(Long Island, NY) The city council members of Long Beach are debating a one-dollar hike in taxi fares. The minimum fare per person would go up to four dollars and fifty cents if the hike is approved, but there is an additional proposal brought by two city council members to keep the old fares between the hours of 10PM and 5AM. This, the council members claim, would encourage responsible drinking and discourage people from driving while intoxicated.

This proposal—the “10-5 fare,” some would call it—is an excellent idea. Most likely, the extra attention brought to the drinking and driving issue combined with the “discounted” fare (which is really just the old fare, continued for those of us who like a few rounds after a long day’s work) could probably be blamed for a minor reduction in DUI tickets for at least a couple of months.

Lest anyone think I’m actually opposed to this idea of a lower rate during peak drinking hours, please understand that I truly am in favor of the idea. However, recent reports in the local press lead me to believe that the discount won’t happen. The same two council members who proposed the late-night fare have also proposed a twelve-point program that is supposed to improve taxi service in Long Beach. This program includes a 24-hour hotline to address complaints, background checks on all drivers up for license renewal and a monitoring program for accidents.

These things are, like the reduced fare idea, all excellent. Unfortunately it’s also politics as usual; make a host of proposed changes, offer a discount, but offer no plan on how to pay for any of it. Who pays for the mandatory drug test program or background checks suggested as part of the twelve-point plan? Who gets to bear the cost of the 24-hour complaint hotline?

Again, none of these suggestions are bad, they are all quite excellent; even so, politicians have a bad habit of proposing without planning on how to pay. Or perhaps the council members have figured this out already—if so, please let them step forward and explain themselves. Otherwise, it has the familiar ring of politics-as-usual. Order sweeping changes, let the citizens pick up the tab either in the form of increased rates, higher taxes or more inconvenience, and laugh all the way to the polls.

This article is completely unfair in that the council members don’t get to present their side of the problem-all you get to do is read a laundry list of nay-saying and bellyaching about the latest plan to improve life, liberty and the pursuit of a late nite cab after a few too many beers. Again, if the council members have a payment scheme attached to all of this, they ought to whip it out and show Long Beach what they have in mind. I suspect that something less than a detailed budget is forthcoming; call me a pessimist, but when President is able to entrench the nation in an expensive war without so much as a hint of an exit strategy, what makes us think that city hall won’t follow Bush’s lousy example?

If I’m wrong, I promise to pay the full taxi fare for a year, no matter what time of day it happens to be when I step out of the pub.

(Long Island, NY) As if the appearance of impropriety wasn’t bad enough, the Associated Press reports that President Bush was “unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates” according to the AP article, “until the deal already had been approved by his administration.”

The propriety question now moot, a new issue arises to take its place; why was the President of the United States, who gets regular updates on situations critical to national security, unaware of a major deal affecting U.S. ports? The President’s ardent defense of the agreement to allow a state-controlled business run by the United Arab Emirates now sounds like a last-minute salvage attempt rather than a carefully measured response to public criticism.

Bush has a bad track record when it comes to being informed. He mishandled intel regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, allowed the Department of Defense to launch a major campaign in both Afghanistan and Iraq without a realistic exit strategy, and now admits that he was informed only at the last moment about the UAE port deal.

All of this comes at the same time Bush expects the American people to swallow cuts in Medicare while maintaining tax cuts that amount to roughly three hundred dollars for middle class citizens after filing their taxes. If there is logic at work here, the White House Spokesperson ought to introduce us to a commentator who can illustrate it.

The port deal controversy has a very familiar ring to it. It is symptomatic of a larger problem, one that destroyed the Roman Empire. An overtaxed infrastructure, a lack of decisive leadership, terrorist-style attacks on military troops stationed at far-off outposts and the emergence of a strong right-wing political movement all factored in to the end of the thousand year empire. America has taken a far shorter amount of time to approach the problems that plagued the Romans, but the results could be the same.

What is needed to stave off the same consequences? For starters, much more attention to domestic problems; poverty, education and national defense. The tax code should be revised to include a far more proportional system based on revenue, income and actual net worth. A family of four may have a far greater potential for income than it truly produces. That family should be evaluated on the actual amount of money earned for the year. This should also apply to small business, corporations and religious institutions. “Tax Exempt” is a phrase that should be made obsolete, with the major exceptions of hospitals, local charities and schools. All other revenue-generating organizations which operate on a regional or national level should be taxed accordingly regardless of creed, faith or lack thereof.

The military should be reorganized to deal chiefly with immediate threats to national security and national interests. It should not be used as an instrument of foreign policy, but instead be redefined as a tool to protect America’s borders, its airspace and its territories. The era of the global policeman must come to an end. The United States has proven itself to be no better and no worse than the United Nations in this respect—a serious indictment of White House administrations over the last thirty years.

A federal commission should be created to examine the U.S. tariff system, foreign trade and related subject to see where these systems can be brought up to date in the manner most advantageous to the nation. Separate commissions should study alternative fuels, national healthcare and other issues vital to the continued survival of the country well past the terms of the current administration and those to come in the next ten years.

These fixes are not short-term, nor are they easy to achieve. The current mindset in American politics includes some lip service to these issues, and perhaps some budgetary consideration, but no serious debate or study of the problems, causes and solutions to the issues which affect day-to-day America. Instead, we get yet another four hundred billion dollar defense budget with little or no accountability to We The People as to how it’s being utilized.

These suggestions are, of course, the most basic. None of these suggestions will ever happen, thanks in part to the nature of our government, but also due to basic human nature. The American system works after a fashion, but it needs a long-term commitment to a serious overhaul in many departments. Our President being uninformed about a major business deal that has the potential to affect the safety, security and financial future of America’s interests is inexcusable. It is also a major red flag in terms of how our country is governed. Until the conditions that permit this sort of mismanagement of national affairs are changed, we can expect to see serious blunders such as the White House’s handling of the UAE port deal for the foreseeable future.

(Long Island, NY) Govenor George Pataki made a statement recently alongside Maryland Governor Robert Erlich regarding the controversy over six United States ports recently acquired by Dubai Ports World, the business owned by the United Arab Emirates. Pataki’s concerns over an Arab-based company having control of major U.S. ports is part of the growing controversy over the Bush Administration’s decision to allow the deal.

The main source of concern according to opponents of the deal is one of security. In the wake of the 9-11 attacks on New York, Govenor Pataki is right to be concerned about any business deal giving control of United States port to any foreign interest. That said, is nationality the issue? The fact that the United Arab Emirates is the controlling interest in the six U.S. ports should not be the major concern.

The real issue here is twofold. First, the port controversy is symptomatic of a larger problem–America’s outsourcing issues. In the quest to find cheaper solutions to expensive corporate problems at home, many companies have sent the work outside the office or overseas. Outsourcing and overseas contracting may be a great solution for the corporate bottom line, but the end result does not necessarily help the economy in general.

Globalization has gotten a very bad name thanks in part to disreputable practices in overseas factories that are ignored or tolerated by some American companies outsourcing or otherwise creating work in other counties. Sweatshops, child labor and other issues are given a whitewash or a nice PR campaign while those back home in American try to sleep at night knowing what’s being done.

The only real changes seem to come about when a large network news agency gets an investigative report on the air. Outsourcing to other countries may not be the evil to end all evils, but it is a practice which could have a negative effect on the entire economy overall long after the corporate savings have been pocketed and forgotten. One of the real issues with regard to the ownership of six major U.S. ports has more to do with America outsourcing itself to death than homeland security. Isolationism is NOT the answer, but neither is the other end of the scale, where we seem to be at now with the issue of who owns America’s ports.

The second part of this issue is one as of this writing unaddressed by any major news outlet; the possible conflict of interest involving George W. Bush as a member of a “Texas oil family” approving the ownership of six U.S. ports by a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. If Dick Cheney’s ties with Haliburton could be called into question at the start of the war in Iraq, certainly George W. Bush must be forced to some kind of accountability for his own past or present ties to the oil industry with regard to UAE port takeover approval.

According to some polls, as many as 53 percent of Americans believe the President should be impeached for his role in misleading the public in justifying the war in Iraq. How much more should Americans question the decision of a Texas Oil man–past or present–with regards to any business deal involving the United Arab Emirates. Bush sold the majority of his oil stock in 1990, effectively moving him out of the business in favor of his purchase of the Texas Rangers baseball team. The team was sold in 1998, but if Bush were to approve a business deal involving the Texas Rangers, certainly there would be raised eyebrows. Why such a lack of scrutiny in the case of the UAE deal? It is a question far too important not to raise, yet no one in the media or otherwise seems to be concerned with the appearance of impropriety.

George W. Bush is commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. Those in uniform are held to a high standard in all respects of their lives. One of the most stringent set of regulations that govern those in uniform concern avoiding the appearance of impropriety, favoritism or giving consideration based on favors or business arrangements. If the commander-in-chief cannot lead by example in these areas, he should be considered unfit for the position.

Why no one calls the President’s behavior into question in this issue is puzzling, but certainly no one in the military will do so; there is also a strict rule about public speech or press involvement that is considered derogatory to the President, Congress and other elected officials. Some one else will have to point out that the President has failed to lead from the front when it comes to accountability, integrity and the appearance of favoritism.

The ownership of America’s major ports is indeed one of national security. There is more than a hint of racism in the idea that Arabs should not own our major ports. There is no racism whatsoever in the notion that American companies should be in charge of American ports. If America outsources our lifelines to and from the continent to outside concerns, it runs the risk of falling under control of those concerns, however small. Is the risk really worth it?

(Long Island, NY) According to Whitehouse.gov, “When President Bush’s proposal is fully in place, the typical family with two children will receive at least $1,600 in tax relief. This is real and practical help.”

There is no doubt that the extra savings are welcome. Everybody needs more money. Unfortunately, it’s hard to count your money and ask what the end result of being given that extra money might be. In fact, if you are struggling to pay your bills, you really don’t care. That is what the Bush administration is hoping will happen.

Too cynical? Perhaps, after all, on the same page at www.whitehouse.gov, President Bush is quoted talking about making the tax system work better for all Americans. “These are the basic ideas that guide my tax policy: lower income taxes for all, with the greatest help for those most in need.” The President stated. According to the website, Bush goes further. “Everyone who pays income taxes benefits — while the highest percentage tax cuts go to the lowest income Americans,” he said. “I believe this is a formula for continuing the prosperity we’ve enjoyed, but also expanding it in ways we have yet to discover. It is an economics of inclusion. It is the agenda of a government that knows its limits and shows its heart.”

Remember those words as you read news stories about how the President’s proposed cuts in Medicare would cost state hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars. Bush’s monetary policies seem to shuffle money from one side of the ledger to another, back and forth until you can’t tell where the money is going or where it went. On the streets this kind of scam is called the shell game. In government, it’s called the tax rebate. Can ANYONE explain how the governmental money game works in reality? For We the People, it’s impossible to figure out, but it looks completely suspect—especially in light of recent budget announcements concerning military spending.

It’s not that we shouldn’t have lower taxes, or enforce more efficient tax collection from large industries; we should definitely have both of these. What we should also be getting is a sane, common sense fiscal policies. Bush’s proposed cuts in Medicare—a vital resource for so many older Americans—should be held side by side and examined with Bush’s defense spending budget, sent to congress on February 7th.

In the 2006 Defense Budget, the U.S. Army is listed as having a thirteen billion dollar baseline budget. Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Especially when only around nine and a half billion is earmarked for Homeland Defense. Has anyone else made the assumption that the war on terror is more important to the policy makers than Homeland Defense? They will, of course, spin-doctor these figures until you can’t think straight, but I encourage anyone who isn’t sure to simply examine the numbers. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are getting around nine billion in additional funds over several years for chemical warfare defense equipment and training. Homeland Defense is stuck with the original nine billion. Still wondering what is more important to the White House?

Why is the Army getting billions while our healthcare system (which are right here at home, in our own back yard) gets the short shrift? Forget about the Army for a moment and consider the entire Department of Defense, of which the United States Army makes up a part. President Bush’s DoD budget for 2006 is over four hundred billion dollars.

That is no misprint. The actual figure is $419.3 billion dollars. Remember that a good chunk of that money is going to fund the war in Iraq and anti-terror operations in Afghanistan. Never mind that our airports are still easy targets, that a rental van packed with explosives won’t be detected until it blows up in front of your favorite landmark, or that any maniac with a gun can still climb up into a bell tower and just start shooting. Can we do anything in terms of prevention? Improvements? Deterrence?

We really ought to take some more of that four hundred billion dollars and invest it in some major improvements right here at home, shouldn’t we? Anyone who has been on the Long Island Railroad in the middle of a snowstorm knows that. We don’t need to resort to isolationism to do this, in spite of what the spin-doctors accuse people of wanting when these issues are brought up. An adjustment in priorities is needed. How many military programs are necessary to keep the nation safe? Are the bombs, bullets and soldiers really worth that staggering amount? If we can justify spending that sort of money or war machines, America really ought to be finding the money to invest in healthcare, too.

(Long Island, NY) The big Long Island news is the underage sex bust conducted by Suffolk police. An undercover operation had adults posing as minors in internet chat rooms to catch adult sex predators. In the wake of the arrests, which include an Army Lieutenant Colonel, many parents are wondering how to better protect their kids.

This isn’t a case of hysteria over foul-mouthed cartoons or racy daytime talk shows. The threat is real. The worries, as evidenced by the arrests, are very well founded. What is a parent to do? It’s impossible to stand over a child’s shoulder the entire time they are online to make sure they aren’t being lured into dangerous territory online. Or is it?

Computer hackers have long known about a little type of program (and more recently, a piece of hardware) called a keystroke logger. This software or hardware device is installed on your computer and will literally record each and every punch on the keyboard. Every website, every email, every web search will be instantly recorded and stored awaiting your examination. These devices are legal, available as both freeware, (sometimes with limited functions) purchased software, and commercial sale hardware. You simply obtain the keystroke logger—sometimes called a key-capture or keyboard monitor—and install it on your machine.

This program, all by itself, will NOT keep your children away from dangerous situations on the internet. Those parents who enforce strict access rules for their computers—specific hours and time limits, for example, will get the most from a keystroke logger. After all, you can check to see what has been done between the allowed hours online, and check to make sure no violations of your access rules have occurred.

The keystroke logger is often simpler to use than it may sound. With many of these programs, you will look at specific times and see lists of computer activity simply displayed in easy-to-read layouts. You won’t be simply pouring over huge strings of text in endless paragraphs. But buyer beware—make sure you know what you are getting in that department. Read product descriptions carefully and gravitate towards products that advertise themselves as being designed for parents and other concerned computer users.

Keystroke logging is only one tool you can use to increase your peace of mind and your child’s online safety. If you are truly worried about the potential for internet predators or inappropriate net viewing, the best solution is a combination of factors. In addition to keystroke logging, have a single computer in a high-traffic area like the living room or dining room for your children to use. It will be more difficult to conceal ‘after-hours’ surfing when the computer is right out in the open for all to see.

You can prevent ‘unauthorized’ net surfing simply by pass-wording your computer at start-up and putting an additional password on screen savers. If you have a single password known only to you that gives access to Windows, you can control when and how your children use the computer. It may be a hassle to be responsible for the kids’ access to the internet each and every time they want it, but those who are truly concerned about internet predators and inappropriate websites will get used to the inconvenience in exchange for the peace of mind.

There are no easy solutions to the problems of web predators, but much like television, the only way to make a difference in your child’s life is to be in control of the box and not the other way around. The more involved you are with your children’s viewing and surfing habits, the more peace of mind you will have. Fortunately, unlike television, there is a wide variety of software and hardware on the market that can help give you that peace of mind, and usually for a reasonable price.

(Long Island, NY) People knew the snow was bad, but when the Long Island Rail Road ground to a halt, people started realizing that this wasn’t just another winter surprise. The snow took just about everyone by surprise, including the pilot of a Turkish Airlines jet, whose plane skidded off the runway at JFK.

The LIRR situation angered many of those who were stranded in railway waiting rooms for ten or more hours. Imagine the conversations that must have been going on as these poor folk waited to get home. “Hasn’t LIRR seen heavy snow before?”

People pacing up and down hoping the situation would change quickly were soon disappointed as the ordeal was dragged out for many hours.

The average rider has too many questions in a situation like the blizzard of 06, questions that may or may not get satisfactory answers. “Airplanes have heating elements on them to melt the snow and ice,” one frustrated passenger probably mused to another, “why can’t the LIRR do the same for the rail system? A little heat, what’s the big deal?”

What is the real problem here? Is it the same as any other big city service; a failure to plan ahead, to ask the probing questions? “What happens if we get a huge snowfall?” Is the LIRR really sitting with its head in the sand refusing to think about the possibilities?

Somehow I doubt it. These weather related questions MUST have come up at some point in the continued development of the railroad. Even so, there are two possibilities that we’ll never get satisfactory answers on. It would be typical corporate cost cutting if LIRR planners thought long and hard about it, and decided that it was worth the risk to have people stranded for a long time because the fix was too expensive. It’s happened before, why should this be any different?

Of course, there’s another possibility, a scenario where LIRR execs thought long and hard about it, did research and studies and in the end simply couldn’t find a realistic solution to the problem. “Just live with it, that’s all we can do.” Who is to say? Maybe heavy snowfalls just aren’t something that can be dealt with until they start melting off the rails.

It would be nice to hear the LIRR side of the story on this one. Not simply what they are planning to do now that everyone’s upset and wanting a fix after the fact, but also what was considered in the past before the huge snowfall. This is called accountability and there doesn’t seem to be enough of it going around these days. Not in local or state government, not in the House or the Senate, and certainly not from the White House where wiretaps and surveillance seem to be going on willy-nilly on U.S. citizens with a nod and a wink from the President. This is a golden opportunity for LIRR to do a far better job than the White House, Congress and the Senate all at once. Will they?

File what follows under the “asking for waaaayy too much” department:

Just once, it would be nice to have an official come on television, take the microphone and tell it like it really is. Imagine the credibility of the LIRR as the representative announced, “Sorry, folks, we looked at it from every angle and there is just nothing we can do. Sometimes a blizzard is going to shut things down the same way it does at the airport and on the highway. It’s a BLIZZARD, what do you expect?”

This will probably never happen. Everybody wants to put spin on these public statements instead of just coming out and telling it like it is. Too bad, we could use some straight talk from SOMEWHERE. Instead we will probably get the usual song and dance about “making customers happy” and “we’re doing everything we can to make LIRR a safe and enjoyable ride”.

Spin or no spin, one thing is for certain; sometimes you are at the mercy of Mother Nature, and no amount of cursing and swearing will help you. In times like these, many of us find ourselves grateful for cell phones, wireless laptops and vending machines. For those who don’t have these niceties, the waiting is far more frustrating. Maybe public transportation facilities in areas with heavy snowfall should look into the option of including a wide variety of public communications kiosks—more pay phones, internet booths and televisions—to make the wait more bearable.

Or they could get some heated rails so the snow doesn’t pile up and shut down the system. Just a suggestion.

(Long Island, NY) For a third day in a row, a group of eleven lawmakers refused to show for a meeting in Nassau on the week of February 6th, which resulted in no work being done. A dispute over the leadership of the Nassau Legislature has resulted in the “no-work” situation since early January.

In an unrelated story, the Islip Supervisor Pete McGowan has had one million dollars worth of campaign funds frozen due to allegations of improper use. In a not-so-unrelated story, 2003 saw the arrest of Fred Towle, Jr, a republican legislator in Shirley who pleaded guilty to accepting bribes. It was the start of a large probe into political corruption, which has brought sixteen convictions so far.

What is it about Long Island, anyway? Scratch that, what is it about politics in general? Look at the amazingly wide range of scandals, from the Tom Delay illegal-contributions-and-casino scandal all the way down to the flap over Nassau Deputy County Executive Peter Sylver, who was convicted of using his county credit card for thousands of dollars in personal spending.

Doubtless there are some honest politicians out there. Wherever they are, they should speak up once in a while. They really should make a noise or wave a flag to let us know they are still breathing. Voters worry about them, as they seem to be seldom heard. Are they dead? On vacation? Hanging out on golf courses with famous televangelists? Where did they go?

There are of course, many varying solutions to the problem of political corruption and inaction. The first of many solutions should be to hold our politicians to the same standards as everybody else. If you don’t show up for work, you get fired. That takes care of the Nassau republicans fairly quickly, eh?

The Pete McGowan problem—allegedly mismanaged or improperly used campaign funds—can be solved by a nationwide cap on campaign coffers for any and all elections. Let’s call it a federal law limiting any campaign funding for public office to half a million dollars. This would force politicians to get creative with the money they have, and maybe even start talking about—gulp—real issues facing the country. They might even start saying things ordinary people would really listen to—and vote for.

Tom Delay’s scandal can be fixed with a nice healthy prison sentence policy for anyone who misuses their campaign money, tax dollars, etc. Call it the elected official version of the “three strikes” policy. We have regular (read: nonelected) people in federal prisons for violating the “three strikes” rule; one guy got a hefty federal sentence for stealing a slice of pizza, because that slice was his third strike. Are we really letting the politicos have a better deal with the punishments because they wear suits and ties? That’s not the spirit of the law, but you can bet it’s the reality. Let all those dirty drug addicts and illegal gamblers get tossed into nasty prison cells—those democrats and republicans who break the law are getting comparative slaps on the hand. After all, they only stole (oops, misappropriated) YOUR tax money. That guy with the slice of pizza doesn’t sound so bad now, does he? He did hard time for that slice, friends. What about YOUR slice?

When it comes to using your government credit card for personal use, pleading guilty shouldn’t help you at all. The U.S. Military can court-martial service members who do just what Peter Sylver did. You get the point; do I really need to ramble on about this one?

My final bit of advice also takes a lesson from the U.S. Military. Instead of electing these officials, who spend gigantic sums of money to convince you “I’m number one, and the other guy is a schmuck,” we should turn this whole political process on its head and end the election system. Instead, why not institute a governmental DRAFT policy where people would be required to register for Selective Service. When your number is called, you must go serve as governor, dog catcher, whatever. Of course, just like the military, you’ll have to go through a boot camp of sorts and then a lengthy training process. It would cost money, but chances are the people who get drafted would do at least as good a job as the pinheads that are currently getting arrested and sentenced for their misdeeds. For all their “qualifications” they aren’t paying as much attention to the business at hand of running the government as they are lining their campaign coffers, arranging reelection campaigns and filling their pockets.

All that’s needed to prove me wrong here is for those honest politicos to speak up and let the rest of us know that the bad men are really in the minority. Oh, and while you’re at it, since you’re up moving around and all, make something happen. Get a road paved or oppose these stupid tort reform laws or end imminent domain or something.

You can speak up any time now.

(Long Island, NY) Ever get an incoming call on your cell phone from a 1-800 number? My first thought when the phone rang was “who is wasting my daytime minutes?” I answered, more out of curiosity about who had obtained my cell phone number than anything else.

“Hello?”

A split second of silence should have had me hanging up instantly, but I wasn’t quite up to speed yet, the second cup of coffee still waiting to kick in.

“Hi, this is Rob from the Dove Foundation. Is the lady of the house available?”

Oh, this was going to be RICH. There IS no lady of the house. Of course, Rob didn’t know that, because he is an annoying telemarketing schmuck.

“Who can I say is calling?”

A pause. I’ve caught Rob off guard for some reason. This annoys me. I have a very short fuse for people calling me asking for the lady of the house. It implies that I have one stashed someplace, or perhaps I myself am the lady of the house. No offense to anyone who WANTS to be the lady of the house. Have at it. Besides, there is no house. Just an apartment with hardwood floors, the smell of the Indian restaurant downstairs and the clatter/bang/thunk of the garbage trucks at seven AM sharp each and every morning.

“Um, well, again, this is Rob from the Dove Foundation. This is not a sales call.”

Could have fooled me, Rob. And you’re getting snippy with me for no reason. This puts me on edge. More specifically, it makes me want to come down to the Dove Foundation with a plastic garbage bag and a baseball bat. I don’t like guys with only one name getting uppity with me because they can’t talk to the lady of the house. And besides which, there IS NO lady of the house.

“What exactly is this call pertaining to?”

Let’s get to the bottom of this Dove Foundation business, eh? And why don’t they want to talk to me, but rather the non-existent lady of the house? Could it be that they are more interested in someone they have pre-stereotyped as being easier to persuade, get money out of or influence somehow? If I HAD a lady of the house, she would most likely be prepared to give Rob an even worse time than I. The Dove Foundation–it sounds like somebody has founded a charity based on chocolate.

“Well, as I said, this is Rob,” he’s gotten VERY snippy now, “Calling from the Dove Foundation. Is the man or lady of the house at home?”

NOW he wants to talk to anybody who will listen. Couldn’t get the lady of the house, so it’s time to move on to anybody who will admit living here. Too bad I don’t like rude people.

“Strike three, pal. You’re out.”

I hang up on pompous ol’ Rob, wait ten minutes and redial the 1-800 number that came up on my cell phone when Rob called. The phone rings for three solid minutes. Hmmmm. I don’t trust anybody who calls from the chocolate bar foundation and doesn’t answer their own phone.

I look up the Dove Foundation on the web, and lo and behold! Rude Rob’s organization has nothing whatsoever to do with that excellent purveyor of fine chocolates, Dove brand. At least as far as I could tell. I tried to call the 1-800 number advertised on the Dove Foundation website to ask, but only got a voice mail for one of their executive-types.

What I did learn from the Dove Foundation web page is that it is yet another one of those self-appointed ‘watchdog’ groups for movies, claiming to yearn for a child-safe environment so that nary an offending burp or rude word manages to tickle the ears of those oh-so-sensitive kiddies. We wouldn’t want to contaminate all those young ears and eyes now, would we?

Well, parents certainly should take an active interest in what the kiddies are viewing, to be sure. But I’m not quite convinced that we need a nonprofit organization to do it for us. Remember, folks, the phrase ‘nonprofit’ also means “tax exempt”. It also means “fundraisers like mad” and most often means “highly paid board of directors”. Does it mean so in the case of the Dove Foundation? Who knows? I don’t.

Even so, I think back to the United Way scandal of early 1990s when its national president was convicted of fraud. Remember that one? The United Way director was essentially busted for misusing the organization’s assets in a major way. Not that I’m implying the same thing is going on at the Dove Foundation. Not a bit of it. I have no idea whatsoever how that organization is run. But let’s face it folks, a handful of nonprofit organizations don’t have a very good reputation these days. The potential for abuses is too great to ignore in some sectors.

It would be irresponsible journalism to suggest that the Dove Foundation is involved in dirty dealings. I am not saying anything of the sort. What I would like to make noise about here is what they ARE doing. At the website, the Dove Foundation doesn’t just encourage filmmakers to create more family-friendly fare; they actively seek “re-edited” versions of Hollywood movies suitable for families.

This, friends and neighbors, is what my grandmother would call a “big load of horse puckey.” The Dove Foundation, in a quest to create this essentially sanitized and retooled entertainment, is asking filmmakers to be dishonest about their work. Cutting out what the Dove Foundation would consider inappropriate is tantamount to…well, who cares what it’s TANTAMOUNT to, it’s just plain fraudulent. If you rent a copy of Schindler’s List, you should see ALL of it, just the way the director intended. If you don’t want the kids to see it, DON’T SHOW IT TO THEM. Do we REALLY need yet another non-taxpaying organization to ‘save the children’?

Instead of spending the amounts of money the Dove Foundation may or may not have raised on cleaning up movies, they should redistribute that money to needy families with hungry kids. If the Dove Foundation is so intent on saving the children, they should take more DIRECT ACTION. Cleaning up Hollywood scripts isn’t going to do a bloody thing for inner-city kids who hear all the swear words, see all the drugs and shootings, basically getting all the bad influences they can handle right out there on the street. It’s NOT in the movie theaters for the kids—it’s REAL LIFE. Try cleaning THAT up, Rob-from-the-Dove-Foundation.

And besides, how did he get my CELL number?

(Long Island, NY) A February 28th workshop at the Kermit W. Graf building in Riverhead illustrates a sometimes-overlooked resource new parents have; a community of people just like them, all learning through a difficult time. The workshop, called “Living With Toddlers” is in many ways, a smaller version of something people in the corporate world have benefited from for decades.

In the business world, conventions and workshops are designed to educate, inform and help those ‘in the biz’ make contacts with one another. These conventions are often viewed as “team building” activities and offer ways to work out problems and difficulties. Why shouldn’t parents take advantage of the same thing in the form of parenting workshops? While vastly different from their corporate counterparts in terms of presentation and topic, the basic results are the same.

At the business convention, cards are traded, ideas are shared on how to get the job done more effectively, and friendships are started on the basis of common ground; similar corporations, school connections, common associates, any of the ways people routinely bond. Parents can get the same kind of connections at parenting workshops. A harried, frustrated stay-at-home dad or mom will find many others in the same situation. New parents who learn from the experience of their peers over coffee and donuts find themselves going home with new tools to use “on the job” with their kids.

The convention experience often includes training and literature that can help expand a person’s knowledge base with regard to selling, efficiency and time management. The same goes for a parenting support group or workshop. Even if you don’t purchase any books or opt only to attend the free seminar portion of a support group, you’ll come away with a wealth of information on how to do your parenting job better.

The “Living With Toddlers” workshop itself is advertised as a way to teach new parents how to develop realistic expectations on child development during those critical first years, much like a corporate seminar would instruct new managers on how to groom their new hires in how to properly bring the new employee onto the team as a fully functioning part of the group. Some new parents might balk at the idea that anyone else could teach them something about how to raise their child, but who in the business world honestly thinks they can’t learn something from the experience of tried-and-tested success story? It’s the exact same thing with parenting. Viewed from a corporate standpoint, it makes no sense at all to refuse some ‘insider’ information. Your bottom line at home won’t be dollars and cents, but the results are the same—improved efficiency and better use of the time you have to spend with the family.

In the corporate world, there is often no room for mistakes that are easily avoided by listening to advice; so much more so with children. In your busy life, can you afford to spend time on trial and error learning that could be avoided with the help of information gained at a workshop or support group? Often times, parents are too busy to devote the time to attend—but a new stay-at-home parent may find the investment worth the effort. Not all business people have the time to go to seminars, either. Those who can find a way to make the time find themselves headed back to the office with a renewed sense of purpose. Sometimes the most important part of the experience is just the knowledge that there are others out there who have been there, and understand. Other times the information itself is the most valuable part. Either way, that refreshed, ‘ready for the world” feeling is priceless.

Parenting Workshop: “Living With Toddlers” on February 28, 2006 and March 7 7:00PM-9:00PM at the Kermit W. Graf Building, Riverhead, NY.

For more information call 631-727-7850, extension 340 or e-mail to dk232@cornell.edu

(Long Island, NY) Most Americans who grew up in the late 1970s and early 1980s remember the string of movies based on Jay Anson’s book, The Amityville Horror. The novel, released in 1979, was based around true stories regarding Long Island’s most famous house. The tale includes details of a 1974 Long Island murder of six people in the DeFeo family, who were shot to death at 112 Ocean Avenue. One of the surviving family members, Ronald “Butch” DeFeo, was tried and convicted of the murders.

Just over a year later, another family moved in at 112 Ocean Avenue. Twenty-eight days after taking residence, the Lutz family moved out with haste, claiming the house to be haunted. Author Jay Anson later chronicled the experiences of George and Kathleen Lutz in what was billed as a “non-fiction horror novel”. The Amityville Horror was optioned as a film and made into a Hollywood movie starring James Brolin. A 2005 remake brought the story back into the public eye and soon, Anson’s book was also reissued.

Today, 112 Ocean Avenue is a location many Long Island locals are bemused about, while others wish the Amityville stories would fade into the background for good. Local legends about the address are supplemented by old programs such as the1970s supernatural “documentary” TV show, In Search Of; and as recently as the year 2000 with coverage by The History Channel. The Amityville story comes and goes, but one man in particular has a large passion for the stories behind the sensationalism.

More than thirty years after the fact, author Ric Osuna decided to pursue the facts behind the case of the Amityville murders and the story of the Lutz family ordeal that was popularized by Hollywood. Osuna’s website, http://www.amityvillemurders.com, is an exhaustive study of all things related to what most people know today as The Amityville Horror. The Las Vegas based writer uncovered details about the case which cast doubts on the conviction of Butch DeFeo as the sole killer of his family, and managed to obtain interviews with key figures in the Lutz family story, many of whom claim the entire tale is simply a highly fictitious silver screen yarn.

Osuna’s book, The Night the DeFeos Died is said to be the definitive source on the facts and circumstances surrounding the Amityville case. According to Osuna’s website, the author has been unsuccessfully sued by both Butch DeFeo and George Lutz for varying causes, including defamatory statements and trademark infringement. In both cases, the suits were ruled in favor of the author. In the Lutz suit, the website says, none of the facts of The Night the DeFeos Died were called into question.

www.amityvillemurders.com gives a full accounting of all of Osuna’s legal troubles connected with the book, complete with the final decision of the courts in both instances. The site very nearly offers too much information on every aspect of the Amityville story. There are photographs, scans of police records and long timelines offered as early back as the 1600s. According to a quote by the author at the website, “This website simply offers, in my opinion, the most complete side of the Amityville story.” Osuna writes, “Keeping an open mind along with a scientific understanding will help you come to a logical conclusion. I hope this website and my book will help you uncover the truth as you see it.”

The Night the DeFeos Died has gained so much attention that Ric Osuna found himself highlighted on the Travel Channel and A&E. His efforts landed him a spot in the New Criminologist’s Hall of Fame. The book is still for sale, and today Osuna is working on another, non-Amityville related book.

The Amityville story, as evidenced by the 2005 remake of the original movie starring James Brolin, still fascinates many Americans. Sudden violence, ghosts and supernatural warnings to “get out” have always been part of the American literary fabric. What makes the Amityville tale so pervasive is the ‘true story’ claims made by Jay Anson and the filmmakers. Many today see the movie’s ‘true story’ hype for what it is—grist for the box office profit mill. Others take the supernatural aspects of Anson’s book quite seriously. Ric Osuna, however, does not.