By MICHAEL SCHENKLER
Just returned from Florida. Lil, Allison and I went to visit mom. We
were away for five days — away from City Council term limit defiance and away from
snow.
The news in Florida told one story: it wasn’t a good week for the
Clinton boys (or the Rodham clan for that matter). We sigh deeply and smile as to how
human they — Bill and company — really are. We wish at times, that perhaps he
wasn’t so imperfect. Somehow, some of us have been able to bond with his
imperfections and applaud his triumphs. Achievement doesn’t require perfection. Bill
proved that.
We should all take joy in that fact. We all can achieve in spite of our
shortcomings, fallibilities and vices. Don’t applaud the shortcoming; don’t
condemn those who have them. Measure the achievements and the good they do. Forgive the
imperfections.
That’s about as spiritual as you’ll ever find me sounding.
See, Bill brings out the best in you.
We’d love to have him chime in on the term limit insurrection.
New Yorkers of all stripes have been too silent on the council
members’ actions to disregard the results of two referendums and overturn the will of
the people to allow themselves to run again. Other than the term limited members of the
Council, there is heard not one voice in support of their vile act. The editorial pages
seem to speak in unison against the self-serving attempt by council members to extend
their stay in office.
It’s not mine, but the term limit thing makes me think of some
comedian’s throwaway line about politics:
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should
both be changed regularly and for the same reason.
But the issue here is not term limits. This writer has always opposed
term limits believing that the people have the ability to term limit elected officials at
every election. What we opposed is a group of self-serving folks disguised as public
servants passing law that will enable them to continue to feed on the public.
However, Clyde Haberman in his NYC column in today’s (Sunday) NY
Times, struck a note of accord with this writer. In his close, he wrote: "Council
members may discover that their clumsy, last-gasp campaign against term limits is making
those limits look more and more attractive to New Yorkers every day."
These councilmembers are givng politics a worse name than it already
has and are turning observers and writers of the political scene into disbelieving
enemies.
Their actions are shameful and must be stopped.
This one is legendary. We’ve heard it as gospel from Albany
friends.
It’s about former Queens Assemblywoman Cynthia Jenkins and her
committment to our New York State libraries.
Years ago when Stanley Fink was speaker of the Assembly, during a
budget briefing he looked at then–Assemblywoman Cynthia Jenkins and said, "and
Cynthia there is a half million for libraries."
At which point, Jenkins angrily got up and started shouting as was
frequently her style "you promised five hundred thousand and I’m not taking one
dollar less."
A shocked Stanley Fink soon regained his composure and said
"you’re right Cythnia. Look I am crossing out the half million and writing in
five hundred thousand."
She said "thank you Stanley" and with a big smile on her face
sat down.
Okay. We went to the movies Saturday night. I’m not a big movie
goer but we go to a small handful of them a year. I’ve always been intrigued at the
before-the-movie, on-screen commercials. The ones on slides don’t bowl you over
— some real estate broker or something or a car dealer. You can’t really
remember their names or message. Personally, I like the dumb quizzes in between the slide
commercials. You know, "What was the name of Audrey Hepburn’s cat in Breakfast
At Tiffany’s? Or, What Robin Williams film was shot in Keene, New Hampshire?
"However,
do what a prudent
man would do —
check your facts,
follow the golden rule
and have
a good lawyer." |
(For those who care, the cat was
"Cat" and for my son, Lee, editor of the Keene College Equinox, Jumanji
was shot on campus and in town.)
But on this Saturday night, mixed in
between the movie previews, there were four — count ‘em — four
30-second-to-one minute, filmed commercials for television shows: the Discovery
Channel’s Wooly Mammoth hoohah, some Bravo series, one that is forgettable at the
moment, and the only one that made sense: the Oscars presented by Pepsi.
So, television and cable television have
resorted to the big screen to get people to watch particular shows or stations on the
small screen.
Wasn’t television supposed to put the
movies out of business?
The movie was Hannibal.
No Food Network ads.
E-MAIL INQUIRY
Hi, my name is Daniel. I am an 8th grade student and I am doing
research. Can you please tell me if you had any legal problems while you are publishing
your newspaper? Has the first amendment protected your right to publish your newspaper? If
I were to publish a newspaper for free, would it be different from charging readers 50
cents? And what do I have to do in order to avoid legal problems. Please respond to this
letter. I thank you for your time, and I will be looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Daniel
Daniel,
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech — charge for your newspaper
or not. However, that does not prevent people from suing.
The cost of defending lawsuits — right or wrong — can be
quite expensive. The first amendment does not allow you to print falsehoods or be
malicious. There are other case law prohibitions.
We run into questions weekly. But common sense and making sure you are
correct when you print negative things about people, provides basic protection. We also
have libel insurance.
In today’s society you can never be sure to "avoid legal
problems." However, do what a prudent man would do — check your facts, follow
the golden rule and have a good lawyer.
Good luck with your paper.
Mike Schenkler,
Publisher, Queens Tribune
Two weeks ago, we ran on our front page, a "wanted
poster" (left) with the faces and names of the offending City Council members
sponsoring the term limit repeal legislation: Julia Harrison, Helen Marshall, Walter
McCaffrey, John Sabini, Alfonso Stabile, Juanita Watkins, and Thomas White. We declared
them to be "Wanted for crimes against the people of the City of New York for
disregarding the will of the people as expressed in two referendums in order to enable
themselves to run for council again."
"No, we do not support term limits. We
support ridding ourselves of the bottom feeding, public- sucking scum calling themselves
council members who refuse
to accept the will of
the people." |
The poster has stirred a great deal of reaction. Declaring
elected officials to be criminals is not a step this paper took lightly. However, in the Tribune’s
three plus decades chronicling City government and politics, we cannot recall a single
legislative effort on the part of any elected New York body that was so vile, self serving
and transparent. We cannot recall a single such fraud perpetrated on the citizens of the
City in the name of better government. We cannot fathom how these seven and their
compatriots have the audacity to appear in public, take their city salaries, and look at
themselves in the mirror every morning.
No, we do not support term limits. We support ridding ourselves of the
bottom feeding, public-sucking scum calling themselves council members who refuse to
accept the will of the people.
Yes, my friends, we take their transgression seriously. All people of good will should
too.
