Daily Voice «

» Runnin' Scared «

a Voice news blog

update notifications

email

subscribe
unsubscribe

categories

Update: Silver Aide's Victim Speaks

Posted by Roy Edroso at 6:45 AM, July 16, 2008

Yesterday we reported on Elizabeth Crothers, the woman whose 2001 rape charges against a top Sheldon Silver aide appeared in both the New York Daily News and the New York Times, and who now publicly supports one of the challengers for the Assembly Speaker's seat, Paul Newell.

Crothers had been tagged as a "Freeper" -- that is, a frequent poster at the hard-right fringe website Free Republic -- by DaBrinker Report, an assertion for which we could find no evident support. (DaBrinker Report has not responded to our enquiry.)

Last night Ms. Crothers sent a message to Runnin' Scared:

"In regards to your July 15 post, you are correct that the anti-Newell site is entirely off-base," said Crothers in an e-mail. "I have never contributed to the 'Free Republic' website and strongly disagree with absolutely everything that site espouses."

Newell's campaign manager, Evan Hutchison, also responded to us. He called Ms. Crothers "courageous" and DaBrinker Report "despicable." Hutchison says he doubts the Silver campaign is directly responsible for the site, and supposes DaBrinker Report "probably involves people who have a stake in Silver staying in power."

In other news related to this race, the Times reported today that "Friends of Sean Patrick Maloney," a fund related to a top aide of Governor David Paterson, has donated $3,800 to the Silver campaign.

Liebermania in the Bronx? Diaz Sr. May Go Both Ways

Posted by Roy Edroso at 7:33 PM, July 15, 2008

diaz_sr.jpgDemocratic State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. (not to be confused with Ruben Diaz, Jr.) is one of the most socially-conservative New York Democrats around. An ordained Minister of the Church of God, Diaz protested last month at the Governor's (court-mandated) order to supply women's underwear to transgendered prisoners who wanted it. He said then that "many people might vote against the Democratic Party" because of it.

Diaz is less concerned about that now: according to the New York Sun, Diaz is letting it be known that he may switch parties in time for the next election -- though, for the time being, he'll be content to run on both the Democratic and Republican lines.

Bronx Republican leader Jay Savino is tickled to have him -- after all, Diaz won his last election 30,184 to 2,453. (His opponent, by the way, ran on both the Republican and Conservative lines.) "We were honored that he came in for a candidate screening and were happy to cross-endorse him," said Savino.

"Mr. Diaz's colleagues say his threat is merely a bid for attention," reports the Sun. Probably -- but he's not making it because he's lonely: the Republicans have a two-seat majority in the State Senate. If the November election leaves the Senate looking anything like a deadlock, a bi-partisan or even (maybe especially) a Republican Diaz would be wonderfully well-positioned to make deals and demands. As a loyal conservative Democrat, he's an inconsequential, outnumbered oddity; as a possible apostate, he's someone other Democrats can never take for granted. As West Bronx Blog spells it out: "Looks like he's trying to pull a Lieberman."

The Sun article mentions a drawback: Diaz's son, Ruben Jr., is running for Bronx Borough President in 2009, and "observers" suggest that if Ruben Sr. ticks them off by switching parties, they'll punish Ruben Jr. come primary time. But to whom are legislators more likely to bow: a politician who cedes power just to gain affection for his son, or one who kicks ass? The examples of political families from the Caesars to the Clintons suggest that the best daddy is one of whom all the other daddies are scared.

Dr. Ruth Enters Bronx Walk of Fame Despite Having Never Lived There

Posted by John DeSio at 2:00 PM, June 17, 2008

She is a world renowned sex therapist. She is a beloved figure across the City and the world. Dr. Ruth Westheimer is many, many things.

But one thing she is not is a native of The Bronx. In fact, Dr. Ruth has never lived in The Bronx.

But that’s not stopping organizers of this week’s Bronx Week celebrations, which are put together by the office of Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr. At a press conference at the University Heights Bridge last week, Carrion announced this year’s inductees to the Bronx Walk of Fame, making a point to note Dr. Ruth’s Bronx bona fides.

“There’s a lot of very interesting people that come from The Bronx,” said Carrion. “One of them is somebody who has become known the world over for talking about a topic that we all really care about.”

Carrion added, mimicking Dr. Ruth’s famous accent, “She is Dr. Ruth Westheimer.”

Dr. Ruth is a well-known and long-time resident of Washington Heights, something Carrion acknowledged during his introduction. But no one had ever before heard that she lived in The Bronx.

That’s because she never did, according to Dr. Ruth’s spokesperson Pierre Lehu. The closest Dr. Ruth ever came to a Bronx connection, said Lehu, was the few years she spent teaching at Lehman College in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

Since she never lived in The Bronx, it is reasonable to ask just why Dr. Ruth was picked for the Bronx Walk of Fame and if she would still be honored at Saturday’s annual Bronx Ball. According to a spokesperson for the Bronx Tourism Council, nothing changes. Dr. Ruth, said the spokesperson, is an “honorary Bronxite” and will be honored thusly.

“This is the first year that an honorary Bronxite is inducted,” said the spokesperson’s statement. “Dr. Ruth has very strong ties to the Bronx. Her daughter [Miriam Westheimer] is the president of the Riverdale Y, she is on their board, her son went to Horace Mann. She has contributed a great deal to the Bronx community.”

Past inductees to the Bronx Walk of Fame include former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Television Host Regis Philbin, Author E.L. Doctorow, Freedom Tower architect Daniel Libeskind, actor Danny Aiello, and filmmaker Stanley Kubrick.

This year’s inductees, along with Dr. Ruth, are hip-hop pioneer Grandmaster Caz, the Rock Steady Crew, 1960’s doo wop group Larry Chance & The Earls and Adam Rodriguez, an actor on the CSI: Miami.

more: Fact Check

comments: 4

NBC's Dateline Airs Misleading UFO Footage

Posted by Tony Ortega at 12:30 PM, May 19, 2008

Here we go again.

UFOs are easy ratings, so I guess it isn’t surprising that Dateline aired something last night called “10 Close Encounters Caught on Tape.”. To its credit, the NBC program at least made an attempt to provide prosaic explanations for each of the events it presented. In most cases, those explanations were actually pretty good, and the “UFO experts” came off as yahoos.

But when I realized that they were saving for last—the #1 event!—the lame Phoenix Lights, the 1997 event that I helped debunk years ago as a reporter in Arizona, I prepared myself for yet another time that so-called journalists wouldn’t get even the most basic facts right.

And I wasn’t disappointed.

Hey, NBC, try to pay attention: there were TWO separate events on the night of March 13, 1997 over the skies of Arizona. The mysterious “vee” that so many people across the state witnessed was seen over Prescott at about 8:15 p.m. and traveled south over Phoenix at about 8:30 andpassed over Tucson at 8:45. That’s 200 miles in thirty minutes which—check with your calculator if you’d like—means the vee was moving at about 400 miles per hour. Some early eyewitnesses perceived that the vee was high in the sky, others swore it was low and moving very slowly. (And I mention “early” purposely. As the months passed, more and more elaborate—and ridiculous—claims were made by eyewitnesses who were clearly trying to one-up each other.) But as I’ve pointed out many times, the eyeball is a lousy instrument for judging the altitude of point sources of light in a night sky. Simple physics, however, suggests the vee was high in the sky and moving very fast.

As I first revealed in the Phoenix New Times in 1998 on the event’s first anniversary, a young man with a Dobsonian telescope spotted the vee from his backyard, and saw that it was a formation of airplanes. When the young man, Mitch Stanley, tried to contact a city councilwoman making noise about the event, as well as a couple of UFO flim-flam men working the local scene, he was rebuffed. I was the first reporter to talk to him, and, as a telescope builder myself, I made a thorough examination of his instrument and his knowledge of it. (For the inexperienced: a Dobsonian telescope is much easier to move than the crappy department store scope in your garage; it’s child’s play for an experienced observer, like Stanley, to get a good look at passing planes at altitude.) And he had a witness: he had told his mother, who was standing nearby, that the lights were planes. After my story, the Arizona Republic also wrote about Stanley, and also found him impressive. Didn’t you check that out, Dateline?

Back to the night of March 13. News of the 8:30 pm sighting traveled fast, so a large number of people were outside with videocameras when the second and unrelated event, at about 10 pm, happened in the sky southwest of Phoenix. A string of lights appeared in the sky, and slowly sank until they disappeared behind the nearby Estrella Mountain range. This was later shown to be a string of flares dropped by the Maryland Air National Guard over the North Tac military range. Dr. Lynne Kitei can tell NBC that these lights were magical and “intelligent” and later showed up just outside her living room window all she wants, but the videotapes taken that night by many people show without a doubt that this was a string of mundane lights that fell and disappeared behind the range, exactly as a string of flares dropped by the military planes would.

Now, the problem developed when the “flare” explanation emerged first, and took root hard, explaining away the 10 pm sighting. But for the many people who had seen the earlier vee pass directly over their heads, flares made no sense whatsoever. And news organizations never bother to differentiate between the two events or report on the Stanley identification—even the Arizona Republic (a truly pathetic example of a daily newspaper) stopped referring to its earlier solid reporting on the Lights and began promoting it as “unexplained.”

To this day, programs like Dateline invariably question people who saw the earlier “vee” event, and quote them saying that flares couldn’t possibly explain what they saw. They are right. They didn’t see flares, they saw a formation of planes.

In last night’s program, Dateline repeatedly showed people talking about their memories of the 8:30 vee while showing video of the 10 pm flares. Talk about misleading.

By the way, NBC: There was a single camerman who caught the 8:30 vee and the later event. I saw his tape myself. It clearly showed the five lights of the 8:30 vee moving in relation to each other, exactly as you’d expect in a formation of airplanes. Couldn’t get that tape for your program?

As for the people who swore they saw a black triangular shape joining the five lights of the vee, that’s a classic contrast effect of the human eye. In another very telling case, a man who swore he saw a black shape joining the lights of the vee saw it pass directly in front of the moon. At that point, he saw not a black shape but wavy lines pass over the undimmed moon. But rather than conclude that he’d seen the contrails of planes, the man, who had already been worked hard by the flim-flam artists, concluded instead that the pilot of the alien craft had turned his spaceship transparent right at that moment so the man could see the moon through it. How thoughtful!

Perhaps it’s a good thing that NBC has now declared this the number 1 UFO sighting of all time. It’s one of the very few so well checked-out by reporters, and one of the few that has been so thoroughly debunked. But you won’t hear that from the networks, who can’t get enough of the ratings that come with “the unexplained.”

more: Fact Check

comments: 32

'Phoenix Lights': Don't Believe the Hype

Posted by Tony Ortega at 3:19 PM, April 22, 2008

Here we go again. A new round of ‘Phoenix Lights’ has Arizona’s media going nutty, and Matt Drudge’s interest will only whip up the fervor.

As a new formation of lights in the sky becomes the source of fascination in the Grand Canyon State, folks less given to jumping to alien conclusions would do well to keep a few things in mind as they watch breathless accounts from TV reporters and pure silliness from newspapers like the Arizona Republic:

1. UFOs are big business. The high ratings that come with UFO stories is so reliable, even networks that are started with more serious purposes, such as the History Channel, continually fall back on dishonest shows about lights in the sky that deliberately leave out information to hype the ‘mystery.’ If television is primarily guilty, the Republic is also a big offender. It almost never brings up the fact that one its own reporters, Richard Ruelas, uncovered some of the same facts in the 1997 case that I did at the Phoenix New Times: that the 8:30 pm event was a formation of planes, as seen through a powerful telescope by a young man named Mitch Stanley, and that the 10 pm event was a flare dump over the nearby North Tac bombing range. Instead, the Republic continually refers to the 1997 events as unsolved. (That sells more papers.)

2. Don’t believe eyewitnesses about the altitude of lights at night. The human eye simply can make no judgment about the distance of what are called “point sources” – lights far enough away in a night sky that they have no dimension. Some witnesses in 1997 swore that the “vee,” for example was only 20 feet over their heads. Others said it looked thousands of feet away. With the vee covering 200 miles of the state in a half hour (in other words, 400 mph), and Stanley’s telescopic identification, we can safely assume that this group of planes was, indeed, thousands of feet above the earth. People who said they felt they could practically touch the vee, however, weren’t actually wrong, it’s just the tools they were using to make that estimate (their own eyes) were simply inadequate for the task.

3. With all of the ‘UFO investigators’ running around Phoenix in 1997 claiming that the vee was invisible to radar, not a single one made a request to the FAA in Albuquerque – where Phoenix skies are actually monitored – for tapes of that night. After eleven days, the FAA told me, those tapes are erased. If anyone requests tapes of this new event, those tapes will be preserved for everyone to see. Instead, reporters at the time kept going back to air traffic controllers at Sky Harbor Airport who monitor commercial traffic coming in for landings, not military formations traveling high over the state.

Fortunately, this time, it looks like there was only one phenomenon on Monday night, which should mean less confusion than in 1997, when the fact that there were two separate and very different events confused reporters to no end (and still, to this day, is almost never part of an explanation of what happened then).

more: Fact Check

comments: 46

UNICEF Cannot Confirm Beah's Camp Brawl Claim

Posted by Michael Clancy at 2:53 PM, March 19, 2008

In this week's Voice cover story, "Boy Soldier of Fortune," Graham Rayman examines the still-simmering controversy surrounding inconsistencies in "Long Way Gone," Ishmael Beah's celebrated memoir of his experiences as a child soldier in Sierra Leone.

Beah's account of his journey from drug-addled killing machine to Oberlin-educated memoirist and de facto spokesman for child soldiers was first called into question by the Sydney-based The Australian, which questioned its timeline and two central anecdotes.

In one instance, Beah describes in vivid detail a deadly brawl between two rival factions of child soldiers in a UNICEF-run camp in the Sierra Leone capital of Freetown in January of 1996. Six teens died, Beah recalls—but The Australian could find no one in Freetown who could remember the incident, and no official report of the fight. Reporters who covered the civil war told The Australian that it would have gotten enormous attention at the time.

UNICEF, which did not respond in time for print deadlines, now says it cannot confirm Beah's account of the brawl that left six dead.

"According to our preliminary investigation, while there were fatal incidents in camps, we are unable to provide independent confirmation that the incident took place," Geoffrey Keele, a UNICEF spokesman said in an emailed statement.

But while the deadly brawl could not be confirmed, it is still UNICEF's "view that Ishmael's book "Long Way Gone" is a credible account of the tragedy of recruitment of children into armed groups, told by one who undoubtedly experienced this abuse firsthand," Keele said.

more: Fact Check

comments: 1

Roger Kimball is One Off in the NY Post

Posted by Chris Thompson at 10:44 AM, January 11, 2008

Look, we’re not exactly in the business of pointing out other writers’ stupid mistakes. Glass houses and all that, you dig? But when a guardian of high culture pens an essay bemoaning the erosion of standards in the art world, and caps it off with a bonehead error—well, it’s just too good to pass up.

So step up to the plate, Roger Kimball!

This morning, the conservative art critic and publisher of the New Criterion published an essay in the New York Post, in which he laments the imminent retirement of Met director Philippe de Montebello and frets over the “debased elitism of a socially enfranchised pseudo avant-garde” that is sure to prevail in his wake. After running through de Montebello’s disapproval of the Brooklyn Museum’s infamous 1999 “Sensation” exhibit, Kimball glumly predicts that some fashionably post-modern schmuck will surely replace him and fill the Met with Madonnas made out of elephant shit or something. “How disquieting it must be for de Montebello, who has spent more than 30 years holding the line and upholding high standards,” Kimball concludes. “Like Louis XIV, he has reason to mutter, ‘Apres moi, le deluge.’”

Hate to break it to you, Roger, but it was actually Louis XV who uttered that particular obituary. But again, what do we care? It’s not like we have standards or anything.

more: Fact Check

comments: 3

Arizona's Worst Governor on Arizona's Worst UFO

Posted by Michael Clancy at 5:26 PM, November 12, 2007


Disgraced former Arizona governor Fife Symington told CNN's Larry King about how he saw the "UFO” known as the Phoenix Lights in 1997. But, as it turns out, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the phenomenon—one that never gets reported correctly.

by Tony Ortega

Before people get too worked up about disgraced former Arizona governor Fife Symington’s “disclosure” that he saw the 1997 “UFO” known as the Phoenix Lights—the subject of a breathless segment on the Larry King Live show last week—a few words about that phenomenon from someone who actually investigated it.

In 1997, Symington was in the middle of the bank-fraud scandal that would bounce him from office, but that’s not my way of questioning what he saw in the sky—thousands of Arizonans did, in fact, witness the famous Phoenix Lights that March. But from the start, bad reporting of the facts, hyperventilating by UFO “experts,” and constant stupidity from television reporters in particular resulted in a false impression that has hardened into seeming fact a decade later—that the “vee” of lights seen flying over the entire length of the state was explained away by the Air Force as flares dropped from military planes.

That is not the case. But it’s not hard to see why people think as much. Because the bare facts of what happened that night almost never get told by a confused press, even ten years later.

Here’s the truth: there were two, distinct events that happened the night of March 13, 1997 in the skies over Arizona, which I reported in great detail in a story that appeared a year later in the Phoenix New Times. The first event was the famous “vee,” which appeared over northern Arizona and gradually traveled south over nearly the entire length of the state, eventually passing south of Tucson. This is the “wedge-shaped” object that Symington and hundreds or even thousands of others saw—including two of my colleagues at the New Times. Timings of the “vee” sighting started at about 8:15 over the Prescott area, and it was seen south of Tucson by about 8:45. That’s 200 miles in 30 minutes, suggesting an air speed of 400 miles per hour.

News of the sighting spread fast, drawing out many other people who began looking at the sky, some with camcorders. And it was this second wave of observers who caught the second event of the night at about 10 pm, a set of nine lights falling behind the Sierra Estrella, a mountain ridge to the southwest of Phoenix. Television reporters were the first to suggest that this was a series of flares dropped over the North Tac range behind the Estrella. But naturally, people who had seen only the 8:30 “vee” were incredulous—how could “flares” dropped from planes fly over the entire state in a vee formation?

Well, they couldn’t, of course. But to this day, reporters almost never distinguish between the two events and the explanations that were soon presented for each.

The flares over the Estrella were soon cleared up. The Air Force, after some maddening early denials, eventually owned up that the Maryland Air National Guard had dropped them over the North Tac range. So much for the 10 pm sighting.

But what rarely gets reported is that the famous vee was also solved quite early. First of all, contrary to what you usually hear, there was a videotape made of the vee. I saw it after questioning the person who shot it (he also shot the 10 pm flares over the Estrella), and the video quite clearly shows the lights moving in relation to each other, rather than as lights on a solid object.

The human eye, however, seeing point sources of light in a dark Arizona sky, will tend to fill in the space between the lights in a contrast effect—convincing the eyewitness that he’s seen a solid object. Again, however, videotape of the ‘vee’ clearly showed that this was not the case.

(My personal favorite of all the accounts that night is a sighting that was convincing proof that the “vee” was not solid. A man saw it pass directly over the face of the Moon, and instead of a solid object, he saw five contrails pass over the Moon, making the Moon look blurry. Now, instead of concluding that he’d seen five planes flying in formation with their exhaust plumes plainly showing against the Moon, he instead insisted that the “captain” flying the alien triangular craft had turned it transparent just at the right moment so that he could see the Moon through it!)

Also, reports that the vee was low overhead and moving slowly have to be discounted. The human eye is notoriously unable to judge the distance to overhead point sources of light in a dark sky. Simple physics dictates that in order to fly from Prescott to Tucson in 30 minutes the vee was moving very fast, and, logic dictates, at a high altitude.

But there’s an even better reason to believe that the vee was not what Symington and others believed. As I reported in June of 1997, there was a credible report of the vee’s nature that was received immediately by UFO “experts” but not followed up—at least until I checked it out. It turned out that an amateur astronomer, Mitch Stanley, had been outside that night using a Dobsonian telescope, and had captured the vee in his field of view, giving him a view 60 times the magnification of the human eye. (I’m a builder of telescopes, and I thoroughly checked out his telescope and quizzed him about his use of it. There was no reason to question this young man’s veracity.) That March evening, his mother was standing nearby and could see that he was looking at the vee through the scope (I questioned them both) and they both say this was his response when she asked him what it was: “Planes.”

What I reported a decade ago:

What looked like individual lights to the naked eye actually split into two under the resolving power of the telescope. The lights were located on the undersides of squarish wings, Mitch says. And the planes themselves seemed small, like light private planes. Stanley watched them for about a minute, and then turned away. It was the last thing the amateur astronomer wanted to look at. "They were just planes, I didn't want to look at them," Stanley says when he's asked why he didn't stare at them longer. He is certain about what he saw: "They were planes. There's no way I could have mistaken that."

The only real mystery of the Phoenix Lights is which group of planes this was. I suggested that Stanley’s description (squarish wings) sounded like A-10s, not private planes. But the Maryland National Guard denied that they had flown over that path before dropping flares later.

Ten years later, however, the Phoenix Lights still live because it’s claimed by UFO supporters that the only explanation for the flying vee was that the Air Force called it flares. You’ll hear that explanation ridiculed again tonight on Larry King Live, and the “UFO community” will no doubt consider it a huge victory. So much for common sense.

more: Fact Check

comments: 35

Robert Mugabe Meets Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Posted by Michael Clancy at 2:19 PM, September 25, 2007

mugabe.png
Robert Mugabe at the 58th session of the General Assembly in 2003.

By Chris Thompson
Village Voice Staff Writer

Now that everyone’s finished live-blogging and hyperventilating over Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Columbia address, maybe New Yorkers can finally notice that a gen-yoo-wine, Pol-Pot-ain’t-got-shit-on-me monster is walking the streets of our fair city.

Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, who has spearheaded a genocidal starvation campaign against his political opponents and murders tens of thousands of his own people every year, has arrived in the city and plans to address the United Nations General Assembly tomorrow. The aging, cynical despot, whose wife shopped for shoes in European capitals while his soldiers forced 1 million people to flee Harare and starve in the countryside, will reportedly argue that American and European sanctions are illegal and have—get this—caused terrible deprivation in Zimbabwe.

But so far, only the New Republic’s James Kirchick has noticed that one of the worst human beings on the planet is browsing the aisles at Bloomingdales. “What’s going on in Zimbabwe, in genocidal proportions, is worse than Darfur,” says Kirchick. “It’s unfortunate that people don’t care about it. But that’s the way it’s always been.”

In fact, New York has a sordid history of accommodating Mugabe, thanks to everyone’s favorite race-baiter, City Councilman Charles Barron. Four years ago, Barron led a “fact-finding mission” to Zimbabwe and returned with a report that exonerated Mugabe as much as the English language will allow. (“Zimbabwe remains one of the most stable countries in Africa,” read the report’s conclusion.) Barron even invited Mugabe to speak at City Hall, where roughly a dozen councilmembers applauded and fawned over Africa’s worst dictator.

Pundits around the country have filled their gullets with the easy satisfaction that comes with denouncing a Holocaust-denyin’, terrorist-financin’ demogogue like Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to confronting people who have refined the art of deliberate mass starvation, no one seems terribly interested. When Bill Bennett learned that President Bush planned to use his time at the General Assembly to denounce Myanmar—which rivals only Zimbabwe and North Korea as the worst place on Earth—he went on his radio show and sighed, “I’m for democracy in Burma, but do we have to talk about that today?” National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez echoed Bennett’s sentiment, as if presiding over a regime of fifty million slaves was somehow less odious than a Persian nutjob trying to lay a wreath at Ground Zero.

Fortunately, Mugabe has finally done something every American pundit will find truly monstrous—he met with Ahmadinejad this morning.

more: Fact Check

comments: 0

In Iran, a Fight Just to Fight for GLBT Rights

Posted by Michael Clancy at 12:01 PM, September 25, 2007


Yes, we have no homosexuals.

by Kevin McKenna
Columbia University sophomore

As a gay student at Columbia University, I was looking forward to hearing what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had to say about the documented persecution of homosexuals in his country. Ahmadinejad did not discuss punishment for homosexuals but rather stated, “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.” As much as any of the views expressed by Ahmadinejad, these views on homosexuality in Iran are completely ridiculous and unreasonable.

I grew up in Orange County, California, which is not the friendliest environment for gays. I went through about five years of personal torment before finally coming out to my close friends and family during my senior year of high school. There is not a large gay community in Orange County, so I was happy to find myself in New York City about six months after informing my family of my sexual orientation. The whole process was very difficult for me, but everything turned out well in the end. The concerns I had about coming out in Orange County are trivial compared to the dilemma gay people face in Iran.

Iran is one of only seven nations that subjects homosexuals to the death penalty in the name of Islamic law. The government does not acknowledge the idea of sexual orientation, so all Iranians are considered heterosexuals before the law. “Gender identity disorder” is recognized in Iran, and sex change operations are permitted for those who are able to afford them. Others face the fullest extent of Sharia law for homosexual acts.

In July of 2005, two teen boys were publicly hanged for engaging in gay sex. Prior to their execution, the two boys received a combined 228 lashes while in prison for 14 months. This punishment is unimaginable to Americans for any crime, let alone for something that has not been considered criminal in this country since 2003. In addition, these boys were minors. While many Americans may find homosexuality immoral, I imagine these people would unquestionably condemn the torture and execution of two gay teens. This story is just one of many regarding the oppression of the GLBT community in Iran.

Many gay people in Iran live their lives in secret. Kamran, an Iranian lesbian, reported to Iranian Queer Organization leader Arsham Parsi, “If someone abuses you, you cannot issue a complaint to any organization or report to the police, because you'll create more problems for yourself.” Gay Iranians are living in fear, hoping that they won’t be caught and prosecuted.

Many gay Iranians have been ostracized by their own families, while others live their lives keeping their homosexuality a secret even in their own home. Kamran’s partner, Kaveh told Parsi, “My family will believe it, but I am certain my parents would definitely have heart attacks. I will have problems with my brother. And I will definitely be kicked out of the house.” While many members of the American GLBT community must face the uncertain coming out process, there are always resources and communities open to those whose families do not take it well. This is not the case in Iran.

The only gay community that exists in Iran is in cyberspace, with little exception. Parsi’s Iranian Queer Organization is based in Toronto, as it would be dangerous to manage a website for the GLBT community in Iran. If Iranians want to date people of the same-sex, foreign-based dating websites are the only option because it is impossible to meet other gay people in public. Any attempt to do so would facilitate the Iranian government in capturing and executing gay Iranians. An attempt to set up a gay organization in the early 1980s led to seventy executions.

In the United States, the gay community is fighting for non-discrimination laws and marriage equality. In Iran, gay people are afraid to fight for anything. They are only concerned with their right to live. Ahmadinejad’s visit to campus made me realize that although the United States has a long way to go on gay rights, many Iranians dream merely of having the right to peacefully assemble and publicly fight for the rights that we already enjoy. Fighting for equality here in the United States is important, but the gay community in the Western world should be doing more to help those who do not have a voice in other countries.

Kevin McKenna is a sophomore at Columbia University majoring in political science. He is a research fellow in the Roosevelt Institution and the Alumni and Social Affairs Director for the Columbia Democrats.

1 Parsi, Arsham. “Farsad and Farnam: A Gay Couple Who Have Been Tortured for Being Gay.” UK Gay News. 21 July 2005.
2 Parsi, Arsham. “Interview with Iranian Gay Couple.” Gay Republic Daily. 7 September 2007.
3 Parsi, Arsham. “Interview with Iranian Gay Couple.”
4 Forbes, Simon. “Iran – the State-Sponsored Torture & Murder of Lesbians and Gay Men.” Gay Patriot. 20 April 2006.

more: Fact Check

comments: 5

Staten Island: Still Smoking

Posted by Michael Clancy at 12:01 PM, August 21, 2007

41011913_cc121c4bf5.jpg
Photo by apollonia666 via Flickr

Further proof that Staten Island is truly a land unto itself: some 27% of the adults on Shaolin still smoke, as compared to just 17.5% citywide. The reduction rates are even more astounding. According to Department of Health report, the Bronx has seen a 24.6 percent reduction in smoking since 2002, Brooklyn 13 percent, Manhattan 24 percent, Queens 21.6 percent, and Staten Island a measly 0.4 percent.

smokingbyborough.gif
The report also breaks down smoking rates by gender, income and ethnicity.

Health officials don't know why Staten Islanders refuse to stop smoking but plan a qualitative study to probe "why smoking is so widespread and persistent" there. The Department of Health is giving away nicotine-replacement patches and gum at the Staten Island ferry terminal between 3 and 6 pm today.

The full smoking report can be found on the Department of Health's web site.

Anyone got any theories to explain this? Does the landfill play a role?

more: Fact Check

comments: 1

Unanswered Questions about the Deutsche Bank Fire

Posted by Michael Clancy at 6:14 PM, August 20, 2007

Deutsche%20Bank.jpg
Photo by 24gotham via flickr

Almost six years after 9/11, the deaths of two firefighters at the former Deutsche Bank building raise troubling questions about oversight and safety at Ground Zero. Glenn Corbett, a professor of fire science at John Jay College and technical adviser to the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, said the following questions must be answered before the investigation is over:

1) How is that two firefighters are dead because a standpipe wasn't working or wasn't installed properly in a skyscraper that was being demolished? How could that come to be?

2) How come the fuel load in the building was so big? "There was all of this plywood and apparently, polyurethane kept in the building—that increased the fuel load and caused the fire to spread," Corbett said. Why didn't they use sheet metal or gypsum board? They are more expensive than plywood, but not combustible, Corbett said.

3) How is that downtown residents had raised questions about fire safety and toxicity at the former Deutsche Bank building for years, yet there was no comprehensive fire prevention or fire safety plan in place despite all the assurances from officials?

4) Had the Fire Department done inspections there before the fire? Had they done a pre-plan of the site, meaning had they walked through the building and looked at any changes that were made?

5) Were there any fire watches—guards whose sole job is it to look out for fires—assigned to the Deutsche Bank building? If so, did they spot the fire. "It makes sense to have fire watches on a demolition site like this. Lots of torches are being used to cut down the steel, so there are lot of fires. It's fairly commonplace," Corbett said. Did they hire a fire protection consultant?

more: Fact Check

comments: 0

Rudy Recants One 9/11 lie -- Five More To Go

Posted by Michael Clancy at 5:33 PM, August 10, 2007

When the heat got to be too much on Friday, Rudy Giuliani backpedaled from the claim that he was at Ground Zero as much, if not more, than the 9/11 rescue and recovery workers.

"I think I could have said it better," he told nationally syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher, the Associated Press reported on Friday. "You know, what I was saying was, 'I'm there with you.'"

This is what Rudy in to trouble on the campaign trail in Cincinnati in the first place:

"This is not a mayor or a governor or a president who's sitting in an ivory tower," he said. "I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. ... I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them."

But what about the rest of the falsehoods and hyperbole that comprise the foundation of Giuliani's candidacy? The Voice's Wayne Barrett took a look at those claims this week in article that The New Republic says "absolutely devastates Rudy Giuliani's claims about fighting terrorism."

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait goes on to say "I'm shocked this article has not received more attention. Using deep reporting, it simply takes Giuliani's claims apart piece by piece. If the facts in this article were absorbed by the public, or even campaign journalists, Giuliani's presidential campaign would be over."

Read Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11

more: Fact Check

comments: 2

Council Takes (Symbolic) Aim at the Words 'Bitch' and 'Ho'

Posted by Michael Clancy at 11:59 AM, July 31, 2007

lilkim.jpg
Internalized Oppression? Lil' Kim lyrics such as "Hot-damn-ho here we go again, light as a rock bitch (UH), hard as a cock bitch" will have to go, if the City Council has its way.

Fresh off the symbolic ban of the word "nigger" in February, the City Council is looking to extend the ban to the words "bitch" and "ho." Like the n-word bill, the ban would be symbolic and not have the force of law.

The bill is an interesting cultural document for many reasons, one of which being its odd blend of legalese and curse words, and another its linguistic analysis.

Whereas, The Council believes that the repercussions of words can be constructive or can be insidious, and that words, when misused, can lay foundations to legitimize the illegitimate and codify the unthinkable, including, for example, the concept that it is acceptable to refer to women as animals or, worse, that women are these words used to describe them;

Lest you think the Council is not down, the resolution displays a familiarity with the positive work of Queen Latifah, and name-checks "50-Cent, Eminem, R. Kelly, Snoop Dogg, Juvenile, Lil’ Kim, Foxy Brown, and Bow Wow, as well as the late Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G" as being responsible for the sort of "verbal assaults" that the symbolic legislation seeks to combat.

Defenders of the use of the word "nigger", often cited the distinction between "nigga" and "nigger." Is there such a defense for the words "bitch" and "ho?" The distinction between "bitch" and "biyotch?" Does anybody think these bans do anything to stop the promulgation of hate? Are necessary in this day and age?

As the resolution notes, this kind of speech has a history that predates Don Imus and 50 Cent:

Whereas, The Council recognizes that the word “bitch,” primarily defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “female canine animal, especially a dog,” carries a legitimately non-pejorative definition, but the Council further recognizes that in 1811, Francis Grose, in his “Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue,” described “bitch” as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore,” thus documenting a long-standing tradition of the word’s use for purposes of degradation; and Whereas, The word “ho” is commonly used to refer to a whore or woman of loose sexual reputation

The full text of the council resolution can be found here.

more: Fact Check

comments: 1

Bringing Back the Commuter Tax

Posted by Michael Clancy at 10:35 AM, July 23, 2007

Does anyone get the feeling that Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan seems destined to get stuck in the gridlock of the "Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission?" Streetsblog has a good analysis of what needs to happen for congestion pricing to become a reality, and what could happen to derail it. It looks like it has a long, long way to go. So wouldn't now be a good time to bring back the commuter tax, or at least bring back the conversation about it?

A little commuter tax history from Gotham Gazette:

The impetus for eliminating the commuter tax in 1999 came from both Democratic and Republican leaders in Albany who wanted the upper hand in a special election [in Rockland County]. Both sides saw the repeal as a way to woo suburban voters. Albany rolled over New York City and raw politics triumphed over sound fiscal policy. Democratic Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver who represents lower Manhattan played a shortsighted political game and voted to repeal the commuter tax, an act that benefited only upstate voters.

Mayor Bloomberg has tried unsuccessfully before to lobby Albany to bring it back, and surely this time around it would again be nearly impossible to get it passed in the state Senate and Assembly, but why not make some noise about it?

The mayor has shed his Republican skin, denounced the futility of party politics, and has good reason to jab his finger in the eyes of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who led the charge against the mayor's plan in its original incarnation.

Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat, assailed the congestion pricing plan, among other criticisms, as a regressive tax, saying in a 26-page report that "There is no real dispute that the people whose behavior will be modified, as well as the people from whom the bulk of the money will be extracted, are working families." The Drum Major Institute disagreed saying that most middle class New Yorkers would benefit from the policy without having to pay the $8 fee to enter Manhattan. Brodsky's criticism that the legislation, as initially written, created a pilot program that had no sunset provision was well-founded.

Silver did not want to authorize the city to have the means for collecting the new revenue—congestion pricing— until the MTA had the mass transit improvements in the pipeline. This was also the reason given as to why it was a tough sell for legislators trying to convince outer borough voters that the commuter tax would work for them.

But the commuter tax could bring real money back to the city that could be used to fund mass transit, the very thing that commuters use. If restored, the commuter tax would bring in $699 million in 2008, $734 million in 2009, $774 million in 2010, and $823 million in 2011, according to a report released this year by the New York City Independent Budget Office. That's a lot of new buses and trains. Funding mass improvements through a commuter tax would leave less to the imagination of outer-borough voters.

Was Brodsky worried about a regressive tax? Well, an estimated 54.2% of the people who would pay the commuter tax—about 0.45% of earnings—would have incomes over $100,000, according to the IBO.

And each time Silver has clashed with Bloomberg thus far, he's looked like a hero to certain segment of the population. It happened with the West Side Stadium and again with congestion pricing. But the commuter tax is glaring example of how Silver would sell out his constituents for political expediency. Let him defend it now, and again and again.

Expect the usual arguments that the commuter tax is bad for business. Well, Goldman Sachs got $1.6 billion in post-9/11 Liberty Bonds for their new headquarters. Those jobs aren't going anywhere.

Don't think the city gets shafted? Check out Wayne Barrett's hysterical and maddening story in May of 1999
Train Runs Over Rudy

It's time for "City Residents Only" signs on libraries, ambulances, museums, bridges, toilets, sinks, parks, and roadways. Rudy's cops and firemen should also be ordered to check for resident id, rather than rushing to any commuter's rescue.

With New York City nonresident employees paying a puny 11 percent of the payroll tax rate for residents, less than in virtually any major city, the ongoing legislative move to kill the commuter tax is a declaration of regional war.

If suburban sponges won't pay a ratty average of $180 a year— less than half a percent of their income— to cover a fraction of the cost of the services they soak up from this city, they should have to hold their bowels every day until they can make it to a suburban sewer, and they should only be allowed in and out of town on state highways, bridges, or tunnels.

more: Fact Check

comments: 3

Syphilis Cases Double Thus Far in '07

Posted by Michael Clancy at 5:39 PM, July 5, 2007

NYC_Condom_product_shot.jpg

The New York City condoms the city has been marketing and distributing for free since February haven't done much to curb the spread of syphilis.

Twice as many cases have been reported in the first three months of 2007 than in the same period in 2006, the Department of Health warned on Thursday. In the first three months of 2006, there were 128 reported cases. In the first three months of this year, there were 260 cases reported.

Men account for 96 percent of the new cases, and men having unprotected sex with other men was listed as a key risk factor, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reported.

The median age of people reporting new syphilis cases was 34 years old, and Chelsea was the neighborhood with the most instances.

A complete listing of where people can pick up free NYC condoms can be found here.

more: Fact Check

comments: 0

Your Booty May Be Contaminated

Posted by Michael Clancy at 12:20 PM, June 29, 2007

booty.jpg


Put that booty down.

City health officials are investigating an outbreak of salmonella wandsworth poisoning associated with the Veggie Booty puffed grain snack. There are eight confirmed cases in the New York City area, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene said today. The makers of Veggie Booty, Robert's American Gourmet, of Sea Cliff, N.Y., have recalled the product, which contains spinach and kale.

Fifty-two people in 17 states have been infected thus far, the Food and Drug Administration said on its web site. Most people reported bloody diarrhea. Four were hospitalized. Almost all of the cases involved children under 10, including a preponderance of toddlers, the FDA said. Anyone who may have consumed the product should call their doctor immediately, the FDA said. The full FDA release can be found here.

more: Fact Check

comments: 0

Farrakhan as Metaphor Angers ADL — Then Doesn't

Posted by Michael Clancy at 6:27 PM, June 22, 2007

122758535_93c55258b4_m.jpg

Photo by Icy Mike via flickr

By Chris Thompson

Oh, that wacky Louis Farrakhan. He’s been so many things in his life: cult leader; anti-Semite; apparent expert on hygiene and comparative religion. And now. . . metaphor for a broken planet?

That’s what Nigerian playwright and Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka was trying to get at when he invoked Farrakhan’s name in a June 8 speech at an international theater conference organized by the Theatre Communications Group in Minneapolis.

In his keynote address about the importance of ritual in healing communities (or something squishy like that; it’s all above our pay grade), Soyinka talked about three people who have used pageantry to soothe misery and anger. First, you got Aeschylus; no problems there. Then you got Sartre; a bit of a stretch, but whatever.

Then you got Farrakhan, and the Universal Day of Atonement he proposed a few years back. Whatever you think of Farrakhan’s nastier side, Soyinka said, he was on to something there. If we could only return to the notion of humanity apologizing together on one day, the world could begin to turn away from war and greed.

Whoops. Soyinka broke the cardinal rule: don’t ever bring up Farrakhan unless you plan to slap him around. Tuvia Tanenbom, the artistic director of the Jewish Theater of New York, was sitting in the audience, and he was promptly appalled. “In the first part of the speech, he was pandering to all of us about Bush and stuff like that, and contrasted it with the great man of our time, Louis Farrakhan!” Tanenbom recalled. “He said Louis Farrakhan had some great ideas. If we all accept that, wars would not be needed.”

After Soyinka’s speech, Tanenbom stood up and challenged him. “I couldn’t hold it in anymore,” he said. “And I asked him, I said, he is one of the most divisive men who exists in our time when it comes to race issues, denigrating the Holocaust, saying Hitler was a great man. … I said, ‘I think if anybody should atone, it’s not us, the actors and playwrights and whoever, it’s Louis Farrakhan who should atone.”

Soyinka replied that Farrakhan may be a schmuck, but that shouldn’t preclude us from using him as a metaphor. And then he made his second mistake: he deployed an oblique reference to people who consider themselves victims. According to one attendee, the audience understood him to be referring to self-important theater professionals, including himself. But to Tanenbom, that could only mean one thing: those mouthy Jews.

The day after the conference ended, Tanenbom returned to his office and issued a blistering press release. Then he called up the Anti-Defamation League and got them to do the same thing. “It is sad and disturbing that a man of Soyinka’s stature and respectability in the arts world would lionize a man like Farrakhan, who is certainly no role model,” ADL National Director Abe Foxman said in the release. “We hope that Soyinka was speaking out of lack of knowledge, that he didn’t know of Minister Farrakhan’s long record of Jew-baiting and racism. Perhaps he simply wants to ignore it.”

Ah, but then the staff at the ADL went and actually read Soyinka’s speech. And promptly learned that Soyinka’s point was considerably more complex, and that he had clearly denounced Farrakhan for, among other things, defending brutal African dictators. The ADL scrubbed the release from its web site and began the time-honored process of hoping this would all just go away. “We read the transcript and saw that Soyinka didn’t say what Tanenbom said he said,” claimed ADL spokeswoman Myrna Shinbaum. “So we removed the press release.”

Now, Tanenbom is furious at Foxman, with whom he claimed to have a long-running feud. “The ADL today is a slave to the caprice of one man,” the Jewish Theater posted on its web site. “Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism, no matter how many ‘kosher certificates’ Abe Foxman is willing to issue to occasional partners in crime.” Tanenbom has called on the Theatre Communications Group to release a transcript of the speech, so everyone can read Soyinka’s sentiments for themselves.

But according to TCG executive director Teresa Eyring, they don’t have the rights to Soyinka’s speech. So everyone is apparently going to have to use their imaginations.

more: Fact Check

comments: 14

Bloomberg Launches War of Words on Poverty

Posted by Neil deMause at 9:49 AM, December 19, 2006

Mayor Michael Bloomberg
(Mayor Bloomberg with councilmember Gale Brewer. Not pictured: councilmember Bill DeBlasio, Congressman Charles Rangel, poor peo