Primary Choices

Tuesday is Primary Day. And, in these parts it's typically a pretty big day because so many local municipalities are essentially dominated by one party. Thus, those winning this week will likely face little, if ay opposition in November.

Within the 518, two prominent positions, Albany Mayor and Saratoga County Sheriff, are up for grabs. For all intents and purposes, it's the first time in decades either one has been really contested, as incumbents Jerry Jennings and Jim Bowen are both stepping down. Jennings has been at the helm of New York's capital city since 1993, and only its third mayor since World War II. Bowen has been the chief law officer for Saratoga County even longer, since Governor Nelson Rockefeller (!) appointed him in 1972. Which means it's now been over 30 years in which he has not uttered not a single word to the news media about any action, arrest, etc his department has had a hand in.

So much has changed since I last lived in Albany. Primaries were not needed then, as the Democratic machine told you who to vote for. And, if by chance (gasp!) you were not a registered Democrat, your home assessment would be raised until you were. In the unlikely event the party's choice was perhaps a little short of the winning margin (even after many had voted 3 or 4 times) in November, there were several residents of Albany Rural Cemetery whose votes would make the difference for him.

Now Albany will trade in the orange tan of Jennings for either City Treasurer Kathy Sheehan or former Councilman Corey Ellis. If Jennings, then considered a maverick when upsetting party choice Harold Joyce in 1993, didn't spell the end of the Albany Democratic Machine, the end is certainly here now. Neither Sheehan or Ellis have ties to the old ways of the city.

While Sheehan has a comfortable lead in the polls, she is in no way a shoo-in. She and Ellis have run a spirited contest, largely based on issues. So much so, it is barely even mentioned anymore that Albany's next mayor will be either be a man of color, or a woman. Either would have been unimaginable 20 years ago, which speaks volumes on how far Albany has progressed.

Then there is the race for Sheriff in Saratoga County. It was suppose to be a slam dunk, with the Republican's endorsed candidate, Michael Zurlo, a longtime employee in the Sheriff's Department, cruising to victory.

Instead, Jeff Gildersleeve, formerly of the New York State Police, has run a hard campaign. And, those who have dealt with the current regime would have to like the fact he has pledged to modernize the department, which is long overdue. And, the fact (according to the Saratogian) there will be no debates is disappointing.

However the issue which has come to define this battle is the New York SAFE Act, the gun-control law which came down a little while ago. Like many (including this blogger, and I don't even own any guns), the candidates don't like it. Unlike many, candidate Gildersleeve is on record of not supporting it if he becomes sheriff.

On his official website he states, “I have said that I will not actively enforce the SAFE Act while it makes its way through the judicial process.”

This is from the person who wants to be top cop? What would he then do if he arrests someone and is told by the offender they considered the law to be unconstitutional (which is one of the reasons Gildersleeve gives for his pledge not to enforce the SAFE Act) and as such chose not to adhere to it?

Sets a pretty bad precedent, eh?

For a candidate who pledges modernization, to “bring the 21^st Century into the Sheriff's Department in Saratoga County," this instead hearkens back to the 19^th Century, when sheriffs made their own laws. Perhaps a run for the NYS legislature, where laws are made would be a better fit for Gildersleeve.

Primary Day is Tuesday, September 10; polls are open from noon until 9:00pm.

'Til next time, keep on smiling.

What's in a name?

What's in a name? And, what makes something offensive?

I thought about the answers to these two questions over the past month or so as the situation/controversy arose over the Schenectady-based food truck which is known for their tasty pulled pork. Unfortunately for them (at least lately) they are also known for their quirky name, The Wandering Dago.

The business, in two recent occasions, has lost prominent gigs (around the Capital in Albany and at the Saratoga Race Course) because their name has been deemed offensive. To some. 

Anyone taking a peek at my last name can see I am from Italian descent. As such, I have heard it all. Enemies (and even friends) over the years have called me dago, guinea, guido, and for good measure, wop bastard.

While there are ethnic slurs for the Irish, Polish, Japanese and French, we Italians seem to be blessed with several different ones from which to choose. While I was growing up during the 1970's, usage of the names mentioned above was much more prevalent. And, accepted. I never really thought much about it. As such, I wasn't offended when I heard them used, even when I was the target. Well, I could have done without wop bastard.

Dago? Never bothered me a bit. I know some Italians who consider it almost as an ethnic term of endearment.

So, when I first heard of the Wandering Dago name, prior to the controversy, I just smiled. When later heard the business was booted from Albany and Saratoga, I shook my head. Political correctness run amok. And I hate political correctness.

Then came the news Wandering Dago owners Brandon Snooks and Andrea Loguidice were going the legal route, filing suit against NYS Office of General Services (who denied them in Albany) and New York Racing Association (ditto in Saratoga). Given the current financial situation in the state, along with NYRA's announcement last week they lost $10.3 million for the first half of the year, I am sure the defendants are thrilled.

I am not a lawyer, so I won't debate the merits of the suit here. I am generally against frivolous lawsuits, and I guess this can be considered to fit into this category. Snooks and Loguidice are seeking about $343,000, which is what they estimate they lost by not being at the two locations. This does appear to be reasonable.

But, is it also reasonable to ban someone because of their name? Some people will be offended by anything. Years ago when the first Hooters came to the area, there was an uproar. I, along with many, snickered when the manager of the local spot (in Crossgates Mall) said he didn't see the problem, as he considered it an homage to owls. If that was the case, there must have been a boatload of owl lovers, because every male who walked by the place slowed his pace and took a long look inside.

Similar issues have arisen lately with a new beer joint called Jugs and Mugs in Albany. Given a look at their logo, it appears the name is not about ceramics. Offensive? Depends on who you ask. Some are already trying to keep them from opening their doors.

Which brings me back to the Wandering Dago. As I said, as a paisan, it doesn't bother me a bit. The owners seem like hard workers, and from what I have been told, put out a pretty good product. But, who am I to say what will or will not offend someone?

To these eyes, what is equally important, is what is the intent of those who named the place. I see nothing from Snooks and Loguidice which would indicate they have any malicious intent here. But again, it doesn't mean their business name won't honk you off. Your choice, I suppose.

But, it also doesn't mean they should have been prevented from selling their goods. I don't see any Sno-Kone Joe vs. Mr. Ding-a-Ling type nonsense here. What I see is a business which was, after originally being given the OK, having the plug pulled on them because of the knee-jerk reaction on the part of public officials.

Wonder how they feel about owls?

'Til next time, keep on smiling.