NY Resolution: A Solution with Every Criticism

Skim through the Northern New York blogs, and you’re likely to conclude most NNY residents are bitter complainers -- resentlful of powers beyond their control and eager for someone to sue.
It seems the younger folks have video games to let off steam; and the older folks have blogs.

The blog complainers find catharsis in finger-pointing. And yet their blame often proves to be misguided. Misguided in that they rarely see how some blame might fall in their own lap:

• People complain the mom and pop stores in their small town are dying out, yet they shop regularly at Wal-Mart;

• People complain that young people are looking out of state for jobs, yet they’ll fight tooth and nail to stop any big business development in their community;

• And people complain there’s no sense of community in their community…while they spend all day blogging on their computer.


Also, they rarely see how they can play a role in making a change for the better:

• People hate all Democrats, yet they’ve never actively campaigned for a Republican candidate;

• People hate how they feel disenfranchised from their NNY community, yet they refuse to sell the Arizona condo they live in for 10 months every year;

• And they will viciously condemn their local government officials in letters in the local newspaper, yet not once in their life will they ever attempt to talk directly with a local government official, nor will they attempt to run for a local government position.


When I was enrolled in one of our fine NNY high schools, my 8th grade English teacher gave me sage advice that I carry with me to this day. Giving me a D on my argument essay, Mr. S said, “There are two kinds of people in this world: the kind that walk into a room and say, ‘Here I am!’ and the kind that walk into a room and say, ‘There you are!’

“The person that says, “Here I am!” is more interested in ranting that resolution; he is more interested in finger-pointing and shaming others. If he sees he’s at odds with majority opinion in the community, his only response is bitterness. Rather than trying to understand the majority opinion, he’ll instead choose to spread his bitterness, hoping to make others as bitter as he is. He’d rather be a ringleader of resentment than an agent of constructive change, betterment in his community.

“The person that says, ‘There you are!’ recognizes he is just one member of a community. Understanding the rationale behind majority opinion is important. If he sees a problem in his community, his response is active listening and active communication, with consideration for the diverse members of his community. To be a ‘There you are!’ person will increase your chances of influencing others, making positive change desirable to others, and ultimately bettering your community. In the very least, you’ll avoid a life of disconnection and bitterness.”

Mr. S pointed at the D on my argument paper, and said, “You wrote this paper as if you were the only person in the room. You need to write this believing you're speaking to an audience. And you’re not on a podium talking AT your audience; you’re sitting in a circle sharing WITH your audience.”

Fortunately, Mr. S allowed me to revise my paper. I took his advice and I got an A- (my grammar wasn’t quite up to par).

For a New Year’s resolution in Northern New York, let’s try to be people who walk into a room (or comment on a blog) and say, “There you are!” Let’s not idly complain. Whenever pointing out a problem in our community, try to offer a reasonable solution – a solution that most community members might want to help you accomplish.

Long Range Missives

In yesterday’s Watertown Daily Times, in the Letters from the People section, Peter Graves of Arlington, Virginia condemns Vice President-elect Joe Biden for a gaffe he made while on the campaign trail.

Peter, we understand you’re sour about the election results, but look on the bright side, you’re from Virginia, and according to the new electoral map, just go west, young man, and you’ll be in Kentucky, surrounded by angry McCain/Palin mobs to commiserate with.

Why is someone from Virginia using our local newspaper to dredge up an old Biden gaffe, apparently wanting to rub our noses in it? (It was an innocuous gaffe by the way -- it’s not like Biden boasted, “Bring’em on” like Bush did when told Iraq insurgents were aggressively targeting our troops.)

Peter from Virginia has been regularly writing “Damn you, Democrats” letters to the Watertown Daily Times. He particularly enjoys mocking monthly Times contributor Stewart MacMillan from Guffin Bay, calling McMillan unpatriotic and a socialist. (Actually, MacMillan takes pride in the latter accusation.)

As residents of the North Country, we may not all agree with MacMillan’s left-leaning opinions, but he's no less our neighbor, a member of our community. I suppose we should be proud that our local newspaper has a readership that stretches all the way to Virginia. But it seems disrespectful for out-of-state residents to use our local newspapers to mock and chastise members of our community.

And it’s not just happening in the Watertown Daily Times. In the Jefferson County Journal, Bill Stanley from Black Mountain, North Carolina regularly writes “Damn you, Liberals” letters. Bill writes weekly to mock any Obama-supporters in the Journal readership.

We’re year-round residents of the North Country; we’re a proud tribe. You loft insults at one of our members from states away, and you’re insulting all of us. Wouldn’t it be common courtesy to at least become a year-round resident in our community first, before you regularly ridicule our community members?

I know we live in a global society, and channels of communication can never be localized, nor should they be. But if you’re from out-of-state and allowed the privilege of voicing your opinions in our local newspapers, and all you have is mockery and condescension for our community members, then perhaps it’d be best if you kept your ugly ridicule at a more local level. Why not start with your mirror?

Leadership to Inspire Northern New York?

Jefferson Community College held a Leadership Day on October 28th. On this day, students got an opportunity to talk to national, local and student leaders about developing their leadership skills. The keynote speaker was Jack Lengyel, former head coach of the Marshall University football team. The movie "We Are Marshall" is based on his story: how he helped a grieving community come together after a 1970 plane crash that killed 75 people, including most of the Marshall University's football team.

I commend JCC for having a Leadership Day. And having Mr. Lengyel speak is quite a coup. However, was Mr. Lengyel their best choice for inspiring leadership in Northern New York? I have an immense amount of respect for Mr. Lengyel, and hope he visits Northern New York again and often. But Northern New York has unique needs: unique economic needs and unique development needs. And for those particular needs, JCC's Leadership Day keynote speaker should have been someone keenly adept at addressing those needs.

Mr. Lengyels's leadership speech has universal ties to every community, this I understand, yet Northern New York is suffering "brain drain," with college graduates looking elsewhere for work, and very few young people interested in civic leadership. Couldn't JCC have chosen a keynote speaker that inspired JCC students to become entrepreneurs in Northern New York? Couldn't the speaker have been an elected official or community leader from Northern New York whose leadership rejuvenated a community? Couldn't they have found a leader that brought the community together to resolve its economic and development needs? Did the speaker have to be someone portrayed by Matthew McConaughey in a recent Hollywood film?

Imagine a speaker from Northern New York who not only provided JCC students with the inspiration and tools to make a positive difference in their hometown, but also was someone "from the area" they could regularly communicate with as they put their leadership plans to action.

I wonder if the student attendees of JCC's Leadership Day felt Mr. Lengyel's keynote speech equipped them with the necessary tools and direction to become positive leaders in their community. Or were they simply awed to be in the presence of someone with two degrees separation from Hollywood's Matthew McConaughey?

Trickle Down Anti-Socialism

With the current state of our economy, it’s become indisputable that Reagonomics is a failure. There are now substantially fewer subscribers to the belief that unfettered free market and cutting taxes on the super-rich will keep our economy buoyant and wealth will trickle down.

To me, Reagonomics never made sense. We depend on the super-rich to spend their millions on goods and services, and the money is supposed to “trickle down” to middle-class Americans? What if the super-rich decide to hoard their money in Swiss bank accounts? What if the super-rich invest in overseas properties, and spend 90% their time and money overseas? How would these money choices by the super-rich cause wealth to trickle down to middle-class Americans?

Plus, I find it unethical to put so much dependence on any section of the American population to be as materialistic as possible. It’s unethical to put into people’s minds that buying lots of stuff is patriotic or that buying stuff, while increasing wastefulness, is required for America to prosper.

But all you have to do is look at the ever increasing squeeze of middle-class to see the failure of trickle down economics. The only thing that has trickled down is the anti-socialism of the super-rich.

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh – both millionaires, both born into wealthy families, both never had to work manual labor job – complain about socialism because, if there’s even the slightest curbing of the unfettered capitalism they’ve always been accustom to, they may not be able to buy that fourth mansion in the Caribbean.

The problem is, younger low-income conservatives, weaned on the sensationalistic invective of Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. persist in believing they are on the cusp of being millionaires too, but it’s the "socialistic policies of the Democrats" that prevent them from achieving this American Dream.

And retired conservatives weaned on the Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. believe the reason they never became millionaires was because of the "socialistic policies of the Democrats."

It makes sense for the super-rich to hate socialism. It makes sense the super-rich spend their days working to indoctrinate the electorate to vote for anti-socialist policy-makers. But for a lower income person to hate socialism, shows an entrenched misunderstanding of socialism.

Though Obama is no socialist, the McCain campaign is hoping all the anti-socialism that has trickled down to frustrated conservatives, like Joe the Plumber, will inspire them to vote againt any Democrat.

So Joe the Plumber wants to know why he should get taxed more for making over $250,000. In thoughtfully answering Joe, Obama brought up a good point – it’s ridiculous for business owners to whine about more taxes when their customers are less taxed, and therefore more willing to spend money at Joe's business.

Think about it: Usually the super-rich are not the ones shopping at your small town mom and pop store. If the middle-class have more disposable income, and the tax dollars from the rich are going toward better roads and public transportation (instead of that fourth mansion in the Carribbean), then maybe small businesses will thrive from repeat business.

The Enduring Epidemic of Turn-the-Other-Cheek Democrats

Though I believe Obama won last Friday’s debate handily, I kept waiting for Obama to make a knockout punch.

And there were so many opportunities for Obama make a knockout. Several times he could have turned to McCain, and said, “John, most of your responses are ad hominem, character attacks that don’t address the issue we’re discussing,” or “John, you claim that your campaign puts ‘country first’ and denounces partisanship, yet many of your responses tonight are clearly intended to foment partisanship, thereby proving that when you say ‘country first’ it is not true.”

Ultimately, Obama proved too respectful and polite. But this is what we’ve come to expect from Democrats. Throughout the Bush presidency, the Democrats have demonstrated a frustrating respect and politeness toward Bush Republicans.

Where are the firebrands? Where are the fighters? Where is the raw anger? Where is the unifying Democratic voice shouting, “No more!”

Democrats need to fight back not just by pushing back when pushed, but by also loudly criticizing any Republican who wastes time demonizing Democrats in general, wastes time arguing that all Democrats are“liberal,” or puts party first before country.

An Open Letter to fellow Northern NY blogger, Danger Democrat

Sorry to beat a dead horse, DD, but again I say that the squashing of the McCain/Bush era depends squarely on spurned Hillary fans like you reaching out to other spurned Hillary fans and unifying behind Obama.

I’m not buying the threat that spurned Hillary fans will actually go through with voting McCain, but I am concerned that many will conveniently forget to vote on Nov. 4th.

I’m certain that the Republicans will have an 11th hour surprise specially tailored for spurned Hillary fans – it’ll be some expensive, powerful, seismic message intended to convince spurned Hillary fans that voting Obama would be tantamount to betraying all the women in American history who’ve sacrificed and died so that a woman will one day have a chance at the highest office in the land.

In choosing Sarah Palin as VP, the McCain campaign announced their home stretch strategy to world: win over the religious right, and drive a wedge between spurned Hillary fans and Obama. Before the Democrat National Convention, I’m assuming McCain’s advisors already had a shortlist of VP possibilities, all of which had the intolerance and moralistic myopia that’d make the religious right swoon. And I’m betting that when it was announced at the DNC that a third of spurned Hillary fans polled were still undecided about Obama, McCain’s advisors choose the only woman on their list.

To avoid a McCain victory via a mysteriously low voter turnout for Obama, you need to start unifying the spurned Hillary fans solidly behind Obama, and you need to start NOW. We know that an Obama victory in NY is secure, but let me flatter you and present the possibility that your blog is visited by swing state residents, maybe a Scranton, PA family summering in Sackets Harbor. Maybe you could popularize a mantra to be chanted all the way up to Nov. 4th – “Elect Obama and Hillary Wins, Elect Obama and Hillary Wins.” Other mantras to popularize: “Obama has Always been Fair and Respectful to Hillary,” “The Obama Campaign was NOT Sexist to Hillary during the Primary Season, It Was the Media,” “Hillary and Obama have Practically the SAME Political Beliefs, whereas Hillary and McCain/Palin have the Polar Opposite Beliefs” and maybe most importantly, “Hillary was NOT Wronged when Obama chose Biden as VP.”

I leave this vital responsibility in your hands, and in the hands of other spurned Hillary fans. Any efforts on my part would ring hollow since I never bought into the “inevitability” of President Hillary, and I’m still a bit peeved over her divisive primary antics.

Spurned Hillary fans should also keep this in mind: Imagine a world in which Obama loses and McCain wins -- Hillary will be persona non grata in 49% of America. The McCain campaign is orchestrating the current anti-Obama attacks, but many Americans believe Hillary wrote the original playbook, and McCain wins followers every time he cribs from her playbook.

Though 18 million Americans voted for Hillary in the primaries, more than three times that many are crying out for an end to the Bush/McCain era.

We all know the Clinton name is synonymous with Satan among most conservative Republicans, but imagine an America where “Clinton” is synonymous with Satan across the entire political spectrum.

If McCain wins, in the years following the 2008 election, Hillary will be known by half the country as the Killer of Hope.

Sincerely,

Stump Speech

For Careful Consideration: McCain as CINC?

Considering the question "Who will be the better Commander in Chief, McCain or Obama?" it seems many voters make the quick conclusion that McCain is the obvious choice.

After all, McCain served in the military and Obama didn't. While Obama was in still in short pants, traveling the world and earning a Harvard degree in constitutional law, McCain was a naval pilot in Vietnam; he survived being shot down and then spent six years as a prisoner of war.

However, voters should carefully ponder McCain's unique war experience and imagine how such an experience might affect McCain's decisions as Commander in Chief.

Before serving as President, Eisenhower served as a Four Star General in on-the-ground combat in WWII. With this experience behind him, Eisenhower's presidency was devoted to peace and cautioning, halting any increase America's militarism.

McCain, on the other hand, actually saw little on-the-ground combat. As a naval pilot, you could say McCain engaged the enemy "at a distance" -- in other words, he dropped napalm on Vietnamese villages. And ultimately, his primary war experience was being tortured by the enemy.

America has never had a President with POW experiences like McCain's. Might have McCain's particular war experiences instilled him with negative prejudices toward enemy combatants?

Though Obama has zero military experience, some could say he has a more Eisenhower-like background than McCain. Both Obama and Eisenhower had humble beginnings, while McCain was born into privilege and went to prep school. Both Obama and Eisenhower traveled extensively, both were well known for having a deep respect for other cultures and for civil rights. President Eisenhower was an enthusiastic supporter of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. On the other hand, McCain jokes about bombing Iran and has a virtually non-existent civil rights record.

Also unfortunate: many will be voting for McCain purely because they pity him. For many, it doesn't matter that McCain may push the U.S. further into end times, what matters is that he was a prisoner of war for six years, and for enduring all that he endured, he deserves to be President.

I'm encouraging voters to not consider McCain the de facto obvious choice for Commander in Chief. Might it be possible that Obama is the appropriate Commander in Chief at this particular time in our history?