Category Archives: Politics

Too Many Police in Rochester

Posted on by
1

This evening I was biking on my "tall bike" through The Lilac Festival today when I came to the South/Highland intersection. Police had stopped traffic to permit the pedestrians to cross. Once the people had completely cleared the intersection, I slowly rolled through next to the barrier blocking Highland before the cops released vehicular traffic. One of the cops said, "do you know I can give you a ticket for that?" I just smiled and he repeated his question so I just said, "yeah" and rode away.  [Admittedly, I made a terrible mistake: I should have stopped and answered him with, "am I being charged with a crime or am I free to go?"]

What the hell was that all about? He said nothing to the pedestrians who cut through the road, jaywalking outside the crosswalk. But once again I get to have a negative experience with the police. By riding a bike, I not only have to be responsible for a motorist hitting me [let's be real here: if I were killed by a car, you'd hear a lot of, "well, he was taking chances riding that tall bike"] I also have to deal with being hassled by the cops (just like last time).

If Officer Killjoy wasn't just a power-hungry egomaniac awarded a badge by Mayor "More Cops For More Problems", he would have actually stopped me and given me a ticket — after all, that's his job. Along with all the jaywalkers. But he was out to ensure I "knew my place" — that he was the Authority Figure. I tell you what, pig: how about you ticket the myriad of SUV's that get a tax discount for being a commercial vehicle, but that exceed the 3-ton gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on most residential streets, and I'll start caring that you have anything to do with enforcing the law.

Why not? Here's a thought: BP Oil.

Someone riding a bike says, "we don't need oil." It's a statement that although the oil companies could go bankrupt and the economy could go to hell, people will be okay. Illegally using a commercial SUV as a commuter car is a statement of faith in infinite oil and in a vibrant and ever-growing economy. Guess which activity attracts more police attention? See, it's only through ensuring people are terrified of something (in this case, gas shortages) that they stay in line and obey cops. After all, it depends on what you think is important: a viable future for America, or an easily controlled populace.

Attending the Circulator Study Meeting by C&S

Posted on by
Reply

I found some time and stopped by The Kate Gleason Auditorium at The Rochester Public Library (115 South Ave.) for the presentation of a Center City Circulator Feasibility Study for Rochester by C&S Companies. They are surveying employees and full-time residents of the area inside the Inner Loop to determine if a circulator (a short, fixed transit route for moving people around a small area) is feasible. They presented the current survey results and asked for suggestions which they wrote on two large easels.

Their results indicated that they were surveying people on how they presently commuted to downtown. The vast majority (some 80%) drove alone in a car and used a parking lot. They unfortunately included Kodak so the results skew strongly toward Kodak's behaviors.

More importantly, though, they seemed genuinely mired in the car-plenty, cheap-fuel, 1960's thinking that inspired the city's infrastructure. For instance, I was met with surprise when I suggested they examine the possibility of removing automobiles from the area in the Inner Loop, serving it only through a circulator and foot-traffic, perhaps starting with a trial area. My thinking is that fuel costs and the costs associated with a car-culture are going to increase, and it would be wise to examine options that look past the status quo. It becomes a question of whether we want to be more like Denver or more like Palmyra.

Most of the suggestions from others revolved around providing free parking (so I suspect C&S's presentation to the City will strongly endorse free parking). I thought it unprofessional to watch one of the camera crews recommend that the media should be able to park with impunity without being ticketed. I'm not surprised on either front. In the first case, if you ask people what they want, they will start from what they know; it will take leadership to create a better situation that is not simply more of the past. In the second case, I have been nothing but appalled at the lack of quality in television news, and this is just more of the same.

Questioned by the Police

Posted on by
1

So I was leaving The Flower City Habitat for Humanity ReStore (755 Culver Rd.) after doing my Saturday afternoon grazing when a police officer (I think his name was W-something) came up to ask some questions. I had not witnessed a crime nor was I involved in one. But I was acting suspicious. See, I was riding a bicycle with a trailer to do my Saturday shopping. Officer W. said there have been problems with people on bicycles with toolboxes on the back and totes stealing copper pipe from houses.

Although I was highly irritated by being singled out, I only revealed that fact by asking if he had also stopped cars and asked if the occupants were involved with such crimes because cars can carry a lot more material. He was respectful and ginger about the whole 4th Amendment and all, and only asked questions. Obviously, though, if I had not answered openly, I am certain I would have been further suspected, detained, and harassed.

I mean, who gets stopped like this? Have you, dear reader, ever been stopped and questioned for no good reason? In my case, it was an unpleasant experience all around. I can see no "silver lining" in it at all: I was singled out for being different. And to add insult to injury, "different" in a way that promoted reuse of materials (the trailer is homemade and the bike was rebuilt from junk), healthy living, and a low impact on the world's resources.

Of course, I forgot to ask the perfect question: "how many people have been convicted of stealing copper pipe on bicycles?" I did comment that I thought this kind of theft in general is a relatively rare occurrence and he replied that "it happens more than you think" — a statement that seemed lacking in factual backing.

I guess I could find a lawyer to search cases and see just how prevalent the problem is, but as a start, I searched "copper pipe" theft on Google and came up with some 15,000 hits. A couple other attempts, like a search for "stole copper pipe" bicycle came up dry, finding only theft of copper pipe and bicycles, not with them. Likewise, searching "stole copper pipe" on Google's news search reveals only 55 hits — for the 29 year period from 1980 to 2009. By my guess, this is less of a problem than Officer W. thinks.

So I think back on the times when I've had non-trivial interactions with the police (i.e. more than just saying hello), none are clearly positive. Twice I've been through vehicle sticker checkpoints (and waved through), once through a breathalyzer checkpoint (blew far less than DUAI), and once when someone backed into my car (the cop failed to take an accurate report, omitting eye-witness evidence). And a few years ago I was terribly depressed and out for a walk and I was stopped by a cop because — and I swear this was not me — I matched the description of someone spotted trying to jump off a bridge in the area … that one I chalk up as just really really weird.

My conclusion is to have far fewer police. Sadly, we live in Mayor Former Police Chief's land and his solution to any problem is "more cops". I also realize that I'm either doing something very right or very wrong by daring to take visible action to help treat the planet better. It's just another notch in my being ejected from society — from a lay-off to being rejected for a mortgage refinance (before the *ahem* real crooks [hint: driving Lexus cars, not bikes with trailers] ruined everything), some other similar bumps along the way, and now this.

I might as well get used to it because there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

The Next Revolution

Posted on by
Reply

I think I'm starting to see the boundaries of the next social revolution. Let me lay out a little context of recent references that I believe are related.

First, I talked last year about the "monkeysphere" idea.  The basic idea is that our primate brains can only accept about 150 people who we consider part of our clan, tribe, or village, and beyond that, all the other people are equivalent to "things" in the world.

Next is related to things I've seen in discussions about Burning Man and the idea of "community".  To me, the notion of "community" is like a lot of words: they are there to provide a spectrum upon which to measure.  So when one says, "the community", that is a reference to a specific group of people with traits that tie them together.  The thing that is important is that being "in the community" means you have the traits of the community — it does not mean that you must adapt your behavior because of your physical location.  In other words, actions cause description; description does not cause action.

Related to that, I recently found a new term: POSIWID.  According to Wikipedia at least, Stafford Beer coined the term as an acronym for "[the] purpose of [a] system is what it does".  The underlying principle is that the intended function of a system is irrelevant: its purpose (or function) is solely defined by what it does.  If, for instance, you set out to create a community of people who share art and resources, you might end up with a big party in the desert: the purpose of that system is a big party in the desert, no matter what your intentions were.

I have observed (especially in the last 10 years) that people I encounter are much more polarized by political party or political views than ever before.  It is probably most attributable to whom I hang out with, but I also believe there is a trend.  What I mean, specifically, is that I was finding prejudice in myself concerning politics: that I would judge someone favorably or unfavorably solely based on their political party affiliation.  I thought this was interesting to observe, and generally not good.

I also see the strong opinions of people concerning socialized health care. Although there many facets to it, the one I find most interesting is the debate on whether an arbitrary stranger should be cared for.  I'm neglecting any specifics because you can create straw men to support either side (i.e. abusers of a taxpayer-funded system versus a hard worker who circumstantially loses access to care).  The question is: will you help someone you don't know anything about?

So finally, what's this next revolution?: it's how we treat strangers.

I see people lining up along a spectrum.  On one side are people who are only willing to help those people they know personally (i.e. who are within their "monkeysphere") at the expense of the well-being of people they don't.  On the other are people who willing to support everyone equally, even if that means they may not have resources to help people they know personally.

I think it is more noble to lean toward helping everyone, and a testament to the superiority of humankind.  However, I also know that such civility is frail: a small percentage of people working to their own advantage can poison the whole system.  All societies have blind-spots and points of leverage for the advantage-seeker, but civility is maintained by the unspoken agreement among people that they not take advantage at those points.  And in America, there are socially-acceptable points to find advantage: that permission is specifically what allows capitalism to work.

Anyway, I find myself playing both sides of the fence for the time-being.  I have a network of friends who I help freely (with my time, skills, money, and resources) and who will do likewise for me.  I also strive for a better solution that is more inclusive because I feel better when my behavior also helps other people.

Getting to See Deleted Scenes, Autumn In Halifax, Oliver/Reeg, and Colonel Parmisan

Posted on by
2

I headed out to [LOCATION REDACTED] to see a show with some bands. Up first was Colonel ParmisanMySpace link who did some slick looping noise and feedback. Oliver/Reeg was next in a more electronic form (which I guess is called "AC-DC") and they played a sort-of experimental-alternative rock instrumental kind of thing. Next was Autumn In HalifaxMySpace link who are still a strong favorite of mine … the poetic lyrics over equally-interesting electrically-modified acoustic is just the ticket. Finally was out-of-towners Deleted ScenesMySpace link who also put on a good show with their experimental-alternative rock.

Unfortunately, I can't really talk about where I was because it's a secret. See there's that fairly new law that the City has been using to shut down non-commercial music events — as opposed to out-of-control house parties as it was "intended". As such, the shows are quietly announced through word-of-mouth, and only friends get told where to go.

Dude, Where's My America?

Posted on by
1

So now it's July 1, 2009 — just short of 233 years since the United States of America declared its independence from England. And, you know, I don't believe in it anymore.

I was raised with the notion that America was a place where the smart and the hard-working were rewarded. Taught that we control our government, not the other way around. [In Soviet Russia, government controls you!] That anyone can step forward and change the country for the better.

But what I've found is that none of that is true.

There was a confluence of several things that got me here.

The "Cash for Clunkers" law is the poster child for everything that's wrong with the legislature today. The goal set before them was to set America on a path to reduce pollution and consume less oil. What they did was to create a law that caused more consumption: building a new car consumes more energy and creates more pollution than keeping an old one on the road. And all because the actual problem won't fit in a sound-byte. Plus, the law reinforces the new American model of mass consumerism.

Then there was a discussion I had about class reunions. It's rare that you get a truly random sample of America, but people who came from the place you did is a pretty good random sample. I mean, just because our parents chose to live in the same place doesn't mean we're anything alike. Anyway, when I think about my reunion, I realize that — unlike my self-selected group of friends — that in fact, only about 5% of people even remotely believe in the same ideals as I do. Most are thrilled that America is at war all the time and that we do things bigger than other countries.

Finally, there's the curious case that American's, by-and-large, don't hold mass protests, and certainly don't get violent (police excluded). When you watch other countries people deal with things they disagree with in the government, it's friggin' serious. But here, it's just a bunch of jobless hippies who protest. The reason is that we have a superior government where you can simply write to your representatives and they get the same message. If you don't like what they do, just vote them out. The truth of the matter is that our representatives do whatever they please, and it's good marketing (with lots of money) that gets them reelected.

So the illusion is over. America is what it is. Have a good birthday, old man.

Vote Obama to … Stop Abortions???

Posted on by
1

In a more bloggerly mode, I thought I'd just post a quick link to Why I'm voting for Barak [sic] Obama … and I hope you will too. Reason 5: The Sacredness of Life by Brian D. McLaren. He's [apparently] a Christian who opposes abortion, but argues that we should work toward effective means of reducing the number of abortions by eliminating some of the key reasons people get them. Further, he goes on to say that overturning Roe v. Wade will not be effective for it will revert to state-control of abortion laws, of which he estimates that 16 states will ban abortion, netting a maximum possible reduction of the number of abortions in those states — about 10% of the national total. And that doesn't count the possibility of crossing state lines to get a legal abortion.

My Ballot in the 28th Congressional District, 56th State Senate District, and 131st State Assembly District

Posted on by
1

So I went ahead and downloaded a copy of the ballot for my district today. I try to do this every year so I can tell who I'm voting for and figure out for whom I would like to elect. Obviously we've got a presidential race, along with quite a few local big-money races, as evidenced by the irritating volume of advertising going on. But what about the rest of them? And did you know there's a proposal for an amendment to the State Constitution?

I'm pretty sure everyone has made a decision about the Presidential race. Barack Obama and Joe Biden seem to represent rational argument and a hopeful future — with the caveat that Obama is as new to Washington as John F. Kennedy was. John McCain and Sarah Palin stand by their maverick, wildcard approach to change — with the caveat that McCain may change his platform once elected just as he did when he became the Republican Party candidate, and he selected a vice presidential running-mate who (as best as I can tell) is approximately as qualified as I (or anyone) is to be lead the United States.

Anyway, here's a breakdown of the other candidates that I'll be voting for:

  • State Supreme Court Justice, 7th Judicial district (vote for two)
    • Joanne M. Winslow (Democrat, Independence)
    • Paul M. Riordan (Democrat, Independence)
    • Robert Lunn (Republican, Conservative)
    • Elma Ann Bellini (Republican, Conservative)
  • Representative in Congress, 28th District
    • Louise M. Slaughter (Democrat, Independence, Working Families)
    • David W. Crimmen (Republican, Conservative)
  • State Senator, 56th district
    • Richard A. Dollinger (Democrat, Working Families)
    • Joseph E. Robach (Republican, Independence, Conservative)
  • Member of Assembly, 131st District
    • Susan V. John (Democrat, Working Families)
    • Jeffery R. Morrow (Republican)
    • Rafael Colon (Independence)
  • County Court Judge
    • Frank P. Geraci, Jr. (Democrat, Independence, Conservative, Working Families)
  • Family Court Judge
    • Joan S. Kohout (Democrat, Independence, Conservative, Working Families)
    • Gail A. Donofrio (Republican, Independence, Conservative, Working Families)
  • County Clerk
    • Thomas M. Hasman (Democrat, Working Families)
    • Cheryl Dinolfo (Republican, Independence, Conservative)

and "Proposal Number One, An Amendment"

Amendment to Article 5, section 6 of the Constitution, in relation to additional civil service credit for members of the armed forces of the United States

The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement that veterans who were disabled in the actual performance of duty in any war be receiving disability payments from the United States Veterans Administration in order to qualify for additional points on a civil service examination for appointment or promotion. Under the proposed amendment, the disability must only be certified to exist by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The proposed amendment would also update the reference to the "United States Veterans Administration" to instead refer to the "United States Department of Veterans Affairs" to reflect current federal government structure. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

The race I knew the least about was the 7th Judicial District for the State Supreme Court — an important race indeed and I'm glad to not be blind-sided by it. I was comforted by a September 30, 2008 Democrat and Chronicle article which outlined the positions of the four candidates: they all appear to be suitably qualified and respectful of the power and responsibility they would hold. The Democrat and Chronicle endorses Robert Lunn and Elma Ann Bellini, and Joanne M. Winslow was the subject of a favorable article at the Gay Alliance of the Genessee Valley website. My detailed (but imperfect) search on Google didn't yield any other primary sources, although a website called MPNow offered a bland but favorable article on Paul M. Riordan from the Brighton-Pittsford Post, and an article from the Daily Messenger summarizing the candidates.

In the 131st District Assembly race, three candidates are competing. The 500 results of a Google search for the candidates was so dominated by incumbent Susan John that I opted to search for the challengers, but even that search did a poor job of narrowing the results as "Rafael Colon" appeared often in results unrelated to the 131st District. Anyway, Project Vote Smart offered a fact-sheet style "biography" of Susan V. John, but no useful information on Raphael Colon nor Jeffery R. Morrow. So … I just shrug at this one — Susan John has not been on my radar as doing a bad job or anything.

And then there's the New York peculiarity of voting for County Clerks — in my mind, a position that should simply be appointed as part of the cabinet of the County Executive. Thomas M. Hasman is running against incumbent Cheryl Dinolfo. You'd think this would be the perfect kind of job anyone could be appointed to as a favor [and I'll be damned that I can't remember the term for that kind of "payback" job …] because it just involves moving information around, keeping things organized, and making sure the government is accessible to the people.

But still there are huge problems with the Monroe County Clerk's office. In an October 27, 2008 article on RochesterTurning, author "stlo7" points out that it's not just the thousands of social security numbers posted on the Monroe County website [that's right: publicly available and ripe for picking for identity theft], but now it's erroneously reporting people as criminals. Dinolfo is proving herself totally incompetent, while Hasman has a fully stocked resume for the position: "background in computer security and records management with the National Security Council,"[Rochester Turning, October 28, 2008], and "experience in information-technology security, records management, and administration — including several years in the White House during the Clinton administration"[City Newspaper, October, 2008]. Anecdotally, I recently needed to have a mortgage company clear up a title search problem on my house, and when the person I spoke with looked to the Monroe County website to find some forms, she commented that it was one of the worst organized county government websites she'd ever seen. Monroe County is dysfunctional enough, but we can at least fix the Clerk's office — and hopefully foster some positive changes.

Don't forget to vote, damn it!

Burlesque for Bail and Other Debauchery

Posted on by
1

Ali and I walked over to The Mez (389 Gregory St., formerly House of Hamez and Daily Perks) to check out Burlesque for Bail, the benefit show to raise money for bail for Unconventional Action protesters of the upcoming political conventions. The show was pretty fun although it was basically some musical acts and Burlesque-styled striptease.

At one point, one of the guys involved in the show asked for people's opinions of things around town and around the nation. Although the new police cameras brought loud jeering, I heard a lot of quiet support for them. In a later discussion with Ali and her friend, I tried arguing it logically, but I was frustrated: without any factual information, I was unable to do anything but an emotional appeal.

Although I said I choose freedom over safety, I think it's more that I choose freedom over inaccurate accounts of safety. I guess the working theory is that the cameras prevent criminal activity. The first flaw in that statement is that no police action prevents crime: police can only catch criminals after a crime has been committed.

But if I give credence at all to the crime-prevention theory, it's that criminals do not want to get caught so they will not commit crime where they will get caught. As such, the cameras cause crime to move away from the cameras. In other words, if it were possible to locate crimes before and after the cameras, my theory is that the crime rate would stay relatively steady but that fewer crimes would be committed in range of the cameras.

So in the end, I argue that it doesn't reduce crime at all.

On the other side of the coin, the cameras can be used to break up protests. For instance, if an anti-war protest were held (or even a Critical Mass Bike Ride or any group of different-enough looking people for that matter), the cameras can be used to record the identities of the attendees and round them up later. Although protesting is not a crime, protesters I've met in this jingoistic, militarized country tend to be quite paranoid. As such, they behave like the criminals and would want to move protests away from the cameras. Unfortunately, protests are necessarily in those areas, as the cameras were placed where people tend to congregate — a protest is worthless if nobody is there to see it.

Thus, in my mind, the cameras prevent no crime and disrupt freedom and are therefore a bad thing.

Everyone who supports the camera believes that they do prevent crime and that they are overall a benefit — and why should they not?, for I can offer no hard evidence. So I think that what I should do is to test their theory. I'll go hang out in front of the cameras with, say, a laptop computer. If the cameras do prevent crime, then I'll go home after a couple hours. If they don't, then there's a chance I'd be robbed.

I suspect that wouldn't be sufficient — for if I were robbed, I might witness a demand for more cameras — after all, if one camera failed to prevent a crime, then perhaps two will work better, and I really don't want to see that. So I'll just fight the robber and hopefully get killed in the process. Then, either I'll be a martyr to the cause of freedom, or things will get worse but I won't have to deal with it.

I'll probably do it after Burning Man though because I kind of want to go to that first.

Anyhow, back to Saturday night …

Ali and I headed to The Tap and Mallet (381 Gregory St.) for a beer. She got her head set that we'd get Mark's plates at the end of the evening, and that would require some serious drinking. We had some wine at Solera Wine BarMySpace link (647 South Ave.) then headed across to Lux LoungeMySpace link (666 South Ave.) where we ran into some friends. We spent the bulk of the evening and four of us went to Mark's Texas Hots (487 Monroe Ave.) I discovered what may be the most awesome plate ever: rather than burgers or hots, I got two over-easy eggs. Damn that was a great plate. I think that it might be improved with the addition of brown gravy (or "gravies" as the kids say) … and just possibly — and I say this only as an experiment to try, not to blaspheme — without the meat sauce, onions, and mustard.

Perhaps next time, then …

Steve Kurtz was acquitted

Posted on by
Reply

I got an e-mail from Christine Kristen (a.k.a. LadyBee) that contained a press release announcing the conclusion to the case against Steven Kurtz that I blogged about in January and actually got news that Kurtz was cleared a while back through a post at Glob-a-log titled "The Steve Kurtz case finally dismissed (Another political trial, another pathetic witch hunt: Just business as usual in Bushland)". (If you're curious, it's at the end of this post after the fold).

I gather that the press release was to promote the art show Seized at The Hallwalls Contemporary Arts Center (341 Delaware Ave., Buffalo) which documents the materials involved in the case (it's on display from June 7, 2008 through July 18, 2008). But way way down at the bottom of the press release was the key part: the [clearly ironically named] Department of Justice had no business even bothering to bring up charges of mail and wire fraud because (as I said before) it's a civil dispute so it requires one person to accuse another of fraud — not a criminal one where the state can bring charges against someone. They clearly overstepped their bounds as part of the Judicial Branch of the U.S. government, as they were acting on behalf of the Executive Branch to execute the laws, then they even did that wrong by misapplying the law.

The thing that bothers me so much is that when I consider why the Department of Justice did this, I can't come up with a reason, other than those with evil purposes.

What crime — of the United States or against anyone or against humanity — did Kurtz commit by his artistic protests? I say there was no crime committed, and I'm left to believe that the Department of Justice was trying to put an innocent man in jail. Why would they do that? Perhaps to justify the "War on Terror" by staging arrests of fake terrorists? I don't know, but it all smells evil. [And let me also reiterate what's not been said enough: "terror" is a concept, not a group of people so it's at best a Quixotic move to try and wage war against it.]

Perhaps they're working to block dissent to the war and to questionable corporate efforts — both topics that Kurtz and his group rallied against. But in a free country … nay, the free country? When dissenters are rounded up and put in prison in a dictatorship, I can at least understand it, but when it happens in a country that prides itself on inalienable freedoms? So maybe the Department of Justice's goals were to steer the United States toward a more totalitarian government. Again, evil.

When I try to apply Occam's Razor, most relevant evidence points to a big conspiracy: that government is trying to bias the delivery of news for purposes of manipulating the will of the people through false information.

It's a thought that I can't bear to stare straight into. I welcome comments that disprove my theory.

Continue reading →