Fast Track for Smart Grid

Despite privacy issues and security concerns, smart meter conversion is proceeding rapidly in Vermont, thanks to federal funding, Bernie Sanders, and a partnership with Lockheed’s Sandia Labs. By Greg Guma

Vermont is frequently touted as a leader in energy innovation, with efforts underway to dramatically improve efficiency, develop renewable sources and convert to smart grid technology. This reputation has recently attracted $69.8 million in US Department of Energy funding to promote rapid statewide conversion to smart grid technology, not to mention the interest of Sandia National Laboratories, which has launched the Vermont-Sandia Partnership with the University of Vermont, Vermont Law School, and Norwich University.

The relationship with Sandia with took shape in 2008 when US Sen. Bernie Sanders began to push for a Vermont satellite lab. By early this year, it had evolved into a full-fledged public-private partnership that includes educational institutions and leading businesses.  A $1 million grant from Department of Energy is funding the initial development, including student internships and visits to Sandia’s home base by UVM professors.

In Burlington, the state’s largest city, smart grid conversion has been underway since last spring, but received a major boost on Sept. 26 with the City Council’s approval of $6.2 million for equipment, software and purchases from various contractors. Burlington’s municipally-owned electric department (BED) is working with other Vermont utilities as well as DOE.

         

The federal funding represents an estimated 50 percent reimbursement for the project, with the state and local communities kicking in the remainder. The total cost for Burlington should be around $14.3 million. Last June, local voters approved $7.15 million in bonds to pay the city’s share. According to Ken Nolan, Manager of Power Resources for BED, the bonds are scheduled to be issued in early October.

Nolan briefed the City Council this week prior to its unanimous approval of 14 contracts. The largest amounts are $3.49 million to Itron, Inc., mostly for the meters themselves; $1.05 million to Siemens Energy and eMeter for the data management system; and $877,215 to Telvent for upgrading the Utilities Group for Supervisor Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, known as the “brains” of energy distribution.

The new meters will relay electrical use over a two-way system, allowing utilities and customers to monitor energy use without employees who physically read meters. On September 15, the Public Service Board led an interactive hearing in Brattleboro to collect public input on the privacy and security issues raised by installing them in private homes. The Board is also assessing a controversial “opt out” policy under which homeowners who don’t want the meters would be forced to pay a monthly fee, estimated at $10, if they stick with traditional electric meters.

UPDATE: The Brave New World of Smart Meters

**

Burlington has so far spent $4.4 million on conversion, mostly on substation improvements, a fiber optics loop and construction of a backup operations center. In order to leap forward from here, BED asked the Council to approve most of the major expenditures as a package. However, some vendors haven’t been selected yet, and other contracts are expected to follow. The City Council will also face decisions “around future efforts surrounding customer education and phone replacement,” according to BED’s report.

Asked to provide a timeline and describe the benefits, Nolan said that installation of smart meters in Burlington will begin next January. By April, many local homeowners will “start seeing how they use energy.” New rates will be developed, based on use analysis, and presented to the PSB by 2013. Those who are able to shift their energy use are expected to save money. Beyond that, he also mentioned new appliances that can be turned on and off by the meter. In the long term, utilities will be able to use the data collected by the meters to “work with customers on usage,” he said.

Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power, the state’s two major private utilities, are also gearing up to install the new meters. In Rutland installation should also be underway by January. But some consumers are concerned about who would have access to the information collected and whether it would be secure. 

Vermont ACLU director Allen Gilbert has publicly warned that in the past GPS information, cell phone use and other electronic data have been obtained without proper warrants. He argues that any personal information collected by a smart meter should be protected, and customers should be informed if anyone gains access.

One of the weak links is SCADA, the "brain" that collects data and sends it to a central computer. In 1999, when a pipeline burst in Bellingham, Washington, a SCADA failure was implicated. SCADA network and control systems also run dams, power plants, and gas and oil refineries.

A 2010 study funded by security vendor McAfee Inc and released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, concluded that SCADA systems are being attacked by a variety of methods, individuals and gangs. Two-thirds of those surveyed said their SCADA systems were connected to an IP network or the Internet. About half of those said the connection created SCADA security issues that aren't being addressed.

“BED presently utilizes a SCADA system created by Telvent Utilities Group,” states the memo on Burlington’s smart grid contracts, “but this software is several versions old and is designed to communicate utilizing radio technology.” The local utility plans to upgrade to the latest software, convert most of its communication systems to fiber-optics, and install a “video wall” distribution map. Remote terminals will allow the software to “speak with equipment on the distribution system.”

Security is a major focus for Sandia National Laboratories, a Lockheed Martin subsidiary headquartered in New Mexico with roots in the Manhattan Project during World War II. In fact, Sandia has long called itself a "national security lab." But its 21st century mission also includes "security of the smart grid."

In early August, after more than six months of study and local debate, Burlington’s City Council adopted a resolution on community standards for partnerships with businesses to address energy and climate change. This came largely in response to public criticism of a partnership agreement signed with Lockheed Martin by Progressive Party Mayor Bob Kiss last December. More than 50 local residents testified on the issue during public meetings, all but a few opposing the deal with the arms maker.

Kiss called the standards that emerged “bad public policy,” questioned whether most city residents actually support what he called a “restrictive and regressive approach,” and vetoed the resolution. In statement issued on Sept. 6, he said the policy adopted by the Council may have contributed to a decision by Lockheed to pull out of the Burlington agreement.  It is “a sorry achievement” that runs contrary to “building respectful municipal partnerships,” he charged. The City Council narrowly upheld his veto.

Local resistance hasn’t affected Sandia’s “partnership” with the state. According to Les Shephard, vice president for energy, resources and nonproliferation, Vermont will be a “test bed” for “how to bring these technologies to bear.” It is appealing to Sandia not only because of its leadership on energy issues, he told the Burlington Free Press in 2010, but also because of its climate. "We could develop, deploy and assess various types of technology in cold weather," Shephard said. "Our test facilities here are in the bright skies of New Mexico, where we have over 300 days of sunshine."

.

The Energy Department doesn't have a national lab in New England. But Sanders began lobbying for a Vermont-based satellite lab during a visit to Sandia in 2008. "At the end of the day,” Shephard recalled later, “he turned to the laboratory director and said, 'I'd really like to have a set of capabilities like Sandia in New England -- and very much so in Vermont.' And that's how it all evolved."

Last July, the Vermont-Sandia project offered a series of short courses on smart grid modernization for Vermont utility staff, energy-tech company management, and others stakeholders to examine and promote conversion.  A series of fall seminars, mainly focusing on the same issues, is underway in cooperation with the Gund Institute. 

On Oct. 11, for example, Dr. Rush Robinett III will discuss “Integrating Renewables into the Electric Grid” on the UVM campus as part of the series. Sandia’s senior manager in the Grid Modernization and Military Energy Systems Group, Robinett began working with Sandia in the 1980s as part of the staff developing the Star Wars (Ballistic Missile Defense) program. Since then he has concentrated on robotics and power infrastructure.

According to its website, the Sandia-Vermont Partnership was created to “enhance multidisciplinary education and workforce development” related to smart-grid, promote research collaboration, and “form liaisons with private and public stakeholders.” Sandia projects that more than 80 percent of Vermont consumers will be using smart meters by 2015.

Sen. Sanders, who has criticized Lockheed Martin in the past as a profiteer and corporate criminal, nevertheless envisions Vermont transformed “into a real-world lab for the entire nation” through its partnership with Sandia. “We're at the beginning of something that could be of extraordinary significance to Vermont and the rest of the country,” he insists. "This state is leading the country in energy efficiency. Period. We are No. 1.”

*

Burlington's Top 7 Smart Grid Contractors

1. Itron....................................$3,496,743 

2. Siemens/eMeter....................1,058,100

3. Telvent.................................    877,215

4. Oracle Systems....................    270,000

5. SunGard Public Sector.........    231,300

6. Rugged.com.........................   165,167

     7. Aclara..............................        142,000      

Funds Remaining....................  1,336,371
*

This report, in slightly edited form, also appears on VTDigger: Fast Track for Smart Grid

ALSO ON VTDIGGER.ORG:

Jane Sanders Resigns Presidency of Burlington College

Burlington Commission Appointments Favor Affluent Areas of the City

Burlington College Grapples with Growing Pains

Lockheed Martin: Burlington Council Backs Mayor Kiss Veto

LAST UPDATED ON 10/1/2011

THE VERMONT WAY: White House Dreams

So far, two people born in Vermont have become president of the United States. But others have made the attempt. The earliest was Mormon leader Joseph Smith, one of those restless Vermonters who struck out for the west in revival days. The next was Stephen Douglas, known as the “Little Giant,” who faced off against Abraham Lincoln. Then came Chester Arthur, who finally made it -- without actually running himself. And the second Vermonter to reach the White House - "Silent Cal" Coolidge, who also got the job when his predecessor died.

Silent Cal and Mother Jones talked politics in 1924.

Here's the latest excerpt from The Vermont Way, my upcoming book on Green Mountain values and history.

*****

Vermonters Go to the White House 

Previous excerpts

The Path to Marriage Equality

Voting Equality and the Hoff Effect

Mormons and the Presidency

How Vermont Went Republican

A Progressive Censors Red Emma

What the Frack… Are They Thinking?

Maverick Chronicles, 9/15/2011: A New Song by Dave Lippman, Hydraulic Fracturing, Poverty Rising, Pacifica Remembers 9/11, and Murdering Journalists. Burlington: The College, the Mayor and Lockheed.  Plus, Local Democracy and the Big Question: How Much to Buy Rick Perry?

The idea is to increase or restore the rate at which fluids – like oil, water, or natural gas – can be extracted from subterranean natural reservoirs. Hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – makes possible (and profitable) the production of natural gas and oil from rock formations deep below the earth's surface. What could go wrong?

This video takes on the issue with a catchy new song by Dave Lippmann. Dave –  also known as anti-folk singer George Schrub – will be opening for David Rovics on Friday night (Sept. 16) in Brooklyn at the Park Slope Methodist Church. The evening wil benefit SOA Watch/Brooklyn for Peace. That’s 7:30 PM, at 8th St at 6th Avenue, Park Slope, Brooklyn.

They want shoot us up with chemicals / I don't mean to be polemical

But shooting chemicals into rocks/
Is that really thinking outside the box?

From Dave Lippmann’s “What the Frack?"

The problem with fracking is its environmental and human health effects, which appear to include contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, migration of gases and chemicals used in the process to the surface, and the potential mishandling of waste. Let’s also not forget any costs associated with the environmental clean-up processes, loss of land value and impacts on humans and animals.

A 2010 EPA study "discovered contaminants in drinking water including: arsenic, copper, vanadium, and adamantanes adjacent to drilling operations which can cause illnesses including cancer, kidney failure, anaemia and fertility problems."

This struggle is proceeding on many fronts and across the country. Last week, for example, a new panel made up of natural gas drillers, environmentalists and government officials began to advise New York's Department of Environmental Conservation about fracking. The impact on drinking water is one of the most common concerns. 

In New York, both private and public drinking water supplies near potential well sites will be tested before future drilling permits are issued. The DEC recently released the final draft of its regulations. The department will accept public comments on the proposed rules for fracking until December 12.

Meanwhile in Montana, a statewide conservation group says a set of new regulations requiring the disclosure of chemicals used in fracking don’t go far enough in protecting the rights of nearby property owners. "We are not satisfied, " said Derf Johnson, speaking for the Montana Environmental Information Center, last Tuesday. “We're definitely happy that the state is finally getting around to doing this, but the current regulations are fairly deficient.”

Under new rules from the Montana Oil and Gas Board, which went into effect for wells on state and private land August 26, producers can disclose the chemicals used in fracking fluid either to the board or to a "national fracturing fluid disclosure database" maintained by FracFocus.org. 

And hydraulic fracturing isn't just a US problem. Food & Water Watch has brought fracking to the attention of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, which is currently considering a report on the human right to water and sanitation.

In a letter to the UN Human Rights Commission, Food & Water notes that the oil and gas industry has its sights set on fracking in Europe. The US energy information administration forecasts 187 trillion cubic feet of gas resources available in Poland, followed closely by France at 180 trillion cubic feet. In France, however, which has seen strong protests, there is currently a moratorium against fracking.

.

ROUND UP
Record Number of Americans in Poverty

The poverty rate in the US soared to 15.1 percent in 2010, its highest level since 1993, according to a Census Bureau report released on Tuesday. Household incomes continued to fall sharply, amidst the worst jobs crisis since  the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the number of people without health insurance increased. Analysis beyond the mainstream by Joseph Kishore, Countercurrents.

Footprints on America: Pacifica’s Memorial Special

Pacifica Radio’s 9/11 anniversary special begins the way Sept. 11, 2001 actually began for many Pacifica listeners, with Amy Goodman reporting live from New York, just a few blocks from where the planes hit the World Trade Center towers. Now available as a podcast, it also includes Democracy Now! producers, along with Donald Rumsfeld, Chalmers Johnson, George W. Bush, Manning Marable, Christine Todd Whitman, rescue workers interviewed by Miranda Kennedy as well as Joe Picurro, plus Odetta, Rita Lasar and Masuda Sultan, Noam Chomsky, Terry Rockefeller (9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows), Alex Ryabov (Iraq Veterans Against the War), Seymour Hersh, Yanar Mohammed, and Afghan activist Rangina Hamidi. Click Pacifica on 9/11 for the podcast. Courtesy of Democracy Now!

.

Latin America: Deadly for Journalists 

Three journalists were killed in the space of a week in Brazil, Honduras and Peru, cementing Latin America's status as the most dangerous region for journalists in 2011.

 
On 8 September, Pedro Alonso Flores Silva, director of the news programme "Visión Agraria" in Casma, Peru, died two days after he was ambushed near his home. A hooded assailant got out of a taxi and shot him at least once in the abdomen, report the Instituto de Prensa y Sociedad (IPYS), the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

According to Flores's wife, Mercedes Cueva Abanto, the journalist had been the target of frequent threats during the past three months for linking local mayor Marco Rivera Huerta to alleged corruption. The mayor, who had brought a defamation case against Flores, has denied any involvement in Flores's murder. This is the second murder of a journalist in Peru this year, both carried out in the north of the country.

In Honduras, there's Medardo Flores, a radio journalist who supported deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. On 8 September he was shot nine times in Puerto Cortés while returning home in his car, report the Comité por la Libre Expresión (C-Libre), the Inter American Press Association (IAPA), the International Press Institute (IPI) and RSF.

A week earlier in Brazil, Valderlei Canuto Leandro, a radio journalist known for his scathing critiques of the local authorities, was shot at least eight times by unidentified gunmen aboard a motorcycle. CPJ has documented an alarming rise in lethal violence in Brazil. Four other Brazilian journalists have been killed this year, and a blogger was shot and wounded.

According to IPI's Death Watch, Latin America is the deadliest region in the world for journalists in 2011, with at least 34 killings so far this year.  Full story from IFEX.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: CAN RICK PERRY BE BOUGHT?

Michelle Bachmann isn’t famous for her accuracy, but she wasn’t making things up when she went after Lone Star candidate Rick Perry Last week. According to Democracy Now, newly disclosed records show that Ranger Rick has received more financial support from the drug giant Merck than he has acknowledged.

Perry came under criticism during a red meat Republican presidential debate last Monday night over his 2007 effort to force Texas schoolgirls to receive a vaccination for the sexually transmitted virus, HPV. A former top aide to Perry formerly worked as a Merck lobbyist, which stood to profit from the forced vaccinations.  Desperate to challenge the frontrunner and rescue her own campaign, Bachmann basically called out Perry as a drug company tool.

The debate was staged by CNN like a reality show, fueled by a raucous audience provided by its Tea Party co-sponsor, and stoked by incendiary charges. Perry tried to deflect Bachmann’s attack by saying Merck had only donated $5,000 to his campaign. "If you’re saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended," he tried to joke. But the quip only sparked commentary on exactly how much buying Perry would actually take.

Well, according to the Washington Post, Merck has donated nearly $30,000 directly to Perry’s gubernatorial campaigns since 2000. Still small potatoes. But Merck has also given more than $380,000 to the Republican Governors Association, or RGA, since 2006 — the same year Perry began playing a prominent role in the group. He has served two terms as chair of the RGA, which in turn has given his campaign at least $4 million over the past five years.

So, that would be a total of $4.4 million. You can see why Perry was upset.  This guy is not a cheap date.

***

Other upcoming Dave Lippmann performances:

*Thursday, September 22:  Colors, 9-11 PM, From Palestine to Mexico: One Wall, One Struggle, featuring Son del Monton and Klezmer Musicians Against the Wall

*Saturday, October 22: People's Voice Café, New York, with Harmonic Insurgence, 40 East 35th St. 

*Thursday, November 10: US Labor Against the War fundraiser, New York,1199 SEIU Penthouse

THIS WEEK ON VTDIGGER.ORG: 

Burlington College Grapples with Growing Pains

As one of the country’s smallest schools approaches 40, it is dealing with enrollment and financial pressures on a large new campus.

Burlington Council Backs Mayor Kiss Veto

The Burlington City Council has upheld Mayor Bob Kiss’s recent veto of an advisory resolution on community standards for climate change partnerships aimed at military contractor Lockheed Martin.

IN VERMONT COMMONS: Turn to Page 23

Local Democracy and State Power: Myths and Realities

A new essay adapted from The Vermont Way: Restless Spirits and Popular Movements

COMING SOON: Vermonters and the White House

Surrendering Freedom

Casualties of 9/11: Part Four

By Greg Guma

As the US entered World War I in 1917, Hiram Johnson, a US senator from California, issued a warning that went to the heart of the country’s predicament. "The first casualty when war comes is truth," he explained. Although he didn't mention it, the second casualty is just as obvious: freedom. After 9/11, both were offered up eagerly as the national media stoked primal fears, setting the stage for the most dangerous rollback in basic rights since the 1950s.

Consider what followed in the first few months of this "new kind of war": massive secret detentions, curbs on privacy and dissent, media outlets self-censoring their coverage. More than 1100 people were held without criminal charges, often on the basis of weak evidence. Under the hastily-passed USA Patriot Act, investigators were empowered to monitor talks between detainees -- whose names and alleged crimes were classified -- and their lawyers. Wire-tapping, e-mail surveillance, and secret searches all became easier. Solitary confinement and restrictions on visitors could now be imposed for a year, rather than the previous 120 days.

In Arkansas, an Uzbekistani woman was jailed for 40 days for being in a car with someone whose name was similar to someone on the FBI watch list. A young Egyptian who supposedly had a radio transmitter in his hotel room across from the World Trade Center was held for weeks. He turned out to be innocent, but before his release, he was "persuaded" to confess. Had he been tortured? It was a non-issue, news-wise. Meanwhile, the FBI publicly considered using a "truth serum" to crack recalcitrant suspects, and threatened to deport detained foreigners to countries that used torture.

Tom Ridge, the new Homeland Security Director, talked tough, calling all this "a permanent condition to which Americans must adjust." Equally disquieting, many of the ideas came from ultraconservative groups like the Federalist Society, which seized the chance to turn old wish lists into policy. Basically, the limits placed on the FBI and CIA 25 years earlier were being reversed. Beyond that, the wall between the two agencies was being broken down. Henceforth, the CIA would have an official role in deciding who was targeted inside the US and what information was collected. Other law enforcement agencies were obliged to give the Agency access to their information. Basically, the Bureau and the Agency could now work together on operations, including some against domestic political groups and individuals.

What groups? Officially, they were supposed to have connections to terrorists of foreign intelligence agencies. But Attorney General John Ashcroft clarified that. In December 2001, he explained: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists. They give ammunition to America's enemies." It was clearly a warning: this new security regime could easily be turned against almost any critic of the government.

Despite the signs, debate over how much freedom to sacrifice was little more than a sidebar to the war in Afghanistan, one small part of round the clock disaster coverage. TV shows telegraphed the main message: The War Room, America at War, Region in Conflict. Polls meanwhile reinforced the argument that most people accepted the situation, and trusted government to handle things. There was also the usual excuse: we'd better be safe -- that is, just accept the creeping implementation of police state tactics -- than sorry.

Many of these developments were mentioned by the press corps. But at the same time, they were explained away as part of a minimal and absolutely necessary response to the new terrorist threat. More to the point, major news outlets openly debated whether the public was being told too much.

Taking the cue, CNN Chair Walter Isaacson ordered his staff to "balance images of civilian devastation in Afghan cities with reminders that the Taliban harbors murderous terrorists," saying it "seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan." In a memo, he admonished reporters covering civilian deaths not to "forget it is that country's leaders who are responsible for the situation Afghanistan is now in," suggesting that journalists lay responsibility at the Taliban's door, not the US military's.

As Fairness and Accuracy in Media put it, if anything was perverse, "it's that one of the world's most powerful news outlets has instructed its journalists not to report Afghan civilian casualties without attempting to justify those deaths." CNN had essentially mandated that pro-US propaganda be included in the news, while rationalizing its decision to ignore excesses. The story was the same at Fox News, where news anchor Brit Hume wondered why journalists bothered covering civilian deaths. "The question I have," he said, "is civilian casualties are historically, by definition, a part of war, really. Should they be as big news as they've been?"

NPR's Mara Liasson and US News & World Report's Michael Barone went further, arguing that civilian deaths weren't news at all. What was? Apparently, rampant speculation on every imaginable catastrophe, keeping viewers in a permanent state of anxiety -- and hopefully, glued to the tube for the next live disaster.

An epidemic of self-censorship and convenient reality distortion spread across the country. In Panama City, Florida, a News Herald memo warned editors: "DO NOT USE photos on Page 1A showing civilian casualties from the US war on Afghanistan. Our sister paper in Fort Walton Beach has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening e-mails and the like. DO NOT USE wire stories which lead with civilian casualties from the US war on Afghanistan. They should be mentioned further down in the story. If the story needs rewriting to play down the civilian casualties, DO IT. The only exception is if the US hits an orphanage, school or similar facility and kills scores or hundreds of children."

The fact that truth had taken a back seat was not even disguised. As Hume told the New York Times, "Look, neutrality as a general principle is an appropriate concept for journalists who are covering institutions of some comparable quality." But, he added, "This is a conflict between the United States and murdering barbarians."

Hollywood also jumped on the bandwagon. Stars and heads of production companies conferred with government officials on how best to spread the official line. At the Institute for Creative Studies at the University of Southern California, Hollywood talent consulted with military brass to speculate about future attack scenarios.

At the same time, "inappropriate" comments brought a reprimand or worse. When Bill Maher, then host of TV's Politically Incorrect, said the World Trade Center terrorists might be more brave than the US military, several affiliates dropped the show and ABC boss Michael Eisner threatened to fire him. Eight months later, his show was abruptly canceled. As Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer warned, in times like these, "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."

A new McCarthyism – call it fascism-lite – was on the rise. Following several incidents in which academics were reprimanded for expressing allegedly unpatriotic views, the American Association of University Professors pleaded for an end to an atmosphere where thinking out loud was considered subversive. But who was even listening? Well, clearly the government, which invoked the "national emergency" to violate even one of the most basic legal rights – attorney-client confidentiality. "If we can't speak with a client confidentially," warned Irwin Schwartz, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "we might not speak with him at all."

The new anti-terrorism law gave the government sweeping new powers to conduct searches and tap phones with only a suspicion of crime, rather than the old standard, probable cause. Government agents could now seize medical and student records, or track credit-card purchases and large cash transactions. Military tribunals could be used to try and sentence suspects without a jury or public access to the process. Any US attorney could get the FBI to launch its Carnivore Internet surveillance system to monitor a suspect's Internet surfing. "It's a very serious shift in policy and in American culture," noted Ken Gude, an analyst with the Center for National Security Studies. "We're getting to the point where it's guilt by association."                 

"If we give up our freedom, the terrorists have already won." That became the cliché of the moment. But the reality was much more unsettling: People were surrendering much of their freedom without seriously taking note -- and, as usual, the early winners were the US national security elite and their media enablers.

This is the conclusion of an essay adapted from Greg Guma’s 2003 book, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization and What We Can Do.

UPDATE: Burlington Council Sustains Mayor’s Veto

Burlington’s City Council backed its administration in a series of decisions Monday night, climaxing with a vote that upheld Mayor Bob Kiss’s veto of an advisory resolution on community standards for climate change partnerships aimed at military contractor Lockheed Martin.

The once and future mayors?

Prior to the decision on the climate change standards, the Council heard from Lockheed opponents during a public forum, and approved other resolutions to increase salaries and reclassify jobs in the Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO), Burlington City Arts (BCA) and the Burlington Electric Department.  A resolution congratulating BCA for its accomplishments over the last 30 years passed with only one opposing vote.

In early August, after more than six months of study and local debate, the City Council adopted a community standards resolution, largely in response to public criticism of a partnership agreement signed with Lockheed Martin by the mayor last December. More than 50 local residents testified on the issue during public meetings, all but a few opposing the deal.

Kiss called the standards that emerged “bad public policy” and questioned whether most city residents actually support what he called a “restrictive and regressive approach.” In the veto message issued on September 6, he added that while the policy adopted by the Council may have contributed to Lockheed’s decision to pull out of the Burlington agreement, it is “a sorry achievement” that runs contrary to “building respectful municipal partnerships.”

The anti-Lockheed turnout at Monday’s session was considerably smaller than at prior meetings that have focused on the issue. Anti-Lockheed organizer Jonathan Leavitt attributed the low attendance to the fact that Kiss issued his veto only last week. Others noted that the standards were only advisory and echoed the platform of the local Progressive Party, and several expressed disappointment with what they consider an anti-democratic action.

Some Council members were offended by public comments that questioned the ethics of anyone who voted to uphold the veto, as well as suggestions that backing the mayor represented support for a “rampantly corrupt norm.” In a letter read to the Council, Burlington Rep. Kesha Ram, the youngest member of the state legislature, argued that “community standards are what democracy is all about.”

Progressive Councilor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, who originally introduced the resolution, said the issue goes beyond one military contractor and charged that Kiss has provided “no real explanation” for his decision. Democrat David Berezniak concurred, pointedly telling the mayor that “this isn’t political theater.”

But Kiss found support from some Republicans and Democrats on the Council, including potential GOP mayoral candidate Kurt Wright, who also questioned whether the standards represent local opinion. In the end the vote was again 8-6, more than a majority but not enough to override the veto.

The resolution celebrating Burlington City Arts was less contentious, with only Democrat Ed Adrian declining to express appreciation for its 30 years of work to make the arts "available to all regardless of 'social, economic or physical constraints'." Two other Council members joined Adrian in opposing resolutions to upgrade several positions on the BCA staff.  He also opposed the creation of new positions in the Community Justice Center and salary adjustments for top staff in the Fire Department.

“We’re creating a cycle where people argue about who is getting raises,” Adrian said. Concerning BCA, he pointed to the absence of “reasonable explanations” about how public and private funds are handled. On the other hand, he acknowledged that “City Arts is just as important as the Fire Department.” Kiss called BCA a public-private partnership success story.

The Council’s vote upholding the mayor’s community standards veto is a setback for the “No Lockheed” movement that has emerged since the deal was announced. Last week, after Lockheed Martin said that it was pulling out of the arrangement, opponents held a meeting to celebrate their victory over the corporation. The next day Kiss issued his veto.

Thus far, local criticism has focused on the deal signed by Kiss and the support of Vermont’s congressional delegation for Lockheed’s F-35, a controversial and expensive aircraft that might be bedded at Burlington International Airport – if it is finished. Less has been said about an emerging, low-profile partnership between Lockheed subsidiary Sandia labs and Vermont schools and businesses.

According to Sandia spokesmen, US Senator Bernie Sanders has been working with them for several years to develop a partnership focusing on smart grid technology, solar energy and cybersecurity. So far, Sandia has received about $1 million in Department of Energy funding for Vermont student internships and visits to its home base in New Mexico by eight UVM professors. However, the financial benefits for Lockheed could be far greater in the long run as relationships develop with Vermont energy business, state government and UVM. Vermont recently received a $69.3 million e-Energy American Recovery & Reinvestment Act grant to fund a smart meter implementation program. 

While Sandia proceeds to develop projects and a satellite lab, however, the City of Burlington is having difficulty deciding how it should address climate change. Kiss has made it a priority and argues that companies like Lockheed have a role to play in reducing the US carbon footprint. “Lockheed was reaching out to work with a local municipality,” he wrote to the Council last week. “The failure to define and pursue potential climate change solutions is a lost opportunity far more than a moral victory.”

For opponents, on the other hand, one of the country's biggest military contractors, in the past accused of “systemic, illegal, and fraudulent behavior” by Sen. Sanders, is not an acceptable partner, and the mayor’s decision to veto the Council’s guidelines only makes matters worse.

Casualties of 9/11: Warning Signs

Casualties: Part Three

By Greg Guma

During the 20th century, humanity struggled through the early stages of a profound transformation. But after the dissolution of the "superpower" known as the Soviet Union, it became obvious that more than just a matter of one economic and social system prevailing over another was at stake. All systems began to experience severe stress. Alliances shifted unpredictably, ethnic and religious upheavals shook the world, and the planet itself shuddered under the threat of an environmental meltdown.

 

Before September 11, 2001, behind a calm and prosperous facade, US society was already in crisis, dancing on the Titanic while denying signs of chronic anxiety and dispiriting cynicism. Among the obvious symptoms: a preoccupation with disasters and scandals, nagging feelings of inner emptiness, repressed rage that led some to senseless violence, and insatiable appetites. Despite widespread doubts about the legitimacy of most institutions, not to mention the most recent presidential election, a defensive complacency allowed millions of people to continue ignoring reality.

 

Earlier in the year, when it was revealed that Henry Kissinger lied about his involvement in the overthrow of a democratic government in Chile two decades before, anger was quickly eclipsed by a handy rationalization. Now, at least, we knew the truth, and we certainly wouldn't be fooled again. But such a conclusion was naïve at best, and more likely another example of denial. Why? Because Kissinger epitomized a foreign policy apparatus that had changed little in more than half a century. To drive the point home, one of his leading proteges, John Negroponte, was shortly appointed US Ambassador to the UN. As one State Department official put it, "Giving him this job is a way of telling the UN: 'We hate you.'" Here was a stalwart imperialist, a man who had proven repeatedly that he was ready to act alone on behalf of US interests, and lie about it without blinking.

 

That Negroponte was the Bush administration's choice to represent the US at the UN spoke volumes about what to expect -- more jingoism, lies, confrontation, and a clumsy but persistent effort to manipulate reality. One clear example of the latter was the administration's position, dutifully parroted as fact in most press reports, concerning a UN anti-racism conference held in South Africa just two weeks before 9/11. The public was told that Secretary of State Colin Powell and the US delegation walked out as a protest in response to rhetoric directed against Israel. But the real fear, insiders knew, was that staying meant confronting US responsibility for slavery and, more pointedly, demands for financial reparations. The point of the UN gathering was to raise issues and stir conscience. The walkout, in contrast, was designed to muddy the former and divert the latter. Following hard on the end of the conference, the attacks on the US looked, at least in part, like a horrific reaction to US dominance and intransigence.

 

But when it came to distorting reality, the tactics and objectives were most ominously obvious in regard to the growing international movement against corporate globalization. As in every US political scare for the last 200 plus years, the attack on critics began by promoting the idea that political dissidents were dangerous threats to security and "order." The spin was well underway before the suicide attacks, with property damage by protesters providing the convenient rationale.

 

Denials to the contrary, the government was ready and eager to classify its opponents as terrorists or "fellow travelers." In May 2001, during testimony on terrorist threats before the Senate Appropriations Committee, departing FBI Director Louis Freeh helped light the fuse. "Anarchist and extremist socialist groups," he explained, "such as the Workers World Party, Reclaim the Streets and Carnival Against Capitalism, have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States. For example, anarchists, operating individually and in groups, caused much of the damage during the 1999 World Trade Oorganization ministerial meeting in Seattle." In August, the FBI added Reclaim the Streets, which occupied roads with dance parties to protest capitalism and "car culture," to its list of "Threats of Terrorism."

 

The next, equally predictable move was to use public anxiety, heightened by a real (though anticipated) attack, to override rights like freedom of speech and assembly, privacy, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Obviously, the US isn't the only country vulnerable to such manipulation; only the most sophisticated, expert at concealing tyrannical impulses with facile excuses and a façade of well-honed platitudes.

 

Even before the Twin Towers came down, the spin of the year was the suggestion that "stability" was seriously threatened by economic forces and "extremists" abroad and at home. But with those unconscionable bombings, the ultimate excuse for a political crackdown was provided. Would public anxiety and complacency persist, allowing repression to escalate and take hold? Or, would it turn into righteous anger at the erosion of democracy in the name of security? That became the $64,000 question.

Next: Surrendering Freedom

Nexus of Infamy

Casualties of 9/11: Part Two

By Greg Guma

*****

On September 10, 2001, it looked like there was more than enough time to prepare for whatever came next. The next day, of course, many things changed. Like a volcanic eruption, predictable and yet inevitable, murderous assaults on symbols of US military and economic power shattered the landscape, rocked institutions, and altered how we would live for years to come. Some compared the September 11 attacks to Pearl Harbor, a day that would "live in infamy." Others pointed to the date itself -- 9/11 -- and called it an emergency wake-up call.

 

In less than an hour, on a sunny Tuesday, two commercial airline flights were hijacked, diverted, and crashed into the World Trade Center in the heart of New York's financial district. A third slammed into the Pentagon, and a fourth crashed before reaching its target, most likely the White House. Hundreds died immediately, and thousands more were killed in the fires and destruction that followed. As TV networks beamed images around the world, political leaders expressed outrage, pledging to track down the perpetrators and "bring them to justice." 

That night, the world mourned, and million prayed for salvation from the cycle of violence. No one took "credit" for the carnage, but the initial evidence pointed to the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden. The urge to go after so-called "rogue states" and their accomplices around the world was irresistible. The Bush administration expressed outrage and shock, claiming the attack could not have been predicted. 

 

Though not much noticed at the time, this was not the first September 11 that had left its mark on world history. In fact, the date marks crucial and revealing turning points in several US military engagements, as well as Islamic history and the development of Israel. That provided little consolation, but did suggest a curious historical nexus.

 

September 11, 1814, for example, was the day the US effectively secured its northern border by defeating the British in the Battle of Plattsburgh. Twenty-eight years later, it also marked a turning point in the US campaign to annex part of Mexico: San Antonio was captured by Mexican forces (they later retreated). In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt picked the same date to issue an attack order directed at German and Italian ships in US waters, one more step toward World War II.

 

The 1973 Chilean military coup, welcomed and secretly backed by the US, also climaxed on September 11. And, in 1990, President George Bush I chose the date to tell Congress that Iraq was threatening Saudi Arabia, thus expanding support for his decision to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

 

In more recent times, 9/11 played a role in the Middle East conflict. Exactly a year before the suicide attacks on the US, Jordanian authorities selected the date to bar the mayor of Um El Fahem, a Palestinian village, from entering Jordan, despite a valid entry visa. A member of the Palestinian Legislative Council was also banned, for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, the Saudi Ministry of Pilgrimage issued restrictions on visits by overseas groups to Mecca and Medina, important sites for followers of Muhammad.

 

If that isn't enough, the date also pops up in relation to nuclear weapons. September 11, 1996, was the day the UN approved the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, ending test explosions. Exactly 51 years earlier, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote a fateful letter to President Harry Truman. Noting that the atomic bomb, which had been used for the first time a month before, represented a dangerous "first step in a new control by man over the forces of nature," he warned that US superiority might not last. "If so," he wrote in 1945, "our method of approach to the Russians is a question of the most vital importance in the evolution of human progress." The Cold War was straight ahead.

Tomorrow: Warning Signs

This essay is adapted from Greg Guma’s 2003 book, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization and What We Can Do.

Casualties of 9/11: Truth and Freedom

When the powerful feel they are under an effective attack and can find a convincing pretext, they rarely hesitate to use virtually any tactic to recapture hearts and minds.

***********

Part One

By Greg Guma

Late in the last century, those in charge of the "new world order" faced a mounting challenge to their planetary management. Whether it began with the disruption of a World Trade Organization summit in Seattle in late 1999, with the Zapatista rebellion -- launched on the very day the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1994, or with the numerous local uprisings in bloom around the world, the message was obvious: The corporate-dominated Pax Americana promoted with the end of the Cold War was not "the end of history" or anything else. Superpower rivalry might be a thing of the past, but that did not mean the US would have an open-ended term as global CEO.

 

By early 2001, the struggle had entered a new stage. Uprisings challenging privatization, low wages, structural adjustment, and other "globalization" policies were mounting throughout Central and South America. When leaders from the Western Hemisphere gathered in Quebec City to iron out details for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), massive protests on the street combined with widespread dissent inside the summit to derail the negotiations. Meanwhile, back in the US, doubts grew that President-select George W. Bush would soon succeed in winning "fast track" -- recently renamed "trade promotion authority."

 

Unable to continue ignoring demands for change, the establishment was forced to respond. In June, at a G8 Summit of industrialized nations in Genoa, Italy, leaders professed concern -- or at least shed crocodile tears -- about poverty, debt, and environmental threats. Even Bush, still shopping for a mandate in the wake of his contested election, urged rich nations to give more grants to poorer ones. 

 

At the same time, however, Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and other nervous cheerleaders for one world under free market capitalism went on the offense. Blair called the protesters who converged in Genoa "an anarchist traveling circus." Bush added that their anti-globalization crusade was actually hurting the poor. The predictable clash between activists and police also escalated to a new level: a direct assault on the Italian city's Independent Media Center, and the movement's first fatality. 

 

Still, both responses -- the carrot and the stick -- betrayed a growing apprehension in the corridors of power. Well-laid plans were being placed in jeopardy. Regional cracks were also deepening, especially once Bush took office. In the first six months of his term, Europe broke with the US on missile defense, trade rules, the "war on drugs" in Colombia, and global warming. After shooting down a US spy plane -- and getting away with it -- China signed a treaty of friendship with Russia, including agreement on military policies that directly challenged the new administration. In the UN, the US was ejected from the Human Rights Commission. Global trade deals were going nowhere and NATO's future was up for discussion again.

 

As summer waned, events suggested that the next months would be critical. In late September, for example, the anti-globalization movement was planning to converge again, this time on Washington, DC for meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. But as history illustrates, when the powerful feel they are under an effective attack and can find a convincing pretext, they rarely hesitate to use virtually any tactic, from disinformation and agents provocateur to repression and premeditated violence, in order to recapture hearts and minds. 

Tomorrow: Nexus of Infamy
This article is adapted from Greg Guma’s 2003 book, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization and What We Can Do.