For Vermonters who share a 40-year history with Bernie Sanders last night’s debate was important in that he looked healthy, he was warm in thanking those who thought of him during his convalescence, and he was able to put to work his wit and humor. For anyone expecting his support to dissipa…
A week ago, President Donald Trump shocked Washington and announced he wouldn’t impede an imminent Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria. Now, in the space of just a few days, his administration is already reaping what it sowed.
It’s a performance Bernie Sanders thought he’d never have to give. Tonight, two week after having suffered a heart attack, he’s going to have to prove to those watching the televised debate, that his health is good enough to be president.
The most demanding job in state government is running the Agency of Human Services, which normally means it’s a one-time experience. Agreeing to serve in the position twice is usually a sign of being unemployable, or being a glutton for punishment.
The push is on, again, to reduce Vermont’s prison population. The goal, as proposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, is to shed another 500 inmates. If successful, the result would be 1,000 fewer inmates since 2009, when 2,200 people in Vermont were behind bars.
One of the persistent complaints in Vermont is the cost of housing, the quality thereof, and the property taxes that come with it. We talk about it. Endlessly. But we don’t do anything about it. Where’s the creative thought?
Members of Vermont’s AFL-CIO changed course mid-September and elected a slated of leaders that has vowed to be more progressive in its politics and less forgiving to those who do not toe their line.
f climate change is the existential threat to the planet that we are told, then the cost to protect us almost seems irrelevant. When its expense is brought up, the $16 trillion - plus, the response should be: “Expensive? Expensive compared to what? Complete destruction?”
If climate change is the existential threat to the planet that we are told, then the cost to protect us almost seems irrelevant. When its expense is brought up, the $16 trillion - plus, the response should be: “Expensive? Expensive compared to what? Complete destruction?”