Humbling experience?

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you say?

Response to Sheila Finan's Letter

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

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


To The Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not the America in which I was raised.



Respectfully,

Imre Beke, Jr.

Sheila Finan's Letter to the Ulster County Press

To The Editor:

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

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

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

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

Shelia Finan
Accord

Iraq and a Hard Place

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whichever Way The Wind Blows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There Can Be No Exceptions

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

- Democratic Senator and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Rights, Our Freedoms, Our Town

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy and Freedom: Inconvenient Obstacles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critique of Cameron Bonner's Letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron Bonner's Letter to the Editor of the Press

To the Editor,

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

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

Sincerely,
Cameron Bonner

It's a Question of Character

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show us your character.