(I do not share the concerns about Lockhheed Martin’s proposed partnership with Burlington on climate change action… one of these days I might diary up why, but maybe not. What interests me more in this is seeing elected Progressives starting to teeter on the edge of being able to criticize each other openly and publicly over disagreements, which I’ve always said was a sign of institutional maturity. Is this the beginning, then, of an institutional puberty for the Progs? – promoted by odum)

Despite a City Council resolution which was passed in February, 2011, Burlington Mayor Kiss is using staff time to move forward with a Lockheed Martin “Partnership” without notifying the public.

Burlington Community Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee Meeting 6-7-11 from Arthur Hynes on Vimeo.

The last clause of Councilor Mulvaney-Stanank’s February 7th resolution states, “Let it be further resolved, that CEDO shall seek public input through at least one public meeting at City Hall before the City agrees to proceed with a proposal involving Lockheed Martin.”

Inside a controversy filled meeting Tuesday, Larry Kupferman, director of Burlington’s Community Economic Development Office (CEDO) informed the City Council’s Community Development and Neighborhood Review committee that CEDO, at Mayor Kiss’ direction, has been moving forward with plans for a project with Lockheed Martin. The plan involves a conference to be held in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, University of Vermont and University of Maryland, to be hosted in August at UVM. In describing the conference, Kupferman referred to a “partnership” with Lockheed, but when questioned, declined to define the amount of time or details of the CEDO involvement.

These revelations drew strong criticism not only from a room full of constituents, but City Councilors too, including one from the Mayor’s own Progressive Party. Ward 3 Progressive City Councilor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak said “Given the attention on this issue I’d hoped things would be a little more public, or at least the Council would be informed about discussions that were still happening with Lockheed in any sort of public way. […] I think given the interest the public has shown on this it would have been nice if the Mayor had, and nice is not even the appropriate word, it would have been I think more appropriate for the Mayor to mention it in the public comments or have something that go out, so people have a chance to weigh in. Knowing that this process [drafting community standards] is still going on.”

Burlington residents joined the City Councilors in voicing their displeasure with Mayor Kiss actions. Ward 2 Burlington Progressive Jonathan Leavitt said, “It just seems like a real affront to democracy for the Mayor to move forward with Lockheed Martin as this process is still unfolding, as City Councilors and citizens are partnering in good faith to craft thoughtful legislation. For the City to move forward, with corporate sponsorships just like this, for the Mayor to have CEDO staff using staff time as you just said, to move forward with this in total contravention of [Councilor Mulvaney-Stanak’s] early February City Council resolution. Why are we here? Why do we have City Councilors drafting legislation if it isn’t going to be followed? Where does that leave the citizens of Burlington who are partnering in good faith disregards those good faith gestures. What does that leave us to do?”

Burlington lawyer and activist Sandy Baird questioned CEDO Director Larry Kupferman, saying “I was surprised at the words you used, a ‘partnership.'” Baird continued, “I thought there was a letter of intent to continue negotiations. And that’s really of concern to me. I thought this was going to be more of a public process before you continued.” Peggy Lurs opined, “Our climate change problem isn’t just about technicalities, but a lack of democracy.” In a charged exchange with Kupferman, Liza Cowan said, “So in other words CEDO broke the resolution, they broke the public faith.” South End resident Jay Vos appealed to the CEDO director to explain the seeming contradictions of the Mayor’s policy, “Can you explain this? Because it’s beyond me.”

In six months since Mayor Kiss’ dealing with the world’s largest war profiteer leaked in the media, Burlington residents concerns about Mayor Kiss’ actions have received nation attention. Perhaps you saw The New York Times coverage of your neighbors’ community organizing against Mayor Kiss’ controversial proposal to tie Burlington’s reputation to the world’s largest weapons maker, Lockheed Martin. Perhaps you saw Bill McKibben promoting No Lockheed community organizers’ work on Twitter.

Beyond the basic questions about responsive government that were raised at Tuesday’s committee meeting, the larger question remains: why is Mayor Kiss is partnering on climate issues with a corporation that actively blocks climate legislation. Lockheed sits on the board of the US Chamber of Commerce which sues entire states to stop them from regulating climate change and lobbied against Congress’ 2009 climate bill. Bill McKibben in a recent Burlington Free Press article  says of Lockheed, “The fear that they could be just greenwashing is real — for instance, these guys belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has opposed every single good idea on energy and climate for decades; to me, that’s a sign they’re willing to make money on climate, but still work in Washington to prevent meaningful progress.” Perhaps that’s why, in the New York Times article, the head of a local sustainability company expressed serious concerns to his company’s brand if this proposal moves forward.

Many citizens also wonder why Mayor Kiss, who supposedly thinks Climate Change is so urgent that he needs to partner Burlington with one of the worst corporate polluters on the planet, hasn’t convened his Mayoral Task Force on Climate Change since November 14, 2007.

When Mayor Kiss was on the re-election trail in 2009 he frequently invoked the words of former Burlington Mayor Bernie Sanders, saying, “Burlington is open for business but not for sale.” The disclosures of Tuesday night be serious questions of that pledge.

Web Resources for further reading:

Resolution regarding private-public partnerships and the Lockheed Martin agreement

Burlington City Council Deliberative Agenda: Feb 7

https://www.facebook.com/notes…

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05…

http://twitter.com/#%21/billmc…

( – promoted by odum)

Dramatic footage of Burlington Filmmaker Sam Mayfield and another reporter being arrested today, (seemingly) for reporting on the people of Wisconsin speaking out on Governor Scott Walker's attempt to end public employees collective bargaining rights.

Please call and email Scott Walker and tell him “Hands off the press!”

Email: govgeneral@wisconsin.gov

Phone: (608) 266-1212

www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/12burlington.html

Burlington Journal

In a Green Town, Activists See Red Over Lockheed Martin

By ABBY GOODNOUGH

Published: May 11, 2011

BURLINGTON, Vt. – Car sharing is beloved in this laid-back college town, as are solar panels, rain gardens and most anything designed to fight global warming from the ground up. A bicycle service will pick up your kitchen scraps for composting, and farmers will deliver your vegetables in a biodiesel-fueled truck.

(Remainder redacted to conform with fair-use laws. Copyrighted material may not be reproduced in its entirety. The remainder of the piece is on the link above. -kestrel9000)

Dear Lockheed Martin,

As a concerned citizen of Burlington, VT I feel obligated to let you know that the overwhelming majority of residents here seem strongly opposed to the proposed partnership between Lockheed Martin and the city of Burlington to address the impeding threat of climate change. Surprisingly, many people aren’t opposed to the idea solely because you happen to be one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers, but mainly because you don’t seem to have much of a proven track record when it comes to addressing climate change.  

You see, here in Burlington we really pride ourselves on the notable efforts we’ve already made to reduce carbon emissions and develop sustainable communities, and we’re rather reluctant to invite anyone into our town who doesn’t already have a wealth of experience doing the same, regardless of their net worth. Otherwise what’s the point, right?

Perhaps you’ve heard of climate change expert Bill McKibben. In a recent Burlington Free Press article McKibben says of Lockheed, “The fear that they could be just greenwashing is real — for instance, these guys belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has opposed every single good idea on energy and climate for decades; to me, that’s a sign they’re willing to make money on climate, but still work in Washington to prevent meaningful progress.” This is your big chance to prove otherwise.

McKibben’s NGO 350.org. It’s an international non-profit dedicated to stopping climate change. 350 just launched a new campaign ‘The U.S. Chamber Doesn’t Speak For Me’ to “show that when it comes to climate and energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of big polluters, not everyday American business.” According to a recent New York Times article, (“Justices Offer Receptive Ear to Business Interests” 12/18/10),”[The Chamber of Commerce] board includes executives from some of the nation’s biggest companies, including Lockheed Martin.” The Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in a Supreme Court case stating, a suit by eight states against power companies over carbon dioxide emissions, ‘has potentially disastrous implications for the U.S. business community.”

The New York Times article links to the Supreme Court brief (American Electric Power Company Inc., et al. v. State of Connecticut, et al.) which shows the lengths the Chamber of Commerce and its corporate partners, including Lockheed, will go to block carbon reductions. The brief implies that the states’ efforts to regulate C02 emissions are “ill-conceived policies and measures which could damage the economic security of the United States.” It belittles the states’ earnest litigation to address the climate crisis as an example of “nuisance suits,” which are “an especially ill-conceived and constitutionally illegitimate response.” Like Mom always said, “you’ll be judged by the company you keep.” Right?

So we have thought of a great way you could prove your commitment to addressing climate change to the citizens of Burlington so someone other than Mayor Kiss might be a little more supportive of this proposed partnership. Would you be willing quit the US Chamber of Commerce and prove to us you really are committed to addressing the climate crisis? You see, like McKibben says, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has maintained a hard-line opposition to any legislation addressing the climate issue, so it’s very hard to take anyone seriously who says that they want to address this issue while maintaining their involvement with them. You wouldn’t be the first corporation do to so either! Apple, Nike, and Johnson & Johnson have all quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for this very reason! Even utility companies such as Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric, and PNM Resources resigned from the Chamber over its environmental policy. Won’t you be the next brave corporation to show your commitment to addressing climate change by quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? It sure would help the citizens of Burlington take your proposal a little more seriously…

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Anna Guyton, Peace & Justice Center Program Manager

Joe Solomon, 350.org  

Jenna Whitson, 350.org

David Stember, 350.org

Page Atcheson 350.org

Jonathan Leavitt, Journalist and Community Organizer

Will Bennington, Farmer and Community Organizer

Laurie Essig Phd.

Liza Cowan, Director, Pine Street Art Works

Danielle Bombardier, Community Organizer

Bryan Parmelee

Arthur Hynes

Peggy Luhrs

Juliet Buck

James Vos

Jen Berger

Patrick Wood

Lewis Holmes

Alan Taplow

Colleen Deignan

Michelle Marion

Tristan Pulley

Paul Schanbel

Jennifer Martin

Skye Ellicock

Laurie Larson

Advocates Highlight Sub-Standard Housing Conditions on Tenant's Eviction Day

 46 South Main Street, BARRE, Vermont

Monday, April 18, 2011 at 12 Noon

Contact:

Jean Tong, jean.vermontworkerscenter@gmail.com

Heather Pipino, bettypageturner@gmail.com

In March 2006, Kai Sun Huang, a 60 year old Chinese immigrant, rented an apartment in Barre, Vermont from Daniel and Kathleen Thompson. A few weeks before, Huang met the Thompson's at a barber shop-beauty salon and was shown the apartment with promises made by the landlord to fix it up before Huang moved in.

The house was in disrepair – with evidence of mold and water damage in nearly every room. Unfortunately, those conditions continued and grew worse during Mr. Huang's five years of living there. Many other tenants came and went, but Mr. Huang sought justice.

As programs for the most vulnerable continue to be slashed, more Vermonters – both long-term and recent citizens alike – will continue to face challenges in seeking practical legal recourse, despite law that support their efforts.

Mr. Huang began withholding rent in July 2007, after many verbal and written attempts to address the structural flaws of the premises to the landlords. Frequent flooding from the roof was common, broken pipes due to responsibility for heating enused, crumbling walls, flaking lead paint, and long-standing mold and water damage were not repaired safely or at all.

While the City of Barre Inspector deemed the unit was “no longer to be used for human habitation,” Huang lost in court due to refusal to permit access to the apartment. Huang did not have legal representation and as a result, was ordered to pay over $18,0000 in back rent. Huang paid the back rent in full and will be evicted on 4/18/2011.

In a written statement Kaisun said, “I wanted to have an up to code, safe, decent, place to stay, go to work, and support my family. I am a tenant living in really bad housing owned by a landlord who doesn’t respond to my repeated requests to repair the apartment. All the apartment units are unlivable and mine is the worst. I’ve learned heart-breaking lessons about how unattainable the American dream is for a new immigrant like myself, because it is hard to just meet basic needs, even though I am a hard-working person and I have worked at the same factory for the last 5 years. I have a family I want to take care of. But I don’t have a decent place to live. I don’t understand how the landlord can continue to rent this place out. What I want to see everyone in Barre to have livable housing. I want to see everyone living in a healthy environment and treated with dignity.”

Community organizer Heather Pipino said, “An increasing number of Vermonters face deteriorating housing conditions, unaffordable heating expenses, and are living in unsafe and undignified situations. It troubles me that there aren't enough advocates to support the most vulnerable within our communities. Our budget priorities — most notably our inability to tax higher income earners — have created a tenuous situation where it's nearly impossible to achieve any sort of human right to fair housing.”

Kaisun's story exemplifies the challenges faced by low-income tenants when seeking advocacy support and legal representation in an over-burdened and under-staffed system. Advocates will be offering tours of the property to point out many repairs that could've been made without access to the apartment under eviction, as well as highlight the challenges for achieving housing justice in an economy that doesn't put people first.

(Jonathan writes, “Using the very real climate crisis as a fig leaf for getting in bed with Lockheed to deal with his leading political liability is beyond the pale.”  I agree. – promoted by Maggie Gundersen)

Noted environmental author and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben on Burlington’s Letter on Understanding with Lockheed:

“As someone who thinks a lot about local economies, one of the things we’re really good in Vermont at, better than Lockheed are these kind of solutions. […] We probably don’t have to go to find that outside help. I take seriously the idea that people can change, it’s harder to see how corporations as deeply enmeshed in one way of doing business and looking at the world as Lockheed is can change. […] Some of the stuff Lockheed or anyone else would advise us to do would happen automatically if we did the necessary political work at the national level that we need to do. If Lockheed was willing to pull out of the US Chamber of Commerce and say ‘they don’t speak for us, we don’t like the way they deal with climate energy,’ then that strikes me, then I’d be willing to give them a look at what they wanted to do here in Burlington. I don’t think that’s going to happen and until it does I would be disinclined to get too deeply in bed with them.”

McKibben’s 350.org just launched a new campaign ‘The US Chamber Doesn’t Speak For Me’ to “show that when it comes to climate and energy, the US Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of big polluters, not everyday American business.” According to a recent New York Times article, (“Justices Offer Receptive Ear to Business Interests” 12/18/10) “[The Chamber of Commerce] board includes executives from some of the nation’s biggest companies, including Lockheed Martin.” The Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in a Supreme Court Case stating, “a suit by eight states against power companies over carbon dioxide emissions, ‘has potentially disastrous implications for the U.S. business community.'”

The New York Times article links to the Supreme Court brief which illuminates the lengths the Chamber of Commerce and its corporate partners including Lockheed will go to, to block carbon reductions:

“The Chamber works to discourage ill-conceived policies and measures which could damage the economic security of the United States and instead encourages long term technological innovation and long term clean technology development. The Chamber believes that nuisance suits such as this one which seeks to impose caps and reductions on carbon dioxide emissions in piecemeal fashion on an arbitrary subset of U.S. industry are an especially ill-conceived and constitutionally illegitimate response.”

For Burlington to work with a corporation which According to William Hartung’s Prophets of War performs drone bombing in Pakistan, buys scandal plagued companies interrogating prisoners in Abu Ghraib, lobbies against nuclear weapons treaties and performs warrantless wiretapping on Americans is bad enough. Discovering Lockheed via its seat on the Chamber pushes the Supreme Court to not regulate carbon emissions on a state and Federal level begs serious questions about the Kiss administration’s commitment to addressing climate change.

In Seven Days recent cover story (“Up In Arms” 2/9/11), Mayor Kiss invokes crisis and urgency saying “There’s enough urgency to this issue of climate change that we need to look for all the partners that are out there.” So it’s deeply disappointing that according to its website Mayor Kiss hasn’t convened his Mayoral Task Force on Climate Change (E2C2) full of award winning local climate change talent since November 14, 2007.

Now that City Council has overwhelmingly passed a resolution rebuking the lack of transparency and public comment which Mayor Kiss would attach Burlington’s sterling reputation to Lockheed; now that Burlingtonians have spoken out unanimously at City Council in overwhelming number, including green engineers and sustainability leaders; now that UVM Student Government has overwhelmingly passed a similar resolution critiquing this most unlikely of bedfellows; one would hope Mayor Kiss would listen. One would hope Mayor Kiss would do the moral, just and right thing and end this corporate PR job of a deal, quickly re-convene his long dormant Mayoral Task Force on Climate Change, and find more appropriate and just ways to incentivize Burlington’s already award-winning responses climate change.

When discussing the Lockheed Letter of Understanding Mayor Kiss mentions potential Burlington Telecom financing from Lockheed. Using the very real climate crisis as a fig leaf for getting in bed with Lockheed to deal with his leading political liability is beyond the pale. When I supported Mayor Kiss on the re-election trail in 2008, he invoked in debates the words of former Burlington Mayor Bernie Sanders’: “Burlington is open for business but not for sale.” If Burlingtonians keep organizing and speaking out against the Lockheed Letter of Understanding, hopefully we can help Mayor Kiss live up to those words.

MEDIA ADVISORY — UPDATE

This Sunday October 10th – Burlington Citywide Day of Climate Action 20 + organizations bring hundreds together

Afternoon Celebration with Senator Sanders, Senator Leahy, Congressman Welch, Mayor Kiss, and Gubernatorial Candidate Peter Shumlin

On October 10th 2010, tens of thousands of people will be picking up hammers, shovels and caulking guns to join 350.org’s 10/10/10 Global Work Party, the world’s largest climate action event, with over 6,000 simultaneous work projects scheduled in 183 countries.

Here, in Burlington, hundreds of local citizens will converge at Battery Park at 10am before fanning out across the city to join work projects organized by 350.org volunteers and hosted by a long list of local organizations, including: City Market, Intervale Conservation Nursery, CarShare Vermont, Burlington Bicycle Coalition, Burlington Electric Department, New Farms for New Americans, UVM’s Rubenstein School Stewards, the Chittenden County Transportation Authority, among others.

These projects will improve our city while actively combating climate change and raising public awareness about the planet’s most urgent challenge — bringing the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide down from 392 parts per million to below 350 ppm, deemed by climatologists to be the safe upper limit.

Through this global day of action, organizers and participants will convey passionate global support for the importance of the 350 ppm target, as endorsed by climate experts and activists like Bill McKibben, Dr. James Hansen, Vandana Shiva, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, David Suzuki and many more.

After the day of action, participants will again converge at Battery Park (starting at 3:30pm), to

hear Vermont leaders Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Patrick Leahy, Representative Peter Welch,

gubernatorial candidate Peter Shumlin and Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss speak to their vision on raising the bar for climate action.

Local organizer Nathaly Agosto Filión states, “Vermont has repeatedly shown national leadership,

from being the first state to abolish slavery to establishing the first school for women to pursue a higher education. We’re proud of that history! And we’re coming together for the Global Work Party to highlight examples of real climate solutions Vermonters can lead on here and now.” The Burlington event will coincide with dozens of similar events scheduled across Vermont.

Organizer Jenna Whitson says “after the failure of both Copenhagen and Congress to lead the way these work projects around the globe will tell politicians, ‘We’re working hard now to fight climate change, what about you?’ At the end of their work projects we’ll urge participants to hang up their shovels and pick up their phones, to contact elected officials to say they expect the same level of commitment to climate action from their leaders.”

The 10/10/10 Global Work Party is coordinated by the international climate campaign 350.org.

Additional information about this event and scores of international photos and videos from thousands of simultaneous events across the planet are available for the media at 350.org/media.

What: A day-long, city-wide day of action against climate change – part of a GLOBAL day of action.

Batter Park Event Includes a Free Concert by the Gordon Stone Band from 3:30 – 6:30pm

Where: Battery Park, Burlington VT and at sites throughout the city of Burlington.

When: 10am – 7pm

###

For more information on the 10/10/10 Global Work Party, please visit 350.org/media.

For more information on the Burlington Work Party visit 350burlington.org

Media Contacts: Jenna Whitson 603-496-0755 jhwhitson@gmail.com or

Nathaly Agosto Filión 802-578-6277 nathaly.agostofilion@gmail.com

Wednesday night was a crazy mix of dive bars and Gubernatorial candidates. I walked around the corner to bohemian coffee shop/restaurant Radio Bean to see my Argentinian friend Lucas on his last night in here Burlington. Noticing Peter Shumlin, Democratic candidate for Governor, across the bar, I realized this was the perfect opportunity to ask him a question his campaign staff had been unable to answer for me. Shumlin was on the move though, so I followed him to the OP, the dive bar next door. After letting my anthropological imagination devour the sight of a Gubernatorial candidate work the hipster, American Apparel clad, dive bar set for a bit, I dove in, asking his position on raising revenue via the Snelling Surcharge (a means of raising revenue by temporarily raising taxes on Vermont’s tip-top income earners to prevent the laying off of teachers, state workers, mental health employees and many other vital social services that keep our state running. Conservative deficit hawks like Republican Jim Douglas and Brian Dubie are quick to cut these middle class jobs in financial downturns, so as to preserve low tax rates for the ultra-rich).

Shumlin said that “we can’t squeeze VT’s most affluent much more,” that taxes on them have already “been raised from 6% to 10%.” I recounted to him how taxes on VT millionaires have been slashed from paying $150,000 on $1 million dollars in earned income in 1968 to under $60,000 on $1 million in 2010. Shumlin maintained those were federal taxes and re-iterated his original claim that the most affluent in Vermont can’t pay any more. Clearly at an impasse, we segued in a discussion lameness of DC Dems. Ironically, he mentioned how Dems on the Federal level need to tax the wealthy instead of just sitting their with their “[slang for male genitalia which I see no reason to repeat here] in their hand.” At about this point I realized close talkers, like Shumlin, make me really uncomfortable, especially when employing locker room vernacular. After he asked me what I do. I told him that for the past 8 years I worked in Mental Health, and that there was an awful “brain drain” effect due to stagnant wages and budget cuts, and that the suffering of our most vulnerable is going to increase until we raise revenue. He tried to find common ground around revenue shortfalls, talking about his own dyslexia, kids with learning disorders being disproportionately locked up and how he would free up some $60 million annually for mental health and other social services vis a vis releasing non-violent offender and de-criminalizing marijuana. Some ten minutes later it was all over, a very weird window into the final days of this seemingly endless Democratic primary.

I looked into tax rates to fact check Shumlin’s numbers. Here’s what I found:

   * The top marginal tax rate was reduced when state lawmarkers got rid of (most of) the 40% capital gains exclusion; overall, this change will result in some very high income Vermonters paying more but nothing like the 1960’s.

   * He was mistaken about the federal vs. state issue (those reductions resulted from changes in federal & state taxes but the result was a huge decline in state tax liability).

   * The key is how much they pay as a percentage of income (this is referred to as the effective rate); on average at present, the wealthy pay 5.3% for Vermont state income taxes; to say there is no more capacity is far from a fact, it’s an opinion. Shumlin was probably referencing the top marginal rate. One of my criticisms, among many, of the way Douglas talks about taxes is his constant flood of soundbites regarding Vermont’s 9 or 9.5 percent top marginal tax rate. Because it only applies to taxable income over about $347,000, many high income Vermonters pay less in income taxes here than they would in other states that have lower top rates that kick much sooner than Vermont’s. To see a Democrat seemingly taking a page out of Douglas’ middle class eroding playbook is disappointing to say the least.

All that said, as friendly and giving of his time Shumlin was I’m really troubled that he wouldn’t make the most affluent in our society share the burden equally in this worst economic crisis since 1929. What’s almost as troubling is the degree to which Shumlin misrepresented the taxes paid by Vermont’s most wealthy in order to close the door on a share-the-burden-fairly initiative like the Snelling Surcharge.

Perhaps not coincidentally Peter Shumlin would be directly be affected by the Snelling Surcharge, his federal tax return shows he and his wife had an adjusted gross income of an eye-popping $947,732 in 2009 (Burlington Free Press, 4/20/2010). The Shumlins’ annual haul is just a little less than 5 times the amount Google Exec, and fellow Gubernatorial candidate, Matt Dunne makes. According to the same article, the other candidates salaries range from $95,969-$198,435. Not to put too fine a point on Shumlin’s own vested self-interest in this, but he loaned his own gubernatorial campaign $225,000, or more money than any of the other candidates make in a single year. None of the educators or state employees I know, who have lost their jobs due to revenue shortfalls, can loan themselves a quarter of a million dollars to help themselves attain a new job. But then again, those individuals, and their corresponding professional organizations don’t support Shumlin’s candidacy. Instead they choose to support the one candidate from either party who has gone on record saying he would raise revenue to preserve vital social services, Doug Racine.

I’ve been torn between voting for Shumlin and Racine for months now. They both share many of the strengths I’m looking for in moving Vermont forward after eight years of Jim Douglas. Both would close Vermont Yankee and enact single payer health care. After going to debates, scrutinizing their campaigns in the media, I never thought my decision would be made amongst the buzzing neon, pint glasses and popcorn of my neighborhood dive bar. This beer soaked tableau almost certainly wasn’t the setting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was thinking of when he made the famous quip that States were “the laboratories of Democracy.”  Then again, here in in this small state of 621,760, the first one to outlaw slavery, and the first to sign civil unions into law, perhaps it isn’t entirely surprising after eight long years of Jim Douglas’s slash and burn economic agenda, people are ready to push politicians for economic justice from dive bar to Statehouse and back again, and I’ll gladly raise a toast to that.