Good evening. Welcome to this evening's candidate forum presented by the Bridge and Orca Media. I'm John Holler, this evening's moderator. This is the first in a series of forums that are sponsored by the Bridge and Orca Media that are intended to provide candidates with the opportunity to share their views and to make their case to voters as to why they should be elected. Tonight we have candidates running for Barry Washington to House Legislative District, which has two seats. This is the first in a series of forums that will be held here. Now before introducing the three candidates we have with us, I want to go over the format. So we've asked the public to provide us with questions in advance and we've used those in developing the questions that we're going to ask tonight. We'll also be taking calling questions, a volunteer will write down those questions and put them on to me. We'll ask as many questions as we can fit in during the hour that we have allotted for this forum. Candidates, we're not given the questions in advance. If you have a question that you'd like us to ask, please feel free to call in. It's<PHONE_NUMBER>. Again, that number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Each candidate will have two minutes to introduce themselves, to explain why they're running or marks. After that, candidates will have a minute and a half to answer each question and then at the end, each of them will have one minute to give a closing statement. I may make minor adjustments as we go along should those be needed. This isn't a debate so the candidates won't be questioning each other. We have a timer in the studio that will help candidates keep track of how much time they have left for each of their comments. After the opening statements will randomly vary the order that candidates are called on. Let me briefly introduce the candidates before turning it over to them to give an opening statement. So first on the left here is Tom Kelly, Republican for Berry City. Second in the middle here is Jonathan Williams, Democrat for Berry City. And on the right is Peter Anthony, Democrat for Berry City. There's a fourth candidate running, Brian Judd, Republican for Berry City who is not here this evening. Apparently chose not to be here. So let me start with opening statements and we'll start with the left. Tom, do you want to lead us off here? Two minutes please for your opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Holler. I would like to begin in a different way by mentioning a topic that I believe has not received balanced coverage in the Vermont media, Article 22 or Proposal 5, which if passed would add to the Vermont Constitution a right to quote personal reproductive autonomy. I have spoken to numerous Berry voters who were unaware and uninformed about this proposed addition to the Vermont Constitution. A free unbiased press would challenge the proponents of the amendment with tough questions. It should not be ushered in without real debate. Sounds okay on the surface, but I would ask voters to take a closer look. We should avoid tinkering with our state's most permanent and hardest to change law when the proposal is one, two extreme, two uncertain and vague, and three unnecessary. I'm going to go over these three points very briefly. Two extreme. The amendment would most certainly enshrine the taking of innocent human life up to the moment of birth. Most Vermonters are not okay with that. Some I have spoken to did not know that that was currently the state of the law anyway. The amendment would forbid any effort to prevent late term abortions. You should vote no because it's too extreme. The amendment does not mention the word, it's also too vague. The amendment does not mention the word abortion, the word woman or gender or any age. This was intentional. They told us the courts will decide the meaning of personal reproductive autonomy in all contexts. We simply don't know where the clever lawyers and unelected judges will take this amendment. And finally, it's unnecessary. Title 18 chapter 223 explicitly prohibits any legislation which would curb abortion. Even without any law on the books, there are zero restrictions or even regulations of abortions in Vermont. The statute that I just mentioned prevents the enactment of any restriction. You should vote no on this amendment because it is unnecessary. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Jonathan. Thank you, John, and thank my thanks to Orca and the bridge for hosting us tonight. My name is Jonathan Williams, and I'm running to be your next Berry City State Representative. I'm running because I see every day how much Berry does for our surrounding communities and for Vermont.  I work for the Vermont Food Bank, a Berry organization, and so many of my coworkers and our volunteers all live and work in the city. You know, for years I've helped distribute food to people in need. And now more than ever before, so many of the resources and the leadership that the state requires is based right in Berry. Organizations like Capstone, CVABE, Down Street, the Health and Wellness Center, and others all headquartered where we live, work, and celebrate. But we need to change how the state works. We need to make it easier for Berry to lead the way. We need to make it easier for individuals and families who struggle with things like housing and hunger and homelessness and poor health and employment. Not just one-time aid, but sustained support for those businesses, nonprofits, and municipalities that are on the front lines every day helping our neighbors in need. I am originally from New Jersey. I moved to Vermont to go to school after serving in the United States Peace Corps. And I have spent my entire adult life trying to make Vermont a better place for everyone, for all of our neighbors. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Peter. Thank you very much, John. And again, like my colleague, thank the bridge and Orca for the opportunity. I will be running for my third term. I have to say, as part of my opening statement, I was flabbergasted, thrilled at the first two terms. There is no time in legislative history, I am told, where we had so much uncertainty, so much going on. Not only did we, because of COVID, were unable to get out and campaign and meet with voters in 2020, but it happened to be time for the disennial reapportionment. We had a meltdown of the state employee's pension. We had a record number of vetoes by the chief executive, which, needless to say, was disappointing to the majority of the legislature. In a couple of cases, we came within a couple of votes of having, if you will, past child care bills, medical leave bills, family leave bills, our down payment on essentially clean heat and climate change. And each of those were a disappointment. It was including, I might add, the pension bill, which was vetoed. That was one of the exceptions. Overwhelmingly, that is to say, unanimously overridden by both parties, members, all 150 members of the House. I come out of a tradition of a local government, and that's where I believe my strength is in my service to the city of Barry, add to which my four years of experience already in the House, and thank you very much for the opportunity. Thank you, Peter. All right, the first question is, what is the most important legislative issue facing your district? And if you're elected, what would you do to address it? And the order of this in response to this question will be Peter, you'll be first, Tom, and then Jonathan. Certainly housing in the city of Barry, coupled with the grand list. As many people know, the city of Barry is a full service community. The emergency services consume half and then some of the city budget, which does not leave a lot of wiggle room for us to invest in grant programs to improve the housing stock. Unfortunately, there was an attempt by the legislature to take this statewide. Barry has already had a rental registry. We tried to do that statewide to take some of the pressure off Barry and older communities from people seeking housing. That failed. We are very proud we have a registry, but the amount of funds and allowable building lots in order to apply those funds is very limited in an older community. So we will keep working at it, but this is a very difficult situation. A lot of existing housing has already been bought up by people who actually have removed it from the permanent housing market. And that is something we want to reverse, but it is not something that's regularly easy. Thank you, Tom. I would say the cost of living is is a an issue that Barry voters are concerned about. And I must say I'm not entirely sure what the legislature can do about that. The we we one thing I could say I believe the state has received an influx of of covert dollars. I think the tax burden is is a serious concern and has an impact on the cost of living. So I think we should do what we can do to reduce the tax burden. And the reason I mentioned the covert dollars is because while they're there to be spent, they should be spent on programs that like like infrastructure and not new programming that will require additional funding. I also think the schools the funding of the schools is is a burden to the community and the teacher student ratio we should help our communities reduce that the inflation is driven also by national policy. And I think what individuals can do is vote with that in mind when they vote for for folks running for national office. Milton Friedman said inflation is made in Washington and only Washington can create money and and any other attribution to inflation is is wrong. Thank you. Jonathan. Thank you, John. And I would echo the sentiments of my friend Peter that housing is the issue that I hear from folks again and again when I am door knocking in Berry City. I think there are things that the legislature can do to make it more affordable to live in Berry City, both for renters and homeowners. We can certainly tweak Act 250 to alleviate some of the requirements for downtown municipalities, make it easier for new housing projects and developments to go up. I think we can tax corporations that are buying up a lot of the housing stock in Berry. Berry is blessed with a significant amount of housing stock, but it is a lot of it older and needs an infusion of cash and resources. Tom was referring to the COVID monies. Those are ARPA dollars. My work at the food bank is exclusively devoted to drawing down millions of American Rescue Plan Act dollars for persons in need to make sure that those who struggle with hunger have access to food. And I believe we can invest those monies very smartly in our housing stock. There's a number of things we can do, restricting Airbnb from operating in our municipalities such that persons can still afford the homes that they are. We have a right to have access to affordable housing in Berry. And I think we can do quite a bit to make that, to do some quick fixes to make things easier for folks. Thank you. The 2020 national presidential election and the challenges to the legitimacy election have become a very divisive and ongoing issue nationally. But I want to ask you each as about your views about it because I think that also has resulted in a lot of questions about electoral policies at the state level and likely to play out here in Vermont. So question I have for each of you is whether you believe that President Biden was legitimately elected president in 2020 and if not to explain your position. And related to that, I'd ask you if you support the policy of providing mail-in ballots to all voters, which I believe everyone received in this past week. So in response to this question, we'll go with Tom first, Jonathan and then Peter. In the midst of COVID, there was an effort nationally to mail out ballots, which may or may not have been necessary. But then on the heels of COVID, the Vermont legislature enacted legislation which required for general elections everyone to get a ballot. I don't think that's wise policy and I wish it could be reversed. I don't know if the legislature will be of such a mind to do that this coming session, but I don't think it's necessary for every person to get a ballot. I have no problem with ballots that would be requested. Absentee ballots are fine, but as far as the outcome of the election, I think there's legitimate questions about the election. And what happened? The circumstantial evidence is quite persuasive that there were irregularities. And I think a thinking person can question. But the president of the United States is Mr. Biden and I respect that that's the way it is. And I think we should have a voting day instead of a voting season. People are getting their ballots 40 days out before they even really get a chance to dive into the... And I know they can keep them for long, but I think it's unwise policy to provide the ballots that far from the election. Thank you. Jonathan. Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president of the United States. I don't think there is any solid evidence at all to question that. The Secretary of State's website in Vermont has a really great page dedicated to combating misinformation. And they, even in Vermont, of any of the ballots called in to question, only one out of 370,000 ballots cast was determined to be irregular. That's less than one one-hundredth of one percent. Voting fraud is not an issue in Vermont, nor do I believe it is an issue nationwide. I am all about providing access to folks who need, who want to engage in our civic life and our voting processes, but can't because they are homebound older adults, seniors, persons with disabilities. I think it is very, very difficult to conduct voter fraud in Vermont. And there are so many steps that would need to, so many chances that would need to occur in order for a ballot to be miscast. I think the ballots should be mailed out. I think folks should have every opportunity to register to vote and to vote in as easy a way as they can. Thank you. Peter. Thank you, John. Just to go back, Recap, your first question was, am I convinced that President Biden was elected legitimately? The answer is yes. And also, do I think that mail-in ballots should continue to be mailed? I do. I'd like to go back a little bit to people's memory. For those of you who forgot, COVID struck in March of 2020. It was right on the heels of town meeting. Fortunately, that election had passed before the Vermont Commissioner of Public Health said, we have an emergency here. The legislature went to work and said, well, how are we going to proceed in 2010 with primaries and the fall election? The answer, we're going to rearrange it so you do not have to go to your polling place. That was an act of public health necessity. The feedback I got was, gee, this is pretty neat. It's fine to request it, but what if I forget? But I really cannot come that day. Too bad. Well, that's not right. Too bad is not an excuse. So I'm in favor of continuing the mail ballots for all registered voters ahead of time. And I would remind everyone that there is actually a federal law that requires the secretary of state to have ballots for the military out a certain number. It's 40 plus days. So that has to happen whether we want it in Vermont or not. Thanks. Thank you. I wanted to move on to another topic, and that is climate change. The effects of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent in Vermont and the rest of the world. I don't believe there's any real scientific debate about the impact of climate change now and the effect of carbon emissions on climate. Vermont has taken a number of steps to address it. I want to ask each of you whether you believe Vermont should take additional steps to reduce carbon emissions in this state. And on this question, we'll start with Jonathan, go to Peter and then Tom. Thank you, John. I, with all due respect to my colleagues here tonight, I think I'm the only person under the age of 40 running for this running for a house seat in Berry City. I have faced the real threat of climate change my entire life growing up from watching Captain Planet on Saturday morning cartoons to serving as an environmental education volunteer in the Peace Corps. Climate change is real. It is the single most critical devastating issue that we are called upon to address as Vermonters as Americans. I think we have done quite a bit here in Vermont. I believe that we can do more. I believe that we can adopt the clean heat standard, which is not an increase on those with low to moderate incomes in expense. I think it makes things more affordable and lessens our dependence on foreign oil exports, which are subject to the volatility of world events like the war in Ukraine. I think we need to make sure that low income Vermonters can afford things like heat pumps and electric cars. And I think this issue is a holistic one. It concerns food security. It concerns economic security. It concerns our education standards, literally everything that we do now moving forward until the end of my life must be directed at.  Thank you. Peter. Thank you, John. I was, of course, present at the moment of the veto and failure to override the clean heat standard bill. And it was a great blow. We failed by one vote as it happens. Really a tragedy. But let me go back to the wider, if you will, issue. I was fortunate to attend one of the early rollout meetings by the agency of natural resources talking about their strategy, which is already, if you will, adopted, codified to attack transportation. For those folks who don't follow the debate, we're really talking about major contributors, a third roughly transportation, a third home heating, and the other miscellaneous sources. We're well on our way with the agency of natural resources to literally get out of gasoline and diesel by 2035. That's great. What we failed to do, as my colleague has mentioned, is attack the home heating contribution. That will return for sure. It is hoped that we will get some affirmative suggestion urging support from the administration. That was what was missing. We were flying blind in the legislature in the sense that the administration had not participated in that bill, and yet they veered it. So we'll be back. Stay tuned. And that's the section, the sector that really needs some attention right now. Come. Thank you. Proponents of the Global Warming Solutions Act have admitted candidly that Vermont cannot stop climate change. In fact, Scott Campbell was quoted in a published article in an email. Scott Campbell, a representative. No one, least of all me, believes Vermont can stop climate change. The Global Warming Solutions Act will not mitigate climate change. So the governor was correct in vetoing, and I'm happy to say it was affirmed, the veto was, and I'm hoping to go to the legislature to support him in similar matters. We're risking economic ruin with no payoff. And an Obama appointee and undersecretary of the Department of Energy wrote a book called Unsettled, referring to the science of climate change. And he wrote as follows. It's clear the media, politicians, and often the assessment reports themselves blatantly misrepresent what the science says about climate and catastrophes. Science is never not open to debate. It can be questioned. And there should be a discussion about the underlying causes of warming, but it's not an imminent catastrophe. Despite the media and political narrative, that's my time's up. If I may respond to that, John? I'm going to give you a chance, Jonathan. No, because this is really not a debate, and he hasn't referenced you specifically. So if you'd like to throw that in during your allotted time, that would be fine. Appreciate it. All right, so I'm going to move back to housing. A couple of you, Peter and Jonathan mentioned housing as a priority issue in Berry City. So I'm assuming that you do, when you did say that you supported the legislature doing more to promote housing development in Vermont. I want to talk a little bit more specifically about that. Often the housing issues have resulted in debates between environmental community and the housing advocates and trade-offs. And I want to ask you if you would be willing, if you, well, two-part question, what specific measures would you support? Jonathan, you mentioned better development in downtown areas, and the second would be, would you support those even in light of opposition from environmental organizations who in the past have insisted on trade-offs, that is, tightening Act 250 in some areas in exchange for loosening it in downtown areas, which I think has resulted in nothing happening in terms of the policy changes you're talking about? So what would your position be if it came down to that kind of a trade-off between promoting housing development in urban areas versus tightening it outside? I don't know if that's clear, but I'm trying to get at kind of how far would you support those policies in the face of opposition from the environmental community. All right, so on this one, Jonathan, you're going to go first, Tom and then Peter. Yeah, thank you, John. You know, Berry City is a city in Vermont, and so we are quite urbanized relative to the rest of our state. And I think we can strike a balance between ensuring that we preserve the natural spaces that we all know and love. It's the height of foliage season right now. It's beautiful outside. While welcoming those who want to move to Vermont, we all spoke of climate change. Climate refugees are already a reality here, and it is going to get worse. The seasons change more rapidly. As we sit here and talk now, a good portion of Florida is still underwater due to a recent hurricane that was devastating in its effects. So we need to strike a balance between providing for housing, making things affordable for folks who live in Berry City, while also preserving the natural spaces like the cow pasture in Berry, where I walk my dogs. I believe we can do it. We must do it. We cannot change the beauty that is Vermont. We cannot endanger the wildlife that makes it such a wonderful place to live here. But we must prepare and must continue to address an influx of persons who are seeking homes who want to live here. And that would better our economy simultaneously. Thank you. Thank you. John. I'm sorry. Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah, Tom, you're next. So I think the pendulum has swung so far in the last 50 years to the side of away from human flourishing here that I think we should take a look at some of the regulations. I think we can take care of our environment at the same time. I also want to point out that the governor signed a bill passed by the legislature, actually two of them, S226 and S210 that called for reform of Act 250 and incentives to developers. I think we need to consult more with the private sector and identify how the government may be getting in the way of the market meeting the need for housing. And I think we should see how those two bills will produce success in our state. Thank you. Thank you. Peter. Thank you, John. For the city of Barrie, the question you posed or the dilemma, I should say, is really for me a non-issue. And I say that because every single proposal that involves Act 250 land use planning revisions insisted upon changes in density at the state level have not offended Barrie's pathway. We do have an approved plan. We have zoning. We have density requirements. We have complied with every revision that the legislature has insisted upon where your question bites, if you will. And I concede it does. The question is, is the collision frankly with what we treasure as a landscape, its farms, forests, living off the land and the potential for McMansions to arrive because the threat of the market depends on people with lots of money. And there are people with lots of money who want to come to Vermont because it's unspoiled. And the question is, how far do you want the unspoiled to, if you will, displace what we have as our advantage in the name of tourism? And that is a real problem. And I certainly will try and strike a balance, but I am in no way going to Katie Bar the door to the market. That's been the ruin of many a resort area that once was desirable precisely because it was aesthetically and physically and naturally attractive. Thanks. Thank you. Tom spoke pretty sensibly in his opening comments about Article 22 that is a proposed amendment passed by the legislature, I believe, over two sessions to the Vermont Constitution that guarantees individuals reproductive autonomy. I know Tommy's made extensive comments about your opposition to it and I'll let you elaborate on this as well. I would also like to get the responses, views from Jonathan and Peter as well. So on this one, we'll go with Tom first, then Peter and then Jonathan. Well, I feel real strongly about it that it's at first really unnecessary. I have a statute that prohibits it was enacted in 2019, I believe, that says the legislature and the executive branch and the judiciary should not interfere with abortion. And the word abortion is actually mentioned. And so the only reason the only way for that to go away with there would have to be some legislation to repeal it and the governor would have to agree to that repeal it would seem to me. I don't think that's likely and even if that did go away for there to be restrictions in Vermont, there would have to be affirmative legislation to impose such restrictions. My point is if there was no legislation on the books and no amendment, which was true until 2019, there were no restrictions in Vermont at all on abortion. So it's at first unnecessary. It also enshrines a right to an abortion up to the end of the term, which I think is so extreme and frankly barbaric. And it's not a statement of values which a constitution is that Vermont holds. So I think it's wrong to do this and I'm hoping and praying that the people of Vermont will say no to Article 22. If they don't, our prayer to end abortion will continue. Thank you, Tom. I got thrown off a little bit because my chart here has four candidates and we only have three. So we had Tom Peter and then Jonathan. Thank you very much, John. I did preside in the government operations committee with extensive hearings on both sides of the issue. It is true that by statute there is non-interference, if you will, in personal reproductive choices including any and all chemical and medical surgical treatments. However, every year that I'm aware of there have been five bills introduced in the legislature. And so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that that, if you will, repetitive attack on women's right to control the medical treatments that they elect to have or not have is constantly under scrutiny. The value of the constitution is that, frankly, a statute cannot trumpet. And I'd go a little bit further. You probably are aware that there has been introduced in Congress a national attempt to statutorily pave the way for regulation of abortion. I can tell you with certain surety that if the Vermont protection of personal medical treatment choice including reproductive medical treatment is adopted, no federal statute can trump a Vermont constitution article. And I support it. Thank you. Okay, moving on to... Oh, I'm sorry. Let's just skip over there. Sorry about that. Yes. So, yes, I echo the sentiments of my colleague and friend Peter. I support Prop 5 Article 22. You know, the difficult decision to have an abortion should be exclusively the purview of an individual and their healthcare provider. I do not think that we should limit access to reproductive services or abortion care in this state. I think we need to be more proactive about providing protections to those seeking abortions. I am very grateful to have the endorsement of Planned Parenthood and I wear it with a badge of honor. 70% of people in Vermont support Prop 5 Article 22. It has gone through two years in the legislature, an entire legislative biennium. It has been vetted by Peter and many others. You know, there are no late-term abortions performed in Vermont after 22 weeks unless there is a danger to the individual carrying the child unless there is a real threat to their life. And so, you know, when people talk about late-term abortions, this fear of late-term abortions, it's a red herring. And we need to do our best to provide abortion care in Vermont for those not just in Vermont here, but those seeking abortion from other states where it has been inappropriately restricted by those states' governments. Thank you. Thank you. So now I want to turn to another issue that might generate just as much emotion in Vermont as abortion and that is gun control. Do you believe the legislature should enact further regulations on the purchase of firearms such as assault weapons and elaborate on any views you have about that? And this time we're going to start with Jonathan, then Tom and then Peter. Yes, I am in favor of an assault weapon ban. When it comes to gun reform, you know, I am fully supportive of Vermont's sportsmen's culture. Fishing and hunting is a way of life for many folks here, but I don't think assault weapons need to play a part in that. They are far more deadly and frightening and difficult to use than many other types of firearms. I also would like to see the end to online sales that exploit loopholes for one-on-one gun sales between an individual and a purchaser, such that background checks don't need to be performed. I think, you know, we can strike a balance between ensuring folks can continue to hunt and fish.  What's interesting to me is that hunting licenses have gone down over the years, but firearm purchases have gone up. And that says to me that folks who value and learn the proper use and storage of firearms, that valuable education is not being transmitted from generation to generation, and that concerns me. Thank you. Peter. I am, I, too, am against open use and the value of assault weapons. I cannot see any purpose other than in a military scenario, and that's not something I want to import into civilian life. I, like a lot of people, were crestfallen at the failure to have reformed, if you will, the waiting period, so that there wasn't the default that if the report did not come back in a certain number of days, I believe it was six, that the permit to purchase would automatically be rendered. And that had tragic consequences, both in the Charlotte loophole as it's come to be known, and also in the situation involving the student at Fairhaven. That was close. That was a very close call in the sense that it was not clear whether that student, as it turned out, could have purchased a firearm. We were, we were very fortunate that, in fact, the report did come back in time, that that was prevented. But frankly, that loophole was part of a larger bill, which unfortunately was not adopted, and I will support returning to that. So the default is not someone who can buy a firearm, but otherwise is frankly ineligible. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. I don't think we need more gun laws. Guns are not the problem. The people that use them are the problem. The Second Amendment wasn't crafted to be sure we could have a good weekend hunting. The Governor, Governor Scott actually signed an initiative today, October 5th, an executive order, that reconstituted the Violence Prevention Task Force. It's headed by Dee Berrick. She was a state police officer. She's now known as the Director of Violence Prevention. She's been, I think, in that position since September. But among other things, this task force will identify needed reforms of existing criminal justice laws, regulations, policies, and advocate for legislative and programmatic changes. I believe they're going to be looking at school safety and other things along those lines. So that's what I support. Let's take a look at what we need to do. But I don't think we need more gun laws. Thank you. This is an issue that I think has had some discussion recently in Barry, and that is the question of racism in our communities in the state. Do you think the state legislature has a role in addressing the legacy of racism in Vermont and its ongoing impacts in this state and in its communities? This time we're going to go Peter, Jonathan, and Tom. Thank you, John. Yes, again, in government operations we heard lots of testimony. Sad stories. They may be outliers. They may not be outliers. And the issue here is what is a person's redress, whether it's in the context of the workplace or school. I think the legislature has traditionally treated Vermont a little bit leniently in the sense that it has assumed that we're all good folks and that doesn't happen here. Sadly, the testimony I heard says it does happen here. And we beefed up, if you will, with personnel and funding, the Office of Diversity at the state level as a resource for local folks. And that's, at the moment, the best we could do, if you will, with the support of the administration. Yes, I take it seriously. And yes, I have heard stories in Barrie that are very disturbing. Thank you. Jonathan. Thank you, John. You know, systemic racism is very real. BIPOC individuals in Vermont are much more likely to be pulled over. Black Americans are three times more likely to then be searched by a law enforcement officer in the state of Vermont. And this is something I can speak to with a great deal of confidence in my figures. BIPOC individuals in Vermont are much more likely to be economically insecure and food insecure than white Vermonters. There is so much that we can do as communities in Barrie City and statewide to ensure that our neighbors who are in need, who are suffering because of institutions that were built or founded on racist principles, you know, we can do so much. And I have learned that we can do so much more working at the Vermont Food Bank where we go out of our way to address those root causes of hunger and like economic insecurity, which BIPOC individuals in Vermont, refugees and migrants are much more likely to experience. Why not help our neighbors in need who are struggling because the system itself is unfair? And I will do everything in my power to make sure that our partners, our friends, our neighbors are welcomed and made to feel safe and respected in Barrie and in the state. Thank you. Thank you. Tom. I think to some extent it's demeaning to suggest that people of different races are subject to systemic racism. It's so vague. I suggest that people viewing this video check out two films that Larry Elder has produced. One is called Uncle Tom and one is called Uncle Tom too. And they make a very persuasive case that systemic racism is not real and I just leave it at that. Take a look at those two films. I haven't heard any persuasive argument that there's systemic racism in this state. I'd like to turn to the topic of economic development. Vermont has struggled at times to attract new investment to grow jobs in this state. What role would you play in the legislature in promoting economic development in your community or statewide? And this time we're going to start with you, Tom. Go to Peter and then Jonathan. Well, I think I've alluded to this a minute ago about the market. I think we should trust the market for things like employment. So who would drive the creation of jobs? And I think we should look to employers and businesses and maybe try to find out why they aren't coming to this state. We need to improve the economic environment for businesses so that they come here and stay here. And, you know, I mean we all heard about the $10,000 payment to entice people to come up here to Vermont to work from their homes. And I think we need to do more to bring real, you know, blue collar jobs to our communities, particularly Berry City and Berry Town, which would benefit Berry City. So I think that's what we need to do. And I would support any effort to work with employers, whether they're in the state or out of the state. I think Lieutenant Governor Duby had that as a mission one time when he was Lieutenant Governor. And I think I would encourage more of that to create that environment. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Oh, did you want Peter to go? Oh, did I? Well, let's say I lost track. I'm sorry, you're right. It was Tom and Peter, sorry. Okay, thank you, John. I have two observations. I think we are far, far advantage superior in the area of specialty manufacturing. That's why we have roughly 10% of our GDP is in manufacturing. And that has shrunk as more traditional industries like Granite have declined, partly from imports. I think specialty manufacturing will and can expand. It has two constraints, which the legislature has started to work on. Workforce training. We have not created a bridge for people who do not go to college, who graduate from the Spalding High School or the Central Monk Career Center. We have not created a, if you like, transition into apprenticeship programs, workforce training programs or community college that weds, if you will, an associate degree with the trades, training in the trades. That's one constraint we're working on. The other constraint I've already talked about is housing. You want to encourage young people to stay here. Where are they going to make a down payment on an affordable house when they are fighting with student loans? They don't clearly have a career path and they don't have an insurance of a job or a credential. Thank you. May I respond? Yes, sure. Thank you. Yeah, this is my bread and butter. I love talking economic development. I think the state can do a lot more to support organizations like Bury Area Development and the Bury Partnership. The Bury Partnership operates low interest loans for businesses in our city to purchase facilities, to pay rent, to make equipment purchases, to pay salaries, that sort of thing. I think we can do a lot more to support those local economic development entities, chambers of commerce, regional planning commissions, that are making it easier for businesses to do business in Bury and statewide. I think I, as a town administrator, have applied for every alphabet soup, government grant and loan under the sun for both the food bank and for municipalities that I've worked in across the state, Palm Creek, Calis, Essex Junction. We need to make it easier for businesses and nonprofits to tap into the money that is already there, those ARPA dollars that we talked about earlier.  Whereas communities like Bury that don't necessarily have the staffing or the bandwidth who are reliant on volunteers are able to, are struggling because we can't tap into those funds. The money is there. We just need to cut through the red tape. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Jonathan. This is probably going to be our last question. So let's talk for a second about education. I know we're covering a lot of ground here. It's going to be difficult to respond fully in a minute and a half. But I want to talk a little bit about both education spending and the way we raise money. We spend a lot of money in Vermont near the top of all the states at more than $20,000 per student. Do you believe that we're getting a good return on our investment? And the second part of this question is, do you think we need to change the way that we fund education in this state? So the best you could do in a minute and a half, and we'll go in this one with Jonathan, you'll be first, Peter, then Tom. A minute and a half to answer this question. Yes, I do think there are fixes we can make. We need to tweak how the monies travel from are collected in the municipalities and then doled out, collected by the state, and then doled out to school systems. I think we can do a better job in lowering cost per students. If we tweak that, it'll take much longer than the time I have remaining to delve into that. I think we need to make sure that we are paying teachers a thriving wage, not just a minimum wage increase, but a thriving wage for our educators. My sister is an educator. The job they have is enormous. And I think we could do a better job recruiting and retaining educators. That'll cut down on cost as well. And I think we could do, you know, even as the number of students decreases across the state, I think we can cut down on costs. I'm very honored to have the endorsement of the teachers' unions in Vermont and the higher education unions. And I believe that we can strike a balance between affordability and accessibility for our students. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, John. I was privileged to be one of the committee that heard the first report from the University of Vermont Education team essentially say, the way you weight students, that is to say, instead of simply a body count, we actually weight students according to their characteristics and we formulate resource, if you will, availability based on those weights. Those weights existed in a way which was irrational the report said you cannot defend how they're apportioned out. Barrie City, to be really specific, was disadvantaged by the old weights. We finally, just this session, passed a bill out of the Education Committee, bless them, to transition to the new weights. Barrie City will be rewarded. Having said that, part of the 20,000 that you referred to is not only made up of outliers which are not Barrie City, Barrie City frankly has, I think, the third lowest per pupil cost spending in the entire state. We're not the problem child. But having said that, the real issue of why it's so big is we are doing all kinds of things that otherwise health and human services might do after school, preschool, kindergarten, things that were simply unheard of 20 years ago. That's eating up resources that are not traditionally part of the education budget. Thank you, Peter. I'll be quick. I think three things. We should look at the teacher-student ratio. It's very, I'm not sure if you say it's high or low, but there's, I guess low. There's, I think, way too many teachers. And we need to take a look at that as they retire and leave service. We should take a look at the standardized tests and see how we're performing. It's been a struggle sometimes to get straight answers to those questions. We also should let the local community have more say in the budget, and I realize there's the decision that the Supreme Court decision that impacted that tremendously. But I think there's some room to let the principle of subsidiarity take place in a lower level and make some decisions about things like student-teacher ratio. And finally, I think what would help schools improve performance is expanding school choice. Let everyone, not just those in certain districts, I think that may be a constitutional requirement, by the way, given a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. And while some legislators, I hope not Peter, have suggested that we would do away with our school choice if religious schools were one of the options. That would be very regrettable if a legislator were to take such a position. And I'm not saying he has, but I have heard that one did. But anyway, I think the vouchers should be expanded and that would improve all schools, I think, if people saw that people could go elsewhere. Thank you, Tom. All right, it's time for closing comments. We have one minute. We'll do the reverse in the order that we started. So let's do it with Peter and then Jonathan and then you, Tom. Well, thank you very much. I want to serve a third term. I got a background in local government. I was privileged to be, if you will, baptism by fire over the last two terms. There isn't an issue, including school changes in school funding, property tax, workforce training, tax policy, you name it. It came across, if you will, my debate desk. And I'm happy to do that. I feel perfectly confident and I'm always open to suggestions from my local constituency. Thanks. Thank you, Peter. Jonathan. Thank you, John. It has been the greatest privilege of my life to campaign for this office, to seek out serving in the House of Representatives here in Vermont, to represent Barrie City. It has been so fun going door to door talking to people from all walks of life, to hear their stories, to hear not just what issues they're concerned about, but to hear why they're proud to live in Barrie City and why they love living in Vermont. I believe that I have the capabilities to serve in the legislature. My background from the time serving in the League of Cities and Towns as an advocate to working in municipal governments across the state to now, for the last half decade, working for the Vermont Food Bank, helping my neighbors in need. Make sure that they have the food that they need. I believe that I am ready and I believe that my skill set complements that of my friend, Peter's, and I am prepared to serve and I look forward to it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you. I want to say too that thank you for this opportunity, by the way, to Orca and the bridge and to you, John. I want to agree with Jonathan that it's been, I'm surprised that it's actually been fun, the campaigning going door to door. I didn't think it would be, but meeting people, renewing acquaintances. I've lived in Barrie, called Barrie Home since the mid-60s. There's three real reasons why I'm running. I want to bring a more conservative voice to the Vermont Pillar, particularly after seeing some of the legislation in the last few years, which we've talked about a little bit here today. Friends and acquaintances asked me to run. That was another reason. And I think with my education and experience, I think I could contribute as a legislator. Why do I think I'm qualified? My education includes a degree in government, criminal justice from Norwich. I have a master's in human resource development from the University of Utah from Notre Dame. I've served in the U.S. military in the JAG Corps and the military police, a total of 29 years. Five years of active duty in Germany and Kuwait. The rest with the Vermont Guard and other portions of the reserve forces. I'm going to ask you to wrap up. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And then I served 30 years. I'm sorry, 30 years as a prosecutor. And I think that all lends itself, if you will, of a life experience, six children lived in Barrie to the job. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Sorry for going over. No, that's fine. And thank you all for the three of you for participating. Foraging democracy requires that we have candidates who step up to run for public office and greatly appreciate the fact that each of you has chosen to do that given the Barrie voters a very good choice of candidates. And so really appreciate your participation. Democracy also requires that people vote. You should have received your ballot by now if you haven't, contact your city clerk, but be sure to vote. Thank you again for your participation and thank you to The Bridge and Orca Media for hosting this event.


From Midtown Manhattan, it's theCUBE. Covering Big Data, New York City, 2017. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media and its ecosystem sponsors. Okay, welcome back everyone. Live in New York City, this is theCUBE's coverage of eighth year doing Hadoop World. Now, evolved into Strata Hadoop, now called Strata Data. It's had many incarnations, but O'Reilly Media run in their event in conjunction with Cloudera, mainly an O'Reilly Media show. We do our own show called Big Data NYC here with our community at theCUBE, bringing you the best interviews, best people, entrepreneurs, thought leaders, experts, to get the data and try to project the future and help users find the value and data. My next guest is Rob Thomas, who's the general manager of IBM Analytics, CUBE alumni. I've been on multiple times successfully executing it in the San Francisco Bay Area. Great to see you again. Yeah, John, great to see you, thanks for coming. You know, IBM has really been interesting through its own transformation and a lot of people will throw IBM in that category, but you guys have been transforming, okay? And the scoreboard yet has to yet to show, in my mind, what's truly happening, because if you still look at this industry, we're only eight years into what Hadoop evolved into now as a large data set, but the analytics game just seems to be getting started with the cloud now coming over the top. You're starting to see a lot of cloud conversations in the air, certainly the lot of AI washing, you know, oh, AI this, but it's machine learning and deep learning at the heart of it as innovation. But a lot more work on the analytics side is coming. You guys are at the center of that. What's the update? What's your view of this analytics market? Most enterprises struggle with complexity. That's the number one problem when it comes to analytics. It's not imagination. It's not willpower. In many cases, it's not even investment. It's just complexity. We are trying to make data really simple to use. And the way I would describe it is we're moving from a world of products to platforms. Today, if you want to go solve a data governance problem, you're typically integrating 10, 15 different products and the burden that is on the client. So we're trying to make analytics a platform game. And my view is an enterprise has to have three platforms if they're serious about analytics. They need a data management platform for managing all types of data, public, private cloud. They need unified governance, so governance of all types of data, and they need a data science platform, machine learning. If a client has those three platforms, they will be successful with data. And what I see now is really mixed. We've got 10 products that do that, five products that do this, but it has to be integrated in a platform. You, as an IBM, are the customer as these tools. Yeah, when I go see clients, that's what I see, is disparate, they have disparate tools. And so we are unifying what we deliver from a product perspective to this platform concept. So you guys announced the integrated analytics system. I've got to see my notes here. I want to get into that second, but it's interesting you bring up the word platform because platforms have always been kind of reserved for the big supplier. But you're talking about customers having a platform, not a supplier delivering a platform per se, because this is where the integration thing becomes interesting. We were joking yesterday on theCUBE here, kind of just kind of ad hoc conceptually, like the world's turned into a tool shed. And everyone has a tool shed or knows someone that has a tool shed, there's a tools in the back and they're rusty. And so this brings up the tool conversation.  And if you have too many tools, you're not really doing the platform game, right? And complexity also turns into, when you bought a hammer, it turned into a lawn mower, right? So a lot of these companies have been groping and trying to iterate what their tool was into something else that wasn't built for. So as the industry evolves, that's natural Darwinism, if you will, they will fall to the wayside. So talk about that dynamic because you still need tooling. Yes. But tool will be a function of the work, as Peter Burris would say. So talk about how does a customer really get that platform out there without sacrificing the tooling that they may have bought or want to get rid of? Well, so think about an enterprise today. What the data architecture looks like is I've got this box that has this software on it, use your terms, has these types of tools on it, and it's isolated. And if you want a different set of tooling, okay, move that data to this other box where we have the other tooling. So it's very isolated in terms of how platforms have evolved or technology platforms today. When I talk about an integrated platform, we are big contributors to Kubernetes. We're making that foundational in terms of what we're doing on private cloud and public cloud is if you move to that model, suddenly what was a bunch of disparate tools are now microservices against a common architecture. And so it totally changes the nature of the data platform in an enterprise. It's a much more fluid data layer. The term I use sometimes is you have data as a service now available to all your employees. That's totally different than I want to do this project. So step one, make room in the data center. Step two, bring in a server. It's a much more flexible approach. So that's what I mean when I say platform. So operationalizing it is a lot easier than just going down the linear path of provisioning. Right. All right, so let's bring up the complexity issue because integrated and unified are two different concepts that kind of mean the same thing, something that depends on how you look at it. When you look at the data integration problem, you get all this complexity around governance, a lot of moving parts and data. How does a customer actually execute without compromising the integrity of their policies that they need to place? So in other words, what are the baby steps that someone can take the customers take through with the work you guys are doing with them? How do they get into the game? How do they take steps towards the outcome? They might not have the big money to push it all at once. They might want to take a risk management approach. I think there's a clear recipe for doing this right. And we have experience of doing it well and doing it not so well. So over time we've gotten some, I'd say a pretty good perspective on that. My view is very simple. Data governance has to start with the catalog. And the analogy I use is, you have to do for data what libraries do for books. And think about a library. The first thing you do with books, card catalog. You know where you basically itemize everything. You know exactly where it sits. If you got multiple copies of the same book, you can distinguish between which one is which. As books get older, they go to archive, to microfilm or something like that. That's what you have to do with your data. On the front end. On the front end. And it starts with the catalog. And the reason I say that is, I see some organizations that start with, hey, let's go start ETL, create a new warehouse, create a new Hadoop environment. That might be the right thing to do. But without having a basis of what you have, which is the catalog, that's where I think clients need to start. Well, I would just add one more level of complexity just to kind of reinforce it. First, I agree with you. But here's another example that would reinforce this step. Let's just say you write some machine learning and some algorithms. And a new policy from the government comes down. Hey, are you dealing with Bitcoin differently or whatever? Some GPRS kind of thing happens where someone gets hacked and the new law comes out. How do you inject that policy? You got to rewrite the code. So I'm thinking that if you do this right, you don't have to do a lot of rewriting of applications to the library or the catalog will handle it. Is that right? Am I getting that right? That's right, because then you have a baseline. That's what I would describe it as. It's codified in the form of a data model or in a form of ontology for how you're looking at unstructured data. You have a baseline. So then as changes come, you can easily adjust to those changes. Where I see clients struggle is if you don't have that baseline, then you're constantly trying to change things on the fly. And that makes it really hard to get to this. Well, really hard, expensive. They have to rewrite apps, rewrite algorithms and machine learning things that were built. Probably people that maybe left the company, who knows, right? I mean, so the consequences are pretty great. They've been pretty big. Yes. Okay, so let's get back to something that you said yesterday. You were on theCUBE yesterday with Hortonworks CEO, Rob Bearden, and we were commenting about AI, about AI washing. You said, quote, you can't have AI without IA. Play on letters there, sequence of letters. Which was really an interesting comment. We kind of referenced it pretty much all day yesterday. Information architecture is the IA. And AI is the artificial intelligence. Basically saying, if you don't have some sort of architecture, AI really can't work. Which really means models have to be understood with a learning machine kind of approach. Expand more on that. Because that was, I think, a fundamental thing that we're seeing at the show this week, this in New York, is the models for the models. Who trains the machine learning? The machine's got to learn somewhere too. So there's learnings for the learning machines. This is a real complex data problem. And if you don't set up the architecture, it may not work. Explain. So there's two big problems enterprises have today. One is trying to operationalize data science and machine learning at scale. The other one is getting to cloud. But let's focus on the first one for a minute. The reason clients struggle to operationalize this at scale is because they start a data science project and they build a model for one discrete data set. The problem is that only applies to that data set. It doesn't, you can't pick it up and move it somewhere else. So this idea of data architecture just to kind of follow through, whether it's the catalog or how you're managing your data across multiple clouds becomes fundamental because ultimately you want to be able to provide machine learning across all your data. Because machine learning is about predictions and it's hard to do really good predictions on a subset. But that prereqs the need for an information architecture that comprehends for the fact that you're going to build models and you want to train those models as new data comes in, you want to keep the training process going. And that's the biggest challenge I see clients struggling with. So they'll have success with their first ML project. But then the next one becomes progressively harder because now they're trying to use more data and they haven't prepared their architecture for that. Great point. Now switching to data science, you spoke many times with us on theCUBE about data science. We know you're passionate about it. You guys do a lot of work on that. We've observed and Jim Kobielson and I were talking yesterday, there's too much work still in the data science guys played. They're still doing a lot of what I call cis-admin like work, not the right word, but like administrative building and wrangling, they're not doing enough data science. And there's enough proof points now to show that data science actually impacts business. I mean, and whether it's military having data intelligence that executes something to selling something at the right time or even for worker, player, consumer, all proof is out there. So why aren't we going faster? Why aren't the data science is more effective? What is it going to take for the data science to have a seamless environment that works for them? They're still doing a lot of wrangling. They're still getting down the weeds. Is that just the role they have or how does it get easier for them? That's a big challenge. That's not the role. So they're a victim of their architecture to some extent and that's why they end up spending 80% of their time on data prep, data cleansing, that type of thing. Look, I think we solved that. That's why when we introduced the integrated analytics system this week, that whole idea was get rid of all the data prep that you need because land the data in one place. Machine learning data science is built into that. So everything that data scientist struggles with today goes away. We can federate to data on cloud, on any cloud. We can federate to data that's sitting inside Hortonworks. So it looks like one system but machine learning is built into it from the start. So we've eliminated the need for all of that data movement for all that data wrangling because we organize the data, we build the catalog and we've made it really simple. And so if you go back to the point I made, so one issues, clients can apply machine learning at scale. The other one is they're struggling to get the cloud. I think we've nailed those problems because now with a click of a button, you can scale this to the cloud. All right, so how does a customer get their hands on this? Sounds like it's a great tool. You're saying it's this leading edge. We'll take a look at it. Certainly I'll do a review on it with the team. But how do I get a hold of this? Would I download it? Do you guys supply it to me? Is it some open source? How do your customers and potential customers engage with this product? However they want to, but I'll give you some examples. So we have an analytic system built on Spark. You can bring the whole box into your data center and right away you're ready for data science. That's one way. Somebody like you, you're going to want to go get the containerized version. You go download it on the web and you'll be up and running instantly with a highly performant warehouse integrated with machine learning and data science built on Spark using Apache Jupiter. Any developer can go use that and get value out of it. You can also say I want to run it on my desktop. Yes, there's a cloud version out there. That's the free version. There's also a version on public cloud. So if you don't want to download it, you want to run it outside your firewall. You can go run it on IBM cloud on the public cloud. Just your cloud, Amazon? No, not today. Just IBM cloud, okay, got it. So there's a variety of ways that you can go use this and I think what you'll find. But you have a freemium model. People can get start outs to the downloaded to your data centers and also free too. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, so all the base stuff's free. We have a desktop version too. I think you can download it. You are welcome when people look at this. DataScience.ibm.com. That's the best place to start a data science journey. Okay, multi-cloud. Common Cloud is what people call it. You guys have Common SQL Engine. What is this product? Has it related to the whole multi-cloud trend? Customers are looking for multiple clouds. Yeah, so Common SQL is the idea of integrating data wherever it is, whatever form it's in. ANZ SQL compliant. So what you would expect for a SQL query and the type of response you get back, you get that back with Common SQL no matter where the data is. Now when you start thinking multi-cloud, you introduce a whole other bunch of factors. Network, latency, all those types of things. So what we talked about yesterday with the announcement of the Hortonworks data plane which is kind of extending the yarn environment across multi-clouds. That's something we can plug into. And so I think, let's be honest, the multi-cloud world is still pretty early. Really early. Our focus is delivering. I don't think it really exists actually. There's multiple clouds, but no one's actually moving workloads across all the clouds. I haven't filmed any of them. Yeah, I think it's hard for latency reasons today. We're trying to deliver an outstanding experience. But people are saying, I mean, this is headroom. But people are saying, I'd love to have a preferred future of multi-cloud. Even though they're kind of getting their own shops in order and retrenching and replatforming. But that's not a bad ask. I mean, I'm a user. I want to move from, I don't like IBM's cloud or I get a better service. I can move around here if Amazon's too expensive. I want to move to IBM. If you've got a product differentiation, I might want to be in your cloud. So again, this is the customer's mindset, right? If you have something really compelling on your cloud, do I have to go all in on IBM cloud to run my data? It shouldn't have to, right? I agree. I don't think any enterprise will go all in one cloud. I think it's delusional for people to think that. So you're going to have this world. So the reason we, when we built IBM cloud private, we did it on Kubernetes was we said, that can be a substrate, if you will, that provides a level of standards across multiple cloud type environments. And it's got some traction too. So it's a good bet there. Absolutely. Rob, final word, just talk about the personas who you now engage with from IBM standpoint. I know you have a lot of great developer stuff going on. You've done some great work. They've got a free product out there. But you still got to make money and got to provide value to IBM. Who are you selling to? What's the main thing that'll allow multiple stakeholders? Could you just clarify the stakeholders that you're serving in the marketplace? Yeah. I mean, the emerging stakeholder that we speak with more and more than we used to is chief marketing officers who have real budgets for data and data science and trying to change how they're performing their job. That's a major stakeholder. CTOs, CIOs, NEC level. Chief data officer. You know, chief data officers, honestly, it's a mixed bag. Some organizations, they're incredibly empowered and they're driving the strategy. Others, they're figureheads. And so you got to know how the organization do it. I'll pop up to the CFO or something. Yeah, exactly. So you got to either. Well, they're not really driving it. They're not changing agents. They're not like we're mandated to go do something. They're maybe governance, police or something. Yeah. And in some cases, that's true. In other cases, they drive the data architecture, the data strategy, and that's somebody that we can engage with right away and help them out. And events you got going up, things happening in the marketplace that people might want to participate in. I know you guys do a lot of stuff out in the open. Events that can connect with IBM, things going on. So we're doing a big event here in New York in November 1st and 2nd, where we're rolling out a lot of our new data products and cloud products. So that's one coming up pretty soon. The biggest thing we've changed this year is there's such a craving for clients for education as we've started doing what we call an analytics university, where we actually go to clients and we'll spend a day or two days, go really deep in open languages, open source. That's become kind of a new focus for us. A lot of reskilling going on too with the transformation. Yes, absolutely. All right, Rob Thomas here, general manager, IBM analytics inside theCUBE, Cube alumni, breaking it down, giving us perspective. He's got two books out there. The Data Revolution was the first one. Big Data Revolution. Big Data Revolution and the new one is every company is a tech company. Love that title, which is true. Check it out on Amazon, Rob Thomas. Big Data Revolution, first book and then second book is every company is a tech company. It's theCUBE, live from New York. More coverage after this short break.


What's going on everyone Sam here with late in sports cards doing the recap of Sean D's Two-case bowman draft jumbo order from earlier today of all the hits. We've got base autos I was gonna be Sterling Thompson Drew Gilbert Owen Murphy refractor. Sorry That is Jordan Beck Jack Branigan Caden Wallace Tanner Schoble Jimmy Crooks Victor Scott drew Thorpe Kevin Perrata Sal Stewart Mason Barnett Drew Thorpe Caden Wallace Kevin Perrata and Jet Williams dual Kate Horton Ryan Ritter Drake Baldwin Michael Kennedy Refractor is David McKabe Steven Zoback Steven Zoback Zach Maxwell Jacob Miller Steven Zoback Purple's Jacob Marcy Douglas Hodo Brandon Barreria Silas Ardoin Reggie Crawford Landon Sims Steven Zoback Jack Branigan Chase Mydroff Jacob Mizorowski Victor Scott Jared McKenzie Green's Nate Furman Victor Medeiros Black David McCabe Owen Murphy speckle cutter coffee Anthony Hall gold Jimmy Crooks Magged cards now we had I guess here Judd Fabian orange paper to 25 Cutter coffee red to five on the chrome Jackson Holiday base auto That is Landon Sims red lava for a five for the Diamondbacks color match a Jet Williams orange and Victor 19 out of 25 for the Mets on the secondary color match and Chrome prospect blue wave refractor parallel Brooks Lee for the twins on the redemption That'll do it for your recap there Sean. Thanks again. Sorry about that and we'll get email this you this link to you right now


What's the feeling like when you see Gary hit the ball? I feel great, I'm happy for him. He have the tinder with the four runners. I feel good for him. How much of a boost can he provide for this offense? I know you've been finding ways to get it done regardless, but that bat and the lineup. How much of a boost in general could Gary in the lineup, his bat and the lineup be for you guys? Yeah, I feel good to get Gary back. He's a very good player and he can do that every time. Tim's talked the other day about you really focusing on staying on your legs a little bit more, creating a better foundation. How has that helped you in the batter's box? I mean, you can see the results, it's going to help me a lot. Staying on my legs is working and that's what I'm doing right now. What feels different for you when you're in the bat? I have more confidence. I can feel like I drive the ball in the gap more than I used to be.  Yeah, it feels really good. Everybody's doing his job and the team. We are winning the most important team.


The reason I'm going over this is I'm in the room here today and guess what my day is done. My day is done. My day was done at exactly 9.46. 9.46 my day was done. I'm glad we got this as well as we did today because I really wasn't crazy about this. Let's actually go back and look at it originally because it did gap last night. Let's take all of this off. So last night it did gap that it would look more interesting in the morning since last night. But it didn't. It ended up looking less interesting or same. So either way I was like okay fine. But I really expected some tremendous volume in this in the morning and when I didn't see that I didn't see it looking better from last night. I was concerned and I actually sat here watching the trade for a while in the morning just because Adobe was not a great gap yesterday. I just called a good setup in it and I really this this is not what I wanted to see. I mean to be honest with you this this worked. We made money. I was very very very very very aggressive in this today. I took it before it triggered which I never do. But this was not really what I wanted to see it for the gap. But once again just like with the Adobe call I made yesterday the setup was there. So I did it. So I did it very aggressively because of the setup. But this isn't really exactly what I wanted this to do. All right let's go over the trade. Honestly I would be out of this. So I watched it. Really watched it. There we were watching it and it went up green first. This could have done anything here. I mean this was so it's so hard for me to explain but I'm telling you right now this could have gone either way right here. Like here let's just pretend this wasn't here. Moment they could have gone either way meaning that it could have flipped. I was sitting here watching three things. You saw me. Be out of work. Oh by the way. Anyways I was sitting here watching three things and I was like you know this could go either way. What is the exact open on this? What is the exact open? Are you trying to tell me that this was not the exact open? Somebody look it up on the internet and tell me exactly what the exact open was in Oracle today on the 18th because I want to know. I do think this was it but I would like to know and I would be out of this. Anyways at this moment in my mind I'm just sharing this with you so you know. I rated the gap but the gap did not rate well. The gap didn't rate well. This rated a 19. This was right on the cusp. Like this could have gone either way and then when it opened it could have gone either way. I can't tell you how aggressive this was but in my mind I in my mind then I said you know what if this goes I was prepared for the risk. I took the risk. I guess that's the best way I could describe it because at a 19 or an 18-19 rainy it's not over 20. It's a good chance of working in our family and in my mind I knew that if it hit and if it broke it would go it would go hard. I knew that I knew that I knew that much which I think I even said in the room but it could have flipped and stopped me out and blew me out actually and it didn't. It worked. We had a nice day. But I'm just saying to you though that it could have and I guess the reason I did the trade and I did it before it triggered is I was prepared. I was prepared that I was prepared. I was prepared to take the stop. So I was prepared to take the risk and I did it and I didn't see anything else sitting up. Right. I saw right a ways wasn't going to work JBL opened late and then had that huge spike and it was like do this or don't don't do anything today. Now I mean what was the time that it opened? Not the price. So anyways we shorted it here. I shorted it before it triggered and it dropped. Then it rallied back. You could have taken more. Then it dropped. You could have gotten out of some in there and then it dropped again and I was all out in here and that was absolutely the right thing to do. I played this really well today. I really did. Any questions about this? Did everyone get it? Did everyone get Oracle with me that wanted to? If you're here in a trial you should just be observing. New Jersey trader got it, our square got it, trader got it, Gallowhead got it, Sharsinger got it, excellent. You never, never when you take something if it's going to go to the exact number because remember targets and supportive resistance are areas. And looking at the market today and looking at the targets in Oracle and looking at the moon that it had in the morning, you take all of them together and you make a decision to play it because you have one objective as a trader. Make money, make money, make money, make money, make money, make money. That's your objective. You're not trying to squeeze every penny out of something every time. Now I take size of my first trade into the drop. If you like to wait, there was this entry here. Price of the entry was not as good and really the stop really needed to be over here because Oracle's too wild. If you had been tied here it actually held but the only way I would have called that for anyone to do is if you did this, took half out, let it rally back or did this, got all out, let it rally back and then did a second trade and got the drop. Red got it too. So there was a lot of ways to play this today but I just explained you the way I played it. So it worked out better than expected and you can hear my voice this morning. I was like, I was kind of like, ah, I was sad. I was sad that Oracle didn't rate better but I saw it into the open and we did it. But I must tell you that that was so aggressive today to do. Not only because of the rating but because of the fact I took it before it triggered. Good job everybody that got it. I'm glad we got a nice solid, solid move today. In my opinion, I would be out of Oracle. It is not worth this to give back 25 cents to make 8 cents or 30 cents to make 30 cents. It's not even worth giving back 30 cents to make 45 cents or whatever if it goes to 40.75 which is the next target. That's not worth it because it could take you five hours to get there. And again, look at the market but I don't even think it gets there now because it's 10.05. All right, have a good day everyone. This is Melissa with the stockswish.com. If you're interested in the Golden Gap class, it's this weekend, Saturday and Sunday June 20th and 21st. Email me at Melissa at the stockswish.com for more information. Have a good day.