever be allowed to operate again, TEPCO is actually pushing for the remaining reactors there to be reopened!

In the wake of revelations that over 3,000 workers at the crippled Daichi facility wore lead-shielding on their dosimeters to defeat the devices’ radiation recording function, TEPCO is now said to have turned to the Yakuza to supply workers for the dangerous jobs associated with clean-up and keeping the crippled reactors barely simmering rather than boiling dry.

A league of gangsters, well accustomed to doing  dirty work for Japanese business interests,  the Yakuza would hardly be most people’s first choice as recruiters for the kind of sensitive and highly skilled labor that is necessary to avoid escalating disaster at Fukushima.

TEPCO has sent out their messengers to gather as many workers as possible, officials in Fukushima reportedly told local businesses, “Bring us the living dead. People no one will miss.”

Those hapless and unskilled workers are facing a danger of unknown proportions.  

Fairewinds Associates’ Arnie Gundersen has just returned from a visit to Japan, where he discussed with members of the Diet, lawyers and citizen activists, the status of the devastated Fuskushima facilities.   Focussing especially on the spent fuel pool in Reactor 4, which many experts agree is continuously at risk of boiling dry, he told an audience in Kyoto that the reason the US extended its evacuation zone recommendation to an 80-km radius was because of this specific risk:

“In 1997, the laboratory did a study showing that if a nuclear-fuel pool were to boil dry, it would release enough radiation to cause the permanent evacuation of those living within an 80 km radius (of the complex)…The Fukushima plant’s reactor 4 (pool) has 1,500 fuel bundles. That’s more cesium than was released into the atmosphere from all of the nuclear bombs ever exploded, (which total) more than 700 over a period of 30 years.”

It’s like a bad plot from a drive-in double feature.  All that’s missing now is Godzilla.    

Doug Hoffer, has been taking a look at  the way current Auditor, Republican Tom Salmon, has been using taxpayer dollars.  You might say that he has been auditing the Auditor.

What has he discovered, you ask?

Democratic / Progressive candidate for State Auditor Doug Hoffer said current State Auditor Tom Salmon’s $5,000 payment to his former political campaign coordinator for managing the Auditor’s online weight loss program is “a big, fat, waste of taxpayer dollars.”

It seems that Mr. Salmon, in one of his not infrequent lapses of judgement, saw fit to take money from the State’s General Fund to hire John Kleinhans (who is said “former campaign coordinator”) to provide an online coaching program entitled “Accountable to You, Accountable to Me,”  which was introduced in December of 2011.

The title is ironic, as this hire only serves to illustrate, once again, that Mr. Salmon thinks he need be accountable to no one.

Apparently it was the Auditor’s rationale that the program, which could be accessed online, would help Vermonters to set personal improvement goals, like weight-loss, smoking cessation or saving money.  

Once again Mr. Salmon seems to have been bored with his own elected position and was looking to move into a different arena of influence; perhaps the Department of Health and Human Services(?)

Accepting the assignment, Kleinhans noted, “I am really excited. This is a morale boosting vehicle where Vermonters can stand up and make themselves better and their communities better after a difficult year.  If we could find 1,000 Vermonters to save 2012 dollars for others, that is over 2 million dollars…It blows my mind!”

The hyperbole was somewhat overspent (as were taxpayer dollars) in this case.  Doug Hoffer discovered that, as of this week, the Facebook page created for the program boasts only 120 “Likes.”  As Hoffer notes, that is an average cost of $41.66 per “like.”

This is what happens to the Auditor’s office when a political hack comes to regard it only as his personal stepping stone.

Now, we on GMD have had a lot of fun with Tom Salmon’s clueless tenure in the Auditor’s office.  As he prepares to exit the office he has once again given us reason to smack our heads in comic disbelief.

Except that it isn’t very funny when so many in the State have had to make do with so much less over the past couple of years as it became necessary to adjust to lean times.  And it is a reminder that voters must think carefully what sort of person they want to occupy the Auditor’s office.

Do we want another displaced pol just marking time in the office until the stars align for his next political ascension; or do we want Doug Hoffer who has a genuine vocation for the office, and has been actively engaged throughout the Salmon years in providing the kind of focussed analysis that has been lacking from the incumbent.

I say this not because I have any particular dislike for Vince Illuzzi.  I do not.  I just don’t think he is the right man for this job; or that he has the necessary commitment to apolitical grunt work that is so necessary for the State’s longterm economic health.

I fear that his long legislative history may tempt him away from the impartial and dedicated focus essential to the Auditor’s work; and that he may succumb to the impulse to try and legislate from the Auditor’s office.

Let’s finally get it right this time.  We’ve had enough of distracted dilettantes.  Let’s put Hoffer in the Auditor’s chair in 2012.

 

Don’t you just love the new brandname that Joe Biden has applied to Romney’s healthcare proposal?  

“Vouchercare.”  

Now doesn’t  that just say “worthless piece of sh*t” to cranky airline passengers, disappointed newspaper and postal carriers; and to anyone else who has ever received a crummy piece of paper in lieu of satisfactory service or the expected Christmas tip?

Vouchers are the tacky buy-off that only works once before the recipient gets wise.  Only kids think they are getting something of value when you hand them a “voucher.”

Vouchers are those things you buy in booklets from the local booster club because you feel obligated to support the team;  not because you ever intend to eat at “Ted’s  Eat-O-Rama” (“FREE minestroni wrap;  Wednesday and Thursday nights only “); or get two macrame plant hangers for the price of one from “Connie’s Cuts and Crap.”

Vouchers are the very definition of something you don’t want that’s offered as a substitute for something you really need.

For anyone without the means to say “no,” vouchers just scream insufficiency and humiliation.  “Vouchercare“ simply makes it worse.  

The mental image is that of impersonal and inattentive ministrations parceled out ungenerously, with lots of restrictions and exceptions.

I even have a slogan to propose.  

“Vouchercare: We make death a more attractive alternative.”

Well done, Mr. Vice President!  This one’s a keeper!