Here is the Letter he sent to the Free Press.  I agree with him on many things, especially the need to open up the media to independent candidates like Keith and myself.  — Steve Moyer  http://stevemoyer.us

here is a letter to the burlington “free” press in response to their editorial today

Why is the Burlington “Free” Press afraid of an Independent candidate for the US House seat?  Is it because you have hitched your cart to a candidate and are afraid that there is a candidate that the people will be more enthused about?  Or maybe you don’t think a candidate talking about income tax reform where the first $75,000 in income is exempt from taxes is something your readers are interested in.  How about a plan for protecting Social Security?  Nothing your readers are concerned with, right?  My plan for world peace through a treaty of nonaggression and basic human rights can’t be of any importance to your readers, can it?  How about a true discussion of decreasing the use of fossil fuels?

I am absolutely amazed that any legitimate media provider would intentionally keep a legitimate candidate out of the election process.  Maybe because I don’t have a lot of money to spend advertising with you?  I hope you print this so your readers can see that this paper doesn’t believe they have the right to complete election coverage, instead censoring the information to what the paper wants them to know.

Keith Stern
Independent candidate for the US House
http://www.getstern.org
 

A news item you may have overlooked in Seven Days:

Luna, who is six months pregnant, says she and several of her friends arrived at [the Burlington bar Red Square] shortly after 9 p.m. for a performance by Mamadou, a Senegalese rhythm guitarist. She claims she was asked to leave at about 10:30; a bouncer told her that the policy was in place to protect pregnant women from being jostled by dancers or injured in a fight.

“I have a right to be there, and I don’t want other pregnant women to be restricted just because we have a belly,” she notes, adding she plans to report the incident to the Vermont Human Rights Commission.

Nice thought, but you’d have just as much of a chance if you were a Democrat appealing to the US Supreme Court for a fair election recount. This is the new, improved Jim Douglas Human Rights Commission, remember?

The Associated Press analyzed commission numbers for the 10 years from fiscal 1996 through June 2005, when Dean appointees were the majority for all but the last three months. Numbers of cases referred to the full commission ranged from a high of 75 in 1996 to a low of 28 in 2001.

The panel found grounds for continuing the case in as much as 56 percent of the 1999 cases to a low of 18 percent in 2001. Over the 10 years, the commission found possible discrimination in an average of 31.7 percent of cases.

In the first 10 months of fiscal 2006, when Douglas appointees were a majority, 26 cases went to the commission and it found potential discrimination in one. When no settlement was reached in that one and the commission was asked to sue, it refused.

But I digress…

Let’s return to the news report at hand…

So, let’s have a stupid-off, shall we? After all, both “sides” go straight to that word, so there must be stupid in here somewhere, yes?

But Red Square owner Martti Matheson says that the whole incident has been blown out of proportion. He insists that Red Square has “absolutely” never had a policy barring pregnant women in the bar — before 10 p.m. or after. “If we see someone who’s obviously pregnant, we might tell them that we think it might not be healthy” to be on the dance floor, Matheson says. “But we’d definitely never tell someone to leave. That would just be stupid.”

…and…

“He told us that we didn’t understand the risks of being pregnant,” says Luna. “I found it very offensive, discriminatory and stupid.“

So…ready to vote..?

 Loading ...