“An historic day”: U.S. super-yacht owners rejoice at last

Business, International,

At last — thanks to Trump and the US Congress — super-yacht owners can rejoice!

While deadlines for re-uniting refugee-immigrant children with their parents continue to be missed and unfinished business piles up in the US Congress, Republicans in Congress still manage to serve up some goodies to a certain type of constituent:  one-percenters. Tucked away in the John S. McCain Defense Authorization Act of 2019 that President Trump signed on August 13th was the decidedly non-defense provision “adjusting” shipping registration regulations for the benefit of super-yacht owners.

Super Yacht News reports: On 13 August, 2018, Donald Trump, president of the United States (US), signed off on a piece of legislation that would make it possible for yachts over 300gt [gross tons] to fly an American flag and register their yachts in the US.superyacht

Super yachts are essentially a kind of ocean-going tribute to worldwide income inequality. For example, the Cayman Island-flagged Octopus, owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, is 414-feet long (and well over 300 gt at 9,932 gt) and has 41 suites, a pool, two helicopters, a basketball court, and a recording studio.

Until the new provision takes effect, vessels exceeding 300 gross tons (gt) were required to meet commercial operational standards, or they could not register as an American vessel — nor fly an American flag. Until a new code specifically for large yachts is ready in 2020, yachts of this size can now fly the US flag under the law Trump signed. Exemptions were available, but according to Super Yacht News, obtaining them was “both expensive and arduous” for the mega-wealthy yacht owners. Maybe now, with these changes, Trump’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVoss can get her family to change the flag on their Cayman Island-registered 164-foot yacht, The Seaquest.

There is no doubt the one percenters didn’t beg and cajole very hard for this special legislative treat: only after a ten-year slog of lobbying and targeting members in congress  did the U.S. Super Yacht Association (USSA) finally succeed.

In 2014 the USSA hoped to ease certain US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) “small vessel” cruising regulations that require personally reporting in to customs and border authorities while in U.S. waters. The mega-rich yacht owners  want to avoid regulations that may cramp their privileged lifestyle. US super-yacht owners will be able to fly an American flag — now that the flag also proves convenient in helping them avoid border-patrol and customs scrutiny. Notice that USSA president Kitty McGowan calls the new law the “icing on the cake.”

The recent favorable legislation, according to McGowan, was made possible in large part by lobbying efforts of large yacht owner Tilman J. Fertitta of Texas. Fertitta, for those who may not know, is star of the TV show Billion Dollar Buyer, and sole owner of Landry’s Restaurants and the Houston Rockets.He is also a longtime  fan of President Trump and thinks Donald is doing a great job.

Quoted in gcaptain.com, Fertitta remarked: “For at least a half century, ridiculous regulations prohibited American citizens from displaying their patriotism by flying an American flag on their yacht. […] Thank you to all those that made this possible and to President Trump for eliminating over 50 years of bureaucratic red tape. This is truly an historic day for American yacht owners and the yachting industry.”  The country — canoeists, rowboaters, lobster harvesters, shrimpers, sailors, and pleasure- and working-boat owners of all kinds and sizes (not to mention the vast majority of inland and coastal non-boat owners) — can breath a sigh of relief  for Fertitta and his wealthy buddies that the super yacht owners are free at last from red tape. Now what say Congress do something positive about Medicare for all ?

Say what you will about Trump and his GOP-controlled Congress, even though immigration reform remains unresolved, gun legislation and almost everything else meaningful seems to languish by design, they always find time to serve up thoughtful little treats to their one percenters.

And for the rest of us?  well maybe …yachtjobzz

The F-35 has friends in high places.

local/regional, National, , , , ,

Jasper Craven  deserves kudos for his well-researched and insightful look  (Vermont Digger, April 13) into political forces driving the rather incongruous choice of Burlington Airport for the Air National Guard’s F-35 program..

With three surrounding cities opposing the F-35 plan,  a considerable grassroots opposition force, and all the issues of locating in the midst of a bustling city, one must really ask…why?

Mr. Craven’s article synthesizes the interest factors into a landscape of political blackmail, over which Governor Phil Scott bashfully presides.

Like so much that unseats environmental and ethical concerns these days, jobs are at the heart of the matter.  More precisely, it is the threat of jobs disappearing.

It’s the kind of political blackmail we’re regrettably used to from DC, but it’s pretty disheartening to the good people of Chittenden County, Vermont.  

We have only the word of interested (and therefore conflicted) parties to the siting, that failure to locate the F-35 at Burlington airport would mean an end to the Air National Guard’s Vermont mission.  If we are to believe, as we are told, that the Vermont Air National Guard is considered to be an elite within the force, this claim seems rather counter-intuitive.

To politicians who have grown accustomed to short interest cycles driven by frequent elections, it’s sufficient just to dangle the possibility of job departures in order to recruit their support for the most dubious of enterprises.   This, in a year when Vermont unemployment  stands at the remarkably low figure of 2.8%.

One has to ask whether we can ever shake this bugaboo in order to do the right thing, if we can’t do it when unemployment is so low.

Despite the fact that joblessness is the Republican cudgel, in Vermont, it holds sway over our Democratic DC delegation as surely as it does our Republican Governor.  This means that business interests, represented in this case by Ernie Pomerleau of Pomerleau Real Estate and Frank Cioffi of the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation, hold greater sway over politicos than do their constituents who must actually live with the product of their ambitions.  

Business interests are putting their money where their (collective) mouth is:

In recent weeks, Pomerleau has purchased, through his company, Pomerleau Real Estate, seven paid stories in the Burlington Free Press that highlight the stories of Air Guard members. An eighth so-called advertorial will be released in the near future.

Cioffi’s GBIC is also doing its part to pitch the project and dismiss  voices of opposition as little more than cranks:

GBIC has produced numerous reports promoting the F-35 in recent years. In 2012, it commissioned a study that projected no decline in home values from the F-35 basing, a claim that was challenged by real estate appraiser Steve Allen. He said the data set used was “extremely small” and therefore “statistically unreliable.” In addition, the study included home purchase data by the Federal Aviation Administration, which offered top dollar to residents.

A week before Scott’s Pentagon meeting, GBIC sent a detailed memo to Air Force Secretary Wilson providing background on the F-35 basing in Vermont. The GBIC memo appeared to downplay the state’s opposition to the planes, characterizing F-35 opponents as “a core group of perennial protesters, many of whom are longtime anti-military political activists.

“Vermonters overwhelmingly support the Air National Guard,” the report reads. 

“We are proud to have been selected for the basing of the F-35A.”

Say what?

Beyond all the legitimate issues about process and quality of life, which continue to roil  the community at large, there remains an overarching question  that has yet to be answered.  It is likely to remain unanswered for strategic reasons, but the people of Chittenden County, and indeed all of Vermont, should not be expected to accept the siting without an answer. 

That question has many parts: ie. what role will nuclear weapons play in the Vermont deployment of F-35, should it ultimately come to pass; will nuclear weapons be stored at or near Burlington airport; if so, how many and in what state of readiness; how will they be transported to and from the base;  what is the likelihood that armed nuclear weapons will fly through Vermont’s airspace on a non-emergency basis; and what provisions will be in place for dealing with an F-35 crash in Vermont, even, heaven forbid, a “dirty” accident (nuclear radiation release) in the beating heart of Chittenden County?

I would say that there is a 100% chance that we will never have answers to these questions, but will be expected to simply accept the Air National Guard’s greater wisdom on the nuclear issue.

Well, I for one, do not.

[UPDATED Turnout beat expectations] Hey, go vote today!

local/regional,

Update #2 : It looks like Vermonters turned out to vote and beat expectations!

Predictions on possible turnout made before the primary for Vtdigger.com by party experts and one political science professor ranged from 20,000 to 30,000 to as many as perhaps 40,000 votes would be cast  in Democratic primary.On the Republican side it was thought around 15,000 might show up.

Well based on some very rough math using the Sec. of State’s webpage showing unofficial results for governor the total number of votes cast in the Democratic race for governor was 67,234.The republican race had 36,432 total votes cast. there was no Progressive party candidate running.

Taking both totals together there were 103,666 votes cast in the primary yesterday. As of July 31, 2018 Vermont had 473,442 registered voters.

Update #1: You can find the latest unofficial primary election results as they come in here at the Vermont Sec. of State web-page.

August 14th is 2018 Primary Election Day — so go out and vote for someone! govoteThat’s right  — if you aren’t one of the record number of people who got absentee ballots — TODAY, Tuesday, is the day to vote to decide who is your party’s (or the team that has the most folks you’d like to see in office) candidate in the general election in November. The Vermont Secretary of State’s webpage had plenty of information available — a final list of ALL the candidates, and if you care to dig deep, they also have posted all  the latest candidate financial disclosure information filed with the state.

Vtdigger.com reports: As of Aug. 9, the Thursday before the primary, 13,590 voters had requested early ballots, according to data from the Secretary of State’s Office.

That number is more than double what it was in 2014 at 6,034. In the 2016 primary, 20,038 residents had requested absentee ballots by the Thursday before the primary.

But most say that early ballots aren’t necessarily a good indicator of how many voters will actually head to the polls on primary day.

The general expectation is turnout will be “sleepy.” I hope that’s wrong  and turnout  isn’t too sleepy:  it is time to WAKE UP — even for primaries. You want a choice? GO VOTE!

ICE and CoreCivic’s bottom line: when the money goes away, so does CoreCivic

Business, National, ,

CoreCivic private prison corporation runs eight detention and immigration centers under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On Monday demonstrators targeted CoreCivic’s Nashville, Tennessee headquarters. [See Vermont CoreCivic connection below*.]

TheHill.com: Police in Nashville, Tenn., arrested 19 people on Monday after they blocked the entrance of the headquarters of a private prison company that operates migrant detention centers.

Demonstrators from the No Exceptions Prison Collective arrived around 5 a.m. to protest at the headquarters of CoreCivic, which operates eight detention centers for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The activists linked their arms through heavy barrels, and one protester suspended themselves 25-feet in the air on a swing-like seat using a large stand.

Folks of a certain age may recall how in 1967 DOW Chemical, the manufacturer of napalm for U.S. military use in Viet Nam, was targeted on college campus by students and activists. In  demonstrations — sit-ins and marches — they called for an end to the presence of that company’s job recruiters on campus and for universities to cease investing in DOW Chemical stocks. Organizers at Harvard blockaded a Dow recruiter in an office for 7 hours, and similar such stories were commonplace on campuses across the US. Protests did not stop investment or campus recruitment — but perhaps weary of disruptions and bad PR, DOW ended production of napalm in 1969.

SPLC corecivic

In the present frenzied political environment, it impossible to predict what effect the “abolish ICE” movement may have toward the goal of curtailing widespread DHS immigration abuses at private prisons. But it is worth remembering the for-profit nature of these prison corporations. If/when their sacred bottom line suffers, CoreCivic’s ultimate loyalty is only to profits for shareholders and not to ICE or to the administration whose policies it carries out.

The question is, would abolishing ICE just funnel more money to private operators like CoreCivic? Or would it have a strong enough negative affect on the company’s bottom line to prompt its recreation in a different line of work? And if not, what actions would affect CoreCivic’s bottom line?

*Vermont CoreCivic connection: After being lobbied last year by CoreCivic officials Governor Scott and his administration were reportedly considering partnering with the prison business to build a 925-bed prison in Vermont, specifically in Franklin County. That project is currently reported to be on hold after negative feedback from the public and virtually every public official and legislator, regardless of political affiliation.

My gripe du jour.

Business, Uncategorized

Have you tried to get a truly cheap cellphone option lately? I have, and now, for my sins, I am about to go incommunicado.

First of all, let me just say that  I am not a Luddiite.  I just don’t believe in paying for bells and whistles when all I need is a portable pay phone.

For those of you too young to remember life before cell phones, a “pay phone” was a wonderful convenience  that was available on virtually every second or third street corner.

Phone booths were almost as ubiquitous as public washrooms, and, in some of the seamier parts of town may have actually been easier to find (alas!)

Anyway, I have a computer.  I sit at that computer for far too many hours in a day so I have no interest in consulting a miniature version of it when, finally, I am out and about.  I also have no interest in texting.  If I had wanted to type a note, I’d have sent it from my email while I was sitting at my desk.

When I am away from my desk, I only want a phone in order to reach out for help or be reachable in an emergency.  If I am at a store, I might phone my husband to ask if he’s thought of anything he needs.  That’s just about it.

I have a sturdy flip-phone I bought years ago, that will probably outlive me. I’m not interested in moving “up” to a “smart” phone.  I have a Garmin for navigational help and I prefer to remain the “smart” component in my telecommunications universe while I am on the road.

So I am looking for the cheapest cellphone option I can find, and that is not easy.

First, I visited our local AT&T office and ended my existing line on our business plan.  When my husband and I finally got around to reviewing our wireless service, we discovered to our horror that we were paying a fortune to maintain my dedicated cell phone line.  

( Why we are still with AT&T is a long story that involves my husband’s service while he is in Canada for a couple of days every week.  When AT&T took over Verizon’s Vermont customers some years ago, they grandfathered his special plan that kept the cost of international calls to a minimum.)

Having not resolved my phone issues by myself, I asked my son to see what he could do.  He returned from the AT&T office with the good news that I could bring my flip-phone in, have them install a new sim card and assign me a new phone number, and walk away with 40 minutes of talk-time, good for twelve months, for a one-time payment of $10.  If I used additional minutes over the course of the year, I would have to pay $10. again to re-up my minutes, but I am unlikely to be on my cell phone for even twenty minutes over the course of  a single year.

Sounded good to me, so I hied on down to AT&T on a Saturday afternoon and joined the interminable queue waiting for service.  When I had the opportunity to explain what I wanted, I was told that no such plan exists and that the best I could do was to pay $100. to have my phone enabled for 400 minutes which would be good for a year.  If I didn’t use up my minutes within the year, they could only be added to my next year’s available after I paid another $100. for an additional 400 minutes.   Not a good deal for someone who couldn’t use even 100 minutes in a year of cell phone service, but I was growing weary of the battle and inclined to cave.

That’s when my husband got into the act.  He phoned At&T and the person he spoke with told him there was no such thing as either the $10. a year plan my son had been pitched or the $100. a year deal my local AT&T had offered me.

This consumer melodrama came immediately on the heels of our last misleading encounter with AT&T.  

A couple of months ago, when my husband was first tackling the crazy-high cost of our cell service, he spoke with an AT&T representative who promised that he could reduce our overall charges with some fast-talking plan magic.  At the same time, he told my husband that he could have a brand new tablet added to the service for free.  Never one to refuse a freebie, even though he could see no earthly need to have a tablet, my husband agreed.  When the confirmation email arrived, it included a bill for the first of ten monthly payments for that supposedly “free” tablet.  We immediately contacted AT& T and told them to cancel the whole thing.  They reluctantly agreed and sent a return label for the tablet which hadn’t even arrived yet.

After that, it took us a full billing cycle to get the tablet charges and extra phone number removed from our bill.  We wasted literally days on the phone, being placed on hold, passed from person to person, referred to the wrong department and repeating the whole thing again and again until we were utterly confused and exhausted…all for a “free” tablet that my husband had never even asked for.

Then, of course, began the aforementioned adventure of trying to get a simple emergency cell phone for me.  After searching through other available providers, I am forced to conclude that AT&T may be no worse than the others.  This is progress?

I resent the fact that you can get a cell phone to take your picture, give you directions, play music, browse the internet, do your shopping and wake you from your nap; but you’ll pay through the nose for one that allows you to do nothing more than place phone calls the way we all used to do for a quarter a call at the corner payphone.

Now, get off of my lawn!

“A pleasant surprise”: Governor Scott grabs one from the Koch machine

local/regional, National,

Scottand koch machine2This is so common place now it hardly raised an eyebrow, but the Koch brothers once again opened up their wallets big time in support of Vermont Governor Phil Scott. Vtdigger.com reports: Just two weeks before the primaries, a political action committee funded by the Republican Governors’ Association has spent nearly $100,000 on TV ads for Gov. Phil Scott.

The RGA, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that backs conservative gubernatorial candidates, has poured $225,000 into a PAC called “A Stronger Vermont” this cycle, according to the latest filings with the Vermont Secretary of State’s office.

And you know it’s just great — as far the Scott campaign is concerned — to accept help from the ultra-conservative climate-change-denying Koch machine. Brittney Wilson, Scott’s campaign manager called the money pouring in to the campaign on their behalf a “pleasant surprise.”

And it is all fine, good, and legal because the Scott campaign jokes that they didn’t even know who the Koch brothers (one of the major backers of the RGA and giant[$]force  in the GOP for years) were. And naturally if you believe that you can believe there is never a slight bit of co-ordination between them. But for the Koch’s latest buy-in to the Scott for Governor campaign Brittney sent her heartfelt thanks and approval loud and clear via the media: “They really did a nice job running ads that portrayed the governor in a fashion that he wants to be portrayed,” she said of the ads the RGA ran for Scott’s 2016 campaign.

So, Vermont, I guess there’s just nothing to see here. And what could Phil Scott possibly be doing that might fall in line with the Koch agenda? I mean other than oppose his own commission’s carbon tax recommendation, just for one example. But he’d never go so far or be as stupid as Florida Governor Rick Scott (no familial connection that we know of, just political and philosophical brothers) and try to edit climate-change language from any state documents.  … Oh wait … come to think of it Phil’s administration did do that.

All it takes is a little Koch $$$$ to teach the world to sing in perfect conservative harmony — with the occasional anti-Trump sour note and copious coughing from fossil-fuel smog.

“Youthquake”voters: see Vermont and New Hampshire react

National, , , ,

In 2017 the Oxford Dictionaries chose “youthquake” as their word of the year. The term they said saw a 401% increase due in part, they said, to young voters mobilizing in that year’s general elections in the UK and New Zealand.yutequake

Here in 2018  most of the US  young voter registrations are up significantly. NBC News reported recently: […] young voters between the ages of 18 and 29 years old make up an increasing share of those registering to vote in a handful of key states.

Pennsylvania has seen the sharpest increase — 61 percent of new voter registrations come from young voters, compared to 45 percent before the [Parkland, Fla. school] shooting.

Target Smart, a Democratic data firm, found a two percent nationwide uptick in registrations by youth (18 to 29 years old) — who skew more liberal on many issues. Since the Parkland shooting, gun control measures have been a particular motivator, they find.

Vermont and its upside-down doppelganger New Hampshire are clearly reacting differently to the potential “Youthquake” voting.

In Vermont, since 2016 you can automatically register eligible voters who apply for a driver’s license or state ID. The state has seen 18-to-29 year-old voter registration up 6 percent in 2018. As Vermont Secretary of State and more recently as president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, Jim Condos is almost constantly in the news working to increase voter access and to guard election processes from cyber-attacks.

Meanwhile New Hampshire — home of the first-in-the-nation Presidential Primary © ™ — the reaction differs.  Governor Sununu (R, of course) last month signed legislation to take effect in July 2019 that will limit election participation by many college-age voters originally from out of state. From Slate.com: [the law] effectively imposed a poll tax on college students, compelling many of them to pay hundreds of dollars in fees to establish residence in the state before they’re permitted to vote in New Hampshire. Once it takes effect, the law is almost certain to chill the franchise of younger Democratic-leaning voters — to an extent that could swing the state’s famously close elections

Note that in the 2016 New Hampshire election, 19 percent of the general election voters were under 30 years old. And these more liberal young voters proved significant to Hillary Clinton’s popular vote total and electing former Governor Maggie Hassan as their Democratic U.S. Senator in 2016.

It says “live free or die” on New Hampshire license plates, but if they want the franchise, young voters  might be freer if they “see Vermont.”

Bias at the Franklin County Courier

local/regional, , , , , ,

I am generally a big supporter of local independent newspapers, but John Walters’ article in Seven Days raises a longtime issue many of us have had with the (Franklin) County Courier over political bias that extends to its editorial policies. 

Walters’ piece discusses this bias as it specifically impacts Cindy Weed (P-Enosburg Falls), who is defending her seat against Republican  Felisha Leffler.  Besides being a Republican challenger to Weed, Ms. Leffler is the girlfriend of Gregory Lamoureux, the paper’s owner, publisher and chief reporter.    

As custodian of his little corner of the Fourth Estate, Mr. Lamoureaux should bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of bias, especially when it comes so close to home.

Weed is quick to point out that she was not the aggrieved candidate who apparently contacted Walters with the current complaint of bias against the Courier.   While she has had an ongoing struggle with the Courier just to get them to print her letters as Representative for the district, as well as those of others who support her positions; she is not the only one to remark on the Courier’s biased editorial policies, but rather one of many  unhappy locals.

Mr. Walters may have focussed on Cindy Weed due to a similarity in the bias issue involving Mr. Lamoureaux and his relationship to candidate Leffler to a bias controversy weathered a few years ago by publisher and co-editor of Seven Days, Paula Routly, who is the domestic partner of Tim Ashe (D/P Chittenden).  The circumstances at Seven Days had one notable difference: there was little indication that any conflict of interest had actually affected editorial policy at Seven Days.  The same cannot be said for Mr. Lamoureaux’ stewardship of the County Courier. 
If Mr. Lamoureaux’ excuse for the appearance of political bias is that he can’t afford a bigger staff in order to distance himself from occasion for bias,  he should know that he does himself and the Courier no favors with this argument.  I have friends who have cancelled their subscriptions to the Courier due to the peculiarly unwelcoming policies it practices with regard to letters-to-the-editor, especially when they fall outside the political views of Mr. Lamoureaux.
As Walters mentions in his article, the St. Albans Messenger has a policy of printing virtually every letter to the editor that it receives, without alteration.  This is just smart business practice as it provides a kind of “buy in” from the community, encourages subscriptions and makes for a much livelier read.  It isn’t as if there is so much more pressing news in Franklin County that the Courier can’t find room for commentary from all corners of the political spectrum; and the more the merrier.
If anyone, but particularly an elected representative, takes the trouble to compose a letter to the editor, it is a wise publisher who recognizes this for the gift it represents to a free and fair press…not something to be undervalued in these uncertain times. 

I did not know that.

Uncategorized, , , ,

Forever eager to understand what fresh hell Donald Trump has in store for us, I, like many other folks, frequently check my search engine  for an update. Today I came across an article discussing His Nibs’ America First obsession, and how it doesn’t seem to matter that the self-branded products from which he and his family draw a handsome income  are only rarely made in America. 

No surprise there.

What did surprise me was the discovery that Trump Water is sourced from the sparkling waters of our own home state!

Now, you may recall as I do that, in kinder, gentler times (2008) Vermonters were growing quite concerned about the activity of bottling operations in the state. Disputes arose between enterprising landowners and their surrounding neighbors over the ease with which water could be withdrawn at an alarming rate from the shared aquifer simply by sucking it out through the property of a single user.

There was even a legislative attempt to limit the impact of such profligate schemes, led by the Vermont Natural Resources Council.  The effort resulted in a 3-year moratorium on commercial extraction and bottling.  In the meantime, the plan was to map the existing aquifers.

“It’s no longer an under-the-radar issue,” said Jon Groveman, the general counsel of the Vermont Natural Resources Council. “There is now a sense that groundwater is finite and needs to be protected.”

I remember some movement to get a water issue placed on town ballots in order to declare local aquifers a public resource and therefore not salable to private enterprise.  I have no idea how much was finally accomplished toward mapping the aquifers, but I suspect rather little, as funding for environmental initiatives soon after dropped precipitously.

As we experience the drought of 2018 we would do well to remember those concerns once again.

I don’t know who is bottling Vermont water for Donald Trump, but whomever it is ought to be ashamed of diverting a public resource in order to enrich a public nuisance.