Professional hockey is on its way back to the Danbury Arena on Indepedence Way.This is very exciting news for the city and for a downtown area that could use a financial shot in the arm.
An official announcement could come as early as next week, according to Floyd Hall Enterprises, the arena's owner.
"I can't say anything official yet because nothing has been signed, but we are working with a group to bring a new team and a new league to the arena for next year," said Kevin McCormack, vice president of arena operations for Floyd Hall Enterprises.
The News-Times has learned the team will be led by Tim Kolpien, owner of the Valley Forge Freedom of the Mid-Atlantic Hockey League.
That league ran into financial problems and suspended operations earlier this month. Kolpien's Danbury team will start a new league, luring teams from the Mid-Atlantic.
Kolpien is scheduled to come to Danbury on Tuesday to talk to City Hall officials. Ideally, the team would be ready for the 2008-09 season. Retired hockey player Brendan Tedstone will be the team's general manager.
Hockey coming back?
Time: 11:43 AM
The Seabury Report: Act 1, the request
Time: 4:57 PM
Since I started this site back in July 2005, I've routinely receive emails offering tips and bits of information on different subjects in Danbury. In all the emails I've received, allegations regarding Seabury tops the list, which is why in the fall of 2007, I finally decided to look into the Seabury's alleged questionable actions as a teacher.
First, I needed to do a bit of legal research and learn about areas of the Freedom of Information Act in regards to an individual's personnel records. Luckily, some of by most faithful readers just happen to be lawyers and after consultation and a bit of research, I learned about my now favorite Connecticut General Statue(s), section 1-212, 1-210 and 10-151c.
I'll save everyone the legal mumbo-jumbo (you can look up the law by doing a Google search) but in a nutshell, according to Connecticut General Statutes 10-151c and 1-210(a), documents and records pertaining to the misconduct of a teacher are deemed "public records" and disclosure of such records "shall not require the consent of the teacher" according to 10-151c and Connecticut case law.
Based on that knowledge, here's portions of a letter to Dr. Sal V. Pascarella Superintendent of Schools City of Danbury Administrative Center.
Dr. Sal V. Pascarella Superintendent of Schools City of Danbury Administrative Center
63 Beaver Brook Road Danbury, CT 06810
Freedom of Information Request
Dear Dr. Pascarella:
Under Connecticut General Statute section I hereby request the right to inspect, and receive copies of all of the following documents and records, whether the same are located at Danbury High School, the Administrative Center, or other location:
1) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, regarding any complaint(s) made against teacher Gregg Seabury for any misconduct and/or alleged misconduct;
2) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, regarding any discipline, reprimand or warning given or made against teacher Gregg Seabury for his misconduct and/or alleged misconduct;
3) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, containing or pertaining to any Board of Education decision or administrative action taken to reprimand, warn, and/or discipline teacher Gregg Seabury for any misconduct and/or alleged misconduct;
6) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, regarding any complaint(s) made against teacher Gregg Seabury for any misconduct and/or alleged misconduct involving awarding extracredit to students for inappropriate reasons; and/or
7) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, regarding any discipline, reprimand or warning given or made against teacher Gregg Seabury for his misconduct and/or alleged misconduct in connection with awarding extra-credit to students for inappropriate reasons.
Please also note that under Connecticut law, if a document has information that contains both non-exempt information and exempt information, such portion of the communications/notes regarding non-exempt information (like teacher misconduct) are "public record" and must be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining exempt information may be redacted from the document.
Now that you have a somewhat basic understanding of what's involved in this report, act 2 of this report will focus on the accusations that were made against Seabury and the response one parent claimed he received from Mayor Boughton.
Community Forum Feb 27 broadcast
Time: 2:50 PM
Guest: Jim Schmotter: President, Western Connecticut State University
Server down and misc
Time: 5:42 PM
Also, Ivon Alcime was gracious enough to give me full reign on his cable access show "Idea at Work and Beyond" tonight. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you are), due to time constraints, I was unable to finish with the production of the show I had planned for tonight. I really sorry because I know many of the people I talked to were very excited to see the final work. The program I produced will eventually makes it's way to cable with the launching of HatCityBLOG-TV.
Coming together for a common cause
Time: 2:19 PM
describe plans to take action against ICE ACCESS.
Danbury Alliance press conference. 02.21.08, photo by ctblogger.
There is a movement going on in Danbury unlike anything I've ever seen before. Forget the immigration rallies in 05, and 06...this is entirely different, much larger in scale, and more driven in it's purpose. From the hundreds of people that came out to speak out against ICE ACCESS, to the thousands who protested outside City Hall earlier this month, a new movement has been sparked and from it, hopefully a new beginning.
Leaders of different immigrants organizations as well as clergy members, business owners, and like-minded people who are sick of Danbury's current condition are coming together to fight back against the anti-immigrant tone that has gripped this city.
Last Thursday, a press conference was held to announce the alliance and outline outline what was being done in terms of dealing with ICE ACCESS.
Organizations Join Forces to Combat ICE Access
A coalition of local business, religious, and civic organizations is uniting to combat the fear and apprehension in the immigrant community following the City of Danbury's vote to approve the ICE Access program on February 6, 2008.
"We are not going to step back and let innocent people suffer because of their country of origin. We are going to step up and actively support the hard-working immigrants in our community", stated Franklin Pena, President of the Ecuadorian Civic Center.
• We will build bridges to civic and religious organizations who value diversity and justice.
• We will patronize immigrant-owned businesses and other Danbury businesses that support our city's hard-working immigrants.
• We will boycott businesses with financial ties to Council members who supported ICE Access.
• We will work with community groups to hold "Know Your Rights" training for the immigrant community
• We will create a legal team to assist people who are detained
• We will establish a hotline to answer questions and direct people to community organizations that can help them
• We will establish teams to go door to door with information on how to prepare for future enforcement actions with an "immigrant safety plan".
• We will develop hand-outs in English, Spanish and Portuguese for a City Watch program asking people to monitor and report on police activity in their neighborhoods
• We will establish an emergency aid network that can provide transportation to hearings, care for children whose parents are detained or deported, and financial assistance with posting bonds.
• We will register 1000 new voters before the next Mayoral election
We will push back against the fear and apprehension created by the Common Council's approval of the ICE Access program. We will fight for fairness and respect for the immigrant community.
Time: 2:55 PM
Time: 11:51 AM
Taking a cue from Nancy Johnson's worse TV ad ever, the fear-mongering think-tank The Foundation in Defense of Democracy has unleashed a outrageous TV targeting Congressman Chris Murphy for his vote against President Bush warrantless wiretapping program. Bush's bill would give retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies and would basically give the government to completely monitor your communications without a warrant and would bring George Orwell's vision of big brother to reality.
Here's the nonsense.
Wow, this is ONE BIG LIE and for your pleasure, we here at People-powered media did the debunking for you.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), born after the
Watergate scandal, establishes how the government can secretly eavesdrop on Americans in their own country in intelligence investigations. It was originally passed to allow the government to collect foreign intelligence information involving communications with "agents of foreign powers."
Today, however, the federal government is exploiting this once-narrow exception to make an end-run around the Constitution. The USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress in 2001 and re-authorized in 2006, expanded FISA to allow the government to obtain the personal records of ordinary Americans from libraries and Internet Service Providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism. Recent amendments in the Protect America Act now authorize the government to use FISA to get around the constitutional requirement that it show a judge that it has probable cause of involvement with a foreign country or terror group before it eavesdrops on a communication.
Although the Patriot Act was rushed into law just weeks after 9/11, a congressional investigation into the attacks did not find that FISA's limits on government surveillance contributed to the government's failure to prevent the attacks. Instead, the investigation pointed to fundamental organizational breakdowns in the intelligence community and the government's failure to make effective use of the surveillance powers already at its disposal. Despite overwhelming evidence that FISA did not need to be expanded, Congress moved to broaden the reach of the law and weakened its protection of Americans' freedom and privacy.
Even as the White House lobbied to expand the scope of FISA, we now know that President Bush disregarded the rule of law when he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on ordinary Americans' phone calls and e-mails without the warrant FISA requires.
Shockingly, Congress voted to temporarily condone this abuse of power in August 2007 with legislation sanctioning this illegal operation. This legislation is only temporary and will expire in February.
Myths and Facts about US Government Surveillance of Americans (2/18/2008)
MYTH: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has not kept up with the technology revolution we have experienced over the past 30 years.
FACT: There is absolutely no new technology that evades the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Besides, the FISA has been updated more than 50 times since being enacted in the '70s; it was updated as recently as last year.
MYTH: Retroactive immunity for telecoms is essential because the intelligence community requires the willing cooperation of the private sector in order to conduct surveillance operations.
FACT: Lawful surveillance under FISA is accomplished through court orders that compel the cooperation of telecommunications companies. Telecommunications companies that comply with lawful orders or Attorney General certifications under FISA are protected against liability arising from that cooperation. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has testified that the telecom companies that cooperated with the NSA's post-9/11 surveillance programs received certifications, which would mean they already have immunity - unless of course those certifications are clearly illegal. Telecom immunity would only protect companies that illegally assisted the government. Private sector companies should not be encouraged to cooperate with illegal government requests.
MYTH: Telecoms will not cooperate with future intelligence efforts if they don't receive immunity.
FACT: FISA orders and Protect America Act (PAA) directives are compulsory. Telecoms must comply with lawful orders. Telecoms only had discretion when they decided to cooperate with illegal government requests. They should be held responsible for breaking the law. No one should be above the law.
MYTH: When the PAA expires vital foreign intelligence surveillance programs will cease, and the government will not be able to conduct surveillance against new threats.
FACT: Any surveillance programs authorized under the PAA are in effect for an entire year, regardless of whether the PAA itself expires. The emergence of "new" targets for surveillance will not be a problem because the PAA authorized entire programs of surveillance, which are not limited to individual targets. If the government wants to wiretap individuals that for some reason do not fit under an authorized PAA program they can either apply for an order from the FISA Court or conduct the surveillance outside the United States.
MYTH: FISA is not an effective tool for protecting the national security.
FACT: During the Cold War FISA protected America from the threat of a nuclear-armed Soviet Union. FISA is a robust and nimble tool that gives the government significant powers to wiretap suspected terrorists while protecting the rights of innocent Americans by requiring judicial oversight. In an emergency, FISA allows the government to start the surveillance before requesting court permission. While McConnell falsely credited the PAA, it was surveillance conducted under FISA that helped the German government interdict a terrorist plot in Germany last year.
MYTH: Congress knows all it needs to know about the government's warrantless surveillance programs.
FACT: Administration officials have repeatedly hinted about "other" intelligence programs. The NSA warrantless surveillance program may only be the tip of the iceberg. Congress needs to know about all illegal government surveillance programs before it considers giving the government more surveillance powers. Only a few Members of Congress have seen the documents relating to the terrorist surveillance program and Congress should not legislate in the dark.
• CTNewsJunkie does it's usual great reporting on the who's who behind the Defense Of Democracies that includes a certain junior senator from Connecticut.
• ConnecticutBob whipped up this video response.
In response to the ad, Congressman Murphy released this statement.
This weekend, a Republican special interest group, Defense Of Democracies, peppered Connecticut airwaves with a completely false TV ad criticizing my opposition to Bush's unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program.
Here in the 5th district, we've seen this type of fear mongering before. The ad running against me now is eerily reminiscent of an ad that Nancy Johnson ran in 2006, infamously suggesting that I would not allow the U.S. government to intercept "a terrorist communication" from Pakistan to the United States.
I believe that we won in 2006 because in the face of these ads, we refused to bend in our support for basic civil liberties and privacy rights. I support a strong terrorist surveillance law, but I refuse to sacrifice our nation's hard fought civil liberties in the name of George Bush's illegal wiretapping scheme.
But I can't fight this battle alone. These new ads show that Bush's supporters will go to any lengths to remove from office those of us who dare to oppose his growing imperial Presidency.
With disgusting ads like this from the party of fear, Murphy should win by a landslide.
UPDATEFallout from the ad continues as Democratic advisers distance themselves from the group (for the exception of Joe LIEberman).
As we reported Monday, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies launched a national ad campaign lambasting House Democrats for not passing the Senate surveillance bill, which comes complete with retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
As of Friday, the group, which claims to be non-partisan, boasted a number of Democrats on their board of advisors. Those were: Donna Brazile, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY), Rep. Jim Marshall, and former Georgia governor Zell Miller. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), listed as a Democrat on the site, is one of five "distinguished advisors."
Since the group launched the ads, Brazile, Schumer, Engel and Marshall have all resigned from the group. Zell Miller, well, he spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Our call and email to Sen. Lieberman's spokesman were unreturned.
In her statement, Brazile said that no one from the group had consulted her about its activities "in years." And that the once "bi-partisan organization" had, "due to the influence of their funders... morphed into a radical right wing organization that is doing the dirty work for the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans."
Time: 8:37 AM
Lets test your knowledge in Danbury politics.
1. Name the people in this photo.
2. Name the year this photo was taken.
3. Name where location where this photo was taken.
4. Explain the significance of the person in the background (pertaining to the time of the photo, not today).
5. Explain the connection between the people in the photo and Mayor Boughton.
Hint: There is a reason Danbury Democrats and Republicans are considered kissing cousins from the same mold...
An accident that could have been avoided
Time: 9:51 PM
A car crash on White Street has sent two to the hospital, according to reports.
A vehicle was struck on White Street around 12:30 p.m., resulting in a t-bone accident in front of the Dunkin Donuts on White Street.
For those of you not from Danbury, here's the problem.
The Dunkin Donuts on White Street is the oldest of the franchise in Danbury (if my memory serves me correctly) and the problem with this place is it's location with the oncoming traffic on White Street.
In the map below, the Dunkin Donuts is boxed in blue while the blue trial indicates the path of the car.
Here's a closer view...
Now in the photo:
• The arrows in blue indicates the person pulling out of Dunkin Donuts and turning right (his left) onto White Street (towards Western).
• The portion in purple indicates cars on White Street that make a turn-hand left onto Balmforth Ave.
• Portion in red indicates the two lanes of traffic going from White Street towards Main Street.
• The portion in green indicates the two lanes the car driving from Main Street on White Street towards Newtown Road.
• The X in yellow indicates where I believe the "t-bone style" accident happened and,
• The series of arrows in White indicate how the accident could have been avoided if the car exited Maple Ave and turned left onto White Street at the intersection.
Looks like a mess huh? Well, you're right and this traffic disaster needs to be fixed before someone gets killed.
As many in Danbury know, White Street is a rather busy street and at times traffic on this street can be a nightmare. If you're exiting the Dunkin Donuts parking lot and plan to to turn onto White Street towards Newtown Road, in most cases you need to cross three lanes of traffic (as indicated in the map). In most cases this can be VERY dangerous and could result in accidents as in the case yesterday.
This is COMPLETELY avoidable and the solution is quite simple.
If you simply eliminate the ability for people to turn left out of the Dunkin Donuts parking lot to White Street (like put up a NO LEFT TURN SIGN), and require customers to exit the parking lot onto Maple Ave THEN make the left onto White Street (as shown in the map by the white arrows), then all of your troubles would be solved.
If the light bulb doesn't go off in owner Eduardo Batista's head, the city should intervene and do the right thing. What's more important, the amount of trips greedy Batista can jam into that outdated coffee shop per day or public safety?
My thoughts and prayers go out to those who were in this horrible t-bone accident. Hopefully the city will finally wise up and fix this alarming traffic problem before the next accident.
Will Romney jump back into the race?
Time: 7:29 PM
Crazy as it seems, to understand this, you'd need to take the entire GOP Presidential picture (which is a complete trainwreck) into perspective. To guide you through this difficult maze, we need to go back to the beginning of McCain's troubles.
Aides to Sen. John McCain confronted a telecommunications lobbyist in late 1999 and asked her to distance herself from the senator during the presidential campaign he was about to launch, according to one of McCain's longest-serving political strategists.
John Weaver, who served as McCain's closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year, said he met with Vicki Iseman at the Center Cafe in Union Station and urged her to stay away from McCain. Association with a lobbyist would undermine his image as an opponent of special interests, aides had concluded.
Members of the senator's small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly, according to sources, warning him that his continued relationship with a lobbyist who had business before the powerful Commerce Committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions. ...
The aide said the message to Iseman that day at Union Station in 1999 was clear: "She should get lost." The aide said Iseman stood up and left angrily. ...
Concern about Iseman's presence around McCain at one point led to her being banned from his Senate office, according to sources close to McCain. ...
Now, it's VERY, VERY to ignore the Right-Wing spin surrounding the story and remember the one person who was directly quoted in both the New York Times and Washinton Post article, John Weaver.
New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks knows Weaver and lays out the scenario that could spell disaster for John McCain's straight talk express.
The staff of the McCain campaign had a rude awakening last Jan. 25th. They opened The Washington Post and found a front-page story linking McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, to the Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska. Who, some wondered, was feeding damaging information about Davis to the press?Now that you have a better understanding of the rift in McCain's camp, you can better understand Brook's concern.
Speculation inevitably settled, as it must in McCain World, upon John Weaver. For nearly a decade, stories about the inner workings of the McCain apparatus inevitably involved the Weaver-Davis rivalry. These two McCain advisers share a mutual hatred, one McCainiac told me Thursday, that is total, absolute and blinding.
The tensions, which divided the McCain presidential campaign until Weaver was forced out last summer, exist on many levels. First of all, there is a personal contest for the attention and love of John McCain. But there are broader issues as well.
Davis is a creature of the political mainstream. He is even-tempered and charming. He is a lobbyist and a friend of lobbyists. He is a good manager. In policy terms, his tastes tend toward the Republican center.
Weaver is a renegade. He has a darker personality. He’s not a member of elite Washington circles and resented the way McCain would occasionally get pulled into them. Weaver is a less effective bureaucrat, but his policy instincts are more daring and independent.
The Davis-Weaver rivalry has lasted for so long because John McCain has a foot in each camp. McCain is, on one level, a figure of the Washington mainstream. He admires Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger. He appreciates a steady manager like Davis.
But McCain is also a renegade and a romantic. He loves tilting at the establishment and shaking things up. He loves books and movies in which the hero dies at the end while serving a noble, if lost, cause. He loves the insurgent/band-of-brothers ethos that Weaver exudes.
McCain was loyal to each camp in a house divided. But the poisons emanating from the rift have spread outward. They are the background for the article my colleagues at The New York Times published Thursday.
At the core of that article that began on the front page are two anonymous sources. These sources, according to the article, say they confronted McCain in 1999 with their concerns that he was risking his career by interacting with Vicki Iseman. As a columnist, I’m an independent operator, speaking for myself alone. I have no idea who those sources are. But they are bound to come from the inner circle of the McCain universe. The number of people who could credibly claim to have had a meeting like that with McCain in early 1999 is vanishingly small. I count a small handful of associates with that stature, including Davis and Weaver. There is nobody in that tight circle unaffected by the hostilities that emanate from the rift.Now the doomsday scenario...
At his press conference Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn’t just say he didn’t remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over. If no evidence surfaces, his campaign will go on and it will be clear that there were members of his old inner circle consumed by viciousness and mendaciousness.
But lingering over everything is the bitterness of the rift, which has caused duplicity and anger to seep into the campaign of this fine man. The poisons have yet to be drained.
McCain has serious problems...real serious problems, and here's why.
At his press conference last Thursday McCain denied everything, but as each day goes by, more news reports are coming out that are directly contradicting his statements.
Let's go back to the only person who was quoted on record, Weaver, and examine what he had to say about his quotes in the Post and Times.
The only on-the-record source the New York Times used in their John McCain story says he gave his quote to the paper in December and immediately shared it with the Arizona senator's top strategists.
John Weaver, formerly McCain's top strategist, tells Politico that after hearing repeatedly from Times reporters working on the story, he asked for written questions and then provided an e-mail response.
"They asked about the Union Station meeting and so I answered their questions," Weaver says. "I forwarded it to Steve, Charlie and Mark within minutes of sending it to the Times."
Steve Schmidt, Charlie Black and Mark Salter are all top advisers to McCain.
Now that you know who Weaver is and the fact that he confirmed his statement to the press, next up to bat, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff who's caught a MAJOR contradiction in McCain's comment.
A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.
On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.
Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff--and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.
But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."
While McCain gets hit with the left hook, the Washington Post came out with another front page story which hits him with the right cross and exposes his deep ties to lobbyists.
[W]hen McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JP Morgan and U.S. Airways.
Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O Lakes, the UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae. [...]
In McCain's case, the fact that lobbyists are essentially running his presidential campaign -- most of them as volunteers -- seems to some people to be at odds with his anti-lobbying rhetoric. "He has a closer relationship with lobbyists than he lets on," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "The problem for McCain being so closely associated with lobbyists is that he's the candidate most closely associated with attacking lobbyists."
Public Citizen, a group that monitors campaign fundraising, has found that McCain had more bundlers -- people who gather checks from networks of friends and associates -- from the lobbying community than any other presidential candidate from either party.
Bundlers...hmm, where have I heard that term used before?
Anyway, onto the Romney connection.
With more reports contradicting McCain hitting the press, people in Romney's inner circle are smelling blood, which is why this strategic tidbit from his son is making it's way around the press today.
Josh Romney, one of former Gov. Mitt Romney's five sons, says it's "possible" his father may rejoin the race for the White House, as a vice presidential candidate or as the Republican Party's standard-bearer if the campaign of Sen. John McCain falters.
The 60-year-old Romney, who "suspended" his campaign for the GOP nomination after a disappointing showing on Super Tuesday and a week later endorsed McCain, was taking a break from politics this weekend on a skiing vacation in Utah with his wife, Ann, according to his 32-year-old son.
The elder Romney, who was unable to assemble sufficient conservative support to thwart McCain, has made no public comment since the McCain camp was rocked ...
... by a controversial article in the New York Times last week first revealed in December in a posting on the Drudge Report.
The article, which was criticized even within journalism circles and by the newspaper's own ombudsman for its anonymous sourcing and lack of documentation, implied that the 71-year-old presumptive Republican presidential nominee had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist and did favors for her corporate clients.
McCain and the lobbyist have unequivocally denied the charges, and numerous conservatives, once hesitant to support the more moderate senator, have flocked to his support, at least against the liberal Times.
However, subsequent published reports have contradicted some of McCain's denials of meetings with corporate executives while he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, and if further revelations occurred, it could raise questions about the Arizonan's viability as the GOP nominee.
Because he suspended rather than terminated his campaign, Romney still retains control of the nearly 300 delegates he's already won. Another former governor, Mike Huckabee, remains in the race and is nearing Romney's delegate totals, though few give him a realistic chance of catching McCain, with more than 900 delegates.
Will the wheels off the McCain straight talk express fall off? Only time will tell but with Romney's camp throwing hints out in the press, maybe Mayor Boughton should have held off jumping on McCain's bandwagon until AFTER the Republican National Convention. On second thought, seeing that Boughton was co-chair of Romney's team in Connecticut and couldn't get a single WARD IN DANBURY to vote for his anti-immigrant buddy, I don't think Romney's losing any sleep over anything Mark does at this point.
"You liberated me!"
Time: 4:05 PM
My conscious is clear...I loved for this guy.
Silly comment about a silly ordinance
Time: 12:55 PM
Common Council member Mary Teicholz said the incident proves the law works.Racist email receiver Teicholtz couldn't be further from the truth when it comes to the sex offender ordinance and the article about the registered sex offender who received a warning for being at Terrywile Park backs up my point (note the portion in bold).
Police said Siegfried Hepp, 47, who works for Eastern Mountain Sports, gave a demonstration Feb. 9 during the "WinterFest" at Tarrywile Park.
The annual event is popular with families because it features sled dogs and a "fruitcake toss" for children.
Hepp was quoted in a News-Times article about the event that caught the eye of Detective Ethan Mable of the Danbury Police Department's Youth Bureau.
Mable remembered Hepp has an arrest history and looked for his name on the state's sex offender registry.
Based on the article, the ONLY REASON Hepp was caught was because he was quoted in the News-Times. This begs the question "how many sex offenders who went to Terrywile Park went unnoticed?"
For Teicholtz to somehow claim that this ordinance works is laughable at best. I don't know about you but a "warning" for a registered sex offender who's in violation of the law (and in the same area as my child) is hardly something to jumping for you over. If you park your car illegally, do you get a warning or a ticket? How about if you don't have insurance? DUI? Running a red light? Why do SEX OFFENDERS only get a warning when you would assume they get a ticket?
And again, if Hepp wasn't quoted in the article, he wouldn't have been unnoticed by the police.
So tell me Mary, how does a cop that notices a person's name in an article this prove that the ordinance works?
While you're at it, I know a few people who are STILL waiting on you to explain yourself and why you didn't speak out when you received the FIRST offensive email from Former Minority Leader and Fairfield County Weekly Top clown of 2007 Pauline Basso and Republican Town Committee anti-immigrant member Joel Urice?
Here, let me give you a refresher on the level of outrage created as a result of your non-action...
After Pitts’ reluctant press conference, the pre-election silence from Basso’s party was deafening. Boughton held a meeting between Basso and Pitts—as if this was a private matter between the two. Basso refused to make a public statement, considering that note slipped under Pitts’ door sufficient. Common Council President Joe Cavo? Danbury Town Committee Chair Wayne Baker? City Councilwoman Mary Teicholz, who was CCed on the emails? No comment.
The silence said it all; racist emails weren’t something the Danbury GOP thought was important—or Basso’s reelection chances were more important. We’re not sure which is worse.
...and this is the person cheerleading over the over-flawed, "feel good" ordinance that offers a false sense of security to families (unless ALL sex offenders who are in child safety zones are quoted in the News-Times)...UGH.
I'll further explain why this feel-good ordinance is nothing more than a
Why does the DLC hate Democrats?
Time: 9:37 AM
When Harold Ford, Jr. walked onto the Quick Center stage for his OPEN Visions forum he knew whose district he was standing in.
"There is not a better Congressman in Washington than Chris Shays," said Ford, to a crowd of about 600 Fairfield University students and community members.
Chris Shays? Chris Shays?
• The same Chris Shays who said that Democrats didn't do anything to support the troops in Iraq?
Christopher Shays (R-CT) was so sputtering mad that he lapsed into poor English:
"I can't think of hardly anything that the Democrats have done [to try to win this war]!"
He said that twice....
It also "blows him away" that Condi has to come before Congress to examine the question of whether the Iraqi government is corrupt.
• The same Chris Shays who belittled the victims of the American contractors who were providing private security in Iraq, ambushed by a mob, and had their bodies dragged through the streets of Fallujah.
• The same Chris Shays who not only embarrassed himself during the House Oversight Committee hearing on steroids in baseball...
10:49 | Black Sox and Steroids
Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), called the scene "surreal" in his opening remarks/diatribe, and then began some surreal questions of his own. He invoked the Black Sox scandal, and then suggested that players involved with steroids should be dealt with as harshly as Kenesaw Mountain Landis did with the Eight Men Out from 1919.
"Why should cheating be a matter of collective bargaining?" he asked rhetorically to Mitchell - who, as usual, had a measured and informed response.
"It has been settled law in the United States for more than 20 years that drug testing in the workplace is a subject of collective bargaining." Showing some restraint, Mitchell omitted the requisite "duh", given the solemnity of these proceedings.
Shays interrupted and plowed ahead: "But isn't there a difference? The purpose of these drugs is not to give pleasure. It's to give an unbelievable advantage to players."
Shays continued, and later during his five minutes referred to Rafael Palmeiro as "Palmerry." Mitchell kept his composure during a confounding question, regarding whether Palmeiro had tested positive "before his three-hundredth hit?"
A knowledgeable baseball fan despite recent events, Mitchell responded: "I'm sorry, before what?"
...but also embarrassed the entire state of Connecticut with his over-the-top browbeating of Roger Clemens trainer Brian McNamee (without saying ONE word about Clemens using steroids) during the same meeting.
I think Jane said it best in this quote...
Someone should let Ford know that the "D" in DLC is a passing reference to "Democrat."
Better yet, these guys said it best.
Help send Shays his walking papers...donate to Jim Himes.
UPDATE: Oh look, Harold Ford responds to the criticism and claims that his comment was taken out of context.
"Chris Shays is my friend, and I was proud to serve with him in Congress. It's unfortunate he's not a Democrat.How the f*ck can someone's comment be taken out of context when the comment CAME FROM HIS OWN SITE.
However, I plan on endorsing the Democratic nominee for Congress in Chris's district and everywhere in the country for that matter - as I plan to work for the Democratic nominee for President with all my energy and heart.
My comments were clearly taken out of context.
People-powered media strikes again. The lying xenophobes and anti-immigrant politicians in Danbury should take note before it's too late...
HatCityBLOG FLASHBACK: Mayor Boughton can't seem to get his story straight
Time: 7:44 AM
Originally posted July 2007
The Mayor claims to have done his homework but looks more like his dog ate his homework than anything else.
I mean, you gotta be kidding me right? At this point, one has to question anything that Mayor Boughton states in regards to the proposed parade ordinance which is up for a re-vote again at tonight's Common Council meeting.
Boughton said the ordinance wasn't only created to stop spontaneous parades. He said it won't stop them entirely, but it will give police more power to step in, for instance, ticketing everyone who blocks an intersection or blasts their car horn.1. This ordinance will NOT stop ANY spontaneous parade and Mayor Boughton knows this because his CORPORATION COUNCIL STATED THIS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
2. In the run-up for the ordinance back in late April-early May 2006, the only thing Mayor Boughton and supporters of this ordinance talked about was THE WORLD CUP GAMES and the IMMIGRANTS THAT CAUSED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. There was NO TALK about making sure everyone was paying the same amount of money for their parades and marches. THE ONLY CARD being played was the drumbeat against immigrants by xenophobes and bigots and the excuses being stated NOW is basically a line of B.S.
How can I say that? Well, for one, I was there. I videotaped the meetings back in 2006, and and those who attended the meetings and kept an eye on this ordinance from it's origins KNOW BETTER and are not fooled.
3. As for this giving the police more power to ticket people...THEY'RE ALREADY LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT ADDRESS THESE TRAFFIC CONCERNS. The ordinance has NOTHING to do with ticketing people "who blocks an intersection or blasts their car horn."
Anyone who has watch this story from the beginning knows that the Mayor is changing his tune because he's caught by people who are now actually paying close attention to what he's saying and holding him accountable.
Case in point, watch this exchange where the mayor's "slight-of-hand" is caught by a reporter who knows better.
Okay, go over the lies from the mayor in that small exchange.
LIE number 1: The Mayor says that the World Cup games were NOT spontaneous because he and the chief had "prior planning."
FACT: The fact that the Mayor and police chief addressed traffic concerns before the World Cup games started has NOTHING to do with the legal definition of prior planning as outlined by the ordinance.
JUST READ THE ORDINANCE!
Sec 11-15 (a):The term "parade permit applicant" MEANS A PLANNING COMMITTEE and NOT AN INDIVIDUAL and definitely NOT THE MAYOR OR POLICE CHIEF.
Parade means any march, demonstration, procession, or motorcade, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination thereof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under the control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property.
In other words, PRIOR PLANNING does not mean the following:
The Mets are one game away from winning the World Series. I'm at a bar and tell my buddies that if they win, we'll run up and down the street and celebrate with the other Mets fans.
NOR does it mean this...
I'm at my house watching the World Cup games and decide to jump into my car and drive up and down the street because my team won
NOR does it mean this...
I just graduated from high school and I drive my car up and down the road with my friends, which I'll probably see for the last time, because I finished High School.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's called SPONTANEOUS CELEBRATION and I don't care how much you hate immigrants, there is nothing you can do to stop this type of expression because it's called FREE SPEECH and is protected by the first amendment (yes, even those who are not citizens of this country are protected by the constitution). Corporation Council KNOWS this because they stated at THE VERY FIRST AD-HOC COMMITTEE PROCESS that the city IN NO WAY can stop this form of expression. PERIOD!
THIS is prior planning.
The local AOH plans to hold a St. Partick Day's parade. a planning committee is formed to organize the event.Listen to Common Councilman Paul Rotello explain why this ordinance WILL NOT ADDRESS "spontaneous celebrations" in my interview with him.
The police union plans on holding a demonstration in front of City Hall against the Mayor over the lack of a contract. A planning committee is formed to organize the event.
A group of immigrant rights organizations plan on holding a rally down Main Street to protest Mayor Boughton and the fact that he uses the immigration issue for political purposes. They get together and plan the event.
In other words, if the mayor's ever excuse in the video clip in a court of law, he'd be thrown right out of court by the judge.
LIE number 2: When called out on LIE number 1 by an alert Elizabeth Putman, the mayor fumbled and stated that the celebrants had prior planning because they knew that they were going to go out in the streets after the game.
FACT: Re-read my first "fact" statement.
LIE number 3: The ordinance is another "tool in the toolbox" to help the police.
FACT: This so-called "tool" was not needed in the "toolbox" to address traffic concerns that stemmed from spontaneous parades (a.k.a. those pesky immigrant parades). They are already LAWS on the books to address the problems that stemmed from the World Cup games.
Here is Minority Leader Tom Saadi outlining EVERY POINT I just raised at last month's Common Council meeting.
The real problem that is being ignored is that, just like with the Elmer's Diner disaster, Mayor Boughton (a.k.a the person who does his homework) didn't have the proper foresight to address the situation properly choosing instead to shamelessly use the topic of "immigration" as a vehicle to rally up both his low-information (i.e. those whose only source of local news is the News-Times) and his anti-immigration bigoted base (headed by Elise "deer in the headlights" Marciano) to support for his policy and give the impression that he's actually doing something in office besides giving tax breaks to developers.
Let's go back to the video tape and watch the mayor in action again...
Now, if Mayor Boughton handled the situation in 2002 with people going to the green and ice rink to celebrate there, it begs the question WHAT HAPPENED IN 2006? Also, for the mayor claiming that the World Cup games only happened on the championship level and that he didn't anticipate that there would be a parade after "every single game" (and even that is stretching it a bit).
To drive my point home, from the HatCityBLOG archives, I present to you comments from Margret Mitchell from May 2006 when the parade ordinance was first introduced.
MITCHELL: This is something that I wanted for years and I written various Council people, Council Presidents and the Mayor about this. Ever since the World Cup soccer game in 1994, which was a terrible disruption to our neighborhood...
See what happens when you VIDEOTAPE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS!
Did you hear Mitchell say "1994"...did you hear Ms. Mitchell use the term "disruption on Main Street."
Also, ANY person who has been a resident of Danbury KNOWS about the World Cup games because, as Ms. Mitchell clearly stated, it's been an area of concern for at least 13 years if not more. For Mayor Boughton to state that he didn't anticipate that there would be a parade after "every single game (again this is a stretch) is completely and without question DISHONEST as people who are fans of soccer celebrate whenever their team wins (whether it's Equador, Protugal, or Italy ALL OF WHOM celebrated up and down Main Street in 2006).
We don't need a parade ordinance, we need better cooperation between the the mayor's office, police department and leaders of the immigrant community.
This is just nonsense and the people of Danbury deserve better than a mayor who's more of an expert of double-talk and passing the buck to the "previous administration" than someone who claims to have done his homework.
Hat City Blog | READ, WATCH, AND LEARN.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License