Barn Raising Anyone?

As we drive up and down the winding country roads that characterize our beautiful Town, we realize that we are losing something with every passing day. We may be remaining rural, but we are becoming less and less a farm community. Sometimes, the former farms we pass may not even look like what they once were. The lands which once grew grains and vegetables have been subdivided and now grow the next generation of our neighbors in the houses built there, houses teeming now with life and joy.

Some, however, still have old barns on them. A very few of these barns are still in use after a century or more - still housing cows or horses or bales of hay. These old barns, working or not, are far more a symbol of our historical heritage than the old stone houses scattered around Town. Don't get me wrong, I find the old homes beautiful and I am amazed when I hear that the families living in them are four, five generations or more removed from those who built them, their many times great grandparents.

A barn, on the other hand... Well, a barn is something special. It is a symbol of the values which made our Town what it was for three centuries. Few of us give any thought to how barns were constructed in the old days, days before electricity and gasoline and machines to make heavy work light.

America - and especially Towns like ours - was built through the tradition of "barn raising". Wikipedia defines barn raising as "an event during which a community comes together to assemble a barn for one or more of its households, particularly in 18th- and 19th-century rural North America." That's a rather dry description for something that was an astounding example of all that is good and noble about America.

Neighbors would gather in the early morning hours to begin work on a building that would take form before their very eyes, rising almost magically from the ground up. Dozens, sometimes hundreds of people would each take on a role, whether it was sawing or hammering, pulling on ropes in unison to lift heavy beams 20, 30 feet in the air, wives and children cooking, making lemonade, bringing sustenance to those whose muscles were reaching the breaking point. The community was a family, the Town a tapestry of people instead of threads, all working as one towards a common goal.

As unimaginable the efforts they made is to us today, what is even more incredible is the fact that no one was paid for this, not in money. They all knew that their neighbors had either helped them raise a barn in the past or they would sometime soon. No books were kept, people were not made to feel as if they owed a debt. The debt was kept track of in each person's conscience.

Imagine a Town where there were no Comprehensive Plans, no Zoning Codes, no Code Enforcement Officer. Imagine a State that had never heard of Environmental Impact Statements or Wetlands which have no water. Imagine a community where your neighbors came to help when you were building something rather than complain about their "viewshed". Imagine a world where the only time anyone got involved in another's personal affairs or in what they did with their private property was when they came to help rather than criticize.

That was America more than a century ago. Today, busybodies are the norm rather than the exception. Today, instead of the tension of muscles pulling on ropes, we have the tension instilled in our souls by those who care only for themselves. Today, we are told over and over again that we cannot do for ourselves, that the only way we can get what we need is if Government reaches into someone's pocket and uses the money it finds to do everything for us. Today, we are no longer free because we are denied the freedom to do for ourselves and for one another.

What America needs, what the Town of Rochester is crying out for, is a modern day barn raising. We need to help ourselves. We need to do for our neighbors. We need to re-form the bonds of community and family that made us strong and great and proud and free. When we do that, when we turn to one another for what the community needs and simply do it, we make the rules of Government irrelevant. We return it to its original role - to do those very few things which cannot be done by individuals, things like schools and roads and law enforcement. Everything else we can accomplish better, faster, at less cost and with far greater pride than the High Priests of Big Government could ever dream of.

No, we're not talking about literally building brand new barns, but there are dozens of things which we can do together, things more appropriate to the times in which we live. The only limits on what we can achieve are our imaginations and our collective will to act and excel.

Let's dare to dream, dare to imagine, dare to build and accomplish! We are the Town. We are the Community. We can be a great, extended family once again.

The nails and wood are there, the hammers and saws eager to do their work, the ropes waiting for strong hands to pull them taut. All that is missing is us.

What do you say?

Response to Sheila Finan's Letter

The following letter is being sent to the Ulster County Press in response to Ms. Sheila Finan's letter to that same paper (see previous post), a letter in which personal attacks are aimed at me, Jon Dogar-Marinesco and Carl Chipman. I think the letter below speaks for itself:

******************************************


To The Editor:

I find it curious that Ms. Sheila Finan's Letter in this paper (Wed., March 28, 2007) attacks everything she disagrees with as "ungrounded" while itself having little or no basis in fact. She criticizes the "emotions of the public" on February 1, yet later attempts to make a case for censoring the opposition in Rochester because the current government was elected by "the people of this town". Apparently, Ms. Finan has never heard that one cannot have it both ways. If the opinions of the public or the people (however you wish to term them) are to be respected in one instance, they are to be respected in all instances. Of course, the difference between her position and that of those - such as myself - opposed to the Town Board's behavior is that we have always respected the results of the election, albeit from a position of opposition. Ms. Finan, on the other hand, by terming Jon Dogar-Marinesco's website "slime and scare tactics," by attacking the desire to practice freedom of speech at a public meeting, by ranting at a local newspaper for the publication of a political cartoon, is apparently advocating censorship of the public. That we should see censorship being so vehemently defended by a supporter of the Rochester Town Board is no surprise, as censorship is what occurred on February 1, February 7 and March 1 of this year.

However, if we take the charges leveled by Ms. Finan in her letter one at a time, it quickly becomes clear that the defenders of the Board have nothing substantive to say in its defense.

Ms. Finan states that Manuela Mihailescu was "traumatized by the publicity she herself unleashed." In point of fact, judging by Ms. Mihailescu's own statements (and who better to judge her own emotional state than herself?), her traumatization began far in advance of any publicity given to this situation. Specifically, it began the night of the Town Board's Executive Session when the Board confronted her about an allegation that she was involved with an adult website. How do we know the Board did this? Just read the Supervisor's public statement in which she admits as much.

Ms. Finan attacks Mr. Chipman and myself (who represent two very different organizations which have disagreed as to numerous issues in the past), saying that Mr. Chipman and I hope to "regain power in the upcoming election." She later refers to a "lust for power." Unfortunately, there are people who couch everything done by persons who have taken on highly visible roles in a community in terms of "power." As such people cannot conceive of public statements and actions as being anything but plays for power, they cannot help but to project those same sentiments onto others. Some of us, however, think in terms of how best to serve our community and what must be done to stand up for the rights of our neighbors. On a side note, to my recollection neither Mr. Chipman nor I ever had any power to "regain."

The simple fact is that, despite her statements to the contrary, Ms. Finan does not know what I intended to do or say the evening of February 1 because the Town Attorney took over the role of Presiding Officer at the Town Board Meeting. In spite of being duly recognized and given the Privilege of the Floor, I was not permitted to speak my piece, nor was anyone else. For the record, my statement was to have criticized the manner in which the Town Board behaved towards our neighbors that night. I had no intention of referring to the Executive Session. There were others present who were far better equipped to do so, and I was determined to allow them to take on that issue.

Ms. Finan goes on to attack the "anonymous" signs on Route 209, calling those who posted them "cowardly." I wonder if she'll join those of us who condemned the anonymous letter sent out to the Republicans in our Town and those anonymous individuals who reported the alleged adult website to the Town Board as being similarly cowardly.

As to the cartoon published in your paper on Feb. 18, I would point out that, although some have reproduced it on the web, I declined to post it on my own blog (I won't give the address lest I be accused of self-promotion). While I am not personally a fan of what might be termed "personal" or "ad hominem" attacks on others, I wholeheartedly support the right of a newspaper to make whatever editorial decisions it finds appropriate. I would be curious to know, however, if Ms. Finan has ever written a letter criticizing political cartoons which attack our current President or anyone with whom she disagrees.

Personally, I believe that freedom of speech and press are only of value if they are applied across the board, indiscriminately. Perhaps Ms. Finan would like to call Supervisor Duke and Councilman Miller and ask them who called both of them to personally condemn the incidents in which nails had been thrown in their driveways last year. What she'll find is that I was one of the few who did so. I also faxed letters to four area newspapers condemning those same incidents, letters which went unpublished.

Unless we are willing to stand up and defend the rights of those with whom we disagree, all our rights become meaningless. I was heartened by the fact that several Democrats expressed (to me and to others) their shock at the behavior of the Town Board towards Ms. Mihailescu and the community in general. That is true community, true belief in principle. As Voltaire is often quoted, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Words to live by, indeed.

Finally, Ms. Finan makes a point of attacking Jon Dogar-Marinesco for the unfortunate facts of his life before coming to the United States. While I - personally - never lived under Communism, my parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and wife all did. While I would never presume to speak for Mr. Dogar-Marinesco (he is quite capable of making his own positions clear), I would point out that to raise the spectre of the inhuman, monstrous manner in which communist regimes trampled the rights of their citizens is not a matter of "rage," as Ms. Finan would have us believe. It is, instead, an issue of expertise. Who better to recognize the symptoms of dictatorship slowly incubating in our midst than one who has spent so much time living under just such a regime in the past?

When Ms. Finan talks of who always hated the Communists the most, she reveals both her bias and her lack of understanding of the natures of both Communism and Fascism. Nazis and Fascists hated communism not because it was the other end of the political spectrum. They hated Communism because Nazism, Fascism and Communism are exactly the same, with different gift wrapping. All three were totalitarian, socialist systems which needed the support of exactly the same segment of the population in order to survive and thrive. They could brook no rivals for their target constituency, so they killed one another off whenever possible.

No, the people who hated Communism most were people like my grandfather, who was a newspaper editor in Hungary who criticized both the Nazis and the Communists and was forced to leave the country. Communism was hated by people like my father who fought Soviet forces at the age of 15 and was later arrested for singing a song that contained the word "God" in school. Communism was hated by my grandmother, who helped hide Jews in Hungary during the Holocaust and yet was told that her son was part of a "Fascist conspiracy." Communism was hated by my father-in-law who was taken away in the middle of the night, beaten over and over for over a week and finally returned to his family when it turned out he had done nothing wrong.

To paint those who have lived under totalitarianism, who survived it and who learned to love freedom and hate its denial with the same brush as Nazis and Fascists is disgraceful and disreputable. Doing so is nothing but a vile and vicious attack which is not only hurtful to those who are its intended target but also belittles the pain of those who lost loved ones to the monstrous deeds perpetrated by the followers of Hitler and Mussolini.

I would hope Ms. Finan and those who applauded her letter would find the integrity within themselves to reexamine their consciences and rededicate themselves to the fundamental principles on which our country was founded: that all are created equal and that the rights of all - whether one agrees or disagrees with their positions - are to be respected, cherished and defended. Otherwise, our freedoms become nothing but a weapon with which to batter our opponents - hard, unyielding and of no value to society.

That is not the America in which I was raised.



Respectfully,

Imre Beke, Jr.

Sheila Finan's Letter to the Ulster County Press

To The Editor:

The vitriol in Jon Dogar-Marinesco's recent letter attacking a reader for criticizing a one-sided cartoon in the paper raises the question of where so much venom comes from. I, too, was at the famous Feb. 1 town meeting, and thought the cartoon in this paper's Feb 18 issue one-sided and superficial enough to promote false understanding.

I felt that Mrs. Marinescu [sic] was unfortunately being traumatized by publicity she herself had unleashed, and was being used by Carl Chipman's and Imre Beke's desire to trash the town board in order to regain power in the upcoming election. These two men did everything they could to move the ungrounded emotions of the public - ungrounded because they were not fully acquainted with the facts - behind their undemocratic goals, i.e. into a mob.

Perhaps it would have helped to respond by moving to a larger space, but nonetheless what was happening was ugly and scary. Dogar-Marinesco feels that he is back under the communist boot that crushed him for 33 years. But the Town of Rochester is not a playground for him to unleash his rage and hatred stemming from those years. He is patronizing and contemptuous about the government we have voted in, and of us, the voters. Doesn't he realize that we, the people of this town, have voted it in, not through being manipulated, as he would attempt to do through his Web site and slime and scare tactics, but after years of working in a highly democratic process with these people to determine the best future for this town.

I also want to say the anonymous, ominous road signs that have gone up in the Town of Rochester, full of lies purporting to know the town supervisor is skimming taxes, getting rich off her job, scamming residents are also scary. They bring up the feeling there are bullies with a lust for power hiding in the trees, too cowardly to give their names. I am reminded of who it was who always hated the communists most. It was the fascists: Hitler's Nazis and the followers of Mussolini.

Shelia Finan
Accord

Iraq and a Hard Place

So far, I've limited myself to topics which were either about our town or could be useful in analyzing what is happening here since the Liberal Siege began last January. Today, however, I feel like I have to make mention of the absolutely brainless and offensive manner in which the anti-war crowd is acting.

Yesterday, the Internet was all abuzz with Sean Penn's latest rant against the President, complete with references to "blood soaked underwear" (Ah, Sean, you silver tongued devil, you). Today, Rosie O'Donnell (foreign policy expert extraordinaire) claims that the British military personnel captured by Iran were put in a location where they were likely to be captured in order to provoke a war with Iran!

What on Earth makes these people think that the American public is so stupid as to believe these inane conspiracy theories? The people who believe this nonsense are the same sorts of people who claim we knew about (or were complicit in!) the 9/11 attacks before they took place. They are the same ones who believe the Government intentionally lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in order to give us a reason to start a war. They are the same ones who believe in all sorts of unreasonable and (dare I say it?) irrational plots.

The fact is, the Iraq War served the Lib-Dems far better than it did Conservatives and Republicans. The Lib-Dems in this country grabbed onto the War with all their strength, politicized the blazes out of it, twisted facts and figures to fit their own interests, and exploited the suffering and memories of our servicemen and women. Why did they do this? For one simple reason: to retake control of the Congress.

The problem is, once the public is educated as to the truth about the War, this whole thing will backfire in their faces. Ronald Reagan was elected President less than a decade after Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War, which were supposedly the two final nails in the Republicans' coffin. Not only did he soundly trounce Jimmy Carter and roll over Walter Mondale as if he wasn't even there, his much ridiculed "Reagonomics" once again made America the world's economic 500 pound gorilla and launched us on the "two steps forward, one step back" road to decimating liberalism throughout America. We just experience our "one step back." Get ready for the next "two steps forward."

OK, so if the truth about Iraq will set us free, we need to clear up some issues:

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam had them, no doubt about that. How do we know? He used them against the Shiites and against the Iranians. What we don't know is what happened to them. We can't find them, so he may have actually destroyed them. Or buried them in the desert. Or (as some claim) shipped them out of the country, across Syria and into Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. The point is, it doesn't matter. If there was a .1% chance that he had them and was refusing to give them up, we had no choice but to act. This isn't Boston Legal, where we have to prove the dictator is guilty before running him out of Baghdad on a rail. If he got rid of them, it was his obligation to prove that, not ours to prove he didn't. That was the gist of all pertinent Security Council Resolutions.
   
2. American Military Casualties. I, for one, think that it is a vile, disgusting tactic for the Left to keep pointing out the number of military deaths as a political tool. War is not a football game, where keeping score determines the winners and losers. Doing so makes it impossible for the families of the dead to achieve any closure because their loved ones are a part of that number being thrown about every single day. However, if the Lib-Dems want to use that as the standard, they need to be aware that we have never, in the entire history of the United States, executed a war with so few casualties. According to the iCasualties.org, there are currently 3,242 American military servicepeople dead in Iraq. In some battles we have fought in our history, there were that many dead in a single day. In almost all wars, we had single months where we exceeded that total. Our daily average is less than 2.3 war dead. A war cannot be fought without casualties. It simply will not happen. If Liberals insist on using casualties as a benchmark, what they are saying is that the Iraq war is the single most successful military campaign ever waged by the United States in 231 years of nationhood. In my humble opinion, the casualty numbers are a flawed benchmark because using them takes our attention away from everything which does, in fact, need to be fixed about the way in which we wage war. However, if they want this as the standard, their conclusions must be challenged.
3. Iraqi Civilian Deaths. The Lib-Dems have concocted a story that 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the start of the War. This is nothing but a fairy tale. There was no census-style survey performed in order to arrive at that figure. Instead, localized (nearly anecdotal) polling was done where people were asked if they knew anyone who had "disappeared." Those numbers were compiled and projected out onto the entire country of Iraq! The flaws in that, of course, are legion. First, assuming that "disappeared" is synonymous with "dead" is ridiculous. Second, when compiling this data, there was no way to know if the same "disappearance" was being counted multiple times, as you couldn't know if the same person was being reported by several acquaintances. Finally, we know from opinion polls here in the U.S. that the projecting of small samples out over a much larger population never works the way it's supposed to. One fact that nobody looks at, however, is the fact that prior to the War, many international organizations were reporting that Saddam's secret police and paramilitary groups were killing 100-300 people every single day. That's over 146,000 lives saved, and that's no projection, that's history. Obviously, the reason for coming up with the idiotic number they did come up with was to make sure it was far higher than the number of lives saved. It's propaganda, it's political and it cannot be taken at face value.
   

So, the Code Pinks and Women in Blacks and all the other bizarre pacifist color guards out there need to start re-evaluating the facts of life, because they have it all wrong.

One question I do have: if the President is to be held accountable for the fact that we cannot find the Weapons of Mass Destruction, is the Supervisor to be held accountable because we cannot find the famous Phantom Porn Site? Just a thought.

Whichever Way The Wind Blows

This morning, when I was checking the Town of Rochester website, I was greeted by a new feature: local weather from a website known as the Weather Underground. Now, I know that the Weather Underground website has nothing to do with the older radical organization by the same name, but it struck me as ironic that our Town would choose this specific weather service rather than one by, say, AccuWeather or The Weather Channel's website. Are they trying to tell us something intentionally? Or was this perhaps a sort of Freudian slip, whereby the Town leadership's collective unconscious is straining to shout the true nature of their beliefs to the rest of us?

The Weather Underground (also known as the Weathermen) was, in many ways, like the radical extreme leftist groups we are confronted by today. You know the ones. They consist of people who have nothing better to do than concoct stories about the war, the climate and the 20o0 Presidential Election. They are both vocal and rude, insulting and belittling all who disagree with them. We see them protesting the war and handing out leaflets which contain false information in order to make their point.

The Weather Underground, however, went beyond simply handing out false propaganda. They openly labeled themselves a "revolutionary organization of communist women and men..." According to Wikipedia, they carried out campaigns of "bombings, jailbreaks, and riots" in order to "achieve the revolutionary overthrow of the Government of the United States (and of capitalism as a whole)."

Our Town Government, although far less radical in its methods, appears to have similar goals. They openly attack our Constitutional right to enjoy ownership of our own property. They want to discourage any real business from taking root in the Town of Rochester. One of their supporters openly declared at one Public Hearing (and I'm paraphrasing here, but over a hundred people heard this declaration) that not every Town needs to have a business and employment base, that people can live here and work elsewhere.

However you try to justify it, that's socialism.

However you try to explain it away, socialism has been proven to be a failure and a fraud.

At one point, roughly half of the world's population lived under socialist regimes of one sort or another. Socialism reigned supreme in nations in every corner of the globe: from the imperialist bloc dominated by the Soviet Union in Europe, to satellite nations in Central America, Asia and Africa (Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Mozambique, etc.), from the semi-independent Communist state of Yugoslavia to the agrarian Maoist-Socialist mammoth that China became to Cambodia where a civil war between two communist proxy factions developed into Pol Pot's killing fields.

You know what? No nation ever became wealthy under socialism. Not one was ever able to provide jobs or economic development. None were able to operate under even a semblance of freedom. Every one of them was based on theft of that which belonged to others and on the mass murder of their own citizens to keep them in line.

That is the legacy of socialism and that is exactly the system which the current regime is attempting to ram down our throats. Where Lenin blamed the ills of society on the Bourgeousie, the Rochester Socialist cadre blames them on Republicans and Conservatives. Where Mao promoted transferring property ownership to collectives owned by the State, the Accord/Kerhonkson Hammer and Sickle Society wants to transfer our rights to determine what is to be done on our property to a municipal collective. Where Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, our local anti-capitalists wrote a Comprehensive Plan. Where Stalin sent citizens to Gulags for speaking their minds, our Town Government exiles dissidents from participation in Town Committees and public life.

A watershed moment is coming in the Town of Rochester. We have a little over seven months to effect our own, local climate change. Do you know in which direction the wind is blowing?

There Can Be No Exceptions

“The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.”

- Democratic Senator and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black

Throughout history, the opponents of freedom knew that to succeed in depriving the people of their liberty, they would have to gain control of the flow of information. It may be difficult for us to imagine in the modern information age, but in the past, information was primarily disseminated in three ways: word of mouth, newspapers and from the pulpit.

Coincidentally, these three types of communication were those protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution, with good reason. The history of our nation's fight for freedom can be summed up as a struggle for two things: to free information from control by the Crown and to free ourselves from over taxation. Of course, in fighting for the latter, the former became a very useful tool.

Imagine a world with no Internet, cellphones, iPods, TV, radio, telephones, fax machines, glossy magazines, not even a decent postal system until Franklin established one. Now imagine the government using its military might against the people for speaking out against the injustices being done to them. Clergymen were arrested for their sermons. Journalists were arrested for reporting the truth. Average people were reported for conversations which were considered mutiny against the Crown. How difficult it must have been to pass on enough information to enough people for our Revolution against Great Britain to even begin, much less succeed.

It's no wonder the freedoms of expression were the first to be granted protection under our Constitution.

They are the single most important class of rights we have as Americans, and some are willing to throw them away for the sake of achieving their political and social goals. The problem, however, is that it is very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Once you have decided that it is acceptable to censor your opponents, you have created a precedent under which those in power can always censor the opposition. Like it or not, the political pendulum swings back and forth. All of us will - at times - be in the majority and in the minority. All of us will be subject to the same restrictions we place on our opponents. Freedoms are only truly protected when we stand up not only for those with whom we agree, but also for those with whom we disagree.

It is easy to stand up for the rights of those who think the same way we do. No, that's not quite right. It's always difficult to stand up for anyone's rights, but the outrage that that drives us to do so is natural when we identify with those who are most like us.

To recognize that the rights of those on the other side are being trampled upon is far more difficult. It takes integrity as well as the ability to see beyond our own personal interests. It requires us to walk for a few moments in the other side's shoes. We do not need to agree with what is being said, but we must recognize that this could just easily be happening to us.

This is not a matter of agreement or even sympathy. It is, however, a question of consistency. If we believe in freedom, we believe in it for everyone. No exceptions.

Otherwise, we really are talking about privileges rather than rights.

Our Rights, Our Freedoms, Our Town

"It is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal..." - English Bill of Rights, 1789

Even before our own Constitution gave the citizens of the newly formed United States the right to petition, the English gave their own people the right to have their grievances heard by their government. Coincidentally, the English Bill of Rights also required a Revolution (known as the Glorious Revolution) in order to be enacted. The Glorious Revolution forced King James II to flee the country in 1688 and installed King William and Queen Mary on the English Throne in 1689, but only after they accepted the Bill of Rights.

The airtight reasons for our own Revolution were written down in great detail in our Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson:

"In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Lawyers are, of course, quick to point out that the Declaration is not, in fact, a legal document. It does not constitute a part of our legal system. When they make that point, however, they are missing the greater picture. When and if one questions the values set forth in the Declaration, one is, in fact, saying that our own Revolution was illegitimate. Everything that resulted from that Revolution would be likewise. In questioning the Declaration, they question our very rights as Americans as guaranteed in the Constitution, for if the Revolution (and thus the Nation) was not set on morally firm ground, neither would the rights afforded by the fundamental law of that Nation.

We have no choice but to accept the fact that our Rights are Inalienable and come to us from our Creator. Rejecting that premise is a rejection of the rights themselves, for the Declaration of Independence is the moral and ethical foundation of the United States.

That having been said, one of our most important rights, the bulwark of our ability to challenge those in power, comes from our First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Fourteenth Amendment further extends this protection (and, indeed, protection of all our civil rights) to apply to acts of the Individual States, as well:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

The First Amendment Center explains the Right to Petition as follows:

"The petition clause concludes the First Amendment’s ringing enumeration of expressive rights and, in many ways, supports them all. Petition is the right to ask government at any level to right a wrong or correct a problem... The right to petition allows citizens to focus government attention on unresolved ills; provide information to elected leaders about unpopular policies; expose misconduct, waste, corruption, and incompetence; and vent popular frustrations without endangering the public order."

It is fairly clear that the Right to Petition is of vital importance to us as citizens. It is equally clear that the Town Government in Rochester considers it to be a nuisance, something to be treated with disdain and discarded at their earliest convenience.

Fortunately for us, we do not have to resort to Revolution to eject those who reject, ignore or simply do not understand our Rights and the importance we attach to them. This November, we must be the instruments of reform. Throughout the next eight months, we must be the Winds of Change. Every one of our neighbors must be made to understand that this coming election is not about politics and philosophies. It is about the rights of the People of the Town of Rochester and the thirst for power of those who would abolish them.

As William J. Clinton told the nation 16 years ago, "It's time for change."

Democracy and Freedom: Inconvenient Obstacles

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington

In an article published on CNN.com in 1997, we are told: "The history of freedom of speech and the press in the United States has often been tied to criticism of the government, and particularly associated with war and social upheaval, fear and anger."

Our neighbors and we, in the Town of Rochester, live in an environment remarkably like the one described. We have been subjected to social upheaval against our wills by those who have no understanding of what the rural character of our Town is all about. Our Town Board is sowing fear among us by their vindictive, purgative political acts punishing those who happen to criticize our local government. Of course, all this creates anger at those who believe their political agendas, their selfish interests and their pursuit of power at all cost outweigh the rights and freedoms of the people of the Town of Rochester.

I've spoken and written a great deal about the events of the past two months. We have all had extensive conversations amongst ourselves. The fact is, however, that the "us versus them" atmosphere fostered in the Town of Rochester by our Town Board and their supporters reared its ugly head far before February 1, 2007. In early 2006, the new Lib-Dem majority on the Town Board gleefully began getting rid of everyone they could who opposed their dictatorial New Order in Town. They replaced neighbors of ours who had long served our community and whose knowledge and experience was unparalleled within our Town. In their places, they put people who did not have backgrounds to outweigh or even match those whose seats they tried to fill (to say they were sadly unsuccessful is to be charitable). One blatant example of this political purge was the naming of a gentleman who had never before served on our Planning Board to be Chairman.

Now, I'm not naive. I know that new regimes often put their own people in and kick out those previously appointed. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. If you're going to make political appointments, acknowledge them as such. Don't pretend that you are doing the Town some great favor by bringing in experts of the highest caliber. The people of the Town of Rochester are not stupid, we know the way the world turns. When you lie to us about your motivations, don't expect us to believe in your pseudo-altruistic anthems to Open Government.

I wonder how many of those who think it's just fine to replace anyone and everyone volunteering on behalf of our Town as soon as possible are huffing and puffing over the Bush Administration's firing of eight U.S. Attorneys six years after the President took office. Just a hypothetical musing.

They have the power to replace anyone, that much is clear. They also have the power to keep their critics off the various Committees. What they are not permitted to do is attack someone's reputation with a half-baked story, supposedly reported to the Town Board by some unnamed "residents". They also may not muzzle the rest of us when we point out the distasteful, disreputable and thoroughly un-American nature of their acts.

The friction doesn't stop with appointments and attacks on our Freedom of Speech. A little over a year ago, we had a Public Hearing about establishing the Building Moratorium under which we currently live. At that hearing, the comments were overwhelmingly against the Moratorium (roughly 4-to-1, if memory serves), yet the Town Board passed the Moratorium with one lone member dissenting. This blatant rejection of public opinion as the guiding hand behind public policy decisions demonstrates that the Town Board never truly considered the desires of the Townspeople when making their decisions. In fact, in all likelihood, their minds were made up and the decision made before anyone stepped foot in the Firehouse that night. In other words, the Public Hearing was a formality, an inconvenient hurdle they needed to get past in order to achieve their goals. The Public itself, our neighbors, were treated as an obstacle rather than as the people they are morally obligated to represent.

The Town Board came into office with the mindset that they were a conquering army, pillaging at will. Now that they have been revealed as fundamentally anti-democratic in their attitudes, anti-freedom in their actions and anti-neighbor in their interactions with the Town, they have developed a siege mentality. They are circling the wagons and taking potshots at the rest of us. The problem is, we're not an opposing army. We are the People of the Town of Rochester. We are their employers, not the Visigoths.

All we want is respect and representation, the two things they are apparently incapable of giving us.

Critique of Cameron Bonner's Letter

Now, was this really necessary? Ron Bonner is, from everything I know about him, intelligent enough to know that the gentleman whom he accuses of "posing as a reporter" is, in fact, an experienced journalist. This type of lashing out is simply petty and unworthy of Mr. Bonner. Frankly, I'm surprised that someone like him would stoop to this kind of childishness.

Since he has, however, I don't see any choice but to point out that this diatribe "posing" as a Letter to the Editor is utter nonsense.

The history of American journalism is one of men (and later women) of courage taking a stand for what they believe. The idea of "unbiased" journalism is one that is relatively new. One of the most famous early American journalists was Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal. Zenger was tried for libel against the British Crown in 1735 and his printing press was burned.

Benjamin Franklin published both his Poor Richard's Almanac and wrote for his brother James' newspaper under the pen name Silence Dogood. James Franklin's newspaper was entitled the New England Courant and was anything but unbiased. Franklin made no secret of his support for various political causes and openly and unashamedly used the Courant to promote those causes. Benjamin Franklin himself later published the Pennsylvania Gazette in Philadelphia, another politically oriented newspaper.

Of the roughly 234 newspapers published in the United States in 1800, all had a strong tendency to favor one political viewpoint or another. Many American papers were named "Democrat" or "Republican" or "Federalist" because of their open support for the political parties of the same name.

Beginning her career in 1880, reporter Elizabeth Cochrane (writing under the pen name "Nellie Bly") actively sought out stories about women's issues and used them to promote the plight of women, especially those who were impoverished.

Examples of journalists taking a stand abound and there is nothing wrong with a journalist recognizing the signs that one side in a public dispute is clearly in the right. After all, we expect our journalists to be intelligent and insightful. If they weren't, how could we trust the information they pass on to us?

In fact, one seldom sees liberals complaining when journalistic bias supports their own cherished causes. One recent case in point being Dan Rather's shoddy promotion of counterfeit documents purporting to prove that President Bush did not fulfill his duties as a member of the Air National Guard. Where was Mr. Bonner's outrage at Mr. Rather's "unprofessionalism"?

No, the problem with journalism is not bias. It's not even the fact that over 80% of American journalists are avowed liberals by their own admission, skewed as this makes reporting in this country. The problem arises when clear biases influence reporting and journalists try to hide the fact of their personal political leanings from their readers. The American people are intelligent and can separate fact from opinion in articles in which the bias is not hidden. When a reporter claims to be unbiased when, in fact, he or she is not, that is the worst sort of dishonesty, a fraud perpetrated upon one's audience.

As to Mr. Bonner's claims that Mr. Wood is not a "skilled" journalist based on his "applauding along with a faction in the audience that was voicing strongly partisan political points of view," I would just point out to Mr. Bonner that one's skill as a journalist lies in one's ability to interview, to ascertain facts, to investigate and, finally, to aggregate all the information thus gained into one cohesive, well written article. As Mr. Wood's article and Mr. Bonner's letter appeared in the same issue of the Press, I would submit that Mr. Bonner (having obviously not yet read the article in question) had no basis for making any sort of judgment as to Mr. Wood's skills and his criticism has no foundation whatsoever.

What Mr. Bonner's letter comes down to is yet another attempt at censorship by those feverishly promoting the (not unbiased) agenda of the Town Board. First came censorship of our Freedom of Speech on February 1 and subsequent Town Board Meetings. Now, they are attempting to throttle Freedom of the Press. What will we experience next, Town Board resolutions ruling Sunday Sermons out of order?

We can only hope they stop their campaign against the First Amendment with the Freedoms of Speech and the Press and leave Religion alone. If we're lucky, they'll decide that two out of three ain't bad.

Cameron Bonner's Letter to the Editor of the Press

To the Editor,

You should be aware that there is an individual who is posing as a reporter for your newspaper. At a meeting of the Rochester Town Board on March 1, 2007, he introduced himself as a representative of your newspaper, but his unprofessional actions clearly indicated that he is not a skilled or unbiased journalist.

During the public comment period, he was seen applauding along with a faction in the audience that was voicing strongly partisan political points of view. I thought you would want to know about this incident since it reflects very poorly on your newspaper.

Sincerely,
Cameron Bonner

It's a Question of Character

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

I found this quote from Abraham Lincoln while researching something else this afternoon. It struck me as an incredibly simple yet eloquent way of describing what we in the Town of Rochester have been experiencing the past month and a half - not to mention the past 14 months.

It really is a question of character. I can't say with any degree of certainty that those on the Town Board who committed this noxious act against Manuela Mihailescu lack character altogether, but there certainly seems to be a collective flaw in their characters that allowed all of them to believe that they could do what they did to her. Coupled with the fact that they turned their backs on the people of our Town when we called them to task for it, and I would have to say they need to begin re-examining their consciences and figuring out how to fix what went wrong.

As a Christian, I try my best not to hate anyone and I can honestly say that I do not hate the Supervisor or the members of the Board. However, I despise what they did, both to Manuela and to the people of this Town. I am angry, indignant and resolute in my desire to see real change come to the Town of Rochester. I also know that I am far from alone.

The problem is not one of politics, although the supporters of the Town Board would have us all think otherwise. If this were political, why would so many Democrats be as angry about this situation as Republicans or Conservatives? The answer is simple: they recognize that this goes beyond politics. What was done to Manuela and to the people of this Town was not a political move against an electoral opponent. It was a clear cut attack against decency. If I were a Democrat, I would be incensed that the people whom I supported, for whom I campaigned and voted, the people who supposedly represent my values, would do this in my name.

It all comes down to character and when your character allows you to do what we have witnessed, when your character allows you to excuse it and shift the blame on to those you have wronged, serious questions need to be raised about your fitness to govern. If you can do everything which has been done in the past month and a half, you view reality in a way almost no one else in this Town does, political ideologies notwithstanding. Your ability to understand the common principles of decency on which all valid political viewpoints - liberal or conservative - must stand is severely compromised, if not damaged beyond repair.

The fact that one Democratic Town Board member voted to name Manuela to the Historical Preservation Commission and another abstained shows that these questions have been raised in their own minds. Their consciences are likely causing them to doubt the validity of the course of action on which the body they serve has embarked. Gentlemen, it is not too late to do the right thing. Let your consciences guide you, martial your courage and declare to us all that politics is never an acceptable excuse for treating our neighbors with such disdain and disregard. Stand up for someone with whom you disagree.

Show us your character.

Critique of Gene Moncrief's Letter

Let's start with the obvious: Ms. Moncrief - like virtually all of the Town Board's supporters during the past month and a half - attributes all opposition to the vile manner in which the Board treated our neighbors to the Republican Club. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to Club members, there were many people from my own Party (the Conservatives), non-Club Republicans, Independence Party members, non-enrolleds and even some Democrats who have been critical of the manner in which the Board rode roughshod over civil rights on February 1 and during subsequent meetings. This coordinated attack on the Club is nothing more than an attempt to split the opposition. Whether one agrees with the Club or not, all persons of good will must remain united against a Town Government which has become a blight upon the community instead of a representative governmental body serving our needs.

"In their effort to rally support for their cause, they have passed from legitimately voicing concern to inciting hatred. One only needs to visit the Club website to view how they have vilified our town officers and anyone else whose opinion differs."

Righteous indignation and even anger at the patrician manner with which the Board disposed of the opinions of those who raised their voices in protest is NOT "inciting hatred". Furthermore, while anyone who reads this blog knows that it is not my own personal style to do so, "vilification" of public officials is a legitimate form of criticism, especially when they have obviously forgotten their roles and responsibilities towards those whom they (purport to) represent. Does this Town Board fit into that mold? That is, of course, a matter of opinion. Those who believe that they do have a perfectly acceptable right to criticize the Board in the strongest possible terms. This, again, is an attempt at censorship of those who oppose this Town's new Monarchy and it is beneath the dignity of a supposedly democratic community.

"The postcard itself was offensive and filled with indignation and rage. "

Again, the postcard was not my own style of criticism, but it was well within the rights of those who published it. I read the postcard several times. Rage was nowhere to be found. Indignation, however, was present in abundance. Righteous indignation, well justified, well expressed. Certainly no harsher than the words used by many of our Founding Fathers to express their own feelings towards those opposed to basic freedoms in the 18th Century.

"The strategy seems to be: be offensive, don’t compromise, don’t think, compromise your opponent, just lash out. "

Not a particularly accurate statement, but one which could be quite effective if only the people of our Town were not already aware of what the facts of the case are. "Offensive" is a subjective term that means different things to different people. To the Lib-Dem elite which has invaded our Town, it means criticism of the Town Government, the exercise of our civil rights, and the refusal to walk lock step with their brass band playing the Socialist Oom-Pa-Pa. To us, being offensive means showing (or even discussing!) porn to a woman without informing her that she might want to consider bringing an attorney or her husband, limiting the number of participants at a Town Board Meeting, locking our neighbors out into the cold, and censoring the criticism of the people of the Town of Rochester.

"Don't compromise" is, however, probably fairly accurate. What is questionable, however, is the idea that not compromising one's principles is to be viewed as negative. The pseudo-intellectual Liberal Elite has, in its Church of Anything Goes (As Long As You Agree With Us), made a sacrament of moral relativism. Liberals believe that there is no fixed moral standard by which to navigate one's life or one's community. Therefore, they think nothing of compromising when it is to their advantage to do so. We, on the other hand, believe that morality is a natural law, akin to gravity. What goes up, inevitably comes down. Of course, compromise requires the other side to be willing to give somewhat. Despite their criticism of our community for not compromising, compromise is not even possible in this situation as the Town Board refuses to budge, to recognize even infinitesimally, that their behavior may have been wrong.

"We’ve already witnessed a taste of violence in our town: blown up mailboxes, nails in driveways, the humiliating signs, a mysterious fire, and more recently, the threatening, menacing tone at our February town board meeting."

A masterful application of Karl Marx's dialectic. You take a thesis (the violence in our Town) and an antithesis (the vocal criticism of our Town Board) and you end up with the synthesis that states that the two things are morally equivalent. Upon hearing of the acts perpetrated against the Supervisor, a Town Councilman and others last year, I called Supervisor Duke and Councilman Miller to express my shock that such a thing could happen in our Town as well as my personal condemnation of such acts. NEVER was their any evidence whatsoever that any political organization or its leaders were behind these acts. More than likely, they were committed by a citizen who was upset at the Board's disregard for Public Opinion (even back then) and who did not know how to express his or her negative feelings in an acceptable manner. To lump our protest (again, not the Club's protests, but our neighbors') in with acts of force which no decent person can support, is reprehensible and patently false.

"Past behavior is unacceptable to many of the Town of Rochester citizens."

Although this sentence was not addressed to the Supervisor and her Board, it should have been. Their behavior and attitudes are the sole cause of the recent problems we have all experienced. To criticize those who point out this behavior is akin to shooting the messenger.

"Pam Duke’s administration has been the first in my short history here (10 years) to open the door to controversy and conversation"

Supervisor Duke has not only opened the door to controversy, she has, in fact, caused it on several occasions. Her supporters then promptly used it to pummel the people of this Town whenever we point out the Board's habitual disregard for our rights as Americans. As to "opening the door" to "conversation" that's about as laughable a statement as one could make, in light of recent events. Supervisor Duke and her Board not only figuratively but literally locked the door to any kind of conversation on February 1, leaving a hundred of our townsfolk out in the cold. The rest of us were censored and the meeting adjourned. Open the door to conversation? You cannot possibly be serious!

"You must enter into the conversation with respect for elected officials and the democratic process."

Respect is neither a right nor is it endowed through the electoral process. A public official must strive to earn respect every single day of his or her service. The people have a right to withdraw their respect for those who refuse to do so and they have withdrawn it from this Town Board. As to the democratic process, when a Town Board does away with centuries of accepted Parliamentary procedure and capriciously decides that certain topics will not be discussed, that the Presiding Officer of the Meeting can just allow and outsider to take over the Meeting, that the public can be censored and muzzled, it is that Town Board which has blatantly rejected any semblance of respect for the democratic process.

All in all, the letter was well crafted and written to the extent that one looks only at its grammar and style. Unfortunately for Ms. Moncrief, the Board gave her lousy material with which to work. The old saying goes "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." How much more difficult it must be when all you're given to work with is cow chips.

Gene Moncrief's Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Citizens have a right to voice their differing opinions, and over the past 4 years, the Republican Club has become especially good at letting the Town of Rochester know what they disapprove of. Although negative, I was usually interested in what was on their minds.

With this latest town issue, the Club has stepped over the line. In their effort to rally support for their cause, they have passed from legitimately voicing concern to inciting hatred. One only needs to visit the Club website to view how they have vilified our town officers and anyone else whose opinion differs. The Republican Club demonstrated their destructive strategy when they issued postcards to town members demanding the resignation of two town board members (coincidentally the two of the three seats that will be up for election this year ) because of a skewed version of what happened to a candidate for the Historic Preservation Commission in a closed meeting of the town board. The postcard itself was offensive and filled with indignation and rage.

The strategy seems to be: be offensive, don’t compromise, don’t think, compromise your opponent, just lash out. Not pretty, and certainly not productive. The Republican Club seems to think that they can get what they want by screaming the loudest.

A far more disturbing result of this kind of strategy is the potential for violence. We’ve already witnessed a taste of violence in our town: blown up mailboxes, nails in driveways, the humiliating signs, a mysterious fire, and more recently, the threatening, menacing tone at our February town board meeting. This leads me to believe that the objective of the Club is NOT to work towards a better community, but to disrupt, incite anger and destroy any semblance of community.

Republican Club, reconsider your strategy. Past behavior is unacceptable to many of the Town of Rochester citizens.

Pam Duke’s administration has been the first in my short history here (10 years) to open the door to controversy and conversation. In fact, she has invited it. The door is really open to you to get what you want without having to scream and holler, but you must enter into the conversation with respect for elected officials and the democratic process.

Gene Moncrief
Accord

Freedom of Speech Under Attack

Just out of curiosity, I took a glance at the Amnesty International website to see what they have on violations of free speech around the world. I found some rather interesting entries (this does become relevant, you'll see) :

In 2005, physician Kamal al-Labwanim was arrested for speaking to human rights organizations and government officials in the U.S. and Europe about the abuses perpetrated by the Syrian Government. Amnesty's website states that "Prior to Kamal al-Labwani's first hearing on 12 November 2005, he had no access to a lawyer or his family..." Any similarity to a certain interview in our own Town is purely coincidental.

A page dated October 2006 says: "A new report released today by Amnesty International reveals a climate of fear in Viet Nam [sic], with people afraid to post information online and Internet café owners forced to inform on their customers. Individuals are harassed, detained and imprisoned for expressing their peaceful political views online, with fear of prosecution fuelling widespread self-censorship... Those who stand up for free speech are publicly harassed and persecuted." So, people are being punished for what they write on the Internet or say in public? Say it ain't so, Joe!

In 2002, Amnesty had this to say about the Government of Haiti: "Throughout the year the authorities repeatedly stated their general commitment to freedom of speech, but increasingly added conditions that raised doubts about the commitment." It seems anyone who thought public officials tell the truth about protecting the rights of the citizens may have been a bit naive.

In Azerbaijan, journalists work in a very risky profession: "Journalists are only free to express opinions that fall in line with government directives. Anyone daring to voice criticism of the authorities or to expose Azerbaijan's enduring corruption problem faces an uncertain future..." Of course, that really only applies to those who pretend to be reporters, not those who act responsibly and refrain from asking tough questions of government officials.

And the list goes on. It's not the actual punishment that is frightening, but the fact that in the 21st Century, anyone should have to worry about whether what he says will subject him to punishment or sanction of any sort.

The Amnesty International website makes mention on several occasions of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights", a Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. Since the liberal Left in America seems to have much greater respect for international law and the domestic law of other nations than it does for our own Constitution, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at what this document sets forth:

Article 19. Section 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Yes, there it is in black and white. Public Comment is a privilege, not a right. That's what the U.N. tells us... Oh, wait. That's not what it says at all. I guess if you happen to think that it is a privilege instead of a right, you've got it all wrong. Go figure.

Why are we here?

Over the past few days, a close friend and I have had several conversations about the happenings in Town. The more we speak, the more we realize that we have a remarkable confluence of people and events, all coming together at the same time in the same place.

There seem to be three groups of people in our town.

The first are those who have been here for generations, if not centuries. They are the repositories of our rural heritage, the ones who have the most to teach the rest of us about the true history of our Town, the history of its people and its living traditions, not the pseudo-history of the dead stone of old houses.

The second group are those of us who have come into Rochester from elsewhere because we saw something that we not only liked but found to be worth joining and preserving. We have done our best to become a part of what is already here and to add to the existing value. We hope that our great-grandchildren will be looked upon as "old families" someday, eager to pass on the history of this Town to more newcomers being welcomed with open arms.

The third group are those who also came from elsewhere but want to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. Their nihilistic desires would create a new Town, devoid of any sense of community or history. They would base that Town on the idea that "old" is synonymous with "must be replaced" instead of meaning "to be treasured, cherished and protected."

In many towns throughout the Hudson Valley, an influx of those who do not understand rural life and have no desire to learn has turned entire communities upside down. These communities have been steamrollered by those in that Third Group, their families driven out under the burden of unwarranted taxes and over-regulation. They have seen all that their forefathers built cast aside by those who have no concept of tradition.

We, too, have seen our Town change over the past few years. Somehow, however, we have not succumbed to those who would implement a social scorched earth policy in order to re-form our Town into their fairy tale image of what a Town should be. If anything, the challenge posed by these "residents" has made us stronger, more determined, a real threat to their anti-democratic methods and goals.

I call them "residents" because that is what they term themselves, even forming an organization in which to congregate and cluck their tongues at all the backwards country-folk who just don't know what's best for us. We, on the other hand, are "neighbors." We define ourselves not by where we live, but by who surrounds us, who we help in time of need and who - in turn - help us.

These "residents" came in here seemingly overnight determined to devour everything and everyone who stood in their way. When the dust had settled, however, instead of a Town turned into a blank canvas ready for their abstract artists' brushes, they saw the old school classical work of art that is Rochester, undamaged - with true neighbors standing side-by-side saying "No, you won't take from us what is ours by the right of centuries."

We have a unique collection of talents, experiences and the iron determination to overcome the obstacles before us. God willing, we will emerge stronger than ever.

God willing. What an interesting phrase. While other Towns have fallen before the onslaught of those who prefer to destroy rather than to add to what is already there, we are fighting and gaining ground. God willing. Could there be a reason beyond what we comprehend for why all of us ended up in the same place, at the same time, ready to take up the challenge? God willing. Is there a plan yet to be revealed? God willing. Hmmm. I wonder.

Ulster County Press Article

FINALLY, DUKE SPEAKS ON PORNO CONTROVERSY
But the town supervisor pins the scandal in part on 'information from residents'

by Melissa Lajara

Still fired up over the controversy surrounding the interview of Manuela Mihailescu for a seat on the town's Historic Preservation Commission, more than 130 people turned out for the town's monthly meeting last week, held in the Accord Fire Hall.

At that meeting, Democratic Town Supervisor Pam Duke read a statement to the audience, her first personal public response regarding the interview and its immediate effects.

In doing so, she said the allegation of a link between Mihailescu and an adult Web site came from "information from residents."

And in a vote by the town board at the meeting last week, Mihailescu was formally denied the position she was seeking.

Mihailescu, a Kerhonkson resident, said she was accused of being linked to pornography in a second interview for the commission position on Jan. 24 - an allegation she has continually denied.

Shortly afterward, a brochure that Duke said was apparently "designed to incite indignation and outrage" on Mihailescu's behalf was printed and mailed by the Rochester Republican Club, of which Mihailescu is a member.

An overflow crowd stormed the town board meeting Feb. 1. The town hall was closed at its legal capacity - several minutes before the meeting began - and the board elected not to move it to a larger venue. Those kept outside protested, often loudly, booing the board and leaning on car horns.

This month's town board meeting was calm by comparison, but the debate continued over the controversial interview, as well as the closure and abrupt adjournment of last month's town board meeting.

Resident Anna Katz commended the board for its choice to end that meeting, saying the crowd outside was "threatening, abusive, loud and scary."

Resident and business owner Dave O'Halloran commended the board for its behavior during his own commission interview, but noted that Mihailescu had received different treatment. "I'm not saying this to ridicule you," he told the board. "Your reasons for not discussing (the interview) are not valid. There's no threat, no litigation pending, nothing."

Some in the audience held up signs that alluded to the events of February's town board meeting, with slogans such as "this is our house" and "we will be heard."

Resident Bill Dukas, who was nearly thrown out of last week's meeting after piping up repeatedly, requested in public comment that interviews no longer be held in executive sessions, saying the board "abused" its right to go into confidential meetings.

Imre Beke, chairman of the conservative party locally, focused on the exclusion of residents from the Feb. 1 meeting. He told the board "when you openly and blatantly turned your backs on the people... you chose power over authority and legitimacy."

Mihailescu called the entire episode "a tragic reminder of my life in Communist Romania."

Duke read her statement early in the meeting, and distributed a printed copy to the audience. In it, she said the town has acted to protect the confidentiality of that interview, which was held in an executive session, and said she believed the town acted "properly and with sensitivity." She said that Mihailescu was given in the interview a chance to "defend herself against unknown accusations," and said much thought was given to the reliability of the source of the information and its relevancy to the position she was seeking.

"We regret the emotional angst that this has created and the division that this has caused in our community," Duke said. "It is time for all of us to work together to face the challenges that are inevitable as we continue to move through our differences."

Ellenville Journal Article

ROCHESTER RESOLVED?

Town Board Meeting Addresses "Mob"
By Billie Dunn

In an effort to accommodate the expected crowd and to avoid the problems encountered at February's meeting, the Town of Rochester held its town board meeting at the Accord Fire Hall. As seven-o'clock approached the hall began to fill, and by the time the meeting commenced people were beginning to line the walls, while others were still filtering through the doors.

Early into the meeting Supervisor Pam Duke declared that she wished to share the intentions of the town board concerning its interview with Manuela Mihailescu, a candidate for the municipality's Historic Preservation Committee. She has been the subject of much media scrutiny over the past month as allegations linking her and her husband to pornographic websites have been covered in most area publications.

Reading aloud from a prepared speech, Duke suggested that the coverage of the controversy has been one-sided, and the purpose of executive session is to confidentially discuss public matters privately. Once again she explained that because Mihailescu has refused to sign the waiver that would allow the board to discuss the executive session meeting, the matter is still confidential. Some in the audience laughed at the announcement.

"We believe we acted properly and with sensitivity," Duke stated.

Directly following the reading of the statement, Duke motioned whether or not to appoint Mihailescu to the Historic Preservation Committee. Comments were heard throughout the crowd, suggesting that the vote, which was not on the agenda, was inappropriate and uncharacteristic of past appointments. Duke conducted the vote; Councilman Gray voted no, Councilman Spano voted yes, Councilman Miller abstained, and Supervisor Duke voted no. Councilman Santosky, the only Republican on the 4-1 Democrat board, was absent.

Some local residents voiced their disapproval as Duke declared, "We don't have a full board, so that's the way it is."

Afterwards, the board carried on with the agenda, first accepting the minutes of three prior meetings, and moving on with updates and reports. Duke frequently had to restore order, as angry residents spoke amongst themselves.

Following the discussion of new and old business, Duke opened the floor to public comments. Hands went up throughout the audience, and residents brandished signs, all with similar slogans, such as "This is our house" and "The attorney is not our supervisor."

After a number of people voiced their concerns about what they felt was inaccurate representation by the current board, Mihailescu handed out a statement that was intended for the February 1 meeting that ended early at the town board's decision, and began an emotional response to Duke's earlier comments.

"You cannot play with people's lives the way you did with mine," Mihailescu declared, "There is no justification in the world for what you did." This drew applause from the crowded room. After directly responding to the points previously made by Duke, Mihailescu stated that, "The use of the word 'sensitivity,' is the ultimate insult," and before sitting down, she thanked Councilman Spano for his vote.

David O'Halloran, a local business owner and member of the Rochester Republican Club agreed, suggesting that the town attorney, Rod Futerfas, should not have been present at the executive session meeting. He went on to say,"You've never done what you did to Manuela tonight before," he said, "You don't humiliate people. This has a lot to do with Councilman Gray."

Among Mihailescu's many supporters were those who condemned the events of the last month.

"Shame on these people who are acting as a lynch mob," said resident Anne Katz, "I was one of those who was locked out of the last board meeting; it was scary and confusing," she continued, "I commend the board for closing the last meeting, it is the only way a democratic government can deal with a mob."

While some residents hope that the recent controversy has been resolved, others are far from satisfied. The next board meeting, scheduled for Thursday, April 5, will determine whether or not that is the case.

Town of Rochester Internet Research Department

Learning from history

After yesterday's post, I received a very kind e-mail from Manuela which, due to it being a personal communication, I'm not going to post here. However, I think it's safe to say that she spoke of some of her experiences living under a repressive Communist regime. It got me to thinking of how my family's past shaped my own attitude towards the oppressive acts perpetrated by those who have become inebriated by the power of their positions.

My personal memories are not of actual events in my own life, but of the stories I grew up with all throughout my youth. Anyone who knows my father also knows that he fought in the Hungarian Revolution, although he was only 15 at the time, but that's just the tip of the iceberg of my family's history.

My maternal grandfather was a newspaper editor during World War II and came very close to being caught and executed by the Arrow Cross Party (the Hungarian Nazis) for his statements against them in his editorials. Luckily, the Arrow Cross was only in power for about 3 months and he was able to avoid that fate. Then, during the beginning of the Soviet occupation, when Hungary was supposedly still a democracy, he got into hot water for criticizing the Communists, just as he had the Nazis. As a result, he, my grandmother and my mother (who was 3 at the time) had to leave Hungary and spent the next several years in German refugee camps before emigrating to the U.S.

My paternal grandfather died in the war when the Soviets came to invade Hungary. My widowed grandmother worked to help her Jewish acquaintances escape during the brief period of Nazi dictatorship in 1945. At one point, a Jewish neighbor lady was hiding in her closet when the secret police came. She sat my 4 year old father on the potty in front of the closet door and told him to scream and cry with all his might. The police never checked that closet. If they had, not only would the Jewish woman have gone to the concentration camps, my grandmother would likely have been shot on the spot.

My father left Hungary not in 1956 but in 1957. There is an old Hungarian folk song about a soldier leaving his love to fight in a war. One line in the song goes "Oh, my darling, God be with you. I must leave you now." The Communists forbade this song from being sung as it had been for centuries because it contained the word "God". They changed the words to "Oh, my darling, for the homeland, I must leave you now." My father and his classmates sang the original - in school - as a protest against the crackdown on revolutionaries after the 1956. The school was quickly surrounded by military and secret police and the students arrested.

My father was released because his last name was the same as that of a local Communist Party official and my grandmother was head teller at the local National Bank branch. He was told he had to appear before a court to determine his fate. The night of his release, my grandmother (who had recently been widowed for the third time), my father and his 2 and 4 year old brothers crossed a minefield to get into Yugoslavia, where they spent the next year in refugee camps before ending up in Belgium and, eventually, the U.S.

My father-in-law is from Transylvania (which is part of Romania - the same country Manuela and Jon come from). He was the head of telephone operations in Hargita county. One night, the Securitate (Romanian secret police) came and took him away on suspicion of "disloyalty to the State". The family did not know what was happening to him for well over a week, when he was returned, very badly beaten.

While I thank God that I've never had the experiences my parents and Manuela and Jon had to live through, the stories I grew up with left an indelible mark on my spirit. The only reason the things which happened to Manuela, her family, my family, my wife's family, the Jews and Gypsies in Nazi Germany, the people living under Soviet terror for almost half a century in Eastern Europe and so many others could happen is that people who should have known better refused to stand up for someone else's rights, for someone else's life.

I, for one, decided long ago that I would never stand by and do nothing as someone else was being trampled by those in power. The fact that I consider Manuela and Jon to be close friends makes it all the more important for me to do what I can to fight this terrible, evil thing which is being done to them. More to the point, it is vital that we all stand up and do our part.

The one silver lining this very dark cloud has is the outpouring of love, camaraderie and solidarity Manuela and Jon have been blessed to receive from so many of their neighbors, our neighbors. The Board and its supporters and backers wanted to hit Jon and Manuela with something so terrible that they would forever be crippled by it. Instead, they provided the two of them with a community of people who will stand by them, fight for them and strengthen them every step of the way.

Our opponents have miscalculated Manuela's strength and the support those around her are eager to lend her. There's a very old Latin saying "Non Illegitimi Carborundum" (literally "don't let the bastards wear you down.") We will fight them and we will defeat them. There will be no greater punishment for their misdeeds than to take from them the power they worship.

God bless all of you and God bless our Town. With His Guidance, we will prevail.

Critique of the Supervisor's Statement

So much spin, so little time. The Supervisor refers to the Town Board's "obligation to Ms. Mihailescu to protect the confidentiality of Executive Session." The temerity of the Supervisor in making such a statement is astounding! Not only can we guess that the Town Board is trying to protect itself rather than Manuela, we know it for a fact. How? Because the Town Attorney said so in the newspaper!

In an article published on Feb. 7 in the Kingston Freeman, we are told that the Committee on Open Government (which is far more knowledgeable about the Open Government responsibilities of public bodies than any Town Attorney could possibly be) has said that the Town is NOT required to keep the Executive Session confidential:

Board members say they are not allowed to discuss what happened in a closed-door executive session, but Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, said they are mistaken.

"There's nothing in the Open Meetings Law or any other law that forbids them from discussing it," Freeman said. "What they're really saying is, 'We don't want to talk about it.'"

The response to which was:

Rod Futerfas, the town's attorney, said that, because of potential litigation, the board will not discuss the meeting unless Mihailescu signs a waiver. "There is more than just the executive session that is involved here," Futerfas said.

So where is the legal responsibility to keep the Executive Session confidential? Simple. It doesn't exist. The Town Board does not want Manuela to absolve them of confidentiality, they want her to sign away her rights in order to cover their collective behinds.

"We have honored due process..."

Oh, really? I was under the impression that due process meant everyone was innocent until proven guilty, that we all had the right to face our accusers and that the burden of proof was never on the accused. In point of fact, Manuela Mihailescu was not given the name of the "residents" from whom "the Town Board received information" that "potentially linked Ms. Mihailescu’s name to adult websites." Her right to face her accusers was denied her. The allegations were never proven and, in fact, no one has since been able to find these alleged websites. She was denied her Constitutional right to presumption of innocence. Her application to join the Town Committee of her choice was voted down based on rumor, gossip and innuendo. No, wait, that's not quite accurate. Those are the lame excuses offered for her exile from participation in the life of our Town. The real reason was the ongoing political purge of the Town of Rochester by its Town Board.

The Supervisor states that the Board asked itself three questions:

1. Is the information relevant to her appointment?
2. Is the information reliable? Should it be disregarded or does it require further review?
3. If the information were reliable and true, would it prevent her from carrying out her duties on the commission or would there be any objection to appointing her?

She then goes on to state that:

These are legitimate questions and the only way to answer them was to meet with her to ask for her side of the story.

Not only is this statement more spin, but it is completely transparent! How could meeting with Manuela determine if the information is relevant? How could such a meeting determine if the information is reliable, if it should be disregarded or if it required further review? As to the third question, it did not even need to be asked if the allegations could not be proven. We can now clearly see that the interview process, based not on Manuela Mihailescu's account but on the Supervisor's statement, was nothing but an extended version of the old joke where the policeman asks the suspect, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The questions, rather than searching for the truth, assume guilt. All that's missing is a bright light in Manuela's face and a dark clothed investigator stating "We have ways of making you talk."

"To do anything less would have deprived her right to defend herself against unknown accusations."

Excuse me?!?!?! When, at any point in this process, did Manuela have the right or opportunity to defend herself? For that matter, how on earth can someone defend himself or herself against "unknown accusations"? You have to know what you are being accused of and by whom in order to mount an effective defense. Manuela Mihailescu was accused and found "guilty" by those who wanted her off the Historical Preservation Commission before she even had the chance to make her side known. The fact that the actual vote wasn't taken until March 1 is completely irrelevant. The decision had already been made because this was never about whether or not the accusations were true. It was about one single thing: keeping her off the Commission in order to punish her and her husband and - through them - the entire block of right of center residents of this Town.

"We believe that we acted properly and with sensitivity."

Sensitivity for whom? Not for Manuela. Not for her husband or her friends or her neighbors. Certainly not for the hundred or so townspeople locked out in the freezing night on February 1. Not for the equally large crowd who wished to address the Board but were told "Public Comment is not a right but a privilege" and "The Board is not interested in having a one-sided conversation." The Town Board's "sensitivity" was followed up by a Comment-less Special Meeting, another Meeting that reserved Public Comment until after they held their dirty little vote on Manuela's application, an accusation of her supporters being a "lynch mob" and a letter to the Ulster County Press talking of the "potential for violence". Some sensitivity. Let's be thankful the Town Board and its supporters aren't dentists.

What it all comes down to is that as long as this Town Board sits ensconced in their collective thrones, there will be no fairness, no decency, no due process, no balance in the Town of Rochester Government. Instead, we will see vindictiveness, political purges, a dictatorial attitude, intentional divisiveness and a concerted effort to create and perpetuate two classes of residents. Apparently, this Town Board reigns according to the old saying, 'To the victor belong the spoils." This is anything but democratic and open.

The fault lies in the arrogance of the Town Board and its ultra-liberal supporters. The proof of where the blame lies was supplied by Supervisor Duke in her own statement to the Town. As President Lincoln said, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time." Fewer and fewer of our neighbors are allowing the Supervisor and her Board to pull the wool over their eyes. We are a small Town, but proud of our heritage - of the honest, hardworking legacy we've been handed down by those who made this Town one of the best places to live and raise a family in New York State. Underestimating our intelligence will prove to be a mistake the Democrats will not be able to rectify.