Gov. David Paterson is expected to announce in a few hours that he has chosen Democratic U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, whose district sprawls from the mid-Hudson Valley to north of Albany, to fill New York’s U.S. Senate seat. It was vacated this week by Hillary Clinton of Chappaqua, now secretary of state.

While only a second-term lawmaker, Gillibrand, left, fits two vital items on Paterson’s bill: She’s a woman, and she’s from “upstate’’—important since the leadership in Albany is dominated by men and men from “downstate,’’ especially New York City and, horrors, Long Island. As a former longtime upstater (Schenectady then Syracuse), I can tell you that there is a huge psychological and political divide between a vaguely defined downstate New York and upstate. There, many residents I know distrust that their leaders in Albany and Washington will even think of them and their needs. Indeed, take a look at the upstate economy, in tatters for decades, and you would know why.

Paterson’s appointment lasts until 2010, when a special election will be held to fill the final two years of Clinton’s term. Gillibrand, 42, has an impressive record taking on challengers in her largely rural and conservative congressional district. Whether she can convince New Yorkers statewide that she has their back, though, remains to be seen, even if Paterson sees her as an asset on a future ticket with him.

Ever hear of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in Washington? Well, Gillibrand is one of them; for example, last year she voted against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.

Yes, woman and upstater aside, Gillibrand has many people upset. Start with New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, whose mission is to reduce gun violence. According to its Web site, www.nyagv.org, “eight young people are killed by gun violence on an average day in America.’’

While primarily focused on New York state, the organization also advocate at local and national levels for laws, policies and practices that protect state residents, particularly youth, from gun violence.

Westchester’s Jackie Hilly, executive director of NYAGV, called me from California yesterday clearly worried about Paterson potentially picking Gillibrand. Hilly said that the congresswoman’s record when it comes to guns is, in a word, “terrible.’’ A NYAGV member, Barbara Hohlt, e-mailed me a long list of concerns on Hilly’s behalf, including:

Gillibrand could be “taking the Senate seat of someone who has worked hard to end restrictions on sharing crime gun-trace data, and she was a cosponsor last term of H.R.4900, which would make the restrictions permanent and worse.  Now the restrictions are part of appropriations bills and have to be voted in every year.’‘  They would:

Prevent use of data as evidence:  Trace data would be inadmissible in any civil lawsuit, state license revocation or other administrative proceeding (unless filed by the federal government).  This prohibition would apply retroactively.

Ban secondary disclosure outside criminal law enforcement: for example, state law enforcement could not share reports based on trace data with a governor, mayor, or member of Congress.

Potentially bar the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from making public annual reports on crime gun traces.

Such restrictions are opposed by numerous top law enforcement groups, NYAGV states.

There are many other objections related to Gillibrand’s efforts to limit gun control and use of crime data. She also supported legislation that would have overridden legislation common to New York City, New York state and many other states, including regarding gun registration, NYAGV worries.

Knowing Hilly and groups like New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, they won’t let up the pressure on Gillibrand, a favorite of the National Rifle Association, wherever she sits.

Gillibrand Photo: AP Photo/Tim Roske, File

The news that Caroline Kennedy was removing herself from consideration by Gov. David Paterson for the U.S. Senate seat held by Hillary Clinton was met with sighs of relief on our forums. Readers have questioned her interest in and qualifications for the position since she threw her hat in the ring several weeks ago.

Read the latest reports and readers comments here and then leave your own comment. For a sample of what residents have to say, check out the quotes below.

That is too bad because while Caroline is a lovely woman, smart and talented, she has no business even being considered for the Senate position. No experience and unqualified. I wish her well and her family as well, this was a poorly thought-out plan.

I’m taking all bets! Obama will tap her for something; she ain’t out the game!

Why is someone who got his job by appointment, Paterson, getting to pick our next senator? This country is becoming a banana republic. This is the 21st century, why can’t we have a special election? Anyone who is a candidate can run and the campaigning would last ONLY one month. Ours is supposed to be a representative government and it is not looking that way anymore.

Shortly before a vote last month on a bond proposition for artificial turf field installation in the Irvington school district, we published a letter from Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., of Mamaroneck, professor of pediatrics and director of the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, citing health concerns over such fields:

1. Extreme heat. On hot summer days, temperatures of over 130 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded a few feet above the surface of synthetic turf fields – the altitude where children play. Vigorous play in these conditions conveys a very real risk of heat stress or heat stroke.
2. MRSA skin infections. Outbreaks of skin infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus have been documented in children who play on synthetic turf fields (New England Journal of Medicine, February 2005).
3. Chemical hazards to human health and the environment. Crumb rubber, a major component of current generation synthetic turf fields, is typically made from ground-up recycled tires containing styrene and 1, 3-butadiene, the major constituents of synthetic rubber. Styrene is toxic to the nervous system, and butadiene is a proven human carcinogen.
Lead was recently found in synthetic turf fields in New Jersey at levels so high that several fields were closed by the state Health Department. Citizens and school boards should question the wisdom of installing synthetic turf until a credible independent study has been conducted and published.

The Irvington proposition was soundly defeated, perhaps more due to the current economic situation than concerns over turf safety. However, with Mamaroneck holding a similar bond referendum Feb. 10, four local doctors have written a defense of synthetic turf fields:

Heat:  In response to the heat concerns, the district is planning to use a lighter color infill that will absorb less heat.  More importantly, our district fields are used most heavily in the fall and the spring, not the hot summer months.  Any summer activities on these fields can be scheduled in the morning, late afternoon and evening, under the lights when it is cooler.  Interestingly, turf fields cool down more quickly. And we can close the fields on the few occasions when air temperatures exceed 90 degrees.
MRSA Skin Infections: Although there have been cases of MRSA infections in football players who play on synthetic fields, there have also been  cases  reported in players of other contact sports  on other surfaces. The solution is for players and coaches to properly care for wounds and abrasions and practice safe hygiene in the locker room. According to the CDC, turf itself is not thought to be the vehicle of infection. And newer generation turf has become softer and less abrasive (maybe less abrasive than our fields.)
The infill and turf materials: Many of the concerns about synthetic turf stem from the use of recycled crumb rubber. The Mamaroneck District has committed not to use recycled crumb rubber (even though there has been no evidence that recycled tire crumbs used for cushioning present any health hazard). While some older fields have recently been replaced due to concerns about the presence of lead, the Consumer Products Safety Commission has determined that newer fields do not present this risk.
Cleaning chemicals will not be regularly sprayed on the synthetic turf.  Rainfall and water is all that is recommended to keep turf clean.

(Unfortunately, their letter checks in at 580 words, well over our 250-word limit, so it will likely appear on our Web site only.)

.

So is artificial turf safe or not? An article in Environmental Health Perspectives (a journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) provides a solid overview of various studies undertaken on this issue and states, “On the basis of limited toxicity data, some reports have concluded the health risks are minimal. Most agree, however, that far more research is needed before the question can be definitively answered.”

In the meantime, school districts (and voters) will have to study the existing data and draw their own conclusions.

So now we hear that Gov. David Paterson plans to announce his pick for the next Senator from New York on—- drum roll, please—Friday or Saturday. So far, the governor has been far too coy in his decision-making process. It is, after all, New York’s Senator he is choosing, not just his own. The people should know what criteria he is weighing. We should be sure that the person chosen is the best person for the job, Paterson’s own political considerations aside.

There are any number of candidates who could make good Senators, but there ought to be a public evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses. At the very least, the governor ought to release the questionnaires that he asked the candidates to fill out.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Noted for his eloquence and speaking ability, many were looking forward to hearing Obama’s inaugural address yesterday. So after the swearing-in, we put the question to our readers, “What did you think of Obama’s speech?”

In their responses, most posters said that while the speech struck all the right notes and was appropriate, it just wasn’t memorable, like JFK’s or FDR’s.

Check out your neighbors’ comments and then add your thoughts here.

I, for one, did like the speech. I will agree that it wasn’t over the top and the best of all time, but it did have some class.

I thought it was a good speech. Not the soaring rhetoric we’ve heard from him before, but I do believe he struck the right note today. We are in bad times and people want to be told by their leaders that they see that and that they are going to work to change the way things have been. He was realistic, strong when he needed to be, but not forgetting that hope is what people want and need in these difficult times. I wish our new president the very best as he begins his tenure.

I think he sounds good no matter what he says, but I’m ready for some action.

I personally thought is was a terrible speech. What I really liked was Aretha Franklin’s hat!

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

President Barack Obama delivers his inaugural address at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday.

Wondering what to do about property tax relief in New York? Hear some ideas — including the benefits of a tax “cap’’ — from Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, chairman of the state Commission on Property Tax Relief, tomorrow night. Assemblywoman Sandra Galef, D-Ossining, longtime member of Assembly tax committees, will host Suozzi at a public forum Thursday, Jan. 22, from 7 to 9 p.m. at Croton Village Hall, Croton Municipal Building, 1 Van Wyck, Croton-on-Hudson.

Suozzi, to put it bluntly, is the “horse’s mouth,’’ a refreshingly outspoken advocate for lowering state spending and reducing taxes. Here’s a chance to hear directly from him, ask questions and give your input.

For more information about the forum, contact Galef’s office at 914-941-1111.

To read the report, visit: http://www.cptr.state.ny.us/

File photos, The Journal News: Thomas Suozzi, left, and Sandra Galef, right.

Anyone fortunate enough to attend the 144 graduation ceremonies of Manhattanville College, Purchase, in May 1995 heard one of the most powerful—and atypical—commencement speeches ever. While the speaker, playwright August Wilson, gave the obligatory congratulations to the graduates, his exhortation to go forth and conquer was anything but typical. In his unmistakable gravelly voice, Wilson, who died 10 years later at age 60, rooted out the heroism, hypocrisy and contradiction of our collective American history. In plain yet poetic talk, he attacked the forces that threatened the nation at the time.

Re-reading it years later, those forces not only still haunt us; they could be considered insurmountable — but for this Inauguration Day, in all its meaning. But for one Barack Obama, who, like Wilson, was born of one white parent and one black, it would be easy to read Wilson’s blazing brilliance and conclude nothing has changed in America, or ever could.

Yet listening, and re-reading, Obama’s inaugural address today, something truly has changed. August Wilson demanded of those 1995 graduates to go and answer whether the America he saw back then “is who we want to be.’’ It took years and a sea change, but Obama today said, “No — we want to be better.’’ We can be the America we like to say we are.

Our Editorial Board found August Wilson’s speech that May 13, 1995, powerful, unforgettable and so crucial to our American consciousness that we reproduced it in full on our Op-Ed page a few months later. It was our gift, and challenge, to all college and high school graduates in the Lower Hudson Valley that spring to read it and become the leaders our nation needed, and still needs. It is reproduced in the previous post.

Photo: Playwright August Wilson poses for a portrait at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., April 7, 2005. Wilson returned to Yale to complete “Radio Golf,’’ the final work in his series of plays he began there chronicling the black experience in 20th century America. He died Oct. 2, 2005. (AP Photo/ Michelle McLoughlin)

(Editor’s note: The following commencement speech was given May 13, 1995, at the 144th commencement of Manhattanville College, Purchase.)
‘We must ask: Is this who we want to be?’
By August Wilson
Mr. President (Richard Berman) distinguished faculty, Board of Trustees and members of the graduating class:
I am honored to join you today. I salute you and your accomplishments. You have all, each of you, in your own way, responded to a challenge with dedication, sacrifice, tenacity and perseverance in order to gain the confidence of your teachers and take your place among this assembly today.
You are in the flush of abundance, abundance in health, energy, passion and idealism. You are in the flush of intelligence and the flush of youth. You are on the edge of our history. You are the forward guard. How exciting a time for you. How full of challenge and work and danger.
We, the generation that precedes you, we want to see you blossom and prosper. We want to see you stand up before the whole world, make declaration of your maturity and take your place on the global stage ablaze with the energy and talent, the education necessary to accomplish your duties.
The millennium approaches. We are about to turn the corner on the 21st century. Our prosperity is not guaranteed. Our freedom and our survival are not guaranteed.
This is a world in which the political realities are rapidly changing. A world in which race and culture dominate and influence, and a rebirth of tribalism has led to conflicts that have altered the way we think of ourselves and each other.
At home, the decline of the middle class, the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, the alarming rate at which young people kill one another, the breakup of our families, and the nihilistic attitudes that abound in our society do not reflect our historical affirmations and our pursuit of a bountiful life.
The contradictions that threaten to rent the fabric of American society are treated so casually as to go almost unnoticed.
We need to understand the wide disparity between who we say we are and who we actually are. We can no longer afford the luxury of illusion. There are new realities, new frontiers, new requirements.
This is the greatest country in the world. It was founded on some of the greatest principles in the world — freedom, justice and the unencumbered pursuit of happiness. It was founded on the self-evident truths and the high ideals of the Founding Fathers.
It was also founded on genocide, hypocrisy, war and deceit. It was built with slave labor while proclaiming freedom and the self-evident truths of equality. It was founded on the systematic elimination of its indigenous population, purposeful, willful, conspiratorial. It was founded on rebellion and abrogation of law.
We cannot ignore these contradictions. We cannot ignore them and survive as a nation in the greatness we are capable of and to which we aspire. We must find the courage to resolve them. We must look at ourselves in the mirror without blinking and taken honest assessment
This is the greatest country on the face of the Earth. It is full of unused libraries. This is the richest country on the planet Earth. It is full of hungry people. It is full of people who do not have houses to live in. People who do not have jobs. It is full of people who cling tenaciously to the belief, the creed of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, who believe in the promise of America, and each year, each decade come away empty and disappointed.
We should be ashamed that our jails are full, that people have a necessity to rob and cheat and steal. We should be ashamed to live in a society that does not take advantage of all its potential. We should be ashamed to live in a society whose schools are deteriorating while its entertainment industry flourishes. We must not continue to be blinded by our patronage and allegiance to the purveyors of greed and ruthless exploitation that characterized the ’80s.
It is a balmy summer of affluence that portends a winter of discontent in which our children and grandchildren will charge us with malice aforethought.
This is who we are. The question we must ask: Is this who we want to be? If we do not believe in the principles on which the nation was founded, if we do not aspire to those ideals, if we do not mean “Freedom and justice for all,’’ then let’s stop saying it. Let’s stop teaching our children to say it every morning.
If we mean liberty and justice for some, let’s say that: liberty and justice for those whose incomes are over a hundred thousand dollars, liberty and justice for whites and some black but no Indians or Puerto Ricans. Let’s say what we mean. Then we can look at ourselves in the mirror.
We have a huge statue sitting in the harbor of New York. It says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’’ That has come to symbolize America for people around the world. If we do not mean it, take it down. Change the sign: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free except Haitians, except Mexicans.’’ Say what we mean.
If you condemn Great Britain for the forced expatriation of the Vietnamese to Hong Kong, you can’t send the Haitians back to Haiti or the Cubans back to Cuba. You can’t have it both ways. You are either for justice and equality or you’re not.
You can’t give someone the electric chair for murder and someone else probation. Not if you are going to have justice. You can’t give someone a year in jail for stealing eight hundred million dollars and someone else 10 years for stealing a TV. Not if you’re going to have justice.
You can’t call yourself “The Education President’’ and cut the spending on education. You shouldn’t be able to be that blatantly hypocritical in America.
You can’t talk about making a better world for your grandchildren while destroying the environment, the ocean, the rivers and the forest.
What are you going to do? What kind of country are you going to have? What are you going to do when it’s your turn to sit on the boards of the hospitals and the museums, to sit in the hallowed halls of justice with the scales in your hand? What kind of education are you going to have when it’s your turn to run the universities, when it’s your turn to sit in Congress and make the laws?
Are you going to do something different or are your going to preside over a nation that continues to choke on greed and wallow in the social malaise of racism and poverty?
You are the future and you are here. Now. Open your eyes, pay attention. At every end of the social spectrum, there are challenges that threaten to abort the great progress that we have made over the past hundred years. The recent movement argued in the Supreme Court to place a value on human life according to one’s status and property, the continued empowerment of the police, the encroachment of the First and Fourteenth amendments are step backwards.
Never has our vigilance to preserve the principles and ideals and guarantees of our Constitution been so tried and so challenged.
We are close to the last chance we have to solve the problematic nature of the relationship between white and black. It is a relationship we have inherited. It is a heritage that is unworthy of our children and grandchildren. We have been dragging our problems of history around with us like a sack of cotton.
Your children face a world that will be full of challenges and problems of their own making. We need to find the courage to solve our own problems so as not to make them an encumbrance on their lives in the pursuit of their happiness.
We suffer from a failure of imagination. This is an enormously wealthy nation with the resources to provide decent, prosperous and meaningful ways of life for all of its citizens. We have the means; all we need is the will. And then, with our hands on the sails and God’s grace, all of our names can ring down the line in the vibrant era of an American society taking advantage of all of its human potentials fired in the kiln of the self-evident truths of the Founding Fathers — life, liberty and the unencumbered pursuit of happiness. For all.
It is your life, go and live it.

The writer is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright.

From time to time I get word from readers unhappy about, well, you. I don’t mean you, but rather those of you who put the First Amendment through its paces, posting comments to the online forums and blogs that are racist, bigoted, mean-spirited or otherwise over the line in terms of good taste, common sense and our terms of service, which, to be precise, prohibit material that is “unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law.”

In any case, most of the complainants blame the messenger (The Journal News and LoHud.com) for the posters’ bad conduct. They conclude that the world would be much better of if (1) we screened posts pre-publication and (2) required posters to include their names. The theory of the latter, of course, is that posters would show better form if they had to include their name with posts, thereby “owning” their  opinions before family, friends, neighbors and coworkers, not to mention defamation lawyers.

Here’s one comment:

I know it’s important to allow people to “sound off” but your blogs usually get carried away.  I think it’s about time they stop.  The New York Times does not have them, I’m not sure why we do.  Most legitimate agencies do not have the comments, perhaps The Journal is not a legitimate periodical?

Here’s another:

If people wrote letters to the editor the same way they write in the blog, those letter would never be printed.  I believe the same care should be taken and observed in the blogs.  The other thing that is equally bothersome is the “jump on the bandwagon” mentality.  If these comments were delivered face to face I believe many would end up in a fist fight.  I truly believe if people were required to identify themselves most would not be as bold.

And from another reader:

I do well understand that an open forum will engender distasteful comments and that is something I absolutely encourage in the name of free speech and democracy. And I very much sympathize with you and your fellow editors trying to run a newspaper in this day and age. It is a fine balance you must maintain and not an easy task.

All good points. Here’s how I responded to one reader; I replicate my answer here because it is responsive to the concerns raised by many:

Thanks for your note about the comments in our forums and blogs. I share your concerns about the rude, off-color, inappropriate and otherwise objectionable comments that show up there. They are distressing to me as a journalist and as a citizen; at times they make me fearful that we are a nation of mean-spirited people. We ask that readers alert us to such comments by engaging the “report abuse” button at the end of each post; we review the “flagged” comments for violations of our terms of service and take action as warranted, including banning the worst offenders. As you know, there is no First Amendment protection for defamatory speech, either online or in print.

I won’t debate whether TJN and LoHud.com are “legitimate” publications or whether it is, indeed, “a rarity” that anything positive is ever written in the blogs and forums. I will ask you to take note that (1) millions of posters across the nation “play well with others” every single day in such forums, debating civic affairs and public policy; and (2) that such open  forums are hardly unique to TJN. This comports with a reality that is bigger than the NYT or TJN: In the Internet age, people expect to speak when they want, without the traditional filters that apply to printed speech. Congress acknowledges and accommodates this public interest, by crafting liability rules that make plain that responsibility for such comments online rests entirely with the posters, not the entity that provides the forums.

Now, would LoHud.com generate more civil discourse in its forums if posters were required to include their real names when posting? Probably. Only an absolute idiot would attach his name to some of the comments, especially those that are outright sexist, racist or bigoted. But the First Amendment doesn’t command civil discourse or discourse with which everybody agrees. And I’m not convinced that throwing up roadblocks to speech is the best course in a free society. Doing so certainly doesn’t make the objectionable or unpopular ideas go away. Indeed, excluding the ugly sometimes creates a false impression that the ugly doesn’t exists. Congress and the courts resist roadblocks, too. It is settled law that anonymous speech enjoys First Amendment protection in the public square; it is no different where it occurs on the Internet.

We suffer the occasional fool in both venues because more speech is preferable to less speech, warts and all. The sins of some sophomoric posters are no good excuse for shutting up the rest of us.

Anyway, that’s my take on the state of the blogs and forums and how posters’ comments intersect with the First Amendment. To be sure, these are issues we aren’t done with; the conversation continues.

All the action is in Washington, D.C., this week with the inauguration of Barack Obama. Here in the Lower Hudson Valley, residents are talking about the inaugural festivities, the election, and their thoughts on what an Obama administration will mean for the county—and the economy.

While there are many who are still hotly debating the election and its outcome, many others, who voted on both sides of the aisle, are advocating that people need to put the election to rest and move on to tackle the bigger issues in the economy.

Here’s what you have to say:

Let’s wish the new president well and start working together to help make this country what it ought to be.

Now that Obama is in, let’s get to business and start making good on all of those promises that he blurted out. What we don’t need to hear is 4 years of “Bush did it.” We need to hear “We did it,” and hopefully it was done right. I dislike bi-partisan (politics) … all of you are a bunch of crybabies. … You wanted it and now you got it, so get to work and fix it or get out! Good luck!

There is a messianic aspect to this that really distrubs me. Obama is a man, he is not the second coming.

Can we focus over the next few days on what is good about America? Once again, we will be showing the world how the most powerful nation on earth will peacefully and smoothly transition from one leader to the next, and in this case with vastly different ideologies. I cheer this and I am proud of this! I also am proud of the next president of the United States, not because of his color, although I understand and see that this is something very powerful for other Americans, especially those in the African-American community. … I am proud because … he takes on the office of the presidency, and with that comes the respect and honor that is deserved of that office. I pray for President Obama to be a success because if he succeeds we all succeed. It is time to pull together.

Yet another gooey article gushing over Barack Obama. The media just cannot contain themselves. … Unfortunately, for the next four years we will all be subject to a fawning media who would rather serve as a doormat to the president as opposed to holding him accountable.