Vermont's Independent Voice
Browse News
Browse Arts + Culture
Browse Food + Drink
Browse Cannabis
Browse Music
Browse On Screen
Browse Events
Browse Classifieds
Browse Personals
Renée Carpenter
Member since May 6, 2015
Recent Comments
Re: “As Outbreak Spreads, Holcombe Questions Zuckerman's Vaccination Stance”
Part Two:
Until we all understand how this works, we will have political administrations that represent the corporate interests, rather than our own. Whether the topic is vaccinations, or electoral fraud by voter suppression and electronic voting machines owned by that same 0.01% or which pharmaceutical products are good for us, and what chemicals supposedly do no harm ... if we want the facts, then we must be very well informed by independent, fact-based information sources that represent the public interest, rather than the profiteers.
When I see media reporting like this--that polarizes an emotional opposition "debate"--(and I'm thinking Politico, and Holcombe, and--to whatever degree Seven Days is contributing--I understand that public relations experts are at work. it turns my stomach and should frighten every single one of us who believe in wise political leadership that benefits the public good.
Whether I agree with David Zuckerman on every issue of not, he is a smart and compassionate and decent human being with the best interests of Vermont and Vermonters at heart.
This kind of mediated attack should be a red flag to every Vermonter and cause us to SHUN the political team that initiated it.
Posted by
Renée Carpenter
on 03/31/2020 at 7:06 AM
Re: “As Outbreak Spreads, Holcombe Questions Zuckerman's Vaccination Stance”
Yes, Zuckerman does have a nuanced view on vaccinations, as we all should. There is no link to corona (or any other virus) and concerns for vaccine safety.
That Holcombe is using this as a political issue in this way at that time DISQUALIFIES her to lead Vermont's government. (Besides, I was shooting video in the House Education Committee when she led the charge to consolidate schools. She has her own self-interest at heart, not that of the people and communities in Vermont.)
"... as long as there's the extreme financial conflicts of interest out there that are driving much of this debate and discussion, I have to maintain the individual right for someone to do their own research as well and make that decision." Medical Ethics requires the HUMAN RIGHT to choose what we do and do not put into our bodies.
BEWARE the information you think you know until you understand fully where that information comes from. Big Pharma is #!--ahead of the military industrial complex--as a profit-making conglomerate. Corporate firms like Merck (and others) have their own public relations divisions to circulate information that says what they want you to believe: Like Big Tobacco did in the 50s and like Big Energy did in the 70s & 80s and like the vaping industry has done more recently (not even to mention Monsanto/ glyphosate).
Public relations firms use human behavior, linguistics, & other communication sciences to make us believe what they want. And we do. Unless you happen to know how the public relations process works, it is easier to believe what you read. They represent the 0.01% we learned about from "Occupy Wall Street." That 0,01% own 90% of corporate mass media, and they pour their money into narratives that serve their own corporate interests.
Posted by
Renée Carpenter
on 03/31/2020 at 7:06 AM
Re: “Shaw's Grocery Worker in Middlebury Diagnosed With COVID-19”
At the Shaw's in Montpelier, none of the staff are wearing gloves or masks. I requested six feet from one so I could check out. She was pleasant, but indicated they were told they had to work and likely were all exposed.
Albertson's is the largest grocery conglomerate in the US. Why is the state Health Department not going in to make certain they are REALLY "doing everything it can to slow the spread of the virus." From disinfecting, to wearing gloves & masks, and to training that supports at least six feet between people.
Oh, and a fellow was moving quickly through the aisles looking at his phone (maybe a shopping list) and totally ignoring the 6-foot distancing protocol....
I appreciate being able to go into a store to choose my own food products (small co-ops are helping with shopping--it's manageable for smaller orders; as is curbside service) ... and so whose job is it to help see that shoppers and staff alike keep to at least six feet of distancing?
Posted by
Renée Carpenter
on 03/30/2020 at 2:35 PM
Re: “Sanders Unscathed as Dems Bludgeon Bloomberg”
Excellent article, especially when one adds Emily Peyton's observation that Sanders did well "articulating that we currently have socialism for the Uber wealthy..." while the poor suffer. I also agree that the "boondoggle of military spending could be translated into payment for healthcare for all" and other social programs .... leveling the playing field (as they say). No one should be a multi-billionaire while others can barely subsist, hardly meeting their basic needs.
I've got to say that it does nothing constructive to point out that Sanders is a millionaire when he's spent his entire life advocating for social and economic justice. As long as we live in a capitalist economy that is skewed towards (mostly) white men (and those married to them) with a certain drive and skill set, we will have an imbalance of wealth. That Sanders uses his economic advantage to help others is commendable and part of why he is so popular. That his record is so consistent in striving for justice, reaching out to people of all kinds with compassion and clarity about their struggles, accounts for much of the rest of it. This is the case over the 60+ decades of his adult life.
Nobody is perfect. There's always going to be something that public relations campaigns and general nastiness can use to try to take down a candidate.--especially is there's nothing of real substance to discuss. And that, to me, is sheer ugliness. Let's try to stick with policies, okay?
Posted by
Renée Carpenter
on 02/20/2020 at 4:41 PM
Re: “Lawmakers Consider a Diminished Role for Act 250's Regional Commissions”
Part 2:
Regarding proposed changes to elevations under Act 250 jurisdiction, ecologists concerned with all of the implications of forest fragmentation and preserving sensitive ecosystems, (especially in the face of extreme weather events that accelerate with the conditions of climate change,) have determined that elevations from 1500 feet and up should be under Act 250 jurisdiction.
Act 250 is a review of larger scale developments under ten criteria identified to protect public safety, ecosystems, and economic concerns. Most permits go through the Act 250 process in a timely manner, sometimes needing alteration to accommodate environmental and other criteria. This is the intention and purpose of the law.
You can't compromise with complex ecosystems like our watersheds, forests and wetlands. Nature is resilient when we work with it. And you cannot repeal the democratic nature, or diminish the purpose and heart of this law and still call it Act 250. Calling the current proposal "a compromise" is disingenuous.
Thank you for reporting!
Posted by
Renée Carpenter
on 02/19/2020 at 11:48 AM
Re: “Lawmakers Consider a Diminished Role for Act 250's Regional Commissions”
This is some of the best reporting so far about the proposed legislation on Act 250. A few little additions:
As a successful party to an Act 250 case to protect a local swimming hole, years ago now, I discovered how challenging it was to become a "party" in the first place; and then how complicated and difficult that "quasi-judicial" process actually was (in addition to the fact that most regular people don't know where to look for Act 250 proceeding notification). One series of recommendations from the Commission on the Future of Act 250 was to make it easier for public participation. People don't usually show up to things they don't know about until after the fact.
VHNRFW Committee Chair Amy Sheldon, "acknowledged, however, that the concerns about loss of local control are valid." Yes--the current proposal is a full repeal of the democratic process that District Commissions and their coordinators help to facilitate. This is, as Ed Stanak points out, the very heart of Act 250. Without this Regional District Commission process--including the right to appeal it to Environmental Court for secondary review--it isn't Act 250 anymore. Let's say it how it is, without dressing it up: Placing decision-making power with an "enhanced NRB" located in Montpelier is the antithesis to Act 250's democratically designed process.
(to be continued)
Posted by
Renée Carpenter
on 02/19/2020 at 11:48 AM
Re: “As Outbreak Spreads, Holcombe Questions Zuckerman's Vaccination Stance”
Part Two:
Until we all understand how this works, we will have political administrations that represent the corporate interests, rather than our own. Whether the topic is vaccinations, or electoral fraud by voter suppression and electronic voting machines owned by that same 0.01% or which pharmaceutical products are good for us, and what chemicals supposedly do no harm ... if we want the facts, then we must be very well informed by independent, fact-based information sources that represent the public interest, rather than the profiteers.
When I see media reporting like this--that polarizes an emotional opposition "debate"--(and I'm thinking Politico, and Holcombe, and--to whatever degree Seven Days is contributing--I understand that public relations experts are at work. it turns my stomach and should frighten every single one of us who believe in wise political leadership that benefits the public good.
Whether I agree with David Zuckerman on every issue or not, he is a smart and compassionate and decent human being with the best interests of Vermont and Vermonters at heart.
This kind of mediated attack should be a red flag to every Vermonter and cause us to SHUN the political team that initiated it.