This one was written after primary day ... How many people do you think will be voting today?
_____________________________
FIERY PRIMARY BATTLE BETWEEN HEENAN AND SZOT GOES LARGELY UNNOTICED (Column written about the Democratic Primary for Chautauqua County Legislative District 2)
During the 2004 Election cycle, Hip Hop Mogul Sean “P. Diddy” Combs spoke bluntly to America. From New York to Los Angeles, he spread the message of civic engagement with just three words.
“Vote or DIE!”
Diddy’s posse might be on its way to Dunkirk.
According to the Observer—Dunkirk’s daily newspaper, only 25% of the total number of registered Democrats in Dunkirk participated in the primary elections.
But maybe the other 75% had too much going on at work and then had to deal with the kids after school.
Maybe the other 75% was busy researching a presidential primary candidate—watching Law & Order re-runs.
Or maybe the other 75% just doesn’t care.
Six votes—1.34% of the total vote—separated the winner from the loser in the Democratic primary for the District 2 seat in the Chautauqua County Legislature. 431 District 2 voters closed the curtains and pulled a tab for one of the candidates. 17 others sent their votes through the mail.
After election officials finished counting the absentee ballots, incumbent Ron Szot narrowly defeated challenger Shaun Heenan. Prior to the absentee ballot count, Heenan had a five-vote lead over Szot, 218 to 213.
Heenan vs. Szot was no ordinary small county legislative primary. The heated battle for the nomination was inundated with controversy and tension. Mud was slung. Felony fraud accusations were filed. Blackmail may have been conducted.
It was the type of juicy politics that can really consume a voter.
The Observer asked the obvious question: if all of this stormy hullabaloo can’t bring out the vote, “what does it take to get people out to vote?”
According to his voter registration card, Heenan is a Democrat. The Republican Party ignored his listed affiliation and gave him their endorsement. The Conservative and Independence Parties endorsed the Heenan candidacy, as well. The Democratic Party (and the Citizens First Party) endorsed the incumbent, but Heenan had his eyes set on that Democratic nomination.
Heenan went forth and acquired the necessary signatures for his primary petition. He submitted his petition, and his name was put on the primary ballot.
It’s safe to say that Szot and the Democratic Committee members who chose to endorse Szot were not happy to see Heenan’s name on the ballot.
Can you blame them? Heenan already had three lines locked up for the general election. Why should he try to hijack the Democratic nomination from Szot?
Shortly after challenger Heenan turned in his primary petition, Dennis Gawronski—brother of Dunkirk Democratic Committee member Frank Gawronski—accused Heenan of committing election fraud. Reports said that Gawronski claimed that Heenan did not witness his signature.
Felony fraud charges can be brought against a candidate who knowingly submits a primary petition that has signatures that he did not witness.
County District Attorney David Foley conducted the investigation into Heenan’s primary petition practices.
After his investigation, Foley concluded that the evidence did not support the accusation. Heenan did not participate in any sort of criminal behavior.
While at Dunkirk's Moniuszko Club, one of Heenan’s friends was introducing the candidate to other club-goers. Though in some instances, the friend handed the petition and pen to potential signers, Heenan witnessed all of the signatures obtained at the club, including Gawronski’s, Foley ruled.
A few days after the case was closed, Heenan submitted a letter to the editor of the Observer. Heenan used the letter to fire back at his opponent Ron Szot and other Democratic Party officials.
“The public may be under the impression that the charges against me were made solely by one gentleman, Dennis Gawronski,” Heenan wrote, “They were not. In fact, I hold no ill will for Dennis, who I believe was misled and used.
“I have credible information that these false charges were orchestrated by my opponent, Ron Szot, and a small group of Democratic Party insiders who were trying to force me from the race and damage me in the eyes of the voting public.”
If those words were spit in an MC battle, people would be jumping around, shouting, “Ooooohhhh,” while waving towels over their heads.
Apparently, Democratic Election Commissioner Norman Green spoke to Heenan's Attorney, John Gullo, prior to the fraud charges being filed. Heenan alleges that Green informed Gullo that if Heenan were to drop out of the primary, the charges would not be filed.
Blackmail in Chautauqua County politics? You better believe it.
Green's response: “As far as John Gullo, he’s a long-time personal friend. I called John to tip him off... It was nothing more than a conversation about what Shaun Heenan’s options were.... it’s my job as the loyal opposition to release information that may not always be flattering.”
So you've got the fraud accusations, verbally violent letters to the editor, the Moniuszko Club and alleged blackmail? What more could a voter ask for?
How about a campaign promise to give an entire term's salary to the community?
You got it.
Heenan said that if voted into office, he would donate his salary to a slew of local charities. The following groups' pockets will get a little fatter: the Dunkirk Little League, Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton CYO, the Dunkirk Humane Society, the Chautauqua County Rural Ministry and the Dunkirk Fireworks Show.
Dunkirk voters had all of this enticing political beef to attract them to visit their polling places, but most of them said, “No, thank you.”
Lost in the midst of all of the succulent tenderloin was debate over the issues.
To the Observer's credit, they did publish one article about the candidates’ views on certain issues. It came just as the polls were opening. Thus, the article might have been too little, too late. Most people planning on voting had their minds made up while the fraud and blackmail charges were swirling.
In the issues article, however, both candidates said basically the same things. Szot—the former City of Dunkirk attorney—was more long-winded, but the arguments were essentially the same. Two registered Democrats residing in an economically depressed area will have similar feelings about the consolidation of services, property and sales taxes and the size of the county legislature.
So what would you rather read about? Taxes… or Blackmail.
The primary vote ended the way I hoped it would. Szot wins and gains the Democratic nomination.
Am I a Szot backer?
No, and I’m not really a Heenan supporter, either.
I’m just excited to have another month of Szot and Heenan bashing heads.
The general election is November 6. Until then, I’m sure the two campaigns will continue their shady and aggressive political tactics.
Maybe more scandal will bring out that other 75%.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
also check ...
http://www.fredonia.edu/leader/articles/opinion/8_assault.html when you get a chance.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Burgers + Fries = Worse Than Satan?
You see their towering golden emblem while driving down practically every street. The slogan, “Over one billion served,” hangs in the air, along with the aroma of oil and trans fats. With ubiquitous billboards and commercials on TV propelling McDonalds, Burger King, and Coca-Cola into the mouths of American kids, it’s no wonder we really are the biggest fatsos out there.
Hopscotch and jump ropes are so last year, anyway. Let’s face it; kids today would rather have their video games. And just try and seize that Playstation or Snickers bar from a caffeinated nine-year-old.
With kids blaming parents, parents blaming teachers and teachers blaming government officials, this feud is ballooning bigger than Louie Anderson’s waistline.
Now, fast-food chains like Burger King and Subway are offering healthier choices for kid’s meals. Burger King’s “Fresh Apple Fries” are only 35 calories, compared to regular fries which boast 13 grams of fat and 230 calories. Burger King is working on a new Kids Meal to be comprised of apple sauce, chicken tenders and low-fat milk. The Subway Kids Pak includes a turkey sandwich, Fruit Roll-Up, and juice.
But why are fast-food chains so desperate to preach nutrition? Didn’t apples exist before there ever was a Double Whopper?
Ever since Jared, the delightfully down-sized Subway champion, began to proclaim the merits of subs on television, a market has formed for meals that are both quick and cheap, but also won’t lead to cardiac arrest. Then McDonalds became swamped with lawsuits, and started to offer salads and free pedometers.
That’s a big diversion from their Chicken McNuggets. The classic American treat contains thirty-eight ingredients, thirteen of which are derived from corn, for whatever reason.
“The real problem is how this food is so heavily marketed to children 9 and under," said Eric Schlosser, author of the best-seller Fast-Food Nation, in a Seattle Post interview. "It started innocently enough, giving a toy with the meal, playgrounds (installed for indoor/outdoor use at the restaurant). There are good things about it. But these are very, very crucial years. If you look at the ingredients of the fast-food meals that are being heavily marketed to children, they're extremely high in fat, and high in sugar and high in salt."
When our country’s girth becomes too much to bear, do fast-food corporations need to intervene? In all likelihood, when you go to Burger King you are in the mood for a burger, and have no desire to wash down your bacon-broiled sandwich with a tall glass of milk.
But think of the children!
"If you look at the rise of the obesity rate in the United States," said Schlosser, "it's grown pretty much in step with the rise of fast-food consumption."
If parents are concerned with their child’s poor eating habits, it’s probably not the wisest idea to continue to take them to Burger King on a regular basis. In order for children to eat healthfully, they need more than a few healthy options on the menu (and some of these things, like Fruit Roll-Ups, aren’t even that healthy). It comes down to portion-control, eating a variety of foods, and avoiding processed foods teeming with preservatives.
New options at McDonalds and Subway can’t make everyone commit to a healthy lifestyle. If anything, it’s just another trend-driven business venture. Today, it’s crucial to be educated about nutrition, especially kids’, and everyone is capable of making smart, healthy decisions. Businesses shouldn’t have to make decisions for the general public.
So the next time you pull up to the drive-thru and that grainy speaker voice calls out, Can I help you?, don’t sweat. Be a renegade- order a burger and fries.
_________________________________
By Ann Marie Trietley
Hopscotch and jump ropes are so last year, anyway. Let’s face it; kids today would rather have their video games. And just try and seize that Playstation or Snickers bar from a caffeinated nine-year-old.
With kids blaming parents, parents blaming teachers and teachers blaming government officials, this feud is ballooning bigger than Louie Anderson’s waistline.
Now, fast-food chains like Burger King and Subway are offering healthier choices for kid’s meals. Burger King’s “Fresh Apple Fries” are only 35 calories, compared to regular fries which boast 13 grams of fat and 230 calories. Burger King is working on a new Kids Meal to be comprised of apple sauce, chicken tenders and low-fat milk. The Subway Kids Pak includes a turkey sandwich, Fruit Roll-Up, and juice.
But why are fast-food chains so desperate to preach nutrition? Didn’t apples exist before there ever was a Double Whopper?
Ever since Jared, the delightfully down-sized Subway champion, began to proclaim the merits of subs on television, a market has formed for meals that are both quick and cheap, but also won’t lead to cardiac arrest. Then McDonalds became swamped with lawsuits, and started to offer salads and free pedometers.
That’s a big diversion from their Chicken McNuggets. The classic American treat contains thirty-eight ingredients, thirteen of which are derived from corn, for whatever reason.
“The real problem is how this food is so heavily marketed to children 9 and under," said Eric Schlosser, author of the best-seller Fast-Food Nation, in a Seattle Post interview. "It started innocently enough, giving a toy with the meal, playgrounds (installed for indoor/outdoor use at the restaurant). There are good things about it. But these are very, very crucial years. If you look at the ingredients of the fast-food meals that are being heavily marketed to children, they're extremely high in fat, and high in sugar and high in salt."
When our country’s girth becomes too much to bear, do fast-food corporations need to intervene? In all likelihood, when you go to Burger King you are in the mood for a burger, and have no desire to wash down your bacon-broiled sandwich with a tall glass of milk.
But think of the children!
"If you look at the rise of the obesity rate in the United States," said Schlosser, "it's grown pretty much in step with the rise of fast-food consumption."
If parents are concerned with their child’s poor eating habits, it’s probably not the wisest idea to continue to take them to Burger King on a regular basis. In order for children to eat healthfully, they need more than a few healthy options on the menu (and some of these things, like Fruit Roll-Ups, aren’t even that healthy). It comes down to portion-control, eating a variety of foods, and avoiding processed foods teeming with preservatives.
New options at McDonalds and Subway can’t make everyone commit to a healthy lifestyle. If anything, it’s just another trend-driven business venture. Today, it’s crucial to be educated about nutrition, especially kids’, and everyone is capable of making smart, healthy decisions. Businesses shouldn’t have to make decisions for the general public.
So the next time you pull up to the drive-thru and that grainy speaker voice calls out, Can I help you?, don’t sweat. Be a renegade- order a burger and fries.
_________________________________
By Ann Marie Trietley
Friday, October 26, 2007
Nancy Grace, and the lack thereof
Ever since the beginning of her career as a prosecutor and broadcaster, Nancy Grace has plagued our country with her intellectual insight. From her interview with Elizabeth Smart to her high-profile missing children’s cases, Grace has proclaimed herself an advocate for victims.
But now it seems as though she is the very predator she claims to hunt. Nancy Grace, a prosecutable murderer?
It has been one year since Grace’s media empire suffered a major blast, much like the one that came from the shotgun that ended Melinda Duckett’s life. And now her legal skills will be put to the test when she faces Duckett’s family in federal court.
It’s ironic that a woman who has always relished the limelight is now being held accountable for her forceful interviewing techniques.
On Sept. 7, 2006, Duckett went on the CNN Headline News show “Nancy Grace” to raise awareness about her missing 2-year-old son, Trenton. Her prime focus was his disappearance, but the show turned into a battle between the host and guest.
Grace began harassing the 21-year-old mother about why she would not answer certain questions. Duckett stated that her lawyer advised her not to, but Grace continued to badger her.
“Ms. Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason,” Grace said on her show. “What is the reason? You refuse to give even the simplest facts of where you were with your son before he went missing. It is day 12.”
The next day, Duckett killed herself with a shotgun in her grandparents’ home. Grace’s interview caused the broadcaster's opponents to take advantage of the tragic event, calling her a murderer. Then Duckett’s family filed a lawsuit against Grace, accusing her of the wrongful death of Duckett.
Grace is notorious for disregarding the emotions of her guests.
All of America was captivated by the return of Elizabeth Smart, the Salt Lake City teen who was snatched from her bedroom. Three years after her return, Smart decided to go on “Nancy Grace” to promote the Sexual Predator Legislation, which requires all sex offenders to register within the state they reside.
But Grace’s interest in the bill immediately floundered. She attempted to rehash Smart’s memories about her captivity, but Smart tactfully refused. Much like Duckett’s situation, Grace did not yield.
“I really am here to support the bill and not to go into what happened to me and what is in my past because I’m not here to give an interview on that. I’m here to push this bill through,” said Smart during the CNN show. “I really, to be frankly honest, I really don’t appreciate you bringing all this up.”
No surprise that she had more class than the host.
It is not just the show’s viewers who make note of Grace’s indiscretions. The Supreme Court of Georgia remarked on her courtroom behavior when she was a lawyer not once, but twice.
Her behavior was delicately described as “inappropriate and illegal conduct in the course of the trial.” Maybe this critique will help her with her latest courtroom drama.
As villainous as she may be, Grace does do America one small favor. She educates viewers on the latest cases, whether it is murder, rape or missing children.
Grace brings a gentle touch to the family members of victims, at least those she believes are innocent. She lost her fiancé to murder when she was 19, which fueled her desire to become a lawyer and punish those who harm others.
But she must have skipped the class about innocent until proven guilty.
In 2004, a jury found Scott Peterson guilty for murdering his pregnant wife, Laci. Grace was way ahead of everyone, though. Her killer prosecutor instincts told her so before the trial even began.
No parent wants to admit that their child is a killer and Peterson’s father was no different. He advocated for his son’s innocence the moment allegations began.
Grace immediately condemned Peterson on “Larry King Live,” and she went so far as to criticize his father for coming to his defense. In her mind, Peterson was guilty the minute Laci went missing.
Maybe Grace will understand once she becomes a parent. She might even reconsider her actions toward Duckett when she shares the bond of motherhood in January.
Just as Grace thought Peterson was guilty before any evidence emerged, she assumed the same about Duckett. She demanded to know where Duckett was and what she was doing at the time of her son’s disappearance, taking on the role of the interrogating cop trying to break a witness.
Duckett was not named a suspect until after her death. Grace must be the new Miss Cleo, the psychic who knows it all. Too bad the psychic turned out to be a sham.
She is certainly quick to defend herself, though. “I do not feel our show is to blame for what happened to Melinda Duckett. Melinda committed suicide before that interview ever aired,” Grace is reported saying.
Before it was aired? Yes. Before it was taped? No.
Duckett killed herself on a Friday afternoon. Her interview did not air until that night, but it was taped the day before.
All that was done to notify viewers of this tragic event was a small message running at the bottom of the screen. They did not even have the decency to run a segment on what happened to Duckett. Really graceful, Grace.
One bad interview will not kill a person, but it can bring them to their breaking point.
Grace needs to be taught class and learn limitations. If she practiced control, then maybe she would not be facing a lawsuit.
Maybe Duckett would not be dead.
__________________________________________
by Amanda Armocida and Justine Januszkiewicz
__________________________________________
But now it seems as though she is the very predator she claims to hunt. Nancy Grace, a prosecutable murderer?
It has been one year since Grace’s media empire suffered a major blast, much like the one that came from the shotgun that ended Melinda Duckett’s life. And now her legal skills will be put to the test when she faces Duckett’s family in federal court.
It’s ironic that a woman who has always relished the limelight is now being held accountable for her forceful interviewing techniques.
On Sept. 7, 2006, Duckett went on the CNN Headline News show “Nancy Grace” to raise awareness about her missing 2-year-old son, Trenton. Her prime focus was his disappearance, but the show turned into a battle between the host and guest.
Grace began harassing the 21-year-old mother about why she would not answer certain questions. Duckett stated that her lawyer advised her not to, but Grace continued to badger her.
“Ms. Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason,” Grace said on her show. “What is the reason? You refuse to give even the simplest facts of where you were with your son before he went missing. It is day 12.”
The next day, Duckett killed herself with a shotgun in her grandparents’ home. Grace’s interview caused the broadcaster's opponents to take advantage of the tragic event, calling her a murderer. Then Duckett’s family filed a lawsuit against Grace, accusing her of the wrongful death of Duckett.
Grace is notorious for disregarding the emotions of her guests.
All of America was captivated by the return of Elizabeth Smart, the Salt Lake City teen who was snatched from her bedroom. Three years after her return, Smart decided to go on “Nancy Grace” to promote the Sexual Predator Legislation, which requires all sex offenders to register within the state they reside.
But Grace’s interest in the bill immediately floundered. She attempted to rehash Smart’s memories about her captivity, but Smart tactfully refused. Much like Duckett’s situation, Grace did not yield.
“I really am here to support the bill and not to go into what happened to me and what is in my past because I’m not here to give an interview on that. I’m here to push this bill through,” said Smart during the CNN show. “I really, to be frankly honest, I really don’t appreciate you bringing all this up.”
No surprise that she had more class than the host.
It is not just the show’s viewers who make note of Grace’s indiscretions. The Supreme Court of Georgia remarked on her courtroom behavior when she was a lawyer not once, but twice.
Her behavior was delicately described as “inappropriate and illegal conduct in the course of the trial.” Maybe this critique will help her with her latest courtroom drama.
As villainous as she may be, Grace does do America one small favor. She educates viewers on the latest cases, whether it is murder, rape or missing children.
Grace brings a gentle touch to the family members of victims, at least those she believes are innocent. She lost her fiancé to murder when she was 19, which fueled her desire to become a lawyer and punish those who harm others.
But she must have skipped the class about innocent until proven guilty.
In 2004, a jury found Scott Peterson guilty for murdering his pregnant wife, Laci. Grace was way ahead of everyone, though. Her killer prosecutor instincts told her so before the trial even began.
No parent wants to admit that their child is a killer and Peterson’s father was no different. He advocated for his son’s innocence the moment allegations began.
Grace immediately condemned Peterson on “Larry King Live,” and she went so far as to criticize his father for coming to his defense. In her mind, Peterson was guilty the minute Laci went missing.
Maybe Grace will understand once she becomes a parent. She might even reconsider her actions toward Duckett when she shares the bond of motherhood in January.
Just as Grace thought Peterson was guilty before any evidence emerged, she assumed the same about Duckett. She demanded to know where Duckett was and what she was doing at the time of her son’s disappearance, taking on the role of the interrogating cop trying to break a witness.
Duckett was not named a suspect until after her death. Grace must be the new Miss Cleo, the psychic who knows it all. Too bad the psychic turned out to be a sham.
She is certainly quick to defend herself, though. “I do not feel our show is to blame for what happened to Melinda Duckett. Melinda committed suicide before that interview ever aired,” Grace is reported saying.
Before it was aired? Yes. Before it was taped? No.
Duckett killed herself on a Friday afternoon. Her interview did not air until that night, but it was taped the day before.
All that was done to notify viewers of this tragic event was a small message running at the bottom of the screen. They did not even have the decency to run a segment on what happened to Duckett. Really graceful, Grace.
One bad interview will not kill a person, but it can bring them to their breaking point.
Grace needs to be taught class and learn limitations. If she practiced control, then maybe she would not be facing a lawsuit.
Maybe Duckett would not be dead.
__________________________________________
by Amanda Armocida and Justine Januszkiewicz
__________________________________________
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Welcome to Culture Mosh
As you can see from the info at the top of the page, this is a project involving opinion and journalism. Everybody has an opinion (on something) and journalism covers everything in the world, so that means this blog is about EVERYTHING.
It will be focused, however, on the work of Fredonia journalism students ... work which is meant to be read and responded to! So even if you're not part of the Fredonia community, join the opinion fray ... mosh away.
It will be focused, however, on the work of Fredonia journalism students ... work which is meant to be read and responded to! So even if you're not part of the Fredonia community, join the opinion fray ... mosh away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)