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.