Search Results

By the time this article is published, the Monroe County Legislature MIGHT have new leadership. It appears that primarily, two predominantly local, well-connected, Hispanic factions are battling it out over whose turn it is. If I was part of the decision-making in this particular case, I would have to go with Mercedes Vazquez-Simmons over Yversha Roman. At least Ms. Vazquez-Simmons is fairly visible in the Black community. On the other hand, I don't ever recall seeing Ms. Roman in the Black community. The closest I've ever seen her to the Black community is at the Irish bar on West Ridge Road (right beyond the border of Greece), at Democratic L.D. caucus meetings during election time. In fact, some within the establishment-based-political-Black-community have said that Ms. Roman "thinks she's a white girl." I have no knowledge of this (one way or the other). If it is true, that's not something that I would hold against her. People have a right to identify however they choose. However, I would also have a problem supporting Rachel Barnhart, precisely because of her unwillingness to deal with RACISM, especially as it relates to MANY white Rochester City School District (RCSD) teachers, the latter of whom I have witness her defending even when they were dead wrong (probably because both her parents used to be in the RTA club). Additionally, she's always making silly, potentially racist statements, such as talking about "a deal [with the Republican party] that [so-called] betrays [their, Democratic] party’s values.” WHAT???!!! The difference between the local, state, and federal 'Democan' and 'Republicrat' parties'-values, especially and particularly as it relates to RACISM, is the same as the difference between that which Brother Malik El Shabazz described 60 years ago as the difference between the political-wolf-and-fox. Ms. Barnhart and other 'Democans' talk endlessly about "help for the the community," and yet never utter a single word, much less actually seriously address RACISM in a town, which all of them frequently act as if it is not even part of Monroe County, and which represents the second worst place in the thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based-U.S.-nation-state for Black folks to live. In fact, anytime a golden opportunity is created to seriously address the problem, County "representatives" have followed the laissez-faire-hands-off-lead of City "representatives." It's just plain a-damn-amazing!!! Lastly, as usual, if we pay close attention it's not difficult to determine whose side the supposedly "objective" Rochester Beacon is supporting. I mean, talk about amazing --- how in the world do we logically explain the  thoroughly conspicuous fact that the Beacon story regarding this debacle does not mention a single word about the clearly credible ethics violations and likely criminal malfeasance on the part of many associated with Ms. Roman, which was apparently uncovered by none other than super-conservative Robert Lonsberry, and of which  Ms. Vazquez-Simmons has filed a formal complaint? So much for objectivity. One can only wonder --- exactly how deep is the corruption and cover-up? REFERENCES: https://www.rochesterfirst.com/video/rochester-falls-into-2nd-worst-place-for-black-people-to-live/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVJ6rDkKHQ https://medium.com/@howardjeagle/commission-on-racial-and-structural-equity-rase-the-debacle-continues-a54a0026ef30 https://rochesterbeacon.com/2024/01/02/an-uncertain-start-in-2024-for-the-monroe-county-legislature/ https://wham1180.iheart.com/featured/bob-lonsberry/content/2023-12-29-lonsberry-judges-politicking-violates-ethics-rules/ https://demandmoreny.com/explosive-accusations-by-legislator-mercedes-vazquez-simmons/?fbclid=IwAR23Kydt9eH3WCjeCsOqDJyckSUHDiSImVANo-S9DKGs-SIvXsIDnLIKOeA

Music, Anthony Dounte, NA$A Family, Jimmie Highsmith Jr. featuring Prince O and Chi the Realist, Adina Howard

“It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom King would be a renewed groundswell of advocacy that ensures our march towards full freedom refuses to

s environmental community and consumer watchdogs, argue that repealing the rule is a necessary step toward

Clerk Jamie Romeo and her team contain to combat against the surge in misinformation surrounding the REAL ID deadline on May 7th. • On May 7th the REAL ID will be compliant, requiring individuals to possess Additionally, a REAL ID will be necessary for entry into all federal buildings. • After May 7th, the The public can obtain a REAL ID AT ANYTIME AFTER THE 7th. • If you do not have a trip coming up, we urge folks not to stress getting the REAL ID.

revolutionizing health and wellness work, breaking barriers, and supporting community members on their journey towards members genuinely rely on EE Pathways to creatively address the challenges they face on their journey towards

New York residents will need a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or another form of federally approved “The REAL ID is a coordinated effort by the federal government to improve the reliability and accuracy New York residents can upgrade to a REAL ID or enhanced ID or keep a standard driver’s license. Signs at airports nationwide will remind travelers of the REAL ID requirements. For more information on obtaining a REAL ID in New York, visit dmv.ny.gov .

With regard to developing clear, comprehensive, understanding of the tripartite beast and illness of individual, institutional, and structural racism — the Democrat and Chronicle’s editorial board article represents a classic example of those who think they understand, but in many cases, inadvertently feed into helping prop up the racist, white-supremacist-based status-quo (at best), and at worse, actually cause damage, and retardation of the Anti-Racist Struggle (relative to the historic and ongoing pervasive, breath and depth of insidious, malignant, ignorance regarding the systemic, forbidden-fruit issue) — by spreading misinformation and confusion. The very premise (as well as accompanying, supporting “facts”) in the article — is mere foolishness. Let us examine it, and see if my contention is valid, or not. First, it is clearly implied (as part of the premise of the article) that, locally, “conversations about racism” are occurring routinely, regularly, or at a significant rate and/or frequency “in offices, conference rooms, banquet halls and schools.” We know, without even checking, that nothing could possibly be further from the truth. That is to say, when such “conversations about racism” do occur, especially in the work place, including (strangely enough) schools — they represent the glaring, usually planned, and controlled exception — as opposed to the rule. This is part of the reality that allows us to refer to racism as the ‘forbidden-fruit’ issue. In the interest of so-called “journalistic objectivity and balance” — this reality should have at least been mentioned in the article — as opposed to attempting intentionally (I believe) to create a make-believe, deceptive, subterfuge regarding the fallacious myth of ongoing, widespread, anti-racist dialogue. Speaking of subterfuges, the unsubstantiated assertion that so-called “anti-racism efforts in Rochester took on a renewed urgency beginning in 2013” — absolutely does not have any basis in provable fact. I believe the unprovable statement is based on TALK of “urgency,” but very, very little, if any, measurably-effective action that actually demonstrates “urgency.” As a matter of fact, for the most part, the exact opposite is true, i.e., there is a gross lack of urgency. Additionally, the thoroughly ludicrous idea that “anyone who has been involved with anti-racism efforts in Rochester knows that a change has occurred” is just that, i.e., thoroughly ludicrous. Again, the exact opposite is actually true. For the Democrat and Chronicle’s editorial board to take the position that (in relative terms) a handful of individuals having occasional, usually planned and controlled conversations about structural racism — represents “extraordinarily important and positive change” is clearly indicative of the fact that the entire board, including (apparently) its black members, do not have a clue about the seriousness, pervasiveness, depth and breadth of the tripartite beast and illness, and definitely no clue as to what it will take to significantly diminish, and/or uproot it. Also, and very importantly — if the type of misinformation that’s included in the editorial board’s article is indicative of the so-called “increasingly sophisticated conversations” that are supposedly occurring — then what is actually happening is that a bigger mess is being made than the one that already exists — relative to feeding into, and exacerbating historic and ongoing, widespread, pervasive, insidious, malignant, ignorance regarding the systemic, forbidden-fruit issue — by spreading misinformation and confusion. For instance, I don’t believe I have ever seen a worse or more inaccurate, so-called definition or description of “structural racism” — than the one put forth by the editorial board, i.e., “Structural racism is an invisible thread…” — …”invisible thread???” WHAT??? On the contrary, nothing could possibly be further from the critically-important, objective, truth, i.e., racism was (right from the very start — from day-one) an inherent part (literally built into) the social, economic, political, and “dominant” cultural systems of the U.S. nation-state, and therefore is necessarily, and always has been, glaringly blatant, and clearly visible via rules, regulations, polices, practices, procedures, and laws that guide and govern each and every major institution within U.S. society, which is why we can accurately call it STRUCTURAL (again, built-in or inherent). There is absolutely nothing, I repeat and emphasize — nothing “invisible” about individual, nor institutional, nor structural racism — period. Anyone who would labor to advance such fallacy is either clueless, or possibly, intentionally, engaging in, or at the least going along with distortion, and/or contortion of objective reality. Additionally, assertions such as the following represents concrete evidence that (for the most part) the editors are engaging in loose, uninformed, rhetorical chatter: “At the United Way, all of the organization’s employees gathered together to spend nearly two hours talking about structural racism and how to recognize it.” So, why would anyone undergo such an exercise if the entity that they are supposedly learning “how to recognize [is, as they had previously claimed] invisible?” The only part they got right is the fact that the tripartite beast and illness is necessarily “woven tightly, [NOT] over decades, [but literally over centuries, right from the very start — from the time that sizable numbers of Europeans first arrived in the land known as the “Americas] into the fabric of [U.S.] society.” Even the specific manner in which they framed their claim that “structural racism serves to perpetually inhibit people of color from becoming equal to white people” is twisted. Hopefully, they understand that people of color already are, and always have been, “equal to white people.” What has been systematically stripped away are equal socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and sociocultural rights and opportunities — as opposed to equality (in the purest, most basic sense), which is what their particular choice of language implies. No — this is not a matter of nit-picking. Language, and specific ways in which it is used is frequently a vital aspect of both continued racial oppression, and anti-racist struggle. I imagine the editorial board will probably be surprised to discover that their example regarding the “story told [by] Nazareth College President Daan Braveman” is not (in and of itself) an example of structural racism. It is of course closely related to structural racism (remember we said the three forms are thoroughly intertwined, completely bound up together, and totally inseparable from one another). Yet, novices, and/or those who think they understand the tripartite beast, but really do not — often confuse structural racism with the institutional form, which is what the editors did in the case of Braveman’s example. We know that institutional racism is embodied within, and functions via rules, regulations, policies, practices, procedures, and laws that guide and govern institutions, which flows from structural racism, i.e., the form that was inherently embedded in the entire social, economic, political, and “dominant” cultural fabric, foundation and systems of the white-supremacist based nation-state (right from the very start, i.e., from day-one). With regard to sorting out confusion, as some know, I have been very critical of Dr. Marvin McMickle (publicly). One reason is precisely because it appears that he routinely and willingly allows people in positions of authority at some of the most powerful, and some of the most racist institutions (such as the Democrat and Chronicle in particular, as well as the YWCA) — to use him in ongoing processes of lending legitimacy to illegitimate acts. For example, the fact that people like Karen Magnuson, vice president of news at the D&C, and Jean Carroll, CEO of Monroe County YWCA are so-called “leading” anti-racist work, and “teaching” about racism — needs to be called out. If anyone on the local scene understands that white people such as Magnuson and Carroll do not have the where-with-all (clear, comprehensive, knowledge-bases and understanding), which is necessary in order to effectively lead and/or teach about anti-racism — it certainly is Dr. McMickle. Yet, he routinely appears with such people, in situations in which they present themselves as having knowledge, understanding, and expertise regarding the forbidden-fruit issue and problem, which Dr. McMickle never questions. Thus, for McMickle to utter what appears to be nothing more or less than super-hyper rhetoric, i.e. a declaration that he “will commit [his] life to dismantling structural racism,” means little to many close observers — because that’s not what we see. On the contrary, we see a man who clearly understands the historical and ongoing nature and essence of the tripartite beast and illness, but who is actually doing very little, if anything, significant, to so-called “dismantle” the most insidious and harmful form of the beast. Additional, clear evidence of the editorial board’s chronic, dogmatic, pontificating, deep-seated, acute, conjecture, and in many cases — straight-up fallacies — is founded in their initial assertions that a relatively small group of people occasionally discussing structural racism under planned and controlled conditions — somehow, magically, represents “extraordinarily important and positive change” — compared and contrasted with their conclusion that so-called “growing interest [on the part of very small numbers] in [so-called] understanding structural racism, is an indicator that Rochester is getting a tiny step closer to closing its significant racial divide.” Such contradictory statements should cause thinkers to ask — which is it — “extraordinarily important and positive change [or] a tiny step?” Yes, in this particular case, the two are mutually exclusive, and definitely, diametrically opposed, especially when considering how much time has already gone by, and the fact that this is not a time for hundreds more years of benign gradualism. It is also important to question abstract concepts such as a so-called “racial divide.” Those who have an interest in continued white-supremacist-oppression and domination are often very crafty with language, and will frequently use it to avoid clarity surrounding societal issues and concerns. For example, the concept of so-called “racial divide” ultimately carries with it the inherent idea that we are all equally responsible for addressing it, which of course is true. However, what is not true is that we’re all equally responsible for creating, perpetuating and maintaining it (for centuries). Evasive linguists would also have us believe that structural racism “is far from an easy concept to grasp,” which actually is not at all true. A main reason why many have not “grasped” it is because they don’t think about it — not only as it relates to its structural form, but all forms. If people really want to at least begin to understand, all they have to do is think seriously about how the nation treats the majority of its Black citizens. The brilliant, authentic, white, anti-racist activist, Jane Elliott drives home the latter point via the video clip at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUlqTNwm-mk. In the final analysis, we must categorically reject the editorial board’s position that significant, and/or acceptable “progress is being made.” It is not — period. Also, those of us who really are authentic anti-racists activists and/or advocates — need to speak out (publicly) regarding the need for those who clearly are not prepared, nor qualified to lead — to either become followers, or get back in a corner — somewhere out of the way. Lastly, authentic, Black activists and advocates need to have “come-to-Jesus” meetings with those in our community who have become enablers, and or unprincipled collaborators — period.

Music, Anthony Dounte, NA$A Family, Jimmie Highsmith Jr. featuring Prince O and Chi the Realist, Adina Howard

~   Jose Peo  is co-host of the Politically Correcting podcast I was approached last night by a gentleman I did not know, but had heard about my Politically Correcting radio show and felt he could air out his grievance to me (I get that alot). His name is William Rothrock and he works in medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries. His emotional response to the Grieving Families Act and how it will impact those he serves, pushed me to write this article. I’m not the emotional type but I do have a socially Liberal side that tends to come out when it needs to speak up for those who feel they don’t have a voice. Since I have a loud one, I thought it was only right I help Mr. Rothrock push this information out so others may be more informed.   Governor Kathy Hochul has vetoed the Grieving Families Act for the third year in a row, seems to have left many New Yorkers frustrated and disappointed. This proposed law was meant to update New York’s wrongful death laws, which haven’t changed since 1847—over 175 years ago! Right now, if someone dies because of another person’s mistake or wrongdoing, their family can only sue for financial damages, like lost income, but this law would have allowed families to seek compensation for emotional pain and suffering too.   Here’s the problem: New York is one of just two states in the entire country that doesn’t let families claim emotional damages when they lose a loved one unfairly. Almost every other state already allow this! The Grieving Families Act was designed to fix that, bringing New York in line with the rest of the nation.   Governor Hochul said she vetoed the bill because she’s worried it could raise insurance costs and hurt hospitals and small businesses, but the bill’s creators had already made changes to address these concerns, limiting who could sue and what kinds of damages they could ask for.   Many (like myself) feel the governor is putting money and business interests ahead of families’ pain and justice. This decision also highlights a bigger issue: it feels like big companies and industries—like insurance and pharmaceuticals—get special treatment, especially from those they donate to.   Governor Kathy Hochul’s veto of the Grieving Families Act raises serious questions about where her priorities truly lie. While she claims to be protecting New Yorkers from higher insurance costs, she seems more interested in shielding powerful industries—like Big Pharma—from accountability, and it’s not just her. Rep. Joe Morelle claims to fight against high insurance costs every 2 years during his re-election campaigns, yet his biggest donor class is the Insurance industry, while our insurance prices have gone up 30+%. Somehow these people are fighting for us, yet taking in dollars from the same industries they claim to be fighting against?   Governor Hochul’s decision to veto a bill that would allow families to seek compensation for emotional damages after losing a loved one, feels particularly hypocritical in this context. How can she justify denying justice to grieving families while defending a system that grants Big Pharma immunity? If the governor truly cared about protecting New Yorkers, she would stand up to corporate giants and fight for those who have been harmed, whether by medical malpractice or vaccine injuries, regardless of who donates to her campaign.   New Yorkers deserve leaders who prioritize their well-being over the profits of powerful industries. The Grieving Families Act would have been a step in the right direction—giving families a chance to hold those responsible accountable. Instead, Governor Hochul has shown that her loyalty lies with the interests of Big Pharma and insurance companies, not with the people she was elected to serve. Let me spell it out even further: politicians propping up Big Pharma with their support is how we get radicalized patients like Luigi Mangione (allegedly).   Families who lose loved ones because of negligence or wrongdoing deserve more. They want laws that recognize their emotional suffering and give them a way to hold those responsible accountable. New York needs to change its outdated laws to show that people’s lives matter as much as money and business interests, and (just for good measure) our country deserves Universal Healthcare. ~   Jose Peo  is co-host of the Politically Correcting podcast , a program he started in 2021 that aims to bring reasoned dialogue to the tumultuous political landscape and empower listeners to speak honestly. Peo is a veteran who swiftly rose to E-5 sergeant, served as an intelligence analyst in Korea, along the southern U.S. border and in South America. Combining that with his entrepreneurial spirit, he won his first foray into politics by being elected to the City Council in Rochester, N.Y. in 2019. Peo’s journey from Army sergeant to entrepreneur and community leader reflects a commitment to unity and shared values.

If not, there’s still time to get your REAL ID-compliant driver’s license with that star on it. The REAL ID driver’s license and enhanced license have a small star or flag on them to indicate they REAL ID goes into effect in about one year, starting May 7, 2025, and the countdown is on. ID Act of 2005) that mandates that a REAL ID is needed for federal identification purposes. card in New York visit   https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/enhanced-or-real-id .

The same day that I challenged the historical accuracy, or real inaccuracy of Leonard’s essay, I was