As a result, I am owed a heartfelt admission of remorse.  If the rag’s editor is willing to proclaim she’s sorry about sharing facts, then those incensed by its biased coverage and nastily illogical opinion writing are owed contrition next.  The line starts behind me.

The accurate information in question came up when Sullivan attended an event where she fielded harangues regarding an article published following the City Grill shootings. Some people are upset that the News reported news:

It was a tough crowd for Margaret Sullivan. 300 people were at True Bethel Baptist Church, most of them angry at the Buffalo News Editor’s decision to publish a front page story reporting that seven of the eight shooting victims from City Grill had criminal records.

For the crime of getting a pertinent story right, Sullivan apologized like Barack Obama at a UN picnic held in Norway on the anniversary of the passage of Arizona SB 1070:

She said she’s a parent herself.

Sullivan, “I am very sorry that the news has caused your pain to be deeper.”

But Sullivan says if she had to make the decision again, “I have to be honest with you, it would be not entirely different, but would be substantially different, and you have affected me in what you’ve said.”

You can’t kill the messenger if they commit suicide first.  Sullivan should have stood up for what her paper published.  Even better, she should have skipped the even in the first place.  An email to the organizers noting that the story’s indisputable accuracy before pointing out that the checkered past of the casualties is relevant to understanding the events would have been sufficient.  But appeasing is a harder habit to quit for the reflexively politically correct than smoking is for the rest of us.

The figurative bowing will sadly undo the rarest of events, namely good work presented in The News.  To paraphrase another paper’s rather famous slogan, all the news that printed fit.  The relayed particulars were not only true but also germane.

It’s specifically newsworthy to note that the shootings weren’t random attacks.  Innocent people scared for their safety within Buffalo deserve to know the nature of this vicious mass homicide and wounding.  While it may offer little comfort following a wretched day in the city’s recent history, citizens should be aware that the victims were targeted after a dispute, not as the arbitrary prey of muggers.

It goes without saying that the shootings were indescribably awful regardless of the sufferers’ respective pasts.  As Sullivan justly noted, “There is nothing in that article that suggests that the victims deserved anything bad to happen to them.”

But questionable life decisions before that horrible night may indicate a tendency to come in contact with shady elements.  People who have been in dangerous situations may sadly find themselves near them again.  Avoiding the sort of lifestyle that may lead to trouble is a painful lesson that’s urgent to learn.

Worrying that the relatives of those shot may be upset by the story can’t be the priority of news gatherers attempting to classify the situation.  Noting the troublesomely related aspects of those attacked is an unpleasantly tough but necessary chore.

If you feel it’s coincidental that seven-eighths of the victims had their own legal issues, play the lottery before you’re struck by lightning.  The Buffalo News merely acknowledged the possibility of a correlation by reporting cold evidence.  The last thing they should do is feel bad about it.

Yet parties are nonetheless being targeted in Buffalo, as many still look for something to blame for the City Grill shooting instead of someone.  They maybe shouldn’t look past the shooter himself.  But it’s apparently too tempting to accuse the obvious suspect; that never seems to work out on Law & Order, anyway.  The latest attempt to assign culpability that doesn’t involve personal responsibility focuses upon events where bad people may or may not congregate:

The deadly shootings at the City Grill restaurant two weeks ago were not the first time this year that someone has been killed outside a privately promoted Buffalo party attracting a large number of gangsters.

A 26-year-old Buffalo man was fatally shot in the parking lot of a Military Road tavern after a similar party in February, according to Buffalo Police and other law enforcement officials.

And law enforcement officials said they are investigating about a half-dozen other shootings and stabbings that occurred within the past year at other establishments that allowed private promoters to hold parties attracting gang members and associates.

“Definitely, this is something we are concerned about,” Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III told The Buffalo News. “If you’ve got parties that are resulting in stabbings and shootings, it becomes a public safety issue.”

Well, groups of humans are occasionally problematic depending upon their composition.  But we should judge on a party-by-party basis.  Check the guest list first.  The rumored existence of gangster-free revelry is important to consider even when pondering festivities that may or do go bad:

“It’s a very dangerous mix when you have gangsters, a lot of drinking and people showing up who have grudges against each other from things that have happened in the past,” said one police officer who is familiar with the bashes.

That sounds very rap-songy, and not in the Fat Boys sense.  Still, it’s not the fundamental nature of those private soirees that causes the trouble.  It’s the punks who may show up, not the actual jamborees.  For comparison’s sake, I am the one responsible for carrying maybe a bit more mass on my frame than the ideal, not La Nova.

Of course and as usual, Byron Brown isn’t helping clarify anything.  Specifically, he’s setting a bad example by blaming another inanimate object.  Buffalo’s, sigh, mayor is apparently unable to draw the distinction between lawfully- and illicitly-acquired firearms, seen in how he oscillates between claiming “handguns are a problem in communities across America” when he’s not specifically citing “illegal weapons.”

It may seem repetitive to continuously use modifiers like “unlawful” when referring to the implements in question.  But it’s an indispensable distinction.  Consider the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, and the importance of engaging in minor-league wordiness becomes apparent.  Perhaps Brown was too busy seeing if his “Uh” count could pass the rate of 15 per minute to focus on precise language.

With that in mind, why should we believe anything Brown says?  Of course, he’s the same one who infamously claimed Buffalo is a safe city not long after eight people were shot in what will assuredly stand as one of the dumbest of the many dumb things he’s said.  He’s right in the same sense that, aside from the murders, Washington, DC’s crime isn’t that bad.  Marion Barry appreciates how he may no longer be the mayor known for making the most infuriating remark possible about crime.  His distinction as longest-serving crackhead remains intact.

Our mayor is also correct that a quadruple murder could have taken place “any place, at any time.”  Well, it’s true as long as it’s any place and time that happens to have felonious gangsters around.  Their presence wrecks tranquility no matter what name they apply to their gatherings.

As for the businesses that may face the danger of hosting such menacing crowds, they must assess customers and decide if the risk outweighs the potential benefits.  The hired legal help for one party host whose event culminated in a deadly assault claims to now know the distinction:

An attorney for Maggie’s — Robert J. Bolm, a former commissioner of the State Liquor Authority — called the incident unfortunate and said he believes it is one of the reasons Maggie’s stopped allowing private promoters to run parties there.

“She stopped having the parties there because they were attracting the wrong people,” Bolm said of owner Margaret Rose. “[Rose] is a good and conscientious business person. She’s owned the place for about 15 years, and it has never been known as a trouble spot, except for these parties.”

That may be the best call for that business under its unique circumstances.  But assessing the character of particular bash-throwers is a far better policy than a blanket policy steeped in overreaction.

As with guns, parties are about the people involved.  There’s no inherent danger without the presence of nefarious intent.  Blame the specific troublesome humans instead.

The genuine danger lies with the sort of human being who thinks an appropriate response to a dispute is to end four lives and damage four more.  Law enforcement and prosecutors should focus upon the crucial distinction and target the bad dudes instead of good times.

Otherwise, murderous thugs are directly ruining lives and indirectly crimping everyone else’s liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Severe pressure aimed at discouraging a certain type of joyous private behavior would counterproductively affect our fun.  Andrew W.K. would disapprove.

I thought it might be a quick hour to kill, but, as it turned out, we spent most of the day there. If you have an appreciation for history, this is a great place to go back in time to this reconstructed 19th century village with genuine homes and buildings of the era which have transplanted and restored. Each place has costumed “villagers” who can tell you about the building you are in, and what life was like in that home. We got to see a 19th century printing press in operation, a women making fabric on a loom, and brewers making beer (for demonstration purposes) at the brewery. In fact, their 1803 Fat Ox Ale (brewed by CustomBrewcrafters) with the old recipe is available at the village for purchase…

We spent the whole day walking around, checking things out. It was a beautiful day. At lunchtime I had some 1803 Fat Ox Ale — which was fantastic.

I can’t even really do it justice by blogging about it here. I do suggest you go to the website for more information and photos.

The village was a serene oasis, especially after a day at a amusement park and concert. We didn’t even get to see it all because of a dinner reservation, but we knew before we left we’d be back.

Anyway, if you’ve never been to Genesee Country Village before, I highly recommend you check it out.

Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in “personal hygiene.” Paladino, a wealthy Buffalo real estate developer popular with many tea party activists, isn’t saying the state should jail poor people: The program would be voluntary.

But the suggestion that poor families would be better off in remote institutions, rather than among friends and family in their own neighborhoods, struck some anti-poverty activists as insulting.

Insulting?

“Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we’ll teach people how to earn their check. We’ll teach them personal hygiene … the personal things they don’t get when they come from dysfunctional homes,” Paladino said.

New York, like other states, receives a federal block grant to provide cash and other forms of welfare to very low-income residents. Federal law already requires welfare recipients to do some form of work to receive benefits.

New York’s welfare rolls have grown slightly during the recession, while food stamp eligibility has almost doubled, according to the state.

We should all be able to agree that the welfare system isn’t working.  Paladino’s ideas do have some merit. Welfare, as it is right now, does not do enough to get people off welfare.  If the state is going to be in the business of welfare, then it’s goal should be make itself obsolete.

Now, I heard some ridiculous rhetoric on the radio this morning, likening Paladino’s ideas to “labor camps” for poor people – I don’t know whether that was a comparison to Nazi labor/death camps or Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment camps, but who would have thought free room and board, plus training and education was such a terrible thing? Imagine that, instead of just cutting checks to untrained poor people, the state provides them with housing and education so they can make it on their own. Holy crap, Paladino must be a bigotted, anti-poor, racist, rich white Republican!

It’s time the far left put an end to their rhetoric. Instead of pointing fingers and shouting “racist” or “bigot” or “insensitive” they should come up with their own ideas on how to fix the system without flushing more money down the toilet. Right now, we continue to throw money at the problem and nothing changes.

It’s time to end the era of taxpayer-funded entitlement and begin an era of empowerment. Paladino’s plan does more to empower the poor to improve themselves than anything any Democrat has proposed.

The phony “religious freedom” argument is weak and irrelevant.  That’s like saying a person who shouts “fire!” in a crowded theater is protected by his or her First Amendment rights. Hogwash. This is about right and wrong, as S.E. Cupp accurately explains.

And further adding to the ridiculousness of the “freedom of religion” argument is a point Carl Paladino has been raising in recent days: What about rebuilding the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at Ground Zero? While the far left pushes for this mosque to built, they have zero concern or interest in the “religious freedom” of Christians whose church was actually damaged in the 9/11 attacks.

Paladino says New York City “bent over backwards in the name of religious liberty” when the Cordoba Initiative applied for zoning and other permits. However, he claims New York City and the Port Authority has delayed the re-building of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church by reneging on promises made in negotiations with the church, and are now in the midst of eminent domain to take land below the church site.

Paladino says the Greek Orthodox Church has been willing to trade the land where St. Nicholas once stood for a nearby parcel owned by the Port Authority. “Their willingness has been met wtih bad faith and red tape by bureaucrats,” says Paladino. “Justice must be done for St. Nicholas Church first if Bloomberg and Paterson want to get this mosque built anywhere. If they tout religious liberty and equal rights of all Americans to fast-track an offensive mosque, they are not the least bit credible unless they stop doing everything they can to block reconstruction of this historic Christian church.”

Double standard? You bet.

And what about the argument that it was radical Muslims that carried out the attacks of 9/11 and that the greater Muslim community shouldn’t be besmirched over this mosque? I refer you this poll.

Opponents of the planned Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan have public opinion firmly in their corner. According to a new TIME poll, 61% of respondents oppose the construction of the Park51/Cordoba House project, compared with 26% who support it. More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Opposition to the project appears to derive largely from the conviction that the proposed site of the project — just two blocks from Ground Zero, in a building that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory outlet — is so close to “hallowed ground,” as President Obama put it.

Yet the survey also revealed that many Americans harbor lingering animosity toward Muslims. Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why is that? It is not, as Peter Daou implies, because of talk radio. It is, in my opinion, because American Muslims as a whole have done virtually nothing as a community to condemn radical Islam, the 9/11 attacks, etc. etc. Spare me the link of a few select groups and Muslim individuals who have done such. You know I am right, they haven’t. In the aftermath of 9/11 our government went out of its way to protect the reputation of Islam and Muslims in general, but the favor was not returned with widespread condemnation of what happened.

Build the  Cordoba Ground Zero Victory Mosque elsewhere. Plain and simple.

The endorsement was announced outside Lockport City Hall with a delegation of Niagara County Republicans at Paladino’s side. They included State Sen. George D. Maziarz of Newfane, Lockport Mayor Michael W. Tucker, North Tonawanda Mayor Robert G. Ortt and Wheatfield Supervisor Robert B. Cliffe.

“Niagara County’s endorsement proves confidence is growing among leading Republicans who know it is time to rid Albany of the ruling class and bring good government back to the people of New York,” Paladino said today.

Norris joins four other Republican county chairmen who have endorsed Paladino, and the campaign indicated more leadership endorsements are imminent.

This news, along with two recent endorsments by county GOPs suggests to some a sense of momentum for Paladino’s campaign and a sign of his strength. You could arge that. There might be a hint of truth to it. Polls show he’s improving. But, let’s consider his endorsments.

Carl has, according to the latest count, four County GOP Committees backing him now: Erie, Niagara, Gennesse and Cayuga. If you don’t have a map handy, I can tell you they are all upstate. This is Paladino’s area.  It’s hardly surprising for him to have support from the areas that actually know who he is.

Let me say that I’m not merely trying to poo-poo these endorsements. I am just offering some perpsective…  looking at the big picture. Lazio still has a comfortable lead in the endorsement count.

I’ll support whichever candidate wins the primary, but I am worried that Carl’s efforts are actually dividing the party when it needs to be strengthened. If Carl can prove that he can get support statewide, not just in Western New York and the Finger Lakes Region, then maybe I can put more weight on these recent endorsements.

But, this is no longer a kid. He’s over 18, a legal adult, and, as it turns out, had an accessory — a friend who was a cashier at the store where the crime was committed. That of course has me asking is this was a spur of the moment act of passion, or was this planned? I am not particularly buying the cashier’s story. Whatever happened, I cannot answer whether or not he got off with a slap on the wrist, or if proper punishment was handed out.

But I was shocked out of same habitualness on this particular night by an event on the show rarer than me agreeing with Bob Beckel: an Andrew Cuomo campaign commercial where he railed against property taxes.  He thinks they’re too high, I mean.  Huh?  I don’t have the proper one-time pad to decode this particular numbers station.

Letting you keep your money is what our fat cat-worshipping guys are supposed to promise, correct?  I’m confused.  The bewilderment continues for those who visit the web site promoted in Cuomo’s ad.

There will certainly be ample furrowed brows and confused looks caused by a political sales pitch from a New York Democrat that sounds like it was churned out by a Heritage Foundation-designed rhetoric machine.  Based upon the wording, we can call it the Karl Rovebot:

Local property taxes in New York State grew by 73 percent from 1998 to 2008 – more than twice the rate of inflation during that period.

When property taxes are measured as a percentage of home value, the top sixteen counties in the nation are all in New York State.

New Yorkers are being taxed through the roof, but we can make Albany act if we come together!

To bring relief to New Yorkers, Andrew has proposed capping property tax growth at 2% or the rate of inflation – whichever is lower. This would apply to all school districts and local governments, including fire and other special districts.

Join Andrew Cuomo and your fellow New Yorkers in calling for a statewide property tax cap – use the form to the right and contact your legislators now.

Please take a moment to pick up your jaw from the floor.  But it’s actually feasible to see this as a typically untypical 2010 moment once the shock dissipates.  Conservatives can feel heartened when good lefty Kid Cuomo feels the need to not only advertise during Fox News Channel’s red-meatiest hour but also claim that he’s out to save your wallet from Albany.

We’re in a strange, beautiful political era when New York State’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate is copying Chris Christie’s signature initiative. Will Cuomo tick off unions next?

While it would be nice if Cuomo would spend more time investigating funding for the mosque and/or “Islamic center” that’s within a rather insensitive distance of Ground Zero than selling the virtues of his anti-tax crusade, what’s important is that his anti-tax crusade exists.

Of course, it’s unsurprising that a politician of any label takes a not-quite bold stand on something popular-sounding.  Ask people if they want property taxes capped, and you’ll get very few requests for double-digit increases instead.  There aren’t many pro-confiscation rallies.

But Cuomo had the chance to take the uncontroversial Democratic-style tact.  Namely, he could have ordered his ominous voiceover guy talk about how we simply must pay teachers, pothole fillers, unicorn keepers, and other utterly indispensable public toilers.  Claiming we will be engulfed in riotous chaos following state employee layoff number one is the nice way of looking at a statist approach.

Instead, he went generic conservative-style, which is as telling an appeal to ratings as any sitcom retooling.  If people realize that they want more Fonzie, it’s best to give it to them lest cancellation sounds appealing.  In that light, can Cuomo be trusted to ditch his pro-Potsie principles and curtail levies?

Well, no.  I don’t wish to be cynical.  But I’d bet his dad starts filling in for Glenn Beck during vacations before Lil’ Andy follows through with his campaign posturing.  Even if he did, limiting property tax hikes wouldn’t be a worthwhile tradeoff if we are concurrently socked with higher sales or state income taxes.  That would be like locking the door while leaving the windows open.

But at least Cuomo thinks he has to appease Tea Partiers to win votes even in the most navy of states.  Republicans are the ones who are supposed to prove they are tough on taxes no matter how often they disappoint in reality.  But at least one Democrat is calculatingly, fleetingly switching jerseys.

Maybe the fact that Americans are recognizing the glaring effects of an insatiable federal government provoked Cuomo to pitch the virtues of acting Texasy.  Believing Cuomo is a different story.  But be amused that he is basically saying he likes to listen to Michael Bolton in a desperately humiliating attempt to keep working for the state.

Meanwhile, I’m hoping fellow anti-tax radicals Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand buy air time on Hannity, too.  It seems doubtful that Chuck Nasty and Tracy Flick would suck up to the right.  But I thought the same thing about Cuomo a few days ago.

With that mystery looming, he’s employing his best strategy under the circumstances, namely pretending he never liked them anyway.  The Skyway-disregarding representative can go ahead and amusingly call the deal’s collapse “liberating.” For once, he’s right about something, at least in the same sense that he’d be liberated to spend more time with his family if he loses this November.

The least surprising news in city history means there are no winners following the Bass Pro debacle.  At least we don’t have to cheer for the disagreeable participants.  So, was the collapse the fault of an aggressively overbearing yet criminally incompetent government or the disreputable private concern in question?  Yes.

As much fun as it is to blame Higgins, we must also remember to curse the stupid fishing conglomerate in question to rot in retail hell.  That other BP will forever be viewed infamously in Western New York, as they may as well have dumped countless oil barrels into the adjacent water for all the damage they did.

I’m particularly glad this area’s decision-makers knocked down the Aud for the garbage-scented merchant in question; are there any other war memorials they’d like us to demolish as a final request?

At the same time, they were just playas in the game, yo.  We should cancel the event.  Conservatives are pro-market, not pro-business, which is never more apparent than when it comes to being anti-Bass Pro.

Offering entitlements to conglomerates just to get them to come or stay is an alarming sign that economic conditions are already beyond frail.  That’s true whether the incentives are offered to worthwhile companies or not.

Uncapped welfare fosters dependency if it’s doled either to individuals or large groups of them banded together to make money.  Luring corporations by offering them sacks with dollar signs on them is nothing more than income redistribution.

Such payments are extra galling because of the damage they inflict upon competing enterprises that have already committed to the area.  Most notably, Gander Mountain and Dick’s already help the area by operating in an onerous financial environment.  Their reward was spending years watching public officials present bribes to a potential competitor.  This game gets less fun with every rule.

At least now the sporting goods hawkers can go back to offering goods to the public at mutually agreed-upon prices.  Of course, that is only true until the next time politicians on numerous levels decide they want to collude in support of adding a new shark to the tank.

The good news is that the government will probably fail again at that hypothetical example anyway.  It’d be one thing if the scheming worked and brought commercial activity to the waterfront; in that case, the argument would be that there was a better way to attract sellers, even if the flawed subsidy-heavy approach sort-of worked.

But you presently still can’t buy much of anything around one of the city’s most picturesque spots even if you have money.  I’m looking forward to the Higgins campaign ad claiming that scaring away Bass Pro was a push on his part to encourage saving.

At least he’s consistent.  Naturally, obedient Democrat Higgins supports corporatism on the national level, too, where preferred players get rewarded for failure while the Fords of the world suffer for not sticking out their hands. Except for the resulting unsustainable debt, paltry GDP, and miserable unemployment rate, the scheming is working fantastically.

Micromanaging by politicians isn’t helpful, especially considering the micromanagers in question.  There’s a better way both in Buffalo and America.  Alternately, maintaining a low taxation rate for all will naturally draw companies of their own volition.

Each of them will get the same deal as their retail neighbors/competitors, namely none at all.  If the conditions are ideal, they’ll be fine with freely entering the market.

By contrast, the present begging-based policy reeks of desperation.  Is this how we want to make acquaintances?  Companies essentially tell Erie County that we can be pals for as long as we have cool toys; as soon as they break our Transformers, they’ll bail and befriend a kid with an in-ground pool.

We must gain enough confidence to tell manipulatively self-serving brats always looking for their next exploitation victim to sod off.  We’ll eventually find true friends that way.

In the meantime, we can debate who came off looking worse here: our leaders or this dastardly fishing pole seller.  We’ll need an empty space where we can hold the discussion.  I unfortunately have a rather scenic outdoor one in mind.  There’s still not much to do there, but at least the background water looks pretty.

it is no surprise that the same people who blindly worship Obama and voted for him to prove how “tolerant” they are are beating a similar drum over the Ground Zero mosque. And it’s sadly predictable how they can’t make any legitimate argument in support of the mosque — they have to resort to calling Republicans racists and hatemongers. It is interesting how the same people who manage to find the right to an abortion in the text of the Constitution have also created an new interpretation for freedom of religion.

Restrictions on what can be built and where is nothing new. In fact, in many situations the public actually has alot of power when it comes to allowing and preventing construction in their neighborhoods. Would you tolerate a strip club in your neighborhood? A cigarette advertisement next to the school your children attend? An adult video store on your street? I can’t imagine most would, especially parents. But would Cuomo, or any of the left-wing bloggers crying foul over opposition to the mosque say that zoning laws are anti-free speech? Would they have no problem with the Westboro Baptist Church setting up a congregation at Ground Zero, or next a gay night club? They have freedom of speech and religion too, don’t they?

And let’s not pretend that these left wingers can’t see the legitimate controversy here. Sure, the local left-wing bloggers may say “See, Republicans hate Muslims!” but that’s just a cop out argument, and they know it.

They see this as another opportunity to attack Republicans at the expense of commonsense. Was 9/11 so long ago they forgot that not only was it attack on our country, but it was an attack in the name of Islam? Do they forget that, conveniently ignore it, or does the irony arouse them? Perhaps in their heads it’s poetic justice? Perhaps they don’t care that such a mosque will be a magnet for anti-American Islamic extremists to congregate at the site of what they see as a huge triumph for their cause?

Commonsense needs to prevail here. Freedom is not independent of responsibility.