Socio-Political commentary: A little revolution is a good thing!
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Saturday, June 27, 2020
THE FOX IS GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE , AGAIN!
Socio-Political commentary on current events and past events that may have influenced the present..
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Councilman Mark Cuthbertson was re-elected to a
four-year term on the Huntington Town Board in 2009 and has
served on the Huntington Town Board since January 1998. Cuthbertson has kept
his pledge to put politics aside and be part of a bi-partisanship government
that has marked the most significant turnaround in local government on Long
Island. Throughout his term, Mark Cuthbertson has voted to reduce and stabilize
taxes in Huntington by working with the other members of the Town Board, to
place performance over partisanship. In recent years, he has focused on the
area of economic development and job creation and has used his background in
real estate law to attract several major projects in the Route
110 corridor including Canon USA and Rubie's
Costumes. This effort was recognized by the Long Island
Business News as the Best Public Private Partnership for
2008. In addition, Cuthbertson has sponsored sweeping environmental
legislation to preserve hillside areas in the Town, to promote renewable
energy, update code enforcement and to preserve open spaces.
§
A Record of Tax Stability -
In the last 4 years town taxes have gone up by less than 1/2 a %. (0.50%) **
Do you find it interesting that it’s the one number they don’t report that
has sky-rocketed out of control? This is yet another straw on the camel’s back.
School tax:
“State aid may offset Huntington school
tax
Originally published: April 5, 2011 7:57
PM
Updated: April 5, 2011 8:11 PM
By DEBORAH S. MORRIS deborah.morris@newsday.com
Updated: April 5, 2011 8:11 PM
By DEBORAH S. MORRIS deborah.morris@newsday.com
The restoration of some state aid has
Huntington school officials
reconsidering the district's proposed 3.5 percent property-tax
increase. **
And, from
the website, “city-data.com”,
comes this little morsel about the increase in the base formula that calculates
your Real Estate Taxes
“Originally Posted by rockmusicalways 
To the OP... the 09 RAR was .0074……. for 2010 it’s .0083”
To the OP... the 09 RAR was .0074……. for 2010 it’s .0083”
“Town's 2010 Residential Assessment Ratio/RAR
(.74%) as of July 1, 2009” **
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/long-island/1148306-suffolk-property-valuation-tax-methods-brookhaven.html#ixzz2jWMI3Amt
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/long-island/1148306-suffolk-property-valuation-tax-methods-brookhaven.html#ixzz2jWLDIbqK
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/long-island/1148306-suffolk-property-valuation-tax-methods-brookhaven.html#ixzz2jWMI3Amt
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/long-island/1148306-suffolk-property-valuation-tax-methods-brookhaven.html#ixzz2jWLDIbqK
Read the following, then watch
the video, or watch the video, then read the following:
Published on Oct 9, 2013
Councilman Mark Cuthbertson Pockets $1 Million in Legal Fees
from Other Towns While Sitting on the Huntington Town Board
Serious questions have been raised about Huntington Town Councilman Mark Cuthbertson's outside legal practice. He pocketed more than $1 million in fees by representing towns other than Huntington, including North Hempstead, Islip, Brookhaven and Babylon. It appears that Cuthbertson has spent more time representing the citizens of four other towns than his own constituents in Huntington.
*Cutherbtson worked for the North Hempstead Community Development Administration which has a long
Serious questions have been raised about Huntington Town Councilman Mark Cuthbertson's outside legal practice. He pocketed more than $1 million in fees by representing towns other than Huntington, including North Hempstead, Islip, Brookhaven and Babylon. It appears that Cuthbertson has spent more time representing the citizens of four other towns than his own constituents in Huntington.
*Cutherbtson worked for the North Hempstead Community Development Administration which has a long
history of scandal. North Hempstead CDA was
found guilty of large-scale bid-rigging and bribery in connection with a
selected developer.
*Cuthbertson's Campaign Contributions to campaigns for Non-Huntington candidates totaled more than
*Cuthbertson's Campaign Contributions to campaigns for Non-Huntington candidates totaled more than
$85,000!
*Cuthbertson represents the Industrial Development Agencies for Islip, Babylon & Brookhaven.
*Cuthbertson represents the Industrial Development Agencies for Islip, Babylon & Brookhaven.
IS THIS
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
*Cuthbertson approved the $2
Million in taxpayer money that Supervisor Frank Petrone used to pay dozens of
attorney friends. ***
Produced by
Alternative Media Ops
Long Island, NY
AlternativeMediaOps@gmail.com
Produced by
Alternative Media Ops
Long Island, NY
AlternativeMediaOps@gmail.com
.........continuing.................................
Huntington Outrage:
Councilman Calls for Audit, Gets Blasted by Supervisor
Councilman Calls for Audit, Gets Blasted by Supervisor
When Huntington Town Supervisor Frank Petrone
heard that newly elected councilman Gene Cook wanted to the
town to audit the books, he attacked the messenger instead of addressing the
issue.
"I'm embarrassed for Gene Cook,"
Petrone quipped after viewing comments made by Cook on a controversial video.
In the video, Cook commented about his first 30 days in office and was highly
critical of the town's General Services department and the Comptroller's Office. Cook cited various examples of wasteful
spending, inefficiencies, redundancy in services and poor communication that he
encountered during his first weeks on the job.
Rather than comment on these serious concerns,
Supervisor Petrone chose to comment about a joke Cook made, thus ignoring
serious problems in Huntington's government. It is the oldest trick in the
book, attack the messenger instead of the message.
TO SEE CONTROVERSIALVIDEO right click on "video":
Read more: http://www.suffolkoutrage.com/apps/blog/entries/show/13900587-huntington-scandal-abuse-of-power-
All
this, and more, embarrasses me when it comes to a discussion of Huntington Town
politics. It seems to me that when the “poo” starts getting hurled by
politicians, then something is rotten in Denmark (so the saying goes). If
politicians can’t, or won’t, answer a question, they simply change the subject
and spew oral diarrhea in the form of “non sequiturs”. We all need to see the
red flags whenever we witness this subtle practice; some politicians are extremely
exemplary in this mode of communication. 
Socio-Political commentary on current events and past events that may have influenced the present..
Monday, October 28, 2013
POLITICS REALLY IS LOCAL
All this time, I’ve been looking at National politics, and I
have become absolutely disgusted with what we pass off as politicians. It
wasn’t always so. I started out as a Republican in the early 1970’s and was a
member of
the Huntington Town Republican Party. The Nixon fiasco drove
me away from politics completely until the late 1980’s. I remained a registered
Republican until 1990 when I made the switch to the Independent Party, after
experiencing Reagan and Bush, Sr. As an
Independent, I voted for Clinton, and that was the start of my migration over
to the Democratic Party, where I am today. Because of recent governmental
developments I find myself, once again, in search of a relevant political
affiliation that will platform policy that is financially sound and socially
responsible, and, above all, ethical.
The last three and a half years of the idiocy we call
Washington, DC, has gone so far as to make me question whether this is really
the Country I gave up three years of my life to fight for. When I see what is
happening to our politics and our economy, there are many emotions rattling
around in my brain; sadness, embarrassment, frustration, and disgust. I have
become so disgusted, in fact, that I have turned my attention solely to local
politics. For years I have simply voted the “party line” when it came to local
election cycles. I occasionally voted across Party lines in an attempt to make
my vote count, but, for the most part, I ignored what was going on right under
my nose.
We have an off-year election coming
up in Huntington, New York, and it turns out that it’s going to be a very
important election that will set our Town’s course for quite a while. Of note,
the Town Supervisor (Mayor), two Town Council seats, and the Highway
Superintendent positions are up for grabs. Now, as disgusted with National
politics as I am, I know there is little I can do on that front as compared to
what I might be able to accomplish on the local front. Some very interesting
things happened on the way to this election. As a Democratic Committee member, I
can’t speak on the Republican’s trials and tribulations, but I can certainly speak
on the mess my side produced. It all started with a good friend of mine
deciding at the beginning of this year that he would be an excellent candidate
for the Highway Superintendent position. He went about polling his
possibilities and concluded that he would run. As a friend, and fellow
Democrat, I was asked to pitch in, and did so willingly. Our little team was
able to gather enough petition signatures to place his name in consideration.
It all seemed to be going fairly smoothly. There were actually three gentlemen
running for this one spot in the Democratic Party; my friend, the current Parks
Department director, and the incumbent. A nominating meeting was set and that’s
when all the fun began. Normal procedure dictates that you take a committee
vote to determine who the candidate will be, and vote we did. My friend won the
first and second round, but failed to get the required 50% + 1 more vote (for a
simple majority). Party by-laws state clearly that we are to vote, and re-vote,
until one of the candidates does reach the 50% (+1) level. Concurrently, we
were voting for three of our candidates to fill Town Council seats up for grabs
this year. There were also originally four candidates involved in the Town
Council race, and the initial two votes in that category did not produce a
clear winner, either. After only two rounds of voting for each category, all
discussion and the meeting were brought to an abrupt halt. We were informed
that it was past some people’s bed time and it would be best to set a later
date and continue the voting at that time. Just before we adjourned for the
evening, one of the candidates for Town Council withdrew his name from list;
leaving three candidates for the spot.
"The three contenders seeking the Democratic
nomination for Huntington highway superintendent will compete in a primary in
September, after the party could not decide on a nominee at its convention
Thursday night. Two separate votes failed to produce a majority for any of the
candidates -- longtime incumbent William Naughton and challengers Kevin Orelli,
a business owner, and town parks Chief Don McKay."
"In the first round of balloting, Orelli
received 13,813 votes in a weighted system, McKay had 10,858 and Naughton
4,585.5. The second time around, Orelli received 13,330 to McKay's 9,434.
Naughton got 5,020. At that point, the party declared a deadlock -- something
Democratic chairwoman Mary Collins said she could not recall happening in her
30... read
more »" [ http://huntingtondems.com/content/democrats-set-primary-top-highway-job
]
The alarm bells started going off, triggering my more than
healthy cynicism of all things politic. When you fail to pick a candidate in
committee, you are required to have a “runoff” election to include all duly
petitioned persons vying for the position in question. But first, you are
supposed to give voting in committee a chance to work, and the fact that we
were cut short after only two rounds can only be characterized as a breach of democratic
process. For an entire week the Party Leaders were silent; then they dropped
the bomb. The Town Committee members were notified
by e-mail that the County Chairman was brought into the fray
to manipulate the situation under the guise of “cost control” (run-offs cost
money). The savings was to be achieved by telling two candidates for the Town
Council spot that they were no longer welcome, thus relieving the necessity of
a costly run-off in that category. They were forced to resign their candidacy
leaving a convenient single person on the ballot.
There was, indeed, a run-off for the three contestants vying
for Highway Superintendent which itself produced many shades of gray when you
looked behind the scenes. The full weight of the Town’s and County’s resources
were thrown behind the incumbent, Naughton, to ensure his reelection, and my
friend was torn to shreds in the voting due to the third candidate, Mckay, who
was tossed in the ring to foil any competition for his cohort, the incumbent.
NOW, PAY ATTENTION!
 |
| Councilman Eugene Cook |
 |
| Supervisor Frank P. Petrone |
..............wants his job....................
 |
| Councilman Mark Cuthbertson |
.............wants his job............
 |
| Councilwoman Susan A. Berland |
.........She's safe, for now!
 |
| Tracey Edwards |
........wants his job.........
 |
| Naughton Highway Superintendent |
 |
| Bob Gunther |
.............wants his job.........
THE ‘PUBLICAN’T(S) ARE KNOCKING ONTHEDOOR:
|
It is upon these occurrences that I have been keeping an eye
on this local Town election. What I see is the incumbents, Democrats, forcing
the process in their favor by trying to scare the crap out of the Town
residents (a tactic normally attributed to Republicans) by running ads and
holding forums where they no longer talk about their accomplishments in office,
but rather spend their time, and our tax dollars, smearing the competition. The
demographics of this Town are such that political tactics of fear have an
effect on our large, older population. We are also blessed with a sizeable
population who would be considered “rich” by any standard. They tend not to vote
in local elections, as if it were beneath them. That leaves the young voters
and the dwindling blue collar class, who tend to be mostly Democrats. This is
going to be a big problem if these folks go to the polls and vote the Party
line without first exploring the political landscape of their Town.
"Local Huntington Dems are About to Hit
an All Time Low"
"At 1:00 today, there will be a press
conference asking Candidate Eugene Cook to step
down from his candidacy as Huntington Town Supervisor. Based on polls, it is likely that
down from his candidacy as Huntington Town Supervisor. Based on polls, it is likely that
Councilman Cook will take over as Supervisor
after the November elections. This has
caused panic among those that are
profiting greatly by the Petrone and Cuthbertson."
&
"Former Legislator Jane Devine at a press conference today calling for Gene Cook to withdraw."
Since I don’t have the stamina, or the voice, to stand on the
old soap box and give oratory to my thoughts and feelings on this election
process and the individuals involved, I have decided the most
effective way of countering the overt and covert skullduggery of the Town
Democrats and the Town Republicans is to write and post about it, and to come
up with a few lawn signs depicting my utter disgust in what I have witnessed. There
seems to be a gross lack of democratic process in the Town of Huntington, so I
will continue my quest for another Party affiliation that more closely shares
my views on the democratic process.
Socio-Political commentary on current events and past events that may have influenced the present..
Monday, September 30, 2013
I Have Rights, Too!
In the United States of America, you have a few “rights” not
afforded other folks around the Globe. Most of these “rights” are predicated on
your age, and most of these “rights” are illegal for you to engage in if you
are not yet eighteen years old. If you have come of age, in most instances you have the right
to:
· Drink an alcoholic beverage
· Sign legally binding documents
· Get married
· Become an astronautServe in the military
· Get a legal abortion
· Become a Federal Legislator
· Become President
· And, of course -
- Yup, been there,
too.
This is just a short rendition of a very long list of
“rights” we enjoy as citizens of this Nation. I’m certain that you can easily
add to this list. My point is, just because you have the “right” to do
something, do you actually do it? I can only speak for myself, so I will
attempt to come up with a fairly accurate accounting for some of the “rights” I
do, and don’t, exercise.
·
I
must say that I do vote, and have done so ever since I turned eighteen. I guess
it was instilled in me by my parents, and fortified by my three years of
military service. But, I do find that, military service or not, a vast majority
of people in this Country never have, or will, see the inside of a polling
place. I guess they can’t be bothered, and don’t feel their vote means
anything. In my eyes, this is the largest travesty plaguing our democracy.
· As
far as drinking alcoholic beverages, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I
was about thirteen when I first imbibed. But, I know people who have never
touched the stuff.
·
The
very first legally binding contract I signed was with the U.S. Army. Since then
there have been many. It’s been my experience that there are a lot of folks who
have never, nor will they ever, sign a legal document during their lifetime.
·
I’ve
covered the military thing, now I can toss being an astronaut (fear of
heights), becoming President (fear of Republicans), being a Federal Legislator
(fear of Republicans).
- As
far as the question of getting an abortion, first of all I do not possess any of
the needed body parts. But, if I did, I’m can pretty much say for certain that,
with my brand of sexually active lifestyle, I would have opted to exercise that
“right” once, perhaps more.. With my attitude, in general, I would have opened
a can of “whoop-ass” on anybody who tried to stop me. There isn’t a government
or church on the face of this Earth that has the “right” to force a woman to
take a pregnancy to full term. It is her decision, and hers alone. And, if you
don’t have that necessary parts to be a “her”, then you are a “him” and have no
leg to stand on. So, shut up
and sit down!
·
Now
let’s tackle the “right to bear arms”, as per the 2nd Amendment to
our Constitution. Having had the opportunity to play with guns when I was
nineteen, I made the very conscious choice to not bear arms in my tenure as a
civilian (43 years). So, just how Many Americans exercise this “right” to bear
arms? The answer I found was actually more than I would have guessed, but, even
though more people own guns that vote, gun ownership in this Country is
definitely a scourge against our National character.
“Most estimates range
between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about
43-55 million households). The
estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for
their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning
260 million guns).
Some recent estimates:
Some recent estimates:
- A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US
households own a gun.
- A 2007 Small Arms Survey estimates there are 88.7 guns per
100 Americans (#1 in the world for guns
per capita)
- A 2010 estimate from the NRA states "Privately owned
firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns.
The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually." [1]
Although our Federal Government downplays the amounts, the
sales of your typical assault rifle reached an all-time high of 100,000
units in 2010 [4]. Why all the
fascination with assault rifles? I can only conclude that everyone who
purchases such a weapon yearns to be in uniform. Take a quick look at a couple
of reviews of the most popular models:
“The M16-A2 is the standard issue rifle. It's carried
by pretty much every soldier in a combat zone. Most people simply call it the
M-16. The M-16 has been around in one version or another since the Vietnam War
(the first version, the M16A1 entered Army service in 1964). Its longevity is
creditable to its usefulness as a general assault weapon. It's quite simply one
of the finest military rifles ever made (although advocates of the M-4 Carbine
may argue with me). The rifle is lightweight, simple to operate, and puts out a
lot of lead.” [2]
”The AK-47 design history started as the Germans had designed and manufactured the StG44 assault rifle. The German research showed that most fire fights took place within 300 meters, as the power and range of other weaponry was excessive for small arm fire fights, armies had the need for a rifle with submachine gun abilities, like for example large capacity cartridge, and selective firing. Although the StG44 (Sturmgewehr 44) was not the first assault rifle to have these features. The Italian Cei-Rigotti and Russian Fedorov Avtomat where the predecessors.” [3]
I have fired
both these weapons in a relatively humid, hot environment, and I can say with
certainty the AK-47 was the all-around winner. It seemed to tolerate dirt, mud,
and water more successfully than the M16-A2. The M16’s predecessor, the AR15
was a total disaster with constant malfunctions and misfires. The AK-47 is also
more easily field stripped and cleaned. At the time, a thirty round clip was
not made available for the M16-A2. The extra ten rounds made a world of
difference when you needed maximum fire power.
Having said
that, I cannot for the life of me understand, or rationalize, the civilian
ownership of a weapon even remotely similar to these two. I would prefer that
we lived in a Nation and at a time where the ownership of firearms wasn’t at all
necessary. I’m enough of a realist to understand that will never happen as long
male machismo rules the World. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll live long enough to see
what a difference women rulers and leaders would make.
Here are
a few more statistics for all the “stat-geeks” among you:
“In 2009, in a declaration made as part of the court
case Heller v. District of Columbia, which challenged D.C.’s assault weapons ban, NRA
research coordinator Mark Overstreet reported that, from 1986 to 2007, at least 1,626,525 AR-15-style
semi-automatic rifles were produced and not exported from the United States.
Overstreet suggested that you could use trends in NICS
background checks to
project future sales of AR-15-style rifles. As of Nov. 30, 2012, the total number of NICS background checks increased by
50.4 percent since the end of 2007. If the number of AR-15 rifles increased
similarly, then that means there are at least 2,446,294 AR-15 rifles currently
available in the United States.” [5]
“*Correction, December 20, 2012: This post originally and incorrectly referred
to the AR-15 semi-automatic as an "assault rifle." Though the AR-15
could be correctly referred to as an "assault weapon" or an "assault-style
rifle," an "assault rifle" specifically refers to a rifle with
fully automatic firing capability. The language in the post has been corrected
to reflect this distinction.” [5]
“There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles
in the United States. During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain
features such as collapsible stocks, flash
suppressors, and bayonet lugs were
prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on
the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an
accessory feature under the ban and was also subject to restrictions. Some
rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in
its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features, as well as
the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped "Restricted
Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only". The restrictions only
applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own,
sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs
were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.
Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[35] these
features became legal in most states.[36] Since the expiration of the ban, the
manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.
At least five states (NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT) regulate possession of
AR-15 rifles either by the restriction of certain features or outright bans of
certain manufacturers' models. For example: the "A3" tactical carbine pictured
above is legal for sale and possession in the United States generally, but is
illegal for sale in California and the Colt AR-15 is banned by name in New
Jersey.” [2]
Socio-Political commentary on current events and past events that may have influenced the present..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)