Wondering on Wednesday (v119)

Another Wednesday upon us - and a ton of wondering going on.

We know there are any number of things wrong with disgraced doctor/serial abuser/child porn aficionado Larry Nassar, but even given everything we've heard about him and what he did, I wonder for the life of me what he thought he would accomplish by suggesting, in his letter to the judge in his current case, that his victims were lying and were 'scorned women' in the process?

I was a good doctor because my treatments worked, and those patients that are now speaking out are the same ones that came back over and over. The media convinced them that everything I did was wrong and bad. They feel I broke their trust. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Or, no fury like over 150 women abused by beastly man who took advantage of his position, and the fear of the athletes, and their trust in authority, when no one - not even their parents, in some cases - would believe them.

Staying with USA gymnastics, are companies doing the right thing by pulling their sponsorship from the organization? Does that serve the program, or hurt it?  I wonder if they couldn't do a whole lot more to have a positive impact by demanding change -- real change-- in the leadership, policies and procedures of the national program , and pulling their dollars only if the changes being sought were not realized? Seems we're hurting future champions because prior ones were failed. 

I heard that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said today that local law enforcement officials can't pick and choose what laws they enforce. Her comments were in relation to so-called 'sanctuary cities' but I found them relevant here in New York, where another provision of the NY SAFE Act is coming into effect. I have to wonder whether anyone in the NY State Police or say, the Cayuga County sheriff's office, has heard about that, since they're not going to be enforcing the latest provision, the one requiring renewal of  pistol permits?

And, speaking of  crime, why did it take the president so long to talk about the shooting in Kentucky? I really don't understand that one at all. He is much quicker to talk about attacks in foreign countries than he is to talk about bad acts here in America, at least, when they're committed by plain old ordinary (white) Americans -- what happened to America first?   If the shooting had been committed by an immigrant - any immigrant, legal or not -- I wouldn't be wondering about how long it took him to comment, I'm sure.

What Kind of Problem Do We Have? Pick One.

I've had lots of gun conversations in this blog, and with friends around the lunch table, with family at the dinner table, and with total strangers on comment boards and the like.

Generally, my positions and beliefs are as follows:

• I believe that having as many guns as people in America is a problem; I don't know who has 'my gun' but I've never met them, I have no idea what their intentions are, and I wish they had asked me first. 
• I believe in reasonable gun control, including background checks for all gun sales at gun shows, stores, and online.
• I believe you should have more magazines on your coffee table than bullets in your magazine. 
• I believe that, if  you have a family member with a mental illness, you should know better than to keep guns in your house. 
• I would not for a single moment feel more comfortable if every Tom, Dick and Harry was wandering around wearing a sidearm in plain sight, much less carrying it in their shorts or their socks or their shoes or wherever one conceals a weapon.

I don't like that people kill police officers. Ever.  I also believe that probably 99% of police officers would like to go through their entire career and never shoot, much less kill anyone - black or white, Christian or Muslim, child, teenager or adult, armed or unarmed, on drugs or stone cold sober.

I truly believe that some people are too foolish or stupid to be allowed anywhere near a firearm of any kind, and that we should have a way to weed them out and prevent them from owing guns.

• I think it's ridiculous that so many people get shot in or around Walmarts.
• I believe we have a problem when kids and parents accidentally kill children with guns. 
• When a person accidentally shoots himself in the leg, in the head, in the head, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the penis, in the foot, taking a selfie, defending a Muslim-free gun store, trying out his new holster, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, etc., I admit to less-than-charitable name-calling and a lack of compassion, as I shake my head.

So, if we don't have a 'gun problem' in America, what kind of problem do we have, that other civilized countries don't seem to have?

(1) I think the publicity we give people who commit heinous crimes like the Roanoke murders, the Houston police officer execution, the Sandy Hook shootings, the movie theater killing, and on and on, does more harm than good. If you're a wanna be famous nutjob, this is a surefire way to get what you're looking for.

I would prefer we never show the name or face of the person who committed the crime on television, in magazines, or anywhere else; instead, we should flood the airways and pages and the cloud with pictures and stories of the victims, whether police officers or television reporters or folks on dates or innocent children in school.

(2) Further, the lengths to which we go to 'define' these shootings, or the bastards who commit them, makes the situation worse.  Channeling Hillary Clinton here,

Was it racially motivated, or was it because the person was mad at his mother and father, or was it because of violent video games or television shows, or was it because the guy liked to play with guns, or had a mental illness, or thought the gun wasn't loaded, or had a grudge against his employer, or had a hatred for Muslims or Christians, or didn't like the military, or had a run-in before with one of the victims, or thought the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, or because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill someone?

What difference - at this point, what difference does it make?

We struggle to determine whether we should call something terrorism, or a hate crime, or workplace violence, or domestic violence, or some other identifier. Who benefits from that? Not the victims, not their families and loved ones, and frankly not the rest of us. In reality, all it does is make excuses for people who have committed very bad acts.

(3) Even if we know, or think we know, or believe we have ascertained the 'reason' for the crime, we respond in ways guaranteed to inflame.

Case in point? The Charleston shootings.  The killer has racist tendencies, so the obvious answer, of course, is to remove the Confederate Flag from the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse. Because no one will ever shoot up a black church again, now that the offending flag is down.

Case in point?  New York's SAFE Act, after Sandy Hook. Some good ideas, some not so good - but crammed down everyone's throat, because Governor Andrew Cuomo knew there was no other way to get something passed. In the aftermath, we have calls for full repeal, even from people who agree with much of what's in the law, because of how it was done.

Case in point? The NRA declaring that the reason why people get killed in these horrific shootings is not because someone pulled a trigger, but because we have 'gun-free zones.' (Except, of course, when they thought it was OK that we had gun free zones.)

(4) We treat guns differently than anything else that threatens us. One person tries a shoe bomb, so everyone takes off their shoes before getting on a plane.  Heaven forbid we talk about closing loopholes in gun laws - because while we have no problem stripping in front of strangers at every airport, don't dare make us prove we're OK to purchase or own a gun.

(5) The Colorado movie theater killer was just sentenced, after what's been described as a parade of pain, to a term of life in prison for each of the 12 people he murdered, plus 3318 years in prison for wounding another 70 people.

The crime occurred three years ago; there was no doubt about his guilt, and whether he was sane or suffering from mental illness, there is no excuse for what he did, and he does not deserve rehabilitation. Should it take three years (sometimes longer) for the outcome to be known? Should we have an option for juries and defense attorneys, one that allows for a verdict or plea of 'guilty, but insane' which will guarantee the person never sees the light of day?  And does anyone really benefit from a sentence, and a sentencing production, like this, or does it just add to the murderer's fame?

(6) We have a huge 'us vs. them' mentality in America: rich vs poor, citizen vs. immigrant, Christian vs. everyone, state vs. federal government, black vs. white, this 'life' vs. that 'life', government vs. teacher, suburb vs urban, gun owner vs. non gun owner, pro-birth vs. pro-choice, reporter vs. interviewee, and so on. We seem to thrive on our differences, and forget our similarities.

Combine that mentality with our time where anyone, (like me, and this blog), can say anything we want, any time we want, and find an audience for whatever we say. This gives equal voice to ideas from the fringes as to those from the mainstream, and I think ultimately contributes to the general lack of respect and increased vitriol that we see these days.

What does all of this do? Individually we might be able to counter the effects of these issues, but when taken together, they paralyze us from actually doing anything about gun violence, or preventing the wrong people from getting guns, or doing anything about mental health, or about our frequently slow and prodding system of justice. In the end, is that what we really want? I honestly don't know.

Do we have a gun problem in America? We can, and will, continue to disagree on that, I'm sure. But one thing I do know is, no one has ever committed a similar mass murder with a bathtub.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v36)

Here in Syracuse, we had a tough Independence Day weekend, with eleven shootings in 24 hours, one resulting in the death of a 19 year old. Several others were injured during the incidents. Interestingly, or shockingly, or somethingly, the young man had apparently posted on Facebook that he was going to be taken out. His message was shared and liked dozens of times, although it's hard to tell whether that happened before or after he was killed.

Not surprisingly, the shootings drew a lot of attention on our local news websites, including several comments making reference to the SAFE Act, the hastily passed gun legislation that came about in response to the Sandy Hook shootings. Here are a few of the comments:

Good thing we have the SAFE Act. How's that SAFE Act working out for you? Clearly the SAFE Act is working as intended. 

When I see these comments, I always wonder whether the authors were at the scene of the shootings, and tried to take out the bad guys, but were unable to do so because they only had seven bullets?

And speaking of taking out the bad guys, how about that Bill Cosby deposition? The one where he said, yeah, Quaaludes, we're gonna have Quaaludes (oh wait, that was Ice Cream...) Anyway, what he said was that yes, he did purchase Quaaludes with the intent of giving the pills to women he wanted to 'be with' as Lester Holt so delicately stated last night on the news.  And he admitted to giving them to at least one woman with whom he had sex.

It's a mess, for sure. And one that a judge thought we had the right to see.  In releasing what he did, as the request of the Associated Press (AP) US District Judge Eduardo Robreno noted that

The stark contrast between Bill Cosby, the public moralist and Bill Cosby, the subject of serious allegations concerning improper (and perhaps criminal) conduct is a matter as to which the AP - and by extension the pubic' has a significant interest. 

There are some two dozen women who have come forward stating that Cosby drugged and had sex with them against their will, or when they were not able to consent.  As was the case when Tiger Woods was initially exposed as a serial play-arounder before he played a round, anyone can say it happened and Cosby really can't do much about it. After all, vehemently denying one out of a couple dozen sort of makes it look like the other 23 are telling the truth, right?

And while I hope that the women victimized by Cosby get some justice, in one form or another, it is hard to sit and watch this epic fall from grace and not wonder why no one around him, no one associated with Cosby, was able to exert any (or enough) influence on him, to protect the women from him and to protect him from himself.

Finally, tonight, I'm wondering about another person who was not protected from himself, who was not prevented from doing something that, tragically, took his life in an instant.

Devon Staples, a 22-year-old, was killed when he lit a fireworks mortar on his head. Apparently he pretended he was going to do it, and friends thought they had talked him out of it, but for whatever reason, he did it anyway. According to some reports, he was the kind of guy who would do anything for a laugh, was the joker, was the one everyone wanted to be around.  And now he's gone, in an instant.

Sometimes, wondering is all I can do.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v34)

If you watch the evening news, you've probably seen a few thousand pharmaceutical commercials, everything from painful sex to painful joints to painfully dry eyes to painfully not being able to perform to painful diabetic nerve pain to painful embarrassment due to losing your keys and finding them in the refrigerator. After a rude awakening, I was thinking I might need to "talk to my doctor" about a drug, the one for painful night leg cramps. Boy I had a doozy of one in my calf around 4 this morning. I'm wondering now what drug I need to take to help me remember the name of the drug I wonder if I need to talk to my doctor about taking...

C Neibergall/AP Photo

Speaking of drugs, I think the conservatives who are up in arms about the pictures of Senator Ted Cruz (R-Canada) with posters of guns in the background need to take a chill pill.

Yeah, it's true that the guns are pointing at his head, but is that his fault for standing where that could happen, or is it the fault of the photographer for taking pictures of Cruz?  And is Cruz upset, or are the gun-shy gun fans upset?  After all, it he was the one who, at an Iowa campaign stop just a couple of days after the murders in Charleston, joked about gun control:

You know the great thing about the state of Iowa is, I'm pretty sure you all define gun control the same way we do in Texas - hitting what you aim at.

It might just be me, but I think if you crack that joke on the heels of a mass murder in a church, you shouldn't be too concerned about a bunch of paper guns in frames on the wall.

Charleston's murderer, Dylann Roof, has a clear identity as a racist bastard, but a less clear identity as a person.  Seems the national press pronounce his last name Roof like 'rewf', but the folks down south have generally said it Roof like 'hoof'. Who was it who said "You can say anything about me you want to, as long as you get my name right?" Seems Mr. Rewf or Mr. Roof missed that bit in his research.

I didn't call Roof an 'alleged' murderer, or an 'accused' murderer, as many in the media continue doing.  Why? Because he confessed. I'm also not going to call him crazy or insane or nuts or any of the common mental health terms we use so freely in cases like this.  He planned it, he did it, he admitted it. At this point let's leave it up to his lawyers to try and figure out where the dust settles. I'm comfortable calling him what he called himself: a killer, a murderer, a racist.

Another person who I won't call nuts or crazy or insane is Pope Francis. I'm going to let Catholics handle the name calling, as it seems there are many who are upset with the Pontiff for his encyclical on climate change, the environment and man's disastrous treatment of our home. Francis has continued his messaging, tweeting frequently in the past several days along these lines:

The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.

Economic interests easily end up trumping the common good.

Many things have to change course, but it is we humans above all who need to change.

Among the folks who are irked with the Holy Father is Jeb Bush, who converted to Catholicism many years ago, and who is not afraid of using his faith in his messaging, or defending his faith publicly, as he did back in 2013 when he thought (or pretended he thought) that President Obama was closing the US embassy to the Vatican. On the Pope's encyclical, Bush had this to say:

I hope I'm not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home, but I don't get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinal or my pope. I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting in the political realm.

Like abortion. Or marriage equality. Oh wait, those are not political issues, sorry. Those are just tax protected Sunday sermon topics. Ending poverty, finding equal justice, saving Mother Earth, those are political issues.  Silly me.

Finally, speaking of silly, am I the only one wondering if the people who went out and bought guns, all kinds of guns, when President Obama got elected, or here in NY before the SAFE Act went into effect, are the same ones who are now out there buying up anything and everything with the Confederate flag on it?

I just don't get it. I'm wondering, should I talk to my doctor about that?

Questions for Zephyr Teachout

Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout seems to be having the time of her life in her primary campaign against our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo. There's been a lot of attention, much of which is pro-Zephyr, not just anti-Andy. I find that encouraging; it's easy to support someone new simply out of dislike of the other guy.

AP photo/Hans Pennink

I would love a debate between Cuomo and Teachout.

It's important that incumbents don't sit on their high horses (or, in Cuomo's case, in another country) during the primary season, ignoring their challengers, and the voters.

We deserve better.

The only sure thing is that I will be voting in the primary on September 9th - right now my vote's up for grabs.  And on the likely chance that we won't get a debate, here are some questions for Zephyr Teachout.

(1) Economic Development:
Your position on economic development touches four points: economic fairness, having a 21st century Internet, stopping consolidation, and infrastructure.

You note that you would push to increase the minimum wage, pointing out that Cuomo's increase (implemented incrementally over three years) did not go far enough. I admit to some discomfort with, say, doubling the minimum wage without making changes to all wages.  But let's agree that the minimum wage should be higher, and should get there faster than 2016.

Would you leave in place the minimum wage reimbursement credit that is paid to businesses to cover a sizable portion of the hourly increase, or should businesses pay the fair wage on their own?

As part of economic fairness, you reference Cuomo's focus on big business, specifically changes in the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and certain taxes paid by banks.  However, you did not mention one of Cuomo's economic development achievements, the Start-UP NY, or Tax Free NY program, which allows new companies to come to New York, plop down near a SUNY Campus or a designated private college or university and get a pass on sales, property or business taxes. And their employees don't have to pay state income taxes for 10 years.

Clearly, this program is not fair to existing companies and their employees, including those companies who can expand into these tax-free zones, as long as they maintain their existing workforce.  And of course we've been promised that the shirt-changing, game-playing of similar programs from the past will not happen this time.

Given your stated preference for economic fairness, would you continue this program as-is, continue it with changes that make the playing field more level and fair for existing companies, the ones that do pay sales, property and business taxes, and their employees who are required to pay income tax, or would you scrap this program all together and do something else to promote development, increase employment, and encourage growth? If the answer is scrap it, describe what you would do to engage businesses to come to - or stay in - New York? 

You also reference infrastructure and expanding competition, rather than consolidating it, as other key components of your economic development platform. I agree with you both on the critical need for all New Yorkers to have affordable, reliable access to high speed Internet and on disapproving of the Comcast - TimeWarner merger.

Here in my neck of the woods, the infrastructure issues that are of greatest concern are the deteriorating condition of roads, bridges, and our water delivery system. We have streets in desperate need of repair in our central business districts and our neighborhoods, and not enough time or money to fix all of them. Syracuse had the dubious distinction of making NY Times this past February, with our 100+ water main breaks just in the first six weeks of the year. Our water delivery infrastructure is decades-old  and acts it, in an ornery and cantankerous fashion. Whenever a main breaks, there are not only issues with a lack of water for the impacted area, but the ripple effect, pardon the pun, is extensive AND expensive for local businesses, employees, and customers.

In addition to having New York companies work on New York infrastructure, and restoring infrastructure funds 're-purposed' for the state's general fund, what assistance can local municipalities expect from the state to help correct these critical infrastructure issues?

Another 'up here' issue is the effort to get some sort of high speed passenger rail service along the Empire Corridor, a route that generally follows the path of the existing Interstate network from Buffalo and Niagara Falls to NYC.  How much use this high speed rail system might get depends on how fast the trains go, where they stop, how often they run, and of course how (and how much) work will be done to separate existing passenger and freight lines, which everyone seems to blame for Amtrak trains travelling more slowly than cars on the Thruway. 

Regular infrastructure problems -- roads and bridges, water delivery, broadband access - these are all people problems, they're fiscal problems, and they're future growth and development problems. And as you note they're public health and safety issues as well, in light of the problems experienced after Hurricane Sandy (and I'd add Super Storm Irene as well). Those storms opened our eyes to a whole other set of infrastructure and service delivery issues which have not effectively been addressed. 

How do you prioritize these issues?  Is attention going to be paid first to NYC, the MTA and the Sandy fallout, and let the upstate chips fall where they may?  Or can you fund critical priorities in both areas without breaking the bank or our collective financial back?

(2) Energy:
You support a full and fast ban on fracking, and an end to the dance around the issue, which I cynically believe is designed to prevent a decision from occurring during a Cuomo administration. Many residents in the Southern Tier, who see the economic boom happening across the border in Pennsylvania, not only want a decision now, but they want a 'full steam ahead' decision, now.

What industry or industries do you feel could provide similar economic impact as fracking, but without the risk to the environment? 

You also note that we need large-scale public works programs to help us retrofit existing structures, from public buildings to gas stations, to improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.

Do you envision a modern-day Works Progress Administration (WPA) for the unemployed and able-bodied people in the safety net?

(3) Clean, fair and open elections:
I agree with most of your positions on campaign finance reform, including limiting the amount that can be contributed, closing the LLC loophole, and the unfettered use of housekeeping accounts. I would go farther on this issue, however.

Do you support term limits for those who serve at the state level, including members of the Legislature, the Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and so on, with a maximum combined 12 years in state elected office?

Would you support campaign finance laws that require donations only from residents of the legislative district where applicable, meaning no out-of-state funds, and no out-of-district funds for legislative seats as well as seats at the county, town and village level?

Would you apply the same limits to unions (public employee groups as well as others) as you would on corporations? 

I also agree that we need to reboot the Moreland Commission, but I have a concern with the make-up of the committee, particularly the fact that eleven of the commissioners are elected District Attorney, including two of the three commission chairs. I'm not convinced that these folks are any more pure than the others, who as you point out, may not be doing anything "technically illegal" but are "epitomizing legal corruption."

Would you consider reinstating and fully funding a Moreland Commission that did not include any elected officials as members?

(4) Guns and gun control:
Governor Cuomo, with the help of liberal Dems and moderate Republicans, passed the NY SAFE Act, which includes a host of changes to New York's gun laws, including ammunition limitations, more background checks, increased penalties for gun crimes (including those impacting first responders), and tries to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses. It also touches on Internet sales, the permitting process and school safety.

The SAFE Act has been widely derided by legal experts, police departments, fraternal police organizations, gun clubs, politicians in office an out, just about all of the 62 county legislatures in the state, and many ordinary New Yorkers. At the same time, even strongly pro-gun folks can find agreement with much of what's included in the law, as we all can disagree with the heavy-handed method in which the law was passed.

In addition, many counties have a significant backlog in the processing of handgun permits, which some feel is one more violation of their 2nd Amendment rights (on top of the SAFE Act itself).

Explain your position on gun control, and what if anything would your administration would do with the SAFE Act -- leave it alone, scrap it and start over, or modify it?  Please provide details if you would make changes to or scrap the current program. 

I keep thinking of other questions, but I have to save some for whoever ends up facing Rob Astorino.

Overall, I see many areas where Teachout and I share positions, and some where we don't. I like that we have a choice, and I'm a firm believer in the primary process.  I just wish our current governor was more of a believer.

I'll keep you posted on any responses I receive.

Poll Watch: We're Out of Touch

There's been a lot of polling over the past year checking our overall sense of how much or little we approve of Congress or President Obama, and we know that for the most part those results have been abysmal. Congressional approval has been in the single digits, and POTUS has also been tagged with horrible numbers.

There are lots of other poll questions out there, though, that don't seem to get as much play.  Here are some recent results from one generally conservative polling organization I subscribe to that I thought were interesting:

• 66% of likely voters favor getting sexual assault cases out of the hands of commanders and into the hands of the military judge advocates. Recently, legislation related to this was voted down.
• Only 47% think that reducing taxes helps the economy (a six-year low for this polling agency), but  Republicans continue to champion that message and push legislation in that direction.
• By a 2-to-1 margin, voters disagree with the SCOTUS decision on McCutcheon, the case that was championed by the Republican National Committee and Mitch McConnell, minority leader of the Senate. Further, more than half of us think that Congress should regulate campaign contributions, and that our free speech rights are not violated if that regulation occurs. The most important thing, we think? Full disclosure of all contributions. 
• And then there's this: 59% of Republicans think Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party's base, and 23% think the Rs in Congress are more conservative than the people.  
• On the other side, 27% of Dems think their folks in Congress are more liberal than the base, and 30% think the Dems are out of touch. 

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Here in New York, one of the hot topics is whether we'll allow medical marijuana. Our Sonova Governor Andrew Cuomo included a proposal for testing this at a limited number of hospitals across the state in his State of the State address.  Polls have reflected different levels of approval, with a recent one showing New Yorkers approve by about 10-to-1, while others have reflected weaker support.  Will we get there this legislative term? Probably not.

And then there's the NY SAFE Act, the quite a bit reasonable/somewhat stupid gun legislation Cuomo was able to rush through last year. As we come up on one of the major deadlines -- April 15th for registering so-called assault weapons -- we have a significant majority of counties across the state officially disapproving of the law, and some counties and police jurisdictions indicating they won't enforce the law.

That contrasts with recent polling indicating that 63% of voters support the SAFE Act. a slight uptick from last year.  Geographically (and not surprisingly) support is strongest in NYC and downstate; upstate there is a slight majority opposed to the law. I did find it surprising that  a majority of whites and men support it, although in smaller numbers than do women and minorities.

So - at the federal level, the state level, and the local level, we can easily find a disconnect between what voters say they want and what their elected officials seem to be doing. So I've gotta ask, are you happy with your elected officials?  Do they have any sense at all what you're interested in, and what you think is important? Have you told them lately what's on your mind?

Maybe, they do what they want because they're smarter than we are, and realize better than we do what we want or need.  Maybe, they do what they do because of the 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' process in which they work. Or maybe they do what they do because so few of us actually care enough to vote.

I wonder, are we more out of touch than they are?  

Round em up! Head em out!

Git along, little extreme conservatives! Git along right out of New York! We don't want your kind here!

That's what Andrew Cuomo said about them, on a radio interview last week.  I know it's true because I saw it on Facebook. See, it's right here in this post that was on a friend's page:

January 18th. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is the latest in a long line of oh so "tolerant" Dems. On Friday the possible 2016 Dem presidential nominee said this about the NY Republicans who are against his gun control SAFE Act: "Who are they Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that's who they are and they're extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York because that's not who new Yorkers are."  Wow, is this guy a Dem or a member of the National Socialist Party? So fair warning Empire Staters, if you're pro-life, pro-Second Amendment or pro-traditional marriage, Andrew says pack your bags and get out. Better do it quickly before the Governor puts you on a train and sends you to a "special camp." Time for Cuomo to build his socialist utopia without any more "extreme conservative" tax revenue. Good luck with that, Andy.

I also know it happened, that the extreme conservatives have to get out of New York because a local TV station showed a portion of the transcript with just the inflammatory words shown, and then went on to interview someone who, by his own admission does not meet all three of the qualifications, but the reporter ignored that fact and blithely carried on with the story. The best part was that, in the anchor chat following his story, both the reporter and the anchor talked about the importance of context -- not taking the words as a standalone comment, but that the full context needed to be considered in order to form an opinion. And then they ended the story without any context.

Well, here's transcript of the relevant section of Cuomo's interview with Susan Arbetter, host of the Capitol Pressroom. Note that the transcript was released by Cuomo's office in response to an article in the New York Post, which the Sonofa Governor thought presented his views in a 'distorted' way. I have listened to the tape of the broadcast and the transcript is very accurate; I tried to use some punctuation and to illustrate the emphasis you can hear in the recording.

To set the stage, Cuomo and Arbetter were talking about money, who's donating, and the fact that Cuomo seems to be getting money from many Republicans, not just from Dems.  Arbetter made the point that some might think Cuomo was moving away from his 'progressive roots' and Cuomo gave this long rambling answer:

I don't think that that is right Susan. I think it is a very important point, but I don't think it's that I'm less of a Democrat, I think what you're seeing is, you have a schism within the Republican Party. You have the Republican party searching for identity, they are searching to define their soul. That is what is going on. Is it the Republican party that is a moderate party or is it a conservative party? That is what they are trying to figure out and it is very interesting because it is a mirror of what is going on in Washington, right? The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It is more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans. And a moderate Republican in Washington can't figure out how to deal with the extreme Republicans. And the moderate Republicans are afraid of the extreme conservative Republicans in Washington in my opinion.

All good so far -- that same opinion has been expressed by many of the talking heads and yes, Republicans in DC, including in the House, where Speaker Boehner has very little control over his own party.

The answer goes on (as I said, it was long and rambling)

You've seen that play out in New York, their SAFE Act, the Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act.  It was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats, their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York, because that is not who New Yorkers are. 

Now, to this point the satirical blogger who was quoted on my friend's Facebook page has the transcript right -- the part she chose to pay attention to. But there's more:

Moderate Republicans like in the Senate (he's referring to the NY Senate not DC) right now and control the Senate. Moderate Republicans have a place in this state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican. But not as what you are hearing from them on the far right, not this clash that you are getting from the quote unquote "power brokers" of the party now. "We are right to life, we are pro- assault weapon, or anti-gay"....

Arbetter then asks Cuomo about comments from one of those Republican party "power brokers" who has asked Republicans not to endorse Cuomo.  Lets pick up there:

I think he did that in reaction to the meetings we were having. You know, moderate Republicans I work with; moderate republicans passed my agenda, for the past three years.  They want to criticize my record? My record was passed by the moderate Republicans, so they are criticizing themselves and this really isn't about me, Susan. This is "who are they?" And who is going to win between the conservative Republicans, the extremely conservative Republicans and the moderately conservative Republicans.  And literally, look at the issues they pick...

And here's where the crux of the issue comes in, folks -- not the comment about there's no place for them, which was a great sound bite, but here's why he said that:

 Are we right to life or are we pro-choice? Well, if you are right to life, that is your opinion and that's your religious belief, that's fine - but that is not the opinion of this sate, 70% are pro-choice in this state.

"Well, we are anti-gun control," that is fine. 70% of this state wants intelligent gun control. (Note: including, as I've pointed out before, many folks who are mostly unhappy with how the SAFE Act was passed, and who agree with two-thirds or more of the law itself - I have 'conservative' friends who would go even farther than the SAFE Act did in some areas).

 "We don't agree with gay marriage, we are anti-gay," that is fine, but 70% of this state (about), is now pro-gay marriage.

So figure out who you are and figure out if you are of an extreme conservative philosophy and if you can survive in this state. And the answer is no.  

Well, alrighty then.

There's the context that our news reporters didn't want to talk about, but wanted you to look up yourself. There's no trains to special camps, there's no rounding up conservatives and sending them on their way, no kicking them out of The Empire State.

There's just the numbers, expressed in opinion polls, that show that New York - gasp - is relatively liberal, and to Cuomo's point, it's a bunch of moderate Republicans who are making it possible for us to be such a bastion of liberal ideals.

The issue of extremism vs conservatism, of fiscal conservatism vs extreme social conservatism, is exactly what Cuomo said it was -- an identity crisis in the Republican party and one they have to solve if they want to make any headway.  It is, as noted in the interview, their problem to solve.

An Open Letter to the Albany Police Officers Union

Mr. Thomas Mahar, President
Albany Police Officers Union
PO Box 6567
Albany NY 12206

Dear Mr. Mahar:

Your letter to the governor and other elected officials outlining the Albany Police Officers Union (APOU) opposition to the SAFE Act is making the rounds on the Internet and in various social media.  I applaud your taking the time to communicate in a clear and understandable way your membership’s opinion, and the thorough explanation you gave regarding your position.

I share your frustration with how the SAFE Act was pushed through.  I believe Governor Cuomo was motivated not only by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but closer to home by the horrific shootings of the first responders in Webster last Christmas Eve.  Both of these incidents touched a nerve, but I don’t believe either constituted an emergency for New York. 

 

While I think this is as good a time as any to discuss opportunities to reduce gun violence, I believe that emotion was the primary driver of this legislation. (And your suggestion that this was 'agenda-driven' does not fall on deaf ears.)  Many New Yorkers have indicated support for at least portions of the law, but that support does not overshadow the fact that just about all New Yorkers dislike how the law was passed.  

I personally believe in reasonable limits on the right to bear arms; I fall on the ‘well-regulated’ side of the discussion rather than the ‘shall not be infringed’ side.  That being said, I have been trying understand the other viewpoint. That’s why I was interested in reading your position.

Sadly, many of the arguments made in your letter were not new, among them that criminals and the mentally ill won’t abide by the requirement of the SAFE Act; that criminals and mentally ill people don’t care about the penalties they would face if caught; that the public won’t be any safer under this law than they are now; and that the law is burdensome to law-abiding citizens. 

I don’t want to take your time addressing these arguments, other than to wonder if your membership feels the same about all of the other laws  they are sworn to enforce (and penalties for breaking them). What I do want to ask you about, however, is this part of your letter: 

We as police officers are on the front lines of public safety. Respectfully, none of you are.  We see, feel, work and live with the effects of gun violence in ways that you do not.

How simply and eloquently did this set up the opportunity for some real insight!  Now, I thought, finally I’m going to hear something from the people who know best what to do.  But then you immediately said this:  

We believe that you see gun violence as a means to move your agenda and your ambitions forward. You know the SAFE Act will not work in the way you pretend it will. You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology and not about making anyone safer.

 My disappointment was palpable. 

The APOU, other police unions and police departments across this state are uniquely qualified to tell us what we should be looking at try and solve our gun violence problem.  But while you noted that you "applaud and support (the politicians') overall concern for public safety and (their) desire  to improve it" you resorted to the same rhetoric that could have come from any pro-gun individual, politician, or lobbying organization; in short, you offered a non-expert opinion. 

 

I believe that, as you were ‘respectfully demanding' that legislators listen to you and repeal the law, you were squandering a golden opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the discussion. You offered nothing tangible as an alternative to the SAFE Act, nor did you seem to offer any willingness to engage with politicians to make the law better. 

Instead of options that might actually make us safer, you offered only the empty call to repeal a law you don’t like. Instead of suggesting what would work, you only complained about what you think won’t.   

If you and your members believe that there’s nothing that can or should be done, I would find that to be very disheartening, as would most of your fellow New Yorkers. But if that is the case -- you can come up with nothing -- please tell us so, in language as clear and as public as you used to tell the politicians how wrong they were to pass the SAFE Act.

Otherwise, I want your unique perspective. I want to hear from people who have the day-to-day experience with guns and the damage they do when used by the wrong people, and to learn from that perspective. I want to know what you, the experts, think.

I’m looking forward to your suggestions on what will make us safer, on what will help reduce the gun violence that you see, feel, live and work with every day. Not just gun homicides, but all gun violence.  I would like to be able to share your advice with my representatives in Albany and Washington, and to encourage others to do the same.

Thank you.

The Dirty Snowpile Awards for 2013

All the big Hollywood award shows are over, Ben Affleck has shaved off his beard, and the good, bad, and ugly of fashion have been all been identified. And now, as the temperature here in Syracuse heads north of 60 degrees, it's time for the Dirty Snowpile Awards. I'm sure this year's winners will be just as proud as those from  2010 and 2011  to receive this prestigious honor.

So where do we start?  We had a lot of material to choose from, no question about that -- and we have a repeat winner or two this time around, some 'defending champions', if you will.  Here goes:

The 'Put an Idiot Bumper Sticker on your Own Forehead' Dirty Snowpile goes to John Sununu, for his engaging and idiotic appearance with Soledad O'Brien on CNN.  Sununu, who suggested O'Brien put an Obama bumper sticker on her forehead, was trying to make a point by referencing an actual document - the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessment on the costs of repealing the
Affordable Care Act - and pretending it said the ACA cut Medicare benefits by over $700 billion.  This was not the case, but it didn't matter to Sununu - say something loud enough and often enough and people will believe you.  Unless it's Soledad O'Brien, who actually read the CBO letter and called Sununu on the lie- er, misstatement.

The 'Groucho Marx' Dirty Snowpile goes to National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Director Wayne LaPierre, for embodying the oft-cited Groucho quote about belonging to a club that would have him as a member. LaPierre, by his comments after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, his statements after other mass shootings that it was 'too soon' to talk about them, and his inflammatory statements since then, has done more to fan the flames of gun control advocates than the horrific shootings themselves.  The NRA would do themselves a favor if they found another mouthpiece.


The 'Talk Less, Do More' Dirty Snowpile goes to jointly to Congress and President Obama. All of them need to get to work.  Recent attempts at playing nice (Obama taking Senate Republicans to dinner, or having lunch with House Republicans) are fine but we don't need any more photo ops. We know what you all look like, we know what you think is important -- but we don't need photo opportunities, we need real opportunities.  Remember what they say: "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." Now's the time to try.

On a related note, the 'Who the (Heck) are You' Dirty Snowpile goes to the handful of people who still approve of Congress.  Approval rates have fluctuated a bit over the past several months, but I don't remember when it was even as high as 20%. I'm reminded of when we were kids, not excited about eating our vegetables.  Dad would tell us there were starving kids in other countries who would love to have our food, one day, my brother challenged him to name one. Can anyone name one of these 'approvers'?

And then we have the 'Wading Through Roe v. Wade' Dirty Snowpile to, well, to everyone - male or female, Democrat or Republican - who said anything about rape and abortion in the last election cycle.  We had Akin  and women's bodies 'shutting that thing down' and Mourdock with 'God's intent' and jokes about aspirin being a contraceptive and Louise Slaughter with her Nazi references -- it's all nonsense.  If people want to try and legislate abortion away, so be it -- it will be up to the courts, ultimately, to decide whether any new law are legal. In the meantime, can we please just stop letting the stupid people talk about it?


The thing about dirty snowpiles is, the dirtier they are, the longer they stick around. Sometimes it feels like that with our elected officials, doesn't it? It's a pretty good thing that you can control the budget of the agency you formed to investigate your own allegedly bad behavior, isn't it? Kind of makes it hard for that agency to do a good job, when with the stroke of a pen the funding can be cut. But that's the way it works for the Congressional Ethics Office, under the House Ethics Committee.  And speaking of ethics, say goodbye to Jesse Jackson Jr. (and his wife) who agreed to fess up to stealing money from campaign contributors. Let's give these folks the 'House (of Cards) Ethics' Dirty Snowpile; this one looks ready to tumble over any minute.

And what about the Presidential contest last year? Lots of Republicans, fighting each other, and in the end they all lost. Not because they were bad, but because of which one of them won. And so, the 47% Dirty Snowpile goes to none other than Mitt Romney. We all remember the 47% comment, right? That, and all those gifts that Obama gave to voters. Yeah, that's what it was, the 47% and those stinking gifts.

Albany has its own set of issues, apart from the fun that everyone has in Washington.  Here in New York, we have Andrew Cuomo, that Sonova Governor, who was elected fairly easily.  Now, apparently, he thinks he's the Supreme Commander of the Empire (State -- you're the Governor of the Empire State, Andrew). It doesn't, but apparently no one's told him that yet.

Cuomo earned One Man in a Room Dirty Snowpile. Cuomo blew a perfectly good opportunity to craft legitimate gun legislation; he shot it all to hell, actually, by pushing an emergency bill, and by not focusing on the things that people generally agree on. Instead, the NY SAFE Act, shoved down the throats of New Yorkers, satisfies no one.  Typos and bad law passed under cover of darkness (led by the Transparency Governor) don't make NY SAFE.  They make us look like morons.

And speaking of morons. The 'My Future's So Bright, I Have to be a Republican' Dirty Snowpile goes to State Senator Malcolm Smith, the sitting Democrat who tried to bribe his way into the Bloomberg Post as a Republican. I'm not sure whether this says more about his creativity or the foolishness of his partners in crime, so anxious to have any politician in their pocket they'd take one of any stripe.

There will be more to fall as Preet Bharara, the rising star US Attorney for the Southern District of NY, continues to investigate. And that will be a good thing for all of us who lose a little bit of faith in the system each and every year.

Sadly, I could hand out as many awards as there are dirty snowpiles here in Syracuse during an average spring. And even though temps are starting to get up there, we do still have a couple of dirty snowpiles left in town.  So, I'll do one more -- we'll have an even 10 this year.

The 'Make Mine a Single' Dirty Snowpile goes to local State Senator John DeFrancisco, for applauding himself for not double-dipping (retiring to collect a pension and continuing to collect a salary as a legislator at the same time).   While some think it's laudable that he chose not to double-dip, DeFrancisco's comments when questioned by a reporter left a few things to be desired.  He started out OK, noting that he wasn't really retired, and I agree that seems pretty simple and straightforward.  But then, he added

If I get hit by a car tomorrow and I died, it would be a $100,000 benefit, which is probably about two years pension and then my wife has nothing further. That's a real concern. 

Yeah, that's a real concern for everyone who works, Senator, including the taxpayers who support your $113,000 salary and who will be paying the $50,000 pension you've earned on your part-time job.  But we're glad you're taking care of yourself first, we really are.

And with that, the snow shovel is in the shed until next winter.

Are You Feeling SAFE?

Early in January I wrote a post, One More Stab at Having a Gun Conversation, in which I expressed my willingness to try to understand some of the positions of the anti-gun control side, including those of the NRA as expressed by Wayne LaPierre after the Sandy Hook shootings.

After that post, I received an email response from a friend who is conservative, former military, a husband and father, married to a teacher, and one of my favorite people for deep conversations and thinking. Our conversation took a few weeks to play out, and ended up being well over 15,000 words (including the original post), but was interesting because while we started quite a bit apart from each other's opinion, we ended up with a significant amount of common ground.

And that was really the point of the post in the first place: people who actually are willing to struggle through a discussion on an emotionally-charged topic to find out whether there is any common ground may actually find some.  Jay and I got there, to common ground, because we respect each other and because we were willing to play it out until the end.

While we were having our own gun legislation debate, our governor Andrew Cuomo managed to rush through gun control legislation, either because he wants to be President (say the Republicans and their pundits) or because he wants us to be safe (say the Dems and their pundits). The bill is is the NY Secure Ammunition and Firearm Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013.

The SAFE Act includes many things and touches many areas of existing legislation, as illustrated by the bill's title (emphasis added):

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, the correction law, the family court act, the executive law, the general business law, the judiciary law, the mental hygiene law, the penal law and the surrogate's court procedure act, in relation to suspension and revocation of firearms licenses; private sale or disposal of firearms, rifles or shotguns and establishing a minimum age to possess a firearm; to amend the family court act, the domestic relations law and the criminal procedure law, in relation to providing for the mandatory suspension or revocation of the firearms license of a person against whom an order of protection or a temporary order of protection has been issued under certain circumstances, or upon violation of any such order; to amend the penal law, in relation to community guns and the criminal sale of a firearm and in relation to the definitions of aggravated and first degree murder; to amend chapter 408 of the laws of 1999 constituting Kendra's Law, in relation to extending the expiration thereof; and to amend the education law, in relation to the New York state school safety improvement teams; and in relation to building aid for metal detectors and safety devices.

All that sounds quite lofty, as these bills typically do.

In a nutshell, the bill limits ammunition clips, increases background checks on guns and ammo, adds penalties for shooting first responders (the Webster provision), increases requirements on gun owners, including some misdemeanor charges if these are not followed, redefines 'assault weapons' and bans future sales (but allows folks to keep them if they register them), and goes a long way towards trying to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illness. It also increases penalties for gun crimes, bans some Internet sales, and requires renewal of permits.  And, it creates a review process for school safety programs, as well as providing for enhanced reimbursement for schools that purchase certain security devices.

The law is widely and ongoingly criticized, with nearly half of all counties in the state officially voicing their disapproval (Onondaga County, where I live, has not yet done so but likely will). For the most part, even people who believe in many of the provisions are appalled at the process and the speed with which the legislation was passed.

I share that concern; I agree conceptually with much of what's in the bill, particularly increased background checks, doing something to limit access by those with mental illness, and increasing  penalties for criminal use of guns, but I don't believe we needed to get a bill written, voted on, and signed all in a matter of hours.

In the coming days, I'll share some of the conversation I had with my buddy on guns and common ground. In the meantime, here's a thought for New York's Legislature and Governor Cuomo: being first out of the gate isn't what's going to get us to the finish line -- and by that I mean having viable, enforceable legislation that actually helps keep us safe.

After all, medals are given at the end of the race, not at the beginning.