Judge Evelyn Frazee did not grant an injunction to prevent the city from evicting the encampment. Mayor Richards, we are waiting for our park back. Please make the correct decision soon and ask them to move along. Rochester is the last city in NY to have an “Occupation”. I understand you want more people downtown but I hope that this is not what you are talking about.

The big question now is: Are the crows going to return?

After taking a few months off after the campaign for City Council I find myself urged to get back to writing. The campaign didn’t end the way I would have hoped but it was an experience that I will never regret. So many new friendships and relationships created to my surprise. Plus the 10 pounds I lost walking to all of those doors didn’t hurt either!

What have I been up to you may ask? My wife and I have decided to go into business for ourselves and are in the process of opening a boutique in the City at the corner of Winton Rd and Blossom Rd. My wife, as many of you know, is from Thailand so we are focusing on importing women’s fashion accessories (Sterling silver, silk, handmade products, and a new line of handbags not available today in the US). Check it out at Fahsye.com or on Facebook by searching for “Fahsye”. And tell the ladies in your life!

What really urged me to get back to writing and will be part of the motivation going forward was this weeks passing of Andrew Breitbart. To say that I was a huge fan would be a stretch but I really enjoyed his work when I did catch him. 43 years old and already a huge success in the media industry. He was also a force behind so many other folks success in the industry as well, even those he completely disagreed with. Andrew picked up a torch and marched into the fight without anyone ever having to ask him. He was an inspiration to the younger generations and showed us how to use the tools of the day (social networking, blogs, twitter, etc) to fight the good fight.

So to Andrew, God bless! Know that your passion will continue on here on this earth.

The City of Rochester will now be providing grants to facilitate the development that will be the office space leased for Windstream employees. As I see it, we are taking tax dollars from one to give to another that provides competition to the original tax payer.

If the goal is to get employees to work in leased office space in downtown Rochester, as opposed to leased office space in Victor I am all for it. I would welcome many former co-workers to join me in working downtown. As an Earthlink employee I enjoy working in the HSBC building with a pending move to our new facility on Monroe and Alexander.

With all of the empty office space available downtown at this present moment I feel we should facilitate filling it, rather than giving away dollars to build a new, not fully leased, building. Rushing into anything at this point to appear as though we are doing something should be avoided. Common sense development should be the way forward to our much empty downtown. We only get one chance with it.

The news this week of the potential sale of PAETEC to Windstream and the effects that it may have on Midtown once again show that there is a need for new leadership in City Hall. In no way should the process have moved
this far along without a more binding agreement being made between PAETEC and the City of Rochester.

Strong and clear leadership was clearly left wanting while blind hope and pandering ruled the day. As we have unfortunately become accustom, City Hall proved again what happens with lack of foresight and common sense.

While I agree that Midtown mall needed to be demolished, it does concern me that City Hall was able to be towed along as far as it was without any contracts in place. Actions of this nature are unacceptable. When
elected to City Council, I will advocate for the public and oppose such willful pandering and bring the strong and clear leadership that the City so desperately needs.

http://www.richtyson.com/home/index.html

I wanted to share this with you all as one of our local high school seniors got an A on this paper. I was honored that she quoted one of the articles that I had written earlier in the year. Great job Amy Hughes!

- Affirmative action programs give preference to minority groups to make up for historical discrimination. Affirmative action is one remedy for dealing with the effects of discrimination in American history.  Supporters view affirmative action as necessary to counteract the effects of past discrimination, whereas opponents believe affirmative action is reverse discrimination. However, not only do the negative effects outweigh the benefits, but the great decrease in racial prejudice in the past years renders affirmative action unnecessary.
Supporters of affirmative action believe it is necessary to overcome the effects of past discrimination to those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. To make up for decreased opportunities for minorities in the past, we must increase their current opportunities. Affirmative action programs are based on the idea that past discrimination is passed from generation to generation, and minorities therefore continue to experience the effects of discrimination today. Moreover, affirmative action not only benefits minority groups but society as a whole. Raina Kelley illustrates this idea in her article “Affirmative Action” by stating that “diversity challenges assumptions and forces people to rely on personal experience instead of stereotype.” Diversity in any situation provides a wider range of ideas and perspectives, challenging us to expand our knowledge. For this reason, some believe diverse organizations make better decisions due to a wider variety of opinions. Another point supporters make is that due to the vast diversity in the United States, if each group is given the opportunity to interact, we can better achieve unity. Diversity is also necessary in businesses to service a diverse base of customers. In addition, supporters say diversity does not imply favor toward a particular group, as all groups may benefit from diverse perspectives.
On the other hand, opponents of affirmative action view it as reverse discrimination against whites. Although the goal of affirmative action is to make up for historical discrimination, the programs conflict with the idea of a society based not upon color but on merit. Affirmative action contradicts the goal that we should not judge people based on race, color, natural origin, or otherwise. To impose affirmative action programs is to suggest that minorities are in need of special treatment to succeed, undermining the achievements of minorities who have succeeded without preferential treatment. In his article on quotas, Rich Tyson describes the concept of affirmative action as “cheapening the successes of those who have worked hard and not looked to have the rules bent to get where they are.” Affirmative action also leads minorities to view themselves as disadvantaged, when in reality they are not, preventing them from reaching their full potential. In addition, we already have anti-discrimination laws in place which are adequate tools in addressing discrimination. Most importantly, demographics are only one aspect of diversity. This detracts from the supporting arguments regarding diversity producing a wide range of ideas, as affirmative action  does not ensure diversity of opinion.
Both sides present valid arguments, however, the drawbacks of affirmative action outweigh the benefits. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, we should not be judged on the color of our skin but on the content of our character. If the goal of affirmative action is ultimately to achieve equality, the programs themselves are completely counterproductive. Affirmative action crosses the line from promoting equality to giving minorities preferential treatment. Job positions and school acceptances should be based on qualifications rather than on demographics. Because of affirmative action, qualified whites are passed over in favor of less qualified minorities. In addition, it’s unfair to the individuals who work hard to be successful when opportunities are handed to others because of their race. True successes of minorities may be labeled as a result of preferential treatment rather than hard work. Moreover, our current generation has come a long way since the times of “Whites Only” signs and Jim Crow laws. This is not to say prejudice has vanished entirely; however, the need for antiquated policies that place certain groups over others has come to an end as society has developed over the past fifty years.
Affirmative action continues to receive both support and opposition. Supporters view it as an effective and necessary way of making schools and businesses more diverse, while opponents characterize it as reverse discrimination. Affirmative action may have been beneficial in the past, however, social advances regarding prejudice and segregation have rendered affirmative action programs unnecessary in more recent years. It is well past the time for our society to stop dwelling on the past and begin living the creed of Martin Luther King Jr.

If ever there were a prize to be given on “condescending nattering”, Jim Lawrence would be the Nobel Prize winner of the category. Today Jim Lawrence unleashed yet another piece in the Editorial Blog slamming the GOP for not putting up a candidate for the “special election”. An election, mind you, that most have voiced the opinion reduces voter influence within the city limits. Considering that a majority of Rochester’s population within the city limits are “people of color”, in the words of Jim Lawrence, I would think that he of all people would commend the GOP for taking a stand against it.

I am a City Republican, as most of you know, and am one of the many voices that have been against this “special election” from the beginning. I have also speculated that if the GOP were in control of the city and were pulling the same stunt that Morelle and crew are, there would be outrage in the streets. I will also speculate that people like Jim Lawrence would accuse the GOP of reducing the voice of “people of color” and keeping them out of the process. If the GOP were in charge it would be a much different story line than we are hearing now. Apparently if the Democrat Party is reducing voter influence it is ok with Jim and many other media outlets in this city.

So Jim, you ought to be thanking the GOP for standing up against a process that has been manipulated by a small group of party insiders in your beloved Democrat Party. I know that in your mind, any and all things that the GOP does is wrong. In your effort to paint us as being terrible, you are looking like a fool. A fool with an axe to grind and even one willing to sell out the very same people that you claim to advocate for.

I am proud that the GOP is not sending a candidate into this “special election” and I look forward to November. This year there are four district seats up on city council, the very council that allowed for this “special election” to ever take place.

I hope the voters remember.

Jim Lawrence piece:

http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/editorial/2011/03/14/the-gop-and-the-mayoral-race/

I would like to say “hello” as I am back from what ended up being a few week long celebration for my wedding. I was married here on Feb 12th in the City of Rochester at Chapel Hill on Prince Street with a reception at the Convention Center. Both locations I would recommend to anyone looking to keep their festivities local which was a goal of my wife and I. Actually, we hoped for and were able to have a wonderful wedding all within the city limits!

My wife and I along with my Father, Mother and Stepfather left Feb 15th for Thailand to celebrate in a traditional ceremony on Feb 20th. Completely different but equally amazing was the celebration there. I was excited and proud to have taken part in the traditional Thai ceremony and was thankful to my new father and mother in law for walking me through what I needed to do. In true Thai fashion the “rehearsal” took place moments before the event began.

Thailand is full of amazing food, culture, people, food, animals, food, weather, and did I mention food. It blows me away how much I ate and gained not a pound! Yay for that! We took in much of what Bangkok has to offer in the lines of shopping, temples, dining, and more shopping. My wife and I also took a three night trip to Chiang Mai in the Northern part of Thailand. Chiang Mai is a much smaller city than Bangkok but equally as exciting. We visited temples, watched a snake show, monkey show, cuddled with tigers, explored the highest point in Thailand, and visited with the Karen Tribe in the mountains and drank some of the home grown coffee. We also took and elephant ride, river raft journey, ate more food and stopped by one of the King’s projects turning what was once a large opium growing district into now fruits, vegetables, and flowers. The King has over 3,000 projects that he has helped to create all of which are making Thailand a better place than when he took the throne decades ago.

We then returned to Bangkok to spend some more quality time with her family which never lasts long enough before returning to Rochester this past Sunday.

Needless to say we could almost stand for taking a few days off after all of this. I was bummed to return to reality but happy to get back home. Any and every time I leave the country I am always surprised what it feels like to return. There is part of me that wants to stay where it is warm and sunny all day, exotic flowers are growing all year, shorts and flip flops are ok anywhere you go, you get the drift.

But here I am, a married man, new job, fresh off of some wonderful time spent cultivating relationships with my new family members, and excited about what this year has to offer. I am happy to be back!

On goes the debate as to whether we allow gay couples to marry. The debate is often framed “should we allow for gay marriage or not?”. To me, the discussion we are having is not what we ought to be discussing.

License definition per Webster’s: “a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful”

New York State is the “competent authority” that authorizes two consenting adults to enter into the “business” of marriage. In the eyes of the State the “marriage license” shows that each of those consenting adults agree to the terms of “marriage” which affords some protections and benefits to said consenting adults.

While taking my real estate course and exam it goes through NYS Civil Rights Law which lays out the numerous reasons one cannot discriminate against another based on race, sex, religion, familial status, disability, marital status, age, national origin, or color.

So if I as a Realtor, someone selling a piece of property, or someone renting an apartment cannot tell someone that they cannot enter into an agreement based on any of the criteria above, how can NY State tell one of said consenting adults that they cannot enter into “business of marriage” based on the criteria above? If the State is telling two men or two women that they cannot enter into the agreement, then one of the two is being discriminated against based solely on their sex which is not allowed.

Something else we hear much of is that of “Civil Unions”. We are told that gays should just go with the Civil Union because it is essentially the same thing as marriage. So here is my thought, If a Civil Union offers the same protections and benefits as marriage to two consenting adults then why isn’t NY State, or any state for that matter, in the business of issuing Civil Union Licenses? Thus, leaving marriage to remain where it should remain, between the two consenting adults and whatever religion they practice?

It just seems to me that maybe we started off on the wrong foot allowing the state to get involved in marriage. As I happily prepare to enter into a marriage this weekend here in the States, and then another ceremony the following week in my fiance’s home country of Thailand it has brought these questions to mind. Here we will be married by a Reverend and in Thailand the ceremony is not really religious at all. So marriage, the act of joining of two consenting adults lives has nothing to do with the state, county, or country at all.

If I wish to gain the benefits and protections in my state I can understand the need for the civil union and am happy to comply.

So let us change the dialogue. Civil Unions for all couples and Marriage can remain between you, your partner, and the God of your choosing. The State should get out of the business of marriage.

While in attendance last night at the City Council meeting, I was surprised as to what I heard in their follow up comments after the vote on the March 29th date for the special election. Some seemed to say “get on board, we have made our decision”, Mcfadden seemed almost angry and demanded that we all show some respect no matter what our personal feelings are, and yet some seemed upset that this was the decision and not the appointment leading to a general election this fall.

One thread seemed to run through each and every one of their comments and it is one that I wish we knew more about. They all seemed to almost throw out the idea that we could have appointed a Mayor and waited to vote in a general election this fall. It was almost as if that was never an option, without ever having actually placed it to a vote. So I would like to know who is against the general election and why? Council member’s Haag and Palumbo switched their vote from no to yes while explaining that they essentially “had no choice”. Well you certainly did! You could have voted “no” as you did in December and you would not have changed the results. At least you would have showed that you are true in your convictions but instead you bent to party pressure and voted to move forward with it.

One thing that seems to be showing the true difference between Democrats and Republicans lately, is when Republicans know they are walking down a path that is wrong, they “about face” and head in a different direction. City Council has actually picked up member support, despite pubic “multi-partisan” support against it, and charged full speed ahead.

To any member inside the Democrat Party in the city, if you don’t condone this behavior you had better get active elsewhere, it’s not looking good for you to have any voice with your current “leadership”.