Of The People

Happy Thanksgiving

2007-11-22T07:03:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving has long been a holiday dedicated to expressing our gratitude for the good things which have happened in our lives during the preceding year. Lately, however, we have been inundated in the media by a three-pronged attack on Thanksgiving. First, they tell us that the Pilgrims really didn't celebrate Thanksgiving. Then, we're subjected to a guilt trip regarding the treatment of Native Americans. Finally, the animal rights' extremists want us to give up eating turkey.

Of course, the real isue is that they don't want us to give thanks because there is only one being to whom thanks could logically be given: the Creator of Everything, He Who Bestows All Blessings, the Being Formerly Known As God (before liberals tried to make "God" a dirty word.)

Let's address these "issues" briefly:

One - It doesn't matter whether or not Governor Bradford and the other Mayflower travelers celebrated Thanksgiving. You see, for them, the reality of Divine Providence's daily involvement in their lives, making their very survival possible, was something impossible to question. As far as the Pilgrims were concerned, every day was Thanksgiving Day. Whatever minor blessing or gift they were bestowed, they thanked God for it. The real question is not whether the Pilgrims picked one day to be thankful. It is why would we be thankful on only one day.

Two - I firmly believe that the Native Americans got a raw deal. That is beyond dispute. Europeans came into the Americas, exploited both the Natives lack of technology and their differing attitudes about ownership of the land and took over. However, from a historical perspective, this was not a race issue. It was not white versus non-white. Literally dozens, if not hundreds, of ethnic groups have been exterminated in Europe over the centuries. The same has happened worldwide for millenia. Does that make it right? Of course not. On the other hand, blaming racism for a phenomenon which was business as usual for white and non-white alike at the time is a complete warping of history. In fact, the Indians themselves had been known to engage in ethnic cleansing throughout the New World long prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

I believe we should do what can be done to help them become equal (financially, politically and so forth) partners in our society, keeping in mind that the dominant Anglo-American culture should be protected and nurtured. We must not, however, under any circumstances allow our misplaced sense of guilt to prompt us to turn the current order of things upside down. People who live in homes they purchased must be considered the rightful owners. What happened centuries ago has nothing to do with who owns the land now. The courts have no right to even hear these silly cases about giving land back to the Native Americans, much less to rule in their favor.

The vast majority of Americans - black, white, brown or otherwise - are descended from those who arrived here long after the Indians became the victims of European discovery and expansion into the Western Hemisphere. Those who do hail from those early days are centuries removed from their ancestors. Punishing any of us for the acts of those whose names we don't even remember is cruel, inhuman and senseless. Trying to mete out justice centuries after the fact is misguided and irrational. There is a reason that all legal systems establish statutes of limitations. This is a perfect example.

As for the turkey thing, what can I say? Conversation with people so ungrounded in reality is all but impossible. People are people. Animals are animals. People have rights. Animals don't. People need to treat animals with kindness and dignity and to avoid cruelty not because animals are our equals, but because we scar our own spirits when we are cruel and capricious. On the other hand, we need to eat and they are there for our benefit, as well as each others. I can hear the PETA people now howling with indignation at my words: "Exploiter! You can't see that animals are our brothers, our equals!" Really? Hundreds of species of animals eat meat and would, in fact, go extinct if they did not do so. If animals were, in fact, our equals, we would have exactly the same right to eat meat as they do. If they are not our equals, then there is no moral reason for us not to eat meat. Either way, I'm having white meat cut from a roasted bird raised for just that purpose.

Hey, maybe they ARE our equals. The bird's already stuffed and I'm about to be. (Yes, I mock the animal rights extremists, because their fairy tales are laughable.)

What this long-winded diatribe comes down to is: "Give thanks, help your fellow man where you can and enjoy the feast God has provided us."

I, for one, am thankful for my wonderful wife and four beautiful children (the fourth won't be gracing our home with joyful noises until just before Christmas, but he or she is a child, a living human being with all the rights we all possess, nonetheless), my parents and in-laws and all the blessings with which the Living and Loving God, the Creator of All, has gifted us. I am thankful for all the good people of our Town, who are quickly becoming an extended Family. I am thankful that we will be taking our Town forward on a new, positive, joyful path and for all of you who made that possible. There's so much for which to be thankful, it's impossible to list everything.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Reconciliation and a Better Town for All - An Experiment

2007-11-11T15:16:00.001-08:00

My last post seems to have gotten a discussion going on how best to thank our First Aid and Fire volunteers. That discussion made me think that we might be able to brainstorm online about what we can do to (1) heal the rifts between the two "sides" in Town and (2) what we (as a community) and the new Town Board can do to make our Town a better place to live. I would invite everyone to post their ideas in the comments section and I'll make sure Carl and the members of the new Board (including Councilmen Miller and Spano) get them.

Now, as you well know, normally I do not censor this blog, which makes for a bit of a free-for-all at at times. However, as the comments for this one post are meant to be a sort virtual brainstorming session, I am going to suspend the lack of rules here and only here. I am asking you to post only ideas for reconciliation or for improving the Town here. Please, no nastiness about past, present or future candidates, officials or persons otherwise involved in local politics (or anyone else, for that matter). Also, constructive criticism of others' posts is fair game, childish or rude remarks are not. I will not remove posts just because I happen to disagree with them. However, any post which is clearly not in the spirit of this experiment will be removed (assuming I can do so; I've never tried to censor a post, so I'm not certain the system will allow me to do so.)

I'll even avoid criticizing people for posting anonymously. The idea is more important than the source.

Ladies and gentlemen, please. Let's try - for once - to be civil in the interests of our community. If we can make this work, maybe we can take a step towards becoming one Town once again. It seems worth a try to me.

They Still Can't Play Nice

2007-11-09T07:57:00.000-08:00

Well, they did it again. Between the close of the Election Day polls and the Public Hearing on the 2008 Town Budget, Supervisor Duke and her Board reduced the Supervisor’s salary for 2008 by roughly $8,000 and the Budget Officer’s salary (which also goes to the Supervisor) by $3,000. Note that this isn’t Pam Duke’s salary, it’s Carl Chipman’s. At the Hearing, she claimed that this was done at Carl’s request, in a letter he wrote to the Board. Several people who were there heard that claim. When Carl arrived and it was pointed out that he denied writing any such letter, the story changed to the letter having been written to a newspaper.

When those present became outraged that she would change her story, the Supervisor became indignant, even threatening to throw me out after I pointed out the fact that for the next two months or so, she still works for us. Of course, I was wrong about that. She never worked for the people of this Town, so why should she start now?

Naturally, the supporters of the current Board will start up the spin machine, saying that Carl should take the pay cut because he criticized Supervisor Duke’s pay raise when she took it. Just as naturally, that is completely beside the point.

Carl had made it clear that he was interested in giving back a portion of the Supervisor’s salary, preferably to the First Aid Squad. Supervisor Duke took that option away from him. By doing what she did, she literally took money away from the First Aid Squad, not just from Carl. She also took away the prerogatives of the man the Town voted, by a historical margin, to replace her and clean up her messes.

You see, we elected Carl to run our Town the way we want him to. Pam Duke decided that she was going to have one last spin at making us dance to her tune. This is not a question of salary or budget. It is a question of principle. This is exactly why Pam Duke was defeated this Tuesday, because she simply doesn’t understand what the Town wants.

Carl is going to have the most difficult job of any Supervisor in the Town’s history. Like all good Supervisors, he has to manage the Town in accordance with the will of the people of Rochester. However, he also has to rebuild all that Duke and Company have destroyed. He has to build good will and tear down the stone walls of divisiveness intentionally erected by his predecessor. He has to make sure that Town institutions such as the Youth Commission (among many others) are re-established not as political wings of the Town Board but as organizations which serve the needs and desires of the people. He has to make sure that Town employees and volunteers who had been subjugated by the Supervisor and Board and subjected to constant micro-management will be able to function with the autonomy necessary to actually do the work they were meant to do. He has to fix everything Pam Duke broke.

To deny Carl Chipman the right to decide how much to give back and which of our service organizations to give it to is not just unacceptable, it is petty and mean spirited. Even after being given her Pink Slip by the people, Pam Duke is still rewriting the rules. This time, she decided that spitefulness and vindictiveness is an appropriate tool for forming a Town Budget.

It is just this sort of uncivilized, primitive behavior that the people of this Town rejected on Election Day. This would be unacceptable from a child, never mind a Town Supervisor. Apparently being fired is not enough to teach her to play nice. Perhaps being sent to her room without supper would be more effective.

Victory in Rochester

2007-11-07T08:27:00.000-08:00

Something remarkable happened yesterday in the Town of Rochester. No, wait… “Remarkable” doesn’t seem to be the right word. What do you call it when something many once thought impossible takes place anyway?

A miracle.

It’s not that our victory on Election Day was a miracle. I’m referring to what led to that victory. Two years ago, we didn’t even know our neighbors. We had allowed our community to become a group of strangers. Our circles of friends consisted of small groups which rarely overlapped. And we thought we were happy.

Over the course of the past couple of years, we went from strangers to friends to community to family. That, without a doubt, is a miracle. That, without a doubt, is what led to us taking our Town back yesterday.

So, what leads to a miracle?

We found ourselves living in a Town which had been taken over by people who didn’t understand who we were, our values, our aspirations, our spirit. They thought that by taking control of the Democratic Party, they could simply tell Democrats how to vote and they would stay in power forever. What they didn’t realize is that Rochester Democrats are just like their neighbors. Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Non-Enrolleds. Those are all just words for neighbors and deep down, we’re all the same. We may vote differently for Congress or the President, but our values, our dreams, our love for this Town are the same.

We proved that yesterday.

So, now where do we go? How do we heal the rifts that were caused by the Town Board’s acts over the past several years? Forgiveness. At one of the recent Public Hearing’s Keith Kortright looked right at the Supervisor and at her allied Councilmen and told them “I forgive you.” Keith is a bigger man than I was that night, bigger than many of us have been over the course of our ordeal. He forgave the Board before we won on Election Day. The rest of us waited for victory.

Regardless of the order, however, we have to forgive them, if for no other reason than to preserve the integrity of our own spirits. Anger is an emotion we no longer need. Hatred is one we never needed. Forgiveness is what we need more than anything right now.

Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy our victory. I saw so much pure joy and happiness last night, it just about made me high on unadulterated emotion, energy and adrenaline. It’s only natural to be overjoyed at the extent of our victory. By all means, be happy. Laugh, smile, shout for joy, jump up and down. Do it without hatred in your heart.

Just as importantly, let’s reach out to those on the other side. Let them know that we don’t harbor ill will, that we just want to heal our Town. There was a lot of talk in Town during the campaign of how we don’t accept outsiders. Obviously, that was nothing but election propaganda. After all, we just elected two people to the Board who moved here only recently. We embrace all who embrace us.

Those on the other side can still choose to love this Town as it is without trying to change us. That’s all we ask. We don’t ask them to agree with us, we don’t ask them to compromise their own principles. Just stop trying to change what this Town is, what has made us great. The direction of our Town for 300 years has been one of progress and will continue to be one of progress. Progress, however, is not a single path, but a series of choices. We follow the choices which lead to true rural life and always will.

As long as they are willing to accept the fact that our Town will remain traditional small town America forever, we are happy to accept them. The one thing they have to accept: our homes are our castles. Don’t interfere in our property rights and we’ll all be just fine. Refusal to accept that simple principle is the one sure sign that they are still trying to change us, the one sure demonstration of the fact that they don’t want to belong to our community. I, for one, hope it’s the one sign we never see.

Let’s reach out, give them the opportunity to accept the character of our Town and to join our community. Let’s give them the choice of healing and unity.

Last night, one of the celebrators told me, “One of the lowest points of my life was two years ago, when I saw that we had lost our Town.” I thought about that for a moment and realized, we never lost our Town. We just misplaced our sense of community. Last night, we showed the world that we found it again.

This is our Town and no one will ever take it from us again. Ever.

Work and Pray

2007-11-05T13:11:00.000-08:00

Less than 24 hours to go until the polls open tomorrow morning. Now is the time to take one last look at what we can do to give Carl, Tavi, Manuela, Wayne and Al every possible vote. Is there anyone you can still call or talk to in person? Do you know someone who needs a ride? Is there someone you know who is confused about the issues or facts surrounding this year’s election? These are all questions we can go over one final time, to make sure there’s nothing we missed, but it’s not likely we have, not at this late stage.

There is, however, one thing we can do.

I spent my high school years at Coleman Catholic in Kingston where we were taught by the Marist Brothers. Their slogan was “Ora et Labora” or “Pray and Work.” No one can doubt the number of hours we have all put into this campaign or the intensity of our work. We can be justifiably proud of what we have done and what we’re about to achieve, but what about the other side of the equation?

Prayer is one of the greatest forces influencing mankind throughout our history. The Declaration of Independence tells us that we are endowed with our Inalienable Rights by our Creator. Our Constitution talks about the “Blessings of Liberty.” Not gifts, but blessings, which can only come from God.

Our Founding Fathers believed in a God Who took personal interest in the course of humanity. While giving his farewell address, George Washington declared “You can't have National Morality apart from religious principle.” Thomas Jefferson called the Bible the “Cornerstone for American Liberty.” James Madison said, “We've staked our future on our ability to follow The Ten Commandments with all our heart.”

Prayer and a deep and abiding faith in the God Who answers our pleadings has long been the engine which drove this nation forward. Even the work of our hands was inspired by sayings such as “God helps those who help themselves.”

That same God directs us to love those who have done us harm, to turn our backs on hatred and spite. He also tells us to defend those who are being harmed. With clean consciences, we can and will remove from positions of power those who are destroying our Town. Just as important is our ability to forgive them the damage they have done us, all the times when they disregarded our rights and trampled on our freedoms. We forgive them because hate and anger will eat away at our own spirits.

We have done everything we can. The work is finished. All that is left is prayer.

Let us pray that God will Touch our neighbors’ hearts and bring them to the polls tomorrow. Let us pray for a new, brighter future for our Town. Let us pray for the strength and Grace to forgive our opponents and Love them as God Wills.

Let us pray for both victory and for the ability to show the other side compassion.

God willing, we will emerge from years of darkness tomorrow night.

God willing, our Town will move forward into light, towards a future bright and full of hope and unity.

God willing.

Countdown to the Future

2007-11-04T12:19:00.000-08:00

Last night I attended one of the most magical events of my life. The bonfire staged by United Rochester was a true community occasion, where several hundred people of different backgrounds shared music, laughs, good times and a true spirit of unity. Four years ago, many of us didn't even know one another. Last night, we were a family.

Tuesday night, after all the votes are counted, this family will pick up the pieces of a Town shattered by the selfish desires of a select few and move us into the future. In their desperation to retain power over our lives, the supporters of this Town Government which has done so much harm are claiming that they want to "take our town forward." They coined this phrase in response to the popular movement to "Take Our Town Back," hoping to confuse the people of Rochester into thinking that they want progress while we want to go back to something which was less than what they have given us.

To a certain extent, that's true. We want to go back to a time when there was less backstabbing. We want to go back to a time when there was less divisiveness. We want to go back to a time when the Town Board served rather than dictated. We want to go back to a time when neighbors helped one another whether they agreed or disagreed about politics. We want to go back to a time when Rochester belonged to the people and not to the wealthy, elitist, extremist minority. We want our Town back.

This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a desire to stop progress. Imagine, if you will, a man driving a car who veers off the road into a cornfield. He has two choices: stop, back up and get back on the road or keep going forward through ruts, over rocks, knocking over someone else's precious crops. If you are going forward in a direction you have no right going, a direction which is destructive to both yourself and your neighbors, that's not progress. Finding your way back to the paved road and following that to a civilized destination is progress.

One cannot go forward, one cannot have progress by destroying that which went before. If one does so, one does not progress, one simply replaces that which was already there. One does not have more than before, just something different and, in fact, one has lost all that which came before, all that precious history.

Progress is building upon that history, adding to it, giving the next generation everything we received and a little bit more. Giving them less is not an option for an enlightened society. We have a responsibility to pass along everything our forebears passed on to us and then some.

Taking our Town back is the only way to take our Town forward. The only part of that ideal which the Town Board is capable of understanding is the word "take," which is something they have done over and over again. They take our tax dollars. They take our sense of community. They take our rights to control our own homes and our destinies. They take our history and they are doing their very best to take our children's futures.

As a teenager during the 80s, I was inundated by TV shows, movies, newspaper and magazine articles, radio and TV commercials and more all hammering away at one simple, necessary message: "No Means No." Apparently, that is a message which our Town Board is unable to comprehend. Our Town, our futures, our values and principles and yes, our very virtue, belongs to us.

No Means No.

We will not allow ourselves to be taken by force. We recognize your less than honorable intent. We will take back what is ours and move forward with our lives, healing the wounds you have created in our extended family.

No Means No.

Come this Tuesday, Supervisor Duke and her cohorts will learn that lesson.

The countdown has begun and we will soon be soaring towards the future.

Signs of the Times

2007-10-27T17:14:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-23T15:13:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-19T09:01:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-18T15:56:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-13T08:30:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-10T11:22:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-05T09:46:00.001-07:00

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

2007-10-04T12:10:00.001-07:00

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

2007-10-04T12:03:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-01T09:18:00.000-07:00

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?

Post on Another Blog

2007-09-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

Another blog has been started in Town recently, so I went to check it out. Lo and behold, it is an "Anonymous" blog. Now, as anyone who has read this blog knows, I do not believe in anonymity. I take responsibility for what I write and it is my firm belief that the Freedoms of Speech and Press not only protect us in expressing our opinions, they give us the responsibility to own up to our publicly expressed thoughts and ideas as that is the only way to maintain those two very precious freedoms.

The rules of the other blog in question require that all posts be made Anonymously, so when I posted the following, I was unable to attach my name to it. However, I am owning up to my comments here, just so there is no misunderstanding about who wrote them:

While it's always good for people to have a forum in which to discuss and debate, it seems to me that we have had too much anonymity in this Town. If we really are all "equals here, neighbors, residents and stakeholders in our town," as the Moderator believes, there is absolutely no reason to hide our identities.

Anonymity in a Town which has been so badly divided through the willful acts of those we elected to represent us is simply an invitation for abuse and mudslinging. Anyone who is posting something responsible should have no problem taking credit for it.

I will respect the Moderator's desires as this blog is his/her property and there is very little I respect more than one's right to do as one wills with one's own property. Consequently, I will not post my own name here, much as I dislike the idea. I will, however, post a copy of this comment on my own blog, where it is clear who wrote it, lest I be accused of being inconsistent in my views and actions.

Need I say more?

The Viciousness Continues

2007-09-25T16:56:00.000-07:00

Three new comments appeared attached to Sunday's review of the Democratic Caucus. All three were, of course, posted by Anonymous (it seems these ultra-Libs are less than courageous). All three were vicious, nasty, personal attacks which were completely and utterly devoid of any actual content. Once again, the supporters of the Town Board are showing not only their level of intelligence and maturity, but their absolute inability to counter a single argument made by us that the Board's disregard for the will of the people of the Town of Rochester make them unfit to sit where they do.

By the way, they apparently never learned English as the comments are full of spelling mistakes and bad grammar, as well as foul language. Did you expect any better?

Yet again, I invite my critics to take credit for their remarks. I have no problem putting my name to my words. What could they possibly fear?

Just so you know what is being written (I'm censoring the obscenity a bit, but the misspellings are all theirs):

Anonymous said...

you are slime and you will see what happens to your scum group.
You and your pig group are deparate
to continue to dump your illegal activties on all your neighbors.

Everyone has figured out your crime group.. Self gain .. You are total losers and the ulgiest group one has ever seen. YOU WILL LOSE A**H***S

------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

dogar is a porn king and both he and his wife make a living trafficing in porn

------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

RIGHT WING PSYCHO'S

Just a few questions to my critics:

To which "scum group" are you referring? The Conservative Party, which has consistently stood up for the rights of the people of this Town? Or the Republican Club, which links to my posts on a regular basis and of which I am not a member?
Desperate? When it's plain that the Democratic leadership and their handpicked candidates are in trouble with even the Democratic rank and file?
Illegal activities? You mean the one where the judge ruled that Conservatives and Republicans caused Manuela Mihailescu's car accident when we accused her of porn? Oh, wait. That was the Town Board. It's a bit confusing when one group smears someone and another stands up for her.
Crime group. Yes, you've found us out. We're all part of the Mafia and we're channeling John Gotti to provide us with campaign strategies.
Total losers and ugly to boot. Another zinger in this battle of wits. I think I'll run into a dark room, listen to folk ballads and cry my eyes out.
Dogar is a porn king? Well, if he is, none of his friends (including me) know about it. This silliness about porn has been put to rest. There is no porn site. The Board never had any proof. It simply doesn't exist. The whole thing is a made up fairy tale designed to keep Manuela Mihailescu off the Historical Preservation Committee and to ruin her good name to boot. It backfired and caused the Socialist Town Politburo irreparable harm. Give it up, all you're doing is making a laughing stock out of the people you're backing. Better yet, keep saying it. Maybe someone will hear you and Jon and Manuela can sue you for defamation. They're not making money off porn but at least then they'll make some money off the rumors.
Right Wing Psychos. Notice, I left the apostrophe out. In English, the apostrophe denotes the possessive. When you're writing in plural, you leave it out. Just a tip for the next time, as I hate to see such clever remarks ruined by a grammatical error. I not only admit that I am a Right Winger, I wear the badge proudly. We preach the philosophy of liberty, less government and fewer rules and the standard bearers of the ideal that everyone should keep more of what they earn rather than giving it to the most wasteful organizations mankind has ever witnessed: local, state and national governments. As to the psycho portion, sorry all wrong. Not a single irrational thing about us. Try not to fall off the edge of the Earth while trying to come up with a more intelligent comment, the Tooth Fairy is off this week. She can't catch you.

Come on, guys. You're taking all the fun out of this. If you could at least give me one criticism where you try to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to debate you and show you where you fall short of the mark. This stuff, however, is far too easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Maybe I'll just let my 5 year old respond to you from now on. At least it would even the odds.

More Anonymous Criticism

2007-09-24T08:22:00.000-07:00

I love it when they criticize me. It just goes to show that they're not only keeping tabs on us, but also that we're getting under their skins. As long as we keep telling the truth, they keep getting angry. Isn't that a coincidence?

I don't know if Anonymous is just a popular name among Liberals or if they refuse to name their kids in order to allow them to choose their own when they get older (sort of like not giving them a religion when they're young), but Anonymous commented:

You are obsessed with the Democrats. That shows how lost you angry little people are.

Once again, I extend my invitation to anyone who dislikes what is on my blog to identify themselves. Whether you have issues with my style, my content or just the fact that I refuse to write anything but the truth, I promise I won't bite. I only bark.

Woof.

Now, as to the contents of the comment:

First, notice that nowhere does the writer say I'm wrong. He or she cannot do so, because that would require proving it, something impossible to do when the person you are criticizing has done nothing but furnished the unvarnished truth. However, I would welcome the attempt. As I say, I love to be criticized. If nothing else, it gives me material for the next post. More importantly, if I am wrong, I sincerely hope someone can prove it to me so I can change. Nobody is perfect and I don't pretend to be. Of course I make mistakes, just like everyone else. Show me what they are and I'll be glad to make a public mea culpa.

Arrogant refusal to admit one's flaws and missteps is a character trait of ultra-Liberal politicians.

Second, my issue is not with "Democrats" in general. It's not even with all Liberals. It's with those closed minded Liberals whose only concern is their selfish pursuit of their personal desires. In point of fact, anyone who carefully reads the post to which Anonymous is responding will see that I have taken a stand to defend the rights of rank and file Democrats against their own leadership. Apparently, I hit a nerve.

After all, the Democrats who walked out did so without any prodding from republicans or Conservatives. They were angry all on their own.

Finally, am I angry? Absolutely. We live in a Town whose Government has decided that the people of the Town are an unnecessary distraction. I am angry in the same way that our Founding Fathers were angry at the British Crown.

At the same time, I am always amused at the comments made by those who defend the Town Board. They tend to be personal, subjective, insulting and, when all is said and done, childish.

We must be doing something right.

Democratic Caucus Fun

2007-09-23T13:12:00.000-07:00

This afternoon at 1 PM, the Town of Rochester Democratic Committee held their Town Nominating Caucus at the Accord Firehouse. I must admit that it was a very well organized affair, for which Chairman Zali Win certainly deserves kudos. They had a sign in sheet and nice ballot packages for those qualified to vote. They also asked the veterans who were present to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, which is laudable, even if some present kept quiet during the phrase "under God." All in all, the advance scripting was more than evident. But...

(There's always a "but")

By my estimation, roughly half of those who packed the room were there because they wanted an alternative to the slate endorsed by the Democratic Committee. Chairman Win announced the "Rules of the Caucus," which he did not characterize as "proposed" and didn't tell those present that there would be a vote on them until after he had read them. They included provisions to exclude any candidates who were not either registered Democrats or non-Democrats endorsed by the Democratic Committee from the nominating process. The Chairman seemed to want to get past the rules vote as quickly as possible. This was apparent because of the way he handled the issue of discussion, as raised by Democrat Tony Jarvis. Tony asked that Republican candidates be allowed to participate, as Supervisor Pam Duke had been permitted to seek the Republican nomination two years ago. Chairman Win stared at Jarvis frostily and asked if there was any further discussion. Then, Win and Jarvis spoke just about simultaneously. Jarvis made a motion to Amend the Rules and the Chairman called for a vote. As soon as he said "All in favor," Win turned to Jarvis and told him his motion was out of order.

From that point on, just about every motion to nominate a Democrat was either preceded or followed by a motion to nominate a Republican. Each such motion was ruled "out of order" by the Chair.

As disgusted and angry Democrats left the Firehouse, the extent of the rift within their Party became exceedingly evident. Where a few moments before the room was filled to capacity, with some being forced to stand as there were no seats left, now about half of all the chairs were empty. Many of those who remained were grumbling about the way in which the nominating process was handled.

Now, obviously every Party has the right to limit its nominating process to prevent a takeover. However, not allowing the rank and file a vote on whether there should be an alternate method for managing that process seems a bit (pardon the expression) undemocratic. The real issue here isn't that the Republican candidates were prohibited from seeking the Democratic nomination. Rather, the problem is that many Town Democrats were excluded from participating fully and democratically in their own Party's decision making processes.

Aside from the questions such heavy handedness raises about commitment to democratic principles, what does it say about their confidence in their choice of candidates? Think about it: if they thought their candidates would win resoundingly, they would have no reason to exclude others. The only other reason they might have to force their rules through without an opportunity for an alternative to be offered is if they thought their candidates would win, but by a margin so slim it would be embarrassing. Either way, it reveals a stunning lack of certainty on their part in the ability of their slate to carry the day.

If they need to resort to procedural games to prevent either a humiliatingly close vote or an outright loss among their own Party members, how do they expect to win in November? More importantly, what does that indicate about the alienation all of us, Democrats included, feel with regard to the Town Board?

In point of fact, the current Democratic leadership does not seem to represent the opinions of the majority of Democrats in Town. Just as the Town Board is dedicated to advancing the interests of an aristocratic few throughout the entire Town, the Democratic leadership is pushing hard to bring that same elitist agenda to fruition within its own Party. Of course, the goal is the same because the same people are pushing that agenda on both fronts.

By the way, are these the same guys who were indignantly proclaiming that "Every vote must be counted" in 2000? Apparently, votes need only be counted on questions which dovetail with their goals. Propaganda aside, the only ones disenfranchising Democrats today are Democrats.

Anyone else find that ironic?

A Civil Response to an Uncivil Critique

2007-09-22T09:34:00.000-07:00

Author Robert Heinlein once wrote that writing is a dirty habit best done in private. Consequently, I usually limit myself to one blog post per day, if that. I try my best not to subject the few readers I have to more of my writing than a reasonable person can handle.

However, after I posted my last piece, I went through some of my recent essays and found the following comment submitted to the Ralph Nader piece (naturally, the author remained anonymous):

Anonymous said...
Oppressive Regime? Where do you think you are, North Korea?
I wonder if you believe your own gas. I am glad I found this site, however, because now I'll know exactly who not to vote for.

I love criticism. It shows that Freedom of Speech is still alive and well, despite the best efforts of our local elected officials. Moreover, rather than censor it, I am overjoyed to leave it on the blog and answer it. That is the essence of public debate. Town Board, take note.

Aside from the poor grammar (ending a sentence with a preposition), the writer reveals his utter lack of understanding of both local issues and global events. North Korea is not simply an Oppressive Regime (capitals as per the comment), it is a genocidal maniac's fun park. Would the writer truly have us believe that anything short of unimaginable starvation, capricious torture and the pursuit of a nuclear holocaust is acceptable government?

The word "oppressive" encompasses conditions which, although they may fall short of Kim Jong Il, are a clear violation of civil rights on an ongoing, systematic basis through the official acts of a governmental body. That is exactly what we have in the Town of Rochester.

Given that I have repeatedly covered the civil rights abuses we have been enduring in this Town since the current junta took office, I will refrain from repeating all the specific examples. However, the nutshell list of basic rights violated by our local government and/or its supporters is as follows:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Assembly
Criticisms of the local papers in an attempt to violate Freedom of the Press
Property Rights
The right to not have one's good name smeared for political reasons
Right to petition government officials

Do I believe my own "gas"? I can answer that in two ways:

(1) Yes, I absolutely believe what I write. It is the complete, factual truth, unadulterated by the Liberal penchant for denying the absolute nature of our human rights. Unlike so-called "Progressives," conservatives say what we mean and mean what we say. The practice of saying something in order to get your way is something invented and perfected by Liberals. It is not one I embrace.

(2) The only "gas" in this Town is the hot air we get from the Liberal propaganda machine which is doing a very poor job at muddying the waters, although they try. Not a single criticism leveled by them against the opponents of the Town Board has any validity whatsoever. One can only hope the "carbon offsets" they are buying is sufficient to counterbalance the global warming they are causing every time they open their mouths.

Finally, I'm glad this lady or gentleman found the blog, as well. Maybe he or she will learn something. However, given the publicity local events have gotten throughout Town, it's hard to believe that this person did not know which side they supported long before Word One was written or read here.

Unless the writer is from elsewhere becoming involved in something of which he or she has no knowledge. Nah, no outsiders ever come here to change our Town. Things like that just don't happen.

Stay Tuned

2007-09-22T09:21:00.000-07:00

Turn on the TV any night of the week and you’re inundated by half hour comedies, full hour dramas and two hour movies, all designed to package reality into a time release capsule. The medicine you’re being force fed over and over again is the idea that not only can all the trials and tribulations you encounter be resolved in a matter of no more than a couple of hours, but you can have anything you want, any time you want with no regard for what others may want or need.

Sound familiar?

It certainly seems like many of our problems with government stem from the fact that our representatives have jumped right out of the TV set, talking to us in one liners packaged for cable news, thinking of nothing but their own immediate self-satisfaction. We’ve gone from Thomas Paine telling us that “These are the times that try men’s souls…” to Bill Clinton discussing his choice of underwear. Where once George Washington warned us that “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force,” we’re now being promised by Hillary Clinton (in between shrill screams sharp enough to shatter glass) that government will solve all our ills, from health care to the environment.

Abraham Lincoln assured us that “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time,” but what we’re finding is that in this age of democracy by Nielsen Ratings those who thrive on governance by fraud only need to fool those few who will tip the balance. They count on our short memories to obscure the promises of the past which they have failed to uphold. Like your typical sit-com where what happened last week is forgotten by the time the next new episode comes around, politicians will promise whatever they think will win them the most votes but delay delivery until enough of us have lost track of the original promise.

On a local level, this is the disease we’re facing in our own Town Government, but on steroids. We have a Town Board which was elected on the idea of Open Government. Not only do they completely ignore their own promise, they think we’re stupid enough to accept their lame explanation centered on the idea of “Closed Open Government.” They take an oath of office that requires only two things of them: to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution, both of which guarantee that none us will lose our right to our own property without due process of the law. The laws this Town Government has passed and wants to continue passing are a direct violation of their oath of office.

We can talk until we’re blue in the face, but they’ll never listen. You see, we’re not in the script. We’re not the cute but goofy girl next door. We’re not the nerd who becomes a jock overnight. We’re not the trendy, witty friends hanging out in a Manhattan coffee shop. We’re not even the redneck farmers whose every financial hardship is suddenly solved because the rain has finally come, accompanied by music by John Williams.

As far as they’re concerned, we’re nothing but a reason to change the channel.

Well, we’re no TV show. We won’t be giving them instant gratification. They can’t get a team of writers to delete us from the screenplay.

On the other hand, Election Day is coming. The Supervisor and her Board are about to get cancelled.

Update on Ulster County Press Letter

2007-09-13T08:38:00.000-07:00

My letter responding to Steven Fornal's attack on "longtimers" (among others) appeared in yesterday's Ulster County Press. Unfortunately, due to space restrictions (understandable, as I tend to be long winded), an edited version was published.

To read the original version, click here.

Hometown Security

2007-09-13T07:21:00.000-07:00

“Power has to be insecure to be responsive.”

-Ralph Nader

I found this quote from Ralph Nader quite accidentally. It hit me as being immensely appropriate to our struggle in Rochester to retain our civil rights in the face of an oppressive regime which insists on making their goals more important than our freedoms.

At the same time, I find it ever so ironic that someone as unabashedly Liberal as Ralph Nader would be the one to come up with a 100% accurate description of the symptoms of our local disease. Then again, maybe it isn't so ironic. Those Liberals who have actually taken the time to truly think about their ideals have as little trust in government as Conservatives. Liberals for whom the principles of civil liberty form the foundation of their philosophy would be horrified to witness the abuse of power being perpetrated by the Town of Rochester's town Council, supposedly in the name of "progressivism."

The fact is, our Town Board is not insecure, it is arrogant. Never considering the possibility that they might face not only traditional minded townsfolk on Election Day, but many of their own who are becoming more and more disgusted by the rejection of their own values, this Board has decided it need not listen to anyone.

This was apparent from the first moratorium Public Hearing in early 2006. It was apparent when they appointed someone who had never served on the Planning Board previously to be its Chairman. It was apparent when they refused one of our neighbors a position on a Town Committee simply because his expression of his First Amendment rights didn't sync with theirs. It was apparent when they accused another neighbor of running a porn site in order to keep her off another Town Committee. It was apparent in many other Town Board meetings and Public Hearings. It is apparent in their claim that "Closed Open Government" is their way of living up to their campaign promises of 2003 and 2005 (with a straight face, no less). It is apparent in the way in which they have been running the current series of Public Hearings on the Zoning Code.

How can the Town Board possibly claim to be responsive to the people of the Town when the majority of speakers at Public Hearings are met with the Supervisor making faces and rolling her eyes? It doesn't take much in the way of introspection to realize that she is not listening, that she has rejected what is being said before it was ever uttered.

This complete and total lack of insecurity has convinced them that they can do as they please with no consequences to be considered. Their conviction that they can never lose has made them believe that they can simply walk all over half the Town as if we don't exist. Their rejection of the possibility of a loss at the polls is one of the most dangerous attacks on the principles of democracy one could ever perceive.

It makes no difference why a Government believes it will remain in power forever. It matters not one iota whether they are convinced they are invulnerable because of guns and tanks or because they think their supporters will vote them back in no matter what. What matters is that when such arrogance is what governs their actions, they will do as they please and damn the voters.

I never thought I would agree with Ralph Nader, but my only disagreement with his quote is that it doesn't go far enough. Insecurity on the part of those in power is the single, solitary factor which makes democracy work. The moment they lose that feeling of "What if I lose?" we are all in very serious trouble.

Don't take my word for it, just look at that brick building on Scenic Road. You'll find all the proof you need.

Little Gods, No Morals

2007-09-09T10:14:00.000-07:00

For several decades, it has become obvious to anyone paying attention that something is happening in our country. Words which once meant something very specific have taken on meanings which are not only different, they are sinister.

For instance, the First Amendment of our Constitution very clearly protects our right to worship as we please, free of governmental interference, when it speaks of the “Freedom of Religion”. Certain very vocal and treacherous elements in our society have taken those three simple words, which can only have one logical meaning, and turned them into “Freedom from Religion.”

Not satisfied with redefining the English language, they have embarked on a path to make their new version of the First Amendment a reality, in a direct attack on the Constitution as framed by our Founding Fathers. In order to achieve this goal, they have sought to convince the American people that the phrase “separation of Church and State” is a Constitutional principle when, in fact, those words never appear anywhere in the Constitution. They even go so far as to redefine their own words by turning “separation of Church and State” into “subjugation of Church by State.”Now, these facts have been covered amply by writers and radio and TV talk show hosts, by priests and ministers and rabbis. The real question is not that they want to destroy Freedom of Religion. That is unarguable in any serious manner. The real question is why they want to destroy Freedom of Religion.

The most extreme wing of Liberalism is characterized by narcissism. Their most controversial political goals are all based on the idea of “I want” even when it is to the detriment of those around them. When one’s idea of reality stems from pure humanism, the idea that the only God one need worship is oneself, one’s sense of omnipotence would tend to overwhelm any sense of duty to others. Similarly, the New Age philosophies which have become increasingly prevalent since the 1960s tell us that we are all part of God, that we are, in essence God ourselves. A different way of saying the same thing: “I am God, therefore I owe explanation to no one but myself.”

Of course, there’s a little fly in the ointment. When religions which have been around for thousands of years and stood the test of time – Christianity and Judaism – tell us that there is a God, one single, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Creator of everything and everyone, that sort of makes the humanistic, New Age view of theology seem just a tad selfish and egotistical. When those same religions make it clear that there is a clear line between the Creator and His creations, people might wonder where Liberal presumptuousness comes from. Could it be a psychological self-delusion? Is it just wishful thinking? Or is it an excuse to do what they wish, no matter the consequence?

So, if you want to be a God unto yourself, what are you to do when religion tells you that you cannot do something you badly want to do? You have two options: either hijack religion and change its rules to suit your wishes or destroy it completely. So, Marx and Engels declare religion to be the “opiate of the people” and condemn its very existence. Hitler carries off any clergy who oppose him and condemns them to death in his concentration camps. Stalin does his best to co-opt the Russian Orthodox Church.

In America, the Liberal successors to Marx, Engels, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini are working feverishly to obliterate the Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Religion. At the same time, they have infiltrated the major Christian churches and Judaic communities in order to make it seem that there is legitimate debate as to the morality of such acts as abortion and homosexuality.

Naturally, a society has the right – and even the responsibility – to debate what they will and will not allow. A community can – and, indeed, must – tolerate and even encourage dissent in its quest to grow and advance. Societies and communities are secular creatures created by man to serve man’s needs. A Church, on the other hand, is a gathering of people who not only have similar values but are convinced that their values come not from themselves but directly from God. One can disagree with the principles a Church preaches. One cannot, however, try to change those principles. Morality cannot be determined democratically. It is not subject to headcounts or opinion polls. A ballot initiative can no more change the moral principles of a Church than it can change gravity.

One can only truly be the member of a religion if one is convinced that that particular religion is being led by the God one worships. Anyone who believes that the principles of his or her religion can be changed through the process of convincing other members does not, by definition, believe in the divine foundations of that religion’s principles.

If that is the case, that person should find a religion which better suits his or her view of morality. The right to stage a coup against the moral order of one’s religion simply does not exist.

What is even worse is when outsiders try to change a religion. That is not simply misguided, it is a vicious attack on the fundamental human rights of those who worship within the framework of that Church. It is a complete betrayal of the American principle of tolerance for differing understandings of reality, both natural and supernatural.

For any one person to be so arrogant as to tell another what he can or cannot believe about subjects on which the other’s Church has spoken definitively is reprehensible. It makes no difference whether you are for or against abortion rights or homosexuality or the death penalty or any one of several dozen topics of moral judgment. You can act politically to advance your agenda, we all have that right. To attack someone because he is true to his Church’s views on subjects which are clearly moral (at least in part) is unacceptable in the extreme. It is a prime example of the very intolerance against which Liberals rail publicly but practice religiously when they think no one’s looking.

Churches have an irreplaceable role in society: to give their believers a moral framework within which they can work with their neighbors and in a manner which does harm to no one. Every time a Liberal (or anyone else for that matter) attacks someone for their beliefs – even beliefs which are politically incorrect – the attacker is not only practicing intolerance and bigotry in its worst form but is taking a step towards creating a society which has lost all cohesiveness, a society based on the idea of “every man for himself.” That is a society in which no one can possibly be safe.

That is no society at all.

Deja Vu, anyone?

2007-09-07T05:48:00.000-07:00

"People are tired of liberty. They have had a surfeit of it. Liberty is no longer a chaste and austere virgin…. Today’s youth are moved by other slogans…Order, Hierarchy, Discipline."

-Benito Mussolini

One of the favorite tactics of the Socialist Liberal Left in both America and Europe is to accuse those who oppose them of being "fascists." They count on the fact that people lacking in a well-grounded knowledge of history consider fascism to be simply the extremist right wing movement in any given society. In point of fact, it isn't. To understand the Leftist nature of fascism, one must understand its roots.

The word "Fascism" comes from the Italian word "fascio" which means bundle of sticks, the idea being that it is much more difficult to break sticks when they are gathered together than singly. The original Italian Fascist movement believed in using State power to unite the various elements of society into a single cohesive unit in order to strengthen the State. Naturally, individual rights were an unacceptable obstacle to those who held such beliefs.

The founder of the Fascist Movement (later the Italian Fascist Party), Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, was born into a family of staunch Socialists. His parents named him, respectively, for Mexican Socialist Benito Juarez and Italian Socialists Andrea Costa and Amilcare Cipriani. Mussolini's parents were both Socialist activists. He and his sister were members of Marx and Engels' First Socialist International and he became one of the top leaders of the Italian Socialist Party by the age of 30.

Mussolini fled military service in Italy by escaping to Switzerland, where he again became deeply involved in Socialist activism. He was almost deported from Switzerland, but for the intervention of Socialist members of Parliament. He soon found work in Austria-Hungary, in the ethnically Italian city of Trento, where he became the editor of a Socialist newspaper, L'Avvenire del Lavoratore ("The Future of the Worker"). Again, he began working on behalf of the local Socialist Party and soon switched to another Socialist newspaper, Il Popolo ("The People").

After being deported from Austria-Hungary back into Italy, Mussolini joined the staff of yet another Socialist paper, Avanti! ("Forward!"), which called itself the "Central Organ of the Socialist Party."

In 1919, Mussolini formed what became known as the Fascist Movement and was elected to the Italian Chamber of Deputies in 1921. In October of 1922, he was elected the youngest Prime Minister in Italian history. In 1925, all semblance of democratic freedom was dropped and a complete dictatorship ensued throughout Italy.

Mussolini's policies included direct attacks on private property ownership through the establishment of 5,000 government owned farms and the settlement of peasants on "redistributed" land. He introduced a program called "Gold for the Fatherland" in which the people were called to "donate" their gold jewelery (including wedding rings) to be melted down into ingots. In exchange, they received steel armbands inscribed with the "Gold for the Fatherland" slogan.

By 1935, Mussolini made the claim that 3/4 of all Italian businesses were under government control. He instituted wage and price controls and forced Italians to give up any shares they owned in foreign businesses.

Il Duce, as he became known (meaning "The Leader"), undertook a propaganda campaign early on. Using any and all organs of communications, he sought to convince the Italian people that Fascism was the only true philosophy for the Twentieth Century. Anyone who opposed the Fascist way of thinking was belittled as being backwards and part of a very small minority which was trying to stop progress.

Italy entered world War II as one of the three major Axis powers, but was patently unsuccessful in most of his military campaigns, leading to abandonment of Italy by German forces and an American invasion. In 1943, he was deposed and arrested. He was moved around for several months to keep the Germans from rescuing him but was eventually taken into German custody. In 1945, as he was on his way to board a plane to Austria, he was captured by Italian partisans and executed. His body was taken to Milan, where it was hung from a meathook in a public square, where it was left for days for the people to abuse and spit on.

Fascism was clearly a Socialist, Left Wing philosophy. There is very little on which Mussolini and modern day Socialist Liberals actually disagree. Both in Italy and in Nazi Germany, the persecution of Bolsheviks and Communists of all types was not a struggle between Right and Left. It was sibling rivalry. For American Liberals and Socialists to call their opponents Fascists is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, considering that they themselves are the philosophical brethren of Mussolini and his cadre.

Many of the the principles espoused by and tactics used by Benito Mussolini sound suspiciously like the goals set forth by the Rochester Town Board and the means they are using to achieve them. History has proven, however, that such philosophies can only win out through the ruthless annihilation of individual civil rights. It has also proven that, eventually and inevitably, human rights will win out and dictatorships will fall.

Fortunately, we have a far more peaceful way of ridding ourselves of our local despots. We have the ballot box and the great American tradition know as "Throw the scoundrels out."

Come this November, the people of the Town of Rochester will rid ourselves of those who believe a bundle of sticks is more important than the rights of the people.

Far more than an "empty mantra"

2007-09-04T06:37:00.000-07:00

"The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."

-John Adams

Our Founding Fathers believed, with great justification, that when government is given power over the property of the citizens, all other rights belonging to them became null and void. Real property was (and is to this day) not only a place to live, but the source of the ability to survive. Farmers produced food not only for themselves but others as well. Merchants bought and sold. Manufacturers created products. And all of them provided jobs. Without the economic activity stemming from private property, people would starve.

History has proven our Founding Fathers right. Socialism, that grand experiment in denying the very existence of the right to own property, was a dismal failure in every single nation where it was tried. Whether we consider the Marxist-Leninist version of the Soviet Union and its slave states throughout Eastern and Central Europe, Maoist agricultural Communism, the National Socialism of Adolph Hitler or the social democracies of Western Europe which are in the process of moving towards true market economies, socialism has never worked. Socialism can never work. People need the incentive of getting ahead on their own labors. They need the goal of owning something significant. Without those two factors, the economy will eventually collapse.

Beyond the economic implications, giving Government the right to take away one's property or just take away the right to determine what one can do with it effectively gives Government, if taken to the extreme, the power over jobs, food and even life and death. All other rights then become meaningless.

Of course, many live in Neverland and will say, "Oh, local Government would never use its powers for anything but the benefit of the community." Really? Let's ask the property owners in New London, Connecticut whose properties were robbed from them by the municipality with the Supreme Court's blessing. Or ask Jon Dogar-Marinesco, whose exercise of free speech kept him off a Town Committee. Or ask Manuela Mihailescu who was accused of running a porn site in order to keep her off another Town Committee. Or myself, given the floor at a Town Board Meeting only to have the Town Attorney interrupt me after two sentences after which the meeting was adjourned before I (or anyone else, for that matter) had my say.

Government is, and always will be, abusive by nature unless forced to be subservient by its constituents. Government is never an instrument of service out of the goodness of the hearts of our politicians. If it serves us, it does so because it is forced to do so, no other reason. Thomas Jefferson told us that "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." That is one of the most profoundly accurate statements ever made about the nature of freedom. We will only be able to exercise our rights as long as we do not allow government to encroach upon them. We must maintain a watchful eye over every single act of government because politicians will, inevitably, try to increase their own powers at the expense of our freedom. History offers evidence of this principle being one of the few absolutes man has experienced. It is just short of being a Law of Nature.

Censorship and the trampling of our property rights are just the beginning. The Town of Rochester Town Board will be seen by future generations as one of the most repressive municipal governments in American history. The only question is, will we be known as those who fought it or the ones who let it happen.

Behind the Curtain

2007-09-02T05:48:00.000-07:00

The following letter was sent out to the Ulster County Press today in response to Mr. Steven L. Fornal's letter in the current issue:

To the Editor:

Mr. Steven Fornal's Letter to the Editor (August 29, 2007) is a gourmet serving of demagoguery with a pinch of sleight of hand and a dash of smoke and mirrors thrown in. While I have often disagreed with Mr. Fornal's positions, I had been under the impression that he was above resorting to ad hominem statements which seem aimed at belittling those with whom he disagrees. Apparently, I was mistaken.

He refers to a previous letter writer's personal relationship to an elected official as if that should disqualify her from having or expressing her own opinion. The unwritten implication is that a woman's opinion is not her own but is, instead, her husband's. Hardly a "liberal" or "progressive" viewpoint.

Mr. Fornal also refers to another letter writer as "an ever affable but clueless former supervisor." That "former supervisor" has served in almost every elected town position and, as Supervisor, kept our property taxes from increasing for several years, an achievement the current Administration has not come close to matching. He also did not use his position or influence to have his job re-defined as full time, complete with a horrendous pay raise. Nor did that Supervisor divide this Town into two classes, with differing categories of rights and abilities to participate in the definition of their own destinies. The latter two "achievements" came from the Supervisor Mr. Fornal goes on to praise later in his letter. In point of fact, there are few (if any) in the Town of Rochester whose knowledge and understanding of the way a municipality operates matches that of the former Supervisor in question.

Of course, Mr. Fornal fails to mention his own lockstep political relationship with certain members of the Town Board and its backers. Likewise, he does not see fit to reveal that he owes his position as Chairman of the Planning Board to Supervisor Duke and her Board. Apparently such revelations are only important when criticizing those with whom he finds fault.

Mr. Fornal then proceeds to criticize the current Tax Assessor by citing a property tax example wherein two similarly priced homes were levied with broadly differing tax burdens. This is where the smoke and mirrors come into play. One would expect Mr. Fornal, as Chairman of the Town's Planning Board, to understand the difference between a property's assessed value and the tax burden levied thereupon. First and second homes are treated very differently. Between basic STAR exemptions and other differentials created by the State in order to owners of primary residences from a tax auction, similar homes may be taxed at a very different level, even assuming the assessment is also similar. Rather than speaking of whether or not the assessed values were dissimilar, Mr. Fornal would have the reader jump to the conclusion that the discrepancy between tax burdens is the responsibility of the tax assessor. It most certainly is not. The tax assessor simply determines the assessed (roughly market) value of the homes in the municipality. The rest comes from State Law, our School Board and the County and, yes, Town
Governments.

Similarly, Mr. Fornal's claims with regard to a townwide revaluation are nothing but sleight of hand. He would have us looking in one direction while the real action is taking place in another. Tax revaluations are not set or scheduled by the Tax Assessor, but by the Town Board. If Mr. Fornal has problems with the manner in which revaluations are being performed, he should turn to the Town Board, not the Tax Assessor.

So why would Mr. Fornal make such wild and easily refutable claims with regard to responsibility for taxation and revaluations? Simple. He is part of the cheering section for a Town Government gone wild with power. The Tax Assessor who is the target of Mr. Fornal's nonsensical fairy tales has been denied a new contract by the Town Board less than two years before she is eligible for full retirement. The "compassionate" liberals running our Town Government have seen fit to deny her a significant portion of her retirement benefits for the rest of her life. The reason? That, too, is simple. The Tax Assessor happens to be a member of the Conservative Party. Her husband is a Past Chairman of the Party in the Town of Rochester.

The Town Board has made it amply clear that all such positions must be filled by their philosophical brethren. Such metaphorical Liberal nepotism is now (practically speaking) the only factor in filling Town positions. Time and time again this Town Board has made administrative and operational decisions based on how they can best attack their opponents and strengthen their political ramparts, not on basis of what is best for our Town. As more and more people are becoming aware of this mean spirited, Machiavellian strategy, Mr. Fornal has taken it upon himself to advise us all to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Mr. Fornal also all but admits that there are now two classes of people in Town when referring to "longtimers." In point of fact, many of the current Regime's opponents are not "longtimers" in any sense of the word. Manuela Mihailescu, who was found to be victimized by the Town Government by a court of law recently has been a resident of the Town for less than a decade. My parents moved here from Eastern Europe by way of New Jersey. A major portion of those who are fed up and disgusted by the behavior of a Town Government Mr. Fornal views through rose colored glasses have been here no longer than the majority of his political allies, having come from places like New York City, New Jersey, Long Island, other parts of the Hudson Valley and places much farther away. The difference is, however, that when we moved here we decided that we wanted to become a part of what was already here. Mr. Fornal's crowd came here and decided that they were far more intelligent than the "banshees" who are "shrieking their shrill complaints." They decided that the redneck hicks need to be taken in hand and forced to change the Town for the "better," as they see it.

The fact that Mr. Fornal claims that his "sector of the population" is subsidizing the other "sectors" shows just how patronizing he and others like him are. We never asked to have them come into our Town and "subsidize" anything. In fact, I don't see them subsidizing our Town at all. On the contrary, 300 years of work, heart, spirit and money have gone into making this Town what it is today. It is the legacy of the "longtimers" which is "subsidizing" Mr. Fornal's ability to live in a beautiful, rural atmosphere. The Liberal aristocracy which has come into Town of late has done nothing to make us what we are. Those who lived here for three centuries did it all.

Finally, Mr. Fornal repeatedly refers to "residents." His allies have formed a "Residents' Association." This is the ultimate proof that they do not understand rural life in the slightest. Country families are not residents of a Town. We do not define ourselves by where we live. We define ourselves by those who surround us, by those who help us when the need arises and those whom we, in turn, help. No, we are not residents. We are neighbors. It is truly sad that Mr. Fornal, the Town Board and their supporters and allies seem to be incapable of comprehending this simple truth.

Respectfully,

Imre Beke, Jr., Chairman
Town of Rochester Conservative Committee

Socialism is Alive and Well in Rochester

2007-08-30T13:27:00.000-07:00

The Town Board has done it again. Yet another Public Hearing was held which was nothing but lip service to the concept of the rule of the people, otherwise known as democracy. As 41 people stood up (and only six spoke in favor of the new Zoning Code), members of the Rochester Politburo shook their heads and rolled their eyes, as if to say "What are these people doing here? Don't they realize that we are the ones with all the brains? If they would only go home, watch TV and let us make all the decisions, we would all be better off."

Like dictators throughout history, they seek to clothe their lust for power in a cloak of beneficence. They claim to be doing it in our best interests. They say that they are only thinking of the good of the Town. They kiss the babies and pet the dogs in order to seem likable. When someone points out the similarities of this Town Board when compared to various Socialist despots and military juntas, they poo-poo the comparison, yet anyone who reads history can plainly see the family resemblance. There can be no serious doubt. We are, in fact, living in the People's Republic of Rochester. Be sure to show your official ID Card to the Secret Police before you leave, please.

The Zoning Code as proposed is a ludicrous, overbearing, busybody piece of legislation which seeks to interfere in just about anything having to do with private property rights: from digging holes to cutting trees, from how much land to leave undeveloped to forcing houses to be far closer together than is normal in a rural Town. They claim to be protecting us from suburban style development by bringing suburban style rules to our backyards. Inpoint of fact, they are doing what Socialists have been trying to do since Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto in 1848: destroy the rights of property owners.

The vast majority of those present spoke against this law, but it will pass. It will pass because the Town Board is unequivocally unconcerned with the will of the people. They have rejected the idea that they answer to us. They have broken their promise to serve us, over and over again. They have betrayed the public trust by turning their backs on their neighbors and are preparing to completely destroy the fabric of our Town and, in doing so, our very community.

The only way to stop them is to turn out on Election Day and vote everyone of them who is up for re-election out of office. It is time to show them who is boss. They think they rule with impunity, we can show them the way to the unemployment line. All it takes is resolution and strength of will.

True Rural Character will, I am confident, carry the day and reclaim the Town for the people who love it.

Humbling experience?

2007-05-16T13:50:00.000-07:00

Someone asked me this morning if losing my campaign for re-election to the School Board last night was a humbling experience. After giving it some thought, I surprised myself by answering "No." You see, I realized something. To say that losing an election is humbling is to say, by extension, that winning is an ego boost. Neither should be the case.

What should be (and for me is, indeed) humbling is the experience of running for office, results not withstanding. To ask people to give me their trust, to know that I am committing myself to years of asking their opinions, their desires, their wants and their needs, that is humbling.

Public service, community service should be just that: service. In its simplest, purest form, it is an oath by the candidates to put their own interests aside in favor of standing for the desires and defending the rights of those whom we hope to represent.

Representation is the most difficult form of service possible because the public's freedoms and demands must come first. They must come before the personal interests of the representative, because he or she is standing in the place of those who are being represented. Agendas must be set aside, considerations from our full time jobs ignored, demands from our political parties relegated to the back burner. When one is acting in an official capacity, one can be nothing but the vessel through which the public speaks and acts.

There are few tasks more difficult to perform honorably and conscientiously than representation of one's community.

Am I humbled by losing? No. Am I humbled by participating? Very much so. Was I humbled by serving for the last three years? More than you can imagine.

Anyone who is not humbled, who finds the exhiliration of exercising power too much to resist, who cannot understand that public officials have many, many employers and every one of them must be respected to the utmost... Well, people like might want to consider another line of work. They're probably not fit for public service.

Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say

2007-05-09T09:53:00.000-07:00

In one of the most famous dystopian novels of all time, George Orwell paints a picture of a society completely dominated by the Government. The world of 1984 is one in which even language is controlled by those in power. By creating a new language they call "Newspeak", the rulers of England clamp their iron fists around not only the actions of their subjects, but their thoughts as well.

After all, we use the language we speak when we think. By removing certain concepts, the Government would, in effect, remove the ability of the people to long for certain things. Words like "freedom" and "rebellion" disappear from the language and thus from the collective consciousness of an entire nation.

Another trick used by the creators of "Newspeak" is to change the meaning of a word until it signifies the diametric opposite of what it once did. This is a trick being used to great effect by the Lib-Dem Establishment hell bent on destroying our fundamental freedoms today.

Take the word "Progressive," for instance. On the surface, it would denote someone who is interested in progress, in building on what has come before to leave the next generation with something that is greater and better than that which the previous generation left us. That, however, is not at all the case with those who call themselves "progressives" today.

After the word “liberal” came to be viewed as a pejorative term in the 1980s, liberals sought to find a new term with which to label themselves and settled upon the word “progressive”. In doing so, they hoped to indicate to the world that they represented the path forward where conservatives, in their attempts to preserve age old traditions, values ethics and mores, were holding back society from its natural evolution.

The problem with this idea is that liberals are not, in fact, looking to progress from where we are to where we seek to be. They are seeking to replace today’s state of being with a new set of circumstances. In the process, they would destroy what we have and set something else in place.

This path is inherently destructive. It results in a state of rootlessness, in a erasure of history, in an annihilation of tradition and culture. It is, in essence, circular because the process becomes an unending loop of destruction of the past, replacement with what they want and a repeat of the destruction which led to the new state. It is circular but even more so, it makes destruction the foundation of society. The so-called progress of liberalism is fundamentally so circular and destructive that – in the process – the society it seeks to create becomes, by nature, unstable, thereby facilitating its own destruction to make way for the next “progressive” phase of evolution.

Is this, in fact, progress? Of course not. By destroying before building anew, you never end up with more, you have never in fact moved ahead. You have simply cobbled together something to replace that which was, but – at best – you remain in the same place. At worst, you have a pale imitation of what you had before, something which has never had to stand the rigorous tests of time and history.

True progress (and, by extension, true "progressivism") comes when one examines what is already in place, improves upon it and adds to it. Imagine society being like a building, with each generation having the opportunity to construct one, single story.
One half of the generation decides to get to work right away and begin building, placing brick on top of brick throughout their entire adult lives. They learn from the floors below, trying to avoid the mistakes while learning from the glories of their predecessors' successes.

Now, the other half of the generation is convinced that they have no need to learn from the past, the past has nothing to offer. Instead, they spend half their lives obliterating as many of the floors below as they can in order to clear the lot for their single story. While they have inherited an edifice with so many floors that it would be all but impossible to learn everything there is to learn about it, their children's legacy will be a single floor shack.

Progress? Really? I must be rather nearsighted because I just don't see it.

I, for one, want to leave my children the Library at Alexandria, the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Roman Aqueducts, the bridges by which we have forded the world's greatest rivers and the skyscrapers which reach out to caress the heavens all rolled into one.

The so-called "Progressives" want to leave their progeny a double-wide.

Reviewing the Review - Part 1

2007-04-23T09:03:00.000-07:00

I've given a great deal of thought to whether or not I should respond to the so-called "Rochester Review." With consideration for the fact that one of the most outrageous statements in that propaganda sheet was aimed directly at me by way of quoting one of my remarks, I wondered whether or not I should be the one to take that so-called "newspaper" apart piece by piece.

In the end, I decided that the "Review" could not be left unanswered. Given the fact that the Democrats have given us so much material with which to work (by the way, if any Democrats are reading this, thanks so much, it was really thoughtful of you to put your feet in your collective mouths yet again), my review of the "Review" will come in several parts.

Instead of going page by page, I'm going to start with the mudslinging attack leveled by the Democrats at me. The Nameless Editor and Reporters of the Review have seen fit to claim that the statement "The Tea Party begins tonight" is a call to violence. The fact is, the Tea Party quote came from me. Furthermore, the Democrats know - for a fact! - that I would never call anyone to violence. I was one of the few people who called Supervisor Duke and Councilman Miller following the "nails in the driveway" incidents at their homes and expressed my outrage and condemnation of those acts.

This statement in their propaganda publication is an unarguable indicator of the fact that Liberal Democrats will not hesitate to stoop to twisting (and, at times, falsifying) the truth in order to achieve their goals. Not only did they interpret a statement by someone who has always condemned the use of force in politics as a call to violence, they have shown an astounding lack of understanding for American History.

What is commonly referred to as the "Boston Tea Party" was anything but violent. The events leading to the Tea Party began with the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Act of 1767, which decreed a tax on tea to be paid to the British Government despite the lack of colonial representation in Parliament ("No taxation without representation.") John Hancock (who later became the first signer of the Declaration of Independence) was arrested for tea smuggling and was defended by John Adams (who was later the President of the United States as well as the father of President John Quincy Adams). The charges were eventually dropped.

Hancock then organized a boycott of Chinese tea imported by the British East India Company, which resulted in their tea sales dropping from 320,000 pounds to 520 pounds. In response, the British Parliament passed the Tea Act allowing the Company to sell directly to colonists, which it could not do previously.

In November of 1773, the first ship filled with direct sale tea, the HMS Dartmouth, arrived in Boston Harbor. The boycotters organized a series of protest meetings, each larger than the previous. Over 8,000 people attended the protest meeting of December 16, 1773. That night, 30 protesters dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded the Dartmouth and her sister ships - the HMS Beaver and the HMS Eleanour and quickly moved 45 tons of tea to the deck and dumped it into Boston Harbor.

According to Wikipedia, "Nothing else had been damaged or stolen, except a single padlock accidentally broken and anonymously replaced not long thereafter."

The Boston Tea Party was not violent by any stretch of the imagination. It was the first in a long line of honorable acts of the civil disobedience which has long served as a check on Government power run amok. Its moral successors included the Underground Railroad and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Invoking the memory of the Boston Tea Party has nothing to do with violence and everything to do with finding ways in which to refuse the edicts of a power mad Town Government. By doing so, by finding the laws which are unjust and anti-freedom and refusing to obey them, we will make the Town Board irrelevant. That, by the way, is one of their greatest fears.

The fact of the matter is, not only do we realize that violence is unacceptable, we know that it is unnecessary. The real power already belongs to the people. No Town laws will have any force if half of the Town view them as having no authority over our lives.

That is not violence, it is simply democracy.

Edelweiss

2007-04-11T07:46:00.000-07:00

The other night, I was flipping through the channels on TV. As usual, I was having difficulty finding anything worth watching. Just as I was about to give up, I happened to come upon a rerun of "The Sound of Music." That particular movie had always been one of my parents' favorites and it became a family tradition in my childhood to watch it whenever it was on.

As I was watching that night, I realized that what I had thought (as a child) was a nice little story about a man and a woman and a bunch of kids was really a cautionary tale about freedom and the choices we make to preserve it. I'm not talking about Maria's choices to follow her heart rather than staying in the convent or the regimented manner in which the von Trapp children were being raised. I'm talking about the life and death, good vs. evil struggle of World War II and how the choices made in those days influenced not only the world at the time but the world of today, as well.

At one point in the movie, Captain von Trapp is lost in thought, looking out into the distance. The Baroness whom he is courting asks him where he is. He replies, "In a world that is quickly disappearing." Not long after, the Captain ends up marrying Maria. While on their honeymoon, the Anschluss takes place and they rush back to Salzburg, which is now officially part of Nazi Germany.

The Anschluss was the event in 1938 wherein Austria "chose" to peacefully become part of Germany. The Austrian people actually had the opportunity to vote in a referendum on whether or not to do so. The official results were 99.73% in favor. In point of fact, there was no freedom of choice in the matter. The outcome of the plebiscite was predetermined.

What is worth noting, however, is that there were Austrians at the time who truly favored union with Germany. Some of them saw the Germans as being the ethnic brethren of Austria. Some were attracted by the fact that Hitler was actually Austrian and not German. Some had relatives in Germany. Some actually believed Hitler's inhuman and abhorrent philosophies.

Many, on the other hand, were simply afraid of conflict with Germany. These people would be the 1930s equivalent of those Americans who drive around with bumper stickers saying "War is never the answer." There are people in every era of history who view conflict as inherently wrong, regardless of the purpose or who is the aggressor or even who is being victimized prior to the commencement of hostilities.

This would be a lovely philosophy, were it true. The fact is that war freed us from the tyranny of Great Britain. War freed Texas from Mexico, allowing it to become a sovereign nation and later a member State of our Union. War freed the slaves not just in the South but throughout the U.S. War ended the Holocaust (not soon enough for the millions upon millions who became the victims of Hitler's evil). War freed China and Korea and most of the Pacific from Japanese domination and dictatorship. War forced North Korea back across its border with the South. A series of smaller conflicts and America's preparedness to fight a major war against the U.S.S.R. ended the barbarism that was Marxist-Leninist Communism in Europe when we won the Cold War. War evicted Saddam's goons from Kuwait. War freed Afghanistan from the monstrosities perpetrated by the Taliban regime. War toppled Saddam from power and is allowing Kurdish Iraq to flourish while bringing true democracy to the whole of Iraq. The current World War against Islamo-fascist terrorism will make Islamic extremism a footnote in history and allow the majority of Muslims to take back their religion from the fundamentalists who have hijacked it.

The point is not that war is good. It isn't. The point is that when no other choice is left, to reject conflict as a way of defending our rights and those of others is to commit suicide and to contribute to the murders of the victims.

On a local scale, political conflict seems to be unavoidable. We, too, are living in a world which is quickly disappearing. We are not the only community which is faced with a local government whose selfish agenda requires the subjugation of the rights and freedoms of the townspeople. It is happening all over the U.S., but especially in the so-called "blue states."

The America I was taught to love and cherish was a nation where people of goodwill could agree to disagree without those in power trashing the rights of those who were not. It was not a nation of "empty mantras." Words and phrases like "tolerance," "freedom of speech," "civil rights" and "open government" would have meant something in that America. That America, however, is rapidly fading into the mists of memory. If the Liberal Establishment has its way, the true meaning of our rights and freedoms will not even be found in history books, lest someone develop unwelcome ideas about resurrecting American liberty.

If we shy away from conflict, if we decide that political peace with those who would turn us into an underclass is preferable to taking a stand and consistently speaking out against the terrible deeds of those who would rob us of our liberty, the future of our community, our families and even our nation as a whole will be lost.

Anyone who has seen "The Sound of Music" will certainly remember Captain von Trapp singing:

Edelweiss, Edelweiss
Every morning you greet me
Small and white, clean and bright
You look happy to meet me

Blossom of snow
May you bloom and grow
Bloom and grow forever

Edelweiss, Edelweiss
Bless my homeland forever

Our Edelweiss, that clean and bright flower which greets us each day and makes it possible to live our lives, is our Constitution and the freedoms it embodies. Let us pray that our homeland, the greatest Nation in human history, will be forever blessed by its liberties and let us take a stand to ensure that blessing for ourselves and our posterity.

Open Government Attacked by Town Board

2007-04-10T08:58:00.000-07:00

Well, it seems that the Town Board has decided yet again that its own public commitments to Open Government are to be thrown on the rubbish heap. Not one, but TWO articles in the Kingston Daily Freeman today shed light on the fact that the Town Board has nothing but disdain for the people of the Town of Rochester when it comes to letting us know what is going on in our Town.

In one case, the Board decided that it was going to go into Executive Session to discuss the terms of a contract to be negotiated with Homeland Towers, the company who has been anointed by royal decree to construct two cell towers in our Town. Now, Executive Sessions are not, in and of themselves, a problem. They have their legitimate place in Government. The problem with this Executive Session is that it did not live up to the legal requirements imposed on governmental bodies under Article VII of the Public Meetings Law (commonly referred to as the Open Government Law).

This interpretation is not mine alone. It comes from none other than the Chairman of the New York State Committee on Open Government, Robert Freeman. Mr. Freeman is held by most people who deal with Open Government related legal issues to be the foremost authority on the subject in New York and one of the great experts nationwide.

The fact is, however, that it doesn't take an expert to realize that something is rotten in Denmark (or just off Granite Road) when it comes to this last Executive Session. All you have to do is read the Open Meetings Law. It's not written in legalese (well, not too much) and is plain to see, in black and white, for anyone who is interested.

Section 105 of the Law sets forth the ONLY conditions under which an Executive Session may be convened:

a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;

b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;

c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;

d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;

e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;

f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;

g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and

h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.

So, let's take a look at the cell tower issue:

Would disclosing negotiations "imperil the public safety"? NO
Would the Board be disclosing the identity of a law enforcement officer? NO
Would they be impeding the investigation or prosecution of a crime? NO
Is anyone planning on suing the Town or is the Town planning on suing someone else? We can't know for certain, but that was not the reason they gave for going into Executive Session, so we can assume for the time being that the answer here, too, is NO.
Are they negotiating with a union to build these towers? NO
Are they dealing with any of the specific personnel issues listed in the law? NO
Are they preparing, grading or administering examinations? NO
Are they proposing to sell, purchase or lease public land, and (if so) would public discussion substantially effect its value? NO
Are they proposing to buy, sell or exchange securities, and (if so) would public discussion substantially effect its value? NO

If none of the above are true, the facts are crystal clear: they had no legally acceptable reason for going into Executive Session.

Of course, the Town Attorney told the press that the State Opinion was not correct. With due respect to the Town Attorney, there's probably a very good reason why Robert Freeman is the head of the Committee on Open Government, that reason being the fact that he is the quintessential expert on the subject. Mr. Freeman breathes, sleeps and eats Open Government. We shouldn't be surprised at the Town Attorney's reaction. I, for one, am unable to recall a single instance when the Town Attorney told the Board that what they were doing is wrong or illegal. I'm not saying it never happened, but if it did, it was an exceedingly rare instance.

The Town Attorney's job should be to represent the Town, as a whole. In reality, all Town Attorneys actually represent the political powers that be in a Town: the Town Board and other municipal departments and agencies. He is simply doing his job when he states that the Town is correct in doing what they did. Keeping in mind, however, what his job actually is, we have very little reason to place any faith in his statements as unbiased interpretations of the Law. Robert Freeman, however, has no dog in this fight. His opinions are far more likely to be accurate and fair.

By the way Councilman Ron Santosky deserves recognition and congratulations for have the courage to refuse to participate in this Executive Session. Kudos, Ron.

The second Freeman article today points to the fact that there are some DEC related problems at the Transfer Station regarding the disposal of petroleum products. OK, fine. Many of us have serious misgivings about DEC interference in local affairs. Problems happen all the time and many of them are not the fault of the governing body.

So, what's the difficulty here? When the reporter asked the Town Supervisor if the list of problems would be made available under a State Freedom of Information Law request, Supervisor Duke responded that the list is something "...I really don't want in the paper because we haven't really discussed this, and I have not even discussed this with the employees or anything." She further went on to say, "I'm not going to send that copy to anybody right now... The reason being is that we have to sit down and discuss what we're doing. This is not in stone... That was the first time the board has seen anything. We have not had a discussion about it. I don't feel comfortable sending it out."

Come again? Now, I'm not going to reproduce the entire Freedom of Information Law here. Even the Executive Session discussion above was probably overkill. Links to both laws may be found at the end of this post, for all who might be interested.

Suffice it to say, that neither the Town Supervisor nor the Town Board have any authority to deny a request for information based on the fact that she (or they) "don't feel comfortable sending it out." In fact, nothing the Supervisor is quoted to have said in the newspaper even comes close to constituting acceptable grounds for refusing to provide the public or the press with a particular piece of requested information.

Of course, it is entirely possible that they will come up with some other explanation for the refusal, after the fact. They've done it before. When Robert Freeman stated that they have no Open Government Law related reason for refusing to discuss the infamous "Porn Interview," the Town Attorney decided that they would keep quiet because it could lead to litigation. This Town Government changes direction more often than a weather vane in the Spring.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Supervisor and the majority of the Town Board were elected on promises of bringing Open Government to the Town of Rochester. To say that they have failed in this commitment would be a severe understatement. The truth is that the Town Board and the Supervisor are the most serious violators of the principles of Open Government in my memory. They have been far more secretive than any previous Town Board. They perceive the people of the Town as their enemies and turn every act into an exercise in counterintelligence. In short, they have not simply failed, they have betrayed the people of this Town and have completely decimated any semblance of Open Government they may have started off with.

They do not deserve our continued trust. They do not deserve to be believed. They do not deserve to be re-elected.

We do not deserve this Town Government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Government Law
Freedom of Information Law

Rochester Supervisor Withholds Details on Transfer Station Problem (from the Daily Freeman)

2007-04-10T08:56:00.000-07:00

ROCHESTER SUPERVISOR WITHHOLDS DETAILS ON TRANSFER STATION PROBLEM
By William J. Kemble, Correspondent
04/10/2007

ACCORD - The Town Board has been told that new procedures are needed at the town transfer station for disposal of petroleum products, but town Supervisor Pam Duke isn't giving details of problems.

Duke said during a Town Board meeting last week that the problem was part of a list of corrections needed at the facility.

"We are really not in compliance with quite a lot of things so we have a laundry list that is quite lengthy," she said.

The comments by Duke were made when taking a bid resolution off the agenda for improvements to a storage building for oil and batteries.

"The biggest thing that we've got to do is we've got to get those tanks registered that are out at the transfer station," she said. "It has a lot to do with DEC (state Department of Environmental Conservation) and to be in DEC compliance."

Information discussed during the session included learning of a buried oil and apparent commingling oil with other types of liquids.

Duke on Monday declined a reporter's request for the list of problems. Asked if it would be available under the state Freedom of Information Law she said, "Sure, but you know it's just a list of things that we need to look at I really don't want in the paper because we haven't really discussed this, and I have not even discussed this with the employees or anything."

Duke added that town Councilman Tony Spano, liaison to the transfer station, had not been given the list because he was absent from the Town Board meeting.

"I'm not going to send that copy to anybody right now," she said. "The reason being is that we have to sit down and discuss what we're doing. This is not in stone."

Duke said the information came from Conklin Construction as a free study of municipal waste oil disposal practices.

"That was the first time the board has seen anything. We have not had a discussion about it. I don't feel comfortable sending it out," she said.

Town Attorney Defends Executive Session (from the Daily Freeman)

2007-04-10T08:48:00.000-07:00

TOWN ATTORNEY DEFENDS EXECUTIVE SESSION
By William J. Kemble, Correspondent
04/10/2007

ACCORD - Three members of the Rochester Town Board went into executive session last week to discuss proposed terms of lease for two 150-foot towers on town of Rochester properties, but a fourth Town Board member declined to join in the session.

The closed-door session was conducted for about 20 minutes last week, as Town Attorney Rod Futerfas contended state opinions regarding executive sessions were wrong and said negotiations were covered by laws governing contract negotiations.

The session included town Supervisor Pam Duke, and Councilmen Francis Gray, and Alex Miller, while Councilman Ronald Santosky declined to participate and left the meeting. Councilman Tony Spano was absent.

During a telephone interview following the meeting, Futerfas said the session was also covered by state Open Meetings Law governing the effect on property value but declined to explain how it would meet the criteria for "substantially" affecting the value.

"This is a negotiation over whether or not we are doing this, and how we're doing it, and what we are doing it for," he said.

"There are two locations where cell towers are going," Futerfas said. "They are both on public property. One is near the transfer station ... the specific locations I'm not that familiar with."

Town officials have scheduled a 4:30 p.m. April 25 meeting with the owner of Homeland Towers to provide public details of the project.

"We are going to ask for the principal of Homeland to come in and go through the entire project and what they are proposing to do and how they are proposing to do it," Futerfas said.

State Committee on Open Government Executive Director Robert Freeman said the law is intended to cover land value and not equipment or tower costs.

"Since we're talking about town-owned property that is not being sold or purchased I don't see there would have been a basis for going into executive session," he said.

During public comment period, Santosky's wife Kandi Santosky chided board members for discussing the lease privately. Following the session, she said discussions have included details about tower setbacks and construction issues without any basis for secrecy.

"My contention is that they're sidestepping the law," she said. "When the law has to apply to (town Supervisor Pam Duke) she wants to waive it, and they are going to waive a whole lot to put these cell towers in because she wants money the coming in."

More of the Same

2007-04-06T09:17:00.000-07:00

What can I say about last night's Town Board meeting other than "More of the same." The meeting started with a Public Hearing about the new Building Code Enforcement law (Chapter 111 of the Town Code, if you ever need to look it up). In general, there would be no major problem with the law if it had actually been implemented as the State mandated it to be.

The problem is that our Town Politburo feels an uncontrollable urge (almost like a political Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) to add language anywhere and everywhere that whittles away at the rights of property owners. In this case, they added language allowing themselves to toss permitting requirements all over the Town Code, anywhere they felt like it, making it all but impossible for the average person to figure out what they need to do in order to get a permit.

Why is it so difficult to simply put all the permitting requirements in the Building and Zoning Codes? Simple. They want to be able to slip new requirements in places where no one will think to look because they have no business being there. This is not an assumption or a guess. This is a well-founded prediction based on what they have done in the past. Look at all the nonsense they tried to insert into the Historical Preservation Law last year.

In the section about Complaints, I requested one simple addition: that we not put weapons in the hands of those cowardly individuals who love to make anonymous attacks on our neighbors. Specifically, I asked that the name of the person or persons filing a complaint be made a part of the record, so that a homeowner against whom a complaint is filed can mount a proper defense. The answer given was that no, we cannot do that. The privacy of the Complainant must be respected. His rights must be upheld. He might be subject to retribution.

Not a single mention was made of the fact that the complaints themselves could become a form of retribution for unrelated acts. No one on the Left stood up to say that in the interests of fairness, the property owner's rights should be upheld. The complaint process was viewed in a skewed, one-sided manner completely devoid of any sense of justice or fair play.

The Town Board and its supporters are hell bent on doing as much damage to property rights as humanly possible before being kicked out of office by the voters this coming November. Then, when the new Town Board changes things to ensure our protection as property and homeowners, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will go to Court over each and every change that is made. The Liberal Left lambastes anyone who criticizes the current Board as being "anti-democratic" but they will (mark my words!) have zero respect for a Town Board dominated by those who respect property rights. That lack of respect will be characterized by two years of delaying tactics (lawsuits, complaints to State and Federal agencies, etc.) to keep any favorable changes from going into effect until they can re-take the Town Government.

Nothing in the way they act towards a new Town Board will reflect the principles they claim to espouse pertaining to respect for the democratic decision made by the Town. Just as they have allowed the ideals of Open Government to be thrown out in the trash as soon as they became inconvenient to them, so will their much vaunted love of democracy become so much rubbish once they have lost the power which they enjoy so very much.

When speaking out last night, I made mention of the fact that the Town Government works for us, not the other way around. Immediately, my comments were greeted by remarks of "Here we go again." Well, yes. Here we go again. And we will keep on going, month after month because that simple principle, the ideal of Government working for the People, is what democracy is. Without that ideal, there is no democracy.

To me and, I am convinced, to all of us who understand just how precious the centuries of traditions of our Town and Nation are, the basic American ideal of true public service is something that is sacrosanct. There is never a good reason for a public official to act in a manner which breaches that ideal.

There is a little known rock musician named Steve Vai. One of his songs reflects precisely what I feel about public service and true leadership:

I'm not a savior
I'm not a king
The power lies in your hands
But I feel your anger
I speak your peace
Freedom time is here

No public official should think of themselves as being "in charge," of being a king or boss. They should always keep in mind that true authority comes from those we serve, not from those who pass laws in Albany or Washington. What we say should reflect the passions, ideals, concerns and desires of those we represent. And, above all, freedom should be what we strive to achieve for those we serve. The people dictate, the officials serve. That is what democracy really is all about.

Those who prefer to be Residents instead of Neighbors, however, don't truly care about principles like democracy, representation, fair play, justice or - in point of fact - any other principle. They are concerned with one thing: getting what they want. Like a petulant child throwing a tantrum because mommy didn't buy him the toy he wanted, the Liberal Left in Town lashes out at anyone and everyone who stands in the way of their goals.

Well, they are about to get a very unpleasant surprise when the voters of the Town of Rochester give them a Time Out in November. Maybe a few years sitting in the corner thinking about what they have done will teach them how to play nice with their peers.

Maybe, but I'm not too optimistic. Bullies never learn from their own mistakes.

Barn Raising Anyone?

2007-03-30T09:56:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-28T12:05:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-28T12:01:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-27T11:49:00.000-07:00

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:

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.
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.
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

2007-03-26T08:34:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-23T11:38:00.000-07:00

“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

2007-03-22T08:16:00.000-07:00

"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

2007-03-21T08:48:00.000-07:00

"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

2007-03-19T15:06:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-19T15:05:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-18T15:41:00.000-07:00

"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

2007-03-17T00:22:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-17T00:21:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-14T14:57:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-03-12T15:09:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-09T11:48:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-09T11:40:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-09T08:36:00.000-08:00

Learning from history

2007-03-09T08:18:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-08T09:00:00.000-08:00

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.

Supervisor Duke's March 1 Statement

2007-03-08T08:54:00.000-08:00

Statement by Pam Duke

I would like to take this opportunity to share the Town Board’s intentions relating to the process by which we interviewed Manuela Mihailescu as a candidate for the Historic Preservation Commission. We are aware that many of you are here this evening because you feel Ms. Mihilescu [sic] was wronged by the Town Board. And many people have judged our actions based on only one version of the story. I would like to share what I can without violating our obligation to Ms. Mihailescu to protect the confidentiality of Executive Session.

In January 2006, our Town established a formal appointment procedure for vacancies on Town boards, commissions and committees that is published on the Town website and is available at the Town Hall. In accordance with that policy, we post each opening, invite people to send in letters of interest and interview every candidate.

The selection procedure states that interviews of prospective candidates are to be held in Executive Session. Executive sessions are confidential meetings of the Town Board that are permitted by State Law and that, among other things, authorize public bodies to discuss and review personnel matters privately.(1) After interviews are completed, the nominees’ names are presented to the Town Board for a vote at a public meeting.

Until now, we have not spoken about Ms. Mihailescu’s confidential interview. We have honored due process and the obligation of privacy owed to her relating to the executive session. However, while Ms. Mihailescu has publicly released her version of events, she has not authorized the Town Board to give its account by signing a waiver of that confidentiality.

Accordingly, we are obligated to remain silent about what happened during the Executive Session interview. We believe, however, that we are able to discuss our intent and the thought process leading up to the session.

In reviewing Ms. Mihailescu’s appointment to the Historical Preservation Commission, the Town Board received information from residents that potentially linked Ms. Mihailescu’s name to adult websites. The Town Board had many questions.

The questions we asked ourselves were:

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?

These are legitimate questions and the only way to answer them was to meet with her to ask for her side of the story. To do anything less would have deprived her right to defend herself against unknown accusations.

Immediately after the second Executive Session, Ms. Mihailescu made her story public. A group of people published her version of the interview and mailed postcards to townspeople that appear to be designed to incite indignation and
outrage. Here is where this confidential matter became a public political issue.

We regret the emotional angst that this has created and the division that this has caused in our community. We take the responsibilities of office seriously, and by following our candidate interviewing process, we believe that we acted properly and with sensitivity.

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.

Despite what the local press and rumor reported, the vote on Ms. Mihailescu’s candidacy was never taken and the process was not completed. Are we prepared to vote now?

March 1, 2007

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Section 105 of New York State Open Meetings Law

The Democrats - Party of the American Intellectual

2007-03-08T08:44:00.000-08:00

Democrats have a nasty habit of looking down their noses at Conservatives and Republicans, thinking of us as less intelligent. Here are some actual quotes (I swear, I'm not making this up!) from their 2000 Presidential candidate, Albert Gore. Yep, the Dems are definitely the smart ones.

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

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."

"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made."

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'"

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

"The future will be better tomorrow."

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe."

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it."

"Democrats understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."

"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have tremendous impact on history."

"When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in L.A., my answer has been direct and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame."

"The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that Al Gore may or may not make."

Politics Explained

2007-03-08T08:21:00.000-08:00

I found this joke using cows to explain politics and economics. I added the last comparison to bring our Town into line with the rest of the political world. Enjoy.

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

COWS & POLITICS EXPLAINED

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You sell him some milk.

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

A FASCIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. They are mad. They die. Pass the shepherd's pie, please.

A RED CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported on them.

AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.

THE ROCHESTER TOWN BOARD: You have two cows. The Town Board learns you once took a photograph of them. They declare your photos to be porn and prohibit you from joining a Committee. Your friends stand up for you and are called a lynch mob. In response to the Townspeoples' indignation, the Supervisor releases a statement saying, 'Don't have a cow."

Democrats Lose an Honest Man - Freeman Article

2007-03-07T12:02:00.000-08:00

Kingston City Alderman Leonard Walker (Disclaimer: I am proud to call Lenny a friend of mine and have interviewed him several times on my radio show) has announced that he is leaving the Democratic Party and will become a Republican. Kudos, Lenny, for your courageous step. Too bad you're not becoming a Conservative, though. Just kidding.

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

KINGSTON ALDERMAN ABANDONS DEMOCRATS
By Paul Kirby, Freeman staff03/07/2007

KINGSTON - Two Common Council Democrats on Tuesday shrugged off Alderman Leonard Walker's decision to abandon the party and become a Republican.

Majority Leader Bill Reynolds and Alderwoman Ann Marie DiBella said the move is politically suspect and is intended to advance Walker's own political ambitions.

Walker, who represents the city's Third Ward, has been at odds with fellow Democrats for some time and said he's leaving the party because of their constant inability to stand up for the right causes.

"The bottom line is that I now won't have to look over my back to see who is stabbing me in the back," Walker said. "This isn't about the party. It is about the people who are elected who are supposed to do the right thing for the people who elected them."

Walker has filed the necessary paperwork at the Ulster County Board of Election to effect the party switch, but his new enrollment won't take effect until seven days after the November election. So for now, he's still an enrolled Democrat.

The switch means the Common Council will have a 5-4 Democratic majority instead of the current 6-3 margin, but Reynolds, D-Ward 7, noted that Republican Aldermen Albert Teetsel of Ward 1 and Robert Senor of Ward 8 usually vote with the Democratic majority, meaning Democrats should have no trouble continuing to control the agenda.

Only Walker and Minority Leader Richard Cahill, R-Ward 6, tend to oppose Democrats on key votes.

"My suspicion is that Mr. Walker would join any party under the sun that would further his own political agenda," DiBella said. "It is not about serving the community or about loyalty. It is about his own ego.

"I will like to see how the Republicans are gong to respond to Mr. Walker's knee-jerk plans, which generally have no basis in fact or substance," she said.

Walker makes no bones about the fact that he wants the Republican endorsement to run for mayor this fall. The current mayor, James Sottile, is a Democrat and has not yet said whether he plans to seek re-election.

Reynolds wonders whether Walker made a deal with the GOP that involved announcing a party switch in order to get the mayoral nomination. Walker said there was no deal and noted that he had the city Republican Committee's backing when he last ran for alderman, in 2005.

Walker said he no longer can be a member of a party that does not want him because he "bucks the system" and that stripped of his position as a Democratic committeeman. That action was taken after Walker said the Kingston Democratic Committee wanted to keep poor people "dumb and stupid."

Walker also drew the wrath of Democrats for complaining about Sottile's son being allowed to take home a city vehicle and for criticizing the Sottile administration for not having a city policy about giving away excess dirt.

Walker calls himself a "reformer," but fellow Democrats say he's nothing of the kind.

Cahill said the last straw for Walker, who is black, was a comment by DiBella that racial profiling may have played a role in trying to set up a crime task force for the city.

DiBella didn't mind Cahill blaming her for Walker's defection.

"If the reason he is leaving is because of me, I feel honored," she said.

My Favorite Political Quote

2007-03-06T10:46:00.000-08:00

My favorite political quote of all time comes from Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Sounds like our Town Board, doesn't it?

Do this. Don't do that. Stay in the back of the line. Where's your tax receipt? Fill out form. Let's see license. Submit six copies. Exit only. No left turn. No right turn. Queue up to pay fine. Take back to get stamped. Drop dead - but first get permit.

Town Committee Application "Review Process"

2007-03-06T10:26:00.000-08:00

Tooling around the Town website today, I found procedures for applying to join a Committee. The "Review Process" is described as follows:

The Town Board shall review and discuss all applications and letters of intent in executive session. The vote to select any candidate shall, however, be made at a public meeting of the Town Board. The Town Board may also decide not to appoint or re-appoint any of the candidates and direct the Town Clerk to advertise for more applications or letters of intent with a new deadline. The Town Board may, at its discretion, also retain prior letters for reconsideration at another date for subsequent vacancies.

Strange, I don't see anything about interviews, background checks, allegations with no proof being presented to the Public, printouts of explicit materials or any of the other complaints Manuela Mihailescu had about the way in which the Town Board (mis)treated her.

Ulster County Press Cartoon

2007-03-06T07:49:00.000-08:00

New Bluestone Press Article

2007-03-06T07:45:00.000-08:00

A MONTH LATER, ROCHESTER CONTROVERSY PERSISTS
by Melissa Lajara
March 2, 2007

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 to the Town of Rochester's monthly meeting, held in the Accord Fire Hall.

At that meeting, the town board — with one member absent — voted down the appointment of Mihailescu.

But it was in stark contrast to the meeting last month, which was abruptly adjourned after an overflow crowd — many of whom were kept outside after town hall reached its capacity — began protesting. Some in the near-capacity audience at the Fire Hall alluded to the incident with signs that read "this is our house" and "we will be heard."

Resident Anna Katz commended the board for its choice to adjourn the Feb. 1 meeting, saying the crowd outside was "threatening, abusive, loud and scary."

Imre Beke, the chairman of the conservative party locally, told the board "when you openly and blatantly turned your backs on the people... you chose power over authority and legitimacy." Town Supervisor Pam Duke finally addressed the events in a statement she read and distributed to the audience.

"We are aware that many of you are here this evening because you feel Ms. Mihailescu was wronged by the town board," she said. Duke stressed that without a signed waiver, she had to be careful to preserve the confidentiality of the executive session, but said the information about Mihailescu's alleged link to pornography was provided by residents.

"The town board had many questions," she said, which included whether the information was relevant and reliable, and whether it would impact Mihailescu's ability to serve the commission.

The Supervisor's Comments on "Public Servants" in 2006

2007-03-04T15:15:00.000-08:00

Google is a wonderful thing. There are all sorts of interesting tidbits you can find on the World Wide Web just by typing in someone's name. No, I'm not talking about porn sites no one outside of Town Government can seem to find. I'm referring to things more along the lines of an interview with Rochester Town Supervisor Pam Duke found on the Ulster County Democrats' website (http://www.ulstercountydemocrats.com/Archives-2006.htm#Duke). I'm not going to reproduce the whole interview here, but there are some salient remarks that I, personally, find intriguing. For instance:

"One thing that people in local governments sometimes forget is that town officials are public servants, with a duty to provide service to their respective electorates. The residents of our towns are our customers and we have an obligation to manage the affairs of town government in like a business, with accountability at all levels, systems to track spending and revenues, and a clear set of objectives."

Or:

"I thought that I would be able to bring a new, more inclusive outlook to government and decided to run for supervisor."

That's such a wonderful philosophy on the role of government! Almost makes me want to sing Kumbaya. The problem is, it's another example of "Do as I say, not as I do."

She tells us that town officials are public servants but leads a Town Board which has consistently looked down upon any segment of the population that disagrees with them. What was done to Jon Dogar-Marinesco and Manuela Mihailescu in the past several months is just the tip of the iceberg. The political purges began in January of 2006 and have yet to stop. These "public servants" locked about 100 people out of the Town Hall on February 1, shut down public comment (indeed, the entire meeting), ran one meeting complete devoid of public comment and eliminated the first public comment segment from the next meeting. As a result, we were left to make our opinions known only AFTER the Board voted on the subjects at hand. An "inclusive outlook," my left big toe!

She wants to implement systems to track revenues and spending. How nice. How about systems to reduce both? This Town doesn't need more tax money coming into its coffers, it needs to reduce its budget. We certainly don't need a full time Supervisor at full time pay, especially if "full time" means more time to divide our community. The next Supervisor, however, probably will need to be "full time" for several years just to undo the harm done to our little Town.

What we need are public officials who actually take the idea of service to heart, people who did not come here from elsewhere thinking they were better, smarter and wiser than the existing townsfolk. Don't get me wrong, my family and I came from outside Rochester, too. The difference, however, is we did our best to become part of the existing community, embracing all that made it a wonderful place to live. These new Lib-Dems have far too much contempt for what made Rochester great for 300 years. They are neither more intelligent nor better than anyone else in Town. Just more arrogant.

Quick note about the Town website

2007-03-03T13:25:00.000-08:00

I just went to take a look at the Town website. Interestingly, not only haven't they posted the Supervisor's statement from Thursday night, but they seemed to have removed last month's "Media Release," as well. Granted, these items may be there, just well buried under several links, but they're certainly not easily found.

So much for Open Government.

More quotes

2007-03-03T13:00:00.000-08:00

Since I've quoted Presidents, statesmen and other historical figures previously, I thought it might be interesting to see what others might have to say about freedom, politics and government. I have excerpts from song lyrics below, some of which may not refer specifically to the topic at hand, but they sure sound like they could.

The band Living Colour wrote this specifically about the corruption found in government:

Neon lights, a Nobel Prize.

The mirror speaks, the reflection lies.

You don't have to follow me.

Only you can set you free.

I sell the things you need to be.

I'm the smiling face on your T.V.

I'm the Cult of Personality.

I exploit you, you still you love me.

Rush sang the following about the abuses that led the French to rise up on the first Bastille Day:

There's no bread, let them eat cake.

There's no end to what they'll take.

Flaunt the fruits of noble birth,

Wash the salt into the earth...

Lessons taught but never learned.

All around us anger burns.

Guide the future by the past.

Long ago the mould was cast.

Also from Rush, about a young man who stands up to the status quo:

Though his mind is not for rent,

Don't put him down as arrogant.

Always hopeful, yet discontent,

He knows changes aren't permanent.

Tears for Fears' song "Shout" speaks for itself:

In violent times, you shouldn't have to sell your soul.

In black and white, they really really ought to know.

Those one track minds that took you for a working boy.

Kiss them goodbye, you shouldn't have to jump for joy.

You shouldn't have to jump for joy.

Firehouse's "Don't Treat Me Bad" sounds like a complaint many Rochester Democrats might have about the behavior of the Town Board:

I never thought you'd hurt me.

I guess you live and learn,

When you're playin' with fire

You're bound to get burned.

I've been mistreated,

I've been used before.

I get kicked in the face,

Still I come back for more.

Rocker Sammy Hagar talks about the nature of our rights when he asks a most burning question:

How can you take away

What you did not create?

Beyond the power of the conscience,

Beyond the power of the state.

Tell me who, who has the right?

Well, no one has the right.

Classic rock icons Deep Purple might well have been telling the Town Board that Public Comment is about us being heard, not the Board's ability to respond, when they declared:

It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong,

It really doesn't mean a thing.

It doesn't matter if you like my song,

As long as you can hear me sing!

And, of course, no collection of freedom lyrics would be complete without Governor Schwarzenneger's campaign fight song, "We're Not Gonna Take It" by Twisted Sister:

We've got the right to choose it.

There ain't no way we'll lose it.

This is our life, this is our song.

We'll fight the powers that be, just

Don't pick our destiny, 'cause

You don't know us, you don't belong.

Oh, you're so condescending.

Your gall is never ending.

We don't want nothin', not a thing from you.

Your life is trite and jaded,

Boring and confiscative.

If that's your best, your best won't do!

We're right!

We're free!

We'll fight!

You'll see!

Why the Outrage?

2007-03-03T09:17:00.000-08:00

At Thursday night's Town Board Meeting, one of the Town Board's apologists stated that the atmosphere seemed angry and threatening. Another comment heard was that we who oppose the Town Board's current civil war against the Town's residents are a "lynch mob." I submit that nothing could be further from the truth.

To address the first claim, no threats were made against anyone in any manner. In fact, with the Town Board holding power to destroy lives over our heads, to say that we were in any way, shape or form "threatening" is akin to saying that a clerk in the mail room could sexually harass the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. In reality, the Town Board has shown itself to be a threat to our freedoms, our livelihoods and, in many cases, our very homes.

What was, however, palpable and tangible Thursday night was the rising tide of righteous indignation. Yes, we are upset. Yes, we are feeling disenfranchised. Yes, we are disgusted by the behavior of our elected officials. To translate this into the idea that the defenders of Manuela Mihailescu would resort to violence is both absurd and offensive. The vast majority of the people in the Town of Rochester, on both sides of the political spectrum, abhor the use of violence to settle political differences. Of course, there are always some, on both sides of the political spectrum, who find it justified to use force to get what they want. Not only is this morally and ethically unacceptable, it does more harm than good for one's cause. All people of goodwill naturally condemn such behavior and it is vital that we recognize that it is indefensible, unproductive, aberrant and equally to be found among those who call themselves conservatives and liberals, alike.

Of course, when the fact that both sides attract those unbalanced persons who would resort to violence is pointed out, liberals immediately point their fingers to the right and try to make this into a conservative disease rather than recognizing its true nature. That's OK, we're used to it. Liberalism has long been a religion dedicated to the worship of the irrational and the untrue. To set the record straight, allow me to point out some of the peace-loving, gentle, kind liberals of the past who thought a little bloodletting to achieve their ends was a perfectly acceptable exercise, Machiavelli notwithstanding.

The Weather Underground was formed in 1969 dedicated to the violent overthrow of the American government
Liberals continue to defend Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981 cold-blooded murder of a Pennsylvania police officer, despite the fact that he was found guilty by a jury based on a combination of eyewitness and forensic evidence.
The 1968 bombing of the CIA recruitment Office in Ann Arbor, Michigan
The 1970 bombing of Sterling Hall at the University of Wisconsin's Madison Campus
Countless acts of violence and force against servicemen returning from Vietnam
And so forth and so on

You see, liberals only truly believe in peace and non-violence when it suits their interests. They are even more prone to use other forms of force (such as political coercion and attacking people's reputations) in order to achieve their goals.

The second claim, that there is a "lynch mob" in place acting against the Town Board is equally laughable, if not more so. "Lynching" occurs when those with power attack someone without due process and carry out their own punishment against that person. Hmmm... Sort of like when someone is accused of being involved with a porn site, not told who the accuser is, not given access to the evidence, never having the allegations proven but being punished (kept off a town committee, for example) nonetheless. No, wait. That's too far fetched. That could never happen anywhere in America, much less in the enlightened, progressive State of New York.

Right.

By definition, those who are defending one whose rights are being trampled by those with the power to do so cannot be a lynch mob. The abusers of that person's freedom, on the other hand... Well, I'll leave that judgement up to you.

Guilty - Beyond an Unreasonable Rumor

2007-03-02T09:09:00.000-08:00

At last night's Town Board Meeting, the Town Supervisor and her fellow witchhunters proved yet again that they do not understand their role in our community. Not only did Supervisor Duke read a statement in which she had the audacity to defend the Board's hamhanded, dictatorial handling of the Manuela Mihailescu controversy (or is it a scandal?), she also refused to speak about the way in which the Town Board mistreated the residents at last month's meeting.

Supervisor Duke, instead of acknowledging the Town Board's mismanagement of the "adult website" question, gave us all a poor excuse for an excuse. In essence, the Town Board was forced to confront Ms. Mihailescu and treat her like the lord of the manor treats a scullery maid simply because they heard a rumor.

Fundamentally, what the Supervisor is saying is that anyone can be kept off of a Town Committee simply because "someone" tells the Board that the applicant has done something, no matter how absurd, how inane the accusation may be. Furthermore, despite Constitutional guarantees to the right to face one's accuser, this Town Board has decided that neither Constitutionality nor the standards of basic fairness require them to reveal the name of the person making the accusation.

Apparently, the Town Board will now be telling tales, based on the idea that they might just possibly be partially true, and using them to keep people out of participation in Town life. Seeing how the Supervisor has now taken on a full time job in running the Town (and in the hopes that, by helping her out, we can avoid another pay increase), I have graciously taken it upon myself - in the spirit of volunteerism - to compile a list of rumors for them to use when they are looking for an excuse to purge someone.

I hope this helps:

1. The applicant is the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

2. The applicant helped shave Britney Spears' head.

3. The applicant's remarks about Nicole Richie's weight led to her eating disorder.

4. The applicant was once adopted by both Angelina Jolie and Madonna and ended up the subject of an ugly custody battle.

5. The applicant wrote Donald Trump's remarks on Rosie O'Donnell.

6. The applicant was once abducted by Little Green Men and played Scrabble with Elvis aboard their flying saucer. He or she was returned after welching on his or her Scrabble debt.

7. The applicant is particularly uncharitable, refusing to send money to the Association to Provide Chilean Lapdogs with Dog-Sized Gucci Footwear.

8. The applicant was the head Cameraman for the Megan Mullaly Show and the direct reason for its cancellation.

9. The applicant was dumb enough to believe Alec Baldwin's promise to leave the country if Bush wins the election.

10. The applicant actually likes Dustin Hoffman's Ishtar.

11. The applicant owns the secret 8 mm movie made of the Kennedy assassination and is planning to sell it on eBay along with a shriveled mushroom that is said to resemble Dennis Kucinich.

12. The applicant has proof that Paris Hilton is actually Marilyn Monroe's granddaughter and refuses to share it with the rest of us.

13. The applicant brought cookies to the last Town Board Meeting but did not bring enough for everyone.

14. The applicant, during his or her interview, pointed a finger at one of the Councilmen, about an inch from his eye, and kept repeating the phrase "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you."

15. The applicant secretly refers to his or her calico cat as "Mommy".

Quick Reminder

2007-02-28T13:55:00.000-08:00

Just a quick reminder to everyone: tomorrow night (Thursday, March 1, 2007) at 7 PM, the Town Board will be holding its March regular meeting at the Accord Firehouse. The Firehouse holds about twice as many people as the Town Hall (165, if memory serves), however we hope to have many more than that in attendance.

I have heard that the first of the two customary Public Comment Periods has been removed from the Agenda. I cannot vouch for this as I have not seen an Agenda myself, but it would not surprise me if the Board wanted to finish their business prior to listening to the people they work for. If, for any reason, we are not permitted to make our dissatisfaction with the actions of this Town Board heard inside, before the Board, we will find other ways in which to make ourselves heard. One idea is to have our own "Public Comment Rally" outside Town Board Meetings from now until Election Day. Other ways of communicating to the Board and each other are in the works.

Please come and join the fun Thursday. And remember: this issue will not die. This is our Town and we will be heard!

Views On Government

2007-02-27T11:04:00.000-08:00

Several months ago, at a Town Public Hearing, Conservatives and Republicans were derided for mistrusting government. In point of fact, we do not mistrust the institution of government as much as we recognize from an analytical examination of history that, as British historian Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The greater the power granted to a person or body, the longer that person or body wields that power, the greater the likelihood and degree of corruption.

By corruption, we are not necessarily speaking of bribery or influence peddling. Far more likely is the slow, unnoticed self-corruption a public official experiences simply through the ability to affect the lives of others. Public officials tend to feel that they are above the people they should be serving. A sense of self-importance develops and this sense grows stronger over time evolving into arrogance and even abusiveness without the official even realizing it.

The abuse of power fostered by self-corruption becomes self-perpetuating. Abusive public officials congregate with other like minded people and exclude those who disagree. They find ways to sanction and punish those whose views are in opposition to theirs. eventually, if left unfettered, their abusiveness rises to the level of tyranny and dictatorship.

History holds out many examples of such abuse:

Augusto Pinochet's late night abductions of the political opposition
The Myanamar (Burmese) government's placement of Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest
Panamanian strong man Manuel Noriega's drug empire
Hugo Chavez's continuing nationalization of Venezuelan industry
Fidel Castro's torture and execution of those he found to be less than loyal to him
Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution in China
The persecution of religion throughout the former Soviet bloc and into Vietnam and other, more distant Communist satellite states
The attempted genocidal elimination of large groups of people who threaten the power base in places like Cambodia, Sudan, Tibet and Iraq, to just name a few.
Polish dictator Wojciech Jaruzelski's clampdown on the Solidarity trade union

And the list goes on.

Trust government? Not me. There are things that government must do, it certainly has its proper place in society. However, we must be the ones to keep a watchful eye and make sure it never, ever steps beyond that very minimal role. Otherwise, we end up with a monster at our door, one which it will be all but impossible to vanquish. With proper pressure, applied steadily, constantly and judiciously, government need not become such a monster. That pressure is ours to apply.

What Rochester Democrats Stand For

2007-02-26T14:20:00.000-08:00

On the Rochester Democratic Party website, there is a page dedicated to the Democratic Party's campaign platform (http://www.rochesterdemocrats.org/platform.htm). It's an eye-opening document, to say the least. Let's take a quick peek at some of what the Democratic Party purports to believe in:

"Foster open, accountable and participatory Town Government."

"Open" meaning the Town Board holds Special Meetings, telling us they will be discussing two issues and piling on whatever else they feel like.

"Accountable" meaning they will answer no questions posed to them by the townspeople unless one of the residents signs away all her rights.

"Participatory" meaning don't move the Town Board Meeting, even if it means locking out 100 residents (including some who are elderly and disabled). Also meaning hold a tight grip on Public Comment, adjourn the meeting if the opinions expressed happen to criticize the Town Board, re-schedule a Special Meeting with no Public Comment period and eliminate the first of two traditional Public Comment periods from the next regular Meeting.

"Involve public citizens in town committees and determining Town direction."

This one apparently left out the phrase "except for those who disagree with us" when describing "public citizens".

"Promote positive actions – focus on the positive and working together, not the negative."

Yes, let's do that. Let's focus on the positive, such as adult websites which seem to have disappeared before the public could ascertain their existence. Or the fact that writing for an opposition website disqualifies you from joining committees. It is certainly admirable how the Democrats have decided to avoid negative politics. We could learn a thing or two from them.

"Continue to play an active role in running the Town Government to meet the needs of our residents."<br>

This one is perhaps the most onerous of all. Since when does a political party have a role in "running" Town Government? A Party's role is to help elect the Town Government. After that, the Government owes its allegiance to the people of the Town, not to any of the political parties. It's apparent from this statement that a Democratic oligarchy has formed which dictates to our elected officials what they may and may not do, regardless of the will or interests of the residents of Town.

In Hungary (from where my parents fled) and Romania (Manuela Mihailescu and Jon Dogar-Marinesco's birth country) and the rest of the former Soviet bloc, this was known as a "Politburo". The system in which the Politburo operated was known as "socialism" or, sometimes the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It proved to be a complete and utter failure.

I wonder if history is repeating itself in the Town of Rochester.

If you want to see what else the Democrats claim to espouse, visit http://www.rochesterdemocrats.org/platform.htm.

Short Article From The "Rochester Reporter" (Official Town Newsletter)

2007-02-22T15:11:00.000-08:00

The following article was published in the 'Rochester Reporter," which apparently is the official newsletter of the Town.

I'm not going to critique this in any great detail other than to say that there was NO audience disruption. I was given the floor to speak during Public Comment. The Town attorney decided I did not have the right to say what I wanted to say. I refused to allow him to censor me. Plain and simple.

As to the ridiculous assertion that "Part of the outcry came from residents who could not be admitted to the Town Hall since it was at full capacity," that's certainly true. However, the article makes it seem as if that was a reason for adjournment. That is a complete distortion. The honking of the horns outside had ended by the time Public Comment came around. The actions of those outside had nothing to do with the adjournment of the Meeting.

More proof that the facts do not support the Town Board, so what really happened is ignored in favor of fairy tales.

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

FEBRUARY TOWN BOARD MEETING ENDS ABRUPTLY

The regularly scheduled Town Board meeting of February 1, was abruptly adjourned due to audience disruptions to the proceedings related to a potential appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission. The Board voted to end the meeting when it became apparent the meeting agenda could not be followed in an orderly fashion. Part of the outcry came from residents who could not be admitted to the Town Hall since it was at full capacity.

Following the meeting, an alternate date of Feb 7 was announced for the Board to be able to complete its unfinished business.

At the Feb. 7 meeting, the Board decided to hold its March meeting at the Accord Fire Hall in order for more participants to be accommodated.

Critique of Margaret Bonner's Letter

2007-02-22T13:43:00.000-08:00

The Rochester Town Board Cheering Section is at it again. Margaret Bonner's letter to the Accord-Kerhonkson.com website (reprinted below) is a prime example of narrow minded liberalism being promoted through imprecision and misdirection. Like an illusionist directing the audience's attention elsewhere to hide her sleight of hand, Ms. Bonner's letter tries to make us look at issues which do nothing to address the deep problems caused by the Town Board under the Supervisor's leadership.

Ms. Bonner refers to the Republican Club as a "splinter group", stating that it is "NOT the Rochester Republican Committee." This statement is disingenuous and unworthy of someone like Ms. Bonner. On the Rochester Democrats' website, Ms. Bonner is listed as a member of the Town's Democratic Committee (http://www.rochesterdemocrats.org/contactus.htm) along with six other people. Applying her standard, every registered Democrat in Town who engages in grassroots activities is a "splinter group." Let's be fair and honest, local political parties throughout the country have clubs to build their members' enthusiasm and focus their energy. Those same parties have Committees which are akin to Boards of Directors. Clubs and Committees have different functions, but neither is a "splinter" of the other.

Ms. Bonner states, "When former Supervisor Lipton was Supervisor it was very simple to keep orderly meetings….he allowed limited opportunity for Public Comment periods, nothing was publicized and nothing was happening (at least that benefited the Town in general)." When Mr. Lipton was Supervisor, never did he abdicate control of Town Board Meetings to the Town Attorney. I know of no cases when someone wished to speak at a Town Board Meeting but was denied the opportunity. The fact that Public Comment was handled in a less formal manner was actually a plus: the Residents spoke to issues as they were brought up rather than lumping all Public Comment together. Of course, a vital part of Mr. Lipton's leadership is that those who did speak up were not simply cut off by the Town Attorney or anyone else for daring to criticize the Town Government. Doing so makes Public Comment a valueless, censored and sanitized shadow of true, free expression of ideas and opinions.

"Also since nothing was happening (which is why we still had a Town Plan from 1969!!!)" The question is not how long the Plan was in place, but did it work. The old adage tells us, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Neighbors can have honest differences of opinion about whether the Plan needed to be revised, replaced or left alone and what direction any changes should go. To simply state, however, that the Plan is old and that age alone should decide its disposition is silly. Our Constitution was ratified almost 220 years ago. It has been amended several times to refine it and to take into account new circumstances. It was never amended because it was old.

"Present Supervisor Duke and the present Town Board have been extremely proactive in moving the Town forward." That, Ms. Bonner, is a matter of opinion. No one doubts the amount of work they have put into their positions, but "forward" is a relative term. Has a community which has been shattered through the divisive acts of the Town Board moved "forward"? Has a Town in which one group is apparently doing its best to chase out its more traditional opponents moving "forward"? Is a municipality which is undermining the civil rights of free expression, right to petition government officials and private property rights moving "forward"? Ms. Bonner, our Town is moving neither forward nor backward. It is sinking deeper and deeper into a pit of mud which was dug, filled and watered by our Town Board.

Ms. Bonner refers to an "open hearing" on the budget which raised the Supervisor's salary by an exorbitant amount. She questions why critics of the Supervisor's raise did not show up. She talks of those opponents manipulating statistics. I know Ms. Bonner was at many of the same Hearings and Meetings throughout the past year that I have attended. Perhaps she missed the fact that public opinion, as expressed at these Hearings and Meetings was nothing more than a formality. The Town Board simply refuses to act in accordance with that which is expressed by the vast majority in attendance. Ms. Bonner herself termed some of that public opinion "pontificating". At one recent Town Board Meeting (I'm sure she recalls which one) we were censored and the Meeting was adjourned. In short, we are either ignored, insulted or gagged. To state that, under such circumstances, one should not criticize an unreasonable fiscal act of the Town Board is insulting. As to anyone's intent to "manipulate the statistics," 42% is 42%. Presenting a fact is not manipulation. In fact, the manipulation I see is the Town Board and its Fan Club attempting to manipulate the truth and public opinion.

Having shown how little Margaret Bonner really said, let me point out what she didn't say. She didn't offer any excuse for the Town Board's disgraceful treatment of Manuela Mihailescu. She didn't tell us why the Town Board was justified in censoring Public Comment. She didn't offer an explanation for why Jon Dogar-Marinesco was excluded from a Town Committee for his political writings. She didn't clarify the necessity or ethics behind the systematic political purge of non-liberals we are witnessing in the Town of Rochester.

She also did not stand up and say that these actions by the Town Government were wrong. Many Democrats have, in fact, done so. Usually, when one fails to defend something done by one's compatriots, it is because those acts cannot be legitimately defended. Conversely, one when refuses to condemn acts which cannot be defended, what does that say about one's commitment to principles and ideals beyond one's own, personal interests? The Good Book says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Maybe we should just let their consciences speak to such issues.

Margaret Bonner's Letter to Accord-Kerhonkson.com

2007-02-22T13:33:00.000-08:00

The following letter was published on Accord-Kerhonkson.com. It was written by Democratic Committee member and Town Webmaster Margaret Bonner.

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

Dear Editor:

Former Supervisor Lipton is right….GET SMART Rochester Residents

Harold Lipton’s letter to the editor of the Daily Freeman is right on… it’s time to GET SMART residents! You do that by knowing the full facts, not just what a disgruntled, boisterous spin off group (the Rochester Republican Club---note this is NOT, I repeat NOT the Rochester Republican Committee; this is a splinter group…) wants you to believe.

So let’s just address the issues presented by former Supervisor Lipton. Harold Lipton questions the recent raise for our Town Supervisor and lack of orderly meetings. When former Supervisor Lipton was Supervisor it was very simple to keep orderly meetings….he allowed limited opportunity for Public Comment periods, nothing was publicized and nothing was happening (at least that benefited the Town in general). Order is easy if you don’t do anything or allow any public dissent.

Also since nothing was happening (which is why we still had a Town Plan from 1969!!!), it was easy to run the Town on a part-time basis. Present Supervisor Duke and the present Town Board have been extremely proactive in moving the Town forward. Want the facts? Take a look at the Town’s website – www.townofrochester.net (which came about during Duke’s administration) and read her State of the Town reports for the past few years. This work can’t be accomplished on a part-time basis.

For three years the Supervisor continued to work with part-time pay. In 2007 her salary was increased to partially makeup for this inequity. Working 50 hours a week rather than 20, deserves a raise doesn’t it? While you’re at the website, take a look at the January 2007 minutes and the salaries of Town officials. Even with the increases, Supervisor Duke still makes less than the Highway Superintendent and Town Clerk (elected Republicans).

The budget that provides for the salary increase for the Supervisor was approved unanimously by the Town Board, including Republican Town Board member, Ron Santosky. There was also an open hearing on the budget, prior to its passage. It was available on the website and at the Town Clerk’s office for all to view before that hearing. Funny, Mr. Chipman, chair of the Rochester Republican Club, didn’t raise any questions at that point---I don’t even remember him being there. He waited until the budget was passed to raise the issue. Why? So he could manipulate the statistics and preach one side of the story.

Supervisor Lipton is right…GET SMART Rochester Residents. Get all the facts and stop listening to one side of the story.

Margaret Bonner (Rochester Resident)