Adam Bradley, former White Plains mayor, appears for his sentencing Thursday at the Westchester County Courthouse in White Plains in his December convictions on attempted assault, harassment and criminal contempt. Joe Larese/The Journal News
Good Friday morning. Here’s a look at opinion content published today in The Journal News:
Adam Bradley: Editorial
We comment on the Thursday sentencing of former White Plains Mayor Adam Bradley, who will serve three years probation for his December conviction on domestic-abuse charges. We write:
State Supreme Court Justice Susan Capeci’s words won’t be the last on former White Plains Mayor Adam Bradley, who was sentenced Thursday to three years’ probation for his conviction on spousal-abuse charges. Her sentencing remarks, however, were poignant: They should speak to victims and perpetrators of domestic violence alike — even those beyond the downtown courtroom.
Capeci refused to jail Bradley, who was convicted in December on charges of attempted assault, harassment and criminal contempt; he had spent the balance of the last year not only maintaining his innocence but portraying his estranged wife, Fumiko Bradley, as a mope who somehow had been hoodwinked into supporting the legal action against him. It was a defense that was as ungainly and undignified as it was unsuccessful. Capeci told Bradley, a lawyer, as much in the courtroom on Thursday.
The justice castigated Bradley for portraying his case as a “garden variety divorce” when, in her view, it was “garden variety domestic violence.” She called parts of his losing defense “totally implausible” — at one point Bradley maintained that Fumiko Bradley did not sufficiently understand English to understand the criminal complaint sworn out against him. “You made a bad decision worse,” Capeci said. “You’ve shown no remorse.” She added that the once-powerful Bradley, a former state legislator, continues to portray himself as the victim. The label wasn’t his to claim. …
NPR: Commentary
Glenn Garvin, a columnist for the Miami Herald, argues that National Public Radio, which has been cloaked in a series of scandals over the last few weeks, should learn to live without public dollars. Federal aid to the radio network amounts to just 2 percent of its overall budget.
More opinion
Not the Albany we’re used to: Editorial, Newsday
A somber nuclear-safety message: Editorial, Daily News
Information must be accessible to all: Editorial, Poughkeepsie Journal
Public loses most in fight to defund NPR: Editorial, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
Elections board pushing a bad proposal: Editorial, Times Herald-Record
Have the courage to revive shield law: Editorial, Glens Falls Post-Star
3 Comments
Your inclusion of opinions from other publications is a terrific idea! I always welcome other viewpoints. If you did so prior to reorganizing your website, I apologize for my inattention. By the way I am also a reader of The Week.
Jansie —
Thanks for your comment. We started adding the links in earnest earlier this year and are happy you’re enjoying them.
NPR’s arrogance for the taxpayers input is ONLY 2% of their funding, correct. That’s their argument, it’s ONLY 2%
Those like me that wish defund NPR, have the same argument, it’s ONLY 2%
They will learn to deal without public funding, and then they won’t have to worry about attacks from the right. They will be an independent entity free to speak whatever liberal garbage they wish.