They that is Evil have tried to slip one beneath the shadows of the intense media coverage of Tom DeLay's indictment, Judith Miller's prison release ('bout time on both counts) and John Roberts’ Supreme Court confirmation. The MTA is now enforcing its “no beverage” policy on the subway trains, although they relented and now permit beverages on the platform. “If you have a steaming hot coffee on the 5 or 4 train at 8:30 a.m., I hope to hell a cop gives you a summons, you have no right to do that,” said MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow according to Chuck Bennett at amNewYork.
I’m all for fluid-exchange safety, but abstinence is definitely the wrong way to go. Let them outlaw the real problem, which is the unenforced backpack rule. Chest- or belly-high, they swing around from left or right mercilessly, flinging molten java onto the seated, elderly woman who is accompanying her ferocious-looking son to his sentencing hearing with the hope of leniency because she has no one else to look after her.
And the headphones. Not only does everyone else have to hear bad music in low-fidelity despite laws to the contrary, the noise contributes to the din that keeps the PA announcements unintelligible.
Besides, the MTA is missing an extraordinary marketing opportunity. “MTA-Approved” containers offer additional licensing monies for the notoriously cash-strapped and underfunded agency (results may vary according to the context of the financial report). Selling beverage hats through Starbucks is a natural alliance, since they were expected to introduce a mainlining system early next year anyway.
No, the reason the MTA chooses to punish the addict has nothing to do with safety or even carryover from the Rockefeller drug laws. Nobody wants to be held responsible for the obvious negligence in the subway car design, the failure to include adequate cupholders for an increasingly mobile commuter population. They’re willing to pander to the noise-generators and the noise-impaired by installing LED displays for announcements, but try and juice up for a morning of tax-revenue-generating activity and you deserve a summons. Someone in this city has got to get their priorities straight.
And yes, Tom DeLay sucks too.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Too Many Indians, One Too Many Chiefs
It's not hard to imagine why New York's senators voted against Roberts' confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But could they have been seriously attacked from the Left if they'd voted to confirm? With confirmation a foregone conclusion, there was an opportunity to give him a full pass and then at least claim that W owes them greater consideration on the next nomination -- with the unveiled threat that they'll really go after the nominee if the Democrats' cooperation in the Roberts confirmation goes unrewarded.
As it is, everyone knows that whoever Bush II nominates will be opposed by the Democrats just out of mindless reflex unless it is someone the Democrats propose. Given that laughable idea, the Democrats should have recognized that Roberts is absolutely the best they could have ever hoped for as the nominee for chief justice from this administration. At the very least, he has proven willing to give uncredited advice to a cause he does not relish, and he talks consistently and passionately about the integrity of the legal process and the roles therein. There is a very good chance that as chief justice he won't be strong-arming anyone toward his views. That he emphasized the importance of precedent was a signal that he was not Clarence Thomas. For that matter, you've got to allow the possibility that the decisions he makes will be mostly determined by the facts in the cases as they are presented instead of his views on larger issues.
Now all the senators get is the right to say they fought the good fight and opposed the right-wing assault on women's rights and liberalism in general. They achieved nothing except to prove their causes more irrelevant. Perhaps they can reflect on the experience and muster enough backbone and savvy to do what they were supposed to do in the first place.
Next time, try winning the fucking election so you determine the short list.
"They hate us for our freedom..." This is no time for the Lame Game.
As it is, everyone knows that whoever Bush II nominates will be opposed by the Democrats just out of mindless reflex unless it is someone the Democrats propose. Given that laughable idea, the Democrats should have recognized that Roberts is absolutely the best they could have ever hoped for as the nominee for chief justice from this administration. At the very least, he has proven willing to give uncredited advice to a cause he does not relish, and he talks consistently and passionately about the integrity of the legal process and the roles therein. There is a very good chance that as chief justice he won't be strong-arming anyone toward his views. That he emphasized the importance of precedent was a signal that he was not Clarence Thomas. For that matter, you've got to allow the possibility that the decisions he makes will be mostly determined by the facts in the cases as they are presented instead of his views on larger issues.
Now all the senators get is the right to say they fought the good fight and opposed the right-wing assault on women's rights and liberalism in general. They achieved nothing except to prove their causes more irrelevant. Perhaps they can reflect on the experience and muster enough backbone and savvy to do what they were supposed to do in the first place.
Next time, try winning the fucking election so you determine the short list.
"They hate us for our freedom..." This is no time for the Lame Game.
Wrong: NYT's Editorial "Leveling the Freedom Center"
The NYTimes thinks that the Freedom Center should not have been kicked out of the WTC, and that the memorial is a great place to celebrate free speech and consider the lessons we can derive from 9/11. And I was under the impression that the NYTimes itself is that place, but I'm pretty sure there is little agreement about those lessons except the one about the unthinkable.
The memory of 9/11 is not about freedom. It is about going to work on a beautiful day and stepping into a mass murder. Nobody can actually get their mind and heart around that twisted day, but as often as they need to they must try. If we can be strong enough, our best selves do not want to be anaesthetized to the notion that every day may begin our last walk. Changing the focus may not dishonor the dead, but it dishonors the living.
Hijacking the memorial to promote the discussion and inevitable debate of the meaning of freedom is tasteless. Worse, it would be hypocritical to deny voice at the site to those who claim terrorism is simply one of very few weapons available to poor populations who are fighting for self-determination -- just one big Tea Party.
If it was really necessary to seal our grief and horror into a happy public monument, why didn't we solicit a proposal from Disney? Because a half-million square feet of retail space will work for those who want it, as it always has. Everyone could use a new pair of shoes.
The memory of 9/11 is not about freedom. It is about going to work on a beautiful day and stepping into a mass murder. Nobody can actually get their mind and heart around that twisted day, but as often as they need to they must try. If we can be strong enough, our best selves do not want to be anaesthetized to the notion that every day may begin our last walk. Changing the focus may not dishonor the dead, but it dishonors the living.
Hijacking the memorial to promote the discussion and inevitable debate of the meaning of freedom is tasteless. Worse, it would be hypocritical to deny voice at the site to those who claim terrorism is simply one of very few weapons available to poor populations who are fighting for self-determination -- just one big Tea Party.
If it was really necessary to seal our grief and horror into a happy public monument, why didn't we solicit a proposal from Disney? Because a half-million square feet of retail space will work for those who want it, as it always has. Everyone could use a new pair of shoes.
NYT's Judith Miller Released from Prison!!!
I hope the next time Judith Miller considers offering confidentiality to anyone in a viciously assertive self-serving Administration such as the current one, she'll remember how long it took her source to release her after the cat was out of the bag. I've got to figure that a hidden camera with live images of a New York Times reporter in lockup was way too effective a fund-raising tool to put it aside out of conscience.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)