Signs of the Times

Something is different during this election season. Two years ago, we saw Duke & Company signs in yards all over Town. We saw Democrats actually picketing Supervisor Duke's opponent's place of business. We saw support for Pam Duke and her running mates.

That year was also a year when Democrats swept to power all over the County. They were successful in blaming Republicans for the jail scandal even though every Democrat in the Legislature voted for the jail project while several Republicans voted against it. They were able to convince us that the Republicans were to blame for the 39% tax increase when, in fact, the County Administrator assembled the budget that year. The County Democrats had coattails that brought Democrats into power in areas no one would have imagined a few months before.

This year, however, is different. Very, very different.

The Democrats in the Legislature are in disarray, fighting amongst themselves in what seems to an extension of the power struggle between County Democratic Chair John Parete and the ultra-Liberal faction of the Party apparently led by Legislator Susan Zimet. The Democratic vote for DA appears to be headed for a split between Party nominee Jonathan Sennett and the son of the late Judge Bradley, Vincent Bradley, Jr., who has registered as a Democrat but will not actually become one until after the election. Such a split will all but guarantee a win for Republican Holley Carnright. Even in the City of Kingston, which conventional wisdom calls a Democratic stronghold, there is a good chance of a Republican victory in both the Mayor's race and the election for Alderman-at-Large. The public employee's union has endorsed the Republican challenger, leaving Mayor James Sottile without a critical piece of support while Republicans Richard Cahill and Leonard Walker are picking up endorsements and donations left and right.

In our Legislative District, if we vote for only three candidates and leave the other slot empty, we will not only re-elect Sue Cummings, who has served us so well for so long, but possibly give her another Republican-Conservative from this District.

The weakening of the County Democratic momentum from two years ago means that Democrats in local races throughout the County cannot count on the extra votes they had in 2005. They will have to work for each and every vote personally.

Here in the Town of Rochester, we're seeing very few Duke & Company signs in people's yards. The ones we see are on public property and in front of empty businesses like the former carpet store and the defunct barbecue restaurant. This is important because it means people who once supported Pam Duke are ashamed to do so this year.

Many people have publicly declared that, even though they voted for the Supervisor in previous elections, they will not be doing so this year. Many who had Duke signs in their yards in the past cannot justify doing so this year, unable to face their neighbors to explain how they could possibly support someone who holds the people of Rochester in such disdain. Which is not to say that they are secretly supporting the Supervisor. If you ask them, they will willingly tell you just how disgusted they are with the Board.

This isn't about Parties anymore. It's about those who love our Town and those who hate what we are so much, they would do anything to change it. You see, the Town is not mountains and rocks and deer and trees. The Town is the People, pure and simple. If you hate us, you hate the Town. Our Democratic neighbors are just as sickened by the behavior of the Board as the rest of us are.

To stem the bloodletting, Democrats are handing out pamphlets claiming their candidates stand for unity, progress, rural character and Open Government when everyone knows just how untrue those claims are. They are taking telephone "polls" and using the opportunity to attack Carl Chipman when the respondent indicates that he or she will be voting United Rochester. Their mailings and statements claim that the Supervisor and Board have stood for values which they trampled underfoot, that they will stand for principles in the future which we find important but upon which we have seen the Board spit. In typical Party machine fashion, they promise everything under the sun, most of which was promised before and which the Board failed to deliver.

They were terrified of giving their own Party's rank and file a real choice in whom they wanted to nominate.

On several online forums, their supporters have launched a series of vile, highly personal attacks on many of the leaders of the opposition. It seems they're getting desperate.

On the other side of the equation, people are not only proudly displaying Conservative-Republican-United Rochester signs, they are making their own, hand drawn and otherwise. Private citizens are having signs printed at their own expense. A few of our neighbors spent days making the giant United Rochester sign across from the entrance to Boice Mill Road. People are volunteering their own time to call their neighbors and encourage them to vote for the United Rochester ticket on November 6.

Only ten days to go. We're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. We're about to take our Town back from those who are steering us on a course to destruction. The only thing we need to make it happen is you.

We need you to vote Row B or D on Election Day. We need you to call everyone you know and encourage them to vote for Carl Chipman and the United Rochester Team, your Team. If they are unaware of how their rights are being stolen from them by the Duke Regime, tell them. Make them aware of the issues. Point them to this blog or the Republican website. Let them read about the issues and see how the other side uses personal attacks to respond to issue oriented criticisms of the Board.

We need you to find out if anyone you know needs a ride to the polls on Election Day. If they do, take them to vote. we need you to convince others to do all these things, as well.

Above all, we need you to pray for our Freedoms. Never underestimate the power of prayer.

We need you to take ownership of this Election and this Town.

This is Our Town. Town Hall is Our House. The Supervisor and Board are Our Employees.

Ours. Yours and mine and all our neighbors'.

Together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

Together. We need you. You need you.

Temper, temper

Apparently, my last few posts have raised the ire of the other side. If you look at the comments posted by one or more Anonymous posters, you'll see some very nasty, very personal attacks against myself and against other posters, people who had the guts to take public ownership of their comments. After posting a few responses myself, I decided that I am no longer going to respond to any of these personal attacks. I will, however, give you the reasons for my decision:

ANONYMITY Anyone who refuses to give his or her name does not deserve to be treated as an equal debate partner. People have asked me why I allow Anonymous posts on this blog and why I don't remove the hateful, irrational comments thus posted. The answer is simple. Unlike the Town Board and its supporters, I have no desire to tell anyone what to do. I sincerely believe in the ideal that adults (chronologically speaking - emotional age is another issue) have the right to do as they please until and unless they cause harm to others. I was happy to point out the utter irrationality of those posts (until it began to take up too much of my time), but I do not censor. That is where those on our side and those who support the Board differ.

IMMATURITY Those who lob such vile comments at others are proving their lack of emotional maturity. I would not stop to debate with a five year old. Nor will I debate with one who acts as if he or she were that age.

RELEVANCE None of the Anonymous posts were actually relevant to the topic to which they were "responding." Feel free to read the original posts and then the comments. Not a single one of them actually addressed the points raised in the original posts. Of course, I can understand why. It is all but impossible to refute or rebut the truth. The commenters opted, instead, to attack the messenger (albeit falsely), hoping that by doing so they can cause people to doubt the veracity of the message. However, I believe that they underestimated the intelligence of the people of the Town of Rochester. Our neighbors do not allow themselves to be fooled easily.

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS Not once did I engage in personal attacks on any person in this blog. Not one single time. I analyzed the actions and words of our elected officials and those who support them. Oftentimes, my characterizations were harsh. However, I believe that if you involve yourself in politics, you should develop a thick skin and be prepared to have your official or political acts and words scrutinized under a microscope. That is, after all, fair game. My critics do not analyze what I write. They attack other commenters and myself on a personal level. This is known as mudslinging. Doing so does not actually harm the one you are attacking. Instead, it shows how incapable you are of engaging in a debate on the issues.

The fact is, they cannot score points on the issues. They are terrified that their own acts have unified the people of this Town against them. They lie awake at night petrified by the thought that the hicks and rednecks they look down upon will eject them from their positions of power and that they will be unable to advance their personal, selfish agendas.

The comments posted on this blog and elsewhere are the digital version of a toddler's tantrums.

They do not deserve a response. Nor will they get any more from me.

Duke's Record Makes Us Cringe

The Freeman published an article on the Supervisor's race in Rochester (click here to read). Here is the response I posted on the Freeman's forum:

I find it unfortunate that the article on the race made no mention of the controversy in which Supervisor Duke has embroiled our Town. Almost every major official act of the Supervisor's seems designed to divide the Town into two classes: those whose personal desires and political agendas are advanced by the Duke Regime and those whose rights are not only violated but such violations are enshrined in Town Law.

Some examples:

Jon Dogar-Marinesco was denied a place on a Town Committee after a Town Board member publicly stated that - as Republican Club webmaster - he should not be allowed to participate.

Marinesco's wife Manuela Mihailescu was denied a place on a Town Committee after anonymous allegations were made that she runs a porn site. No proof was ever presented to the public or to the Court when she sued the Town. The Court ruled in her favor.

Townspeople - upset over the Mihailescu incident - jammed the Town Hall for the February 2007 meeting. Roughly 100 people (some elderly, some disabled) were forced to stand out in the bitter winter cold. One Councilman made a motion to move the meeting to a larger venue. Supervisor Duke's allies on the Board refused to do so.

During the meeting, one Town Board member told the public that "Public comment is not a right. It is a privilege granted at the sufferance of the Town Board."

When I was recognized during public comment, I was told by the Town Attorney that my remarks on the Town's handling of the Mihailescu situation were on a topic that was forbidden and that I would not be permitted to continue. Following a very short exchange between myself and the attorney on Robert's Rules of Order, the Town Board adjourned the meeting without doing any business whatsoever.

The next Town Board Meeting was a Special Meeting at which no Public Comment was permitted.

Subsequent Public Hearings have been jammed with Townspeople, the vast majority of whom have been highly critical of Supervisor Duke's actions vis-a-vis our civil rights. In particular, by better than a 2-1 margin, the Townspeople have been very vocal in their opposition to the new Zoning Code (as well as the Comprehensive Plan and other precursors and related laws), which seems to be designed to fulfill the interests and desires of a small group of elitists who stand behind the Supervisor.

Supervisor Duke convinced the Town Board to grant her a major pay hike, saying that the job was now a full time job and deserved a greater salary. No mention of such a pay hike was made during her last run for re-election. The Townspeople were not consulted. Perhaps the job is not really a full time job. Rather, it may be that Supervisor Duke requires full time hours to perform the tasks previous Supervisors performed on a part time basis. That, in itself, calls into question whether the Supervisor is fit to continue in her job.

Supervisor Duke was permitted to seek the Republican nomination in 2005. Her Party was invited to have their candidates interview and seek the Conservative nomination this year. Yet, she finds it acceptable that her own Party's rank and file was denied the opportunity to present alternative candidates, including her Republican challenger, at the 2007 Democratic Caucus. In response to these circumstances, half of all Democrats present at the Caucus walked out in disgust. Many of those who remained later expressed their opposition to the lack of openness.

Supervisor Duke's record speaks for itself. All signs point to the fact that her record will come to an end shortly. The voters in Rochester will speak and send her packing.

Fool Time Job

Apparently, some of our friends on the extreme Left here in Town have been resorting to some rather nasty tactics in their desperation to get their candidates re-elected to the Supervisor's seat and the Town Board. I've gotten several reports from people who say that people have been calling them under the guise of doing a survey and asking who they were supporting for Supervisor. When the person being queried responds "Carl Chipman," the so-called "pollsters" launch into a diatribe against Carl, focusing on whether or not Carl will have the time to work full time as Supervisor.

This is a classic example of political operatives trying to frame the debate according to terms which are favorable to them. However, referring to the Supervisor's job as "full time" brings to the forefront a far more important question:

How competent can the current Supervisor be at her job when she needs to dedicate full time hours to performing her duties? No previous Supervisor has had to do so. The people of this Town were never asked if we wanted to pay a full time Supervisor. This is a Town of under 8,000 people. What on Earth could have changed in the job from 2003 to today that would turn the job from a part time, small town public service position to a full time, big money burden to the person currently holding the office? Our population didn't double in four short years. The job is no more difficult today than when the Supervisor's predecessor ran our Town.

The previous Supervisor kept our taxes down, with zero tax increases for several years. The current Supervisor inflates her salary immensely amidst out of control tax increases. The previous Supervisor had time to make sure that we all felt like neighbors (except for those who chose not to for political purposes). The current Supervisor takes the time out of her busy schedule to intentionally divide this community into "us" versus "them." The previous Supervisor knew almost everyone by name. The current Supervisor wants to force out everyone she is unfamiliar with and many whom she happens to know. The previous Supervisor didn't speak of Open Government but made sure that we all had our say. The current Supervisor believes in "Closed Open Government" and censors the Townspeople in public forums, forcing many of our elderly and even some disabled neighbors into the winter cold before suspending a Town meeting because she didn't like what we were saying.

By her actions, the current Supervisor has defined her job as full time, abusive, intrusive and dictatorial. What we need is someone who will refrain from defining the position according to his own ideas, someone who understands that the position of Supervisor belongs to the people of the Town of Rochester and wants us to define the office. What we need is someone who, rather than Supervising the Town, will be the Town's Supervisor, someone who will do the people's work rather than working over the people.

The Supervisor's challenger, Carl Chipman, has been endorsed and is supported by not only the Conservative and Republican Parties, but by a coalition made up of members of both those Parties and of Democrats, Independence Party members and those who have chosen not to join a political party. He has former officers of the Democratic Party in his corner. When the Democratic rank and file was denied the opportunity to choose between Supervisor Duke and Carl Chipman, over half of them walked out of the Democratic Caucus.

The support he is receiving transcends party lines and political philosophies. It is a sign that the people of this Town both trust his ability to run our Town as we would have him do and that we recognize the fact that our current Town Board is tearing this Town apart and doing so intentionally.

At a recent Public Hearing, we were told by the supporters of the extremists on our Town Board that we don't need to take our Town back, we need to take our Town forward. Very clever, but what do you do when the ship you are taking forward is headed for the rocks? Do you refuse to admit that the course on which you embarked is a course towards disaster? Or do you accept your responsibility for the catastrophic path you have taken, stop and find another way?

There is no choice, we need to take our Town back and there is only one way to do so. This Town needs Carl Chipman as our Supervisor and his running mates, Tavi Cilenti and Manuela Mihailescu, on the Town Board. We need to turn to a sane, sensible course and become rural, neighborly, friendly once again.

The question is not one of how many hours the Supervisor spends in Town Hall, it is whether we want divisiveness and dictatorial disdain or unifying public service.

You decide.

Next, They'll Say the Earth is Flat

My recent post on Civil Disobedience garnered the following comment:

Anonymous said...

Between your love of Lincoln and your admiration for Thoreau you seem to be hinting at something much deeper than politics.

Imre, it's ok to come out, you're not alone.

Number one, the extremists still don't have the courage to own up to their comments, insisting on anonymity. Doing so is not only childish but cowardly. Apparently, no amount of open discussion and debate on our part will convince them to act in a civilized, adult manner. I don't know if they are simply embarrassed by their own statements or if they're joining Jane Fonda in declaring "I am Viet Cong" while lobbing guerrilla remarks at their opponents. Either way, there is a distinct lack of willingness to engage in mature political debate. Ironic that the commenter should say "it's ok to come out" [sic] when he or she is unwilling to do so.

As to the crux of the comment, it seems to me that there has been an attempt over the past few weeks to make something of a certain remark that "there is nothing straight about Pam Duke." It is being alleged that that sentence is an allusion to her private life and that her lifestyle choices are her own and do not belong in the political realm. I, for one, happen to agree. Personal aspects of one's life should not be up to public debate even if one is a public figure. The other side of the equation, of course, is that "nothing straight" may not have anything whatsoever to do with sexuality and everything to do with the inability demonstrated by the Supervisor and the Board to be open with the people of this Town. The remark seems to have been in answer to a particular headline ("Straight Talk from Pam Duke"). Given that the word "straight" first came out in support of the Supervisor, wouldn't it be fair to use the same word in rebuttal? Sometimes overly sensitive people see boogeymen in every closet and under every bed.

That having been said, it strikes me as more than a bit hypocritical that a critic of this blog (who, one would assume by extension, is a supporter of Supervisor Duke and her Board) would use a remark about homosexuality, even if the intent was humorous, as an insult or attack. Apparently, comments on homosexuality meant to be denigrating or belittling are fair game if you're a Liberal but "bigoted" or "homophobic" if you're a Conservative.

With regard to the historical accuracy of the statements, they are dubious, at best. Henry David Thoreau, although disdainful of women in some of his writings, asked a woman (Ellen Sewell) to marry him. He exchanged poetry with a second woman and fell in love with a third (albeit married) woman. Furthermore, all his male acquaintances were happily married with no indication of any proclivities towards other men.

The allegations that Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual are completely ludicrous. The primary "evidence" cited by homosexual activists is that he slept for many years in the same bed with another man. Reputable historians, however, have roundly discounted this so-called proof. In the period in question, men often roomed together for years and, as many boarding house rooms had but a single bed, had little choice but to sleep in the same bed. This was no more an indication of homosexuality than sitting in the back of a car together would be today. All other "clues" by which certain persons have tried to prove that Lincoln was gay have been similarly shown to be nonsense. There simply is no historical indication that Lincoln was ever attracted to men.

I find it odd that activists would need to grasp at straws in order to justify their lifestyle. The re-writing of history with claims which do not even stand up to minimal scrutiny seem to indicate a fundamental lack of confidence in their own ability to stand up for their choices without need for explanations. Historically, tyrants and despots and their quislings are the ones who re-write both history and current events. Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Pinochet and Saddam come to mind. A recent example is Ahmadinejad's attempt to claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Nice company our friends on the Left have put themselves in.

Interestingly, the writer of the comment on this blog did not go on to point out that of the vast majority of those whom I have quoted since starting this blog, no allegations of homosexuality have ever been made and that that must be evidence that I am perfectly straight. I feel no need to defend my own private life, but find it heartening that the other side must resort to personal attacks against us. This is a sure sign that they have nothing substantive to say in refuting our claims with regards to the Town Board's disgraceful behavior since taking office. Thank you, Liberals, for proving our points for us with every word you utter.

At any rate, if it were to be determined conclusively that either Lincoln or Thoreau were inclined towards their own gender, that would not change the fundamental truth of their positions. It is only in recent history that sexuality and political philosophies have become so intertwined, largely because of the intolerance towards homosexuals who hold non-Liberal positions, people such as the Log Cabin Republicans. One could take such intolerance as being a further sign of insecurity, as one who is certain of one's positions has no reason to feel threatened by those who hold an opposing viewpoint.

Then again, the leadership of the Democratic Party has always taken for granted its unwavering support among certain segments of the American population. Their operatives have always gone out of their way to clamp down on any prominent (and, in some cases, not so prominent) member of one of the Party's captive groups who strayed from the Party Line, including those Democratic voters who would like to challenge the leadership's choice of candidates.

Tolerance would seem to mean "You must accept me, but I have no obligation to accept you." Considering the fact that one of our neighbors has publicly forgiven Supervisor Duke and the Board and all we hear from the other side is hate and venom, one question must be asked: Which side is, in reality, the tolerant one?

Taxpayer money to fight political damage

The Kingston Freeman published an article (October 9, 2007, click here to read) stating that the Rochester Town Board was appealing the Court decision awarding Manuela Mihailescu damages for the emotional distress she suffered at their hands (so the Court has found). The following is a response I submitted to the Freeman's online forum:

While I am outraged by the Rochester Town Government's willingness to use taxpayer money to appeal this case, I am not surprised. The self-serving attitude of this Town Government has been flaunted in our faces since these people took office. The accusations leveled at Ms. Mihailescu by the Supervisor and her cheerleaders are nothing but political mud-slinging. The Town Government wanted to keep her off a Town Committee simply because she was deeply involved with the local Republican Club and because her husband, as webmaster for the Club, is one of the Board's most outspoken critics. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at violating one of our neighbors' Freedom of Speech. Nothing more, nothing less.

This Town Board has turned its entire term in office into a political purge, removing those who disagree with the Board, filtering out new applicants who are critical of the Board's actions and appointing those who toady up to them to the positions thus emptied.

One important question: Why on Earth would the Town Government spend so much money to defend this case, especially given that the costs likely outweigh the actual award? Simple. They are using taxpayer money to deflect the political damage caused by their own actions. They are desperate to retain their seats in November, regardless of the expense to the hardworking people of the Town of Rochester.

Shame on them.

If they are so intent on fighting this case, they should reach into their own pockets to pay for it. The excuse that they were acting in their official capacities just doesn't fly. Barely a handful of people, even among actual supporters of the Board, think that what was done to Ms. Mihailescu was justified. The Board simply was not acting on behalf of the people of Rochester. They were acting to further their own, selfish political agenda.

They did NOT do this despicable thing in my name and I, for one, should not have to pay a single cent towards its defense. Nor should any of my neighbors.

You pay the piper for the acts you commit. It's called being a responsible adult. Then again, the only meaning of the word "adult" the Town Board seems to understand is the one meaning "porn."

Absentee Ballot Applications

As anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis realizes, it is absolutely imperative that we rid our Town of the bullies who are now running our municipal Government. In the event that you cannot be here on November 6, you can apply for an Absentee Ballot by downloading the application (click here) from the Ulster County Board of Elections.

The following are the Absentee Ballot deadlines for this year's General Election:

• Oct. 30 Last day to postmark application or letter of application for ballot.
• Nov. 5 Last day to apply in person for ballot.
• Nov. 5 Last day to postmark ballot. Must be received by the Board of Elections no later than Nov. 13th.
• Nov. 6 Last day to deliver ballot in person to the Board of Elections.

Please try to beat the deadlines by a few days, just in case.

ELECTION DAY THIS YEAR IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6

The following are legally acceptable reasons for requesting an Absentee Ballot:

• unavoidably absent from your county on Election Day
• unable to appear at the polls due to illness or disability
• a patient in a Veterans’ Administration Hospital
• detained in jail awaiting Grand Jury action or confined in prison after conviction for an offense other than a felony

Useful Board of Elections Links & Contact Information:

• Board of Elections Home Page
• Absentee Ballot Application
• Political Calendar for 2007
• Phone Number: 845-334-5470
• Address: 284 Wall Street, Kingston, NY 12401

Critique of Democratic Chairman Zali Win's Letter

The letter written by Democratic Chairman Zali Win and published on the Accord-Kerhonkson.com website on October 3, 2007 (click here to read) is, without any doubt, an excellent example of political spin. Chairman Win is obviously trying to defuse the criticism of the way in which the Democratic Caucus was run by employing the "Best Defense is a Good Offense" strategy, which involves blaming everyone else rather than acknowledging responsibility for mistakes made. Believe me, I've made mistakes myself in running Caucuses and have always taken the blame and apologized for them. It's not hard to do, it just takes an honest look at oneself and a bit of humility, but I digress.

The points made in the Letter, however, are easy to counter because we do not employ the "Best Defense" strategy, choosing instead to use the lesser known and rarely utilized "Tell the Truth" strategy. Then again, we have the luxury being able to do so.

A frank and honest reporting of the Democratic Caucus' events can be found on this blog (click here to read), and I'm going to spare you a complete re-telling in this Critique. However, I will respond briefly to a few of the points Chairman Win attempts to get across, endeavoring to misdirect the attention focused on the Democratic Machine by his own members, among others.

1. We are confident that these candidates, if elected by Rochester’s voters, will serve our community well and make difficult decisions fairly with the best interests of the Town at heart, rather than the best interests of a small minority.

Really? The evidence to date is that they are incapable of serving the Town as a whole and that they do, in fact, represent the interests of a small minority. Remember: Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, Independence Party members and non-enrolled voters have all spoken out in great numbers - loudly and repeatedly - against the actions of the Town Board which are supported by a very small minority in Town. The numbers speak for themselves. In addition, HALF of all Democrats who attended the Democratic Caucus stood up and walked out in anger at the way they were treated.

2. To assert that the purpose of the caucus was to select their Republicans’ candidates instead discounts our party’s objective of putting forth well-qualified, intelligent, and civic-minded candidates.

Nice try, but no one ever said that the purpose of the Democratic Caucus was to nominate Republicans. The issue at hand is whether or not the majority of attending enrolled Democrats should have the right to amend the rules of the Caucus in order to give them a true, democratic choice.

3. Perhaps these challengers genuinely believe that the only way they can win this November is if they deprive voters of choice and win by default.

Ironically, Chairman Win is accusing others of depriving voters of a choice when enrolled Democrats were denied that very choice by their own leadership. Tony Jarvis made a Motion to amend the rules of the Caucus in order to give just such a choice to his fellow Democrats, a Motion which was ruled Out of Order before anyone even had the chance to Second it. Where's the choice given to Town Democrats by their own leadership?

4. Rochester’s Democratic candidates are prepared to campaign on the basis of their qualifications and dedication to our community, a positive vision for our region’s future, and solid ideas derived from a free and open exchange of ideas. Accordingly we have invited the Republican candidates to a Meet the Candidates night; unfortunately they have decided not to respond to our invitation.

That is a completely inaccurate description of the exchange regarding the proposed Meet the Candidates night. The Candidates were told that they would not be permitted a discussion on issues nor would there be an Open Microphone for questions from the voters. The Conservative-Republicans responded asking to have these opportunities added and to have the night moved to a more convenient point in time, when all could attend. "Free and open exchange of ideas," indeed.

5. This election will be one in which we expect a continuation of the falsehoods and misrepresentations that have been put forth in recent months by our challengers will be the norm. By contrast, our Democratic candidates will continue to articulate positive ideas and rational discourse.

Notice Chairman Win has not detailed a single "falsehood" or "misrepresentation" in his letter. This is par for the course with the supporters of the current oligarchy. They are unable to give any such details because no such "falsehoods" have been uttered by our candidates or those of us most vocal in shining daylight on the reprehensible acts of the Town Board since coming to power. The Democratic candidates cannot "continue to articulate positive ideas and rational discourse" because they have never done so!

6. We urge voters to ignore the distractions and to focus on fact and truth this November.

Finally, a point on which we do agree. If voters ignore the smoke and mirrors used by the Town Board, their supporters and the Democratic leadership, they will see the facts for what they are. We have a Town Board which is so full of its own power, so intent on its own selfish agenda, so contemptuous of the rural character of our Town and the people who live here that it cannot ever do the right thing. It is simply incapable of true leadership, of sacrifice, of understanding the desires of the people of Rochester.

Unlike the Democratic leadership, I trust the people of this Town. Our neighbors are intelligent, discerning people who see the Town Board for the bullies they are and will send them packing in November. We have no need of spin to make our message clear. The events of the past two years speak for themselves.

A new day is about to dawn for our Town, one where neighbors will once again reach out to one another in friendship. We will never again allow people like the Board and its supporters to destroy that small town spirit.

Letter from Democratic Chairman Zali Win

The following "Letter to the Editor" was published yesterday on the Accord-Kerhonkson.com website run by Rochester Democratic Chairman Zali Win. The letter was written by the same Zali Win and addressed to the Editor who is Zali Win. The letter may or may not appear in print publications. We'll have to wait and see.

My critique of this letter will be found in a separate post.

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

Dear Editor:

On September 23, Democrats in the Town of Rochester assembled to select our candidates for Town office for the November election. The Town’s Democratic Committee interviewed every candidate who expressed an interest in receiving the Democratic nomination and endorsed the best of those candidates based on the candidates’ vision for the future, their experience, and qualifications. And Democrats who attended the nominating caucus overwhelmingly supported the endorsed candidates: Pam Duke for Supervisor, Francis Gray and Donna Ragonese for Town Board, and Paul Shaheen, Esq. for Town Justice. We are confident that these candidates, if elected by Rochester’s voters, will serve our community well and make difficult decisions fairly with the best interests of the Town at heart, rather than the best interests of a small minority.

We have been surprised by allegations put forth by political challengers that the nominating process was unfair. The purpose of the nominating caucus was to select Democrats and candidates who support the Democratic agenda, and that we did. To assert that the purpose of the caucus was to select their Republicans’ candidates instead discounts our party’s objective of putting forth well-qualified, intelligent, and civic-minded candidates. Perhaps these challengers genuinely believe that the only way they can win this November is if they deprive voters of choice and win by default.

Rochester’s Democratic candidates are prepared to campaign on the basis of their qualifications and dedication to our community, a positive vision for our region’s future, and solid ideas derived from a free and open exchange of ideas. Accordingly we have invited the Republican candidates to a Meet the Candidates night; unfortunately they have decided not to respond to our invitation.

This election will be one in which we expect a continuation of the falsehoods and misrepresentations that have been put forth in recent months by our challengers will be the norm. By contrast, our Democratic candidates will continue to articulate positive ideas and rational discourse. We urge voters to ignore the distractions and to focus on fact and truth this November.

Zali Win, Chair
Rochester Democrats

Resistance is Freedom

There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.

-Henry David Thoreau

Some months ago, when the Town Board decided that it's just authority extended to the attempted devastation of the reputation of one of our good neighbors, I stood at a Town board Meeting and declared that "The Tea Party starts tonight." Since that time, I have heard the supporters of the Board ridicule that statement, asking "Where's your Tea Party?" Trying to explain the love of freedom to these people is like trying to describe Mozart to one who has been denied the sense of hearing. They have no frame of reference by which to judge its beauty, its value, its immeasurable import to the souls of men.

They don't understand. They cannot understand.

The ideal of civil disobedience is one of the most important institutions of democracy. It is the basic statement made by the people that they consent to be governed, not to be ruled. It is a declaration that all who are given the authority to make the rules by which we live can be denied that authority at a moment's notice. Just laws are not obeyed because they are laws, but because the people agree with them. Laws which must be enforced through brute force because the majority of their subjects reject them are, by definition, unjust. They are not, in fact, laws at all, but decrees made by those in power whose authority has been withdrawn by the people.

Elected officials are given a term of office by the people who elect them, but being in office and having authority are two very different things. Being in office means having the power to enforce your will. Having authority means justifying your every action, day in and day out, to the people from whom your authority comes. Government has authority through the trust of the people. Once they lose that trust or intentionally trample it underfoot, they cease to be a Government and become instead a band of thugs.

It is at such times that the people of all democracies have the moral right and obligation to resist the decrees set above them. They have the ethical means to shout out loud to the charlatans who still consider themselves to be a Government that such decrees are illegitimate and will not be obeyed. They have the ability to turn thugs into lame ducks until such time as the next election allows them to say "You're fired."

Civil disobedience has a long, proud history in this country. From the Boston Tea Party where by Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty cast British Tea into Boston Harbor to the Underground Railroad which gave human beings their freedom from the blight on our past called slavery. Suffragettes and civil rights protesters all practiced civil disobedience and brought about change. More importantly, each one of those changes broadened the personal liberties enjoyed by Americans.

Around the world, civil disobedience has been practiced far and wide to bring freedom to those who, although they had never experienced it, hungered and thirsted for it. From Gandhi's India to Stephen Biko's South Africa, refusal to submit brought about the changes the people both needed and demanded. At this very moment, it is being practiced in nations such as Burma, where those who refuse to give up power are assaulting their own people, inuring them, maiming them, killing them.

We can thank people like Rosa Parks and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for showing us that, with courage and conviction, power can be defeated. It is immaterial if the reason one's freedoms are restricted is because of skin color, ethnicity, gender or simply because certain people in a Town want to drive their fellow Townsfolk out. When an official body wants to take freedom from us (and they always say that it's for our own good or that of the community), they must be shown that we will never acquiesce. Their laws will be thrown on the rubbish heap and allowed to rot from disuse as we will not obey. There can be no question, no room for doubt.

Laws forced on us will never govern us, not if we decide otherwise.

Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay entitled Civil Disobedience in 1848, in which he tells us:

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them?

Where is the Tea Party? Just look at the last two Public Hearings. The Tea Party is alive and well in the Town of Rochester and we are ready to cast all they have done to us into the sea. As for the Town Board, they will be removed from office shortly. Never again will we allow anyone to interfere in our homes and our freedoms. Our civil rights will be preserved and those who hate them will be marginalized.

Would you like some sugar with your Tea?