Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Clinton's Emails: More than Meets the Eye. . .

I watched Mrs. Clinton's "press conference" yesterday, wherein she explained that she chose to use her personal server for email instead of a government server because she did not want to lug around two different devices.  That may satisfy some people, but to me it was as believable as the story that a YouTube video started the Bengazi attack.

Mrs. Clinton's release of 55,000 emails in PRINTED form is a disingenuous gesture that strikes a familiar theme to anyone who has tried to use the FOI Laws against an uncooperative government agency. What better way to avoid scrutiny than to take electronic documents and change them into an overwhelming number of printed documents. This does three things: (1) prevents them from being electronically searched for key words, (2) deletes the "header" information contained in each e-mail that documents the servers that the e-mail passed through, and (3) discourages the discovery process by making it time consuming and expensive.

There is clearly more going on here than Mrs. Clinton ignoring protocol.

Just before Mrs. Clinton took the podium, she was shown sitting in a seat at the UN . . . and sitting behind her was her top aide, Huma Abedin.  If you remember, former Rep. Michelle Bachmann long ago raised a question how Ms.Abedin was able to obtain a security clearance given her familial relations to Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization) operatives. . . but Bachmann was quickly labelled an "extremist" by certain Republicans, including our local congressman, and Bachman's logical, rational questions about Ms. Abedin's status were never answered.

Now, with discovery of Mrs. Clinton's e-mail irregularities, Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request seeking

 1. Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and  
2. Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013. 
Why the interest in Mahmoud?  Per Judicial Watch quoting its sources:
. . .Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.” 
The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood’s Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt’s current president, Sisi—even though, as Nagla laments, “he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration.”
Mrs. Clinton was careful yesterday to state that "most" of her communications were with US government employees which would have been captured by government computers on the receiving end.  But if she wrote to Morsi, or to Nagla Mahmoud, those communications would NOT have been captured.

Mrs. Clinton stated that she "deleted"  e-mails that were "personal"  in nature.  Would that include communications with Morsi?  Would that include communications with Morsi's wife?  Is what might be considered blackmail by Morsi's wife the subject of a "personal"  communication?  If a high government official has a "personal" relationship with a member of a terrorist organization, should the "personal" relationship shield communications from public review?

The Judicial Watch release, which has not been discussed in the media, gives a new urgency to getting to the bottom of Mrs. Clinton's actions.

Monday, March 02, 2015

OC's Shiny New Toy . . .

Oneida County's Griffiss "International" Airport unveils a new terminal building . . . And it is gorgeous!

The design of the new complex mixes wood siding, stone and plenty of windows on the outside and exposed wooden beams and support posts and piping on the inside. “They [sic] way we look at it, it is the gateway to the Adirondacks,” said [OC Aviation Commissioner] Stark. “It is upstate New York.”
The terminal consists of two buildings that are connected.

The smaller building is a one-floor structure to be used by US Customs for incoming "international" flights -- of which there are none regularly scheduled, although planes occasionally come in from abroad for maintenance by MidAir USA or Premier Aviation. (You remember MidAir, the company that just got evicted from one of its hangers for being over $700,000 behind in its rent - the company that is expanding in Florida, but not here in Rome.)  Now MidAir, Premier, and private pilots will no longer have to divert flights to Syracuse or wait for customs agents to arrive from Syracuse.

How convenient!  

The larger building is a two-floor structure with the top floor housing airport administrative offices and car rental.

The bottom floor is really cushy! It is entirely occupied by Million Air, the County's fixed base operator (FBO), that caters to "general aviation" needs - i.e., private pilots, private aircraft and their private passengers. Per the Sentinel . . .
In the center on the ground floor is the Million Air service desk. There’s a conference room, as well as a cafe. There are three seating areas, with wall-mounted flat-screen televisions. Adding to the warmth of the seating areas are two double-sided gas-burning fireplaces. Additionally, pilots will have access to a space with computers linked to the internet for flight planning. There’s a theater room to help them fill in wait times before takeoff. If a nap is desired, there are two rooms where pilots can catch a few winks.
Nice!

The terminal cost $7.1 million dollars to build.  After a $500,000 grant (from taxpayers), Oneida County Taxpayers are on the hook for $6.6 million . . .  plus the annual cost of a customs agent of $160,000 per year. Of course, revenues will be coming in from terminal tenants.  OC Taxpayers will rake in a total of $138,400 annually from rents.  I.e., the rents coming in will not even cover the cost of the customs agent.  (Don't even think about the debt service on the structures).

But won't it be worth the convenience of being able to fly out of Rome instead of schlepping to Syracuse or Albany to catch a flight to Disney World, or Vegas, or to visit Aunt Martha in San Diego?

Think again.

There are No facilities for scheduled commercial flights . . . No ticket counters . . . No luggage carousels . . . No waiting rooms for You.   You, the OC taxpayer, will continue to schlep to Syracuse or Albany.  You, the OC Taxpayer, will continue to pay among the highest sales and property tax rates in the country to finance sumptuous and convenient facilities for the corporate welfare takers and regional elite.  

Per the Sentinel . . .
Majority Leader Joseph [sic] E. Joseph, R-10, Westmoreland, said the county has been a “good steward” of the millions of federal, state and county dollars invested at Griffiss since the Air Force moved out and the county airport moved over from Whitestown.
It is not being a "good steward" to secure millions from other levels of government only to saddle County Taxpayers with additional costs to support an infrastructure that is far too large to be justified by our regional population -- which is dropping.  

Airports are not viable "economic development" vehicles.   Read "Airfields of Dreams: If you build it, they won't come" by Steve Malanga in the Autumn 2012 City Journal.

No matter what we build to "attract" others here, we have totally failed to fix the fundamental problems that drove our own people and businesses to other parts of the country. Those forces of repulsion are still there. One of the forces of repulsion is our high rate of taxation -- now just made worse by our building new infrastructure that only serves private interests.

It's time for OC to put Joe and Jean Taxpayer first.  Only then will we see real economic growth.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Democrats Reducing Freedom: Net Neutrality . . .

Today the Federal Communications Commission is set to pass on a partisan 3-2 vote (Democrats vs Republicans)  a comprehensive set of rules to control the Internet, commonly called the "Net Neutrality" rules.

Although the FCC Commissioners are public servants, they have permitted very few members of the public to actually see what these rules are.  That should be a red flag for everyone. Another red flag is the fact that the FCC Chairman has refused to testify before Congress when invited to do so.

If the FCC is hiding what they are doing until after they make a decision, you can be sure that what they are doing is contrary to the interests of the public,  otherwise, "Why the secrecy?"

A former FCC Associate General Counsel raises the question "Is the FCC lawless?" suggesting the specter that "administrative law" is being used in a way to avoid the balance of powers crafted in the US Constitution. Longtime readers of this blog will remember the warning of the threat to our freedoms posed by administrative agencies, "The Ominous 4th Branch of Government."

An alleged "need" for these rules is the practice of certain Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to charge a premium to certain content providers that ensures a "fast lane" on their networks -- e.g. certain streaming services that use a lot of bandwidth.  The new rules would supposedly (assuming no waivers are given to the politically connected) prohibit the practice.

But why should the companies who paid for and constructed their very expensive networks not be able to control how their networks are used? If they cannot control their own property to ensure a return on investment, then private investment in networks will be discouraged.

Lack of investment in networks will result in deterioration of service as traffic increases unless the taxpayers are made to pay for same via the government.  But why should the taxpayers do this when the private sector has, to date,  met everyone's needs?

So far the internet works just fine, as suggested by a Republican FCC Commissioner, Agit Pai, who calls Net Neutrality "a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist."

If there is a threat to the Internet that requires government intervention, it is the mergers of ISPs that reduce competition in the marketplace... But the government has been approving mergers left and right, perhaps because it is easier to control one or two big players than a multitude of lesser players.

It is the lack of internet regulation that makes the internet so useful -- it is freedom --  giving a voice to even the most minor of minority viewpoints.  

The Internet is not broken.  It does not need fixing.

Undoubtedly, with these rules, all that we have come to appreciate about the Internet will ultimately become undone.  Voices will be silenced . . . And the public will be left hearing only "government approved" viewpoints.


Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Republicans Reducing Freedom: Student Success Act

The warnings are out: H. R. 5, the "Student Success Act,"  is about to be taken up by the House of Representatives in Congress, co-sponsored by only Republicans.  Although this very lengthy bill (610 pages in PDF) has an official Summary that gives an impression that the legs will be cut out from under Common Core, it is an Un-Official Summary by "Three Moms Against Common Core"  that people should be talking about:

“Student Success Act” to Crush Religious Freedom, Private School Autonomy, Parental Rights: #NO on HR5 ... Per the article ...

It ends private schools’ religious freedom from government control. It harms funding freedom in private schools. It puts into question parental rights and control over education. It pushes sameness of testing. Those are just a few things. There are more. 
We have conscious deceivers in D.C. pushing this bill: its damages are so painfully ironic. The bill is touted specifically to “reduce the federal footprint and restore local control while empowering parents“. What a poignant lie. 
If H.R. 5 passes this week, in exchange for billions in federal funding, we will be crushed in the following ways. The federal Department of Education aims to take over: 
1. STATE AUTHORITIES AND RIGHTS  
2. PARENTAL RIGHTS TO DIRECT EDUCATION OF A CHILD 
3. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM – NO MORE RELIGIOUS COUNSELING, MENTORING OR TECHNOLOGIES ALLOWED IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS 
4. PRIVATE SCHOOL AUTONOMY: GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED OMBUDSMEN WILL MONITOR COMPLIANCE 
5. PRIVATE SCHOOL FUNDING – PRIVATE SCHOOLS MUST CONSULT WITH PUBLIC DISTRICTS WHICH ENFORCE EQUALITY
One has to be suspicious of what is in any bill as big as this one. Here, the Moms did their homework and back up their claims with explanations that cite specific sections of the bill (which you can check out yourself using the links provided above).

Education in this country is only gotten worse since the Federal Government became involved. Control over education needs to be brought closer to the people directly affected, and the Federal Government (with no constitutional authority in this field)  needs to get out of it entirely.  But it is too easy to take the money (our money) so the expansion of Federal power and mediocrity has continued.

Our Congressional Reps. need to vote NO on this act.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Nano Sleight of Hand. . . .

The OD headline blares: NANO IS HERE. Believe it . . .

But please forgive me for feeling sceptical.  

The problem with SUNY Poly having one name but two campuses is that unless the Utica or Albany campuses are specifically identified, you never know which campus they are talking about.

Therefore, should anyone take comfort in knowing that

"SUNY Poly has 215 researchers and faculty members and about 350 more people already are working for some of the existing tenants who will occupy the Computer Chip Commercialization Center in Marcy . . ." 
when the article fails to state that these people are assigned to work at the UTICA Campus?  Given the lack of transparency on this project, one must assume that the people Kayoleros is referencing are stationed in Albany until we are told otherwise.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Infiltrated!

It has been the view of the administration for years that the Muslim Brotherhood is, essentially, a bunch of 'good guys' that has "eschewed violence."  But if you remember months back, while a Muslim Brotherhood member, Mohammed Morsi, ruled Egypt, Christians there lived in fear.

The Egyptian people, not liking Mr. Morsi's Islamist agenda, ultimately overthrew him,  and the Egyptian military moved to take over the government to create stability. However, our administration refused to assist the Egyptian military.


Now, from the Washington Free Beacon comes this report: Muslim Brotherhood: White House Official Met Us at State Department.
News of the meeting between the Brotherhood allies and the Obama administration caused anger among many in the Egyptian government, which is fighting furiously to crackdown on the Islamist group and its supporters.

“These statements are incomprehensible to me, we do not understand that there will be such a communication with the elements involved in terrorist acts to intimidate the Egyptians,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri was quoted as saying in the regional press following the Free Beacon’s initial report.

“The Brotherhood is not a political party,” but “a terrorist organization,” Shukri said.
Almost three years ago then-representative Michelle Bachmann questioned how a certain highly placed US official with familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood could have received a security clearance.  Please see a series of correspondence on this issue. She was immediately called out on this by several members of her own party, including being branded an "extremist" by our own congressional representative

You really have to wonder what is up with our foreign policy?  We seem to involve ourselves with destabilizing stable situations in Libya (backing the take down of Qadaffi) and Iraq (with the American pullout), yet stay uninvolved when it comes to backing those who would try to maintain safety for all religious minorities, such as current Egyptian President el-Sisi.

Now we have this story: ISIS Beheads Coptic Christians, El-Sisi Vows to ‘Avenge’ Murders, with a terrorist seeming to echo views expressed by our President at a recent prayer breakfast:
All of the killers wore black except the spokesman, who, wearing camouflage, talks in English and sounds American . . .  “Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for,” he says. . . . “And we will conquer Rome, by Allah’s permission,” the American-accented narrator says, pointing his dagger at the sea.
The White House responds by calling for a "political solution" in Libya. . . . a solution to a crisis that WE helped to create.

One could wonder what has informed our foreign policy . . . but some of our "extremists" already know.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

The NY Divide, an Upstate Agenda, and Choosing a Speaker

With the removal of Sheldon Silver from his position as speaker of the Assembly, there is talk about who will be his successor. Per the NYPost, the Assembly may be getting Carl Hestie as its first African-American Speaker.  The Post indicates that he has great credentials, including an undergrad degree in math and statistics from Stony Brook University, masters in finance from Baruch, experience as a budget analyst in the City's comptroller's office, and a reputation as a consensus builder.  While others have questioned Mr. Hestie's background, what seems to be most important to the Post and for some people is that he is African-American.

Frankly, the focus on race, gender, ethnicity, and other human characteristics that created "protected classes" during the last 20-30 years (while accomplishing little in solving their associated problems) has prevented us from seeing the REAL divisions among us.

The REAL divide in New York is geographical, illustrated by the map of NY's 100 richest and poorest places based on information listed here.  While ten of the poorest places are in our own area, the real take-away from looking at the map is that almost all the richest places are in the metro-New York City area while almost all the poorest places are Upstate.

Now, how can a government essentially run by "three men in a room" who are ALL from the metro New York City area, where incomes and wealth are high, possibly understand Upstate's problems and represent Upstate's interests, where the opposite is true?  

There was once a time when Upstate and Downstate both succeeded through leveraging Upstate's natural advantages of an efficient transportation route to the West and hydropower.  How this all came undone, and how both Upstate and Downstate have suffered since, was previously discussed in "What's the Fix for Upstate?"

If the shoe was on the other foot, what might an Upstate-controlled agenda look like?

1) Dissolve the Thruway Authority, eliminate all tolls north of I-287 by turning that portion over to NYSDOT and run it like the other interstates in NYS; and turn the remainder over to the NY / NJ Port Authority, and run that portion like other metro-area toll bridges and approaches. Upstaters were promised, when they controlled the Senate, that Thruway tolls would be removed when the construction bonds were paid off.  But even after being paid off TWICE (first, when US Sen. Moynihan secured a Federal payment for same in the 1980s, and again when they were actually paid off via tolls in 1996), a now reapportioned state legislature controlled by Downstate has not only continued tolls to this day, but also directed them to pay for the state's canal system (which helped NYC to grow) and for maintenance of Downstate's toll-free I-84.  While tolls in the high income metro area may be viewed as either a necessity or an annoyance, to Upstate they are death because they generally do not exist among Upstate's business competitors, burden Upstate's advantageous trade route, and are less affordable to Upstaters than their well-heeled Downstate counterparts.

2)  Require that regions generate most of their own electricity.  Because Upstate is rich in green hydropower resources, its electric rates should be less than those of its less-endowed competitors. Instead, rates are significantly higher owing to state policies that have shifted Upstate electric power into the metro area to lower costs there, mandated high-cost "green" wind and solar power alternatives, and directed closure of metro area generation facilities. If regions were required to develop their own electrical resources, localities could decide for themselves what mix of sources is best for them and what associated environmental impacts they are willing to tolerate.

3)  Require the State to pay its entire share of Medicaid rather than pass a portion of it on to counties where it shows up in Upstate's crushing property taxes. Alternatively, require the State to pay its entire share of Medicaid at the MINIMUM level of benefits and allow local municipalities to determine and pay for any supplemental services desired.  NY provides one of the nation's highest level of benefits. While Downstaters whine about their sky-high property taxes, they are not so bad when viewed as a percentage of property value (which represents accumulated wealth) .  In fact, given the extremely high property values in Manhattan, property taxes there as a percentage of property value are actually among the lowest in the nation. (See Why People Don't Come Here . . . By the Numbers).  With such low rates, Downstaters might feel generous when determining the kinds of benefits they want to provide to the poor via Medicaid.  However, most of Oneida County's budget consists of mandated Medicaid costs. The same is true for many Upstate counties.  Medicaid is the reason why tax rates are as high as they are Upstate. The highest property tax burdens in the nation, when calculated as a percentage of property value, are found in Upstate NY counties. Essentially, Downstate, via State government, has mandated that Upstate take money from the poor to give to the poor.  No wonder why Upstate cannot compete for jobs!

Removing Thruway tolls,  letting Upstate keep most of its hydropower energy, and having the State pick up its entire cost of Medicaid, would help Upstate become competitive again without the need for expensive specially targeted programs (Utica Nano, Buffalo Billion, etc.) that may or may not work and simply shift some monies from Downstate to particular Upstate localities.  You might think of other things to add to this agenda.

But these things won't happen because the people in control, Downstaters, come from a very different place economically. They don't readily comprehend how their well-intentioned policies have hurt Upstate, which is not just a supplier of natural resources and power generation for the City, and not just a repository for the City's garbage, but a place where people live, work, and raise families. 

Having an Assembly speaker from Upstate won't solve the problem, but it may, in a small way, help the Upstate perspective to be seen.

The Assembly should choose someone from Upstate to be its new speaker.

Monday, January 26, 2015

A Pattern of Duplicitousness . . .

Last year some of Rep. Hanna's duplicitous behavior was documented here.

Now,  the Vass Political Blog documents a pattern of duplicity.

For a clear picture of our representation in congress: Stop listening to what Mr. Hanna says, but instead, look at what he does.

No wonder why he did not want to debate his opponent in the last election cycle.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

The Buffalo Billion, the Utica Connection -- and NYS Secrecy . . .

As noted in an October post, the state is in the process of spending $750 million (of Our Money) to construct and equip a solar panel manufacturing facility in Buffalo for Solar City, a California company. The project furthers Governor Cuomo's plan to spend a $Billion (a/k/a "the Buffalo Billion)  to revive the economy of Western New York.

Jim Heaney, veteran investigative reporter and founder of the Investigative Post, intended to document how that large sum of money was being spent. Instead, he wound up writing an article entitled "Suppression of Buffalo Billion spending records," documenting the run-around he got from officials responsible for the project when he attempted to get information.

In addition to Alain Kaloyeros, new president of SUNY Poly, Utica readers may recognize the names Alicia Dicks and, perhaps, Fort Schuyler Management Corp. in Mr. Heaney's article.  Ms. Dicks is a local resident, director at Mohawk Valley EDGE, co-owner of Aqua Vino Restaurant, and was President of Fort Schuyler Management Corp. when, at about the time Mr. Heaney was researching his article, she was named CEO of the Community Foundation of Herkimer and Oneida Counties, Inc.  (FSMC is now looking for a new president).  Fort Schuyler Management Corporation was a Non-Profit created by the Albany NanoCollege (now SUNY Poly) for its economic development operations in Utica. The undeveloped western portion of SUNY Poly's Utica/Rome campus, which comprises 300 acres, has been ground leased to the Fort Schuyler Management Corporation, which in turn, has subleased this property to Mohawk Valley EDGE for the development of the Marcy NanoCenter.

Fort Schuyler Management Corp., at some point, became a vehicle for fostering the governor's development agenda not only in the Utica area but elsewhere, including Buffalo -- which led to it becoming a focus in Mr. Heaney's article.  According to Mr. Heaney . . .

The Fort Schuyler Management Corp. contends it doesn’t have to abide by the Freedom of Information Law, a point disputed by the state’s open government director.
After describing contacts with other players in the governor's agenda (who are also involved in Utica area projects) Mr. Heaney noted:
I have never, in my nearly four decades as a reporter, encountered such heavy handed tactics to thwart the release of information.

FOI requests have not been honored.

Interview requests have gone unanswered.

Information casting the developer selection process in a favorable light was provided to another news outlet in an apparent attempt to head off the story you are reading now.

And Kaloyeros, who has not hidden his displeasure over my pursuit of documents, sent me an email last month in which he declared he does not “respond to perceived threats and terrorism.”
How does this matter?

Mr. Heaney's article suggests that the developer selection process could have been skewed to favor a large donor to Mr. Cuomo's campaign.  Another article by Mr. Heaney reveals that
The company that New York taxpayers are investing so heavily in has not been able to produce a profit for its shareholders.
The lack of transparency on the part of the State with the facts noted in Mr. Heaney's articles can lead to conclusions that (1) the economic development schemes are designed to funnel money to the politically connected and/or (2) the governor is recklessly gambling with our money hoping to hit a jackpot.

Perhaps these conclusions are erroneous, but government stonewalling does not encourage taxpayers to accept government conclusions on faith.

How does this matter locally?

The Utica area has had a long history of state officials making hyped-up promises that fell way short of expectations: The Center for Brownfield Studies, Griffiss Institute, and Homeland Security Training Center come immediately to mind.

The biggest promises have been Marcy NanoCenter and Nano Utica. Local funds (such as increased sewer rates) have been ponied up in support of these projects.

Marcy NanoCenter has been a project for perhaps a dozen years and, other than the jobs at EDGE itself to promote it, jobs have yet to be created.  Telling is its total absence from the Fort Schuyler Management Corp.'s website (as of posting today) even though FSMC is supposedly involved. The site, rather, has small pieces on Quad-C and a Syracuse project, but is dominated by Buffalo Billion information -- likely recently posted in response to Mr. Heaney's article. (Listen to his interview by Fred Dicker at about 36:00) .  Does the lack of information on Marcy NanoCenter suggest that it is not an important project for FSMC?

Although a gleaming, costly, building has been constructed (at taxpayer expense) for Nano Utica next to the SUNY Poly library, people were supposed to be working there last month. Where are they? The lack of activity has the folks on Utica Topix speculating in several threads that Quad-C is not going to be a manufacturing facility with 1500 jobs, but, rather, nothing more than an expensive academic building. The contradictory statements last summer regarding which companies were participating in Quad-C certainly bolstered the negative outlook.

TODAY in the OD we read: Major Quad-C expansion on the horizon. Now the cost of the building will rise from 125 to between 250 and 300 million dollars, and the potential workers will increase from 1500 to 2250. . . . with completion postponed until summer.  But this announcement comes after the building should have been completed and people should have been working.  The descriptive language also seems to have changed from emphasizing manufacturing to research. The lack of specificity in who will be participating is telling.

This is starting to sound too familiar -- like Griffiss Institute's "world class research facility" turning into little more than field trips and summer jobs for middle and high school students and some seminars.

Only time will tell whether Greater Utica will have its hoped-for economic transformation --  or whether highly-paid Economic Development Music Men  hucksters have taken advantage of our naivety - - - again.  Let us hope it is the former.

Seventy-Six Trombones, anyone?

 

Monday, January 12, 2015

A Cold Dose of Reality for Utica-Rome ...

The Guest Editorial by Dr. Anthony Vennero in the Utica OD over the weekend, "Nanotech center might not be our economic panacea," should be a cold and bracing dose of reality to all of our regional leaders, both elected and non-elected.

In a nutshell, Dr. Vennero cites numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show that even if the rosy projections of job growth from nano are met, they will not even bring the region back to the number of jobs held in 2009! Worse, Dr. Vennero describes the formidable competition our region has in the nanotech field, suggesting that the promise of virtually guaranteed (taxpayer-subsidized) jobs may be empty. Additionally, Dr. Vennero cites demographic information to show that our population downtrend, with negative economic consequences, will continue.

None of this is new to long-time readers of this blog as similar things have been said here for many years. What is new is that we now read about this in the local media.

Perhaps this is because the regional elite know that the situation has become so dire that it can no longer be hidden, and they wish to prepare us for the worst.

Now . . . What should be done with this information?