We were out of commission yesterday and expect to be posting from a remote, undisclosed location for the next several days. That, anyway, is the word from CVPS central.
We were fortunate. What is an inconvenience for us has been a disaster for many.
Our thoughts and prayers.
By Daniel Foty
Yesterday, your humble correspondent took a run at interpreting what happened. At the overall national level, those conclusions are very simple - that the results clearly reflect a revulsive rejection of the attempt to impose "Europeanism" upon us. The sneaky attempt to do this was unprecendented, and - thankfully - the clear rejection of it was also unprecedented. (And what was coming - and why - was very self-evident over the past 12 - 18 months; contrary to the attempts at self-medication emanating from certain quarters, it was most definitely not some sort of irrational temper-tantrum - nor was it an otherwise-disembodied spasm of "anti-incumbency.")
But for today's brief, let's go a little deeper - into some of the sub-jurisdictional divides. What happened there also doesn't require a great deal of complex or detailed explanation.
It seems to me that at the state level, what happened on Tuesday was less an election - and more a census....
Continue reading "What the Election Results Mean - Part II" »
By Daniel Foty
Q: What do the people of Greenland, Norway, and now the United States have in common?
A: When given the chance to pass judgment on the matter, the people of all three polities have voted - emphatically - against joining the European Union.
That will do.
(ed. note: This letter [e-mail, actually] went out today. We publish it here, omitting the name of the addressee, to make the point that, while we welcome comments, we are neither a free resource nor obliged to publish anything someone deems fit to send us. We do impose standards. Which is not the same thing as "censorship." gn)
Dear ****,
Okay. In the first place we do not "censor" comments any more than the Free Press, for instance, does. Or the New York Times. They make decisions about which letters-to-the-editor they will, or will not, publish and it is called the exercise of editorial judgment. Your use of the word "censor" is a cheap shot. And not very original, by the way.
Furthermore, if we did "censor" comments, we probably wouldn't publish those of politicians who are the subject of strongly critical things we've said about them. Something we have done here.
As I noted in my answer to your first e-mail, I never saw your comment to approve it – or not – for publication. I have since gone back to make sure I did not inadvertently delete it – something that can happen when you are busy and which has happened to me before. But it was not the case this time.
So, either you did not do something correctly at your end or there was a glitch in the software. Let's just agree it was the later.
So, now you have sent me an e-mail with the comment embedded. I am, I gather, supposed to take the time to cut and paste your comment and then publish it. Otherwise, I am guilty of "censorship."
Well, life is short and I have better things to do. We are not a daily newspaper with a staff. We are a blog that survives by the volunteer labor of people who believe in what we are doing. We don't have to publishing anything. It's one of the beauties of the system. Likewise the fact that you don't have to read anything we publish. And, also, the fact that if you do choose to read us and don't like what you see here ... well, you can go start your own blog.
Regards,
Geoffrey Norman, Censor-in-Chief, Vermont Tiger
And so, a Happy New Year.
And here, in memory of 2007, our first year, a list of our favorites:
Jack Harding: Getting It Wrong
Geoffrey Norman: Enough With Vermont, I'm Moving To Florida
Recent Comments