Tag Archives: political cowardice

Barre’s Flag Fiasco

Oh no, I’m sorry, that’s way too controversial.

The Barre City Council deliberated for months on a proposal to fly the “Black Lives Matter” flag in City Hall Park, a measure first proposed last spring. They finally resolved the matter in a way that only an all-white group of desperate politicians could devise. They decided the BLM flag would fly through the end of December, and that for January it would be replaced by the “Thin Blue Line” banner, a bastardized version of the American flag that’s favored by the pro-police crowd.

Talk about both-sidesing an issue.

The only thing stupider than the final resolution was its original version, which would have seen 22 different flags displayed for one month apiece. That roster included the flags of England, Italy and France, as well as the Star of David, an Autism Acceptance banner and the flag of the Green Mountain Boys.

Talk about 22-sidesing an issue.

That idea was floated by Councilor John Steinman, a very conservative dentist who once ran unsuccessfully for the House. I couldn’t hazard a guess as to why he chose England, Italy and France (white people white people WHITE PEOPLE WHITE PEOPLE!!!!), or why he cast his net so widely, but somehow that proposal was actually adopted by Council at its November 17 meeting — only to be replaced by the two-flag plan the following week, presumably after an outpouring of laughter and derision.

I shouldn’t have to explain why it’s such an affront to tie those two flags together, but let’s give it a shot, shall we?

Continue reading

Some world-class political cowardice down Rutland way

It wasn’t the most treacherous act in the history of politics. It wasn’t Brutus knifing Caesar in the back. It wasn’t Vidkun Quisling selling out Norway to the Nazis. But a majority of Rutland City aldermen gained a high place on that inglorious list with their non-decision on the proposed settlement of Syrian refugees in their fair city.

What did they do? Well, they weaseled their way around the issue from every available direction.

First, they voted narrowly not to hold a nonbinding referendum on the plan.

Then, they sent a letter to the state — a nonbinding letter with no legal force — refusing to support the settlement.

… we do not feel we are currently in a position to be able to provide a letter of support for the proposal to establish a new reception and placement program in Rutland.

Please note: they didn’t state their opposition. They withheld their support.

Good God in heaven, what a pack of schmoes.
Continue reading