Had to include the latest missive from Jonathan Melle so anyone in Massachusetts and beyond he hasn't mailed it to himself can read it. This one is addressed to Rinaldo Del Gallo, Pittsfield lawyer, perennial political candidate, colorful fathers rights activist. Love the way Melle writes the contemporary history of Pittsfield -- as he sees it, that is. Here's my favorite passage (photo is of a Jesus painting that hung in our house in Pittsfield):
My dad and I discussed 3 men when discussing your situation: Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Like my dad, myself, and now yourself, Christ, Gandhi and King were all respectively persecuted by unjust governments and societies for allegedly breaking unfair laws when all of our SPIRITS and HEARTS were in the right place but conflicted with the dominant power, authority and socioeconomic systems that ruled men (& women and children). NUCIFORO TRIED TO JAIL ME, Rinaldo! Martin Luther King, Jr. was JAILED by strong-armed men like Nuciforo! I AM NOT AFRAID, Rinaldo. Be not afraid, my friend. Be a good man like Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., the late George Crane, Judges Alfred Barbalunga and Fred Rutberg, my dad, Bob, his son, Jonathan, and the many others who stand for truth, justice, freedom, goodness, and TRUE EQUALITY!
Full text follows:
Dear Rinaldo Del Gallo III:I had lunch with my dad yesterday afternoon. We discussed your situation. Both my dad and I have respectively used the Pittsfield U.S. Post Office as a place to collect campaign signatures in order to be nominated to run for political office. While I remained outside of the building, my dad told me he stood inside of the lobby.
My dad and I discussed the late George Crane. My dad said he was a good man and was sad when I gave him the Eagle obituary a friend mailed to me. My dad said that he would have attended the funeral services for Mr. Crane if he was still in the Pittsfield area. My dad and I then talked about Pittsfield Judge Fred Rutberg. My dad was pleased that he is succeeding the good man: Judge Alfred Barbalunga. My dad told me that Judge Rutberg was a friend and supporter of my dad's political career.
My dad and I then discussed our enemy in Pittsfield: Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. As Nuciforo filed an Ethics complaint against my dad while at the same time as filing false criminal complaints against my dad's son -- me -- to the Pittsfield Police Department in the Spring of 1998, which would have led to my dad getting fired from his state job instead of now drawing a state pension, meaning my dad would now be a poverty stricken old man if Nuciforo had gotten the better of him, and would have led to me being arrested and ultimately placed in the Berkshire County Jail where Nuciforo's good old boy network buddy Sheriff Carmen C. Massimiano, Jr. would have saw to it that I was abused by his Jailer Staff and Inmate Population, meaning I would now have a criminal record (without merit) if Nuciforo had gotten the better of me, my dad and I believe that if Nuciforo were in your place at the Pittsfield U.S. Post Office, he would not have been arrested, harassed, or even asked to leave the premises.
My dad and I then went onto discuss the harsh media treatment against you by The Berkshire Eagle and its political pundit Alan Chartock. My dad and I believe that when Nuciforo strong-armed two women out of the Pittsfield Registry of Deeds "election" in the Spring of 2006, Nuciforo's actions were not only unethical, but also criminal. We said that if either my dad or myself pulled something so wrongful and undemocratic, both The Berkshire Eagle and Alan Chartock would have ripped either of us to shreds.
BUT, Nuciforo is the exception to the rule. Only after The Boston Globe's 1/16 news media article against Nuciforo did the Eagle then run a news media Editorial addressing what Nuciforo did to Sara Hathaway and Sharon Henault's respective bids for Pittsfield Registry of Deeds. WELL, the Eagle was about 10 months late in its criticisms of Nuciforo's actions. MOREOVER, Alan Chartock has only PRAISED Nuciforo's political career since his strong-arm actions against two women candidates running for political office in 21st Century America. WELL, Alan Chartock, you have proven yourself to be a hack, and if you do not address Nuciforo's strong-arm actions then you have absolutely no credibility left to your name in politics and news media journalism!
Rinaldo: To clearly answer your questions: I only know that both my dad and I respectively collected campaign signatures in the lobby and outside of the Pittsfield U.S. Post Office. I assume many other political participants used this building to do the same. Also, for you, Rinaldo, I would gladly drive to Springfield, Massachusetts with advanced notification to testify in writing and/or verbally in person to help you win your case.
It is unbelievable to me that in the 21st Century, Orwell's philosophies are still applicable in government and society! Specifically, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." If it had been Nuciforo at the Pittsfield U.S. Post Office, he would have been allowed to collect campaign signatures there. When Nuciforo tried to ruin my dad and his son -- me -- no one ever spoke out against Nuciforo for what he tried to do to my father (except that The Berkshire Record newspaper of Great Barrington published my claims on the matter -- THANK YOU Editors of The Berkshire Record newspaper!). When Nuciforo strong-armed two women candidates out of the Pittsfield Registry of Deeds "election" after he entered the race, it took The Berkshire Eagle about 10-months to dissent against Nuciforo. Moreover, Alan Chartock has only written praises for Nuciforo's political record, while at the same time he through his battle axe at you, Rinaldo. In short, Alan Chartock epitomizes Orwell's philosophies that "some animals are more equal than others." If my dad, myself or you, Rinaldo, pulled the same shit that Nuciforo has pulled throughout his political career, Alan Chartock would have us ripped apart in his political columns and news media journalism pertaining to Berkshire County politics.
What is your prediction, Rinaldo, that Alan Chartock will ever criticize Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr.'s deficient political career and public record? My prediction is between zero and none. What is your prediction, Rinaldo, that Alan Chartock will criticize you, Rinaldo, again for any missteps and mistakes, but with good intentions, you make in politics? My prediction is between 100% and full certainty! What is your prediction, Rinaldo, that if I strong-armed Sara Hathaway and Sharon Henault out of a state government "election" then Alan Chartock would rip me apart in his writings and speaking? My prediction would be that I am equal in merit to you, Rinaldo, but that I am not as equal in merit to Nuciforo because to Alan Chartock, Nuciforo is more equal than "others", meaning guys like you and me.
My dad and I discussed 3 men when discussing your situation: Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Like my dad, myself, and now yourself, Christ, Gandhi and King were all respectively persecuted by unjust governments and societies for allegedly breaking unfair laws when all of our SPIRITS and HEARTS were in the right place but conflicted with the dominant power, authority and socioeconomic systems that ruled men (& women and children). NUCIFORO TRIED TO JAIL ME, Rinaldo! Martin Luther King, Jr. was JAILED by strong-armed men like Nuciforo! I AM NOT AFRAID, Rinaldo. Be not afraid, my friend. Be a good man like Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., the late George Crane, Judges Alfred Barbalunga and Fred Rutberg, my dad, Bob, his son, Jonathan, and the many others who stand for truth, justice, freedom, goodness, and TRUE EQUALITY!
Sure, guys like Nuciforo and Denis E. Guyer have lots of money, and I am as poor as a man can ever be, BUT THE ONE THING that the animals that are made to be more equal than me do not have is RESPECT! When Nuciforo tried to ruin my dad and jail me in the Spring of 1998, Nuciforo was made to look bad. When Denis E. Guyer said the most hurtful and mean-spirited, vicious rumors against me, Guyer looked cheap and trashy, not me. The Berkshire Eagle and Alan Chartock may bow to Orwell's philosophies by never criticizing Nuciforo and Guyer's poor character, and you may be made to stand trial in Springfield, Massachusetts for having the good intentions of participating in our 21st Century American Democracy's "elected" system of government, but in the end we are the good guys, Rinaldo, not the animals who are more equal than others like us. We have respect, they don't!
Rinaldo: I loved reading your letter to The Eagle today, which I have pasted below my letter to you. Christian values should be listened to in government and society, but be careful about mixing economics, politics and your religious faith -- that is always a recipe for disaster. However, I believe in your Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties to FREEDOM of SPEECH, and I believe in you and your political career!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
RINALDO DEL GALLO III wrote:
Have you yourself seen or known about others gathering signatures at the Pittsfield Post Office?
-----
Can you make it to Springfield, MA?
-----
Eliminate 'perverse incentives'
Letters
The Berkshire Eagle
Article Launched:02/01/2007 Thursday, February 01, 2007
To the Editor of THE EAGLE:
Apropos of today's article on teen pregnancy (Jan. 29), part of the "complex web of socioeconomic factors," as the Eagle story touched on, is what economist term "perverse incentives." A "perverse incentive" is defined as an incentive to engage in a behavior that has deleterious effects on society.
Our welfare system itself conditions the social safety net on having children. As the article stated, "Once a baby enters the picture, so does state-financed housing." The obvious solution to this perverse incentive is to provide state-financed housing regardless of whether a baby enters the picture. Poor women engage in the behavior necessary to receive the benefits of the social safety net because it beats hunger and homelessness. As a practicing family law attorney, I have seen women explicitly argue in family court that they need custody of a child so that they can apply for Section Eight benefits.
Compounding this already perverse incentive, in order to receive welfare, the father has to be absent and removed from the house. It is a wonder that there are people that wonder why a system that provides incentives for out-of-wedlock child rearing and fatherlessness has more of it.
The solution I am proposing is not the elimination of the social safety net, in fact I argue for its expansion. The solution is ceasing to condition relief from poverty on child rearing status and fatherlessness, perhaps the most invidious and irrational form of discrimination imaginable. Poor men especially feel the problem — the overwhelming amount of homeless are men who could not get public housing, welfare benefits, and whose only state aid was food stamps because they biologically cannot have children. When they do have children, they almost never get custody of the children so that they can enjoy of the benefits of the social safety net — in fact, government starts attacking the poor fathers as "dead beat" dads as the mother applies for government benefits.
These perverse incentives represent more than irrational policy. It is immoral to refuse to provide housing, medical and welfare assistance because someone has chosen not to have children, because someone cannot biologically have children, because the courts have taken their children, or because someone having a child has chosen to remain in an intact family relationship with the father present. There is an air of an anti-conservative Christian element to the policy, for those that choose to remain in intact families, or those that desist from child rearing due to their poverty, are penalized for adhering to their religious convictions.
A society that penalizes people for not having children while poor or for choosing to have a father present has lost its moral compass.
RINALDO DEL GALLO III
Pittsfield, Jan. 29, 2007
The writer is the spokesperson of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.
Dear Rinaldo Del Gallo III:I had lunch with my dad yesterday afternoon. We discussed your situation. Both my dad and I have respectively used the Pittsfield U.S. Post Office as a place to collect campaign signatures in order to be nominated to run for political office. While I remained outside of the building, my dad told me he stood inside of the lobby.
My dad and I discussed the late George Crane. My dad said he was a good man and was sad when I gave him the Eagle obituary a friend mailed to me. My dad said that he would have attended the funeral services for Mr. Crane if he was still in the Pittsfield area. My dad and I then talked about Pittsfield Judge Fred Rutberg. My dad was pleased that he is succeeding the good man: Judge Alfred Barbalunga. My dad told me that Judge Rutberg was a friend and supporter of my dad's political career.
My dad and I then discussed our enemy in Pittsfield: Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. As Nuciforo filed an Ethics complaint against my dad while at the same time as filing false criminal complaints against my dad's son -- me -- to the Pittsfield Police Department in the Spring of 1998, which would have led to my dad getting fired from his state job instead of now drawing a state pension, meaning my dad would now be a poverty stricken old man if Nuciforo had gotten the better of him, and would have led to me being arrested and ultimately placed in the Berkshire County Jail where Nuciforo's good old boy network buddy Sheriff Carmen C. Massimiano, Jr. would have saw to it that I was abused by his Jailer Staff and Inmate Population, meaning I would now have a criminal record (without merit) if Nuciforo had gotten the better of me, my dad and I believe that if Nuciforo were in your place at the Pittsfield U.S. Post Office, he would not have been arrested, harassed, or even asked to leave the premises.
My dad and I then went onto discuss the harsh media treatment against you by The Berkshire Eagle and its political pundit Alan Chartock. My dad and I believe that when Nuciforo strong-armed two women out of the Pittsfield Registry of Deeds "election" in the Spring of 2006, Nuciforo's actions were not only unethical, but also criminal. We said that if either my dad or myself pulled something so wrongful and undemocratic, both The Berkshire Eagle and Alan Chartock would have ripped either of us to shreds.
BUT, Nuciforo is the exception to the rule. Only after The Boston Globe's 1/16 news media article against Nuciforo did the Eagle then run a news media Editorial addressing what Nuciforo did to Sara Hathaway and Sharon Henault's respective bids for Pittsfield Registry of Deeds. WELL, the Eagle was about 10 months late in its criticisms of Nuciforo's actions. MOREOVER, Alan Chartock has only PRAISED Nuciforo's political career since his strong-arm actions against two women candidates running for political office in 21st Century America. WELL, Alan Chartock, you have proven yourself to be a hack, and if you do not address Nuciforo's strong-arm actions then you have absolutely no credibility left to your name in politics and news media journalism!
Rinaldo: To clearly answer your questions: I only know that both my dad and I respectively collected campaign signatures in the lobby and outside of the Pittsfield U.S. Post Office. I assume many other political participants used this building to do the same. Also, for you, Rinaldo, I would gladly drive to Springfield, Massachusetts with advanced notification to testify in writing and/or verbally in person to help you win your case.
It is unbelievable to me that in the 21st Century, Orwell's philosophies are still applicable in government and society! Specifically, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." If it had been Nuciforo at the Pittsfield U.S. Post Office, he would have been allowed to collect campaign signatures there. When Nuciforo tried to ruin my dad and his son -- me -- no one ever spoke out against Nuciforo for what he tried to do to my father (except that The Berkshire Record newspaper of Great Barrington published my claims on the matter -- THANK YOU Editors of The Berkshire Record newspaper!). When Nuciforo strong-armed two women candidates out of the Pittsfield Registry of Deeds "election" after he entered the race, it took The Berkshire Eagle about 10-months to dissent against Nuciforo. Moreover, Alan Chartock has only written praises for Nuciforo's political record, while at the same time he through his battle axe at you, Rinaldo. In short, Alan Chartock epitomizes Orwell's philosophies that "some animals are more equal than others." If my dad, myself or you, Rinaldo, pulled the same shit that Nuciforo has pulled throughout his political career, Alan Chartock would have us ripped apart in his political columns and news media journalism pertaining to Berkshire County politics.
What is your prediction, Rinaldo, that Alan Chartock will ever criticize Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr.'s deficient political career and public record? My prediction is between zero and none. What is your prediction, Rinaldo, that Alan Chartock will criticize you, Rinaldo, again for any missteps and mistakes, but with good intentions, you make in politics? My prediction is between 100% and full certainty! What is your prediction, Rinaldo, that if I strong-armed Sara Hathaway and Sharon Henault out of a state government "election" then Alan Chartock would rip me apart in his writings and speaking? My prediction would be that I am equal in merit to you, Rinaldo, but that I am not as equal in merit to Nuciforo because to Alan Chartock, Nuciforo is more equal than "others", meaning guys like you and me.
My dad and I discussed 3 men when discussing your situation: Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Like my dad, myself, and now yourself, Christ, Gandhi and King were all respectively persecuted by unjust governments and societies for allegedly breaking unfair laws when all of our SPIRITS and HEARTS were in the right place but conflicted with the dominant power, authority and socioeconomic systems that ruled men (& women and children). NUCIFORO TRIED TO JAIL ME, Rinaldo! Martin Luther King, Jr. was JAILED by strong-armed men like Nuciforo! I AM NOT AFRAID, Rinaldo. Be not afraid, my friend. Be a good man like Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., the late George Crane, Judges Alfred Barbalunga and Fred Rutberg, my dad, Bob, his son, Jonathan, and the many others who stand for truth, justice, freedom, goodness, and TRUE EQUALITY!
Sure, guys like Nuciforo and Denis E. Guyer have lots of money, and I am as poor as a man can ever be, BUT THE ONE THING that the animals that are made to be more equal than me do not have is RESPECT! When Nuciforo tried to ruin my dad and jail me in the Spring of 1998, Nuciforo was made to look bad. When Denis E. Guyer said the most hurtful and mean-spirited, vicious rumors against me, Guyer looked cheap and trashy, not me. The Berkshire Eagle and Alan Chartock may bow to Orwell's philosophies by never criticizing Nuciforo and Guyer's poor character, and you may be made to stand trial in Springfield, Massachusetts for having the good intentions of participating in our 21st Century American Democracy's "elected" system of government, but in the end we are the good guys, Rinaldo, not the animals who are more equal than others like us. We have respect, they don't!
Rinaldo: I loved reading your letter to The Eagle today, which I have pasted below my letter to you. Christian values should be listened to in government and society, but be careful about mixing economics, politics and your religious faith -- that is always a recipe for disaster. However, I believe in your Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties to FREEDOM of SPEECH, and I believe in you and your political career!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
RINALDO DEL GALLO III wrote:
Have you yourself seen or known about others gathering signatures at the Pittsfield Post Office?
-----
Can you make it to Springfield, MA?
-----
Eliminate 'perverse incentives'
Letters
The Berkshire Eagle
Article Launched:02/01/2007 Thursday, February 01, 2007
To the Editor of THE EAGLE:
Apropos of today's article on teen pregnancy (Jan. 29), part of the "complex web of socioeconomic factors," as the Eagle story touched on, is what economist term "perverse incentives." A "perverse incentive" is defined as an incentive to engage in a behavior that has deleterious effects on society.
Our welfare system itself conditions the social safety net on having children. As the article stated, "Once a baby enters the picture, so does state-financed housing." The obvious solution to this perverse incentive is to provide state-financed housing regardless of whether a baby enters the picture. Poor women engage in the behavior necessary to receive the benefits of the social safety net because it beats hunger and homelessness. As a practicing family law attorney, I have seen women explicitly argue in family court that they need custody of a child so that they can apply for Section Eight benefits.
Compounding this already perverse incentive, in order to receive welfare, the father has to be absent and removed from the house. It is a wonder that there are people that wonder why a system that provides incentives for out-of-wedlock child rearing and fatherlessness has more of it.
The solution I am proposing is not the elimination of the social safety net, in fact I argue for its expansion. The solution is ceasing to condition relief from poverty on child rearing status and fatherlessness, perhaps the most invidious and irrational form of discrimination imaginable. Poor men especially feel the problem — the overwhelming amount of homeless are men who could not get public housing, welfare benefits, and whose only state aid was food stamps because they biologically cannot have children. When they do have children, they almost never get custody of the children so that they can enjoy of the benefits of the social safety net — in fact, government starts attacking the poor fathers as "dead beat" dads as the mother applies for government benefits.
These perverse incentives represent more than irrational policy. It is immoral to refuse to provide housing, medical and welfare assistance because someone has chosen not to have children, because someone cannot biologically have children, because the courts have taken their children, or because someone having a child has chosen to remain in an intact family relationship with the father present. There is an air of an anti-conservative Christian element to the policy, for those that choose to remain in intact families, or those that desist from child rearing due to their poverty, are penalized for adhering to their religious convictions.
A society that penalizes people for not having children while poor or for choosing to have a father present has lost its moral compass.
RINALDO DEL GALLO III
Pittsfield, Jan. 29, 2007
The writer is the spokesperson of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.
1 comments:
Dear Mary Carey, News Media, Pols, & the People:
Thank you, Mary, for writing about my written email participation in Massachusetts Politics! You are my favorite political commentator of all time! You are the best. If all political reporters were like you, there would be no more corruption in politics. That is for sure. I love your wittiness, Mary. TOTALLY AWESOME STUFF!
"MELLE VINDICATED" ...
&
"On the Geico Caveman: Jesus Christ..."
My Best Regards,
Jonathan A. Melle
Post a Comment