Dear Bob,
I just wanted to inform you of a documentary film about Lyme Disease.
My family has suffered and is still suffering from this crazy disease and the effects of doctors not being able to treat it the way it should be treated. Were you aware that the test for it, western blot, is not fool proof? And if it is not diagnosed properly, it could cause devastating results. People have been diagnosed with MS, Parkinsons, Fibro Myalgia, Poly Myalgia, ALS and the list goes on.
But the worst part is that most doctors, when they can't find out what's wrong with you, say it's all in your head. I bet you know some one who has been going to doctor after doctor and can't get a diagnosis for what's wrong with them. I just had an experience with an old friend. She is 79 yrs old and was having unexplainable aches and pains and general all over weakness. They tested her for everything under the sun and everything came up negative. Most contributed it to old age and arthritis. But because I have so much knowledge of what happens with Lyme disease, I asked her doctor to give her a Lyme test. It came out positive and they started her on antibiotics, but they said she had to have been infected within the last 6 months. She was bitten by a tick 2 years ago and this is where the controversy starts.
Instead of me going on and on about it, I wanted to suggest that maybe it would be a good idea for movie night in Copake to show this documentary. I bought the CD when they showed it in the Millerton Theatre. Every one must see this movie it is eye opening. You can research it if you want. The name is "Under My Skin" by Open Eye Pictures.
Thanks for the Copake Chronicle!
Louise LaManna
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
A Civil Rights Violation in Copake?
March 13, 2010
To the Editor:
At the February 11th Copake Town Board meeting, Councilman Dan Tompkins successfully opposed the appointment of Father John Thompson, rector of the Church of St. John in the Wilderness, to the volunteer position of Town Ombudsman. In so doing, the councilman not only deprived the Town of an impartial candidate with training in conflict resolution, among other skills, but he may also have violated Father John’s civil rights.
Father John was denied the volunteer ombudsman position not because he was deemed unqualified, but because his profession is that of a clergyman. Mr. Tompkins showed great ignorance of the First Amendment by invoking the “separation of church and state” to justify his opposition. His successful use of a bungled interpretation to block the appointment of a highly qualified candidate is highly regrettable. The purpose of separation of church and state is to prevent government from establishing laws that impose religion upon the citizenry. It was not intended, nor has the Supreme Court ever interpreted it to mean, that a member of the clergy cannot hold elected or appointed public office.
If Tompkins were correct in his interpretation of separation of church and state, then the Reverends Ted Voelker and Walt Zelley should not be serving on our town’s Ethics Board, and Father Robert Drinan should never have been elected to serve five terms in Congress. Separation of church and state does not apply to Father John’s application for the position of ombudsman. To invoke it denies Father John his civil rights.
At the town board meeting Councilman Tompkins buttressed his regrettable position by expounding on “the issue of Positive Neutrality.” Mr. Tompkins failed to mention in his weighty discourse that he took his remarks, without attribution, from an article that can be found on the internet (www.leaderu.com). Ironically, the article is actually critical of government when, in regard to church and state, it endorses secularism over religion – quite a different meaning from what Tompkins presented in his plagiarized statement on Positive Neutrality.
To add insult to injury, Mr. Tompkins self-servingly said he would also deny Father John the position to save him exposure “to the harshness of Copake politics.” But Mr. Tompkins’ handling of the matter, from beginning to end, has been an exposure to Copake’s harsh politics.
The true motivation of Mr. Tompkin’s opposition can be found in the Town Board’s final decision to appoint no one to the position of Ombudsman. In fact, Crowley and his team do not wish to risk the possibility of anyone looking closely at or shining a light on their dark Copake governance. That is why they propose to change the Town Law so that the appointment of an ombudsman by the town board would be strictly optional.
The violation of civil rights, plagiarism, denial of citizens’ due process; that is our town government at work. Harsh politics indeed.
Sincerely,
Edgar M. Masters
To the Editor:
At the February 11th Copake Town Board meeting, Councilman Dan Tompkins successfully opposed the appointment of Father John Thompson, rector of the Church of St. John in the Wilderness, to the volunteer position of Town Ombudsman. In so doing, the councilman not only deprived the Town of an impartial candidate with training in conflict resolution, among other skills, but he may also have violated Father John’s civil rights.
Father John was denied the volunteer ombudsman position not because he was deemed unqualified, but because his profession is that of a clergyman. Mr. Tompkins showed great ignorance of the First Amendment by invoking the “separation of church and state” to justify his opposition. His successful use of a bungled interpretation to block the appointment of a highly qualified candidate is highly regrettable. The purpose of separation of church and state is to prevent government from establishing laws that impose religion upon the citizenry. It was not intended, nor has the Supreme Court ever interpreted it to mean, that a member of the clergy cannot hold elected or appointed public office.
If Tompkins were correct in his interpretation of separation of church and state, then the Reverends Ted Voelker and Walt Zelley should not be serving on our town’s Ethics Board, and Father Robert Drinan should never have been elected to serve five terms in Congress. Separation of church and state does not apply to Father John’s application for the position of ombudsman. To invoke it denies Father John his civil rights.
At the town board meeting Councilman Tompkins buttressed his regrettable position by expounding on “the issue of Positive Neutrality.” Mr. Tompkins failed to mention in his weighty discourse that he took his remarks, without attribution, from an article that can be found on the internet (www.leaderu.com). Ironically, the article is actually critical of government when, in regard to church and state, it endorses secularism over religion – quite a different meaning from what Tompkins presented in his plagiarized statement on Positive Neutrality.
To add insult to injury, Mr. Tompkins self-servingly said he would also deny Father John the position to save him exposure “to the harshness of Copake politics.” But Mr. Tompkins’ handling of the matter, from beginning to end, has been an exposure to Copake’s harsh politics.
The true motivation of Mr. Tompkin’s opposition can be found in the Town Board’s final decision to appoint no one to the position of Ombudsman. In fact, Crowley and his team do not wish to risk the possibility of anyone looking closely at or shining a light on their dark Copake governance. That is why they propose to change the Town Law so that the appointment of an ombudsman by the town board would be strictly optional.
The violation of civil rights, plagiarism, denial of citizens’ due process; that is our town government at work. Harsh politics indeed.
Sincerely,
Edgar M. Masters
A Letter of Thanks
Bob, I wanted to write a letter of thanks for the Chronicle. We are the luckiest town around to have our own little newspaper. I look forward to getting it every Thursday and I can’t imagine how much time you put into this. On the night of the great winds last week I saw you out in the rain and the wind, in your fire gear guiding traffic around the downed wires and trees. I just want to say thanks for all you do for Copake.
Joan Storrs
Joan Storrs
No Mention Of The Ombudsman
Dear Mr. Sacks
There was no mention in the Chronicle last week about the Ombudsman position in Copake. Has that been resolved? If so, what did the board do? I see this as a critical move for the board. We either do or do not have an open government. In 45 years of voting, I have never declared myself to either political party, and I don’t have one now. I vote for the man who is running, but I will tell you that I will not vote for a group that thinks we don’t need a public advocate. I am very disappointed by several members of the board. I will not be voting for any of them again.
John Gammon
Craryville
There was no mention in the Chronicle last week about the Ombudsman position in Copake. Has that been resolved? If so, what did the board do? I see this as a critical move for the board. We either do or do not have an open government. In 45 years of voting, I have never declared myself to either political party, and I don’t have one now. I vote for the man who is running, but I will tell you that I will not vote for a group that thinks we don’t need a public advocate. I am very disappointed by several members of the board. I will not be voting for any of them again.
John Gammon
Craryville
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)