The River Reporter Online - Letters to the Editor

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing on behalf of a group.

Letters are printed as they are received, or at the discretion of the editor, and without correction to grammar or spelling. It is requested they be limited to 500 words; correspondents may be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.

I would like to commend the Valley Chorus, Gloria Krause and Jane Orcutt for the wonderful performance on Sunday, May 21. They sang various American songs dating back to the beginning of the 20th century and sang their way through to the 1990s, often with the audience singing along. The chorus did their usual excellent, professional-quality job.

What a pity it was, however, that there were so few people present! The show was only an hour, cost only eight dollars and was right in Narrowsburg. Yet most of the audience were from outside of the Narrowsburg-Beach Lake area, as is usually the case with Delaware Valley Arts Alliance (DVAA) performances.

What is the matter with the people out there in Narrowsburg and Beach Lake? There are so many talented people to watch and listen to, who have devoted a great deal of time and effort to trying to entertain you. Why aren't you there? Are you indeed as culturally ignorant as the "city people" accuse you of being?

Instead of sitting in front of the idiot box, get out there and support the wonderful local talent!

While reading our Constitution (the original version) the other day, I realized something both shocking and disturbing. One of the few groups of people who are still doing what our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) directed them to do are our postal workers.

Our national government is engaged in a tyrannical, unconstitutional (Articles IX & X) expansion of power. Our state governments have abandoned all pretext of sovereignty, encouraged to do so by "grants" of our extorted money. And, of course, the Congress who is supposed to "represent" us is nowhere to be found.

But the Postal Service continues to come down our little dirt road. Just like the Constitution (Article I, sections) told it to do. Thank you postal people.

As Paul said in Hebrews 12 "The devil himself will slander and befoulith the grace of our King of Kings by walking amidst the clean spirits of the Galatians as one of their own!" "Whilst the herd praised God, the sons of disobedience fulfilled the lust of their desires and were by nature the children of wrath."

And so my fellow Christians, I must tell you of the devil walking amongst us. I have read the weak and shallow apology and obvious confession by one of our so called "Fellow Christians" is last week's River Reporter. This wretched soul has thrusted his evil attack onto the grace of our faith. This devil and his "seemingly small crime" and his attempt to make light of this crime" is using twisted words as a means to blind the good people of Narrowsburg. You are fooling no one!

So dear Mr. Layman, while you think the desecration of the beloved symbols of our undying devotion to our Lord is, and I quote, "that this was some kind of a joke," I assure you that the Lord Jesus Christ laughs NOT at your blasphemous "classroom project" and grossly immoral act! It says in Psalm 89 "If they break my statues and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgressions with the rod and their iniquity with stripes."

I pray desperately for you Mr. Layman!! Blessed be the Lord forevermore. Amen and Amen.

The Saratoga Suit is a legal action attempting to stop the Governor from making agreements with sovereign entities (the Mohawks), concerning new gambling casinos. Simply stated, we claim that making such agreements is the prerogative of the Legislature. For a Governor to assume that power, we claim, is unconstitutional. The first judge to hear the case tossed it out of court on a technicality, without addressing the merits.

The pro-gambling local media headlined that event and treated it as an important victory. What it really amounted to was, in effect, a minor delay.

The basic issue is so important and the stakes so high that neither side is likely to call it quit until the issue is decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, probably years from now.

We understand this, as does the other side, though most will not acknowledge it. Pataki, though, seems to have tacitly acknowledged the strength of our position by recently introducing yet another referendum-avoiding option to get around it.

An interesting consequence of our strong legal position, and the likelihood of a long legal struggle, is the introduction of Park Place into the equation. The Mohawks, recognizing, if not acknowledging, that the casino cannot prudently go forward until the suit is decided, seem to have walked away from their long commitment to Catskill Development (It seems that sovereign nations can do that) and to have taken up with Park Place, a more experienced suitor with deeper pockets. And as The Record reported on May 17, 2000 the CEO of Park Place "would not say when the dice could roll..." The actuality is that he could not, without great risk, say when or even if they will roll, until the outcome of the suit is known.

What the Mohawks may be thinking is that if the Governor, after years in court, wins, they (the Mohawks) will be in a strong strategic position married to Park Place. If the Governor loses they would be in the same place they would have been in otherwise, namely nowhere. Except that now they would be with a well-financed company with a well-known track record of knowing how to spend money on politically well-placed consultants who might come up with ways of getting things started again. And they have 3 million in their pockets-that we know about.

In any case, the first of what may be many appeals, by one side or the other, is scheduled for June 9 at 9:30 a.m. in Albany. We, of course, hope that the merits of the case will be addressed this time. Stay tuned.

P.S. Perhaps Park Place might even persuade former Senator D'Amato with his contacts, both national and local, to re-involve himself (if he ever really left the scene). I recall his name having come up prominently, a few years ago when The Record (somewhat more even-handed then) ran an investigative report on the Alpha-Catskill connections behind the proposed casino. That D'Amato now seems to have been instrumental in setting up the competing Park Place deal should be, I guess, a surprise to no one (except maybe Alpha-Catskill.)

During Bishop Edward Egan's press conference in New York City on May 11, the newly elected bishop of the Archdiocese of New York, which includes Yulan, and Saint Anthony of Padua Church, declared that Mayor Rudolf Giuliani was a "good person." This Roman Catholic, a former seminarian, challenges Bishop Egan's gratuitous declaration. Presently, Catholic School indoctrinated Rudy Giuliani is not a "good person."

Mr. Giuliani politically condones and morally supports the cruel murder of the unborn child. The act is called abortion. The Catholic mayor has not condemned the barbaric practice of abortion. The Catholic mayor has not endeavored to legislatively abolish this heinous moral crime especially the bestial partial birth abortion procedure, which is very obviously infanticide. Catholic Mayor Giuliani also condones sodomite homosexuality, an activity condemned by God, c.f. Leviticus 20:13.

Catholic Mayor Giuliani has not publicly repudiated these grossly immoral, morally sinful acts. The mayor's public declaration of repudiation is necessary before he can validly receive the Sacrament of Penance, which causes the absolution of sins.

Bishop Egan is a Church canon lawyer. The highly educated bishop knows that he has the obligation to publicly teach Mr. Giuliani the infallible moral truths of Jesus' church, which are based on the Ten Commandments and the perfect moral laws given by God to Moses.

Bishop Edward Egan also knows that he has the responsibility and duty to publicly excommunicate Mr. Giuliani and as a "father" to prayerfully wait for his son Rudy to repent, to confess his mortal sins which include being an accomplice to abortion, to do penance, to reconcile and to become again a "good person." May the Catholics of Saint Anthony's in Yulan, my home parish, pray for Bishop Edward Egan that he possess the courage to do his job lest the bishop and mayor be destined for the eternal fires of Hell.

I have written a mystical, romantic play about the Church's non-response to contemporary issues. It is called "An American Prophet. One scene takes place in Shohola along the beautiful Delaware River.

According to the recently released Sullivan West District Improvement Plan, a "painstaking" facility and cost review was conducted to bring this project to the voters. This plan calls for a new $29 million 9-12 facility, 68% of which is paid for by the state, and $21 million in renovations and upgrades to existing facilities as K-6's, 95% of which are paid for by the state. The plan states that it is not feasible to build additions onto an existing campus in order to consolidate the district's entire 9-12 grades. The problem is, the only choice being offered to voters next month is to either build this new separate 9-12 facility, with K-6 upgrades and renovations to our existing facilities, or continue to function as three separate K-12 facilities with no upgrades or renovations at all. How is this in the best interest of the taxpayers and students?

Since the plan concludes that the only logical alternative to a new 9-12 facility is to remain separate K-12's, why are the voters only being offered one referendum. Since a NO vote for this plan is an automatic YES vote to continue to operate three separate K-12 facilities, why are we not being offered the opportunity to vote for the funding of a complete renovation and upgrade of our existing K-12 facilities, especially since every financial argument made for voting for this plan can also be made for voting now for K-12 improvements?

The plan warns us that we will lose 3.5% of state aid for the entire project if it is not voted in before July 1. The plan warns us that construction costs are projected to rise 4% per year. Hey, a 3.5% decrease in aid + a 4% increase in costs of a $29 million building that a voter has no intention of buying is not lost money! On the other hand, by not offering a separate referendum for the desperately needed rehabilitation of our existing K-12 facilities-well that's just money right out of the curriculum and programs of our students and into the hands of the State Ed. Department.

The plan boasts that substantial reductions in the cost of operating our existing facilities will be achieved due to the efficiencies gained by the improvements (heating, windows, insulation, new roofs, etc.). Therefore, not only will the renovations be more costly later, but we will continue to throw money away on the operation of our present inefficient facilities. How much longer will residents be denied the financial advantages that the merger has provided, and at what programmatic and curricular cost to our students?

Is this a form of punishment to those voters who are not interested in buying this $29 million new facility? Will we not have our old buildings fixed unless we buy this new one?

If the voters want the Sullivan West District Improvement Plan, that's their choice. But if they don't, at least give them the opportunity to take advantage of the 95% state funding for the renovation and upgrades of the inevitable alternative to this plan, and the ensuing "substantial" reductions in the cost of operating our school district. Give the voters a second referendum this month.

[Editor's note: According to a school official and a board member, the option of renovating the existing schools is contrary to the reason the districts merged-which was for increased curriculum. None of the existing schools has enough room to accommodate any growth or increased educational opportunities for high school students. School officials stressed that a no vote for the proposed high school would force a redesign of the merging of students.]