Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Cynthia McKinney - The Great Green Hope?

I have great respect and appreciation for Cynthia McKinney but I said long before the Green Convention in Reading, PA that she would make a terrible Green candidate because she would be written off as a "cop-slapper" and a "conspiracy theorist" by the mainstream media (if they bothered to pay any attention to her at all). The mainstream media virtually ignored her recent visit to Madison, Wisconsin (which only 30 Greens bothered to attend). I googled the event looking for mainstream coverage and honestly didn't find much, if any. Even the blogs and the small local media (see below) opened their pieces with "cop-slapper" and "conspiracy theorist" and dug no deeper. What are we thinking, fellow Greens?
I am very curious what good is to come out of supporting a campaign which, just like in 2004, we are the only ones paying any attention to? I stress that it is not my desire that things work this way, but I know that they DO. A McKinney run may be well-intended but will do nothing to help advance our party at all. In fact, our numbers will drop again. All those on Cynthia's
bandwagon have consistently explained that a young energetic go-getter like her will help us to organize locals with her vigorous campaigning (I guess that they intend their "young" dagger to penetrate the spine of that notoriously "lazy" old white man who gave our party its national legs). I can only say that simple mathematics proves them terribly wrong.
Just to put things in perspective, the Madison Metro Area is home to over 600,000 people. Thirty of them showed up to see Cynthia, a statistically irrelevant number.
I live in a small city in upstate New York (Glens Falls). We are home to about 15,000 people and its arguable that there are about 100,000 people living within about a 20 mile radius. There are no major single pockets of population anywhere up here. I brought Ralph here twice and he spoke to over 300 people each time and we easily sold out ($50 - $100 p.p.) fundraisers for him. The local press hate my guts but we got covered by the local papers and the local indie TV stations and Time Warner and the local public radio affiliate each time, nonetheless.
My Green local is literally a handful of people and I am absolutely sure that we are nowhere near as well-organized and well-run as I imagine the Wisconsin Greens to be. So, what does this tell us about Cynthia's "bankability" and effectiveness at garnering media interest and buzz and getting people interested in our party?
It tells me I was right, regardless of what our internally-produced, seldom read, press releases have to say about it. Please think of the party as we work towards the 2008 presidential elections. Please work for the only candidate who has shown over and over again that he is the only representative our party has ever had who is capable of getting decent, quite often national, coverage. Please help me to save our party by working to help Ralph Nader become our candidate for President. It is the only thing that makes any sense. Everything else is just electoral masturbation.
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/261690
A former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, perhaps best known for her scuffle with U.S. Capitol security guards, was in Madison on Tuesday stumping as a Green Party candidate for president.

McKinney? Cynthia McKinney... that Cynthia McKinney? None other. She's the congresswoman who walked around the metal detector at the entrance to the House Office Building, while not wearing her Congressional identity pin, and then got into a shoving match with the Capitol guard who tried to stop her. She's the congresswoman who's made statements accusing President Bush of involvement with 9/11. She's opposed aid to Israel, and anti-Semitic statements have repeatedly come from her campaigns.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14829074/detail.html

McKinney is seeking the nomination of the Green Party, which gained fame when Ralph Nader ran as its candidate for president in 2000. Kevin Barrett, a former University of Wisconsin lecturer who taught that the U.S. government was behind the September 11th terrorist attacks, attended McKinney's news conference along with about 50 others.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Green Party's Future

I served as a national representative to the US Green Party in 2005 and I remember when I first questioned a mysterious $25,000 donation made by a Mr. and Mrs. Mazzes. I was not casting aspersions or insulting anyone to ask the question; "What did the Mazzes get or expect in return for such a huge donation." I was attacked, nonetheless.
The Mazzes are obviously NOT people working towards independent politics. These are people working with the (un)Democratic Party and PDA and DFA and other gateway groups who regularly use their resource to shut down our grassroots organizing. The Mazzes are not Greens. They are upper middle class faux progressive Democrats and they obviously were paying off some type of favor. I wonder who in our party most directly benefited from this donation (and the $12,000 dollar one that they also made). Would we accept money from George Soros if he came to us? Is he a Green or a "progressive" from this lists' perspective? I know that Dems see Soros as a rich progressive but any half awake Green knows the less than subtle differences between "blood money" or payola and a simple donation. I suggested in 2005 that we should no longer accept bribes this large and obvious. If we only accepted smaller donations, no one would ever again have to suspect that a donation was the cause of any undue influence.
The way to prevent this from happening in the future is simple - cap all donations annually. I suggest we apply a "tithing formula". Lets cap donations to the party at 10% of the annual full time salary of a federal minimum wage earner. This provides a scale that limits undue influence but doesn't stop many of us from "maxing out" with our yearly contributions. Those who wish to give more can give to individual races and candidates as they should. It would also allow for growth if we are successful in raising the minimum wage. It would be an assurance that Democrats and other such war criminals can't simply buy their way into our party. We could also set up a Green Card system where every party member donates a minimum amount of money (say, $36 a year minimum unless there is a hardship declaration - thats 10 cent a day, people). Based on this "tithing", the maximum individual donation would be the federal minimum wage x 2080 hours x 10%.
Currently, that formula yields us a max donation of about $1200 a year ($5.85 x 2080 hrs / 10 = $1216.80 dollars). This is what I currently give and that is exactly how I decided to give that amount.
Pat LaMarche said to me in an email earlier this year that she estimated Green numbers were somewhere "between half a million and 3 million". Lets say for the sake of argument that we might have about 400,000 active Greens in the U.S. If only 75% of that very low estimate are honest and decent people who would pay their $36 bucks (10 cents a day) and not falsely claim hardship, we would collect well over $1 million dollars annually from this program! Imagine how many campaigns we could effectively run with that kind of resource! How many more senate and congressional and mayoral campaigns would get checks for $1,000 dollars or $5,000 instead of the $100 or $200 they currently get? We could use that money to set up printing templates and services and help paper states run their own papers and organize the grassroots. We could set up ballot databases to help states organize to attain ballot status. We could help campaigns with professionally designed templates for brochures and web hosting, campaign co-ordinators and advisors! We would no longer need to beg rich Democrats for little chunks of "big money" as we would have already raised it ourselves. More importantly, we would have done so while remaining true to our ideals. We would never again need to worry about whether those "big donations" come from saboteurs with strings attached because there wouldn't be any "big donors".

The two arguments I most often hear against a Green Card program are, at best, ridiculous. Correct me if I am wrong. No one has yet.
1 - Poor people would be excluded from such a system.

I don't often use words like "Bullshit" in print but it would seem quite apropos here. These "poor people" we always hear so much about are already excluded from our party as it does 99.9% of its business ONLINE!
Do "poor people" have $1,000 to buy a computer and $65 a month for DSL? Do "poor people" have thousands of dollars to travel to conventions? The "rich elitist scum" in our party already exclude "poor people" if $36 dollars is really to be used as any kind of yardstick. The current Green Card Plan only asks $36 a year and allows for hardship unlike our own current operating procedures. Get Real! We are talking about 10 cents a day - the equivalent of returning two bottles to the store. Get a grip, people! I've never heard an actual "poor person" make this argument, EVER, just the usual posers. It always seems to be middle class white people pretending to know something about poverty who wish to disparage low income workers by spreading crap like this. Is there anyone reading this who is worried that 10 cents a day might separate them from the Green Party because they just couldn't come up with it? Is there anyone truly unwilling to collect two bottles or cans a day to support the only party that works for peace, single-payer health care and a livable wage? Do we really want anyone working with us who is unwilling to do this, the absolute very least anyone could possibly do?
2 - Most states don't allow political parties to be dues paying mechanisms.

Fine. Then, we set this up as a Green "group" or PAC or fundraising mechanism, whatever name it is legally necessary to define it as. These semantics are largely irrelevant. We can use this group to organize our ballot drives and each state's own unique political organization. Duh! I would say that with only 18 ballot lines, we're pretty much a bad joke as far as political parties go, anyway. Wouldn't we be much better off organizing people around ballot access and local issues and actual campaigns that really matter than steering them towards the dysfunctional and irrelevant mess we have created for them at national? We could use this new organization to keep track of all Greens anywhere in the country regardless of their individual state's ballot status. This group would become an incredible organizing tool for the vast majority of states (which don't have ballot lines and therefore don't have BOE records to use to reach out to their Greens). We would have money and a centralized list of all those who support us and wish to work with us on issues and races.
The benefits of setting up such a system would be overwhelming but it seems that it is the same old "position, not mission" people who attack the Green Card most venomously. Is it really all that surprising that these people are often in positions of power within our party? They probably would have been run out of any other organization for incompetence or sabotage. A benevolent organization might perhaps ask people who are "helpful" on this level to set up the tables and chairs or help sweep up after. We have gone to the insane extreme of allowing these people to RUN our party (into the ground). Big mistake.
We need to revisit the Green Card idea and make it happen. It is the single most logical answer to so many of our collective problems;
- It basically eliminates worry about any specific group "owning" us (especially Democrats).
- It creates a brilliant fundraising tool, empowering us financially.
- It facilitates a grassroots voting mechanism that puts power into the hands of those who show they are capable of handling it responsibly.
- It eliminates the need for our overly-complicated and dysfunctional hierarchy.
- It will reward good organizers/organizations by eliminating the need for apportionment arguments and formulas because each state would be based on actual paid membership.
- A system like this would mesh perfectly with our core tenets, unlike the convoluted horsecrap that currently passes for policy within our very sick, near dead, political party.
Where's the down side?

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Travel Hockey For Beginners

Congratulations to the Adirondack Black Bears Bantam B squad (including my son, John)! Our team just returned from the Can-AmTournament in Lake Placid this past weekend with second place medals. I coached many of these guys for the better part of six years and, as such, I still feel a very powerful connection to all of them even now that I've become a spectator and a driver. I stopped coaching due partially to a lack of time but also because I am wise enough to know my own limits. I felt that the kids needed to be coached by those who are better at the sport. I have had kids ask why I left and some miss me but I know that I did the right thing as they are all progressing tremendously.

I loved my years spent coaching and I would trade them for nothing. I have fond memories, the kind you can't fully articulate because they are simply too numerous. I am very proud of the way our boys did this past weekend. They have had an unbelievable season thus far, undefeated in 11 games with one tie and a goal differential of about 5 1/2 points per game.

The tournament this weekend included an excellent A team from Bradford, Ontario that simply took every other team apart. We had been asked to step up to the A level because we are a really solid team and we did so. If we hadn't, we would likely have totally dominated the B bracket. The Bradford team played almost perfect games of hockey. They were faster and larger than we are and they were in position all of the time. Amazingly, there was only one goal scored against them in all five games they played and it was an early fluke of a breakaway.


While it was certainly disapointing to see us lose (7-0 in our first game against them and 10-0 in our final, it was also a great learning opportunity. No good coach wants his kids to steamroller through the competition. It has little potential to teach the kids anything about the sport and is not much fun for anyone. That said, whenever my teams were up against a ringer, I would tell them to watch the other team as they played and learn from them. If they are constantly going up the middle, you can see that that's where your defensive weakness lies. Is your center not getting back fast enough? Was your right D too far into their zone? If they are constantly drawing multiple players behind the net to open up the crease or if they are frequently passing back to their defense, you can learn from that, too. You're not necessarily going to be able to apply any of the answers in that game but you can certainly remember and use these new thoughts in practice. You can then try them out against another team that is closer to your level to see how it works for you.

I wanted our team to have a chance in the final game but at 5 minutes in it was already4-0 and we had no shots on goal. It was pretty obvious to all but the deluded that we didn't stand a chance of winning. I settled back to appreciate the learning experience and watch our team to see who had heart and who gave up and who did not. I also settled in to watch the other team and admire their work.

I was interrupted from my internal hockey reverie several times by a few of our team's parents, arguing with each other or yelling at the officials or the other team's parents. I heard second-
hand that some of the parents were disappointed with some of the coaches' line decisions and strategies. I knew that we had lost several of our best players to the high school team (including our Captain) and that the coaches had no choice but to set up alternate lines. Our chemistry was all screwed up and passing simply wasn't automatic any more as it usually is for this squad. I really couldn't believe that anybody would be critical given the circumstances.

I am always amazed at how stupid and rude and inconsiderate people can be ... even people I respect and know to be good people. Just put 'em in a hockey arena and next thing you know, they've lost their minds.

When our kids started checking several years back, I knew that it would be a difficult transition for some parents seeing their kids buffeted about or hit hard. I know that it was hard for me, both as a coach and a parent. That said, it is a part of this very physical game and, ultimately, if it is not something the kid wants or can tolerate, they will quit. Perhaps the "Monday Morning Coaches" should consider leave the sport as well if they can't leave the coaching to those who are qualified to do the work.

Monday, October 22, 2007

This article was sent to me by Marlene Bradley. She lives and works in Schenectady. Her son, also a "Matt", works for Ralph Nader in DC and was one of those illegally arrested.

City to Pay $1 Million Over Arrests at Protest

By Jenna Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007; B04

The D.C. government has agreed to pay $1 million to a group of people who claimed they were illegally arrested during a protest in the city five years ago.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan signed off yesterday on a judgment that settles a suit filed on behalf of more than 120 demonstrators and bystanders -- the latest payout by the city for police actions during the Sept. 27, 2002, demonstrations against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and the planned Iraq invasion.

Sullivan declared the arrests "null and void" and ordered police to expunge any records of them.

The settlement was the largest to date stemming from the controversial mass arrests that day. The city had agreed to pay more than $640,000 to settle lawsuits filed by 14 others who said they were illegally rounded up by police.

A larger class-action lawsuit is pending, covering more than 400 people who say they were illegally arrested at Pershing Park.

Charles H. Ramsey, who was police chief at the time, initially defended the arrests but later acknowledged that they were improper. Police failed to order the crowds to disperse or warn that they faced arrest.

Yesterday's developments came in a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area and the National Lawyers Guild. The plaintiffs were arrested during marches on Connecticut Avenue NW between K and L streets, and near Vermont Avenue and K Street. Some were bystanders caught in the commotion.

Most were charged with parading without a permit, said Arthur Spitzer, an ACLU legal director.

Plans call for each plaintiff to get at least $6,000. Sixteen plaintiffs who gave depositions or testified will get an additional $5,000 apiece. The rest of the money will go toward attorney and legal fees.

Several of those arrested said that although the outcome brings closure, it doesn't erase what happened that day from their minds.

Sofiya Goldshteyn, then a George Washington University student from Ukraine, never made it to her work-study job that day. Instead, she said, she endured plastic handcuffs that were too tight, hunger, filthy water, cold concrete floors, strip-searches and fear that she would be deported.

Videographer Robin Bell, 28, had his press credentials ripped off by police.

"Because we were showing people getting arrested on national TV, we got a little extra treatment," he said yesterday.

Former law enforcement officer Joel Diamond, 63, is still upset that he couldn't participate in the weekend's demonstrations because he was in jail for almost two days. "This is not America," he said.

Rebekah Rice, 53, was watching the protest march with her then-16-year-old niece when the two were arrested and held for 36 hours by officers who she said looked like "giant bugs or Darth Vader" in their riot gear. Each year since, Rice, a teacher in Upstate New York, had to report and explain the arrest on her annual contract.

Her niece, Catherine Burgin, had promised her parents that she wouldn't do anything that would get her arrested.

"Suddenly, they just swarmed us," said Burgin, 21. "Anyone who wanted to leave couldn't."

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Come to Step It Up 2007 Glens Falls

Glens Falls Step It Up 2007: Building a Cool City

Sponsored by the City of Glens Falls, the Unitarian Church, Rock Hill and Barton Inc.

How can we cope with Global Warming as individuals, as a city, through local, state and federal governments?

Everyone is invited: Bike, roller-blade, walk, car-pool, take the bus to downtown Glens Falls (don't get left behind)

At the Farmers Market - 10 to 12 AM
Entertainment by Bill Campbell, biking info/tips – meet people who use their bikes to commute, local food snacks, solar oven cooking, biodiesel info-samples, get to know the Toyota Prius hybrid car (with Jim Stegman)

Noon
Rally for the planet at City Park
Remarks by Lisa Manzi for Kirstin Gillibrand, Betty Little & Teresa Sayward (invited)
Mayor Roy Akins: Making Glens Falls a Cool City
Entertainment 11:30, C.E. Skidmore
Meet a Honda Insight hybrid car (with Michael D’ella Bella)
Activities for children, group photo, awards made to people who use their bikes to commute.

At The Wood Theater 1 pm - 5 pm
1 pm Author Jim Kunstler: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the 21st Century
2 pm Video-tour of Barton Mines building w/ Jim McAndrews & Green Builders
3 pm Gro-Solar: The Carbon Challenge
4 pm Local Agriculture as Part of the Solution with Organic Farmer, Seth Jacobs

Tabling at the Wood Theater
1 pm - 5pm
NYSERDA: Learning How to Save Energy, Money and the Environment, Red Fox Books (booksigning by Jim Kunstler, The Long Emergency), Exhibits by Gro-Solar, Thermal Associates, NYSERDA, Commmunity Energy, GF Electric, Green Builders
At Aimie’s Dinner & Movie:

5:45
pm Leonardo DiCaprio's new global warming film “The Eleventh Hour” premieres
At Rock Hill Cafe

7:30 pm Live N' Local (Premiere)
The first event to herald the beginning of a free weekly showcase of local talent and local food every Saturday night. The first Live N'Local features the local Green band, Three Dimensional Figures. A Free loaf of Rock Hill Spelt Bread (a local organic bread made by local bakers) for all attendees.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Dodging Impeachment

The following is a wonderful piece by Ralph Nader. While I wholeheartedly agree that Bush and Cheney and their evil cohorts should rot in prison til the end of their days, I also must believe that the responsibility to effect this impeachment lies solely on the shoulders of the Democratic Party. Any peace and justice advocate who pressures real progressives to take time out of their busy schedule to call or write the corporate Dem who "took over" in 2006 thinking this will have some sort of effect on them are unbelievably naive. It is a huge waste of time, at best. At worst, it is a purposeful diversion which takes time away from more pressing and possible matters (like national health care, the illegal occupation of Iraq and local political races). The Democrats who voted for the war will simply continue to fund and support it while talking to their constituencies about how their "hands are tied". These are not the people's representatives. They represent "those that brung 'em" to paraphrase the late great Molly Ivins. They are certainly not going to impeach their war profiteering buddies in the Oval Office.


Published on Saturday, October 13, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/13/4512
Dodging Impeachment by Ralph Nader
The meeting at the Jones Library in Amherst, Massachusetts on July 5, 2007 was anything but routine. Seated before Cong. John Olver (D-MA) were twenty seasoned citizens from over a dozen municipalities in this First Congressional District which embraces the lovely Berkshire Hills.
The subject-impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney.
The request-that Cong. Olver join the impeachment drive in Congress.
More than just opinion was being conveyed to Cong. Olver, a then 70 year old Massachusetts liberal with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These Americans voted overwhelmingly during formal annual town meetings in 14 towns and two cities in the First District endorsing resolutions to impeach the President and Vice President.
Presented in the form of petitions to be sent to the Congress, the approving citizenry cited at least four “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
They included the initiation of the Iraq war based on defrauding the public and intentionally misleading the Congress, spying on Americans without judicial authorization, committing the torture of prisoners in violation of
both federal law and the U.N. Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, and stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights by jailing them indefinitely without charges and without access to legal counsel or
even an opportunity to challenge their imprisonment in a court of law. Forty towns in Vermont and the State Senate had already presented their Congressional delegation with similar petitions.
Impeachment advocates reported the results to Cong. Olver from each town meeting. Leverett’s vote was 339-1; Great Barrington was 100-3. No vote in any of the towns or cities was less than a two-third majority “yes” in favor of impeachment, according to long-time activist, Atty. Robert Feuer of Stockbridge, Mass.
With three fourths of reports completed Cong. Olver, who voted against the war, raised his hand and said, “Spare me, I know full well the overwhelming majority of my constituency is in favor of impeachment.” He then told them he would not sign on to any impeachment resolution whether against Bush or against Cheney (H.Res. 333 introduced by Cong. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)). He was quite adamant.
In taking this unrepresentative position, Rep. Olver’s position was identical to that of the House Democratic leadership and many of his Democratic colleagues.
The Democratic Party line on impeachment is that Bush and Cheney are the most impeachable White House duo in American history (they believe this privately). The Democrats do not want to distract attention from their legislative agenda, and need Republican votes for passage. Moreover, they do not have the votes to obtain the requisite two-thirds of the members present for conviction in the Senate.
Strangely, none of these excuses bothered Republicans when they impeached Bill Clinton in the House for lying under oath about sex and proceeded to a full trial in the Senate where they failed to get the required votes. Can
Clinton’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” begin to compare with this White House crime wave?
The last question to Cong. Olver was from a young veteran back from Iraq and Afghanistan. “What could we possibly do to bring you around to our way of thinking,” he asked?
Cong. Olver’s response, after several seconds of silence, was “You have to prove to me that impeachment will not be counterproductive.”
Members of Congress should apply the same standard to themselves that they like to apply to members of the Executive and Judicial branches-namely to honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That Oath is
supposed to transcend political calculations.
Maybe the Democrats think that Bush and Cheney are such wild and crazy guys that a serious impeachment drive in Congress would provoke the two draft-dodgers to launch a military emergency, strike Iran or otherwise generate a crisis, based on their continual fulminations about the “war on terror,” that would engulf the Democrats and throw them on the defensive for 2008.
In short, the Democrats may be viewing Bush and Cheney as being so defiantly, aggressively impeachable on so many counts as to be unimpeachable. That is, with the White House harboring so much political nitroglycerine, don’t even try to remove it. Such a cowardly position would make quite a precedent for future Presidents who want to illegally elbow out the other two branches of government and our Constitution.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Seven Straight Nights

Check it out! The Post Star actually gave advance coverage to a progressive event sponsored by people without money! Way to go Post Star! Thank you!
Sexual rights rally to be held in city park
Updated: Friday, October 5, 2007 3:48 PM EDT

GLENS FALLS A rally by heterosexual people in support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer community will be held at 4 p.m. Sunday in Glens Falls City Park.

The event, titled, "Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights," will feature "straight" people speaking out in support of the LGBTQ community. The rally will take place in the park at the corner of Ridge and Maple streets.

The Glens Falls demonstration is a part of Seven Straight Nights, a nationwide event in support of the LGBTQ community. "Straight allies" (open-minded non-LGBTQ people) are encouraged to attend to show their support for their friends, family and neighbors.

"The presence of straight allies at the event will make a public statement to the Glens Falls community, a statement that says that there are in fact straight people in this area who welcome people of all sexualities and genders into the community," organizers said in a press release.

Representatives from all sexualities and genders are encouraged to attend as well.

Guest speakers include Matt Funiciello, local business owner and activist; Diane Root, a priest from Vermont who performs civil unions; Kate E. Austin, who will read a poem by lesbian poet and activist Andrea Gibson; CE Skidmore, Post-Star writer and local musician, who will speak and perform songs; and Neal Herr, who will perform a song about non-nuclear families.

The event will be followed by a movie about LGBTQ issues entitled, "After Stonewall," showing at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe, 19 Exchange St., Glens Falls.

For more information, visit www.sevenstraightnights.org or
http://tinyurl.com/2rnmbc

Thursday, October 4, 2007

The Crash of the Democratic Party

A Great Piece From the Progressive Review

THE CRASH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Sam Smith

If the latest Washington Post poll proves accurate, the Democratic Party as a serious alternative to the GOP is finished. It is not just that a perennially dissembling and once almost prosecuted candidate came in miles ahead of Barrack Obama and John Edwards. The real tragedy is to be found in the reasons respondents gave for their support.

For example, Democrats favored Hillary Clinton to deal with health care by a two to one margin over Obama and Edwards combined - an absurd judgment given her previous health care legislation that was laughably incompetent and confusing as she attempted to conceal its gifts to the insurance industry. There are only two possible explanations for such a masochistic choice: deep denial or deep ignorance and they probably both play a role.

57% of Democrats said HR Clinton has the best chance of being elected even though current polling has all three front runners coming out about the same. For example, the heavily pro-Clinton Washington Post headlined her 8 point lead over Giuliani without mentioning that Edwards had scored a 9 point lead in another recent poll.

Further, Clinton's supposed electability is based on the assumption that the GOP will not mention all the dirty laundry in HRC's past - including matters now hidden in Justice Department files. The Republican strategy - which the media has given great aid and comfort - is to keep quiet until the Democrats are irretrievably in the Clinton trap. In fact, some on the right are already having a hard time hiding their enthusiasm: Matt Drudge featured Clinton's wipe out lead in the Post poll with big type and red ink and George Bush is even sending her advice on how to handle Iraq.

By 52% to 39% Clinton beats both Obama and Edwards as the one best able to deal with Iraq, even though she is clearly the one with the worst record of doing so this far.

By the same margin, she is the one who Democrats think best represent the core values of the party. This may be tragically true in contemporary terms, but before her husband took office the party had dramatically different - and better - values.

The only First Lady ever to face possible criminal indictment even farcically leads the others as the one best able to deal with corruption in Washington.

And worst of all, not only is she considered more inspiring than Obama and Edwards but she is considered more trustworthy.

This is a party that doesn't need a candidate; it desperately needs a therapist.

If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination it will be the end of the modern Democratic Party - the period of both its greatness and its popularity. Her husband began the serious dismantling of the party - particularly its commitment to social democracy - and produced for it the greatest loss of elected offices under an incumbent president since Grover Cleveland.

Hilary Clinton will complete the job. If she wins the nomination there will no longer be a real Democratic Party; it will be reduced a subculture of de facto Republicans who support abortion and affirmative action.

Just look at those round her: there isn't one major figure directly involved in her campaign who represents the spirit or the substance of a decent and progressive Democratic Party. It is a cadre of cynical manipulators and fund raisers with dubious pals.

This incredible destruction of the party took place in less than two decades, in part thanks to a number of factors beyond the Clintons:

- The rise of the delusional myths of neo-robber baron capitalism that, among other things, taught voters to choose between competing political CEOs rather than among real issues.

- The trivialization of politics by television and other media in which the future of our nation and our planet was reduced to just another game show or daytime serial.

- A sycophantic Washington press corps that brazenly boosted those politicians with whom it felt socially and culturally most compatible. The media has repeatedly covered up for the Clinton, most recently by failing to inform its audience of HRC's sordid past.

- The stunningly incompetent handling of Congress by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

- The underlying force driving many Democrats in office: fear. Fear of the Christian right, fear of seeming weak, fear of Karl Rove and so forth. By their words they try desperately to seem not afraid, but by these same actions they confirm the critics' view that they are cowards.

But the Clintons played a major part as well, primarily because they have been the preeminent political con artists of modern times.

The Clintons belong to a long American tradition of snake oil salesmen, road gamblers and fake evangelical prophets. The thing these all had in common: those they purported to help or deal fairly with invariably came out the short end. With card sharks or door to door hustlers, the culture suffered but did not shake. But the Clinton as the first of the disreputable breed to actually run the country.

Bill Clinton at least came by his skill naturally. When Bill Clinton is 7, his family moved from Hope, Arkansas, to the long-time mob resort of Hot Springs, AR. Here Al Capone was said to have had permanent rights to suite 443 of the Arlington Hotel. Clinton's stepfather was a gun-brandishing alcoholic who lost his Buick franchise through mismanagement and his own pilfering. His mother was a heavy gambler with mob ties. According to FBI and local police officials, his Uncle Raymond -- to whom young Bill turned for wisdom and support -- was a colorful car dealer, slot machine owner and gambling operator, who thrived (except when his house was firebombed) on the fault line of criminality.

The media forgot to tell you this, but knowing it helps one understand why Bill Clinton is such a better con artist than his wife and why Hillary Clinton constantly gets caught in petty dishonesties, cheap machinations and artificial cackles. It wasn't natural; she had to learn the trade from Bill.

Now, one could go on for 500 more pages on this topic but here's the problem: hardly any of those Democrats who think HR Clinton is the most honest of the major candidates would absorb the information and alter their opinion because the Democratic Party has transformed itself from a political organization into a sort of EST for political junkies.

So it looks like it may be over. Yes, an unanticipated scandal could still emerge. The good people of Iowa and New Hampshire could take the Democratic Party back. HR Clinton might move from embarrassing cackles to indefensible contortions.

But if nothing major happens, you can say good bye to the modern Democratic Party the day that HR Clinton is nominated. You will then be faced not with a choice, but a threat - not unlike one from the capo who tells you: stick with us and your friends and family will be safer and we won't take as much from you as the other mob. This isn't politics; it's thuggery. And that's what our politics have become

Monday, October 1, 2007

T.U. reprints AP story. Post Star ignores soldiers, as usual

While only a handful of us ventured to Syracuse for the rally, we met up with about 3,000 of our brothers and sisters in the peace movement to support about 25 active duty soldiers, members of the Fort Drum chapter of Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW). We (and they) were also joined by about 100 members of Veterans For Peace. Green veterans were there in full force as well, represented by Bob Gumbs, a Gulf War vet and Green congressional candidate. The Times Union (at least) reprinted the lazy, inadequate AP fluff piece on the rally which I have copied below. The Glens Falls Post Star totally ignored our veterans as they are pro-WAR and anti-SOLDIER.
Peace,
Matt Funiciello

Peace rally organizers say thousands turned up at event
Associated Press
Last updated: 9:32 p.m., Saturday, September 29, 2007
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- About 2,500 antiwar protesters marched through Syracuse on Saturday, calling for an end to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The rally began at 1 p.m. at the Everson Museum of Art. It ended more than three hours later after a march of 1.6 miles to Walnut Park and another rally. Blocks of SU students joined the chanting, singing, banner-carrying marchers as they came near the campus.

The rally was organized by the Syracuse Peace Council, Service Employees International Union 1199 and Syracuse University Student Peace Action Network. Three buses full of members of the SEIU 119 came from New York City and Boston.

John Burdick of the Syracuse Peace Council, an organizer, said groups came from New York and New England, with an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 in attendance. "That number would make it one of the largest mobilizations since the Vietnam War," he said.

Angela Morano, 57, of Saugerties, said "this is nice, but it's not enough. It's not enough of us on the street."

Morano, who protested during the Vietnam War, said "we are much too peaceful protesters now."

David Lester, 26, of Syracuse, was part of the protest. The Nottingham High School graduate served in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division.

"We want to let the people still serving and the people at Fort Drum who don't understand this war to know they are represented," Lester said. "They are not alone."

Ben Winters, 23, of Albany, heard about the protest on the Internet and came.

"I have come to support the cause," Winters said. "I used to go here (to SU). This is much bigger than rallies two or three years ago."

Burdick said the rally marks a big change in logistics.

"It used to be that we'd travel to the bigger cities, New York and Washington, D.C., for these rallies," Burdick said. "It's time for us not to wait for the big cities. Now, they're sending buses up to us."

Betty Wood, 65, of Blodgett Mills, brought five quilt banners with her to the parade. Each had the 170 faces of U.S. soldiers from New York state who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since fighting began. Wood has gotten up to April. She's behind by half a banner.

She chokes up when she's asked why she did it.

"The photos of the flag-draped coffins coming back from over there became classified," said Wood, fighting back tears. "These soldiers became numbers. They deserved to have faces."

An evening panel discussion at the university's Hendricks Chapel was to include Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998; Dr. Dahlia Wasfi, who spent her childhood in Iraq; and Jimmy Massey, a former Marine and founding member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

My Testimony at the Health Care Forum

NYS Department of Health
Public
Health Care Forum
Glens Falls Civic Center
Sept. 5th, 2007

Matt Funiciello Rock Hill Bakehouse Moreau, NY

Greetings, everyone. My name is Matt Funiciello and I am here today on behalf of New York's small business owners and workers. For those who are not already aware, I own and run Rock Hill Bakehouse, a small wholesale bread bakery in Moreau, N.Y. We have about 40 employees.

The Empire State's website steers new business owners to some answers about health coverage for their workers. It recommends looking at programs such as Child Health Plus and Healthy New York. It says to consult with the NFIB, The Business Council of New York State, The Retail Council of New York State and the NYS Chamber of Commerce. With all due respect, these entities do not represent me, nor do they represent the majority of small business in New York State. Neither is it their responsibility to provide or suggest health care, affordable or otherwise, for small business employers and workers. I believe this is the duty of the federal government. This, of course, means that the burden of responsibility actually falls to our state government. So, here we are today to talk to our state. Lets hope that its listening.

Like most small business owners, I want the best for my employees. I want to do well, myself, but I also want them to do well. As any intelligent person will tell you, these desires are, by no means, mutually exclusive. People will often tell me that I am an exception in that regard. I strongly and absolutely disagree. Most small businesspeople I know care very deeply about their workers. We are just frustrated and embattled. Taxes, fees, inspections, forms, penalties, loans, regulations, certifications, paperwork. All of this has to be dealt with on top of running one's business. We are tasked with finding a way to pay fair wages and with providing health care coverage for our employees. This is simply not possible under the current system.

Ironically, we are also tasked with paying for the state-run health plans that many small business workers simply aren't poor enough to join! So, we can't afford exorbitantly priced HMO coverage but our government is more than happy to demand that we pay for the health care plans they've set up to help the working poor. These plans are primarily for those stuck working at fast food franchises and big box retailers where workers are paid very little for their labor.

Let me make something absolutely clear. My complaint is never about being asked to help those who need help. My complaint is that it is no accident that a big box worker is paid so little that they qualify for food stamps and state-subsidized health care. It is by design. And because of that design, I and many other small business taxpayers are footing the bill for the underpaid workers of some of the most profitable corporations around while our own workers can't afford coverage.

This knowledge of the “upside down pyramid” leaves many small business people feeling embittered, especially knowing that the answers are right in front of our faces. Our elected officials simply have to muster up enough political backbone to do what is right.

When it comes to health care there are three basic roads a small business can currently take. The first, we'll call the “Tough Love Road”. We simply tell our workers the truth. No one in this country (with the noted exception of some elected officials) is able to afford reasonable and effective health benefits, so why should we be any different? Get your own health insurance. We can't afford to help you out. Sink or swim. Dog eat dog. We'll help you wade through paperwork and we'll garnish your check as required by law but ... thats it, man! Sorry. This, sadly, is the road chosen by many small businesses.

The second road is called the “Big Box Road”. This involves emulating the corporate strategy of paying your workers just the right amount so that they are classified as working poor and are therefore eligible for food stamps and state-run health care.

So, Road #1 is Tough Love. No one can afford health care. You're on your own. Road #2 is the Big Box Road. Pay your workers little enough that they are eligible for taxpayer funded benefits.

Lets just say for a moment, that plans 1 & 2 just don't work for me. Lets say I'm just not mean enough to deny my workers benefits I know they desperately need. Lets say that I suffer from the twin maladies of dignity and conscience which prevent me from behaving like corporate America, crying poor while passing the hat around to pay for my own workers' benefits. What do I do? What is Road #3 for me?

Well, Road #3 for me is to bite the bullet and offer up the services of our friendly neighborhood HMO. The result? Most of our employees choose not to donate their hard-earned resource to the health care industry at all because luxuries like transportation, housing and shelter keep getting in the way. While there is certainly some money left at the end of each pay period, it is certainly not enough to fund a family's health care needs. Many of my employees who elect to take coverage have to wonder if paying far too much for far too little is really all that much better than living without the coverage in the first place.

The average annual cost for bad HMO coverage for the family of one of my workers is $10,685.16. When you figure in the co-pays, the prescriptions, medical billing firms' obvious policy of double-billing and the HMOs' regular refusal to pay for services rendered, we might just as well round it up to an even $12,000 a year. Thats $1,000 a month or $230 dollars every single week. Thats what it actually amounts to. Now, $230 dollars a week for someone who works as a skilled laborer in the food business is simply not “affordable” coverage.

When one of my workers asks me about health insurance for them or their family, I have been known to cringe because I know that what they are really asking me, in effect, is to find a way to come up with that extra $12,000 dollars. With 40 employees, many of whom have families, full coverage for all of my employees would cost us in the hundreds of thousands, annually! In case there was any question in anyone's mind about whether or not a small business can afford to absorb that coast, the answer is NO, we just don't have that kind of money “kicking around”.

How dare our government put small business in the middle of this nightmare? I suspect its largely because our elected officials depend on corporate campaign donations, many of which come from HMO's and pharmaceutical companies. I imagine those would likely stop if these officials showed some real backbone and threatened to level the health care playing field. I also think that elected officials have trouble seeing the problem for what it is when they have such great health care themselves. I don't think that any elected official in this country should have state-funded health benefits until everyone else living here has them first. Leaving small business to take on this Herculean problem is not the right answer. Its cowardly and unfair and we all know it.

I spent about 15 years living in Canada and I still have relatives who live there. While a landed immigrant in Canada, I was covered by OHIP, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. Simply put, everyone in Canada is paying for their health care when they pay their taxes and as a result every single Canadian has free health care. There are no co-pays or denials, no paperwork to fill out when you visit the doctor. “How can this be?” my fellow Americans ask me. “How is this even possible? Gosh, those poor Canadians must be taxed to death.”

We need to be honest. Canadians are not taxed to death. In fact, according to Dr. Stef Woolhandler, of the Harvard Medical School, Americans are paying 83% more for their health care than Canadians do. 83%!! Also, I can't speak for all Canadians but the ones I know pay comparable income taxes to what we pay. Unlike us, they aren't saddled with crippling $230 a week premiums in order to protect their families, either!

“Well, what about denial of care? We've heard that Canadians have to wait for years to get an operation.” That is just more propaganda designed to make us think that their system is flawed. If you really want to know the truth, just ask any Canadian if they are willing to switch Health Care systems with you. When you find one who is, let me know. I've got a bridge for sale ...

I will admit that a friend of mine did break his foot in about 6 different places in a dirtbike accident once and when he got to the hospital, they put him in a cast and sent him out to walk with crutches on his badly broken foot without pins or an operation. Three months later, doctors at a more competent facility operated to fuse his broken bones allwoing him to walk again but poorly. He is a plumber and he works with his son. It is not a small thing that he can't walk properly. It is his livelihood their incompetence has threatened.

I also know someone whose daughter needed to be shipped from one hospital to another with a kidney problem. Her HMO authorized it verbally and then later refused to pay it. The family was alter billed $1800 dollars by the ambulance service.

I know a women who was in a car accident and had multiple hairline fractures in both legs. They told her she was fine based on her x-rays, refused to keep her overnight and gave her pain meds to bring home. They told her that she just needed to walk around as much as possible to help the healing.

These three things all happened in New York State, not in Canada. Does that surprise anyone here?

My mother lives in Canada. She received a Cochlear Implant several months ago, a procedure which costs about $65,000 dollar, at 65 years of age. There was no charge at all, no co-pay and free therapy without a scrap of paperwork filled out. Meanwhile in NY, a friend just told me yesterday of her grandfather's plight. He was refused a Cochlear implant because his health coverage stated that it was “an unnecessary procedure unlikely to improve his quality of life.” Why didn't he get to make that decision for himself as my mother did?

I have never heard of or seen anyone ever being denied care in a Canadian hospital. Ever. These are outright lies being told so that we will feel that our own problem here is hopeless. It really is not hopeless at all ... unless we think that some giant conscienceless corporations bent on subjugating the entire human race have taken over our country and are running our health care system ... Well, maybe we better move along.

I know firsthand that the level of service provided in Canadian hospitals and medical facilities is just fine. In process of fact, I think its better than ours. It's a fact that Canadians live longer than we do. Why then do we believe the propaganda handed to us by the corporate media and the corporate health care system? If there are no crippling taxes and its cheaper in cost and there are no ridiculous denials and long waits for service .... why didn't we know about a system like this earlier? Why don't we already have this kind of health care?

Simply put, its because we are regularly misled by the media and by so-called industry experts who have an axe to grind selling us lies about the Canadian system and other systems like it. This disinformation campaign has been used to justify the insane waste and needless profit inherent to our own system.

I know that we Americans are loathe to admit that anyone can do something better than we can. Well, let me say it right here, Canadians (and according to the World Health Organization, at least 36 other industrialized nations) are kicking our butts at health care and they've all done it by removing profit and waste from the equation. They have recognized that the waste, fraud and excess inherent to our health care industry is immoral. They feel sorry for us.

Lets talk about what IS possible and how we can move forward. We all know the federal government is never going to change anything as long as there is no catalyst to foment that change, SO, New York State can, and must, be that catalyst when it comes to health care. Governor Spitzer has promised us a new day with justice and liberty for all and what better way to prove that he means it than to resolve the biggest problem we have as citizens of the state?

I come here today with a simple answer. Providing health care for everyone does not require any special fiscal tools or slights of hand. It only requires the strength of will and the good sense to know that providing health care for everyone is essential in a civilized nation. Attaining this goal will only require that our elected officials actually represent the PEOPLE'S will instead of the will of their corporate campaign donors.

Some great basic groundwork for funding has already been provided by the PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Plan). These people have spelled out the nuts and bolts of current waste and excess and have suggested how we might re-channel our resource to fully fund a single-payer health care system in our state and in our country. We simply need to implement their proposals. It is truly that simple, regardless of what the naysayers and the self-interested may predict. It will work. I've personally seen it work.

PNHP's Single-Payer system funds health care by using what is already being misused. Their proposal takes what is already being spent on health care and simply reapportions it so that everyone is covered. To understand this, one needs to know that we are currently spending $2 TRILLION dollars a year on health care and we have 45 million uninsured. Thats $6,600 per person and that's about 2-3 times what any of the 36 nations who have real health care are spending per capita and these systems all insure EVERYONE inside their borders. We are ALREADY spending far more than enough to cover everyone - It just doesn't make any sense that so many are uncovered or are covered so poorly!

If we followed the Canadian example, they spend about half of what we do and live several years longer than we do, where would be the harm? Talk about win/win! Why not emulate a system that's been working so well for over 35 years?

In closing, I would ask that as we craft answers to this problem, lets leave special interests and their profit motive at the door. They should have had no place in this discussion all along. Instead, theirs are the only voices anyone has been listening to. They should be unwelcome in any serious discussion on health care reform. They are the ones who brought us to where we are today. Thank you.

Monday, September 3, 2007

Governor's Health Care Forum in Glens Falls

Want Affordable Single-Payer Health Care? Come to the Rally in Glens Falls this Wednesday Sept. 5th at 9:00 am at the Glens Falls Civic Center! Let the media and our elected officials know how we feel!
On September 5th, the New York State Department of Health and Insurance will conduct the first in a series of public hearings to solicit input on how New York can provide quality affordable health care to all. Let's show our support for health care reform by coming to the rally prior to the start of the hearing and making our voices heard!

Bring your signs, bring your t-shirts and buttons, and bring your enthusiasm! Let's show New York's elected officials that we want health care reform and we want it now.
Sponsored by Statewide Council of Health Care Coalitions

for more information:

Matt Funiciello (518) 793-0075

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Farmers, Consumers Are Getting Milked

Farmers, Consumers Are Getting Milked
Joel Greeno, guest columnist, Capital Times, Madison, Wisconsin August 2, 2007

Despite recent media hype, farmers are not getting rich off record prices in the dairy case. The cost of milk has gone up 50-60 cents in the last few months, with consumers paying close to $4 per gallon in Los Angeles, Chicago and New Orleans. But dairy farmers are still getting less than half of that money -- about $1.60 per gallon.

Rising fuel costs and ethanol corn demands are partly to blame. Intense drought has also meant wilting pastures and hay crops. For the first time ever the creek that normally waters my cows has dried up, and as a result my milk production has dropped 50 percent this summer.

But the real culprit behind the current dairy crisis remains corporate greed. The lion's share of consumer money spent on milk continues to line the pockets of corporations: Kraft, Dean, Wal-Mart. Worse yet, consumers have been convinced to pay almost the same for skim and 2 percent versions of the real thing -- after the most valuable butterfat has been skimmed off to make other dairy products.

Less well known is the collaboration of corrupt dairy co-ops such as Foremost, Dairy Farmers of America, and Land O' Lakes in this price-gouging scheme, to the detriment of their own members.

There is no free market for fresh milk in the U.S. unless you happen to be buying it directly from a farmer. All the economic "theory" taught in land grant colleges is useless. Consumer prices at the grocery store are calculated by the USDA through a bizarre outdated formula and federal market order system. Worse yet, this USDA-imposed "price" is based upon secretive trading of 500-pound cheddar blocks on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. At the request of Sen. Russ Feingold, the General Accounting Office recently concluded an investigation of the CME that found it prone to market manipulation and price fixing.

This rotten system is made even worse by globalization. The U.S. has been a dairy deficit nation for years now, and for corporate agribusiness it is much cheaper to import casein, butter substitutes, and milk protein concentrate (MPC -- a questionable dairy waste byproduct) from New Zealand, China, India, Ukraine or wherever than to pay U.S. family farmers a fair price for domestic milk. In April 2007 alone, the U.S. imported 11 million pounds of MPC.

Because of this type of abuse, farmers have been stuck with below-parity prices for decades. Even the USDA's own numbers indicate that it costs farmers over $30 to produce 100 pounds of milk, yet the milk "price" is set at $19 per 100 pounds. Under our current federal price support system known as MILC (Milk Income Lost Contract), I am expected to lose $8 per 100 pounds in price to get a 33 cents per 100 pounds subsidy. That means on my farm I would give up $3,600 per month in income to claim a $148.50 check from the government. And our politicians think they have done family farmers a favor by showing us how smart they are.


Parity pricing is an old idea that needs to be reclaimed as part of the wider fair trade versus free trade debate. Whether it is coffee, oranges or milk, farmers cannot expect to survive when they do not receive a livable income to cover their costs and sustain their families.

Under the current scenario, though, U.S. dairy farmers dwell on the brink of bankruptcy, awaiting taxpayer handouts, juggling off-farm employment, and praying the bank does not foreclose.

And let me tell you, dwelling on the brink of bankruptcy is no fun. I often have to work 18- to 20-hour days, skipping meals and wrestling with worn-out machinery. Government officials and university economists do not account for such equipment breakdowns, sick animals (and farmers!), or weather-related disasters when they reduce our work to some statistics. I cannot even find enough time to spend with my adorable 9-month-old daughter, and my wife is forced to work off-farm to help cover our living expenses and keep the operation afloat.

It hurts me to see the beautiful hillsides that once had soil-building pastures and contented grass-fed cows now taken over by endless eroding rows of biotech corn and soybeans. It hurts even more to know once-strong farm families that have now been destroyed by unfair market prices.

For over a decade now Family Farm Defenders has run a domestic fair trade project with Cedar Grove Cheese that helps consumers get their dairy dollars straight to family farmers.

The National Family Farm Coalition has also been working hard to overhaul the farm bill, demanding mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL), calling for antitrust action against the food giants, opposing taxpayer-subsidized commodity dumping, defending local control to enact tougher rules than the federal government, and thus ensuring more fair prices for farmers and consumers.

Along these lines, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., recently introduced the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act, which would put milk producers -- not the dairy industry -- back in the driver's seat when it comes to setting milk prices.

Farmers want to get a living wage with dignity just like everyone else. There is more than enough money in the marketplace to provide farmers a decent income and provide healthy affordable food to consumers. Farmers and consumers need to work together, though, to reclaim our food system. Otherwise we'll just keep getting the dregs.

Joel Greeno is a grass-based dairy farmer near Kendall, Wis. He also serves as the president of the American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association and vice president of Family Farm Defenders and is on the executive board of the National Family Farm Coalition.


Friday, August 24, 2007

An Interview with "Our Towne"

Q: How did Rock Hill start?

In 1989, my brother and I began working with the Londons in the first incarnation of Rock Hill in Greenwich. Their pastries are world-renowned but they had left the original Mrs. London's Bakeshop (in Saratoga) to begin baking traditional European breads from their small farmhouse kitchen. When they started, they were selling bread to a few accounts in Saratoga and at the Union Square Green Market in Manhattan. Two years later, we had three local routes and were selling to some of Manhattan's finest restaurants and shops (places like Aureole and Dean & Deluca). Almost 20 years have passed and we have grown by many factors but we still make the bread the same exact way that we were taught. Anyone can taste the wonderful difference that time and ral ingredients makes in the baking process.
Q: What is the most special thing about Rock Hill?

Lets let the experts answer that one, Dave! We are one of the few bakeries in upstate New York that is rated by the Zagat Guide. New York Magazine said of our breads that "No other sourdough in the city has the same rich layering of flavors under a crackly crust." Bernard Clayton said that "(Rock Hill's founder) ... probably knows more about bread and baking than anyone east of the Appalachians." Vogue Magazine's, Jeffrey Steingarten simply called Rock Hill, "the Paragon of Purism."
Q: What do you like most about your business?

I love our cafe in downtown Glens Falls. I really value the opportunity to meet people and talk with them. It may well be the single most gratifying thing about running my own business. I love to read primarily because a good book can expose you to different thought processes and points of view. Meeting new people and getting the opportunity to know them is the same kind of wonderful gift.
Q: What's your biggest challenge?

Peak oil means steadily increasing gas prices. This, in turn, means that the staples of our trade (like flour and labor) will just keep going up. I find the best way to deal with these increasing costs is to stay as local as is possible. We have always bought a huge percentage of our ingredients locally but now we are also working on finding new local venues to sell our breads, as well. In my experience, the more you support your local economy, the more it supports you back.
Q: What would you want the community to know about you?

We've got the three S's! Great Sandwiches, Salads and Soups! Hands down, the best lunch in town. We are open daily and we have a fantastic Open Mic every Thursday at 7:30 hosted by CE Skidmore (get here early as it fills up fast). Fridays, we host the Friday Film Forum, at which we screen old and new independent documentaries with no admission. If you become a member of our new film club, you can borrow any of our DVD's for free. Come out and mingle and meet people of all stripes. We're all about finding the common ground (and having a fairly-traded, organic latte while you're doing it)!

Thursday, August 23, 2007

A Letter to a Vietnam Vet I Met

http://makingandunmaking.com

(I sent this letter out today after reading his amazing book non-stop for two days.)

Dear Larry,

I can only say thank you for your wonderful book. We met briefly at the Kateri Peace Shrine (I am the guy who dropped off bread from his bakery and then had to rush off to drive to Maine to pick up kids). I read your book in two days. I am an avid reader but it has been a long time since a book captured me so completely.
You have done a wonderful and brave thing to tell your story so honestly and openly and it makes the journey totally compelling. I especially appreciated the shared emotion inherent to the earlier parts of your father's terrible story and your own, somewhat less than idyllic, childhood. I would not be so arrogant as to say that I felt your own pain reading your words but I was brought back to a time when my own heart was more open and the world often seemed an unfriendly place. You made me feel unprotected and uncertain again (thats a good thing).
I am very interested in getting your story out there. We spoke of a possible appearance here in Glens Falls. I think that we could organize a fairly successful reading and book signing at my cafe in conjunction with the local indie book shop (they are good friends and good people). We could also organize an event at the local theater where you and other veterans could speak about your experiences.
Please feel free to get in touch and we'll discuss these things. Thank you again for your book. It is certainly, as one of your readers stated, a gift.
Peace,
Matt

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Making Nice With the Fascist Scum

I grew up in Canada but spent summers down here. My parents were both peace activist during Vietnam (my father is also a veteran). I would say that I grew up with Democratic ideals. As such, I voted for Clinton in 1992 as my first national vote stateside. I saw the "NAFTA/Health Care/Bomb Iraq Shell Game", saw the light and have voted for Nader and Greens and independents ever since. Why? Because I read and I have basic analytical skills.
While I recognize that most Americans don't read and that many are seriously challenged when it comes to matters that require critical thinking, I fail to see any benefit in having people active within our party who aren't really third party and who don't really understand what we're trying to do. These confused people who enter in and out of the Green Party periphery don't understand why we're here and I don't see the point in having them around. Are they useful and productive?
We really have to fight to change things. A few extra sheeple who've been recruited but who "never really drank the koolaid" are just a hindrance. they should never be viewed as an asset. When a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or an independent realizes that joining the Green party is the only answer, thats GREAT! That person will stick with it because they arrived at this conclusion on their own and are smart enough to understand the underlying necessity in what it is we are trying to do.
Democrats, by virtue of their party registration alone, are not smart enough to understand this basic premise. As such, you can't expect these "recruits" you're worried about to be loyal and you can't expect them to do things that make sense from a third party perspective. They don;t have one. They're Democrats! I see no benefit in gaining warm bodies, Hillary, if the minds that come with them are brainwashed and malfunctioning.
As long as there are Republicans, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex will rein and we will have war for profit. As long as there are Democrats, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex will rein and we will have war for profit. We can't be nice to Dems by exaggerating their importance to us. Instead, be compassionate and peaceful to those amongst them (as I am). Help them doubt their party leadership by telling them the truth and plying them with good books and Green thoughts.
BUT, also be honest with them that we feel there party is EQUALLY responsible for Iraq, no health care, poverty, corporate control and all the rest of the world's ills. My "making nice" simply involves telling Dems that while they may not personally be fascists, their PARTY sure as hell is!

Thursday, August 9, 2007

A Response to Some Greens About 2008

We simply cannot afford to make the same mistake again of thinking that a campaign virtually ignored by the media can also be a success for our party. A campaign that fails to be noticed is a failure for our party as it does not help us to build. Party-building is the main reason we run presidential campaigns in the first place, right?
We need to focus on the very real media blackout that exists and how to break it. A candidate who can get national media attention will yield us more membership and more resource and the possibilities of eventually gaining more ballot lines, the fabled 5% and access to the debates.
Lets all keep our eyes on that prize: NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. The common ground here is that we all want the Green Party to grow and become the legitimate and credible alternative to the two corporate war parties, right? Is there anybody out there who disagrees? That said, no one person is even contemplating running with us who will get us the media attention that Ralph Nader will. That is simply a fact and we all know it to be true no matter our whims, desires, moods or strategies.
We need to stop arguing about the "who" immediately. If Nader seeks our nomination, he will get it. Saturday night in Reading was proof positive that the grassroots and their representatives know exactly what we need to do in 2008. We love Ralph, we respect him and we want him to run. The energy is there. The only pertinent question is, "Are we able to show a credible candidate (like Ralph) that we are a party deserving enough that legitimate candidates would seriously consider seeking our nomination?" We need to convince Ralph to run with us. Waiting for an under qualified or lesser-known candidate to beg for our nomination seems to suggest a secret desire for our party to fail.
Running a Green who no-one knows is always going to be a serious mistake. We already made it once and we all seem to agree that it was, at the very least, not a party-building experience. As such, lets not do it again. Most people I know who are not Greens think that Ralph Nader was our candidate in 2004, anyway. They have no idea who our actual candidate was because he (and our party) didn't get any media attention.
Running a Democrat who garners only small amounts of very negative media would be a huge mistake, as well. Cynthia McKinney is a wonderful, brave and articulate woman who deserves our support BUT she is also a Democrat and she also has the rare distinction of being thought of as a loose cannon and a conspiracy theorist by both the Fox News crowd AND the NY Time's crowd, as well. She is not anywhere as well known as Ralph and her resume is considerably shorter. Running her would be a terrible mistake (and it will split our party again).
Run her for Congress as a Green and run Ralph for President. This is a no-brainer. I don't know about you, but I'll throw my resource behind both campaigns, enthusiastically.
I am not holding up a gun and saying "Just do what I tell you". I'm not threatening to "take my ball and go home". I'm just predicting what will happen (again) if we proceed slowly and without common sense. I am stating the obvious. 2008, with Bloomberg in the race, is our year. This is the year to run Ralph and grow our party again. If we start planning early enough, we can make this our best national campaign ever. I am not proud to say that I predicted 2004's disastrous result perfectly, but I did. I believe that 90% of the grassroots Greens I know did as well. For the good of the party, we need to go with the positive.
Ralph for President. Cynthia for Congress. Both with our full support. This time around, I would love to predict that we're going to stop all the infighting and announce our intent early and do something that makes sense. We owe it to our grassroots and we owe it to ourselves. We can do it. I predict that we will!

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Ron Paul Meetings

Those who know me are aware that I am, first and foremost, a strong advocate of the Three D's: Discourse, Debate and Democracy. After that, I am a Ralph Nader supporter. After that, a Green. I know many of you that I count as friends who, unlike me, are working from within the two parties and I respect that choice.
While I can't see myself working for a two-party candidate under any circumstance, I do plan to come out and meet some fellow citizens who are politically active and ho plan to support Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. From what I have read, I see Congressman Paul performing much the same function that Denis
Kucinich does in running for his party's nomination. While Paul, with strong connections to the Nixon and Reagan administrations could hardly be considered "alternative", he has certainly not been a party loyalist and has a more Libertarian viewpoint of the world than many within his party. He has consistently voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War and is, to say the least, a strong advocate of our Constitution.
If you are interested in hearing one of the many alternative political viewpoints that exist outside of mainstream television politics, then come out and meet local Ron Paul supporters. Their first meeting is tomorrow, Wednesday August 8th at 7:30 pm at Rock Hill Cafe in downtown Glens Falls. I may just see you there!

Monday, July 16, 2007

Will Nader and the Greens Ride Again?

The short answer is, it really does seem probable ... even likely. I just got back from Reading, PA where I attended the Green Party's Annual Convention, "Green For a Change". It was a great recharging of the batteries. It was wonderful to see so many of my fellow national delegates. We email each other and debate and discuss and argue all types of things endlessly all year long and the convention is a great opportunity to actually talk face to face, mend some fences, set some limits or just plain wrassle.

I know that my posts in our various email battles usually become more pointed and more civil after attending such gatherings.

A short rundown is easy. I arrived on Thursday. Many others who had come from as far away as Hawaii, were already attending workshops on Dismantling Racism, Running For Office, Peace Actions, Green Strategy, Fundraising and many other various and sundry topics.

Friday morning, I attended a workshop given by NY state's own Mike Seller (Cobleskill's 23 yr. old Green Mayor) and Rebecca Rotzler, New Paltz's outgoing Green Deputy Mayor. They had lots of insight about the nuts and bolts of governance and were very direct in speaking to the issues of limited resource within the party for aiding officeholders with campaigns and problem resolution.

Plenary sessions began Friday afternoon and, finding that we had, in fact, achieved a quorum, we watched several presentations on next year's possible convention sites (Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis and Oakland/Berkeley). We spent some time that evening listening to a number of presidential candidates, Green and otherwise, who had come seeking our nomination. I especially liked Jared ball, a young man from the DC Statehood Greens who was extremely poised and articulate and strong in his presentation.

On Saturday, we voted for our secretary and new steering committee and spent some time speaking (a minute each) about what we thought should happen with electoral/presidential politics in 2008. Four people, myself being one of them, got up to speak in support of a Ralph Nader/Green candidacy. Three of us were applauded enthusiastically, one massively. Only one of the other 50 or so Greens who spoke mentioned David Cobb and Pat LaMarche and how proud they were of them both. There was massive silence. Only two Maine Greens twinkled. One speaker advocated for a Cynthia McKinney Green candidacy. A few people clapped and some people twinkled.

That same night, Ralph came to speak. There were a little over 300 people there (mostly national delegates). There was a standing ovation and the crowd chanted loudly, "Run, Ralph. Run!" for about two minutes. Ralph was very inspirational and there was a feeling in the air of such great possibility.

I should explain that there are "paper state" Greens in our party. Basically, these are Greens
from states without ballot status or any real mechanism for measuring party support in their state who have somehow been assessed delegates anyway (we like to call them Democrats and
obstructionists). These people are often suspiciously anti-Nader but they are also a very small minority within the party. The other group of anti-Nader or anti-presidential run Greens are those concerned about ballot access for their state parties in places like Texas or Illinois or Pennsylvania itself. These people want to make sure that they get an unknown to run who will spend a lot of time working on party building in their states, unlike Ralph, who always makes an honest effort to go to every state at least once and only hits the bigger states multiple times.

My sense of things is that 2004 is clearly over. ABB is dead and a vast majority of us are just champing at the bit to run a presidential candidate. If the respective Green reaction to Nader and then McKinney on Sunday was any indication, we all really want Ralph to run but if he won't do it, we want to keep the McKinney "door" open a crack.

I organized a private discussion with Ralph and a hadnful of other Greens after his appearance and it certainly was my feeling that, collectively, we are all just dying to finish off what we all so happily undertook in 2000.

McKinney, appearing Sunday afternoon, looked great in her movie, American Blackout, that was screened before she spoke. I was somewhat dissappointed with her ability to inspire. She seems so capable and fearless and articulate and direct on C-Span and in her film but not so much when she is at the podium live. She is someone we all should respect and appreciate but it was also obvious from the smaller, slightly less enthusiastic crowd that she is not going to be our candidate. Many of her own advocates amongst us were talking (rudely) throughout her allotted time.

McKinney dropped a lot of hints about 2008 that left no room for guessing but it is my prediction that Ralph is going to run and he's going to run with us again and that this action will help make the Green Party whole so we can start building again.