....May 11, 10:29 AM
 
 
 
A Beep Launch Stirs Queens Political Memories

Marc Leavitt as he appears on poltunes.com
By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Marc Leavitt is running for Borough President!

Wow!

No, this is not an endorsement and it’s way too early for that sort of thing.

And to tell you the truth, Marc is such a longshot to win, the political writing community will have to go beneath the surface for the story.

No, the story is not Marc who has just announced his candidacy on the web (MarcCrawfordLeavitt.com) and in a letter to friends where he explains the essence of his candidacy.

I have know Marc for a long time – but not well. Decades ago he wrote an elder law column for the Trib. His law partner Paul Kerson is also an old-time Queens acquaintance and often an attorney for the underdog. I knew his other law partner, John Duane, when he ran for and served in the Assembly representing Northeast Queens.

But it’s been Marc’s political, musical satire that has made me take note. Not only is he a singer/performer; he writes the songs. A la Mark Russell, Marc on CD, in person or just reading the words on his Poltunes.com website, demonstrates a progressive agenda and analytical sharp mind as he dissects the political issues of the day.

Knowing him for years, listening to him share my daughter’s love of theater, talking to him and understanding his view of politics and most importantly, listening to him I know Marc Crawford is one of the good guys – bright and well intentioned.

No, I don’t think Marc is winning this one; but do believe he can make his Marc.

Every incumbent should be challenged. Incumbents who have outstayed the term limits imposed by the people should be challenged hard. But sadly, the system doesn’t often enable that to happen.

Even with the most progressive matching funds program in the nation, running against an incumbent is extremely difficult.

The Uphill Run
The Democratic Party in Queens is in control.

They will stay that way. All the members of Congress, all Assembly members, all but one State Senator and all but one Councilmember from the Borough are blue and show allegiance to the Dem Organization. Even when an insurgent Dem wins, they quickly make their peace with the County Organization and, on the things that matter to county, can usually be relied on to stand with them.

There are differences among elected officials in the fidelity shown to the County organization when it comes to dispensing jobs and sometimes backing candidates, so the County Organization often can prefer loyalty to quality.
That’s called politics.

And so, quite often, the Democratic Organization uses its legal skills to prevent challenges to loyal party members running for office. Although this may strengthen the party and its hierarchy, it does little to further Democracy.

The amount candidates are now spending on Petition operations, Election Attorneys, Campaign Finance Board Compliance and Compliance attorneys, has seriously impacted the ability of a challenger to get his or her message to the people.

The people must read, think and absorb what’s out there during an election. Evaluate candidates, listen to differences and don’t let “name recognition” serve as a substitute for quality. We need creative, hardworking legislators for the community not just party faithfuls who put the party before the people.

The people must evaluate.

Elections in general and, primary elections in particular, are really healthy for Democracy.

Historical Perspective
In 1981, when 59 year-old Aaron Weiss, a gentle community leader, decided to challenge the Queens County Democratic machine, he set into motion his boundless energies that would reverberate all the way to the highest courts and reshape city government; and Marc Leavitt was there.

Aaron Weiss challenged Donald Manes’ incumbent Councilman-at-Large Steve Orlow. To avoid a possible loss in the Democratic Primary, the Party machine had Weiss’ name removed from the ballot on a technicality.

Shortly thereafter Weiss struck back. Claiming the City Charter and the nature of the Councilman-at-Large seat denied the basic principal of one man, one vote guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Aaron Weiss filed suit.
In perhaps the greatest legal upset in this borough’s history, a young attorney, Paul Kerson, representing Weiss, fought the Queens Democratic Party, the City Attorneys and the best that organized politics could throw at him and Aaron.

In 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States verified what Weiss had been saying. They struck down the city’s 10 Councilmen-at Large seats and heralded a new day for political reformers.

A reformer had finally triumphed. Aaron Weiss laid the groundwork for the reform movement to follow. This tenet leader, this fair organizer, this retailer stood up and was counted. He toppled Goliath.

Marc Leavitt was there. He served as a pro bono attorney with his now-partner Paul Kerson giving of themselves for the rights of the people.

Not much has changed since then.

Marc Leavitt, like the late Aaron Weiss, is a community leader who believes politics has a higher calling than just Party. The Democratic Organization still has an awesome legal team that drives challengers to the ground making them cry for mercy.

No, this is not an endorsement of Leavitt. It is way too early for that sort of thing.

It’s merely the memory of a longtime political junkie that underdogs do sometimes win.

Marc, enjoy the adventure.

Stay tuned.

MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.

 
 
Left in Digital Dust

By By DAVID RATTRAY

Imagine for a moment what the Internet would be like without providers of content. You know, these are the people and organizations that create the articles, images, and videos that make the Web an interesting place to spend your time.

Now imagine what would be left if everyone who made anything worth looking at on the Web were suddenly to pull the plug. You know what would be left? Not much. The online landscape would be decimated, leaving only the Amazon.coms and other retailers of the world.

Without content producers, you could buy things, but that would be about it. No news, no entertainment, no how-to information or homework help would be available. There would be no blogs, no smut, and no embarrassing home videos to smirk about. The World Wide Web would be nothing more than a vast, digital shopping mall, worth visiting when you needed something, but worthless otherwise.   

The biggest loser in this hypothetical scenario would be Google, which has gotten fat and happy selling advertising around its access to everything others create. According to comScore, Google had 63.5 percent of all United States search traffic for 2008, and the number is only going to increase.

Despite a slowing of sales growth in the beginning of 2009, Google has remained profitable. Net income was up 8.9 percent for the first quarter, a number any content provider would be overjoyed with in a troubled economy. This is at a time when a majority of news organizations, for example, are seeing declines in the ad sales that pay to produce that content.

Through no fault of its own, Google is inching toward a monopoly in the search business and taking an increasing bite from its competition’s profitability. And make no mistake, content producers large and small are the competition that is being left in the digital dust. Dreaming here, I would love to see Google kick something back to the content producers of the world.

Walter Isaacson, in a cover article in Time magazine earlier this year, suggested that the moment may have come for online news organizations to begin asking for “micro-payments” from its Web readers. This idea is not new. It has been more or less described as ahead of its time at best or impractical at worst.

Yet, small payments to those who provide content may be a solution to the decline of print journalism. Google and the other search companies would pay for the material they use to sell ads around.

Google says it doesn’t have to pay royalties because it is just indexing content, rather than reproducing it. This seems to conflict with the company’s corporate philosophy, “You can make money without doing evil.” Content producers are bleeding at a time when Google’s only lament is a decline in its rate of growth. Something is wrong here. You might call it evil, depending on where you sit.

Recently, Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive officer, pointed out that there was a simple line of computer code — called a robots.txt file — that could be used to keep his company from searching a Web site. Essentially, he was calling the bluff of content producers who have complained, as I have, about the irony of the situation. I’d like to call his bluff, instead.

The time has come to protest. By declaring a Day Without Google, Mr. Schmidt would get the message that without content the Web would be far less compelling — and far less profitable for his company. All it would take is one simple code.   

-- Reprinted From the East Hampton Star

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.