( – promoted by Sue Prent)

As a Senior Union Rep for AOT workers in VSEA, I have the opportunity to visit Garages every week.  I also know how hard our plow drivers work to keep our roads open during the winter.  It is almost unimaginable that Governor Shumlin wants to balance his budget on the backs of these and other State workers as opposed to the wealthy that can afford it.

What follows is an open letter written by Ed Olsen, a VSEA member and plow driver based out of the Mendon Garage.

2/24/15

An Open Letter To Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin;

To Mr. Governor Shumlin,

    I am a hard working Vermont State employee for the Agency of Transportation (District 3). I plow the roads.  As you may recall, we in AOT have endured many challenges in the recent past ….Including Tropical Storm Irene (2011), Pay Cuts and Pay Freezes (2008-9), Changes to our Health Insurance with Higher deductibles and less coverages (2014). And despite all these hardships and challenges, we still get up, as needed, at 3am (sometimes working 7 days a week) to make sure our roads are safe so Vermonters (including yourself) can go to work, so tourists can come here and spend their money, and so everyone’s kids can get to school.

   Even so, I see and read the things you and the Legislature are proposing and I very much disapprove. You ask for pay cuts and threaten to lay-off 450 working class people if we do not suffer further by opening a Contract which we negotiated with you in good faith.  You refuse to balance the budget by raising taxes on the wealthy (who are your campaign donors?) and instead want to take money out of my pocket to cover your failures.   In a word, you want me and other plow drivers to open our contracts give back the 2.5% pay raise we all agreed to. On the other hand, have you demanded that the ski resorts open their leases with the State so they can share a small portion of their massive profits in order to maintain the services that they enjoy (like plowed roads for starters)? Have you considered a smarter use of our gas tax revenues, or an excessive wealth tax?  I would venture to guess that you have not.

I personally make just over $17 an hour, while the average wage of a plow driver is $38,000 a year.   And yet you have made it clear that you will not tax the wealthy (like yourself) who can afford it to cover the budget gap which you created. But I do not expect you to necessarily understand the hardships you are asking us to suffer, as I am told you are personally worth ten million dollars. Maybe you don’t understand that taking $36 a paycheck out of my wages (which on average you are proposing for all plow drivers) is the difference between making or missing a mortgage payment, a utility bill, or buying a pair of shoes for the kids.  Maybe you cannot understand.  Maybe you also don’t understand how hard we work for the modest pay we receive. Or maybe you don’t understand how dangerous our job actually is.

    So with that said I invite you Mr. Peter Shumlin (and all State Legislators for that matter) to shadow my job as an AOT snow plow truck driver through just one storm. (I further invite you to live on $17 and change an hour.) Now you may have to get up early (many hours before the sun comes up), and you may have to work longer than you are accustomed to, and by the end I expect that your hands may hurt (as I assume you do not have any calluses), but I think when you consider taking food off a families plate, you should know what went into putting that food on the table to begin with.

    The truth is, if me and my fellow AOT drivers did not do our job for even one day (during a storm) the entire State would shut down. And all those high paid CEOs, bankers, and lawyers that you refuse to raise taxes on would not be able to make it to their boardrooms and corner offices.  In fact you (or rather your State employed driver) would not be able to get to your 5th floor office in Montpelier in order to attend to your $150,000 a year job. Point being, Vermont works because we work.  And we do this because we are proud to serve the public and because we also need to support of families. I suggest you stop seeking to put more burdens on the backs of Vermont’s working men and women.  

    In conclusion I will say this… My job is no-less important than your job. The difference is I have done and will continue to do mine.  But from where I sit, your job was to balance the budget, raise adequate revenue from those that can afford it, and you failed (and continue to fail) at this.  But before you try and put your hand in my pocket to fix your mistakes, at least be man enough to know what it is like to sit in the driver’s seat at 4am when it is 20 below, it’s snowing, visibility is 20 feet, and you are making a quarter of the wage that is paid to the office of Governor.  On that note, I look forward to hearing from you, and I look forward to having you along next snow storm. Otherwise, I look forward to remembering who stood with and against working class Vermonters when I enter the booth during our next General Election.

Sincerely

Ed Olsen,

AOT Employee in the Mendon Garage,

& Member of the Vermont State Employees’ Association  

Proctor, Vermont

To see the letter on VSEA’s facebook page please click on the below link:

https://www.facebook.com/Vermo…

Moretown Folks,

    It has been my great honor and privilege to serve as your elected First Constable for three terms.  However, this year I have decided to step aside, and not put my name forth for re-election.  I have made this decision in order to create more time to spend the next year focusing on my family (which now includes two young children), and my professional work as Senior Union Representative with the Vermont State Employees’ Association (specifically representing the 1000 Agency of Transportation workers throughout Vermont).

    I was first elected Constable in 2007 (endorsed by the Progressive Party), then served two terms on the Select Board (2009-2011-Endorsed by the Progressive and Liberty Union Parties), and then again as Constable.  Prior to this (2006) I served our community one year as your delegate to the Regional Planning Commission.  During all these times it was my absolute pleasure to work on behalf of this community which I love.  It is therefore with some reluctance that I contemplate a Town Meeting Day for the first time in nine years where I will not be putting my name forward in the hopes of serving the People of Moretown.  Even so, with a growing family, and given my responsibilities in serving Vermont’s hard working road crews (through the VSEA), it is the right decision at this time.  

    During my years as Constable I recall the most challenging time (not surprisingly) as during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Irene.  In the days following this disaster myself, Mike Demingware (the Second Constable), Raymond Munn  (Fayston Constable), along with a number of volunteers from the Moretown Fire Department organized 24 hour patrols of the village, and manned roadblocks on the few remaining access ways leading into town.  We also made a concerted effort to distribute boxes of National Guard issued food rations to isolated homesteads. Our goal on the patrols (especially concerning the ones at night) were to ensure the security of temporarily abandoned village homes and people’s personal belongings (much of which were drying out on peoples mud caked front yards).  The point of the roadblocks were to exclude non-essential traffic into the Village (in order not to kick up more dust and/or create traffic related safety concerns for local volunteers). On these fronts I venture to say we were successful despite next to no sleep (for days on end). Eventually, through my (and the Select Board’s) direct discussions with the Governor, we were able to secure State Police night patrols which allowed myself and others to get some much needed sleep.  And I, like the hundreds of folks that worked sun up to sun down getting the Village and peoples’ homes back in some kind of order, never charged the community even a penny for all the hours put in. But of course Irene was the exception…

     More typically, perhaps in 2007, I remember getting a call from a neighbor on Jones Brook Road about a domesticated duck that had taken up residence under his house.  On this occasion myself and a friend (Xavier Massot) spent an afternoon running around this house trying to capture the fugitive duck.  In time, it was Xavier who had the genius idea of tossing his old army coat over the duck, at which point we apprehended the escapee.  The next hour was spent trying to deduce who the duck belonged to (and it turned out it came down from another neighbor’s house on Herring Brook Road).  Soon the case was closed, and I was able to have a beer and reflect on a day well spent!

    In short, it has truly been an honor and a pleasure to serve on behalf of Moretown.  Understand that even as I decline to run for local office on this particular Town Meeting Day, I remain dedicated to public service, and advancing the interests of Moretown’s (and Vermont’s) working families.  In the coming days, weeks, and months I will be dedicating my political activities to turning back Governor Shumlin’s intentions to place what amounts to a special targeted tax on State workers (ie his desire to roll back modest agreed upon wage increases in an effort to fill a budget gap that his Administration created) and his intent to gut the public services that low income Vermonters are compelled to rely on (in order to maintain a modicum of dignity in their living standards).  So while I more fully turn my attention to these difficult tasks, I offer support and well wishes to whoever wins the seat of Moretown’s First Constable (be it by a write-in election victory or by appointment).

    In conclusion, I look forward to seeing each and every one of you, my friends and neighbors, this Tuesday, at Town Meeting Day.  Solidarity!

Dave Van Deusen, March 1st, 2015

Moretown First Constable (until Tuesday)

Lynch Hill Road,

Moretown, Vermont

vtdavidvandeusen@gmail.com

(802)522-5812    

Progressives Make Gains

Respectable Showing For Liberty Union Socialists

Radical-Capitalist Libertarians Fall Flat

    Thus far, one of the more interesting aspects of the 2014 Vermont election was the relative strength of the Progressive Party & and the respectable showings of the Vermont Liberty Union Party.  The Democratic Party, in a year that saw record low turnout (43.7%), had a net loss of eleven in the VT House, and two in the VT Senate (and a surprisingly close contest for Governor).  Even so, and even with voting patterns seemingly favoring the right, the Democrats retained a commanding lead in both the VT House and VT Senate. And while the Republicans made some gains (small in the big political scheme of things) the further left also did better than traditional election logic would seem to allow for.

    The Progressive Party (who are essentially social-democrats and who firmly support single payer healthcare) saw a net gain in the Legislature (from eight to ten -seven in the House, three in the Senate). This marks the Party’s highest numbers in the General Assembly since its inception. The Progs, the most successful third party in the nation, also had respectable showings in a number of statewide races (LT Gov: Corren 36.05%, Treasurer: Schramm 17.30%, Secretary of State: Eastwood 14.5%). The Progressive backed candidate for Auditor (Doug Hoffer who, like Dean Corren, also had the Democratic nomination) saw returns that rival those witnessed in Banana Republics; 99.06% (Doug also ran unopposed).  

    The Liberty Union Party (which is aligned with the Socialist Party USA, and who represent a far left, squarely anti-capitalist political perspective) also did surprisingly well in their defeat. In fact this may be their best election (not including the few instances where they won an isolated municipal race) for the Party in their 40+ year history. The Liberty Union, although not winning any contest, received 8.3% for Treasurer (Murray Ngoima), 10.32% for Secretary of State (Mary Alice Herbert), and 3.94% for Attorney General (Rosemary Jackowski).  In the Secretary of State contest, it is not surprising that they were uncompetitive with the Democratic nominee (and landslide winner) Jim Condos (74.75%), but it is almost shocking that they reached double digits and were competitive with the second place Progressive Party candidate (Ben Eastwood).  Beyond the statewide contests, the Liberty Union also captured 13.91% of the vote for Grand Island State Senate (Ben Bosley). Their two candidates for Windham County State Senate, Jerry Levy & Aaron Diamondstone received a respectable 5% & 4.64%.  Not as impressive (but still better than past lows) was their 0.87% or 1,673 votes for Governor (Peter Diamondstone), their 1.74% or 3,347 votes for Lt Gov (Brown), & their 1.08% or 2,071 votes for US Representative (Andrews).  What was impressive was that some LU candidates, such as Andrews, more actively campaigned on their ideas [something that the LU has not done much of in many years]. Perhaps the Liberty Union’s relatively meaningful performance will inspire the Progressive Party to suggest an accommodation with the Party?  The fact that the Liberty Union did not run a candidate for Auditor (against Hoffer) may have been an act of good faith offered from one aspect of the electoral left to another. Or perhaps they simply could not recruit a candidate. Regardless, in a tight race, a few percentage points can be the difference between winning and losing. Splitting the third party left vote seems something less than desirable if a goal is to win.  But then again, the Liberty Union cannot be accused of ever making a fetish of winning.  

    On the opposite side of the ‘third party’ equation, the Vermont Libertarian Party, despite relatively good media attention, articulate performances by Feliciano in the Governor’s debates, and a political buzz, failed to win major party status (which, among other things requires that one or more candidate receive 5% or better in a statewide race).  The Party’s standard bearer (and only statewide candidate), Feliciano, gave voice to a free market capitalist alternative for Vermont, and ended up with 4.36% of the vote. While 4.36% marks the best statewide showing for a Libertarian candidate to date, it failed to be a breakthrough year.  In the fourteen other races it took part in, like the Liberty Union Party, it failed to win any, and it finished last in each.  Given the low turnout, given that the participating electorate in this given year should have leaned more Republican and more conservative (ie older voters who tend to participate in off years, those motivated by distrust of pending government healthcare, etc.), it does not appear likely that the Libertarians will emerge as a meaningful political force in Vermont for the foreseeable future.  Clearly Vermont is not ready to catapult from the most progressive state in the nation, to the most free market based in the nation.  

    Low turnout elections statistically favor the right.  This was a very low turnout year (the lowest ever).  The right (specifically the Republican Party) made some small gains.  The further right (the Libertarians) failed to capitalize. On the left, the Democrats, perception aside, largely held the line. The Progressives made gains.  The Liberty Union did better than expected. If this is the low water mark for voter participation, despite the discussions to the contrary, this would seem to signal looming trouble for the Republicans (and Libertarians) in 2016. Come 2016 voter turnout will likely be 60-70% due to a Presidential contest. If this is the best that the right wing can muster in Vermont, it is a storm easily weathered. The trick for the left is not to let a few noises in the woods spook them away from the path of real reform.  Kill single payer, and kill new attempts at expanding workers’ rights, and come the next midterm election, perhaps more than half the people will once again choose to stay home. And if the Democrats do not want to see their numbers erode further, perhaps they should implement such reforms now, instead of passing bills that achieve them at some point in the future (90% Renewable Energy: 2050, $10.50 Minimum Wage: 2018, Single Payer: 2017). In brief, people need to see improvements now. If not, maybe those who do vote in the next midterm election will continue to move in new directions.    

###

It has been tradition in Vermont that the candidate for Governor who receives the most amount of votes is overwhelmingly supported by the General Assembly (who decides on the Governor race if and when any one candidate fails to win 50% +1). But is that the best way for such a decision to be made?  I would argue that no, one instead should look at the total combined votes from all the candidates who make up the broad notion of the center-left (and far left), in relation to those that make up the center-right.  If the political will of the people is to be better represented, whichever camp ends up with a higher percentage (combined) should have one of their own (their top vote getter) put in office.  After all, an election should not be about a specific personality, but it should be about political ideals and values. Perhaps this should be the thinking of Legislators when they are compelled to cast a ballot for our next Governor.  So in this tight race, if we were to apply this logic, who should be our next Governor?  

If one were to consider the center-right candidates:

*Milne-Republican (44.94%);

*Feliciano-Libertarian (4.33%);

And if one were to consider the center-left (and far left) candidates:

*Shumlin-Democrat (46.51%);

*Diamondstone-VT Liberty Union (0.93%);

*Payton-Independent (1.64%);

*Peters (a former rank and file union member)-Independent (0.75%);

And if one were to attribute the last place Cris Ericson vote (0.56%–1,045 votes) simply to the ‘Crazy’ category (neither right nor left)… Who (left or right) won this election?

With the Vermont Secretary of State having 249 of 275 precincts reporting, the center-left won a plurality of 49.83% of the vote, compared to the center-right’s 49.27%; the vote difference being 1,020 (with the left on top).  With such numbers, one also needs to consider that there were only 667 write-in votes, representing 0.36%. Therefore the write-ins, regardless of if they leaned overwhelmingly left or right, do not have the mathematical ability to change the ideological outcome.  So yes, in the low turnout midterm election, it was very close indeed. But at the end of the day, it appears to be a slim plurality for the left. Thus, if the General Assembly agreed with the logic stated above, it would be reasonable for it to elect Peter Shumlin as the top finisher from amoung a left leaning plurality.

This election may be over, and applying this logic or not will, in all probability, not change who our Governor is for the next two years.  But, as we move into a period where the splitting of the left leaning vote between Democrat, Progressive, and Liberty Union becomes increasingly common, and where the right leaning vote, perhaps, becomes further split between the Republicans and Libertarians, it is a logic worth considering.  The important thing is that the will of the people is reflected by the General Assembly when it is called on to seat our Governor. And as a Progressive, I retain confidence that if we, together, work towards real change that betters the lives of working class people, we will continue to win elections.  

I would be happy to wager a drink (double bourbon) against any and all on the following Vermont Election Day predictions.  Closest one, per race, wins.  Any takers?

Governor:

52% Shumlin-Democrat

40.5% Milne-Republican

5.2% Feliciano-Libertarian (Libertarian Party Wins Major Party Status)

1% Payton-Independent

0.5% Diomondstone-Liberty Union

0.4% Cris Ericson-Really Crazy

0.4% The Other Bernie-Independent

Lt Gov:

66.1% Scott-Republican

33.6% Corren-Progressive

0.3% Brown-Liberty Union

Secretary of State:

85.6% Condos-Democrat

8.4% Eastwood-Progressive

6% Herbert-Liberty Union (Liberty Union Retains Major Party Status)

Treasurer:

90% Pearse-Democrat

7.5% Schramm-Progressive

2.5% Ngoima-Liberty Union

Auditor:

99% Hoffer-Progressive/Democrat

1% or less, Write-In

Attorney General:

58% Sorrell-Democrat

39% McCormack-Republican

3% Jackowski-Liberty Union

U.S. House of Representatives:

72.3% Welch-Democrat

24.1% Donka-Republican

1% Jerry Trudell-Energy Independence

0.9% Andrews-Liberty Union

0.8% Cris Ericson-Really Crazy (Again)

(I thought this diary would initiate a useful conversation on GMD. – promoted by Sue Prent)

     In this election I have heard a lot from the Republicans and Libertarians about the pressing need for tax reform.  My question is, what kind of tax reform are we talking about? Republican tax reform? When most Republicans start talking up their support of tax reform, they are actually talking about reducing taxes for corporations and the people intent on piling up more money than they can possibly take away. The fact is the Vermont Republican Party, once the Party of George Aiken, is now increasingly a shadow of the Tea Party. While there remain good principled Republican politicians (to name two: Senator Rich Westman, and former Senator Vince Illuzzi), these few are outliers in a Party increasingly dominated by the right wing.  Today there are more Darcy Johnsons than there are Bill Doyles (an unfortunate fact).

    Let’s face it. Tax reform in the contemporary Republican conversation means an effectual clear cutting of the social services that directly or indirectly affect every single Vermonter (from healthcare to highway crews). For the majority of Republican politicians, the goal is less about reform and more about rolling back the gains made by both the public as a whole, and working families in specific over the last six or sixty years.

    We do need tax reform, I agree.  But we all need the type of tax reform that directly benefits our entire community, and I think we all know what that means.  

    Vermonters are independent and self-sufficient, at least more so than the rest of the Nation. We cringe at the thought of a clear cut and many of us talk organic and sustainability.  So, why can’t we talk about these concepts politically as well as in reference to the Green Mountains beneath our own two feet?

    I agree with reforming taxes on a certain level but really, the political talk grows on thin soil. Perhaps it’s time to throw a nice sized portion of that dialogue onto a steaming political compost heap and start (re)thinking and talking about self-reliant revenue sources that cut the corporations and the filthy rich out of the equation altogether.

    Can’t we talk about generating money through sustainable logging and public power plants for renewable energy?   If Fountain Forestry & Green Mountain Power can do this for revenue, why not the public? And wouldn’t it be far more interesting to talk about publically run ski resorts and other such venues that would enrich our lives through recreation while also generating revenue for our communities than the year-after-year drone on tax reform.

    Unless we are plain and simple talking about lowering taxes on working people, and raising them on the rich, let’s just skip the tax reform debate. Instead, let’s have conversations that include a State Bank – a Vermont Bank – a sustainable source of our own monies that help to generate revenue to (re)invest in Vermont and Vermonters. Let’s have conversations that discard the word “fair” and build on the concept of resilience for everyone.

    These are not radical ideas, unless your notion of radical is North Dakota (who currently has a State Bank and the lowest unemployment rate in the Country). In short, these are common sense ideas.

    The vote is Tuesday and a candidate that has consistently worked toward a more sustainable Vermont for each and every person is the Progressive State Senator Anthony Pollina. Of course, we each vote for who we think will best serve our communities, but it is worth the time taken to look at Pollina’s record. Do we really want to keep having the same conversation about tax reform or can we engage in a progressive dialogue that changes the construct of the conversation all together? I leave that for you to decide. Hope to see you at the polls on November 4th.

     As a resident of Moretown, this election I am voting Anthony Pollina for Washington County Senate.  I have known Anthony for over a decade, and during that time I am yet to meet a Vermonter more dedicated to addressing the needs of working people and our family farms.  Before he was elected to the State Senate in 2010, Anthony was an organizer with the Northeast Organic Farming Association, he founded Rural Vermont & the Dairy Farmers of Vermont, and even received the endorsement of the Gun Owners of Vermont & the Abenaki Nation when he ran for Governor in 2008. In this election he has been endorsed by the Vermont AFL-CIO, the Vermont State Employees’ Association, and the Vermont Sierra Club.

    Since we elected him to the State Senate in 2010 Anthony has passionately advocated for affordable public healthcare, livable wage jobs, earned sick days for all workers, the right to form a labor union, support for our farmers, and progressive taxation (making the rich pay more and working people pay less).  Anthony’s values in the Senate are reflected in the passing of healthcare reform (a commitment to single payer in 2017), the creation of the best minimum wage in the country, expansion of the right to form a labor union to 10,000 new Vermonters (home health & childcare workers), and passage of the GMO labeling bill.  While these are strong accomplishments, the work is not done. Anthony therefore continues to support legislation that would create a State Bank.  Creating a State Bank would allow us to reinvest our tax revenue in local projects aimed at the public good, as opposed to a means for big bankers to profit off our hard-earned money.  

    In a word, Anthony gets it. He has always put Vermont above Wall Street, and that is why, once again, my family and I are voting for Anthony Pollina this November.   If you agree that Washington County needs a person in Montpelier who understands our struggles and is willing to fight for them, especially when it comes to healthcare, pay, housing, and progressive taxation, I invite you to also vote for Anthony Pollina for Washington County Senate on November 4th.  

    Today at my Moretown Town Meeting, we, as a community, passed a non-binding advisory resolution requesting that the Select Board, in 2015, place an article on the warned agenda, proposing that we do away with the Australian Ballot, and return to a traditional, participatory Town Meeting system…  

***

    So I am just getting back up my mountain on this First-Tuesday-In-March, and before I contemplate cleaning out my sap buckets, I would like say we had a good Town Meeting this year.  Truth is I was skeptical.  When I saw the agenda, not much looked like it was heading for a floor vote.  Seemed like most of the decisions were to give a couple-three hundred dollars to this or that non-profit organization (the big issues being decided via the ballot box).  Now don’t get me wrong, the little bit we vote to give here or there is important, especially to those folks who need the social services that many of these organizations provide.  But at the end of the day real democracy, Vermont democracy should be more than making a dozen small donations and then going home.  And more truth be told, a little into Town Meeting, when it looked like we would be through with the entire agenda by 10:00am (which as fate would have it was not the case), I was not thinking this would be one of our more historic Town Meetings in our community’s collective memory. But when we got to the last agenda item, “Other Business”, I’ll be damned if we didn’t have some real productive discussion and debate; in fact, among other things, we debated the very nature of our local democratic process.

    One thing folks recognized was that of the 1500 or so residents of Moretown, only 70 of us (give or take) were there on the floor today.  Most agreed that a healthy local democracy should be expected to draw the participation of more of our neighbors.  But again, if the big vote is giving $1000 to the Senior Center, and $150 to the Boys and Girls Club…  Well, let’s just say it isn’t shocking that not more folks came out and spent their day (or half day in this case) practicing democracy. Many folks at our Town Meeting recognized this problem, and some (myself included) questioned if we should do away with the Australian Ballot, and instead return to Vermont’s traditional Town Meeting structure. The traditional Town Meeting structure provides for the right to discus, debate, amend, and vote on the Town and School budget from the floor. It allows for us the kind of true participatory democracy which the Green Mountain Boys fought and died for (and which people throughout the world continue to struggle for today).  It allows for people to share ideas, to merge or reject ideas based on the best intention and belief of the many, as gathered together as a true community of piers.  This is unlike our present lot (in Moretown) whereby the big decisions, those which cost more than $5000, are simply put before us as a “yes” or “no” question, not open to change, and not necessarily decided upon after a meaningful public discourse.  Whereas Vermont traditionally made creative decisions together, in Town Meeting, we now sanction or decline the more narrow options put before us, unchangeable, and on paper.  For me, eliminating the participatory and amendable aspects of local democracy in the name of expedience is no gain at all.  

    So, after a good discussion, we, as a community, adapted a non-binding resolution (which I had the honor of articulating as a motion) to request that our Select Board consider placing a BINDING article on the agenda for next year which would do away with the Australian Ballot, and instead make all our meaningful decisions on the floor.  We have a good Select Board.  Tom Martin, as Chair, has done a great job.  Therefore, at the conclusion of this 2014 Town Meeting, I am already looking forward to the 2015 Town Meeting. If we do have this important question before us in a binding manner, we will have much to discuss.  For the people of Moretown, people from all political stripes and parties, to come together to revisit the method by which we practice our local democracy is a courageous step forward (and back to our traditional roots).  Now with all proposals and debates, perhaps the majority of my fellow residents disagree with my enthusiasm for such a change.  Perhaps folks will instead heed the arguments and assertions of others that live in these immediate hills and valleys.  Perhaps the majority will decide the way we are doing it now is for the best.  But, in the true spirit of Town Meeting, I would welcome a conclusion that differs from my views as long as I (and you) have the opportunity to stand up in our Town Hall, make the honorable argument, and wield the free opportunity to try (through reason and heart) to win a majority on a principled point of view.  That my friends, win, lose, or draw, is the very essence of the participatory democratic system which I believe in and which I support.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

     We, in each of our towns, and throughout Vermont are, together, a community.  As Town Meeting approaches, I trust that all of us, regardless of our particular political persuasion, agree.  And as a community we do right to concur that one does well, when one’s neighbor does well.  This commitment to our friends, family, and fellow residents is old one. When the Green Mountain Boys evicted New York land surveyors, tax collectors, and sheriffs, I do not doubt that they too were motivated by this notion of self-preservation as inalienably linked to community; Freedom and Unity. More recently, we saw this belief manifest during the crisis following Irene. Two and one half years ago I was honored to see many of you from Waitsfield, Warren, Duxbury, Fayston, and beyond coming to lend a hand in Moretown during our hour of need.  Such acts of human camaraderie will never be forgotten.  In essence Vermont has a long and proud history of people reaching out in solidarity when their neighbors could use a hand.  We are, in a word, a people who embrace and honor the core value associated with the very notion of community as the foundation upon which rests the prosperity of the individual.

     Today, we can and do express our sense of community, not only in time of crisis, but also through a maturing social compact which gives form to the worth and well-being of our fellow citizens.  Maintaining and improving an equitable education system that gives support to children and families is one such expression.  Creating a Vermont controlled healthcare system that provides insurance and quality medical care regardless of job or lot in life is also such an expression. Guaranteeing that all working Vermonters are afforded the right to accrue paid sick days is yet another expression.



    It is for these reasons that I support H208, a bill currently in the Vermont House of Representatives that would guarantee all Vermonters the right to earn up to 7 sick days in a given year. As a Vermonter, I encourage you to support this noble effort too.

    The fact is, all people get sick some time or other; most of us a few times a year.  When this happens, when one has a fever, one should be able to stay home for a day and get better.  And if your kid is home sick, and if both parents have to work, one parent should be afforded the economic ability to care for the child during that time of need. How could one begin to construct a moral argument against this statement?  Either we are a community, and therefore embody the core truth inherent in the principle which is Vermont, or we are not. I assert that we are Vermonters.

    However, the reality is that thousands of low income people in these Green Hills do not have any paid sick days. When they get sick, they often must make a hard decision: work while their body and mind are turned against them, or stay home and miss one fifth of their weekly pay. For the many, this one few-and-far-between unpaid sick day means the phone will be shut off; the rent will be late; the kids will miss a meal. For those that do work when they are ill, not only does their productivity go down, but they typically infect their co-workers which, in turn, makes productivity sink measurably lower.  Therefore, as a community and as Vermonters, it is absurd to maintain a status quo which serves no human, neighborly, or long-term interest. For these and other reasons, H208 (paid sick days) is supported by both Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility and Organized Labor.  

    As a resident of Moretown, as part of the broader Mad River Valley community, as a Vermonter, I encourage all of you to take a moment to reflect on this human issue.  I encourage you to express your support for H208.  I also encourage our State Representatives to actively support this bill with no exemptions. Of course I would also welcome our Governor, Peter Shumlin, and our State Senators to likewise support this legislation. By doing so, they will all be casting a vote in favor of the Green Mountains’ working families and in line with Vermont’s long tradition of valuing our community over short term and private interests. After all, one does well, when one’s neighbor does well.

   Take Action To Support Paid Sick Day! Please click on the below link in order to send an email to your State Representatives to let them know that the People of Vermont support paid Sick Days for all workers!  

 http://afl.salsalabs.com/o/402…

     In an October 17th article in Ring Magazine’s online publication [Hopkins on Boxing and Black Fighters, by Lem Satterfield] Philadelphia boxing legend and reigning IBF Light Heavy Weight Champion Barnard Hopkins stated:

“The great Sugar Ray Leonard, right now, if he was boxing, the way that they want you to fight, the people that pull the strings of the puppet, he would be boring today. Ray Robinson — the great Robinson — would be boring today… Because the feeders of the people that buy entertainment. They’re being fed that if they duck, don’t buy it. If they’re slick, and they beat [their opponent] nine out of the 12 rounds, and the guy just can’t hit him because they were slick and smart enough to hit and not get hit, ‘He’s not crowd-pleasing, he don’t sell tickets.’ Because they done fed the followers and they done fed [that] to the customers. The customers will drink anything that you give them if it’s promoted right…But when you take away the skill and you take away the slick, and you take away the boxing ability and say that’s not entertaining, or that’s not entertainment, then, to me, it’s like trying to erase a culture that you know has dominated the sport way back then where you were slick. And I’m talking about black fighters. Yes, I said it.”

    These quotes, and more found in the article, have led some boxing fans to charge Barnard Hopkins, who is an African American, with being a racist.  Hence, the question remains, is racism a legitimate concern here?

     No.

    It is not racist to recognize that different cultures, different subcultures, produce different styles and different ways of approaching the arts, society, and boxing too.  The Irish, for example, have a certain literary history based on their experience of English oppression and subsequent material poverty that produced a very specific trajectory of poetry and fiction.  Now of course that does not mean only the Irish can write poetry and fiction, it is just to say that they have developed those arts in a way which is particular to them, and a great treasure for the entire world. It is not racist to say this.  Likewise, it is far from racist to say that it was American Black culture (including its more immediate three century back story of Euro-American oppression) that produced the Blues and then Jazz.  That said, some White guys, here and there, got good at these forms of music (“Take Five” anyone?), but that does not negate the fact that these art forms (these types of music) are a contribution from American Black culture. And again, the Irish do not exceed at literature because they are Irish, and the Blacks do not exceed at Jazz because they are Black.  Rather, granting a similar cultural starting point, you could give any ethnicity or nationality some centuries of the same experience they went through (and go through) as a people and smart money would be you find the same basic result.  If the Irish occupied England for 800 years, I have 20 down that the English would have their own James Joyce.  Of course this is not to say that only the Irish can write, or only the Blacks can compose music; it’s just to recognize that these cultures developed their own special forms that most would agree is something genius to behold.  And here boxing is no different.  

    One culture produces one way of approaching the subject, while another something different.  Hopkins is right that a case can be made that Black’s have developed an American boxing form which is both slick and effective (hit, move, avoid two punches, move and hit again). On the other hand, Mexican culture has tended to produce fighters which are huge on heart, bravado, and balls, but less interested in the slick aspect.  Not that there are not exceptions to the norm (the great George Foreman after all was not exactly slick), but all this is more true than not.  Making a statement of this sort is no different than recognizing that different cultures have developed different types of music, measures of beauty, etc. There is nothing racist in this assertion.  The one difference is that in poetry or music we, together, can only come to general agreements (or disagreements) about what we feel is the more interesting or developed style.  In boxing, we pit those styles, and, by extension, cultures of boxing against each other in the ring, and at the end of the night, one hand is raised, one remains lowered, and there is often blood.  

    So I offer Barnard a “cheers” and (as a Dutch American who had the pleasure of spending a little time in a boxing gym years ago) I give him that the Black, slick, style of hitting and not being hit (from Robinson, to Leonard, to Mayweather, to Roy Jones, to Hopkins) often (all else being equal) rises above those competing styles that it faces in the squared circle.  I also give him that for the capitalists, the marketing executives, and big media heads they employ (who are all upper class, and mostly White) are in fact trying to sell us a reality in which those Blacks who are winning, those most often from the forgotten America, are in fact the enemy of our passive viewing pleasures; even if they know only victory in the ring, they are in fact an enemy we should consider lost; that is what The Market would have us believe.  When real life cannot be obliterated by fact, the sophist’s plausible retreat is denial wrapped in the fog of repetition.  So Hopkins wins again; Mayweather wins again, but they really lost because they did not stand in the center of the ring, and get their heads smashed in so we can see more blood.  And HBO would rather play a decade old rebroadcast of a blood bath than give you the Cuban Master, Guillermo Rigondeaux, in the actual here and now.  Not that Gatti vs. Ward was not great in its own way, but really, we did see what happened when Gatti stepped into the ring with Mayweather.  But here I digress.

    The above, of course, is a little black and white. As I said before, there are exceptions, shades of grey, and sometimes good reason for divergence.  Vladimir Klitschko is a very defense boxer; doesn’t like to get hit, Ukrainian, and trained into this form by Emanuel Steward who was a Black man from Detroit.  Canelo Alverez is, in all likelihood, ultimately of Irish heritage, but learned to box in Mexico where he was immersed and assimilated into a proud Mexican culture.  So no surprise he fights like a Mexican. Joe Calzaghe?  Slick as hell, fast, combo puncher, and didn’t get hit much.  His trainer was his old man.  His old man was a Jazz player.  And you know what, getting back to music, the Stones were pretty F*cking Badass, and they were importing Black R&B back to America from the American Muddy Waters records they heard in England.  Just because the Stones were White does not make R&B a product of European culture, and Calzaghe (who is Welch-don’t know if the English historically consider the Welch White) does not make slick boxing a Welch art form.   But at the end of the day, slick boxing is largely a Black contribution to the sport, and the fact is the corporate machines that feed us our likes and dislikes according to what they perceive as in their self interest, does not like it and, presumably, does not like that the slick boxer often emerges with the win. Back in the day they didn’t like it when Jack Johnson or Mohamed Ali was champion either; but back in the day their reasons were often a little more blunt. Slick boxing a Black achievement? It could be argued. Slick boxing as a more effective form of the art? More than not. Racist? Naa.  Just the opposite man.

###