Capital Region

Letters to the Editor Thursday, Dec. 2


Government is still bloated in Schoharie

We the people of Schoharie County were continually told that having an administrator at the helm, guiding the county board, would alleviate a lot of the problems and missteps by our leaders that have occurred in the past.
Absolutely nothing has improved in Schoharie since the creation of an administrator position and office six years ago.
Administrator Steve Wilson is now looking to create a 20-person Human Resource and Financial Management Office that will be staffed by current employees.
The catch here is that they will be working and answering to a deputy county administrator at a salary of $95,000 a year.
Let’s see, six years ago we started with an administrator.
A year later, we added a confidential assistant for the administrator.
Now the administrator is looking to bring in a deputy administrator.
This office will now be costing the taxpayers in excess of $250,000 annually.
When will this useless government bloat stop?
Jerry Fiore

Rittenhouse within rights to defend self

In response to Joan Wilmarth’s letter in the Nov. 27 Gazette (“Rittenhouse’s mom bears some blame”): If you research the facts, Kyle’s mother did not drive him to Kenosha. The gun was already in Kenosha, and he was legally allowed to carry it. He went there to help.
He worked in Kenosha and his father lives there.
I think we all wish he hadn’t been there, but when he was attacked, he had no choice but to defend himself.
Donna Hart


Obama not worried about climate issue

David Furman Jr.’s letter in the Nov. 27 Gazette (“Fight for climate or have nothing left”) discusses the climate crisis to include sea levels rising and the disastrous impact on cities such as Boston, New York, etc.
You would think if this was a real problem, President Obama would not have spent close to $12 million to buy beachfront property on an island in the middle of the ocean.
Andy Beiniks



Online letters

Commenters to online letters who fail to follow rules against name-calling, profanity, threats, libel or other inappropriate language will have their comments removed and their commenting privileges withdrawn.

To report inappropriate online comments, email Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney at [email protected]

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion



Rittenhouse would not have been there if the political decision to have law enforcement sit out the riot. Perhaps the right to riot should join the trash weep of failed social experiments.


Fred, What evidence do you have that there was a “political decision to have law enforcement sit out the riot”? There is no “right to riot”. There was some violence and looting during the night in Kenosha following a peaceful demonstration against police brutality and racism after a Black young father, Jeffery Blake, was shot by police seven times in the back resulting in permanent paralysis. We do have the right to “petition the government for redress of grievances” in this country. Frequently persons not at all interested in demonstrations take advantage of a situation to engage in violence and looting. The legitimate law-enforcement authorities should handle rioters and looters. The appearance of a young man jogging into this volatile situation with an AR-15 does nothing to calm the situation down, but of course, increases the likelihood of death. Do you think it is possible that the men who tried to disarm Rittenhouse saw him as a wannabe mass murderer?


Donna Hart, Bottom line us that Rittenhouse was a 17 year old racist punk, with little or no life experience. He had no business walking around with an AR-15 and an arrogant, in your face, White supremacist chip on his shoulder during a protest where people had gathered to speak out against the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man who was left paralyzed after being shot SEVEN times (four in the back) by a police officer.

For Rittenhouse,“ just a kid”, to play the role of a cop, when he probably should have been doing some political science homework, was so far out out of his league and grossly overstepping boundaries, that anyone not seeing this is only kidding themselves.

I believe, had Rittenhouse not had an obviously biased judge and high powered attorneys twisting and stretching the interpretation of the law to its limits, the “nice young man” would be justifiably doing time. And, yes, I also believe that his parents are partially to blame because you’re not born with prejudices in your blood.

Having said all that, I don’t like, but can live with the outcome of the trial. The democratic process of law in American isn’t perfect, (look at how many innocent criminals have been unjustly imprisoned) but it’s as good a process af any other countries’ in the world.

William Marincic

Lou, Funny how you label him a racist when he said during his interview that he was a BLM supporter, and out of the four people that attacked him the one he didn’t shoot was Black.


He would have come earlier to the peaceful demonstrations conducted by BLM and left his automatic rifle home if he truly supported justice for Black Americans.

Regardless, it was the wrong place for a junior vigilante with a military-style assault weapon. That’s the issue and you are deflecting and again, clouding the issue.


As noted, the peaceful demonstrations were the day before. Right-wing rioters and looters often arrive after peaceful demonstrations as a ruse to make the demonstrations appear violent. William, look up the story of the burning of the Reichstag building for an historical perspective on how the right, in this case Nazis, create violence and blame it on the left. You might find it interesting as well as informative.

It’s White supremacy without the White supremacists.
See my post at the bottom of today’s comments.
But you know it, Marincic, and you’re on board. Good luck with that.


What evidence do you have that there was a “political decision to have law enforcement sit out the riot”? The absence of law enforcement!


Fred, Did you watch any objective coverage of this story? If you did, you would have seen police officers welcoming Rittenhouse on the scene. They were there and apparently encouraged or at least tolerated Rittenhouse’s vigilante role which had deadly consequences. We need to hire and educate competent police officers who will properly carry out the functions of law-officers without prejudice. Many police officers meet this standard but we must weed out those who do not and be certain that new officers meet rigid standards of character and knowledge.

William Marincic

ChuckD Yes, I do, here is your proof and stop listening to MSDNC. By the way why do you keep dodging yesterdays question?

MADISON (WKOW) – Gov. Tony Evers announced he accepted an offer from White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to send federal assistance to Kenosha to help with protests.

“Gov. Evers has been working with several state partners to get additional National Guard and state patrol support,” Brit Cudaback, a spokesperson for the governor, said.

“The federal government is planning to assist in facilitating conversations with other state partners and provide FBI support to our state response,” Cudaback added in a statement.

This announcement comes after Gov. Evers turned down an offer from Meadows to send federal assistance to Kenosha.

“The governor was offered National Guard by Trump ”
Your words. Your error.

William Marincic

The Secretary Of Defence with the governor’s permission can activate them, that’s why Trump asked the governor.

Title 32 Full-Time National Guard Duty. (Federally funded, but command and control remains with the State Governor through his Adjutant General.) Title 32 activation can only be done by the President or SECDEF with the approval and consent of the state Governor.

Writer says Rittenhouse “went there to help” and then goes on to say “I think we all wish he hadn’t been there”. Well, which one is it? He could have easily not been there and spared the lives of all involved, but instead he decided to “help” by open carrying an AR-15 to “protect” someone else’s property who didn’t ask for his help. This is not to say anything about whether he acted in self-defense, but really just a commentary about how he shouldn’t have been there in the first place cosplaying as a LEO.

Doug Hampton

Perfectly put Matt. Very fair. Shouldn’t have been there in the first place but once he was….Self Defense…perhaps. That’s how he got off so there you go.


In the Mississippi abortion case (and Texas, too), if the Supreme Court votes like legislators, then Biden has the obligation to expand the court enough to make it a more neutral court. As Justice Sotomayor said yesterday, there was nothing that changed (e.g., scientifically re. viability) in the past 50 years since abortion became a woman’s right with limitation that would warrant changing precedent. This boils down to a continuing war on poor women, a favorite target by white republicans and evangelicals.

It’s odd, isn’t it? How quiet our right-leaning friends have been about this. No one seems to want to stand up for taking away human rights of half our population and reinforcing their belief that women are second-class, yet they’ve managed to get it center stage in the news. Maybe the religious tinge of it all is so obvious, they’re aware this goes against the Constitution and they really don’t deserve the consideration by our courts. And in the Texas case, who could deny the level of sleaze they’re being afforded. Let the whacko right-wing, faux-Christian vigilantes handle it. Nice. I’m sure Jesus would approve.

Let’s hope the Dem Geriatric class (which I’m close to resembling) can wake up and 1.) kill the filibuster and 2.) fix the SCOTUS by bringing back the ideological balance it once had. This right wing aberration that’s taken over the Republican Party is only taking this country backwards. They’ve brought nothing else to the game.


Thumbs up to Raymond and ChuckD. Both have hit the nail on the head. I will add only this: Democrats have every right, perhaps a duty, to increase the number of SCOTUS justices in order to counter Mitch McConnell’s sleazy maneuverings in denying even a hearing for President Obama’s pick for a Supreme Court Justice while doing all in his power to make certain tRUMP’s picks went smoothly through the confirmation process.

William Marincic

Really Anthony? Public opinion is a resounding NO and if it happened the SCOTUS would lose all of its legitimacy. It would just be another political arm of the government. By even suggesting that you are saying these justices are political…. Chief Justice Roberts has voted with the liberal side as much as the conservative side. RBG said that Roe V Wade was a bad decision, how liberal was she?


RBG solidly backed the right of women to have an abortion. She felt that basing it on a constitutional right to privacy was an ineffective long term method of insuring that right. She thought it would have better justified on the legal basis of gender equality. You can find numerous articles explaining this by googling RBG’s views on Roe v. Wade. All “arms” of the government are political.

The public’s opinion on reversing Roe v. Wade is a resounding no.
Continue to try to cloud the issue, but we see right through it.
The American public most definitely does not support reversing the right for a woman to control her own life. And that’s more important than your god-driven theory that life begins at conception.


William if you believe public opinion should rule, then I assume you favor abortion rights for women.

William Marincic

Anthony, I believe the Constitution rules, in this case, I also believe this is a states issue, and the citizens of their state should vote and decide the issue. This is not a federal issue. Knowing that you don’t have to worry because there will be at least 20 states that will vote to continue to kill babies.


You are again, obfuscating and evading: Should public opinion rule supreme or not? Or only when it supports your point of view?

William Marincic

Public opinion does not rule, citizens in the voting booth rule and that’s where this belongs, state and not federal.

William Marincic

Ray, it was a bad ruling in 1973, the Constitution says nothing about abortion but it does say in the 14th amendment The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… See “RIGHT TO LIFE”. The Supreme Courts’ job is to interpret the Constitution not be a political operative or make public policy.

That you can’t accept the sleazy way three of the justices (who met your Trump’s approval as anti-abortionists) were jammed in, while a Democratic President’s right to appoint one was stifled speaks volumes for whatever you think you possess as “humanity”.

Calling once again, BS.

Actually the 14th amendment says “life, liberty, or property”, but be that as it may, what about the 14th amendment protections for the mother? A woman isn’t free to pursue her happiness, be it career or otherwise, because she inadvertently got pregnant (or was potentially raped or the victim of incest)? She’s not free to have liberty and a right to privacy to make her own medical decisions? She doesn’t have a right to life (women are 14 times more likely to die from complications of a pregnancy than getting a legal abortion)?

If men could get pregnant, abortion would have been fully legalized a LONG time ago believe you me. And you speak as if you have all the answers and that the court shouldn’t be politicized, but the only reason this case is before the court is because Mississippi saw the change in its composition being more conservative as an opportunity to get Roe and Casey overturned. Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to abortion other than the addition of three conservative justices during the prior administration to justify this case being heard.


At times the right to free speech causes much frustration among the informed. Your post is a great example. Interpretation of the Constitution is by its very nature political. Compare the Court’s ruling in Plessey v. Ferguson (1894) with the Court’s ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education Topeka, Kansas (1954). In the first case legal segregation by race was upheld as long as the facilities for both races were equal. In the second case it was determined that legal (de jure) segregation was in and of itself, by its very nature, unequal and discriminatory. Do you think that after the first decision Black Americans were treated equally in public schools and other public facilities? Anyone who does is uninformed, gullible and likely racist.

…and probably advocating for charter schools and private school vouchers. hoping for the same outcome: White kids here. All others… best of luck!

William Marincic

Actually yes because we all know that charter schools and private schools give kids a better education. Let public schools compete for the kids and they will get better or they will close.

William Marincic

Anthony we both know they were not but that is a perfect example of a SCOTUS that made a bad decision and a SCOTUS that fixed it.


Who said it was a bad ruling for almost 50 years? SCOTUS rarely dealt with it until the Trump/McConnell/Federalist Society decided to install three lightweight justices that promised them what they wanted, not what the public supports and science dictates. The current SCOTUS is not interpreting the Constitution, they are making law and new policy like a legislature. Even they realize they are viewed as partisan political hacks and have spoken publicly trying to counter that public opinion. Roberts has lost control of “his” court.


They fixed it because of a different interpretation of the same words. Do you not see that the different interpretations are due to different political ideologies? If politics plays no part in SCOTUS why do you and the rest of us refer to some justices as liberal and others as conservative?


For the new trumpian right it’s all pushed into a box of fear, anger, racism, white supremacy, and warped hypocritical Christianity thumping manipulative BS used to sway the disenchanted into believing it’s a better way. The reality, if their agenda comes to fruition, is the end of democracy in America.

William Marincic

Lou, let me ask the same question I asked ChuckD. Have you ever dated a person of color and do you have any people of color in your IMMEDIATE family? It’s a fair question because you doth protest too much.

How about, none of your damn business. Besides it’s of no relevance, unless you feel that information, like your bizarre claims about being Black yourself, gives you some kind of get-out-of-being-a-racist badge of honor.

Seconding Lou.


I must say, Louis, that you are 100% right in all of your comments. Me thinks William doth pay too much attention to race and doth think not of people as simply human beings.

William Marincic

Really Anthony, I don’t care at all about race I wish ChuckD and Louis who nonstop blame everything on race would answer a question for me, have they ever dated someone of color for the first question and the second question is do they have any people of color in their immediate family? Simple questions I wonder why they’re afraid to answer. I’m far from a racist I could give a crap what color anybody is because I treat everyone exactly the same.


Who cares whether they have Black family members or have ever dated someone of color? We all belong to one family, the human family; we are all related. From what you have posted, though you have some African genes, you were raised and lived your life as White. The point Louis, ChuckD, and I are trying to make is that what we identify as racial characteristics are, in fact, superficial and unimportant. Racial differences, however, have made a hugely negative impact on those who can’t pass as White. As I have posted so often, bigots have deprived minorities of their rights from slavery , Jim Crow, and police brutality throughout American history. That is why BLM exists. It is unfortunate but necessary to assert the dignity of all in the human family.

“White supremacy without white supremacists”
Why we talk about White supremacy when we talk about Kyle Rittenhouse

excerpts from: What we talk about when we talk about white supremacy
Rod Graham
December 01, 2021

Let’s start with the night of the killings.
According to a statement from Boogaloo Bois member Ryan Balch, the police told the militia group “that they were going to be pushing the protesters towards us because we could deal with them … KPD made a conscious decision to abandon the people of Kenosha to people they felt [were] justified in using machines and weapons of war against.”

Then in January, after pleading not guilty to all charges against him, Rittenhouse went to a bar and posed for photos with members of the Proud Boys, a group described as neo-fascist, and flashed what many people call a “white power” hand sign (the okay hand gesture).

In the months leading up to the trial over $600,00 was raised for Rittenhouse on the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo. This is not inherently problematic, as religious communities give all the time. But the Blue Lives Matter flag on the page and the description “Kyle Rittenhouse just defended himself from a brutal attack by multiple members of the far-leftist group ANTIFA — the experience was undoubtedly a brutal one” has a whiff of Christian nationalism.

During the trial, Judge Bruce Schroeder made several decisions that seemed to help Rittenhouse. He would not allow the two people killed, Rosenbaum and Huber, to be called victims. “Rioters. Arsonists. Looters. Refer to them that way,” he said. Despite visual evidence of a connection, he also would not allow the prosecution to connect Rittenhouse to the Proud Boys. He threw out two charges against the defendant, a curfew charge and a weapons possession charge.

And then there is the immediate aftermath. Far-right Congressmen Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar have offered Rittenhouse an internship. The Monday after the trial, Rittenhouse appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show, pleading his case and innocence before a supportive right-wing media ecosphere.
(All of whom publicly denounce critical race theory)

In the same way our understanding of racism has evolved, so has our understandings of white supremacy. How America’s racial hierarchy is maintained today is not the same as it was a century ago. In 2021, we don’t need white supremacists for there to be white supremacy.

Those Fox viewers tuning in to watch Rittenhouse’s interview with Carlson would say they were concerned with “upholding the right of self-defense.” The Proud Boys would say they are against “wokism.” People who contributed money to Rittenhouse’s crowdfund may say they are a “good Christian helping another good Christian.” The Kenosha police and Judge Schroeder may mutter something along the lines of “maintaining law and order.” The congressmen offering Rittenhouse an internship may say their concerns revolved around the “erosion of gun rights in this country” and so on.

That suggests an interest in maintaining the racial hierarchy.

It is a hierarchy where Black and brown people are at the bottom absorbing the lion’s share of the state-sanctioned violence meted out by hyper-aggressive police officers. Meanwhile, at the top of that hierarchy are white people who believe it’s their right to storm the Capitol to demand their chosen candidate be given the presidency.

William Marincic

I didn’t know that the OK hand sign was a symbol for white supremacy just as I didn’t know those people in the bar were Proud Boys,” Rittenhouse told NewsNationNow’s Ashleigh Banfield in an interview that aired Tuesday. “They were set up by my former attorney (Pierce) who was fired because of that, for putting me in situations like that with people I don’t agree with.”

Leave a Reply