Full Glens Falls mayoral debate on Sept. 12

'Don Coyote' now has a blog when 'he' can expand on the one- or two-line cheap shots and snide comments 'he' leaves daily in The Post-Star. Then again, I suppose fair is fair: the paper is now letting readers comment on issues anonymously (while slashing the word limit for those with enough guts to sign their name), so maybe it follows their dumbing down trend to let (presumably) reporters do the same.

While giving plenty of voice to wild canines and FRONT PAGE fluff pieces on dogs jumping off a bridge in Scotland (Aug. 4), the paper is rejecting letters for no rhyme or reason. Though a conspiracy theorist might argue that there is perfect rhyme and reason.

The paper would surely retort that because they get criticized by both liberals and conservatives, lefties and righties, then they must be doing a good job. This sort of self-satisfied complacency is wrong. Dr. James Dobson might think President Bush 'too liberal,' but that doesn't make it so. The extremes are not a good guide for figuring out the middle.

First, the paper refused to run a fairly tame letter to the editor by Glens Falls mayoral candidate Esmond Lyons. This sort of thing makes it difficult for Lyons, Bill Berg and Roy Akins to get any exposure whatsoever, given the Post-Star's de facto policy of ignoring non-Republican mayoral aspirants in their news articles. They ran yet another piece on Tuesday on the GOP establishment's pick Bud Taylor.

The main tactical difference between the candidates is that Taylor and GOP rival Peter McDevitt have gone to great lengths to smear each other. While Lyons and the others have not. Lyons has run a campaign based on the radical premise that his ideas are good enough to stand on their own, without taking undignified cheap shots at the others. I guess this doesn't make good enough copy for our self-proclaimed Hometown Newspaper.

More recently, the daily refused to run a letter by Lyons' supporter Matt Funiciello, a local business owner. The paper refused to run the letter citing 'factual errors.' But the paper refused to specify what the alleged factual errors were despite requests, according to Funiciello.

Since the paper was criticized in Funiciello's letter, it's odd that they refused even the formality of defending themselves by detailing the alleged factual errors. That they didn't is either astonishing or revealing.

But since this blog doesn't have a Republican-only or pro-Bud Taylor policy and since I could not find any factual errors in Funiciello's letter, I am publishing it here (with permission). In his blog, Funiciello elaborates on the facts and substantiates the assertions he uses in his letter.



Dear Editor:

Our “hometown newspaper” is hosting what they call a “mayoral debate” on September 7th. Only two of the five candidates have been invited. When questioned about this un-American behavior, they claimed that the event is really a “primary debate” (even though they call it a “mayoral debate”). They say that a “forum” may be held sometime in the future where other candidates “may” be “allowed to participate”.

Does the Post-Star really see the huge non-Republican majority of its Glens Falls readership (61%) as totally irrelevant? They consistently withhold any substantive information about the Independent and Democratic candidates while dosing us daily with the squabbling between the two “conservative” camps. Esmond Lyons, Bill Berg and Leroy Akins have been virtually ignored. Why?

If you’re a business owner or an artist, Esmond Lyons is you. If you are a worker or someone who chooses not to live off the backs of others, Esmond is you. If you enjoy walking or biking and you understand that our downtown needs to be preserved, not sold off to the highest bidder, your vote's wasted on anyone else. Esmond is with us on all these major issues and many others that the Post-Star can’t see as locally relevant, like the impending energy crisis and how it will affect us in “Hometown USA”. You can learn more at EsmondLyonsForMayor.org.

If you want to see all five mayoral candidates in an un-manipulated setting, the Glens Falls Labor Council and The Informed Constituent (an independent news-monthly) are hosting a real debate at the Wood Theater on September 12th at 7:00 pm. Come hear all the candidates speak their minds and when you’ve heard all of them, I’m fairly confident that you’ll be voting for Esmond. That’s precisely why you haven’t heard much about him in our “hometown newspaper”.

Sincerely,
Matt Funiciello

Assassinations vs 'liberations'

Now, the far right televangelist Pat Robertson is hastily backtracking from his earlier call for the US to murder Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan strongman. Robertson's fatwa was roundly condemned by all segments of society.

It's interesting that most Americans objected voiciferously to the idea of assassinating a foreign leader who poses no threat to us merely because he's a loudmouthed autocrat, yet they eagerly endorsed full-fledged invasions to overthrow regimes we don't like.

I guess assassination is a less romantic word than liberation.

The right to bear (only mildly destructive) arms

Many non-governmental organizations are pushing an international campaign to regulate the small arms trade. They want this regulation because a flood of small arms are fueling countless conflicts around the world. Small arms has faciliated the explosion of the use of child soldiers, with even pre-teenagers being recruited into the horrors of war; in the past, weapons were too heavy for young children to use.

The Bush administration has been an active opponent of any regulations on the international small arms trade. Its pretext: it will not support anything that it claims might go against the Second Amendment to US Constitution.

Of course, contrary to the assertions of the chicken littles, the small arms treaty wouldn't ban the use of all weapons within the United States; it would only REGULATE the international trade in such arms. But fanastical scare tactics are the bread and butter of any activist organization, left or right.

Yet this begs the question: why should our Constitution's rights apply to foreigners in foreign countries?

This argument is even more bizarre when you consider this: in the War on Civil Liberties, we are told that foreigners in this country have absolutely no rights and can be treated in a contempible, offensive manner, even kidnapped and sent to Cuba, with no judicial recourse for arbtirary and capricious reasons... or none at all. Why are foreigners living in THIS country not subject to US constitutional rights but foreigners in foreign countries are?

Collectively, the use of small arms has wrought significantly more damage on far more lives than the use of WMDs. In modern wars, some 90% of all non-military casualties are caused by small arms. Civilian casualties represent an estimated 80% of all casualties in recent conflicts.

So why doesn't this universal (according to the administration) right to bear arms not include arms of mass destruction?

Oh wait... the small arms trade represents a multibillion dollar industry. I guess that explains it.

Hands of God and 'idiot' soccer fans

So what to make of Diego Maradona's admission regarding one of the two most controversial goals in soccer history. It seems that as one of the greatest soccer players ever, if a questionable and somewhat delusional human being, feels obliged to flap his gums incessantly... ever since the drugs ban disgrace at the 1994 World Cup effectively ended his top class career.

In the 1986 World Cup quarterfinal against England, the Argentine star rose up for a high ball against England goalkeeper Peter Shilton and knocked the ball into the net with his hand. Everyone in the stadium and in the television audience saw it go off Maradona's fist. There is no way that the head of Maradona, who's about 5'4" tall with his boots on, could reached above the outstretched frame of the 6'1" Shilton (remembering that goalkeepers are allowed to use their hands). 114,580 spectators saw the handball but not the spectators who most counted: match referee Ali Bennaceur and his two assistants. After the match, Maradona was asked if he was guilty of a handball infraction on the goal, to which he replied that if it was a handball, it was 'the hand of god.'

(Only three minutes after this most dubious goal, he went on a magnificient 70 yard run through the English defense and scored what many call 'the goal of the century.')

In a talk show which he now hosts, Maradona finally explicitly admitted to using his hand to score the infamous goal. This isn't really surprising: players commit infractions all the time, they just don't necessarily expect to get away with it. Especially as something as blatant as punching the ball into the opposing goal.

Maradona said, "The truth is that I don't for a second regret scoring that goal with my hand."

The goal was the decisive blow in Argentina's 2-1 quarterfinal victory. So it might not be surprising to hear him say he doesn't regret scoring a goal which was crucial in helping his side win the 1986 World Cup.

You might not be surprised until you realize that sporting reasons are not why he is proud of the goal.

After the infamous goal, his teammates came over to celebrate. "They were quite timid. They came over to embrace me but it was as if they were saying: 'We've robbed them'," he said. "But I said to them: 'Whoever robs a thief gets a 100-year pardon.'"

He was apparently referring to the Falklands War, fought unsuccessfully by Argentina against the UK to take control of the islands it claimed as its own.

Ironically, Maradona's 70 yard run and goal, only minutes after the 'hand of god' goal, was only possible because of the English sentiment of fair play and their failure to intentionally foul Maradona before he got near the goal area.


****

Sean Ingle of the UK Guardian reckons that English soccer fans are idiots because the ridiculous prices in English 'footy' would not be possible without fans' agreeing to pay them. One of the most astonishing facts he notes is that the most expensive season ticket for the Spanish side Real Madrid, probably the most prestigious soccer club in the world, goes for the equivalent of US$360. By contrast, the most expensive season ticket in England is that of London side Arsenal, which run about nine times that amount ($3300 for 19 home league matches). Bristol Rovers charge twice as much ($760) as the Spanish giants; Bristol plays in the fourth division (called League Two, the rough equivalent of Class A minor league baseball) of English soccer while Real is a virtual world all-star team.



Update: In the light of obscenely high ticket prices, The Guardian's Paul Wilson reports the un-shocking news that even top-flight English soccer stadia have hosted an awful lot of empty seats this young season.

Hooray for high gas prices?

I've been told I should be ecstatic about the national and global rise in oil prices. As a Green and as an advocate for non-automobile forms of transportation, I should be happy that higher gas prices are pushing people to drive less. I should even be bragging about how this vindicates my decision to not own a car. After all, the only people this punishes are the insufferable SUV-driving yuppy types. The only people who suffer are the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses suburbanites who deserve to pay for the sprawl they've inflicted on the rest of us. Am I happy people are driving less and, heaven forbid, walking/biking/taking public transportation more? Absolutely. Am I clucking with self-satisfied glee about sticking it to the well-off? Not exactly. Maybe because it's not the well-off who are suffering the most.


Update: Not just the yuppies

Thought for food

I was listening to a BBC World Service story yesterday on the rise of obesity in America. The reporter showed how expensive it was in the US to make a meal from scratch with fresh ingredients and yet McDonald's, KFC and other such places are so inexpensive. Soda is the least expensive bottled drink you can find in the convenience store even cheaper, per unit, than orange juice, milk, even bottled water.

(No polemic today. I sometimes eat at fast food joints and diet soda is my drink of choice)

And I got to wondering. Why is it that healthy food in the US is so costly and bad food is so cheap? Yet in Africa, at least the western part, it's largely the opposite. Fresh fruits, vegetables and meats are fairly inexpensive; in my village, I remember once buying 10 oranges for the equivalent of a dime (in the cities, it was more like four for a dime). Fast food, where available, was pretty expensive. I have my theories but I'd like to sollicit thoughts from readers first and I'll post a follow up in a few days.

The four most dreaded words in Glens Falls

While glancing at today's paper, I saw a headline containing the four words most dreaded by any Glens Falls motorist, bicyclist or public transportation rider. road work to start.

A $7 million reconstruction project in the busiest part of downtown Glens Falls, which will include the building of a pedestrian-hostile* roundabout, is likely to start anywhere between January and April 2006.

(*-You have to wonder if pedestrians were even considered in the conception of the roundabout project. One mayoral candidate asked if the city had a Plan B if the roundabout didn't work. One of the project's designers said that he’s convinced the roundabout will improve traffic flow. The idea's impact on pedestrians wasn't even factored into the designer's response. His sole definition of success was improved AUTOMOBILE flow. The problem? In order for a motorist to become a consumer, he has to LEAVE his car, become a PEDESTRIAN and WALK to his preferred downtown establishment.)

The whole reconstruction project is scheduled to last two years which, given the city's recent history with public works projects, means that it will probably be concluded sometime in 2022.

Pat Robertson's fatwa against Venezuelan leader

Sometimes I'm hesitant to characterize various elements of the far right, for fear I might accused of setting up a straw man cariciature. Fortunately, there are always folks like Pat Robertson to provide real life material.

Recently, the pseudo-Christian televangelist called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's leader.

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

Some of my friends on the left thinks that because Hugo Chavez employs populist rhetoric about helping the poor, because he points out huge social disparities that are very real and because he bashes George W. Bush, then he must be a swell guy. (Many also think the same way about Fidel Castro and Jean-Bertrand Aristide)

No amount of charisma and fancy rhetoric changes the fact that Chavez, like his buddy Fidel Castro, is an ordinary autocrat. He has little regard for the most basic standards of human rights that progressives claim to care about.

While I wouldn't shed a tear at Chavez's departure, his assassination would only increase anti-Americanism in Venezuela and Latin America. His assassination would only prove to Latin Americans that the US doesn't respect their sovereignty. His assassination would only give weight and credibility to far left conspiracy theorists. Even aside from the pathetic spectacle of a so-called 'Christian' leader advocating cold-blooded murder, Robertson's call would endanger America's reputation and national security far more than a loudmouthed crackpot.

Robertson also accused Chavez of exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.

If Communism is supposed to be 'godless,' as we were constantly told throughout the Cold War, then how can it be linked to religious extremism?

This is yet another example to show that religious extremists are dangerous to decent, civilized people whether the nutjobs are Crusaders or Jihadists.

Of course, given Robertson's support of Charles Taylor, the indicted war criminal who used to terrorize Liberia, perhaps Robertson's advocacy of murder isn't surprising... especially when millions of his own cash are involved. I wonder if Roberston had money invested in Venezuela...



Update: This editorial in The Chicago Tribune details some of Robertson's other lunacies.



Update 2: It makes you wonder... if a MUSLIM so-called preacher had called for the assassination of, say, Tony Blair, would he have been abducted in middle of the night and spirited off the Guantanamo Bay faster than you can say Insh'allah? I suspect it certainly would've been condemned with words far more harsh than merely 'inappropriate'.

And Robertson can call for the cold-blooded murder of a foreign leader without consequence, but the FCC can levy a fine of over half a million dollars merely because Janet Jackson exposed her breast? Does this dichotomy seem sane to anyone?