Sunday, May 25, 2014

Was UCSB shooter Elliot Rodger gay, or are post-death attacks just homophobic attempts at shaming ?

Commenters on various blogs and discussion boards about the spree shooting near University of California at Santa Barbara campus allude to the alleged shooter, Elliot Rodger, being a closeted gay.

Across the reports by many Web sites about the spree killing by alleged suspect Elliot Rodger, many commenters are trying to understand how an otherwise handsome young 22 year old man could still be a virgin, unless the real reason that women "rejected" Mr. Rodger was because of the fact that he was gay, according to these comments.

On one Web site, post-attack criticism of Mr. Rodger not only attempted to shame him about his sexuality, but questions were also raised about his economic status. One commenter wrote, "Most women probably assumed he's gay," on a post that noted that Mr. Rodger's guilt was assured because of "affluenza," a term coined to define the reckless behavior of children of the affluent class. Mr. Rodger was the child of Hollywood assistant movie director Elliot Rodger, who worked on the popular movie, "The Hunger Games."

Some of the "gay" comments appear to be bullying in nature, like one comment, originally posted on PUAhate but reprinted on the Business Insider Web site, which may allude to the kind of online scrutiny Mr. Rodger must have faced while alive. According to the comment, every level of Mr. Rodger's face was deconstructed for sex appeal, and one commenter found that the center part of Mr. Rodger's face was deemed "gay," despite this conclusion being solely based on biased and subjective stereotypes.

One one posting of the shooting on Hollywood Life, which had some early inaccuracies due to the fast-breaking news aspect of the spree shooting story, one commenter wrote that Mr. Rodger "was openly gay," adding that, "I don’t think people would have had any idea of his sexual frustration with women when he claimed to be gay."

Many aspects of Mr. Rodger's life are undergoing intense scrutiny, especially after he wrote what many people are describing as a troubling manifesto, adding to people's impression that the young Mr. Rodger was .

On The Conservative Treehouse blog, one commenter wrote that Mr. Rodger was "gay and really didn’t want to have sex with a girl," a conclusion reached after the commenter had visited Mr. Rodger's Facebook page and viewed Mr. Rodger's spooky, fuck off YouTube video.

Even worse, on a lunatic, conspiracy Web site, Mr. Rodger was deemed a "closeted," self-loathing misogynist, which elicited the fair retort that the homophobic answer to everything is always that a criminal is "gay."

On Facebook comments last night, as word of Mr. Rodger's video and manifesto spread, LGBT activists were troubled by Mr. Rodger's tone, arguments, and motivations. One gay member of Facebook went so far as to compare Mr. Rodger with Luka Magnotta, a Canadian star of gay porn movies, who has been accused of murdering and dismembering a Chinese international student, Lin Jun.

It's too soon to know if Mr. Rodger was actually gay, or whether all of these online comments represent the kind of intense peer pressure and bullying Mr. Rodger must have faced or perceived during his brief, sexually-frustrated adult life.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Bill de Blasio - Hospital Closing Crisis Flyer

The wave of hospital closings continue into the de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration from the Bloomberg-Quinn administration, because lying, cheating politicians, first promise to meet community demands to save our hospitals, but then turn out to fail to live up to their campaign promises.

2014-05-22 Bill de Blasio Hospital Closings Flyer by Connaissable

Former Members of do-nothing Moreland Commission will receive taxpayer-paid criminal legal defense representation

Even investigators of rampant corruption need legal counsel to fend off investigations of corruption, how's that for government integrity ?

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has arranged for Michael Koenig, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, a law firm specializing in government investigations, to represent the former members of the do-nothing, now-defunct Moreland Commission. Taxpayers will pay for Mr. Koenig's representation of the Moreland Commission ex-members.

Once empaneled, the members of the Moreland Commission were nominally tasked with investigating runaway political and campaign finance corruption across New York State, but the Moreland Commission never, ever -- not once -- prosecuted any crime. In the run-up to his re-election campaign this year, Gov. Cuomo disbanded the Moreland Commission, before it exposed any corruption that would embarrass him during a gubernatorial election year that may determine whether he will ever be popular enough to run in 2016 for president of the United States, a victorious dream that eluded his father, former Gov. Mario Cuomo, in part, some say, because of potential controversies in Andrew's young adulthood.

It was reported earlier that U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara had empaneled a grand jury, which was issuing subpoenas right and left, from Manhattan all the way up to Albany, for records of what exactly the do-nothing members of the Moreland Commission actually did. A member of the Editorial Board of The New York Times, Eleanor Randolph, had previously complained that the Moreland Commission's first interim report was watered down to the point of being practically meaningless. That the members of the Moreland Commission believe that they need criminal defense representation has led some legal observers in the New York City activism circles to conclude that perhaps federal prosecutors were obligated to go on the record about possible forthcoming criminal indictments.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

A decade later, the New York City Council is still going through the motions on activists' Constitutional rights

Councilmember Ydanis Rodriquez promised to question the District Attorneys of New York about the prosecutorial crackdown against activists. Why doesn't he ask them about complying with the twin City Council resolutions from 2004 ?

Before a joint hearing of the the New York City Council Public Safety and Finance committees met to discuss a proposed expansion of the NYPD force by 1,000 new officers, Councilmember Ydanis Rodriguez tweeted that he would promise to call on the district attorneys of New York City to account for the prosecution of protesters. Councilmember Rodriguez, who was arrested when police raided the Occupy Wall Street encampment in 2011, is upset with law enforcement's focus on arresting protesters, like himself and Cecily McMillan, even though such arrests -- and their subsequent prosecution -- violate the peaceful political activities of protesters, acts which are protected by guarantees under the Bill of Rights.

Ydanis Rodriguez photo Ydanis-Rodriguez_zps8ba979d6.jpg

When The New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin wrote about Councilmember Rodriguez's complaints, Mr. Goodwin blamed law enforcement reform advocates for demonising the New York Police Department, but Mr. Goodwin failed to see how, left unchecked, the NYPD's pattern of misconduct and brutality leads to the police department's ruination of its own reputation. Reasonable people can see how the NYPD has had a long history of controversies and scandals, when it comes to failing to respect citizens' First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. Police have gone so far as to make arrests of activists without probable cause, violating activists' Fourth Amendment rights. Police have also violated due process by denying activists' rights to parade permits and other approvals to facilitate peaceful political demonstrations. Based on the extreme abuses by the NYPD, the New York City Council passed a decade ago two resolutions, affirming activists' constitutional rights to peacefully demonstrate without fear of reprisal, arrest, or vindictive prosecution for expressing their political beliefs. These resolutions were enacted following controversies in police tactics following the large anti-war rally of February 15, 2003, but apparently nothing's changed since this, since the police continue to unlawfully target activists for arrest, and prosecutors unlawfully target activists for prosecution.

Councilmember Rodriguez has a checkered record for law enforcement reform. He talks the talk, but when reform activists objected to Mayor Bill de Blasio's appointment of William "broken windows theory" Bratton as police commissioner, Councilmember Rodriguez defended Commissioner Bratton. It's unclear from press reports if Councilmember Rodriquez questioned the city's district attorneys at yesterday's joint hearing about the pattern of oppressive prosecution of activists. Nevertheless, it bears repeating that the district attorneys are answerable to the pressures of their political supporters. But at the very least, the district attorneys should take guidance from the twin City Council resolutions enacted ten years ago.

Locally, it is supposed to be the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, who is supposed to oversee the prosecution of crimes. Instead of focusing on major political and corporate corruption cases, which he rarely appears to prosecute, D.A. Vance rather chooses to obsess with the peaceful political activities of activists. D.A. Vance works for the New York State attorney general, Eric Schneiderman. Both D.A. Vance and Mr. Schneiderman have pretty much abdicated corruption prosecution to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. More so than the others, D.A. Vance is vulnerable to the political realities of how he can run for office. District attorneys in the five boroughs of New York run for office with the approval of the local county political organization. Since New York is overwhelmingly a Democratic Party enclave, the county Democratic Party chair of each borough must approve of each respective district attorney candidate running for office, meaning D.A. Vance would not dare sacrifice his political career by prosecuting political corruption of officials, operatives, or lobbyists loyal to the county political organization, chaired in his case by Assemblymember Keith Wright, which approves of his candidacy. That is to say, D.A. Vance will not prosecute candidates for public office, their political operatives, or big money donors, who may be engaged in corruption, otherwise D.A. Vance risks alienating himself from his own political supporters. Instead, D.A. Vance touts his prosecution record against activists, paralleling the DOJ's own suppression campaign against activists.

It remains to be seen if the scripted gestures of City Council hearings under Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito will have the same toothless effect on law enforcement reform as the twin City Council resolutions passed a decade ago under former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The twin resolutions appeared to have no impact on the offices of the city's district attorneys. So long as the government fails to guarantee that police won't use acts of misconduct or brutality against citizens peacefully organizing around their political beliefs, it's difficult to tell how long opponents of reform, like Mr. Goodwin, as well as the city's district attorneys and their political supporters, will be able to benefit from their own constitutional rights. The consequences of demagoguery by opponents of law enforcement reform are obvious : opponents spread fear by predicting spikes in crime to keep the larger citizenry scared of advocates pushing for a reshaping of police tactics. But once one reasons that some citizens have no protections for free speech, assembly, and probable cause, among other rights and civil liberties, one moves the entire citizenry down the slippery slope toward anarchy.

EXCERPT


from :
Vol. III, Chapter 7 of
Roots of Betrayal : The Ethics of Christine Quinn
by Louis Flores

After the February 15 anti-war rally, progressives, including supporters of the NYCLU’s efforts to keep the police in check, pushed the City Council to pass two resolutions. These resolutions came about because of the lingering sting of the anti-war rally’s failure to receive a march permit. That other demonstrations were subsequently denied permits, or were subjected to police actions to subvert demonstrations, added fuel to the fire. The first resolution, which was adopted on February 4, 2004, called upon federal, state, and local officials, including city agencies such as the NYPD, to affirm and uphold the civil rights and civil liberties of citizens wishing to hold political demonstrations in New York City. Christine was one of its sponsors. The second resolution, passed on June 28, 2004, called on all government officials to uphold the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association, and assembly. Again, Christine was one of its sponsors.

These nonbinding resolutions were all that the City Council could muster. There was no more that New York City residents, be they activists or not, could expect in terms of oversight and accountability with regards to the NYPD’s record of violating the First and Fourth Amendments. While it is true that a resolution does lend the authority and influence of the City Council’s support to the cause of protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the City Council was capable of doing more, like withholding funding for controversial police tactics, subpoenaing records of police misconduct and brutality, or referring incidents for further investigation and possible prosecution. But the City Council did neither. In the hearings leading up to the adoption of the first resolution, it was clear that the NYPD was engaging in serious violations. A special report from the City Council Committee on Governmental Operations showed that, “In the aftermath of the numerous confrontations between demonstrators and police at the February 15th rally the Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) investigated 54 complaints containing 114 allegations of misconduct by police officers.” Among the NYPD violations the report found was that the police department’s Technical Assistance Response Unit provided to CCRB heavily edited videos in a deliberate effort to disguise the police officers who committed violations. “Thus, many complaints were dropped where the officers went unidentified.” This is how the NYPD operated when it knew its actions were not going to be supervised or subjected to any accountability. How were the City Council resolutions going to address the underlying and ongoing violations of the NYPD ?

Monday, May 19, 2014

Following campaign finance exploitation scandals, Mayor de Blasio neglects campaign promise for reform (Updated)

SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE: MON, 19 MAY 2014, 05:30 AM

In spite of New York City campaign finance scandals, The New York Times is adamant to expand the corrupt NYC campaign finance model to the rest of NY State

RELATED


Little Time Left for Campaign Reforms (The Editorial Board * The New York Times)

Preet Bharara Expands Crackdown on Political Corruption, Empanels Grand Jury, Subpoenas JCOPE Complaints [UPDATED] (NYC : News & Analysis)

Over the week-end, the Editorial Board of The New York Times recommended that Gov. Andrew Cuomo press the state legislature to adopt for New York state the public matching dollar system of the New York City campaign finance model. The only trouble is that that the New York City model is broken, can be gamed, and has become the subject of three federal complaints during last year's election. Furthermore, The New York Times completely ignored outstanding campaign promises made by Bill de Blasio during last year's mayoral campaign to further reform the city's campaign finance system. "The important thing is to respect the fact that we may not like the way the law is, but it's the law," Mr. de Blasio said last year after he was confronted with questions over a controversial Super PAC's attack TV ads against former Council Speaker Christine Quinn. "I certainly will put energy going forward into trying to further reform the campaign finance system," but Mr. de Blasio has so far failed to keep true to his campaign promise to reform campaign finance laws. How can the Editorial Board sanely demand that New York state adopt a broken system -- to replace another broken system ?


SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE: FRI, 25 APR 2014, 09:50 AM
Scott Levenson NY-CLASS Christine Quinn Bill de Blasio FBI Investigation into Campaign Corruption photo 2014-04-25TheNewYorkDailyNewsFBIReport_zps189d95ac.png

In the past few weeks, FBI agents have been asking questions about the campaign by the animal rights group NY-CLASS to strong arm former Council Speaker Christine Quinn (center) to support a ban on the iconic horse-drawn carriages, two sources familiar with the matter told The New York Daily News. The horse lobbyists in question include Scott Levenson, and they are linked to Mayor Bill de Blasio (inset). (FBI investigating claim that Christine Quinn was threatened by Scott Levenson for refusing to support carriage horse ban during the mayoral race * The New York Daily News)


PUBLISHED : WED, 02 APR 2014, 06:59 PM
UPDATED : SUN, 27 APR 2014, 08:24 PM

The corrupt and exploitable NYC campaign finance model is spreading to the rest of NY State

Lax regulators, loopholes, and public matching dollars that can be gamed will create an avalanche of money for corrupt campaign consultants and lobbyists

Following serious questions about the corruptive influence of Super PAC's in last year's mayoral race -- the first time when the Citizens United Supreme Court decision unleashed unlimited outside spending in New York City's municipal elections -- Mayor Bill de Blasio made a campaign promise to reform the corrupt New York City campaign finance system. Confronted last year about the NYC Is Not For Sale campaign, then candidate de Blasio initially defended NYC Is Not For Sale's attack ads, saying, "People decided to speak out, and that's their legal right. But the fact is in our system, everything can and will be disclosed, and that's what the people require," although, contrary to then candidate de Blasio, the Super PAC got into trouble for failing to fully disclose its activities, as "the people require." At the time, Mr. de Blasio added that he'd be open to later reforming campaign finance laws (presumably after NYC Is Not For Sale sank former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign). "The important thing is to respect the fact that we may not like the way the law is, but it's the law. I certainly will put energy going forward into trying to further reform the campaign finance system, but so long as the law is the law, people will make choices within it. That is their right, but I will certainly never ask anyone to engage in such behavior." But so far, the mayor has betrayed his campaign promise to reform the loose campaign finance laws that allow Super PAC's to game elections. So far, the mayor has reformed nothing, even as the Supreme Court in today's McCutcheon ruling, continues the further weakening of campaign finance regulations. And as corrupt as many reform activists alleged that former Council Speaker Quinn was, the use of a Super PAC structure by lobbyists-insiders to appropriate the grassroots activism against former Council Speaker Quinn thwarted activists' efforts to set a public agenda for real reform.

  • RELATED : Despite promises to clean up Albany, good government groups say the budget deal that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders hammered out behind closed doors will do little to stop the rampant corruption that has plagued the state in recent years. (Crooked NY Lawmakers Have Little To Fear From New Laws * WNYC)
  • RELATED : Reform advocates and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo tout New York City's public campaign finance system as a model for the state to follow. But some political figures question the Campaign Finance Board leadership. (Campaign Finance Board leadership questioned * Newsday)

The New York State campaign finance model is already corrupt, and special interests, corrupt candidates, and their lobbyists are looking forward to the spread of the New York City campaign finance model to the rest of New York state, for they know that the system can easily be exploited.

In the last New York City municipal election cycle, campaign consultants and lobbyists to leading candidates exploited every opportunity to raise money, in violation of the spirit of campaign finance laws that originally aim to each of restrict the corruptive influence of big money donors and to create a level playing field for all candidates. According to New York City Campaign Finance Board records, independent expenditure groups spent over $15 million in last year's election cycle through largely unregulated special interest spending. But the system can be gamed. One Super PAC, NYC Is Not For Sale, violated city campaign finance disclosure rules, and, when they were caught, they were fined just pennies on the dollar for the infraction amounts. The system makes it very affordable to break the rules. Further, one brief mayoral candidate in last year's election, State Senator Malcolm Smith, almost fixed the GOP mayoral primary as a result of weak oversight and meaningless campaign and election regulations. Another municipal candidate for public office, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito, opened multiple campaign finance accounts during the same election cycle, evidence that politicians are addicted to raising money -- and want to keep our broken system of campaign finance, so that it can be exploited when needed.

The only answer to clean elections is to ban all private campaign contributions, to fully fund elections with public money, and to institute stricter regulations on campaign consultants and lobbyists. If Mayor de Blasio were a true progressive, he would ban all private campaign contributions in New York City elections as a model for what a new era of real government reform looks like, setting a pattern that could be spread to the rest of the nation. Learn more about why advocates for "clean money" elections want to ban private donations.

Learn more about campaign finance reform activist Howie Hawkins' gubernatorial campaign.


QUESTIONING THE NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD

With John Liu's lawsuit against New York City over conflicted city campaign finance regulators, this makes three federal referrals of elections violations, forcing Mayor de Blasio to lawyer-up, recruit special inside election counsel.

After a wave of federal complaints that have been lodged over electioneering violations in last year's municipal elections, Mayor Bill de Blasio has hired a special legal advisor specializing in election law.

Since Mayor de Blasio and City Council Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, and/or their political operatives, are entangled in some of these federal complaints, it should come as no surprise that Mayor de Blasio is now maneuvering to use his public office to defend himself against allegations of wrong-doing that took place during the electioneering of last year's municipal elections.

The three federal complaints lodged following last year's municipal elections :

  1. GOP consultant E. O'Brien Murray argued to the State Department that Patrick Gaspard, a former top White House aide with a deep history in Gotham politics, violated the federal Hatch Act by getting involved in Mayor de Blasio's campaign -- and City Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito's subsequent election as speaker -- while representing the U.S. in South Africa. (GOP Operative Files Hatch Act Complaint Against U.S. Ambassador Patrick Gaspard * The New York Daily News)
  2. Louis Flores, a local political gadfly who ran a blog and wrote a book criticizing Christine Quinn, has filed a complaint with U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s criminal division against Scott Levenson and The Advance Group consulting firm, which came under deep scrutiny during the mayoral campaign. (Federal Complaint Filed Against The Advance Group for Election Work * Politicker)
  3. Former New York City Comptroller and failed mayoral candidate John Liu has filed a federal lawsuit against the city and its Campaign Finance Board. He says the board unfairly crippled his campaign by denying him matching funds in last year's race for mayor. (Ex-NYC mayor hopeful sues Campaign Finance Board * AP/The San Francisco Chronicle)


Lax city campaign finance regulators allowed loopholes and exploitation to corrupt the race for the New York City Council Speaker

A series of editorials by the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News slammed City Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito during the Council speaker race, first for circumventing city campaign finance laws, and then for exploiting loopholes in the state's campaign finance laws.

"Mark-Viverito has opened a campaign account under state regulations. She is apparently accepting contributions and apparently paying different consultants to advance her cause. Who’s giving her money and who’s getting her money will not be disclosed until after the speaker’s contest is settled," the Editorial Board wrote in the second editorial, noting, "At the same time, hopefuls Dan Garodnick of Manhattan and Mark Weprin of Queens are dipping into campaign accounts to give tens of thousands of dollars to fellow councilmembers and party organizations," before concluding, "None of this is acceptable."

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Will GOP Congressmen call for hearings to investigate Attorney General Eric Holder ?

False information from the Department of Justice tricked the U.S. Supreme Court into dismissing a case that challenged the N.S.A.'s unconstitutional surveillance program.

Eric Holder photo ERIC-HOLDER_zps2c9d6f4f.jpg

If the House of Representatives, under Republican Party control, didn't have such a bad reputation, they should hold hearings into how corrupt the Justice Department has become under Attorney General Eric Holder. Mr. Holder's already been found in contempt on another matter, for failing to turn over documents sought by a committee investigation. If the House had its stuff together, the lies to the Supreme Court would be a natural way to force Mr. Holder to resign from the Department of Justice and to hold the Department of Justice to account. But the House Republicans are part of the problem, too.

Before federal fraud indictment, Melvin Lowe was director at Bertha Lewis's new non-profit

Bertha Lewis, close advisor to Mayor de Blasio, still playing with political fire

The indicted political consultant, Melvin Lowe, served as a board of director of The Black Institute, the current non-profit out of which former ACORN head Bertha Lewis now operates, The New York Post reported today. Mr. Lowe was charged in a federal criminal complaint with federal fraud and tax violations. Mr. Lowe was identified as a board member of The Black Institute in 2012, but he is no longer on the board, according to the group’s Web site, The New York Post reported.

The report by The New York Post raised questions about other board members, as well as the finances, of Ms. Lewis's new non-profit. These questions come as federal prosecutors in New York, led by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, are waging a historic campaign against political corruption.

The charges against Mr. Lowe stemmed from a plan to defraud $100,000 from the New York State Senate Democrats' campaign committee. The payment was made to a New Jersey political consulting firm, which the media identified as Cornerstone Management Partners. Cornerstone was run by Elnatan Rudolph, who has a relationship with the lobbyist Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen worked on Councilmember Mark-Viverito's controversial campaign for New York City Council Speaker. Before Mr. Cohen's lobbying firm took the lead on Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign, Councilmember Mark-Viverito was advised by the lobbyist, Scott Levenson, who has years-long ties to Ms. Lewis. Mr. Levenson was ACORN's chief spokesperson as the group was grappling with several controversies that eventually led to the closure of ACORN. To save on rent, Ms. Lewis's new non-profit also shares office space with Mr. Levenson's lobbying firm. The space is roomier now that NY-CLASS, a 501(c)(4) animal rights political group, moved out. For a time, all three entities shared the same office space. Ms. Lewis and Mayor de Blasio have close ties to the Working Families Party, which they both take credit for co-founding. And finally, Mr. Levenson's consulting firm managed several political campaigns last year at the same time he both advised Ny-CLASS and administered a Super PAC for NY-CLASS that are the subjects of several investigations for possibly coordinating their political activities to help elected Mayor de Blasio. In the face of investigations, Mr. Levenson's firm, The Advance Group, has been rapidly downsizing to get rid of witnesses, some government reform speculate.

Given that Mr. Lowe was a director at a non-profit sharing space with The Advance Group, it's not known what relationship might have developed between Mr. Lowe and Mr. Levenson.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

With no effort at reform after past missteps, Dirk McCall keeps exploiting the broken political system

After separating from Gay Men's Health Crisis, Dirk McCall now works for Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., in a post many see as a soft landing political operative post.

After separating from GMHC at the end of last year, Dirk McCall, former communications officer for GMHC, now works as the external affairs director for the office of Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr.

Mr. McCall was the former executive director of the now-defunct Bronx Community Pride Center. The Bronx center closed following Mr. McCall's stint as executive director after a prior executive director, Lisa Winters, was accused of stealing more than $143,000 from the non-profit. Prior to that, Mr. McCall worked as a campaign operative for several politicians, and he was a former president of the Stonewall Democratic Club, the city's largest LGBT political organization. Prior to that, Mr. McCall worked for the shady real estate lobbyist, James Capalino. Given Mr. McCall's career pattern with many of Manhattan's permanent government insiders, he has learned the ropes of what it means to protect the broken political system from community demands for reform. Because no matter how many "change" elections New Yorkers vote for, or how many "progressive" campaign promises that voters hear, the New York City government keeps on working only for permanent government insider-operatives, their lobbyists, and the clients of those lobbyists.

Mr. McCall's post with Borough President Diaz allows Mr. McCall to remain firmly ensconced within other permanent government insider-operatives in New York City, inspite of his uneven record.

When he worked at GMHC, Mr. McCall once attended a meeting with representatives of the Harlem Ballroom community. Ballroom activists were upset that GMHC was, among other complaints, appropriating Ballroom culture in New York City for its own financial gain, at the expense of Ballroom houses and their artistic members. Mr. McCall did nothing to resolve Ballroom community concerns, leading Ballroom activists to call for Mr. McCall's ouster from GMHC. To this day, the Ballroom community views GMHC with distrust over the way agency officials, including Mr. McCall, disrespected the Ballroom community. One sign of that distrust was expressed when the Ballroom community called for a boycott of GMHC's Latex Ball last year. Mr. McCall's separation from GMHC followed years of controversies at the agency, including how the agency wasted so much money on fundraising expenses in connections with its annual AIDS Walk event and how the agency lost so much money on a controversial move to new office space. Despite the controversies that many viewed to be mistakes by former GMHC CEO Marjorie Hill, Mr. McCall never demonstrated autonomous leadership by showing a different vision for the agency. Instead, as criticism piled up on Ms. Hill for the agency's financial losses, Mr. McCall reportedly arranged for Ms. Hill to receive an award from the Winter Pride gala organized by the Queens Pride Committee. At times, he appeared to be working as Ms. Hill's personal publicist rather than for fighting to serve the agency's best interest. At GMHC, Mr. McCall's philosophy was go along to get along.

In-between Mr. McCall's stints in political posts, some government reform activists question whether Mr. McCall uses his jobs with LGBT community groups as temporary jobs until he gets another political post. When government reform activists try to build support amongst community groups to press elected officials for reforms, the reason why some community groups refrain from building public pressure for reform may be that these community groups are populated by political operatives trying to maintain good networking relationships with elected officials. Political operative-insiders, who work in the non-profit world, are always on the look-out for opportunities to land another well-paying and prestigious political appointment.

And now, after years of cultivating an expansive network of relationships across political and LGBT community groups, Mr. McCall is using those connections to prop up the political career of Borough President Diaz. The political motivations behind this partnership are unclear.

That Mr. McCall keeps bouncing back, no matter how corrupt the finances of community groups like the Bronx Community Pride Center and GMHC are shown to be, is a testament to how the broken political system keeps rewarding political insiders, who know to leave well enough alone. Like a cat jumping off of a hot tin roof, Mr. McCall always lands on his feet.

Mr. McCall is safe at his new post all the way up in The Bronx as this year's AIDS Walk continues to show that GMHC is having trouble turning itself around. The agency's chief fundraiser resigned after the year-to-year cash inflows from AIDS Walk appear to be collapsing. Critics of Mr. McCall don't fault him for making mistakes like any human, but, rather, for the long string of mistakes that leave the LGBT community and voters having to pick up the pieces left by selfish political operative-insiders. So long as critical community groups that underpin the LGBT community in New York City keep hiring from the same corrupt pool of permanent political insider-operatives, it shouldn't be too long before GMHC ends up like the Bronx Pride Community Center : closed.

The only glimmer of hope that government reform activists have is that in the last year, activists were able to oust Ms. Hill from her post at GMHC and former Council Speaker Christine Quinn from public office. There is a hunger within the community for deeper reforms. For New York City government and its key non-profit groups to embrace reforms, activists wonder whether the only way to bring about change is to continue pressing to oust permanent government insider-operatives, like Mr. McCall.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Looking for a donor to make a challenge grant to ACT UP-Paris's crowdfunding campaign

The HIV/AIDS organization ACT UP-Paris has successfully completed an online crowdfunding campaign to raise it's goal of €15,000. Actually, they have exceeded their goal by about €3,000 as of late Friday evening.

Would any philanthropic donors be interested in issuing a challenge grant conditioned on ACT UP-Paris's supporters continuing to raise funds in excess of their goal ? An example of a challenge grant would be a donor challenging ACT UP-Paris's supporters to raise up to €5,000 in excess of the group's original goal, at which point a donor could match 1:1 or 2:1 of this excess amount ? If a donor would pledge to match excess contributions at a ratio of 2:1, this would mean that if ACT UP-Paris's supporters raised a total of €20,000, then a challenge grant donor would look at making a donation of €10,000 to ACT UP-Paris (or, effectively doubling the excess of €5,000) ? This is only a suggestion, and a challenge grant donor would be able to suggest alternative matching ratios and caps on their total contribution commitment.

Any American-based donors interested in issuing a challenge grant, or making a completely private contribution, can contact the group directly by phone at their Paris office : 011 (33) 1 49 29 44 75.

As of Friday evening, 20 days remain before ACT UP-Paris's crowdfunding campaign comes to a close. Contributions can still be made before then through the French crowdfunding platform of KISS KISS BANK BANK.

Please read this very moving essay written by Christophe Martet about the historical impact of ACT UP-Paris.

IBS Support Group in New York City

PUBLISHED : FRI, 16 MAY 2014, 07:30 PM
UPDATED : MON, 28 JUL 2014, 11:09 PM

If anybody is interested in meeting to talk about IBS treatment in New York City, please contact me. You can e-mail me at : lflores22 (at) gmail (dot) com -- thanks.

Over the course of many years, I've had no luck with a long string of gastroenterologists. Some gastroenterologists are useless. I've seen 5 or 6 gastroenterologists in the last many years. My last gastroenterologist was the most caring of them all. We have to change the mindset of doctors : we won't accept and don't deserve to be jilted by the medical community like this.

One idea that people should support is writing to your Congressional representative, asking them to co-sponsor the Functional Gastrointestinal and Motility Disorders Research Enhancement Act of 2013 (HR 842). HR 842 is supported by members of both political parties and is a revenue-neutral bill. Through this legislation, Congress can direct the National Institutes of Health to allocate existing discretionary resources specifically to IBS and other functional gastrointestinal and motility disorders, which collectively affect about 25% of Americans. Military service members and veterans are at disproportionately high risk for functional gastrointestinal disorders like IBS. Another idea would be to help garner support to enact a state-wide restroom access law in New York.

This video helps to advocate for support for restroom access for people with GI disorders and diseases. Please contact your New York State Assemblymembers to support the Crohn's and Colitis Fairness Act, also known as the restroom access bill.

Why a support going doing medical advocacy makes sense

From an online community group, I got the sense that it seems like some doctors hesitate to offer treatments that actually make improvements to the lives of people with IBS. There are many reasons for this. Some of the reasons are complex and require organized advocacy, other reasons are simple enough that could probably be solved by just a handful of people. Here are some observations/ideas that I've collected from doing research and conducting interviews with some doctors and with some other people living with IBS :

  • All general practitioners and some GI doctors don't have viable solutions for people with IBS. So much research is coming out on gut bacteria, and I have inquired with doctors about how can people with IBS receive treatments that are informed by this new information about gut bacteria. Specifically, I said that there are some procedures that are approved for people with FGID more severe than IBS, for which people with IBS may benefit from having received, but which are not yet approved. How can people with IBS get approved for these and other experimental procedures ? I was told that experimental procedures can be given to patients in a process to get them approved, but that process is through clinical trials. I asked one doctor how do we start clinical trials for people with IBS ? My doctor told me that we need funding for clinical trials. When I asked how much, my doctor would not say, except that the doctor alluded to major amounts of money. Therefore, any support group for people with IBS has to take the long-view that we need to advocate for funding for clinical trials as a way to speed up the deliver of new treatments for people with IBS, along with the process that could get these new and possibly other treatments approved for more people. The doctor heard what I was saying, but she said that clinical trials would take a long time, and that for right now, there are no immediate solutions, excepting for the use of a few known medications that have already made the rounds amongst the people living with IBS.
  • From one online community that I had briefly belonged to, it seemed like everybody went online to complain about symptoms for which there are no known treatments. As a support group, we can offer each other support, but we should not find it acceptable to hear that there's nothing that can be done, and we should strive to be more than just a place where people complain. One doctor told me that there are some treatments for other known diseases that are still not where we want to be. Therefore, people with IBS are not different than people with other incurable diseases. The challenge for a new support group based in New York City would be to offer the community the right amount of care and support, along with focusing our energy toward finding better treatment solutions.
  • One doctor recommended yoga and relation exercises, but when I asked how do yoga and relaxation help to rebalance our gut bacteria, one of my doctors could not answer my question. As we seek alternative therapies, I think there have to be doctors or advocates to make space for non-traditional therapies, but still hold a space for advancements in rebalancing our gut bacteria. If we can get this support group off the ground, we need to find a doctor or other medical professional, who can help give our support group a grounded medical source of information that has a sensibility for the larger vision about what successful treatment looks like.
  • Another idea that can be examined is if a database of "better" gastroenterologists would be in order.
  • If nothing else, we could create a face-to-face support group for each other, which in and of itself would be great. Some FGID groups, like the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America, seem to exclude people with IBS. So, a support group that just meets for people with IBS would be a breakthrough.

If anybody in the New York City area wants to gather and discuss how we can press the medical establishment to offer alternative IBS treatments and to support greater medical research, please let me know. You can e-mail me at : lflores22 (at) gmail (dot) com -- thanks.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Register for the Left Forum to attend the police reform "Veal Pen" Workshop

How Can NYC Police Reform Activists Break Free from the Veal Pen ?

Veal Pen Workshop - The Left Forum 2014 photo VealPenGraphicFacebookEvent_zpse9d5225c.jpg

Workshop : How Can NYC Police Reform Activists Break Free from the Veal Pen ?
Date : Saturday, May 31, 2014
Time : 03:20 p.m. - 04:50 p.m.
Place : Session 3, Room 1.92, 540 West 59 Street, New York, NY 10019

Registration is required to attend the Left Forum 2014 : Register here.

Jane Hamsher appropriated the term “veal pen” to describe how the Obama administration subjugates liberal groups and activists in order to demobilize political pressure for reform from the Democratic left. Join us for an intensive workshop designed to challenge groups and activists, who have voluntarily de-escalated political pressure for police reform following the election of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. To demobilize some police reform groups, lobbyists loyal to the mayor now control the media relations for these reform groups. What has been removed from the messaging from these groups has been the urgency for reform that was present before the mayor won last year’s election. In this workshop, designed for experienced activists, we will undertake a specific action and then strategize about how to create new opportunities for organizing in the area of police reform against a backdrop of this new political landscape. In a real "Veal Pen," the bodies of calves atrophy by design. Under the de Blasio administration, which is sensitive to political pressure from the Democratic left as is President Obama, activists’ ideas for police reform are meant to atrophy by design. Since this workshop is designed to overcome frustrations faced by activists, who refuse to be demobilized, the rigorous activities are intended to stretch participants’ ideas and to draw attention to the Veal Pen.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Forty years after Rep. Abzug filed Equality Act of 1974, LGBT elected officials lack such vision

40th Anniversary of the filing of the proposed Equality Act of 1974

From Queer Nation NY :

Forty years ago today, Bella Abzug quietly introduced legislation in the House that would have added sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With a single reference in the Congressional Record reading “H.R. 14752. A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary,” Abzug made the very bold statement that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are entitled to the same rights and protections that are extended to every other American. That statement is as bold and as true today as it was 40 years ago.

The next year, Abzug took to the House floor to introduce the legislation again.

“This bill would insure that gay individuals would be entitled to jobs, to housing, to education, to utilization of public accommodations, to participation in federally assisted programs, on the same basis as other Americans and would be provided with a legal remedy if such rights and opportunities were denied to them,” the New York Democrat said in 1975.

"What is at issue here is equal rights for all Americans,” she said. “Equal protection of the laws and respect for the rights of individuals are fundamental principles of our Constitution. I have long been a proponent of measures which would insure that these principles are guaranteed for all individuals -- women as well as men, married individuals as well as those who are unmarried, people of every nationality, ethnic groups, race, or religion. Likewise, sexual orientation should be no barrier to equal treatment under the law."

In 2014, our political leaders lack such a vision. They consider only what they believe can be won using focus group-tested rhetoric and slick ad campaigns. Their views are driven by polling and what the Democratic and Republican parties will tolerate. And so they will spend millions to enact legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that only bans employment discrimination and has religious exemptions that are so broad that our leading legal groups have refused to support it.

What remains true, whether any poll produces this result or not, is that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans are equal in every way and in all things to every other American. The sole exception to this principle, which is rooted in the founding documents of this nation and in the founding of our community, is that we are not equal before the law.

ENDA will not make us equal before the law. On the contrary, its religious exemption will enshrine discrimination in federal law and guarantee that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people will continue to experience discrimination in employment.

Only comprehensive federal civil rights legislation will make us equal under the law. It is time for us to seek that and to win that.

Anybody But Quinn Super PAC donor deflects questions about FBI investigation into campaign corruption

"I don’t have any comment on any of that."

Anybody-But-Quinn-Super-PAC-Cover-Up

Mayor Bill de Blasio's cousin, John Wilhelm, was the former leader of the union, UNITE HERE! The union made a large contribution of $175,000 to the animal rights group New Yorkers for Clean, Livable, and Safe Streets (NY-CLASS) on June 1, and, two days later, NY-CLASS regifted the same large contribution to a Super PAC that was funding a flood of TV attack ads against former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who was the leading Democratic mayoral primary candidate at the time. When Mr. Wilhelm was asked by The New York Daily News to identify who directed UNITE HERE! to make the donation to NY-CLASS, Mr. Wilhelm replied that he had "no comment."

The size and timing of the union's campaign contribution are enough to raise questions about coordination between the mayor's cousin and the anti-Quinn attack Super PAC, but the way that UNITE HERE! structured the donation to pass-through NY-CLASS first in order to get to the anti-Quinn attack Super PAC raises further legal problems, because the pass-through contribution was cloaked in "anonymity for months," The New York Daily News reported. NY-CLASS wasn't required to disclose UNITE HERE!'s contribution until NY-CLASS "began its own campaign spending, an event that occurred on Sept. 7, three days before the Sept. 10 mayoral primary." The $175,000 was practically hidden from voters and activists autonomously working to defeat former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, because NY-CLASS "disclosed the contributions on Sept. 17, 10 days after the primary," The New York Daily News's report added. NY-CLASS's questionable finances have been the subject of a series of reports by Crain’s New York Business reporter Chris Bragg.

The union UNITE HERE! last triggered controversy when its former political director, Maura Keaney, was raising campaign donations from unions on behalf of former Speaker Quinn, even as Ms. Keany was working on municipal legislation involving unions. Ms. Keaney's actions were a "potential violation of the city’s conflicts of interest law," The New York Times reported at the time. At the conclusion of the city's investigation, Ms. Keaney was slapped on the wrist with a $2,500 fine to dispose of the corruption investigation into her political machinations. To dissipate political blow-back to Speaker Quinn, Ms. Keaney served on former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2009 reelection race. After Mayor Bloomberg won that election by a slim margin, he paid Ms. Keaney a lottery-sized bonus of $150,000, which more than made up for her ethics fine.

According to federal law, it is illegal for Super PAC's to coordinate their activities with official campaigns of politicians. Does handing off the same, sizable campaign contribution, apparently timed just right, through an intermediary meet the scrutiny test to prove coordination ?

Both NY-CLASS and the anti-Quinn Super PAC shared the same political lobbying firm, The Advance Group, which is headed by Scott Levenson, a political operative who further shares connections with Mayor de Blasio, given their long history of supporting the Working Families Party, one of the mayor's key political supporters. In the last election, Mr. Levenson further attracted scrutiny for possibly coordinating the 501(c)(4) political expenditures of NY-CLASS and other Super PAC monies with official political campaigns that he also managed in his capacity as a campaign consultant. The anti-Quinn Super PAC was known as NYC Is Not For Sale, but it organized under an astroturf campaign known as "Anybody But Quinn."

Monday, May 12, 2014

Fifty years after Griswold v. Connecticut, NYPD to accommodate safer sex, but stops short of recognizing privacy rights to contraception [UPDATED]

2013-04-11 Protest against Christine Quinn - Condom Banner photo Image_zps30c06990.jpg

At a nighttime protest in Jackson Heights, Queens, last year, activists held up a banner with a giant drawing of condom locked in a police handcuff to represent the NYPD's criminalization of the use of contraception.

New York Police Department to stop criminalizing use of contraception -- in some cases

Advocates for sex workers and improved public health won a major concession from the New York Police Department's on-going oppression against citizens when police officials announced that they would stop seizing reproductive contraceptives, namely, condoms, as evidence of criminality in police crackdowns against sex workers.

Police announced the change in policy after years of demands from activists that the police were stigmatizing the use of condoms, so much so that health officials had long criticized the police practice as undermining their efforts to protect sex workers from disease. In fact, during the 15 years that former Council Speaker Christine Quinn was in public office, she was the city's most visible female and LGBT politician, and she never made any advancement on overturning the police criminalization of condoms. Indeed, under her incumbency, police biases against trans and gender non-conforming citizens extended the anti-condom dragnet against sex workers to include members of the LGBT community. In several media reports, LGBT New Yorkers attested to being harassed, arrested, and stigmatized by the police for innocently carrying contraception -- in direct violation of their privacy rights. What is more, many HIV/AIDS activists had long objected to the police's stigmatization of the use of condoms as flying in the face of advice from city health officials, who advocated their use for safer sex as a way to decrease the incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and to prevent unwanted pregnancies. For years, if New Yorkers were caught carrying condoms, the prophylactics could be used as criminal evidence in sex worker prosecution cases -- even though the city's Department of Health distributed condoms to all New Yorkers to promote safer sex and greater public health.

In announcing their change in policy today, NYPD officials carved out a backdoor loophole to retain the right to use condoms as evidence in sex trafficking cases, however.

The nominal changes in NYPD condom policy, being spun under the guise as an advancement to public health, comes almost 50 years since the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut that overturned a state law that had criminalized the use of contraception. In The New York Times article posted to their Web site, there was no mention by police as according any reasoning in the policy change to respect New Yorkers' right to privacy. Nor was it mentioned whether police would stop menacing LGBT New Yorkers as part of its new compromised policy. In respect of reproductive rights, it was never explained how police departments across the United States could opt out of compliance in the first place with the Griswold decision.

The partial backpedal on the condom policy is the NYPD's latest half-measure at reform since the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio. Mr. de Blasio campaigned to end the "stop-and-frisk era," but the mayor contradicted his campaign promise by making a regressive appointment of William Bratton as the city's new police commissioner. Commissioner Bratton has promised to continue to use the controversial police tacking known as stop-and-frisk, which has been ruled to be unconstitutional for its racist impact on the community. Mr. de Blasio also campaigned on the promise to stop the arrests of New Yorkers carrying small amounts of marijuana, but Commissioner Bratton's arrest rate for marijuana possession is actually up from the rate of his predecessor, Raymond Kelly. The NYPD has also promised to disband a controversial demographics unit, which targeted New York's Muslim community, but the police department continues to its practice of racial and religious profiling, and surveillance, of Muslims. As Mayor de Blasio tries to resolve many outstanding litigation cases against the police department over its killing of unarmed, innocent civilians and its policy of using brutality against New Yorkers, the de Blasio administration seems to be neglecting long outstanding cases of minority plaintiffs, such as the Central Park 5, further causing tensions over the new administration's insensitivity to the concerns of people long oppressed by the police. Since Mayor de Blasio supports Commissioner Bratton's "broken windows theory" of policing, the NYPD is expected to continue to target its aggressive policing tactics against the city's poor and people of color.

The government compromises its citizens' right to privacy in the new surveillance state, but what happens to citizens' other fundamental rights that are predicated on privacy ?

Meghan Newcomer, a brilliant future lawyer graduating this year from Fordham Law School, published a "Pelican Brief" of sorts last year in the Fordham Law Review entitled, "Can Condoms be Compelling ? Examining the State Interest in Confiscating Condoms from Suspected Sex Workers," about the criminal crackdown by police departments in New York City, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles against sex workers carrying condoms. In Ms. Newcomer's legal analysis, she examined the government's burden in proving it could violate the fundamental right to contraception, and she found that the government could not achieve a compelling state reason to do so. Ms. Newcomer expertly framed her legal reasoning around the constitutional privacy rights established under the landmark Griswold case and other related rulings and laws. After examining the law, Ms. Newcomer concluded in her article that :

Because the Supreme Court has identified a right for all individuals to be free from state interference in their choice of whether to use contraceptive devices, state actors confiscating condoms from suspected sex workers infringes on that constitutionally protected privacy right. The government’s lack of a compelling state interest in taking condoms, coupled with the failure to narrowly tailor the policy so as to involve the least restrictive infringement of the right, means that the conduct cannot survive strict scrutiny. For this reason, New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles are enforcing unconstitutional policies and must stop confiscating condoms from suspected sex workers.

There are more issues that need review, which were not the focus of Ms. Newcomer's fascinating article in the Fordham Law Review. Since New York City officials, privacy rights advocates, and women's rights groups are not raising alarms about the privacy violations of the police department's condom policy, are citizens basically consenting to the government's gutting of the Griswold decision ?

In the time since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Griswold case, the impact of the court's decision has been unmistakable in expanding constitutional rights to privacy in subsequent jurisprudence. Prior to Griswold, there was no court case that found a privacy right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. After Griswold, the fundamental right to privacy was found from the court's interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further landmark Supreme Court case decisions, such as Roe v. Wade, Bowers v. Hardwick, and Lawrence v. Texas, the latter which expanded Bowers by overturning its narrower interpretation, were made possible because of legal precedent that citizens' privacy was protected by the due process clause.

With police departments essentially given discretion to opt out of the law established by the Griswold decision, advocates for police reform are focused on the public health aspects of the dangerous condom policy. Meanwhile, silent are citizens, who appear to be consenting to the wholesale undermining of reproductive freedoms and LGBT civil rights, in addition to the right to privacy established by Griswold. As the government conducts mass warrantless surveillance of its citizens to the outrage of voters, the state doesn't have to go to great lengths to legally violate citizens' privacy rights if the state can first undermine the case law establishing citizens' fundamental rights to privacy. With crime rates so low, why are police departments targeting sex workers carrying condoms ? Perhaps it is to sufficiently restrict citizens' rights under the Griswold case in order to serve the government's "compelling interest" to conduct its unconstitutional surveillance activities. If the state can chip away at privacy rights just enough, it won't technically be violating its citizens' fundamental rights if the state can, ipso facto, succeed at gutting Griswold.

As the government wears down Griswold, where does that leave citizens' rights to an abortion under Roe and to further rights to privacy and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment under Lawrence ? What about the long social movement to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to which Lawrence helped to give critical mass ?

In the face of dooms-day science, The New York Times continues to publish pro-fracking editorial propaganda

PUBLISHED : WED, 30 APR 2014, 09:56 AM
UPDATED : MON, 12 MAY 2014, 03:30 PM

Science keeps showing mankind that we face of a dooms-day once the West Antarctic ice sheet collapses and melts, but The New York Times keeps publishing pro-fracking propaganda in its editorial pages, making one wonder if the newspaper's new angel investment objective must secretly involve investing in oil and gas companies as a way to make money, because obviously its editors have decided that it can't turn a profit while remaining objective about the environmental catastrophe caused by fracking and other environment-destroying industries. The newspaper's latest installment is an editorial co-written by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Environmental Defense Fund veal pen "Yes Man" Fred Krupp in which both men advocate fracking without one single mention of the earthquake consequences of the controversial and poisonous gas extraction procedure.

After many European nations panicked over Russia's hostility toward the Ukraine, threatening Russian petroleum sales and shipments to Europe, editors of The New York Times jumped on the opportunity to again advocate for more fracking in North America, so that gas could be shipped across the Atlantic to Europe, going so far as portraying fracking as a tool of diplomacy and rendering a financial windfall to the dirty and dangerous fracking industry.

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary available in 2012, reporters for The New York Times proclaimed in January 2013 that fracking was safe in New York state.

Burning more fossil fuels will only further cause more greenhouse gases to build up in the atmosphere, leading to global warming, warns the National Wildlife Federation.