The C.R.A.P. Plan ("Create A Parking Problem" )

As I see it, there are three legitimate issues with parking downtown that actually need to be dealt with. Residents need somewhere to park overnight. Snow needs to be removed (not just moved) much more quickly from downtown streets and parking lots. Two-hour parking needs to be limited to Glen Street and Ridge Street and other places customers are most likely to park when downtown.

So, lets agree that there are some changes that are necessary. In my mind, the plan the council just passed seems to do little, if anything, to fix these actual problems and was more a precursor of the permit plan they seem intent on passing a few weeks down the road. It would seem to me that what just passed was stage one of a plan we should call the CR.A.P. plan (the Create a Parking Problem plan). Stage two will be to force us into permit parking which, as it sits, seems designed to DECREASE available parking space (I will explain further). Why would the council pass anything like this? Why not wait, as Chris Scoville suggested, until we have a comprehensive plan and then we can debate that, modify it and pass it ... together. What is the rush to get this all done today? Who's pushing? I, and many others, fail to see the immediacy.

For those who feel we have an issue with space, we need to remember that the City graciously allowed Bruce Levinsky to use our Clinton Street parking lot. In return, he will be giving us back the 51 public spaces that were there originally. Why not wait until this lot re-opens before forcing any parking plan or restriction on any of us? I have great concerns about this lot becoming a $480 a year permit parking lot as the Mayor insists it should be. Thats simply not right.

If stage two of the C.R.A.P. plan goes through, we will have permits available to those who can afford them and then, according to the Mayor, these spaces allocated for permit parking will cease to be available to anyone else. In other words, if we sell 200 permits, then 200 spaces will never be available again to anyone but those 200 permit holders. This will create a huge problem because currently ALL parking spaces "rotate". In other words, its more than likely that far more than one car parks in any one parking spot in any 24 hour period. If someone who is currently a permit holder goes away on vacation, someone else without a permit can use their space. This will no longer happen and that will severely reduce the number of spaces available downtown.

If we develop a real parking problem sometime in the future due to actual growth, then we will need to talk about all of the things the mayor did on Tuesday night; satellite lots, shuttles and perimeter parking. These would all be reasonable suggestions if Glens Falls actually HAD a parking problem. But, right now, we don't and we are missing 51 spaces in the Clinton Street lot. It would certainly seem then that the council's passing of this plan was putting the cart before the horse. They just voted to develop a problem, not to resolve one.

Now, why would any municipality want to develop a parking problem? The answer is simple. Some of those within our midst REALLY REALLY REALLY want a parking garage. They see an empty, hulking, chunk of concrete that blocks out the sun as economic development and as proof to other potential investors (speculators) that we can get big projects done here in Glens Falls (its kind of like putting bigger tires on your tiny truck).

The buzz is that Larry Bulman and Todd Shimkus are going to travel to DC to ask our elected officials for pork to build this totally unnecessary garage. I, for one, am embarrassed that our community would allow its envoys to go to the capitol begging for money for something we all know we do not need. If we really want some bailout money, lets ask for some to help out all the people who have been laid off over the last several months. Glens Falls has the dubious honor of having the highest unemployment rating in New York State (7.7 %). With homes about to be foreclosed on, businesses shutting their doors and people needing help to buy food and pay for heat, our city government really needs to get its priorities straight.

The Post-Star Censors Me, Then Tells Me Why ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Tingley
To: mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
Sent: 2/12/2009 9:27:30 AM
Subject:

Mr. Funicello,
I swore I would never email you again, but I will take one more shot. When you write insulting things about me and the newspaper that are patently not true, I will not allow it on my blog. That is my call. You repeatedly talk of some corporate conspiracy against third-part candidate - which is ridiculous - it is hard to take you seriously. The reality is that we make decisions each day over where to spend our resources and what the most important stories are. You may not agree with those calls because you believe third-party candidates are a big issue. It is a subjective decision.We constantly editorialize about change and for you to say we are for the status quo is pretty big leap. I also find it insulting for you to comment on Maury's blog that we will not let Maury do certain stories on third-party candidates. which is also not true. Maury makes his own calls on what stories he does and does not do as do all our reporters. When you stop making accusations that are not true, then I will consider posting them on my blog.

Ken Tingley
Editor
The Post-Star



** MY RESPONSE **

Ken,

I appreciate that you have broken your silence (however briefly) where I am concerned. I accept that many of your readers do not see independent or third party candidates as "big news". I think that, if we're honest, much of what is printed in the paper on any given day is of little interest to the average reader. Its really circular logic, anyway. How do we know people aren't interested in real candidates and instead are interested in daily anecdotes about the blank slates who are just waiting for their corporate donors to fill in the blanks?

Its like a bad song. If you play the Tedisco/Murphy "song" every day on your "radio", I may well find myself humming along whether I am engaged by that song or not. This is how mainstream media influences the American voter and helps retain the status quo. It is low-level brainwashing. Its pervasive and makes most people hesitant to have an independent thought. Its really important that you understand I don't see poorly made choices in media as a corporate conspiracy. I see them as a result of mainstream media CULTURE. It is well-established, long-term patterns of behavior and decision-making that reflect almost no curiosity about anything outside of the box or the mainstream. Historically, substantive change is almost always instigated by those who think "outside the box".

The problem I have with your paper is the total lack of response when your readership shows interest. As evidenced by activity on your forum, we were all quite interested in third party and independent candidates during this past election and we wwrree given excuse after excuse about why there was almost no coverage at all. We were told repeatedly that our candidates don't deserve it or haven't earned it ... etcetera. Why? because a bunch of rich power brokers in a room somewhere else didn't appoint our candidates, they are somehow less important or less credible than rich corporate lawyers who have been chosen for us? You had far greater activity and debate on your forum during the past presidential campaign whenever mention was made of Ron Paul or Ralph Nader than when you reprinted tired old AP stories about Obama and McCain. Thats because most truly engaged political activists are opposed to the mainstream and we are a larger group (independents and 3rd party and non-voters) than the two parties are in this county. We are starving for a media that will cover everyone "comparably" (to use Mahoney's own term) and
comparable does not mean a blog entry or two when the balance is 20 stories prominently printed in the actual paper.

I am used to this. It is the norm for the media not to cover my candidates. It is the norm for the media to not include them in debates. It is the norm for the media to marginalize and/or ridicule my candidates and my issues (ones that actually matter to real people). It is the norm for those journalists with conscience to make feeble excuses that never hold water about why they behave in a biased manner. Those of us who fight so hard for political change are very tired of the media's tacit support of the status quo (and I do believe, regardless of your intent, that this is exactly the result of only covering the corporate candidates). I understand fully that, as a newspaper editor, like most American citizens, you have probably never worked on a municipal or state or national campaign and have no idea how terribly biased the whole process is and how undemocratic it has become. That, in itself, should be your paper's job. To uncover the bias and the tyranny evident in this two-party system. All Americans of good conscience can't help but be outraged when they get involved and find out how terribly corrupt the "democratic" process has become. Will you spend your entire career doing nothing to change that or will you alter course and become an engaged citizen/editor? Will you attack this corruption with a similar zeal to that which you apply to teen drinking?

Being shut out of the media is one of the principle reasons why it is so difficult for real human beings to run for office and most papers don't ever cover these battles. I wish that instead of seeing me as your enemy, we could return to a gentler period of time when I was quite civil to you all and was merely asking questions about bias and the selection processes that kept the Post-Star from being the best paper it could be. Failing that, I want you to know that I appreciate the dialogue, however brief it may be.

Peace,
Matt

Ken Starr's Law Firm is Evil. No, Wait. They're Good!. No, They're Evil Again!

A friend sent this out. While I fully sympathize with the gay community in their fight against Ken Starr and the moral majority, I am always amazed at the short memory Democrats seem to have. Read on.


From: Mary Beth Bolduc
Subject: FW: This video will break your heart

Have you heard that Ken Starr -- and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund -- filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 and attempting to forcibly divorce 18,000 same-sex couples that were married in California last year? The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, 2009, with a decision expected within the next 90 days.

The Courage Campaign has created a video called "Fidelity," with the permission of musician Regina Spektor, that puts a face to those 18,000 couples and all loving, committed couples seeking full equality under the law.

Please watch this heartbreaking video now. If you have the same reaction that I did, you can help spread the word by sharing it with your friends ASAP -- before the Valentine's Day deadline:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/Divorce

The more people who see this video, the more people will understand the pain caused by Prop 8 and Ken Starr's shameful legal proceeding.

After you watch the video, please join me and over 60,000 people who have signed a letter to the state Supreme Court, asking them to invalidate Prop 8 and reject Starr's case.

Thanks.


* MY RESPONSE *

Mary Beth,

I did see this and it is heartbreaking. In a way, though, the injustice of these actions is a major victory for gay rights. Anti-gay fervor always rouses progressives and, in this weird time, when everyone seems to be in a coma while Obama continues to manifest a virtually unchanged imperialist American foreign policy, it is vital that we roust up continued support for a truly progressive agenda. Perhaps Starr's firm should be thanked for getting people angry and active. No one else is doing it!

That said, something else broke my heart involving Starr and his thugs. About four years ago, Starr's firm was hired in Pennsylvania to sue Carl Romanelli and Ralph Nader and keep them off the ballot (in the senate and presidential races, respectively). Did you hear about that? These thugs came in and kicked them both off the ballot (even though they had collected twice the necessary signatures). They then sued them for legal fees and the crooked (Democrat appointed) judges awarded the firm $75,000 dollars in legal fees from each of the candidates!!

Carl and his family are still in very real danger of losing their home to these bastards. Ralph has since had his judgment reversed. Even though the court's original decision had been overturned by a higher court and even though a handful of the Democrat operatives responsible for this are now in jail, the decision to make Carl responsible for the Starr firm's fees has, thus far, stood! It is a travesty what these two-party fascist scum will do! I agree.

The Democrats want Greens and independents to work with them. I think that they first need to take a good look in the mirror (as Democrat-King Alan Chartok might say). To gain this sort of trust the Democrats would need to stop behaving just as badly as the Republicans, wouldn't they?! I have a long memory and the reason I don't work with either corporate party is terrible hypocrisy of exactly this sort. The Dems are now saying that Starr and his firm are evil bastards because they subvert democracy and squash minority rights ... but were they saying the same thing when they hired these scum to thwart our very democracy?

Peace,
Matt

Yet Again, Lets Ignore The Plan That Makes Sense

Tax The Speculators by Ralph Nader

Let's start with a fairness point. Why should you pay a 5 to 6 percent sales tax for buying the necessities of life, when tomorrow, some speculator on Wall Street can buy $100 million worth of Exxon derivatives and not pay one penny in sales tax? Let's further add a point of common sense. The basic premise of taxation should be to first tax what society likes the least or dislikes the most, before it taxes honest labor or human needs.

In that way, revenues can be raised at the same time as the taxes discourage those activities which are least valued, such as the most speculative stock market trades, pollution (a carbon tax), gambling, and the addictive industries that sicken or destroy health and amass large costs.

So, your member of Congress, who is grappling these days with gigantic deficits on the backs of your children at the same time as that deep recession and tax cuts reduce revenues and increase torrents of red ink, should be championing such transaction taxes.

Yet apart from a small number of legislators, most notably Congressman Peter Welch (Dem. VT) and Peter DeFazio (Dem. OR), the biggest revenue producer of all - a tax on stock derivative transactions - essentially bets on bets - and other mystifying gambles by casino capitalism - is at best corridor talk on Capitol Hill.

There are differing estimates of how much such Wall Street transaction taxes can raise each year. A transaction tax would, however, certainly raise enough to make the Wall Street crooks and gamblers pay for their own Washington bailout. Lets scan some figures economists put forth.

The most discussed and popular one is a simple sales tax on currency trades across borders. Called the Tobin Tax after its originator, the late James Tobin, a Nobel laureate economist at Yale University, 10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars of the huge amounts of dollars traded each day across bordered would produce from $100 to $300 billion per year.

There are scores of civic, labor, environmental, development, poverty and law groups all over the world pressing for such laws in their countries. (see tobintaxcall.free.fr).

According the University of Massachusetts economist, Robert Pollin, various kinds of securities-trading taxes are on the books in about forty countries, including Japan, the UK and Brazil.

Pollin writes in the current issue of the estimable Boston Review: "A small tax on all financial-market transactions, comparable to a sales tax, would raise the costs on short-term speculative trading while having negligible effect on people who trade infrequently. It would thus discourage speculation and channel funds toward productive investment." He adds that after the 1987 stock market crash, securities-trading taxes "or similar measures" were endorsed by then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and even the first President Bush. Professor Pollin estimates that a one-half of one percent tax would raise about $350 billion a year. That seems conservative. The Wall Street Journal once mentioned about $500 trillion in derivatives trades alone in 2008-the most speculative of transactions. A one tenth of one percent tax would raise $500 billion dollars a year, assuming that level of trading.

Economist Dean Baker says a "modest financial transactions tax would be enough to "finance a 10% across-the-board reduction in the income tax on labor.

The stock transaction tax goes back a long way. A version helped fund the Civil War and the imperial Spanish-American War. The famous British economist, John Maynard Keynes, extolled in 1936 a securities transaction tax as having the effect of "mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise." The U.S. had some kind of transaction tax from 1914 to 1966.

The corporate history scholar (read his excellent book, Unequal Protection) Thom Hartmann, turned three-hour-a-day talk-show-host on Air America (airamerica.com/thomvision), had discussed the long evolution of what he calls a "securities turnover excise tax" to "tamp down toxic speculation, while encouraging healthy investment."

So, why don't we have such a mega-revenue generator and lighten the income tax load on today and tomorrow's American worker? (It was one of the most popular ideas I campaigned on last year. People got it.) Because American workers need to learn about this proposed tax policy and ram it through Congress. Tell your Senators and Representatives-no ifs, ands or buts. Otherwise, Wall Street will keep rampaging over people's pensions and mutual fund savings, destabilize their jobs and hand them the bailout bill, as is occurring now.

A few minutes spent lobbying members of Congress by millions of Americans (call, write or e-mail, visit or picket) will produce one big Change for the better. Contact your member of Congress. The current financial mess makes this the right time for action.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.

Sundwall For Congress

Greetings Fellow Independents and Progressives!

I have great news for all of us engaged in the fight against the two-party corporate system and also for those looking for a way to fight it locally!

Most of you are well aware that I a pretty independently-minded person (politically anyway). As such, I have considered the options carefully in this special election in this congressional district (CD 20) and have decided to support Eric Sundwall, who is the Libertarian candidate. Eric will be in Glens Falls next week to meet with us and formally ask for our support. I hope that you will come out and show him that he's got plenty!

I do not mean this support as a disrespect to my Green friends or compatriots. The Green Party's platform is the one I am in closest agreement with and I am still, very much, a Green. However, much like my support for Ralph Nader, I make decisions on who to support based on which non-corporate candidate seems most able to get on the ballot and mobilize a serious race. I believe that Eric is that candidate in this special election.

Bolstered by his state and national party's support, Eric has announced his intent to run. Even though there are a few issues on which I do not agree with the Libertarians, I know Eric, himself, to be a very good person and I believe that he will be able to raise money and organize a campaign that will collect enough signatures to get on the ballot in this special election. I believe that our commonalities and our desire to shake up the two-party system should trump our minor political differences.

As independents and third party advocates, we are all regularly engaged in the fight for ballot access in New York. Eric understands this fully and has often spoken fo his desire to see a coalition of Libertarians and other alternative parties. He really needs our help and he will be at Rock Hill Cafe next week to talk to us about his goals and to answer any questions you may have about him or his campaign. This will be a great opportunity to hear him speak and to sign up to help him get on the ballot.

Please make time next Wednesday at 7:00 pm to meet Eric at Rock Hill Cafe 19 Exchange Street Glens Falls, NY about a block from from Glens Falls Hospital.

Below is Eric's website and a link to the Post-Star's recent story on his candidacy.

www.sundwall4congress.org


http://www.poststar.com/blogs/?p=16988&cat=#comment-2277150

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at (518) 361-6278.

That's My Girl! (An Essay On the Two-Party System by My Daughter)

The Two-Party System in the United States
There are many things about the United States government that are easily criticized; the healthcare system, war, and taxation are all very good examples of controversial issues in political society today. Although each of these topics exemplifies what is wrong with the government, the two-party system is the apex of a failing political machine. This machine is corrupt and misleading and has made the American people ignorant. The two-party Democrat and Republican system is wrong because it is destructive to the democratic ideals that the United States was built on and neglects the welfare of the citizens. The two-party system employs candidates who are driven primarily by special interest groups and lobbyists, smothers all possibilities for other parties in the voting process, and will eventually lead to a dictatorship-like one party system, all of which will demolish democracy in the U.S.
The primary negative characteristic of the two-party arrangement is that it has evolved into a system that exists solely to support special interest groups and lobbyists who do not hold the welfare of the people in high regard. The Republican and Democrat Parties are well-known for choosing big business and oil companies over the American people in congressional history. The Bush administration repeatedly turned down proposals to tax the oil companies during a time of petroleum prosperity, while Bill Clinton sold out to the healthcare industry multiple times at the expense of the American people during the nineties. No t to say that a candidate running for office should not have certain motives and groups of interest that they support; the real issue is whether or not they are going to support the groups that employ the best standards for American success and well-being. Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobil are not the types of businesses that support these ideals but are very popular throughout the two-party Congress. The two parties nominate candidates who are unconcerned with serving the people; unless, of course, those people are signing the checks every month to ensure that their corporate stocks are strong.
Barack Obama, presidential hopeful for the 2008 campaign, has reportedly received large campaign funds and endorsements from major insurance companies who recently faced a cataclysmic economic crash that had the country in a panic. Coincidentally, Obama voted for a federally funded corporate bailout of these companies. Giving billions of dollars to agencies that already receive ludicrous tax breaks and federal monetary support would seem a little insane to the average human. After recognizing that Obama was funded by these companies, it makes perfect sense that he would bail them out. One might ask why a company that already receives special federal treatment deserves a bailout when there are several other important issues that need funding. Major corporations do not deserve the money and the American people do not deserve this type of mistreatment. These decisions are being made by chosen officials from one of the two parties and the relationships that those officials have with big business and major corporations. However, it is the American people who elect these officials into office and therefore are contributing to the country's demise.
The second damaging characteristic of the two-party system is that the Democrat and Republican parties have monopolized the voting process and make it impossible for other parties/candidates with a wider range of views to have a stand in the elections. Many Americans believe that either a Democrat or Republican will win the presidency or seat in the Senate regardless of any other party's candidates. If one does not believe in either of the two candidates, he or she is practically forced to withdraw from voting because there simply is no other option. In reality, this is not true and there are several other parties in addition to the two previously stated that are trying to make themselves known in society today. The U.S. was built on democratic ideals that give the power to the people in a free electoral system. One can infer that a free electoral system would allow for the voters to be fully exposed to all options made available to them in every single election. Anything that compromises this privilege to the citizens of the United States is violating the constitutional values that used to make this country so respectable.
Why is it that Ralph Nader, candidate for President from the Independent Party, has been denied entry several times into the political debates despite the fact that he is on the voting ballots in forty-five states? The Republican and Democrat parties do not want the citizens knowing that they have other options in addition to the salt and pepper standards that have been handed to them. A little paprika would not hurt anyone and is almost guaranteed to make the citizens happy (remember Perot?). If the American people were even aware that they could actually vote for someone who held the same values as they do, they would be shocked at how the principles of democracy have been sacrificed for corruption. This lack of knowledge just further empowers the damaging capabilities of the two-party system.
Finally if one of the two parties becomes weaker than the other, there is the potential for the American government becoming one-party dominant. This is essentially the same thing that happened when the Democrat and Republican parties overthrew the other parties over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The parties competing against the Republican and Democrats were not resorting to lobbyists or strong business corporations for monetary support and campaigning purposes and eventually lost the power to run in the elections. If the United States becomes a one-party dominant system, the country will have finally reached the zenith of governmental corruption. Congress, if it even exists anymore at that point, will most likely attempt to distract the citizens by holding elections between two candidates from the same party. Doing so would be completely ineffective and pointless, but if the American people can fall for this two-party system, then Congress can definitely divert the citizen's attention for a few more years. It is only a matter of time before one of the two parties surpasses the other in strength, money and ultimately, power.
Some might argue that the two-party system works because it is stable and predictable. Besides the fact that this statement is completely false and a product of the brainwashing mechanisms used by the current administration, predictability is not something the American people need. When the citizens become less ignorant and realize that they have been swindled into thinking that they are being fairly represented, there will no longer be any 'stability'. If the kind of stability these adversaries are talking about is the kind that is built upon lies and half-truths, then the elected dictatorship that exists now is more stable than anything before. In order to achieve stability, the people of the United States need to have their blindfolds removed and given the chance to explore other possibilities for the future of their country before the wobbly foundation they are standing on crumbles.
It is apparent that the system today is flawed beyond comprehension and is corrupt in several different ways. Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'Republicrat' regime today is that it is functioning at the expense of the hard-working people of the United States and is plainly doing them an injustice by not offering them what was promised: Democracy. The citizens do not realize that they could have more options that would provide for a strong government with ideals based on popular opinion instead of one-sided and selfish principles. The United States needs to lose two-party politics and open the door to the possibility of an elected president that is actually wanted by the people. Once this democracy has been restored, the country will flourish, the people will finally be satisfied, and the nation can move forward in a positive direction as one unit. The country simply cannot handle another president that was elected because the voter felt limited in their selection and made the decision based on the lesser of two evils.

What Color Tin Foil Hat Would You Like?

Here is my answer to those who are intelligent enough to think for themselves and who wish to know more about the events of 9-11 and the obvious lies told to us by our government.

To get your feet wet, watch Tower 7 come down. Watch the Trade Center owner say that they "decided to pull it" because of the "fire". Ask yourself, what does "pull it" means? Are all Manhattan skyscrapers wired to explode at their owner's command? Why has corporate media never played this video at all even though they are the ones who took it (it is CBS footage, I believe). Why haven't we seen it 67 times a day as we have with the other two towers? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&NR=1

Here is "Hunt the Boeing", a favorite site of mine. How did the plane that hit the Pentagon disappear completely? Where is the wreckage and where are the bodies? Where are the wings? Why is the lawn still pristine right after the hit? Why is the hole too small for the size of plane they claim hit the Pentagon? http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

This is Mike Ruppert's site, "From The Wilderness". He was an L.A. cop fired for investigating CIA drug connections to South America. He sued, got a large settlement and set himself up as an investigative journalist (maybe one of the last we'll ever see). Read items 50-54 especially regarding "put options" (basically they are bets that a stock will decline in value). The 9/11 Commission's findings on the historical trading activity going on ONLY on United and American Airlines just prior to 9/11 was that an investigation of these specific activities would not prove foreknowledge so ... they refused to investigate it further.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

The film listed below "Loose Change" was made by a combat vet who served in Iraq. The information in it was incredible when I saw first saw it in 2002 but it has since gotten even more amazing. If you're thinking of buying a copy, get "Loose Change - Final Edition".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

I wrote this blurb below for our own showing of Loose Change some time back;

"Almost 60% of New Yorkers don't believe that 9/11 happened the way our government says it does. I have lots of questions myself. I want to know why Tower 7 (a third Trade Center tower) imploded at 5:20 pm on 9/11 and never gets shown on TV at all? I want to know why the hole in the Pentagon looks far too small to fit a 757 cockpit? I want to know where the plane's wreckage went? I want to know who bought all those "put options" (only on) United and American Airlines stock in the weeks preceding 9/11? Surely, these people had foreknowledge and need to be questioned and prosecuted? I want to know why we are being lied to about the War Games being played that day and also the day of the London Tube bombings (what amazingly improbable coincidence in both cases!). I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find answers to these questions. One of the best places to start your own search for truth is this brave film, LOOSE CHANGE, made by an Iraq War Vet who wanted answers to some very reasonable questions (as any good patriot should). If you'd like to know more about the "official story" and how it just doesn't add up, get your feet wet." www.journalof911studies.com/beginners.html

Take this all in small doses. There's a lot to digest. Don't think of any of it as "conspiracy theory", though. More like ... critical thinking. There are very few definitive answers to any of the questions one can ask about what really happened but knowing that our government is lying to us all about it and is unwilling to investigate the truth is key. There had to government involvement or complicity. Incompetence just isn't a good enough answer for what they have done. It simply doesn't ring true. Check it out for yourself!

Obama's Inauguration

I want to be happy for all my happy friends but I simply can't.

They all say the same thing; "Give Obama a chance! Don;t be negative/cynical/pessimistic!"

Well, how about realistic?

Obama has already told us quite plainly what he will do about the issues of the day. We don't have to wait for his first challenge to know what he will do.

We are in a health care crisis and over 100 million Americans are without meaningful (or any) access to health care. Single-Payer would fix the problem and save about $700 Billion dollars annually. Obama has announced a plan which, like Clinton's, costs more than we currently spend and allows the HMO's to continue raping and pillaging.

We have killed somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis. Barack has said we need to keep killing but shift our focus to Afghani civilians and he has also admitted that we will continue staffing those 14 military bases in Iraq indefinitely.

Israel has destroyed 55,000 Palestinian homes and killed more than 1,000 civilians (as compared to 4 Israelis). In keeping with the desires of the military-industrial complex, Obama has said that he is fine with Israel "protecting itself".

We are on the verge of environmental disaster. Hydro power, wind power or "clean coal" and "safe nuclear". You are now fully aware of his "clean energy" policy.

Our economy is totally failing. Obama supported and worked for a bailout to aid rich speculators at the expense of the poor.

Why should we be optimistic when Obama has so clearly tipped his hand already! Ruling class politician. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I'd like to "hope" that I'm wrong but you know that I'm not.

Martin Luther King - Activist or Preacher?

Every year, argument breaks out in community rooms and meeting halls and cafes and bars as small groups of people get together to decide what the legacy of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. is from their perspective and how their community should mark the day.

There is usually a real push and pull between those who wish to use MLK Day as a way to tame Martin's message and those who wish to fully explore the entire message that Martin tried to convey (the fight against the "giant triplets" of poverty racism and militarism).

In many places, numerous different celebrations occur running the full gamut when it comes to perspectives. I think that this would please Martin because it denotes a real attempt to both co-opt and protect his message. This demonstrates that his legacy and his message have roots that are deep and relevant.

This year, I took some heat from a few friends who felt that the Glens Falls event this year was not "activist" enough. We had our usual short march to Christ Church and listened to music and sang and listened to remarks by a woman, Dr. Glorya Askew, who is a Head Chaplain with the N.Y.S. Department of Corrections. I really let the newly formed NAACP and the Democrats amongst us take the lead. Obamamania is in the air and I didn't want to rain on anyone's parade. I knew he would be an important part of the day's remarks. As such, I took a backseat this year as far as the organizing went.

The Post-Star did its usual advance story on Thursday consisting of an interview with Roy Thomas about the resurgence of the local NAACP (of which I am a member). It included his plans for the NAACP locally and made mention of his involvement in this year's MLK organizing (with no mention of any of the others involved). They made only brief reference to the keynote speaker choosing to focus instead on the two white local politicians whose 90 second remarks would see us off from City Hall on to the march.

Now, understand, I do not hate either of these dignitaries and am, in fact, pleased that they wish to celebrate with us each year. That said, Martin was an enemy of the status quo and those who defended it. He was a preacher, a thinker and an activist. Dr. Askew deserved to be recognized as the primary speaker and someone of note and she wasn't.

When the PS did its actual story on the event, they did the same thing, giving preferential treatment to the white politicians and virtually ignoring the African American woman we had all chosen to speak to us on this day. She was fantastic, too, so its even more shameful.

This type of institutional racism is a good reason for us to stop celebrating the "end of racism" the media keeps crowing about. Its far from over when a bunch of white reporters and editors get together and write about white people of power who attended the event and not the African American woman we were there to listen to.

The Green State of the State - Single Payer Health Care

The State Green Party invited me to attend a press conference in Albany to respond to Governor Patterson's State of the State. Here is a link to WNYT's coverage and below is a text copy of my remarks.

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S735158.shtml?cat=10114

My name is Matt Funiciello. I am the owner of a bread bakery and cafe in Glens Falls, N.Y. I currently employ 36 people. I am here today to deliver my own brief state of the state from a small business owner’s perspective. This is not the perspective of a lobby group purporting to represent small business. It is the perspective of someone who has actually run a small business in New York state for over 20 years.

As this economic downturn began, small business owners, like the majority of Americans, saw substantial increases in energy costs and commensurate increases in most other goods and supplies. In my industry, we were already struggling with the negative impact of increasing wheat prices as corn subsidies encouraged many wheat farmers to grow corn for ethanol. This created a terrible “food for fuel” quandary in which the corn lobbies seem to have been the only clear winners.

While our costs have steadily increased so has the cost of living for our workers. Even so, we have not been able to make pay increases to keep up with cost of living as our sales have been in decline. We were actually forced to implement a small pay cut in September of 2008 and I was eventually forced to sell my home and borrow a substantial sum of money to keep my business afloat as the year progressed and we suffered the additional negative effects of a fire.

We ceased carrying health insurance about a year ago as costs skyrocketed along with co-pays and pharmaceutical prices. We had to discontinue our retirement plan as we were no longer able to afford to participate in it. Many of our restaurant and retail accounts have been adversely affected as well by decreased consumer spending. Several long-time customers have even thrown in the towel.

I say all of this not as some kind of litany of woes but as an example of what the typical business owner is actually going through. We are a tough bunch and we will make it but, make no mistake, we are hurting. If you wish to understand the direct impact the recession is having on those in the working and middle class, look no further. We have tightened our belts, cut costs and minimized our needs, but we are still prepared to sacrifice more if we have to. We would, however, like to know that every single person in the state is joining with us in this suffering and sacrifice and that we are not being asked to shoulder the burden entirely.

Governor Patterson said yesterday that, “We cannot solve our problems overnight or without sacrifice - they run too deep for that. These problems may last for many more months or even years. But we can solve them and, with courage, we can craft a brighter, smarter future for New York.”

I agree with those sentiments, but I think we need to put a little bit of common sense in there before we continue with the sacrifice.

I don’t know about your economy but bailing out banks and insurance companies seems to have had very little impact on mine, thus far. I know that the Wall Street bailout was hardly Governor Patterson’s doing but I know that it is a perfect example of why we HAVE to find answers at the state level for the problems of the day. We simply cannot depend on the federal government to do what is right or just when things are broken.

If we leave it up to the fed or follow their lead, the problems New Yorkers are now facing will go unsolved. The biggest problem, without any doubt, is health care. In fact, according to a recent survey conducted by the Business Council of NY, health care is the single biggest issue for business owners in New York State. Worker’s comp rates came in a distant second.

Governor Patterson says we “need the courage to balance our budget as well as our priorities.” Well, he is absolutely right and small business has spoken loudly about the priority; it is health care. The question becomes, How do

we balance our budget while insuring the millions of New Yorkers who lack coverage?

I know the answer and, in reality, so does the Governor. That’s why I was absolutely horrified yesterday to see him openly advocate for more bureaucratic and incremental answers to our health care crisis rather than the sweeping reform we so desperately need.

Where health care is concerned, there is one clear answer and it is Single-Payer Health Care. It is basically the Canadian Health Care system with a few twists. It’s a clear and intelligent answer to a pressing problem. The Governor’s advocacy for building additional bureaucracies in our state with substandard care and inconsistent access is not such an answer. We need to get rid of the HMO’s and administrate our state’s health care through one mechanism instead of the hundreds that currently exist. It is projected that just that one bold move would save us 25-30% of what we currently pay for health care.

The Canadian system costs about $5200 per person with universal coverage and if you question its efficiency, you should know that, propaganda aside, Canadians live a full year longer than we do. You should also know that no sober, literate, Canadian would even consider switching health plans with anyone living in the U.S. unless they were forced to at gunpoint.

Here, in the U.S., we spend about $7200 per person on health care. Bear in mind that this is with about 60 million people completely uncovered and another 50 million or so ‘underinsured’. With all the layoffs projected from the recession, these numbers will increase dramatically. The incredible truth is that if we adopted Single-Payer Health Care in this country, we would actually be spending far less on care and everyone would be covered. It’s really a common sense approach to the problem.

Thanks to John Conyers and Denis Kucinich, there is already a resolution before congress, HR 676, which does have sponsors, but we need to be realistic about its chances in Washington. The resolution is unlikely to pass. There is simply too much HMO and pharmaceutical money floating around the Capitol for our public servants to do what is just. Many people think of my congresswoman, Kirsten Gillibrand, as a progressive of some kind. She, just like Barack Obama, and now New York’s Governor, has refused to discuss single payer at any level and has refused to support HR 676 even though she knows it is the best, most economical answer.

With our federal representatives doing such a poor job of representing us, we need Governor Patterson to help us resolve this issue right now, right here at home. We can have a single-payer system right here in New York state. We are projected to spend some $140 billion dollars in this state on health care in 2009. If we were to set up a single-payer health plan and spend a similar amount to what the Canadians do per capita, we would be saving $1,800 per person over what is already being spent with EVERY New Yorker covered. Who knows? Maybe we could start living a year longer, too!

Governor, business leaders are telling you that health care is the single biggest issue on the state's agenda but we can also tell you that there is a simple solution. Now is the time for our state government to implement solutions that actually make sense and not just those that seem politically feasible. We have suffered enough. Our workers have suffered enough. How, as a state, can we lose? How can it not make sense to save boatloads of money during a recession while ensuring that every citizen of New York has total access to health care?

The Governor called this recession “the gravest economic challenge in nearly a century.” Well, it seems to me that it really doesn’t have to be if we can just make decisions together which benefit everyone in our state and not just special interest groups and lobbies. Please, Governor Patterson, do what is right and support single-payer health care. Support common sense