The End Of An Era – Peter Diamondstone

Peter Diamondstone has Passed.

Peter Isaac “Pete” Diamondstone (born December 19, 1934) was an American lawyer and politician from the U.S.
state of Vermont, best known as a perennial candidate and co-founder of the Liberty Union Party. He has run for various Vermont political offices in every election cycle since 1970.  (Wikipedia)

Peter passed away yesterday at home with his family.


Comments | 29

  • Vermont Digger

    Here’s a link to a Vermont Digger article by local reporter Kevin O’Connor

    This comment by “rosemariejackowski” deserves repeating:
    Peter was the most principled man I have ever known. He never wavered. He taught the rest of us how to live. He was the Master of his fate and the Captain of his soul. The Legend will live on forever.

  • Liberty Union

    Truly is the end of an era.

    Diamondstone was an interesting person to find out about once we moved to VT, and was interesting to follow after… I appreciate the Vermonters who put themselves out there, against the odds, for something they believe in.

    Many people talk about the changes they’d like to make, but forming a party and running for office shows a level of commitment few others attain.

    Even though he was never Governor Diamondstone, I think we’re all better off for having him in debates and campaigns over the years.

    • Summary

      “Peter dedicated his life to the vision of a fair and just society where all people have equal access to the resources necessary to actualize their full potential, a classless society where people own the goods of their labor and no one has the right to profit from another’s labor.” (Diamondstone Family)

  • God Bless Peter Diamondstone! He was a great inspiration to me!

    Well, I will certainly miss Peter Diamonstone, miss seeing him every two years at debates, miss his unique views!
    I hope his Spirit remains here in Vermont and runs with the mountain streams!

  • Stick in the mud

    Bernie Sanders wrote: “Peter was a very independent thinker, unafraid to express his (often controversial) point of view on any subject. As a result, he forced people to examine and defend their own positions. No small thing. In his own way, Peter played an important role in Vermont politics for many decades.

    Several years ago, Diamondstone caught some of my articles. I don’t remember calling him so I he must have called me. He wanted to talk about me possibly running for an office so he invited me out to eat…at McDonald’s on Putney. It was nice to meet him and Doris, who are legends in the state’s politics. The fish sandwich was standard McD fare.

    It turned out that I was too much of an “independent thinker” for him. He wanted a Liberty Union party-line candidate, not someone with new or different ideas. I wonder if that’s why he and Senator Sanders parted ways.

    Bernie Sanders wrote: “I first met Peter Diamondstone over 45 years ago….I have not had any real contact with him for many, many years,”

    Having no “real contact with him (Diamondstone) for many, many years” says a lot about what Senator Sanders really thought about the perennial candidate. Not only did Sanders and Diamondstone part company for 45 years but Sanders must not have much use for the Liberty Union party, as LU typically favored its own candidates. Sanders understood the need for compromising as a valuable tool of working with a diverse field that comprises Capitol Hill.

    Bernie Sanders wrote: “I have the feeling that he never changed.

    The Senator’s “feeling” is spot on and it’s likely why the Liberty Union party remained consistently statistically small for these 50 years. Because of Diamondstone’s ironhanded rule of the party he remained inflexible. Senator Sanders is right to say “he never changed.”

    • Not the Peter I knew

      Peter invited a number of individuals whose ideas were at great variance from “the Party Line” to run for office as Liberty Union candidates. He was not a rigid ideologue, he supported a number of cutting edge issues, and even gave aid, comfort, and encouragement to people with unpopular views that he personally disagreed with.

      Peter’s outlook and practice was to engage people and to encourage them to active participation. My experience is that, while Peter did advocate enthusiastically for his own beliefs Empowerment of people to speak out was his greater priority.

      This contrasts with Senator Sanders, whom I met once and who turned away from me when I said, “I did not vote for you, but I would like to shake your hand.” I have witnessed Peter enjoying a discussion with someone who challenges his views. That shows respect for people. Sanders basically acted as though I had confessed to the heinous crime of not having voted for him, and he would not even show me the respect of a handshake.

      If Peter shied away from encouraging Vidda from being a Liberty Union candidate, I am certain that something bothered him other than honest differences of opinion.

      • "A home for perennial losers”

        As I said, I didn’t call him, he called me. Whatever you assume may have bothered him more than a difference of opinion is just guesswork on your part, and without tangible cause. I will agree, however, that there can be more to any side of the story but the conversation we had was less than an hour.

        I question whether or not Peter encouraged or invited people to be an LUP candidate, so much as he selected them.

        Moreover, I have a feeling your claim the he “invited a number of individuals whose ideas were at great variance from “the Party Line” to run for office as Liberty Union candidates” cannot be substantiated by the facts, and you’d be hard-pressed to identify those individuals and their variant ideas under the LUP campaigns. It also would not make sense for candidates to run at “great variance from “the Party Line.”

        One of the reasons Bernie Sanders resigned from LUP was that Peter and the party were inactive between elections. Peter was clear to me that he wanted LUP to populate the campaigns for elective offices whether they had a chance or not to keep LUP going. Indeed, it was reported that even when Bernie was involved that the LUP “had no illusions of winning.”

        The party structure really did revolve around Peter and wasn’t as decentralized as people may think. But Bernie was right. Because of inactivity between elections Peter weighted the LUP to simply run candidates as protest votes. I expressed my discomfort with that and told him it didn’t seem like much of a party that does that. Ultimately the LUP always hovered in low or insignificant percentages became known as “a home for perennial losers.”

        Even so, I think there were a number of good and qualified candidates but the LUP structure was essentially weak and not very effective.

        It’s hard to predict where the LUP will go in the future over the next fifty years in terms of growth and successes. Hopefully, notwithstanding what tomaidh and cgrotke say, it is more than the “end of an era,” but a new beginning.

    • "Thumperian principle"

      If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.

  • Bully Pulpit

    Some years ago, William F. Buckley (from The National Review) ran for Mayor of New York.
    When asked what would be his first official act if elected, Buckley replied: “I’d demand a recount”.
    Buckley didn’t want to be Mayor. He wanted what TR called a “bully pulpit”.

    Likewise, I don’t believe Peter ever really wanted to govern Vermont.
    However, he found in his campaigns, that elusive “bully pulpit”.
    His voice has been a quiet but effective influence on Vermont politics for 46 years.

    Bernie Sanders acknowledged this when he stated:
    “Peter played an important role in Vermont politics for many decades.”

    ‘Nuff Said!

    • In an interview recently aired on NPR...

      Harry Belafonte said that he is now going to be more radical than ever, because he is not going to be a spokesperson for any organization or movement, and therefore he can speak the unbridled truth without any concern that such unpopular speech might undermine the cause.

      As a candidate with no hope or expectation of being elected, Peter was able to speak more honestly than any politician who dares not cross certain lines. When Bernie was mayer of Burlington, he forcefully opposed the peace movement’s opposition to the local Gatling Gun factory. At that time, Gatling guns (which can fire up to 6,000 bullets per minute) mounted on helicopters, were being used in Central America to fire into the canopy and indiscriminately kill anyone on the ground within range.

      Bernie said that the factory was giving employment to local workers and that he was protecting jobs. Had he opposed the murder factory, Bernie’s political career would have ended and, like Peter, he would have been a “loser.” And he would also have alienated a large portion of his supporters long ago were he to oppose dropping bombs for noble reasons in various places.

      There will always be “realists” like Sanders and Obama, acting on the principle that “the perfect is the enemy of the good,” and there will always be the Peter Diamondstones on a Bully Pulpit with nothing to lose, confronting these high-minded war criminals.

      • The willing attention

        Ms Twain “Bernie’s political career would have ended and, like Peter, he would have been a “loser.””
        Tomaidh “Anybody who calls Peter a “Loser” is totally out of touch with reality.”

        Loser or winner, good, perfect or enemy, Bernie at the least, captured the willing attention of millions of people, nationwide.

        Peter’s impact on the other hand .essentially stops with his death. What very little he tangibly accomplished with his bully pulpit will fade away and hardly be a footnote.

        Bernie’s political career, on the other hand, did not end, with more to come, and he has stepped into political corporeal, lasting history.

        • Judgment Day

          How ironic that a guy so incapable of original thought that he regurgitates half-understood ideas that he has read elsewhere, and whom if anyone thinks about him at all when he is gone will be remembered as a pretentious, third-rate amateur writer; has appointed himself to sit in judgement of the value of Peter Diamonstone’s life.

          • Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf

            Long time now over numerous articles you have sustained your obviously hateful personal and vulgar attacks because, as I’ve said before, I know who you are.

            Unlike most readers here I have keen insight into your psychosis. I suppose if you were a writer yourself you’d have better things to say and do than tag along behind me.

            Now that I’m thinking of writing my third novel I have to say there are enough of your late-night drama queen tricks for me to draw from to replicate a character with your foulmouthed torrent of torment and tirades.

          • Dandelion

            Last night when scanning through vtdigger for various Vermont news articles I came across two Peter items. One, from Kevin O’Connor, was Peter’s quote in 2014 when he said, “I choose to be ‘the dandelion on the manicured lawn of the wealthy.’”

            The second was a charming, old, torn and scotched taped photograph of Doris Lake and Peter when he was nineteen years old, that makes it look like a reflection in a cracked mirror, which adds nicely to its allure. It’s worth taking a look at the link following:


          • Peter Diamondston was a better man than you

            Your pathetic self-importance and the drivel you produce speaks for itself.

          • Fit for humor

            For the first time I cracked up laughing out loud (FTLOL!). Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

            Actually, from the photo of him with Doris when he was 19, he was quite a good looking guy, not then yet hidden behind the Karl Marx type beard. At 82 years old it means that he has had quite a good long life, certainly storied, in addition to he and Doris raising a family. His political “career” was and is public information, and yes, open for comment, whether you agree or not with those comments are rather immaterial, as it seems your focus is as much or more on me as it is about him.

          • No head , no heart

            Vidda could be forgiven if he was honest, if he had great insight, or if he was, well, nice. Hell, even if he got it right five times out of ten. Instead he offers up self important drivel. I agree with Mark Twain, and I’ll say it one more time: Trump and Crochetta have much in common. it’s not ideology, it’s psychology. He is driven by belief; he believes in his own BS.

          • Again, Peter was a better man than you

            I knew Peter and his family for more than three decades. Whatever his human flaws, Peter Diamonstone was a good friend, very supportive, there for you when you needed a friend.

            And no, “Vidda,” Peter Diamonstone’s memorial is not about you.

          • A nice tribute. Will you share a story?

            Can you share a story regarding your time with Mr Diamondstone, M. Twain?

          • Yes, I will later this evening...

            when I have time to write about it.

            And thank you for your interest.

          • Peter Diamondstone

            After relocating from a big city to Brattleboro in the early 1980s, we found ourselves feeling somewhat isolated. To our surprise, we felt unwelcome by Brattleboro’s “alternative community,” With one or two exceptions, we found that the Common Grounds Collective members seemed to be cliquish and judgmental.

            I took some comfort in realizing that I must not be imagining this when the Managing Editor of the Brattleboro Reformer, Norman Runnion, wrote a column characterizing the distain exhibited by much of the local “counter-culture” for new arrivals, as: “Last one in, shut the door!”  

            As it turned out many of our first friends were not “hippies,” but were old-time, native Vermonters whose behavior defied stereotypes. We also found a welcome among activists, whose radical politics made them pariahs among the more conventional “peace and freedom” crowd.

            At a war tax resister meeting held at Solar Hill (about a half-dozen people) we met Bob Waite, a native-born Brattleboro guy. I am not sure that Bob had a strong ideology, but I think he was attracted to radical groups because he was a bit of a “misfit” and being among other unconventional people felt comfortable.   

            Bob told us about the Liberty Union Party. The very name itself, “Liberty Union” fascinated me. It sounded to me like the very essence of the earliest days of Vermont. It was clear from what Bob said that Liberty Union represented rebellion against established power; but as Bob explained, Liberty Union was even more interested in encouraging people who otherwise never participate in the political process an opportunity to be a candidate for office and to express their opinion. 

            As I later learned: Most Liberty Union Candidates supported socialism, but the party also fielded non-party-line candidates such as a somewhat off-the-rails guy, Charles Choate. (One time I even became a Liberty Union candidate, and made freedom to smoke weed my main issue. And one year Peter asked my partner to serve on a town committee, which he did to help out.)

            Soon after becoming friends with Bob Waite, we met Heubner Wellman at an Animal Rights meeting. Including myself and my partner, there were 5 people at that meeting.  (Heubner would have been a 6th generation Vermonter, but said that he was not a native Vermonter because, although he was delivered in Brattleboro, he was conceived in Massachusetts, and he believed that birth begins at conception.)

            Heubner was short. With almost waist length, silky white hair and a long, narrow silky white beard, Heubner stood out. With his pointy red cap topping it all off, Heubner looked like an elf. Heubner knew half the people in town from all walks of life, and he alone totally broke our isolation simply by walking around together and being introduced by him. It was Heubner who first brought us to a Liberty Union gathering at the Diamonstone house. 

            While “outcasts” were welcome at Liberty Union, I was surprised to find a number of “respectable” people, including a lawyer, a dentist, school teachers, and a local radio celebrity, regularly attended Liberty Union gatherings. Most of the local gatherings alternated between Peter and Doris’ house in Brattleboro, and Fred and Mal Herbert’s house in Putney. 

            Even formal organizational meetings tended to be social events, like the monthly party committee meetings held in a pizza parlor. 

            There seemed to be a cadre of old gentlemen who were always in court over one principled matter or another: Judd Hall, Guido Condosta, and Peter. “How is your case going?” seemed to be a ritualistic greeting. Pretty soon, my partner and I became a part of the, “How is your case going?” group, when Peter invited us to become part of a group of plaintiffs in an election dispute.  

            There are certain requirements for Major Party status in Vermont, including being organized according to certain formalities in at least 30 towns and 7 counties with committes and chairpersons, as well as a complex of other requirements including a statewide committee, various posts, minimum number of meetings in each town and county. It is clear that to have held Major Party status for decades required a large number of active participants. Those who say that Peter Diamonstone alone was Liberty Union, do not realize how impossible that would be. 


            In addition to this complex of organizational requirements, to maintain Major Party status, the party must obtain at least 5% of the vote in one or more statewide elections for a Vermont office (not included are Congressional and U.S. Senate elections). So every two years there was a bit of concern and anxiety about whether Liberty Union would once again pull it off and get 5%.  

            I think it was in 1986 that the next day after election day the Vermont Associated Press reported a Liberty Union total of about 6% for one particular statewide office. We breathed a sigh of relief… that is until a couple of days later when Secretary of State, Jim Douglas (later to become governor) announced that the Liberty Union total for that office was tallied at about 3.5%. The AP ran a retraction of their earlier report. 

            After over a decade of Major Party status, Liberty Union became a Minor Party until 2 years later when the Party won back its major party status. 

            There was great skepticism about the initial report later being changed, not only because we just did not want to believe it, but also because when we looked at tallies from individual towns, they were incongruent with aggregate totals. Adding to the perception of a fix: Leading up to the election, Secretary Douglas had continually complained that his job was complicated by there being too many parties on the ballot. He dramatized his distain for what he considered an oversized ballot by calling it a “bed sheet ballot.”  

            Peter recruited a number of people, including myself and my partner, as plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that, in fact, Liberty Union had achieved more than 5% of that vote and a court order requiring that the State of Vermont recognize Liberty Union as a Major Party.

            I had no courtroom experience, other than having been a misdemeanor criminal defendant three times in the past. I learned a lot from being involved in this case challenging an election result.

            Peter asked each of us to write a Memorandum of Law, expressing our opinions. Peter said that what we would be writing is not really a Memorandum of Law, but he wanted us to present our views to the Court and that we could title it as a Memorandum of Law as a means to get it before the judge. What did I know? I had never even heard the term, “Memorandum of Law.” 

            The trial was a completely new experience for me. Some of it was fascinating and there were humorous moments. During a break, Peter told us that, “When we return it will be time for oral arguments.” 

            “And when do we get to make anal arguments?” asked Lisa Steckler, a Plaintiff whom a couple of years later was nominated as the Liberty Union Gubernatorial candidate, and received 8 or 9% of the vote thus assuring renewed Major Party status.

            I had a chance to examine Secretary Douglas under oath, and asked him how much he is paid as Secretary of State. He replied, “$40,000 a year,” grousing that it is so little. To me, scrounging to get by with a $5 an hour job, that was quite a large salary, and I was astounded that he sounded totally sincere in his complaint. 

            Douglas’ personality surprised me. He obviously was not happy to be forced into court, but he showed not the slightest personal animosity. In fact, he was relaxed, friendly, and cracked jokes. For me it was a revelation that by exercising your legal rights, you can force even a state official to answer your questions.  

            Later, Fred Herbert explained to me that Peter believed that it is important to demystify the legal process, and to get people involved with courts over relatively safe matters so that if they ever find themselves on trial for something serious, they will have some familiarity with the process, and be less vulnerable to becoming overawed by the majestic ambiance of a courtroom and frozen with fear. 

            The heart of our case — the mathematic incongruity of the numbers — was pursued by Plaintiff Judson Best Hall of Westminster. Judd questioned Chris Graff, then head of the Vermont Associated Press. Prior to the trial, Peter had served what he called a “Subpoena Duces Tecum,” demanding that Graff bring as evidence the reports which came in to the state AP from each polling station. Graff, who in college had been roommate of Jim Douglas, said that they write the vote tally from each site on a piece of paper; and that as a matter of routine, after the election they discard these papers. 

            Hall, using a blackboard, then gave a lengthy presentation showing that, mathematically, the numbers did not make sense. The defense attorney was getting annoyed and kept trying to interrupt Judd telling him to, “get to the point!” Judd would then reply: “This is the point,” and then he continued to drone on. 

            After the trial, I told Fred Herbert that I think Judd had antagonized the Judge, and that it is too bad that he did not know how to present his main argument concisely. 

            Fred responded that he loved what Judd had done. “No matter what evidence we presented or how we presented it, the court was going to rule against us. So at least I had the satisfaction of watching Judd annoy all of them for an hour.” 

            In the end, the Judge agreed that we had presented evidence that the count had been inaccurate, but he still ruled against us on what I thought was a flawed definition. The judge said that we were charging that the result of the election was inaccurate, but he insisted that the “result” of an election means which candidate was elected. He said that the percentage of the vote that a losing candidate received is not a “result.” 

            I was pretty outraged. Of course it was a result since it changed Liberty Union’s official status, thus denying the Party significant benefits for the next two years. 

            It is late now, and I need to go to sleep. More Diamondstone/Liberty Union stories are percolating in my mind, so perhaps I will write them up as a series. 

            Good night!

            Samuel Clemens 

          • "Secrecy hath no use than divulgation"

            When I told Chris Grotke last summer (2016) that I thought I knew who the person was behind the new name on iBrattleboro of “Mark Twain” making personal attacks against me, he said I was wrong because he (Chris) said he knew who “Mark Twain” was. Know I know why.

            It is true that I had a sense that there was a familiar pattern to the language used by “Mark Twain.” When the “Jamie” name suddenly cropped up and joined with “Mark Twain” with a similar pattern of speech it was evident to me that there was more behind the names not easily discernible when dealing pseudonyms (or alias is more like it).

            I know with certainty that the person who wrote this Peter Diamondstone “tribute” under the name “Samuel Clemens” is known to our readers on iBrattleboro as “SK-B.”

            I traced and matched elements of his speech patterns by searching for them in Google. Lo and behold they are readily found here in the comment section on iBrattlboro article from 2011,
            The original story is by “cgrotke” and you can scroll down and read the comment by SK- B under “Speaking of Magic” here:

            Speaking of Magic
            Authored by: SK-B on Thursday, June 23 2011 @ 03:23 AM GMT+4
            I applied for a job at the Common Grounds, was interviewed by two members of the Collective , and because of a misunderstanding, thought that I had been accepted. As it turned out, I probably earned the distinction of being the only person in history who was rejected even as a potential dishwasher at the Common Grounds. My mistaken belief that I had a job was fortuitous, as it gave us the confidence to rent and apartment, rent a U-Haul, and make brattleboro our home town. As it turned out, the people who were most welcoming to us were native Vermonters. Other “transplants,” who had arrived a couple of years before us, seemed to be of the philosophy: “Last one in, shut the door!” My persona continued to be that of a New Yorker, it was involuntary. I talked too fast, I was too nervous. Some people reacted to me as though I were untrustworthy or undesirable. Thank G-d, there were also people who saw through the superficial, and embraced me for my true values and humanity. These included Peter and Doris Diamonstone, Fred and Mal Herbert, Heubener Wellman, Emily and Wally White.

            I am certain the person who wrote this “Speaking of Magic” in 2011 is the same one who wrote this Peter Diamondstone “tribute” above under the name of “Mark Twain.” It is indeed a “nice tribute just as “Jamie” requested earlier here on September 8, 2017 – 5:01pm, when “he” asked, “Can you share a story regarding your time with Mr Diamondstone, M. Twain?”

            The ongoing teamwork personal attacks by “Mark Twain, Jamie and SK-B” are astonishing by anyone’s standards. They portray a depth of emotional foulmouthed vitriol about and towards me far beyond the bounds of decency and which is unrecognizable to my friends, family and associates who really know me well. Yet, I don’t know whether to be flattered or disgusted, but taken as a whole, it is a remarkable thing to have a target painted on your back by snipers of persons unknown… until now.

            My “magic” feeling about Brattleboro and iBrattleboro is not diminished. I hope our readers can read the story from the link I provided above written by Chris Grotke about the 10th anniversary of when Chris and Lise “said goodbye to Somerville and made brattleboro our new home.” Take a look at the old and familiar names in the comment section in reply to Chris’ article. It is a charming step back into time (including SK-B’s comment).

            Good morning. My name is Vidda Crochetta. There are 12,000 stories in the town of Brattleboro and this has been one of them.

          • look at me, look at me!

            I keep revisiting ibrattleboro in the hopes that I might encounter Intelligent community conversation, but instead it’s filled with Vidda’s self important screeds. For lack of anything else to read I click on the story.

            A key difference between Crochetta and Diamondstone is that one of them is interested in a cause larger than himself while the other is interested in self promotion and self aggrandizement. Vidda’s Occasional musings on feminism, for example, are less about feminism and more about Vidda. In short, its all Vidda.

            Sure, my vitriolic rants are extreme, but I cant sit idly by while an opportunistic tool hijacks a tribute to a person worthy of our respect.

          • A moving tribute


          • The fixation

            Well, thank you for reading all my articles and apparently none of the others. And here I thought you were merely “neither here nor there.”

            Listen to your own words:

            I keep revisiting ibrattleboro in the hopes that I might encounter Intelligent community conversation, but instead it’s filled with Vidda’s self important screeds. For lack of anything else to read I click on the story.

            I just now quickly counted 21 articles on page one of iBrattleboro. There must be a hundred fresh recent articles available to read!!

            Aside from badmouthing me, you just insulted everyone who took the time to present their articles as “lack of anything else to read.”

            Additionally, nothing you say about me makes sense. Clearly you and Mark Twain have hijacked this article. I expressed my opinion in a comment and was done with it until the two of you reared your ugly heads. You keep pushing the phony it’s “all about me/self promotion” bullshit when anyone would think once was enough.

            Nothing you describe about has anything do with me, and wouldn’t you know it, it’s really all about you! lol!!

            Until you just jumped in, again, I was hoping to hear from the real author of the PD tribute, which i actually liked. Moreover, you’re so fixated with me that you wrote your “screed” about me before you complimented the PD tribute as “wonderful,” as if it were really just an afterthought. LOL!

            What’s neat about your comments is that they are incredibly repetitious. So I’ll go out on a limb and say, tentatively, that I need not bother about you, and let you just blather on.

            You, whoever you really are, really are “neither here nor there”. Yea!

          • Here, there, and everywhere

            if only it were as simple as avoiding your articles. the issue is that you hijack other articles to further your egocentric rants. for example, who can forget the time you posted a disgraceful and disrespectful diatribe in response to a benign community announcement posted by the Brattleboro Area Jewish Community. But this is only one of many examples., and your posting here is only the latest example. you are a looming presence and it discourages others from participating.

            I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the reason why we do not see more intelligent conversation on this website (notice I didn’t say articles) Has a lot to do with you.

          • Working through your problem

            Not I or anyone else said that this end of era article about Peter is about me…except you of course, who has made it a phony issue as a component of your vitriol. Since most people reading this are unaware that I know you, they wouldn’t know that I am a substitute target for the real issue in your life that took place prior to living where you are now. Perhaps you would benefit from one of the therapists who work at the Retreat. I hope for your sake you consider it.

            Your Jamie teammate, on the otherhand, is neither here nor there as “he” curiously only appears on this site when you do. The character Jaime’s claim to agree with you is simply you agreeing with yourself.

            Stating Peter was a “better man” than me is as empty as comparing apples and oranges. However, I’m sure your stated long relationship with him should make for an interesting “tribute.”

            Remember, I know a lot of people around town, longstanding town members who also knew Peter.

  • Liberty Union Meeting

    FWIW, the regular monthly L/U meeting will be today (Sunday, 9/10/17) from 1-5 at the Co-op meeting room, upstairs from the store.

Leave a Reply