Protecting our homeland in Vermont: The Early Daze

Longtime media observer Jim Romenesko visited his archive machine yesterday to see what he had been writing about ten years ago. Among other items is a Vermont based story the Rutland-Herald had in November 2001.Just months after 9-11 a photographer on assignment for the Brattleboro Reformer was seen taking photos of Vermont Yankee and threatened him with arrest under a Vermont treason statute.

Eagle eyed Vermont Yankee officials saw a photographer taking photos and called police. Rob Williams the VY spokes-person/ flack back then noted with gravitas worthy of the times:

“It’s a police matter. We have been in a heightened state of awareness and we’ve been working closely with the Vernon Police Department,” Williams said

The Vernon Police Chief Randy Wheelock (reportedly he knew the photographer) and Windham County State’s Attorney Dan Davis referred to Vermont Statute Title 13, Section 3481, titled "Treason and other offenses against the government,"

Davis said he became aware of the treason statute after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and especially after three men of Middle Eastern appearance were seen photographing the Bellows Falls hydroelectric station owned by U.S. Gen. “I don’t think it’s a good time to be publishing photos of Vermont Yankee,” Davis said. “But I didn’t write the law.”

The relevant Vermont law states that it is unlawful: “while the United States is at war or threatened with war” to map, draw, model or picture without authorization “property of any corporation subject to the supervision of the public service board, or of any municipality or part thereof” punishment calls for imprisonment of not more than ten years.

States Attorney Davis said he would be surprised if this case was prosecuted. The Rutland-Herald and others noted that an image of the Vermont Yankee control room was featured on the Vermont Yankee website.

My sense is that we aren’t that crazy anymore. However, if asked to I am not confident that I could prove it.

The FBI and UC Davis' Katehi

No straight line can be drawn from the pepper spray incident on the UC Davis campus but it does make an interesting backdrop from which to read about the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board. Dave Zirin explains in The Nation

In 2010, [scandalized Penn State’s recently resigned President] Spanier chose[ UC Davis Chancellor Linda] Katehi to join an elite team of twenty college presidents on what’s called the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, which “promotes discussion and outreach between research universities and the FBI.”

The Advisory Board,started in 2005 has concerns that include violent acts by animal rights terrorists, research theft, acquisition or theft of technology and information sensitive enough to harm national security. Secrecy surrounds the meetings between university officials and the FBI and the contents are kept classified.

Zirin reminds us that

As has been true with the FBI since Hoover, give them a foothold, and they’ll take off their shoes and get cozy. Their classified mandate has since expanded to such euphemisms as “counter-terrorism” and “public safety.” It also expanded federal anti-terrorism task forces to include the dark-helmeted pepper-spray brigades, otherwise known as the campus police.

After a week of images showing black helmeted body armored police on US streets and campuses and questions being raised (the National Lawyers Guild filed a FOIA request with DHS and FBI) about possible national “agency” coordination in the almost simultaneous break-up of Occupy encampments Zirin’s closing questions are appropriate.

Given the personal character on display by these two individuals, [former Penn President Spanier and UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi] why should anyone trust that the classified meetings have stayed in the realm of “cyber theft” and intellectual property rights? What did the FBI tell Chancellor Katehi about how to deal with the peacefully assembled Occupiers? Was “counter-terrorism” advice given on how to handle her own students?

Pepper Spraying Officer Pike mit Klaus

Wrath of Pike ?


Officer Pike is everywhere.
See pepper spraying Officer Pike in art history here

2011 Chief Stamper’s second lesson remains unheard

Online sites and radio interviews have recently featured former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper’s reflections on the 1999 WTO demonstrations dubbed the Battle of Seattle.
Regarding his role Stamper states bluntly “My support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose.” This, he observes lead to “…some cops clearly overreacting, escalating and prolonging the conflict”
Along with his fairly thorough rejection of militaristic police tactics that Chief Stamper draws from his leadership experience over ten years ago is his other lesson. It’s been largely unheard and unlearned. How unlearned? See image from Davis California November 2011 of officer casually spraying protesters with pepper spray.

It is ironic that those police officers who are busting up the Occupy protesters are themselves victims of the same social ills the demonstrators are combating: corporate greed; the slackening of essential regulatory systems; and the abject failure of all three branches of government to safeguard civil liberties and to protect, if not provide, basic human needs like health, housing, education and more. With cities and states struggling to balance the budget while continuing to deliver public safety, many cops are finding themselves out of work. And, as many Occupy protesters have pointed out, even as police officers help to safeguard the power and profits of the 1 percent, police officers are part of the 99 percent.

A widespread awakening seems an unlikely prospect (mind those police pension cuts) but one retired Philadelphia Police Captain (in his dress blues) marched in OWS events in New York City and was arrested last week.It was reported he held a sign that read. “NYPD Don’t Be Wall Street Mercenaries,”

Second life for Newt?

Would anyone that remembers Ole Speaker Gingrich from the nineties really have believed this could happen?
Yes, Newt is the newest “not Mitt” candidate this month. A PPP poll shows Newt in the lead in the Republican race. He has a lead of 28 percent up 13 percentage points in one month.

The PPP analysis highlights just what a big turnaround he's had: "Gingrich's lead caps an amazing comeback he's made over the last 5 months. In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he's at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then. As recently as August Gingrich was mired in single digits at 7%, and even in September he was at just 10%. He's climbed 18 points in less than 2 months."
from csmonitor.com

Surprise! Inconsistencies between What Companies Say and What They Do

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Citizens United decision he authored:

“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions.”
“Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits and citizens can see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests.”

Wonder how that is working so far?
Reports about a study conducted by the Sustainable Investments Institute titled Analysis Counts More Companies with “No Spending” Policies, but Reveals Inconsistencies Between What Companies Say and What They Do shows early trends among S&P 500 companies since the game changing Citizens United decision.

It was found that the number of companies with declared policies on corporate oversight of direct spending jumped to 24% from 14% a year ago, but only 14% of S&P 500 companies actually give a numerical report on how much of their trade association dues are spent for political purposes.

In addition the study uncovered inconsistencies between companiesʼ stated political expenditure policies and what is actually spent. Fifty-seven of S&P 500 companies state they will not make political contributions, up from just 40 in 2010. But an in-depth search of federal and state records shows that only 23 of these companies actually refrained from giving to candidates, parties, political committees and ballot measures in 2010.

So policies are proliferating but well less than half of the companies with stated political expenditure policies actually followed their own guidelines.
Other findings include:
• The percentage of political spending coming from groups that do not disclose their donors has risen from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 midterm elections
• political spending by 501c-designated non-profits increased from zero percent of total spending by outside groups in 2006 to 42 percent in 2010.
• Outside interest groups spent more on election season political advertising than party committees for the first time in at least two decades, besting party committees by about $105 million.
• The amount of independent expenditure and electioneering communication spending by outside groups has quadrupled since 2006.
• Seventy-two percent of political advertising spending by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money on political ads or campaigns in 2006

But let’s remember what Justice Kennedy confidently imagined:

“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions.”

Sure, prompt disclosure of political expenditures, unless corporations want to hide them or not follow their own policies at all or just not bother to because, well because they can.
Money equals "free" speech and “corporations are people, my friend.”

Irene ate my single payer !

Well maybe that will happen if a retired Wall Streeter and Vermont resident who spoke to the annual meeting of the famously conservative Associated Industries of Vermont has his way. Bruce Lisman maintains that Irene recovery costs must side-track other state policy initiatives. The Irene recovery an “all in” bet (as he calls it) is so big it should preclude what he considers two other “all in” bets, specifically single-payer and investment in renewable energy. Lisman told the AIV …

"...But maybe this is not the moment to introduce two all-in bets [single payer, renewable energy investment] that would freeze, well, people like you [manufacturers, financiers and entrepreneurs], who might make decisions about expanding a business or adding people or thinking about new capacity or new markets. Maybe not this moment.”

Not surprisingly he doesn't entertain the possibility of even a modest upper income tax increase.

Practically a living mirror opposite of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Lisman sits on the board of National Life Group, is retired chief of JPMorgan’s Global Equity Division and served as Senior Managing Director of the defunct investment bank Bear Stearns, and plans to launch the Campaign for Vermont.

His campaign will champion what he claims are “centrist, down-the-middle, common-sense” policies and focus on prosperity. While no specific policy initiatives were offered it was made clear according to the vtdigger article that scrapping both single payer and renewable energy investment are paramount features of the campaign. He brands both efforts “large, profound” and “maybe intrusive in a fashion”.


A recent poll shows a plurality of Vermonters supporting the new health care law. So maybe it isn’t a surprise his argument found less than enthusiastic support even among business types.

Said one business leader when asked if he agreed with Lisman that Irene’s recovery cost should make it necessary to scrap healthcare reform and stop investment in renewable energy: “Let’s focus on Irene, get ourselves set, but the other issues are critical and important to the state and I don’t think we can ignore them.”

Another attendee took exception to the “all-in bet” can’t-walk-and-chew characterization of the problem: “I don’t know that I agree with that. I think there’s room for small bets in more than one area.”

Looks like Lisman’s Irene-based campaign to scrap healthcare and renewable energy investment aka Campaign for Vermont hasn’t found the moment and is more than half a bubble off-center.