Sunday, January 25, 2009

Kirsten Gillibrand's selection raises eyebrows with progressives


You thought the prospect of Caroline Kennedy becoming New York's next Senator upset us lefties.

Kirsten Gillibrand is the member of Congress representing New York's 20th district (for you Rocklanders who need a quick political geography lesson, that starts as far south as Dutchess County and follows I-87 way past Lake Placid). She's a woman, she's eloquent, she's young, she's attractive, and she's from Upstate unlike most of her predecessors.

So why are so many progressives, myself included, disappointed by the Governor's pick? Because, while a Democrat, Kirsten Gillibrand is rather conservative (not just a Blue Dog). And New Yorkers should be very worried about her selection.

Together, let's run our fingers across some highlights of Gillibrand's pre-political career and her short record in the House:

Gillibrand, before elected to the House, worked as a lawyer for the tobacco industry. She represented Philip Morris during major litigation including defense of civil lawsuits brought by the victims of smoking. She also represnted the company in FBI criminal investigations. It's no surprise that Gillibrand's campaign finance records show that she had since received $23,200 in contributions from Phillip Morris employees.

And what else of Gillibrand's pre-Congressional life and career. The New York Daily News sheds some light on that for us:
Gillibrand's official bio cites her grandmother as "the inspiration" for her core values. Her father, Doug Rutnik, is a well-known Albany lobbyist, and her upstate ties run deep: She's a fifth-generation New Yorker.

Gillibrand, (D-Hudson), was a tenacious high school tennis player known to friends as Tina. She attended Dartmouth College as an Asian studies major, working one summer in the office of Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato.

Wait a second: Alfonse D'Mato, ALFONSE D'AMATO? This is a Democrat?

And here's some more doozies from the short political career of Gillibrand

- Gillibrand split from the majority of fellow Democrats in 2007 to support a $100 billion Iraq funding bill without a timeline for troop withdrawal. (Clinton opposed the bill, along with President Obama.)

- Gillibrand was the only Democrat voting against Rep. Maxine Waters' (D-CA) proposal last year to help states purchase foreclosed homes and offer them at discounted rates to low-income families.

- She did stand apart from 41 House Democratic centrists in 2007 to oppose the "bipartisan" Protect America Act, which enabled the Bush warrantless wiretapping program to continue with minimal judicial oversight ... but Gillibrand voted last year to give legal immunity to telecom companies who had assisted the wiretapping regime, despite her earlier vow to oppose such a shield. (President Obama, it should be noted, flipped his stance in the exact same fashion.)

As far as Gillibrand's FISA vote is concerned, I firmly believe that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 continued to authorize unconstitutional wiretaps was disgraceful. Her FISA vote is far more serious a concern than telcom immunity. Her vote was an attack on the Bill of Rights, a violation of her oath to protect the Constitution.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to those that know of Gillibrand's career as a tobacco lawyer, but her vote on the Farm Bill, is a return to her past, making excuses to corporations that produce poison that our children consume. The Farm Bill, if you're familiar with it, reads like a political love letter to agribusiness. Among other things, it provides Government subsidies to Agribusiness to produce high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Once again, there seemed to be no concern by Gillibrand that HFCS is behind the greatest health crisis this nation faces—a tiger doesn't change its stripes.

And in a great act of hypocrisy on Gillibran's part, while she voted for this bill, which guarantees that American children will continue to drink half-liter bottles of sweet poison, she ran around the campaign trail proclaiming that she wanted to focus on childhood obesity in Congress.

Shall I go on?

Gillibrand is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and she earns high praise from NumbersUSA, a repulsive an anti-immigrant group. This is not an encouraging pick for the immigrant community.

Gillibrand voted in favor of an amendment that increases funding for the construction of a border fence. The legislation, the Brown-Waite amendment to HR 2638, re-directs $89 million used to create Border Security Fencing--at least 700 miles of barbed-wire and chain-link along the southern border.

And Gillibrand has gone on record as opposing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and co-sponsored the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act in 2007. The SAVE Act aimed at reducing the inflow of undocumented immigrants by increasing border security and internal enforcement and complete the fence along the border.

And now, let's talk about gay rights:

While Gillibrand received an 80 out of a 100 rating from the LGBT advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign, that was easily the lowest score out of the New York Democratic delegation. And here's how she voted:

  • She voted against the repealing of “Don’ Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation.

  • She opposed legislation that would grant equal tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners.

  • She opposed legislation to grant same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents the same immigration benefits of married couples.

  • She opposed legislation to permit state Medicaid programs to cover low-income, HIV-positive Americans before they develop AIDS.

That's a pretty bad voting record from a representative coming from a state that has long-prided itself in being accepting and tolerant of those with alternative lifestyles.

Only now are we hearing that she's changing her positions on gays. But as former Senate candidate and political gadfly Jonathan Tasini pointed out to myself and others on a Facebook page: a Republican opponent will make mincemeat of her flip-flopping in a 2010 campaign.

And it's not just "crazy progressives" like myself that are disappointed by the pick. Gillibrand rubs most members of the New York delegation that wrong way.

Kirsten Gillibrand’s nickname is “Tracy Flick” — a not-so-flattering reference to the over-eager, blonde, bubbly and viciously competitive Reese Witherspoon character from “Election.”

Gillibrand, the newly appointed junior senator from New York, has never been shy about her political ambitions — or her willingness to vault over older, more experienced politicians.

That aggressiveness and self-confidence has endeared her to the powerful politicians who share her impatience to get ahead — including Hillary Clinton, whose seat she’ll take; David Paterson, who appointed her to it; and Chuck Schumer, who’ll be the senior senator to her junior.

But many of those who know Gillibrand best — Democratic members of the state’s congressional delegation — weren’t exactly high-fiving over the pick, and not just because several wanted the job themselves.

“Nobody really likes her,” sniped one New York City-area member, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“She's smart and capable, but she's rubbed people the wrong way,” said another.

“I think she's going to get a serious primary in 2010,” opined a longtime state Democratic operative who supports Gillibrand.

A primary, with a progressive candidate running against Gillibrand, is just what New York needs. I'm looking forward to working on a campaign opposing her.
Read More......

Friday, January 23, 2009

South Nyack Democratic Nominating Caucus

All registered Democrats in that reside in the Village of South Nyack are invited to attend a Democratic Caucus for the purpose of nominating candidates for office in the South Nyack election to be held on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

The following offices are up for election:

Mayor: 2-year term
Trustee: 2-year term
Trustee: 2-year term

Those registered Democrats interested in being part of the candidate nominating process should attend the caucus on:

Sunday, January 25, 2009 @ 2 pm
125 Piermont Ave.
South Nyack, NY
(Riverside of Piermont Ave., 5 houses south of Cedar Hill)

There will also be a discussion period where individuals can ask questions and voice their concerns on Village matters. Read More......

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Tuesday is trash day in South Nyack

This is how I commemorated 1-20-09, George W. Bush's last day in office. I couldn't think of a more fitting send-off.

Read More......

Monday, January 19, 2009

Michael Franti and Spearhead's "Obama Song"

I would say that this song captures today's Zeitgeist.

Read More......

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Waterboarding crimes should not go unpunished

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding. "Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor." So, 60 years later, is it now not a crime? And if Eric Holder, who believes that waterboarding is torture, becomes Attorney General, does he not have the obligation to try Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush on war crimes?

Cheney's recent remark that waterboarding prisoners in water was a "no-brainer" is a brazen self-indictment and should not be overlooked. It is in absolute violation of the first of the Geneva Conventions, and as Americans, we cannot overlook what happened, or pretend it didn't happen.

There may be a new administration taking charge in two days, but that does not forgive what our outgoing administration had done. If we are to have any legitimacy as a world power going forward, the Obama Administration, specifically the Attorney General's office, must investigate and try those responsible for these war crimes.

For more, read today's Washington Post:


read more | digg story Read More......

Friday, January 16, 2009

Strango Tango: Ted Nugent wants to be Obama's Drug Czar

What a difference 17 months can make. Ted Nugent, the self-proclaimed "rock legend" and obnoxious Libertarepublican who said during an August 2007 concert (as he was holding two assault rifles), "Obama, he's a piece of shit, and I told him to suck on my machine gun," seems to have had a change of heart. Now he wants a job. And not just any job, but the job of Drug Czar.

Let's not forget that Nugent, despite claiming clean living today, had is brain fried and scrambled by drugs, which explains his disturbing flashbacks into buffoonery.

read more | digg story Read More......

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Shields won't run again for mayor, quits Democratic Party

John Shields is hanging it up in Nyack.
Mayor John Shields, who has served as the river village's mayor for eight years and who became one of the state's first openly gay elected officials, announced yesterday that he would not seek re-election.

"I think four terms are enough as mayor and three terms as trustee," he said yesterday. "I'm looking forward to new leadership and new ideas and new blood."

I've talked to just about every qualified Democrat in Nyack and unfortunately nobody wants the job (people in the village would elect a corpse before they'd elect a Republican). In fact, the reason why Shields was able to remain mayor so long was that he never had a serious challenger. And let's not kid ourselves, Shields was an extremely unpopular mayor who did a lot of silly and indulgent things while in office while ignoring terrible planning mistakes downtown.

Now that he's leaving, Shields thinks he's going to take the Democratic Party down with him:

The Mayor is also planning to leave the Democratic Party to be an Independent. He feels that neither party is supporting the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender) community. He urges all in the GLBT to move away from the Democratic Party.

I take exception to Shields parting shots to the Democrats. Many local and regional Democrats now seeking office support gay marriage and the Democratic Party has, for years, fought for civil rights for gays.

I think that Shields is turning in his Dem badge because he was caught contributing campaign and financial support to Republican candidates, like NYS Senator Thomas P. Morahan. The Democratic Committee was prepared to boot him out if he didn't resign his committee membership (he resigned it last winter). Sorry, you can't belong to an organization that's sole purpose is to support Democratic candidates and ideals and turn around and support the opposition. Mayor Shields isn't being transparent in his reasons for leaving the Democratic Party, and his leaving seems to be to be a bad case of sour grapes!
Read More......

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

A response to Rockland County Legislator Wolfe's call to support Israel

New City, NY (January 12, 2009) – Legislator Alden H. Wolfe has introduced a resolution recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Hamas, a Palestinian Sunni Islamic organization and political party that has claimed control of the Gaza Strip and is notorious for its attacks on Israel. Hamas has been designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and has refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

Since 2001, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israeli population centers and has attacked Israeli forces. Legislator Wolfe says the blame for breaking agreements and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza belongs to Hamas. “During its entire existence, Israel has been forced to defend its right to exist as a sovereign nation. Israel wishes solely to co-exist in peace with its neighbors,” said Legislator Wolfe. “As a terrorist organization that has launched countless suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, Hamas can not now claim the moral high road. A resolution of this conflict begins and ends with Hamas.”

Wolfe also calls upon his colleagues to condemn Hamas for infiltrating private homes, schools, mosques and hospitals with its paramilitary fighters and leaders, and using Palestinian civilians as human shields. “The simple truth is that Hamas bears responsibility for much of the civilian casualties during this conflict. Its conduct in placing its own citizens in harm's way violates not only the laws of warfare, but the moral code of civilized society.”

Wolfe's resolution also expresses its support for a long-term solution that would bring peace to the region. “Hamas' own charter expressly rejects peaceful solutions as contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic resistance movement,” said Wolfe, adding, “I trust that my colleagues will join me and others around the world in rejecting Hamas' brand of violence in favor of a peaceful end to conflict in the Middle East.”

The situation is not as cut and dry as Rockland County legislator Alden Wolfe makes it out to be. And I don't think it's justified for Wolfe to paint other Rockland County legislators into a corner and force an up-or-down vote on this complicated and ongoing dilemma. And I'm not even sure if it is proper or relevant that a legislative body, which has no power to influence the waging or the outcome of this war, even take sides on the issue. It's just not a germane venue.

Wolfe must concede that his fellow legislators who don't support his resolution are not doing it because they don't support Israel and its right to defend its people, they're questioning the appropriateness of Israel's response and/or perhaps the appropriateness of even jumping into the fray.

Yes, every nation has the right to defend its interests and Israel is no exception, and it's got even more reason to be conspicuous in protecting itself, since Hamas and many other Middle Eastern radical groups have vowed to see Zionism defeated and every Jew in Israel slaughtered. However, imprudent use of military firepower can turn a reasonable defense strategy into state-sponsored terrorism. It's just what the United States did in Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s, with carpet bombing and napalm, and again in the second Iraq War, with our grossly disproportionate "shock and awe" strategy that needlessly destroyed much of Iraq's civilian infrastructure and humanitarian atrocities such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and waterboarding.

By killing residents of Gaza in what appears to be an indiscriminate fashion, Israel blurs the line between themselves and the terrorists and they fall into a trap set by Hamas. Israel, in the eyes of the greater Muslim populace, has spilled the blood that begins yet another cycle of retribution.

The magnitude of their response is absolutely not appropriate. Schools have been destroyed by Israeli forces and innocent children have died. Today's death toll stands at 940 Palestinians killed and 280 of them are children. A further 4,350 people have been wounded. How is it that 30 percent of the dead in this war are children?

On the Israeli side, just 10 soldiers and three civilians have been killed in combat or by rocket attacks since December 27 when Israel began its offensive. That's why many, like myself, question whether the magnitude of Israel's response is proportionate. I personally cannot find it in my heart to justify the deaths of 280 innocent children. I cannot condone 280 lives being snuffed out before they even had a chance to blossom. And my heart bleeds for those parents who carry the corpses of their dead children in their arms, wandering in the streets and wailing in agony at their loss.

Israel is carpet bombing Gaza and using phosphorus gas and other non-surgical military techniques and destroying whole neighborhoods of people at a time. These people that are dying are not necessarily "human shields," but rather people that are being killed in their homes (or running from their homes, in many cases). Whole families are being killed, and entire student bodies of schools are being killed at once. These people are simply in the line of fire just because Hamas is integrated into their communities.

I am a former U.S. Army officer and served as an artillery Fire Direction Officer and Executive Officer in the National Guard. I know that with proper forward observation, intelligence and with modern targeting technology, that Israeli forces can surgically target rocket launch sites and minimize collateral damage. And I know, as a fact, that the type and extent of the firepower that is being used is not in keeping with minimizing civilian deaths.

The use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas such as refugee camps is just an unnecessary risk to the civilians in Gaza, not only in the potential for killing but also because it burns homes and other infrastructure. When an incendiary agent like white phosphorus is dropped into an area, it not only annihilates people by burning them, it travels through the air and slowly kills people downwind who breathe it, burning their digestive and pulmonary systems and other organs before they die. One common symptom of white phosphorus poisoning is called "Smoking Stool Syndrome," where the innards of the victims are heated to the point where their stool becomes like lava in the intestinal tract. Most of these people die slow and agonizing deaths.

Again, this is a brutal and disproportionate response to homemade rocket attacks by Hamas.

Furthermore, now the UN is calling for an independent investigation of the bombing of one school and asking for criminal charges to follow if culpability is discovered. There were no Hamas targets at the UN school.

Last, I cannot see such action as having the end result of lasting peace. As necessary as they may or may not be, wars are a sin of mankind and only further fuel hatred, contempt and subsequent wars. And to quote Gautama Buddha, "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule."
Read More......

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Did Israel break the ceasefire first? Did it overreact to Hamas rocket attacks?


It is a shame that most of the mainstream media got this wrong and I thank CNN's Rick Sanchez for actually asking a legitimate question: was it Israel that first broke the ceasefire with Hamas by killilng six Hamas members in Gaza? Sanchez and CNN backed this question up with fact checking and confirmation with other media sources.

This demonstrates to me how culpability is shared between both parties. We've got to get the two sides in this never ending feud to the table to work on lasting peace before the whole situation explodes into a Pan-Asian conflict.

I believe that Israel has the right to defend its citizens against the homemade rocket attacks. However, Israel is not excused from showing some military restraint and sound judgment when doing so. A response was called for, but what happened is so overblown that it is only making the possibility of peace seem farther away.

I'm a former Army artillery officer and I know that Israel could respond with more surgical strikes that would reduce civilian casualties, yet remain very effective against Hamas. I don't understand, and nobody has explained why that course hasn't been taken. I understand the inevitability of collateral damage, however, I think that the toll in innocent lives lost is way too high to justify this type of response.

Now, all I'm hoping for is that one of President Obama's first acts would be to send Hillary Clinton to the region to clean up this mess.

Read More......