Washington’s perennial White Knight and my own favorite DC delegate, Senator Bernie Sanders, appears poised to do it again.

Asserting the privilege enjoyed by those rare individuals who can claim some independence in the captive environment of  Capitol Hill, the Senator may be ready to take on the Price Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

For half a century, this stealth cost-shift mechanism has allowed the nuclear industry to enjoy an unfair advantage in the market for alternative energy over solar, wind, geo-thermal and anything else that might come down the pike.

Drafted in the infancy of atomic energy initiatives to give that fledgling U.S. industry a unique leg-up over conventional energy sources, Price-Anderson continues to artificially prop-up  the nuclear balance sheet.  

While lending nuclear a competitive edge, Price Anerson disadvantages truly clean energy alternatives that have been developing in the interim.

Under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which Congress first passed in 1957 and has since renewed several times, the liability of nuclear power plant operators in the event of a disaster is limited.

As provided for under Price Anderson, the U.S. nuclear industry collectively pays into an “insurance account” which is available to fund the collateral costs of a nuclear emergency.  The industry’s maximum liability is capped at the amount in the fund.  The current value of that fund is estimated at $12-billion dollars.

To put that figure into perspective, the cost of the single disaster at Fukushima has been estimated at $80-billion dollars.

And, who gets to take up the slack?  Why the American taxpayers, of course!

…documents released under the Freedom of Information Act in recent years show that the federal government has not decided on a plan for how the actual cleanup of the contaminated area surrounding a compromised nuclear facility would be paid for.

In 2009, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials informed their counterparts at the Homeland Security Department and the Environmental Protection Agency that the Price Anderson money likely would not be available to pay for offsite cleanup.

Hello!

Holding what amounts to a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, the American nuclear industry has enjoyed the double advantage over other energy industries of paying a significantly reduced premium for insurance and being able to make the public claim that nuclear energy was “cheap.”

When Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer recently criticized the NRC’s slow uptake of lessons from Fukushima, Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma sniffed

“that perhaps we are trying to regulate the nuclear energy industry out business, just like we’re trying to regulate the fossil fuels business out of business.”

To which Senator Sanders responded by offering that perhaps Senator Inhofe might like to join him in introducing legislation to repeal Price-Anderson in order to

“get government out of the nuclear industry.”

Now that the proverbial gauntlet has been thrown down, I hope we’ll see Bernie follow through.

I guess both the major league and minor league football seasons are over now, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to think about.

 I just heard on Friday that for over ten years some college players have been working to establish a union for college football players. It's called the National College Players Association. It was started in 2001 by a group of UCLA football players and has expanded since then. According to their web page they have had some notable victories, including:

 A $10 million fund to assist former athletes who wish to complete their undergraduate degree or attend a graduate program.

There was more of a discussion of this on NPR's Tell Me More on Friday, and you can follow the link to hear more. 

Obviously the ultimate goal of any union is to gain the ability to negotiate on wages, hours, and working conditions for the members of the union. This undoubtedly seems a long way off, maybe even inconceivable, for the underpaid workers the NCAA refers to, without a hint of awareness of the irony, as “student-athletes”.

 On the other hand, there was a time when the same would be said of unionization of graduate student teaching assistants at U.S. universities, and that has changed. I well remember the struggle of graduate students to unionize at the University of Michigan when I was there at law school, and the arguments the university made then were the same as what the NCAA would undoubtedly make against unions for football players.

Nevertheless, while the argument that teaching assistants are primarily students, there to learn and not to provide a valuable service to the university found support from the NLRB in 2004 (at least at private schools), the same argument is laughable when it comes to football or basketball players. They're not there to learn, their academic progress is irrelevant to their real jobs of playing football or basketball, and the universities make millions of dollars off their efforts. 

I don't really believe in paying college athletes, mainly because I don't think big-time college athletics should exist at all. Nevertheless, someone is making money off these workers' labor, and it isn't the workers.

Maybe it's time for that to change. 

One of the odd stories in the lead-up to the Super Bowl, which I understand is tomorrow, is the news about Scarlett Johansson.

There are always stories about the commercials that are going to be on the Super Bowl, or that were on the Super Bowl in the past, or that didn't make it past the censors for the Super Bowl.

It turns out that Ms. Johansson's commercial made headlines for more than being in two of the mentioned categories. It's a commercial for Sodastream, the kitchen appliance that is going to save you big bucks that you would otherwise be spending on soda at the store, like Coke or Pepsi.

Oops–that's how they didn't make it past the censors. Since Coke and Pepsi are big advertisers, no fair mentioning the competition, so it's back to the drawing board for Sodastream.

The big story, though, is the conflict between Ms. Johansson's decision to rake in the bucks–I haven't been able to find out exactly how many–and her role as a spokesperson for Oxfam, one of the leading human rights and antipoverty organizations worldwide. 

You see, Sodastream makes its home soda machines in a settlement in the occupied territories in Palestine, so her support of Sodastream puts her in direct conflict with Oxfam, because “Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.“

The story percolated for a few days, with human rights activists criticizing Ms. Johansson, but Oxfam not dropping her as a spokesperson. Eventually, though, she resigned her position with Oxfam, who accepted the resignation.

 This is the only way it could have ended, obviously. Ms. Johansson couched her endorsement of Sodastream in the self-serving language Sodastream itself uses, the humanitarian mission of providing employment for Palestinians, never mentioning the sizable checks that are obviously flowing her way. She sure doesn't come out of this looking good.

 I haven't seen the comparison made, but the parallel that strikes me about this is South Africa and the Sullivan Principles. Leon Sullivan was a Baptist minister from Philadelphia on the board of General Motors, and when anti-apartheid activitists were agitating for divestment of American companies from South Africa Sullivan came up with the Sullivan Principles, a set of standards designed to justify American corporations making big bucks off apartheid.

In the case of the Sullivan Principles, as in the case of Sodastream, humanitarian reasons were trotted out to justify corporate policies: we're a positive force for change, the people need the jobs, blah, blah, blah.

Never mind that the activists on the ground supported divestment as the only effective tactic against apartheid, either in South Africa or Palestine.  Ms. Johansson's “argument cuts no ice with Palestinian groups, who say SodaStream pays Palestinians less than Israelis, or with Oxfam, which says that trading with Israeli companies operating in West Bank settlements legitimates the occupation regardless of how they treat their workers.”

 Don't expect this to have any impact on Ms. Johansson's career, but at least we can hope that it creates some greater visibility to the settlement issue in the wider world.

Brad Ferland has been, and I assume still is, a paid lobbyist for Vermont Yankee; so it surprised me to find his opinion piece occupying the paper’s editorial position in the Weekend Messenger.

Be that as it may, Mr. Ferland raises the question of why more members of the public did not show up for the January 14 Public Service Board Hearing on Vermont Yankee.   Mr. Ferland seems to think that the forty citizens who did testify represents a negligible number; but be that as it may, I know why I did not, so I can hazard a guess why others did not as well.

The hearing was held on a Tuesday at 7:00 PM.    Leave aside the fact that it was a work night for most of us, and the driving conditions were less than ideal, many people had other meetings and obligations on the night in question. That is why the PSB collects statements through a link on their website, from people who are unable to be physically present.

Mr. Ferland fails to mention that one of the key issues under consideration by the PSB, is the fact that Vermont Yankee prefers to save itself some money by not using the facility’s cooling towers in order to bring its water discharges to a temperature that will not harm aquatic life in the Connecticut River.   Continued operation by VY under these circumstance, even for a year, has an impact on our already fragile river resources.

The settlement that Mr. Ferland refers to so glowingly, may not be all that it’s cracked-up to be.  Much of the supposed “benefit” to Vermont comes from a chunk of cash that is supposed to be used to promote economic development.  “Economic development” funds often find their way into already well-lined pockets, and seldom seem to reach the folks who are most in need of help.

When this veil is stripped away, Vermont really does come out on the distinctly losing side of the bargain.  And the potential for that loss grows even greater the longer that Entergy postpones decommissioning of Vermont Yankee; because the parent company is not as robust as one might hope for an entity that must be trusted decades ahead of time to finish the job properly in our childrens’ lifetime.

Entergy’s quality and safety control reputation has suffered numerous blows over the past couple of years, but none more spectacular than when they blacked-out last year’s Super Bowl Game!

And we are counting on these folks to keep a lid on the pressure cooker at VY far into the distant future?  If I were a betting woman, I would put my money on Vermont Yankee slipping out from under that obligation with some kind of sleazy financial sidestep.  

Talk about allowing Entergy time to grow the decommissioning fund makes me laugh.  They’ve had forty years of extremely profitable operation in which to cultivate that fund.  All that remains fairly certain is that the taxpayers of Vermont will, inevitably, be stuck with much of the bill for cleaning-up what Entergy leaves behind.

“Economic development” funds?  Chump change.

Usually, reductio ad absurdum is something you do to another person’s line of argument. It’s very unusual to reductio one’s own argument ad absurdum, but Campaign for Vermont spokesflack Shaun Shouldice managed the trick in a letter sent this week to House Speaker Shap Smith.

The letter formally accused State Representative Mike McCarthy of violating House rules by casting a vote on H. 702, the bill to expand the state’s net metering program. McCarthy is an employee of SunCommon, the VPIRG spinoff that facilitates the adoption of solar power by homeowners. Shouldice argues that since the net metering bill “will be beneficial to SunCommon,” and that McCarthy “has a direct interest in the passage of H.702.” She then asks Smith to “discuss this violation… with Representative McCarthy and take whatever action is necessary.”



The letter also ties McCarthy’s vote to CFV’s top legislative priority, ethics reform.

Okay, a couple of problems here.

First, H. 702 passed by a margin of 136 to 8. Yeah, if McCarthy had recused himself, that bill would’ve been in deep trouble, f’sho.

Second, aside from retirees, every single person in the Legislature has a day job. And it didn’t take me 30 seconds to come up with other examples of “direct interest” in pieces of legislation. Let’s take former Senator, now Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott, who runs a road-construction company. In his years in the Senate, did he ever vote on transportation bills? How about Bill Doyle, who teaches part-time at Johnson State College? Does he vote on education funding bills?

How about realtor/Rep. Don Turner, or realtor/Sen. Ann Cummings? Do they recuse themselves on land-use and property-tax measures? After all, the professional realtors association is publicly lobbying for lower property taxes; sounds like a real conflict of interest there.  

To put it more broadly:

“We’ve got a citizen legislature,” says McCarthy, who went to work for SunCommon in July 2013. “Farmers vote on farm bills. Teachers vote on education bills. We have a doctor who votes on health care bills.”

The latter would be Democrat George Till, who not only votes on health care bills, but also serves on the House Health Care Committee. The unmitigated gall of that man!

And how about Peter “The Slummin’ Solon” Galbraith, who made his fortune in fossil fuels and now sits on the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, where he is furiously active in efforts to slow the growth of renewable energy? Hmmmmm?

I could go on. And on. But you get the point.

Which makes me wonder why Shouldice and CFV chose Mike McCarthy and net metering as the hill they would die on — or, at least, make fools of themselves on. If she was hoping to make a strong case to Democratic leaders and gain momentum on CFV’s ethics crusade, this certainly wasn’t the way to do it.

Worst case, the letter will offend Smith and other lawmakers; best case, they’ll laugh it off. And assign a lot less credibility to CFV’s future endeavors.  

Well, Bernie’s Town Meeting Forum is over, so I’m editing this for Sue, Stardust & Katrinka.  (And also, Maggie)

I’m 65 years-old and on Social Security.  Imagine the NSA hiring us old folks to work at home to ‘entrap’ people online.  Imagine the following e-mail message in your regular In-Box being written by an 82 year-old Granny working at home part time for the NSA to supplement her ‘cut-back’ monthly SS payments.  Note that her language and diction are not like the young and hip cyber-messages you usually get.  I find this more intriguing.  And more conspiratorial, if not sexier:

“Hi.  Wanna be my Fuck-Buddy?  I’m 26 and blonde with a sexy ‘drop-dead’ body.  Click on my pic gallery attached.

“I’ll be up in your neck of the woods next month and would really like to ‘get-together’ with you.  Giggle.

“And hey!  I’m BI too.  So show your partner my pics.

“All I need from you is a brief response.  Tell me I’m hot and tell me what you think about when you look at my pics.  Do you think about Global Warming?  Heh-heh.  Or do you think other sexy stuff?

“When I’m ready to have sex I like to talk about all kinds of political stuff for foreplay.  All of it political.  All over my body.  I think politics is sooo sexy.  That War in Afghanistan is my favorite.  What a turn-on!  And I like to talk about what it would be like if we all got together and shot a lot of mean selfish sexless rich people, and then had sex on their big fancy dining room tables.  Ohhh yes!  And maybe if we got really kinky, we could do some foreplay together fantasizing about being sexed-up revolutionaries setting up a big sexy bomb at the New York Stock Exchange and blowing Wall Street and half of lower Manhattan all to Hell.  Orgasm City!

“I also love Costume Sex, so we could get military uniforms and sneak into the Pentagon and really go at it.  Yeah.  Deeper and deeper, baby.  So fucking hard!  Faster and faster!  Oh God!

“I’m really into Oral.   So talk politics to me.  Tell me sexy stuff.  Oh God, Yes!  Make me all wet, baby.  Yummm.

“So, please hurry and respond to me.  And baby, will I ever respond to you.  I guarantee you’ve NEVER had it the way I can give it to you.  I promise, baby.  I’m ready for you.  I want to do it all with you.  Tell me you love my sexy long legs and shaved pussy and how they make you want to do to me the things the government is doing to you.  Yeah, baby.  Right there.  Ohhh…that feels so good.  Give me all your nasty moves.  I’m sooooo READY!

“I’ll be the Fuck-Buddy you’ll remember when you’re old and grey and retired from the Peoples’ Liberation Fuck Army.  Living in a big house that was owned by some rich pig who dropped dead from a heart attack after watching us make wild monkey jungle love at the Demonstration in front of his big corporate headquarters.  The one that’s 20 stories high, sticking up like a big penis.  Oh my God!

“Anything political makes me hot.  But smashing the State is where I go completely wild.  It gives me multiples, and I could do it all day and all night and forever.

“I want it.  I want you, baby.  Because I know you’re special.  I Googled you.  It made me come.  I want you to give it to me.  All of it.  You and me, baby, all intimate, wet, and sticky in our private places.  Yes!  Don’t stop now!  Click me.  Lick me.  I want all of you.  I want you to fuck me and tell me how you think and feel about everything while you’re pounding me to heaven!  All your most secret secret dirty thoughts.  Everything you’ve been holding inside you that makes your balls all hard.  All the nasty things you’ve been waiting to scream out loud for so so long, you can scream to me in our climax into ecstasy.  And beyond.  You can shoot a big big load, baby, just for me.  I’ll take it all.  Oh God, YES!  Give it to me!  NOW!  YES!!!

“Whewww…  There.  That was soooo good.  Let’s do it again.  And now it’s your turn to be on top.  All you need to do is hit reply.  You know how to hit reply, don’t you baby?  You just put out your big old cursor and CLICK.  Yeah.

“I love you, baby.  Sooooo much.  Yummmm…”

(Oh, and PS:  I have a pair of handcuffs too.  Oh God…)  

———————————————–PeteySweety

This is a kind of half-assed post, and I don’t understand why it hasn’t been posted already by the Sanders’ people in Vermont.

I have been informed that Bernie is holding a Town Meeting forum tomorrow (1pm, Sat., Jan. 31) at Montpelier City Hall (upstairs in theatre section) about the NSA and ‘privacy’ issues.  Sounds interesting, and I hope to attend and hope Bernie has some inside track on what these NAZIS are doing with our e-mail and online communications and political dialogues.

Just so you know, a ‘good’ Little Dem, Maggie Lenz-McQuilken, informed me of this earlier in the week, and I expected one of you other Dems or Bernie’s office to post it here.  But, alas, it is now Friday, and I think something should be up now on GMD.

I hope to ask Bernie to consider an Independent run for Pres in 2016.  If he could get the Green Party, Socialist Labor, Libertarian, Liberty Union and all other Third Parties (including Roseanne) ‘united’ in a move to put all the anti-establishment votes together in one big populist block, I think he could get at least 15 percent, maybe more, and that would be the beginning of a movement that Dem and Republican Congresspeople, Presidential candidates, Governors, etc. would have to ‘pay attention to’.

Somehow, we’ve got to break down a system that is leading this nation into Hell.  Like with Global Warming, we have not accomplished shit on bringing about CHANGE.  Every goddamn Third Party, with its separate ‘special’ issues and ‘special’ candidates (yawn), has divided up our ‘voting power’ for far too long.  It is time to close ranks and try to make a difference with that voting power.  Votes are what the sonsabitches still have to listen to!

And MAGGIE!–Even though you will only be 31 in 2016, I hereby nominate you for VP with Bernie.  If it ain’t legal, Mags, you can pass it on to Roseanne.  Or Jennifer Aniston.  

I wonder if our crusading AG will be there tomorrow:  “NSA?  That’s FEDERAL.  My hands are tied.”  Yeah, no shit.

If Hillary Clinton is the only bright spot on the 2016 horizon, well, we’re in a sad state.  She should have gotten it in 2008, instead of Mr. Do Nothing/Feel Good.  Perhaps, if a Bernie WIND sweeps over the nation in the next two years, Hillary will be forced to make Bernie her VP, so as not to lose to whatever asshole the Republicans recycle out of their garbage.  I can see it now–OVAL OFFICE, May, 2017:

“Jesus Christ, Bernie, I can’t do that!’

“Madame President, either you do that, or I will be forced to sit here and filibuster you until June.  I’ve brought some of my old speeches and manifestos along to read to you from.  Let’s see.  Oh, here’s a good one…”

“All right!  All right!.  I’ll fucking do it, Bernie!  Just please.  Please don’t start speechifying again.  I’m just a little old lady.  I’ve heard all about the Corporate State and the Rich and the…”

“Don’t forget about the minimum wage and Social Security and…”

“All right!  All right!  What Banks to you want me to seize?”

“I have a list here, Madame President.  Also, abolish the Federal Reserve.  And here’s a list with Halliburton, Monsanto and other major corporations who owe the United States Treasury billions.  And here’s a list of properties their CEOs own here and abroad that we can seize, using the troops you withdrew from Afghanistan last month.  And here’s…”

“Okay.  Where’s those Executive Orders you drew up for all this?  And where’s my Presidential Pen?  God, you’re a pain in the ass, Bernie.”

“Just doing the job you told America I would do as a ‘proactive’ Vice President.  And after you sign those orders, I’d like to talk to you for a few hours about alternate energy, Global Warming and the Monarch butterflies.”

Can we do that tomorrow, Bernie?  I mean, not now…I think I’m getting a headache.”

“As you wish, Madame President.  Actually, I do have to put in an appearance at that big rally in front of Congress about the Equal Rights Amendment, and the federal subsidies on child care for working mothers, and FDA action on the Male Pill, and…”

“Yes.  Please.  Just go.  I need to lie down after I sign all this stuff, and after I order the Pentagon to send those units to occupy Wall Street.”

“I’ll let you know what the people at the rally want you to do.  And thank you, Madame President.  I shall take my leave now.”

“Whew…yeah…Thank you, Bernie.  Oh god!…”

“What is it, Madame President?”

“Oh…I’m out of valium again.  Bernie, please send in one of my aides when you leave.”

“You mean Ms. McQuilken or Ms. Aniston?”

“No, Mr. Clooney.  Or Mr. Tatum, actually, if he’s not too busy.”

“As you wish, Madame President.”

Peter Buknatski

& Maggie Lenz-McQuilken

Montpelier, Vt.  

In recent news, the Mayor of Newark accused the Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey of trying to exert undue influence in order to push through a pet development.  

The complaint struck a familiar chord for me, as it sounds like the kind of garden variety corruption that routinely plagues even the smallest of cities and towns.

Giddy with TIF fever, the City of St. Albans has some “goings on” of its own that bear careful scrutiny.  I am referring to the current controversy over the fate of the historic Smith House/Owl Club, and the conspiracy to retool an entire neighborhood in order to accommodate a speculative development by one of the state’s most powerful construction companies, Connor Contracting.  

I began to tell the story on GMD some months ago, after the local Development Review Board, chaired by the first cousin of the four brothers who own Connor Contracting, issued a permit for demolition of the historically designated landmark and endorsed the developer’s non-conforming speculative office building as the replacement.  In so doing, the DRB ignored the fact that the developers had not satisfied even the basic requirements for a demolition permit, and that the City’s Design Advisory Board had unanimously recommended against the changes to street-level parking and destruction of greenspace that the Connor brothers’ proposal entails.

When challenged by members of the community over their failure to enforce City rules and the inappropriateness of the developers’ plans, the City Council refused to vacate the decision and send everything back for a proper review.  Instead they forced us, the near neighbors, to appeal the DRB decision in environmental court.  Rather than take responsibility for the failure of their own appointed permit body to enforce the law, the Council members actually said that they preferred to let a judge decide!

We are now in the midst of the demolition appeal process, with a merits hearing set to take place sometime in May.

Meanwhile… back at City Hall:  Because the Connors’ parking plan required the City to yield its right-of-way so that diagonal parking would make it possible to cram additional cars onto tiny Maiden Lane, it was necessary to obtain permission directly from the City Council for that aspect of the plan.

We, the neighbors who use Maiden Lane, citing safety concerns for the busy little laneway, formally requested the City to do a traffic study before coming to a decision.

Once again, despite the fact  that the City’s own appointed Design Advisory Board had unanimously opposed the plan, and ignoring the public request for a traffic study, the City Council members hastily approved the proposal. In support of their approval, City Manager Dominic Cloud offered a two page ‘opinion’ by the captive engineering firm that is in charge of their streetscape.  

As perfunctory and tainted by conflict of interest as the opinion was, even that could not wholeheartedly endorse the Connors’ proposal, recommending instead an alternative that was unacceptable to the Connors.  

Nevermind the fact that it was Connor Contracting that was responsible for the failed parking design that is already in existence on Maiden Lane in front of the library!

The Council’s reason for rushing?  They actually said, once again, that we, the neighbors would undoubtedly appeal; so, in order to allow the court to “roll both appeals together;” and so as not to further delay the developers’ project, they would simply approve it out of hand, and let the judge decide!

Even though there are two attorneys sitting on the City Council, Tim Hawkins and James Pelkey, they all seemed to be totally ignorant of the fact that any appeal of the City’s parking decision wouldn’t even be heard by the Environmental Court; it would be heard instead by Superior Court and follow a completely separate schedule, costing everyone an additional bundle to litigate.  

The next time someone complains to me about “frivolous” permit appeals, will he ever get an earful!

 

The Chairman of the Design Advisory Board ( a subset of the Planning Commission), Chris Dermody, actually spoke up before the Council made its decision, saying that the board had specifically opposed the changes and sent a memo to the DRB about this and the fact that the applicants had not satisfied the minimum requirements for obtaining a demolition permit for an historic property.  He asked why that memo was nowhere in the record of the DRB review.  He didn’t get an answer.

Last week, when the Design Advisory Board was to hold its next hearing, with the new ACE Hardware store looking for a change to its permit, Mr. Dermody adjourned the meeting without doing any business, making a statement that there was no point in continuing their work if the City disrespects their opinion.

The City’s failures to honor its responsibilities in this matter are becoming so numerous at this point that it really requires much more explanation than I can cram into this diary; so I have laced it with links to Michelle Monroe’s exemplary coverage in the St. Albans Messenger.

Developers enjoying political favors while the public good is left to twist in the wind?  It doesn’t only happen in New Jersey.

 I am calling now for TWO things to happen, as regards the office of Vermont Attorney General.  FIRST, someone outside of the Vermont Dem Party should call for an investigation of Bill Sorrell’s seemingly lack of concern for (or inaction on) these following ‘crime’ problems in Vermont:

#1–The HEROIN epidemic.  This has been growing for years and years under Sorrell’s watch.  With Heroin now heap cheap (no doubt brought about by bringing ‘democracy’ to Afghanistan), it’s only going to get worse.  Shumlin called it–but why didn’t Sorrell?  Vermont is on the Montreal to Florida, and back again, route for Heroin ‘trafficking’–we are WIDE OPEN now for Gang-related crime, the collateral damage intrinsic in this form of ‘BIG MONEY’ drug running.  Where has our Attorney General been in the last few years on addressing this ‘crime’ problem and the future threat of worse to come?  What is his PLAN to deal with it?

#2–SEX/HUMAN Trafficking–The same routes and networks through Vermont for the Heroin trafficking are, again, WIDE OPEN for the ANIMALS who deal in SEX and HUMAN SLAVERY.  It is BIG MONEY.  In 2010, A Task Force was formed, in the AG’s office, I believe, to look into this.  Well…What have they found?  Why the SILENCE on this problem?  I’d bet money that money is changing hands on both the Heroin trafficking and the Sex Trafficking.  What’s the story?

#3A*–Abuses of the elderly and disabled.  Years ago, a network of advocates for the elderly and disabled filed a class action suit against the state about the ‘backlog’ of some 300 cases of abuse of the elderly and disabled filed with the AG’s office that were still ‘pending investigation’–in other words, NO ACTION TAKEN as yet back then by the AG’s office.  What has happened with these cases?  And how many more complaints have been filed since then?

#3B*–Abuses of migrant workers in Vermont.  Another of Vermont’s ‘dirty little secrets’ that good liberals give Sorrell a pass on.  There have been many allegations over the years that, in some cases, migrant workers don’t get the pay that’s owed them before they are ‘deported’ by the Department of Immigration.  There also have been many charges made by Advocacy Groups about housing and health conditions and health care.  This applies to those migrant or immigrant workers who work on farms, and in the ‘service’ areas also, such as restaurants, etc.  Again, what’s the story here?

#4–Improper use of tasers and ‘other’ deadly force by Vermont law enforcement.  Well, we know what the ‘white-wash’ record here is from Sorrell, but how many more times does it have to happen before it is regarded as a ‘crime’ in itself?  

#5–And this is a ‘crime’ committed against the ‘intelligence’ off all Vermonters:  Why is Sorrell famous for his ‘campaign’ to wage war on our ‘addictions’ to sugary-sweet sodas and other soft drinks, when, in fact, there are probably a host of ‘civil rights’ violations going on every year, every week in Vermont.  Most of these at the workplace.  Some involving violations against workers who attempt to ‘organize for unionization’ in small businesses in Vermont.  People have been fired for union organizing, for petitioning for unions, etc.  Hell, in Vermont, under Sorrell’s watch, people have lost their jobs for ‘political incorrectness’ when questioning the actions of their bosses, boards, or co-workers.  Look at VPT.  Look at some of the things that have happened with state workers recently.  And in the private and non-profit sectors, it happens almost off-hand now.  And, let us not forget Sexual Harassment.  SODA?  Come on, Bill!

Now, enough said there.  Lots to INVESTIGATE.  I recommend the Vt. Legislature appoint a Special Legislative Investigative Commission composed of people who are NOT seeking or holding public office.  I suspect that Bill Sorrell has had plenty of time over the years to do like J. Edgar Hoover did–make files on potential enemies and gather the ‘dirt’ on all THE PLAYERS in Vermont politics, including his colleagues.  (Yes, that’s another accusation–#6)  Hoover concentrated on ‘subversives’ in the fifties and early sixties, instead of Organized Crime.  It took a DYNAMIC ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bobby Kennedy, to make Hoover pay some attention to real crime.

We have REAL CRIME here in our little liberal La-La Land of Vermont.  And we’re letting our AG get away with not addressing it, and that means we’re in for a substantial ‘altering’ of the QUALITY OF LIFE we’ve been so proud of in Vermont over the decades.

So, the SECOND thing I want to happen is for some good Prog, Liberty Union, Libertarian, whatever, candidate to come forward and RUN FOR AG this year.  Someone of the Pollina, Zuckerman, and yes, Rosemarie Jackowski caliber.  It would be a good thing if ALL the third parties combined their resources to take a crack at getting an INDEPENDENT elected AG in 2014.  Backed by Advocacy Groups for the elderly, disabled, workers, and those concerned about Vermont’s ‘weak reaction’ to BIG MONEY crime, a Third Party candidate ought to be able to walk away with this election.  I’ll bet a certain REPUBLICAN named Vince Illuzzi is considering options.  And, please, Madame/Mister Candidate, don’t be intimidated by the BIG MONEY Sorrell has raised at the AGs’ confab in FLORIDA.  Just another piece of the overall ‘disgusting’ way Bill Sorrell regards Vermonters’ say in things when it comes to his ongoing (too long) career.  Good Lord!  Could this ABOMINATION actually be thinking of the Governor’s office in 2016?  Say it ain’t so, SodaBill.

OK.  And I didn’t even mention what a wimp Sorrell was as regards the Federal Patriot Act right after 9/11.  Defending Vermonters rights?  Ain’t my job, he said.  His hands were tied by the Feds.  Just like his hands have been tied over the years when the Department of Immigration deports migrant workers in Vermont after they’ve served their purpose and still owed pay.  So PLEASE!  SOMEBODY!  It’s past time to get on Sorrell’s CASE.  Good and hard.  A BAD Democrat only begets a WORSE REPUBLICAN in the future.  Something all you Obamanites should think about too.  

*(I put these two 3s together because I feel they are of the same ilk–PREDATORY CRIMES against people who have limited ability to defend themselves.  Sometimes the elderly person will actually be robbed of money or items out of his/her home by an independent or ‘freelance’ caregiver, and excuses are made about the old person being…well, old and forgetful.  Immigrant and migrant workers are preyed upon because their rights as ‘aliens’ and ‘transients’ put them in a different category than regular Vermont residents.  Both are heinous crimes.  Notice I didn’t go into the mentally ill or children.  There are separate State agencies that should monitor these areas.  Same with INMATES–The Department of Corrections.  Although I believe that if one State agency is dropping the ball, it would be ‘nice’ if the AG’s office were on top of that.  As Obama said Tuesday night:  Have A Nice Day.)

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.  

Back in early January, Senator Bob Hartwell raised some eyebrows in the enviro community when he came out against expanding the Bottle Bill to include water bottles. Instead, he asserted that the Bottle Bill’s days are numbered, thanks to the coming new era of recycling:

“I think we need to face up to the fact that everything is going to go through the single-stream systems,” Hartwell said. “At some point, the bottle bill will be eliminated.”

Hartwell chairs the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, so his statement made the news. He may well have a point, but he’s at odds with environmental groups pushing to expand the bill, not kill it.  

At about the same time, Hartwell made some other comments that went largely unnoticed, but ought to cause an even bigger stir: He cast doubt on Vermont’s goal of 90% renewable energy by the year 2050, as formalized in the Comprehensive Energy Plan. His comments came on Vermont Senate Spotlight, a cable TV show hosted by the George Stephanopoulos of Vermont Community Access, Michael Abadi, best known in these parts as former host of VT Blogosphere TV.  

And in making a case against the 90% goal, Hartwell sounded a whole lot like a Republican — more concerned with cost than with climate change.

There’s a stunning amount of… oil and gas in North America. I think we have to figure out if were going to use a lot of it. Certainly there’s a lot of proposals for expansion of natural gas in Vermont, which would reduce the cost of doing business. And we have a very high cost of doing business in Vermont.

We definitely need to deal with it… The part about the Comprehensive Energy Plan that bothers me a little was the 90% renewables by 2050, because it’s a little hard to tell where it came from. And it’s not in state law. So I think we’re going to look at that part as to whether — because the temptation is to try to reach a goal that may be temporary, or may be somehow inaccurate or unachievable, and that could cost us a lot of money if we mishandle that.

So we’re going to look at that part and we’re going to make sure to look at the entire picture of what’s going to be available to us in the future.

Did you notice what was missing in that little disquisition? How about “climate change,” “greenhouse gases,” and even “environment.” Instead, we get “cost,” “cost,” and “cost.” And an implicit endorsement of fossil fuels, including fracked gas and tar sands oil.

After the jump: Aiming squarely at Vermont’s renewables goal.

And we get a direct assault on the 90% goal itself: “it’s a little hard to tell where it came from.” Well, Bob, it came from a lengthy multi-agency process that included a huge quantity of input from stakeholders, interest groups, and the general public. It came from people a whole lot more informed than Bob Hartwell. “Hard to tell where it came from,” indeed.

Here we have the chairman of the Senate’s committee on environment and energy — a Democrat, mind you — stating his desire to rip open the CEP and, apparently, eviscerate it.

I’ve been told that Senator Hartwell has a solid environmental record. He’s certainly not acting like it these days. Maybe he wasn’t all that solid in the first place. Maybe his head’s been turned by all the lobbyists who target the SNRE chair. Maybe he’s attacking the CEP as part of his crusade against ridgeline wind energy: remove the 90% target, and there’s no official impetus for expanding renewables.

I don’t know. But I think Hartwell’s anti-CEP talk is bigger news than his opposition to the Bottle Bill.  

Hmmm. Up in the little town of Westford (east of Milton, north of the Essexes, population 2086), a curious event has taken place. Right around the deadline for making the Town Meeting agenda, a petition was submitted that calls for the closing of the Westford Elementary School, and the creation of an independent school in its place.

The petition cleared muster, so it’ll be up for a vote at Westford’s Town Meeting on March 3.

As reported by VPR, the petition came as a surprise to the school board:

The board said the petition raises many questions, and school directors will do their best to research the answers. Some of the yet-to-be-answered questions identified by the board are:

— Should we vote to close our school without knowing any of the details about what might replace it?

… — How can we compare the present quality of the school to what might replace it?

— Should the town give up its public school and lose its voice in how the school is run and how much it costs?

… The motivation behind the petition appears to be a desire to divorce the school from the state education funding formula.

According to the town website, a petition must be signed by at least 5% of registered voters. Which, in Westford, means a grand total of 72 valid signatures. So it’s kind of a low bar to surmount, but it does require some coordinated effort.

Now, I have no idea what happened here. It could very well be that a group of dedicated residents is fed up with rising property taxes and wants to force the issue. But I smell something else.  

Could this be the start of an organized campaign by state conservatives to spread the gospel of privatization town by town — targeting small towns where a small number of local activists could carry the day at Town Meeting? Again, I have no evidence that such a thing is happening, but it’s certainly not a stretch. Privatization activists have been stymied by Shumlin Administration opposition at the state level; they have a model to imitate in North Bennington’s move to an independent school; and it wouldn’t be the first time that conservative groups targeted small communities and low-profile elections to advance their agenda.

As far as I know, it’s only one town this year. (Question for VPR: is this happening in other towns?) But if it succeeds in Westford, could we see a wave of similar petitions next year? Perhaps targeting small communities that lean conservative anyway? There’s a lot of those.

It’s just a ping on the radar for now. But it might turn out to be something much bigger on the horizon.