Toxics Action is calling our attention to a small town crisis to which we all might relate.  

Just 784 citizens strong, Graniteville is a village with a history of dealing with industrial health hazards. It is not surprsing folks there are alarmed by the  proposal to site an asphalt plant in their midst.

The all too recent memory of Silicosis due to dust from the area’s granite industry has raised local awareness, making them highly alert to new industrial health threats and binding the resisters into Neighbors for Healthy Communities.

When I read about public opposition to the proposed plant, I wanted first to know more about the potential hazards before venturing to voice my own; so I consulted that twenty-first century oracle of diverse opinion, the “Google.”

What I learned would concern me if a plant were to locate in my own neighborhood.

While there were certainly many examples of reassurance that if regulatory standards are carefully observed and enforced, no harm should come to the community surrounding an asphalt plant, there was acknowlegdement that asphalt fumes contain known toxins; In the words of the EPA:

“Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities are major sources of hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene. Exposure to these air toxics may cause cancer, central nervous system problems, liver damage, respiratory problems and skin irritation.” [EPA]. According to one health agency, asphalt fumes contain substances known to cause cancer, can cause coughing, wheezing or shortness of breath, severe irritation of the skin, headaches, dizziness, and nausea. [NJDHSS] Animal studies show PAHs affect reproduction, cause birth defects and are harmful to the immune system. [NJDHSS] The US Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs may be carcinogenic to humans.

If the EPA opinion wasn’t enough to give pause, a 1997 study  by the National Parks Service contains the following warning:

NIOSH urges caution related to human exposure to asphalt. Current NIOSH research indicates that asphalt products are carcinogenic to laboratory animals and, therefore may be more toxic to humans than previously believed [366].

So the question of underlying hazard was pretty conclusively answered for me.  That hazard is real and recognized, and the only thing standing between the community and those toxins is the regulatory process, in which the people of Graniteville have had more than small occasion to be disappointed.

But the problem doesn’t end there.  Even if the plant were successfully sealed-up, emission free, there would still be risk from the collateral exposure that would inevitably occur when the material is loaded and unloaded out of doors and transported through the town.

Safety regulations governing necessary products and services are always heavily tempered by pragmatic considerations.   When acceptable practices are finally enshrined in law, thanks to vigorous industry input, health and safety risk reduction has already been carefully weighed against the cost benefit.  So regulations never achieve 100% risk reduction, even when strictly enforced.

Furthermore, accidents involving explosions are always a risk at asphalt plants.  Such an occurrence would not just endanger the workforce, but the community as a whole.

The people of Graniteville have every reason to be concerned.

Toxics Action would like us to know that there will be a fund-raising dinner at the Old Labor Hall in Barre on February 21 at 6:00 PM, to support Neighbors for a Healthy ommunity in their fight against this plant.  In addition, there will be music,  a live auction and a bake sale

Tickets are $10 for adults, $6 for kids under 10, and may be reserved by phoning 802-476-3710.

.

The “Cloud Tax” will once again be up for debate this year. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, and haven’t been paying attention to this tedious debate over the last few years, let’s peel back the layers of misunderstanding and loaded rhetoric. No one is proposing that we start “taxing the internet”, just for the record.

H.146 seeks to treat the purchase of software via the internet  as a service, rather than a product so that it is exempt from the sales tax. This would save companies from paying sales tax when they purchase software licenses and download the applications on everything from Microsoft Office to the Adobe Suite. The legislative Joint Fiscal Office had this estimated at $2.3 Million worth of sales tax revenue in FY2014.

Viewed through the lens of economic development, this is always pitched as a way to make Vermont look “open for business” as it was in the most recent legislative update from Rep. Corey Parent. That sounds great. Why tax the internet? Let’s keep it free and cheap, and have Vermont be a place where tech companies can go and thrive without a pesky 6% charge every time they pay for a software bundle.

When I was a small business owner, I often went down to Staples and grabbed pens, paper, and other supplies. I forked over 4 cents to the Transportation Fund and 2 cents for the Education Fund with every dollar I spent. Back at the office I downloaded Quickbooks and other software, not to avoid the 6% tax, but because it was much more convenient. The last time I did this was during the Cloud Tax moratorium, so I didn’t pay any sales tax. Had I bought that same product while I was in a brick and mortar store, I would have paid the sales tax.

Let’s put aside the fact that the sales tax pays for roads and schools for a moment. Is it fair to call the same product that used to come in a box on a CD a service now that it’s available online? That’s the real question that legislators should be asking when H.146 is debated in the Commerce & Economic Development committee.

Viewed through the lens of Main Street fairness the Cloud Tax debate gets more difficult.  I know folks who are upset that their customers walk into a shop to browse and then buy online. These  customers avoid helping our brick and mortar stores pay their  lease and the tax that educated the kid at the counter and paid for the road to get the product there. That’s why Congressman Welch and others support taxing online sales to level the playing field. We should think hard about how this bill that allows companies like MyWebGrocer and Dealer.com to save thousands of dollars each year, plays into the online tax avoidance that many Vermonters, of all political stripes have called “unfair”.

As we increasingly live in a world in which internet sales are the norm, but many of the products we purchase online depend on educated people and transportation infrastructure to deliver them, we need to look at debates like this more closely. Otherwise, we may be contributing to the shuttering of brick and mortar stores, like the Staples that just left Saint Albans, all in the name of “economic development”.

Lemieux shares some lessons to learn from vaccine trooferism:

The phenomenon you point to also highlights the collapse of any faith in collective or social life. The anti-vaxxers conceive of their position purely as a private lifestyle choice. They want to make their child “pure” and “uncontaminated,” and their means of doing so is the practice of virtuous consumption. So we deal with the very many toxic dimensions of modern life not through any concerted action, but simply by buying “organic” or “chemical-free” products (and then, by not putting “artificial chemicals” in our children in the form of vaccines.

The logic here is straightforwardly akin to the predominant corporate attitudes of our day: The anti-vaxxers are trying to privatize profit (their pure and uncontaminated child) and socialize the risk (the outbreak of an epidemic is someone else’s problem)…what’s also interesting (to me) is its refusal to entertain any notion of community, of the realization that things like immunity or a “chemical free environment” must be understood as a shared space that can only be the product of a social and collective activity.

Yes, hyper-individualism is a key element in the rejection of vaccination regimes.  I have seen the term 'collectivist' used to dismiss social costs more than once while they harp on "personal choice" as some sort of mantra to ward off the demon of public health.  Because fuck yer neighbors and kids' classmates, I guess.

I find it particularly disturbing in Vermont, where our commonwealth's constitution is so much more explicit than Federal references to general welfare.  Just in the Declaration of Rights we see:

• Article 2nd: That private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it…

• Article 7th: That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community… community… community… community… public weal.

• Article 8th: …all voters, having a sufficient, evident, common interest with, and attachment to the community…

• Article 9th: That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member's proportion…and yield personal service…common good…more service to community.

• Article 20th: That the people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good…

They can deny it all they want, but we all do depend on society, no matter how misanthropic we might be.   To deny that is to deny reality.  And it's a rejection of constitutional and natural law.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are going to defend ourselves from them as is our right.  They don't want to be a part of the commonwealth?  Then tough shit.

ntodd

Lt Gov Phil Scott’s well-publicized economic pitch sessions — which he describes as a cross between a “Shark Tank show” and speed dating — took input from business leaders and self-selected legislators about how to rejuvenate the Vermont economy. This event is a little new gimmick the Lt.Gov. started recently. The conferrence showcases are organizationally a step up from his past Everyday Jobs Initiative publicity gimmick.

One piece of legislation resulting from the recent economic pitch session has been introduced, and (wait for it) … it’s a sales tax holiday! Seven Republican state representatives and three Democrats are sponsoring a bill declaring August 29th and 30th sales tax free; Phil Scott is selling it as part of his economic rejuvenation pitch.

As a result of input from Vermont’s business community at the “Vermont Economy Pitch,” held on January 7, lawmakers are responding by introducing bills aimed at growing the state’s economy.

 We have had these “tax holidays” several times before in Vermont: it is simply a period of time, one or two days, when the state suspends the tax on selected goods. The tax holiday gimmick reached a peak nationally in 2010 at 19 states, and then tapered off in 2014 with 16 states conducting them.

There's just one problem, and it's a big one: there is real doubt a tax holiday actually accomplishes much for the economy. Policy analysts find that sales tax holidays simply shift the timing of purchases and do not increase economic growth or significantly increase consumer purchases. They are a one- or two-day microburst of economic activity that would have happened over a period of time anyway. Then there is the added negative feature of some lost state revenue from the suspension of the sales taxes. Also, since sales taxes are somewhat regressive, suspending the sales tax gives small relief to low-income people and a large amount of relief to higher income shoppers.

The event may do little for the economy, but it is very effective at helping politicians look as if they are doing something — everyone loves a sale!

And maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise that a one-time-only feel-good sales event with no lasting effect is what results from Scott’s economic speed dating session. Sorta like a one-night stand: will there be regret in the morning?

The weekend edition of the Messenger carries an editorial by Rob Roper of the right-wing Ethan Allen Institute advocating for Vermont to join 24 other states in passing a so-called “Right-to-Work” law.  

The timing is odd since this red-flag originally saw the light of day way back in August, when it was carried by Vermont Digger.

The name “Right-to-Work” is deceptive, as are the statistics quoted in Mr. Roper’s pitch.  In states without “Right to Work” laws, no one is denied the right to work.  They simply may not benefit from the wage and benefit packages negotiated through collective bargaining unless they contribute to the cost of that collective bargaining effort.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

So-Called “Right-to-Work” laws are popular in states under Republican control, where regulation is egregiously lax, minimum wage is kept truly minimal, and a lack of social services and infrastructure investment keep taxes artificially low.  

These states are extremely attractive to industrial-scale development, of course, but the collateral costs to poorer communities represented in their population, and to the environment, must be borne by the federal purse or not at all.

The statistics that Mr. Roper quotes are therefore skewed by factors other than “Right-to-Work” laws.

Let’s take a closer look at the sources that are providing Mr. Roper with his talking points.  He cites a study by the “Competitive Enterprise Institute.”  According to Sourcewatch, the “Competitive Enterprise Institute” is heavily funded by the infamous Koch brothers and has “long ties to the disinformation campaigns” of big tobacco and climate change denial.

We can only assume that his statement that “over 85% of Vermonters” support a “Right-to-Work” agenda is based on statistics provided by that extremely questionable source.  If this number wasn’t simply pulled out of the air, it was no doubt arrived at through the use of a “push-poll” which surveyed only a carefully chosen section of the population.  

Anyone who has ever been the recipient of a call asking something on the order of  “Would you support candidate “A” if you knew that he beat his wife?” is familiar with the nature of “push-polls.”

Given Vermont’s position as the most progressive state in the Union, it seems highly unlikely that 85% of Vermonters actually would support a law that essentially strips labor of its ability to engage in collective bargaining, particularly in this era of conspicuous corporate greed and exploitation.

Vermont’s official motto “Freedom and Unity” is easy to like, but a middle school student’s suggestion last month that the state also adopt a latin motto has brought out some ridiculous protests online. The latin motto “Stella quarta decima fulgeat”  is the suggestion of a middle school student and was introduced in a Senate bill.

The thread on the WCAX story page, reposted by Gawker.com in the story “Nativist Idiots Mistake Latin for Spanish, Totally Lose Their Shit” includes some particularly awful stuff.

“No, this is America, and our language has been English from the beginning. We don’t need to change now for a few.”

AND

“How do you say idiotic senator in Spanish? I’d settle for deport the illegals in spanish as a backup motto>”

I shared the Gawker.com link on my Facebook page and most of my friends had a great time laughing at the foolish posts and coming up with their own Latin mottos for our Fourteenth Star state. After the laugh-fest is over I can’t help but be concerned about how the knee-jerk posting and reposting of content reveals and amplifies messages of bigotry and ignorance that propagate too easily online.

Don’t these people stop to ask themselves, “Does this make me sound like a bigoted jerk?” I guess not.

At the same time this cute bill about a new state motto is getting criticized and the racist jerks are getting lampooned by my comrades, there is a much more important bill about online behavior under discussion in the Vermont House.

VTDigger’s story  covered Rep. Kesha Ram‘s bill,  H.105 that seeks to criminalize the act of revenge-posting nude photographs online by ex-lovers. With sexting  as a commonplace practice, it’s not suprising that this issue has had an impact on many young people, especially young women.

With the freedom of the internet, and the power to share ideas and content widely with ease, comes great responsibility. Are we ready to regulate the worst of this behavior by criminalizing revenge porn? I think so. Can we ever get the idiots to hesitate before pressing “post” on the WCAX comments page? Less likely, but a guy can hope.

UPDATE: Credit where credit is due: John Walters originally posted the motto story on the Vermont Political Observer. My bad for perpetuating an injustice.

Over the decades we have often seen that the young, refusing to blindly swallow what they have been told, are at the forefront of the march for freedom.

The intrepid heroes on display today are a group of young people, we can consider them a resistance cell, in Palatine, Illinois. There are only five now, but there is every reason to expect their numbers will grow and their philosophy of freedom will continue to expand.

From the Chicago Tribune:

 Public health officials warned Thursday that more measles cases are likely after five infants who attend a suburban day care center were diagnosed with the highly infectious disease.

The outbreak at a KinderCare Learning Center in Palatine marks the second appearance of the measles in Illinois within the last month. Officials last week said a suburban Cook County adult had contracted the disease and visited a Palatine grocery store and health clinic while possibly contagious.

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/chi-measles-palatine-20150205-story.html#page=1

 My hat is off to these brave activists, all under the age of twelve months. If we're lucky, their refusal to accept the orthodoxy of the vaccine industry will spread to Vermont very soon.

Senator Tillis just won a lifetime ticket for the Dum Dum Trolley [see below]

The junior Senator from North Carolina said he wouldn’t have problem with food service businesses opting out of regulations that require employees to wash their hands upon returning to work after a trip to the restroom. Why? Market forces would take care of it.

While discussing regulatory reform after an appearance at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Sen. Thom Tillis said

“As a matter of fact I think this is one where I think I can illustrate the point,” he recalled telling her. “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom. The market will take care of that. It’s one example.”

Tillis, who told the story with his right hand raised for emphasis, concluded that in his example most businesses who posted signs telling customers their food workers didn’t have to wash their hands would likely go out of business. Ah, the free market!  

Closing the event, Bipartisan Policy Center President Jason Grumet said, “I’m not sure if I’m going to shake your hand…”[added emphasis]

By the way Tillis is probably opting out on Global Handwashing Day, October 15.  

Dum Dum lollipops  on his Desk:  While Tillis was North Carolina State Speaker of the House  he kept a mug full of Dum Dum lollipops on his desk. If he thought an idea was, well, less than brilliant, he would reward its author with a sweet treat that sent a less-than-subtle message.

The Vermont League of Conservation Voters, on which I am proud to serve as a board member, annually joins other Vermont environmental organizations in releasing a Common Agenda that reflects their shared priorities for the legislative session.  

The principle of a “common agenda” recognizes the fact that each group will have its own distinctive priorities beyond the common goals, but all have agreed on the priority of certain key issues and encourage legislators to craft legislation to address those issues and the associated goals.

Joining VCV in this statement of priorities  are the Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Toxics Action Center, Lake Champlain Committee, and Preservation Trust of Vermont.

“This agenda highlights the most pressing environmental legislative priorities for 2015 – priorities shared by leading environmental organizations in Vermont,” said Lauren Hierl, political director of Vermont Conservation Voters.  Hierl noted that the groups consulted in assembling the Common Agenda are advocates for Vermont’s natural resources, healthy citizens, and vibrant communities.

The goals of this years Common Agenda reflect ongoing concerns that should be shared by  all Vermonters:

* A clean energy future, specifically enactment of:

o   an innovative renewable energy standard; and

o   a carbon pollution tax.

* Healthy state waters, specifically enactment of:

o   stronger regulations and better enforcement mechanisms to address major pollution sources including farms, roads, and commercial developments;

o   creation of a Clean Water Fund with better accountability for how funds are spent; and

o   increased funding for clean water initiatives, including new fees on polluters.

The Agenda doesn’t end there, but offers details of how these goals might be reached through legislation, and it goes on to raise a number of other focal points:

additional legislative priorities:  strengthen the vitality of downtowns, invest in working lands, maintain the integrity of the state’s environmental permitting system, promote dam safety, and ban plastic microbeads from personal care products.

The Common Agenda is one of the tools that Vermont’s environmental community uses to more affectively carry out its role in ensuring that the state remains a premier name in forward-looking environmental policy.