Category: News and Opinion

Almost six months ago, when I started this three part series on the reasons why I felt that Barack (Barry) Hussein Obama should run for the US presidency, many people didn’t feel me; those two columns didn’t generate the usual responses that my writings on New York’s political cesspool generally do. Plus, after all: this enigma (Obama), calling himself a Negro (black-man), had no chance of winning; right?

Truth be told, it appears to me that most of the people here on Room Eight (along with most of the readers), really want me to focus my writings on Brooklyn’s political gossip, spiced with a lil history of my personal involvement in some of the in-fighting. It’s what draws many of them to Room Eight (www.r8ny.com); it’s what makes me the most read (and most commented on) blogger of this particular colony of political writers. It’s what makes this blog so popular in Brooklyn especially (and in some other parts of the city too). Political gossip and credible innuendo is sexy; it’s like a catfight (for men). So; a lot of people will probably hate this particular column for various reasons; I must admit that the hate will be somewhat understandable given the true nature of this country; which despite all its great attributes: is still very racist.

The 2007 edition of Prime News will be mailed this week to @1,500 political activists.

Prime News is the publication my partner Stu Osnow and I produce each year that lists the most complete election results published. It also includes information about what we at Prime New York are up to.

If you can't wait to get it in the mail or are not on our mailing list, you can get 2007 Prime News on our website at –

http://primeny.com/index.html

Today's news from London made me think of something. Some time after 9/11, I wrote an essay (not here, R8 didn't exist) about the possible need to limit auto and delivery access to Manhattan Island, and perhaps other islands, to those with some kind of security clearance. In addition to perhaps tolling the free bridges.

I hope, with all the resources it has been given, the federal government will prevent another 9/11 or, worse, a successful attack with WMD. I accept that no one can stop a suicide bomber pedestrian blowing themself up on a street or in a subway car, though the number of people killed by such is likely to be in the overall scheme of things low. That is a risk all of us must take. In between are the sort of car and truck bombs of the sort ravaging Iraq and nearly hitting London today. We leave ourself open to them because the one civil right Americans have been unwilling to sacrifice in the wake of 9/11 is the right to drive, as the congestion pricing issue (and others) shows. But once one goes off in Times Square, kills a couple of hundred people and maims far more, we will have both congestion pricing and security clearance. Too bad political expediency requires we wait until then.

Not wanting to devalue their on-street parking permits, but not wanting to be accused of doing nothing, it is clear that the State Legislature is looking for a congestion pricing alternative. But the only alternative to rationing street space by price is rationing by queue; congestion will rise to the point where there are no more people who can stand it, and the rest will either use other means to travel or relocate themselves (and their businesses?) elsewhere. Once the state has decided that the only acceptable limit to congestion is congestion itself, and thus the city has no choice but to live with it, however, taking away street space, and taking other measures to reduce traffic flow, will become reasonable. Such measures wouldn’t make congestion worse, because congestion would simply be as bad at it is going to be anyway. The only difference is that the general public would get the benefit of alternative uses of the street. And how about the revenue that congestion pricing would bring? With space that tight, it becomes impossible to avoid committing traffic infractions such as blocking the box, impeding emergency vehicles, and getting stuck in bus lanes. Ruthless enforcement (you decided to drive here and didn’t want to pay? Tough!) could bring in the cash in fines, rather than fees. Indeed according to a Daily News article last week, when it comes to scarce “free” on-street parking spaces in my neighborhood, this is already happening.

Youngsters have a rhyme that they say or chant, whenever they accuse another of lying; it goes like this: “liar, liar, pants on fire” (if it’s a male being accused); or “liar, liar, panties on fire” (if it’s a female being accused of not telling the truth). So there is a story presently circulating in political Brooklyn that accuses three people of lying through their teeth; some are saying that any minute now, the noses on these three individuals will start growing inch by inch-just like Pinocchio’s did when he lied. Could this be true?

Let me introduce the three individuals involved: Vito Lopez, Bernie Catcher and Shawndya Simpson. Mr. Lopez is the Democrat’s county leader-having succeeded the disgraced Clarence Norman a year or so ago. Some say his lies start with his residency- which Brooklyn’s District Attorney (Charles Hynes) refuses to look into- since many claims that he really lives in Queens, but represents Brooklyn’s Bushwick area in the New York State Assembly. Mr. Catcher is the district leader of the 59 AD, but most insiders say that he really lives outside the district. Ms. Simpson is a civil court judge from King’s County, who insiders claim lives in South Orange, New Jersey. Since I am told that they all read my blog, I expect that they (or their minions) will respond to this column in the comment section, ensuring a nice discussion on the contents.

Recently, the New York State Assembly passed legislation favoring same-sex marriages, despite the fact that a federal statute (Defense of Marriage Act) legally defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. Proponents of this measure have argued that it’s about equality, civil-rights, justice and human-rights for all; but is it really? To me, the same-sex marriage debate is ostensibly an attempt by advocates to redefine traditional marriage, which for eons in civil society, has been in essence: quasi-religious ceremonial arrangements/agreements between men and women; which society, culture, religion and government, sanctioned, blessed, approved, encouraged, formalized, legalized and such; for myriad positive and sensible reasons.

In case you missed it, Gotham Gazette posted an excellent article on the average earnings of workers in their 20s, both in New York City and nationally, over time here. The data show that workers in their 20s today, particularly men, even college graduates (of which there are more), earn less in cash income than they once did, both in New York City and nationally. The situation for non-cash income is even worse. As a result of two tier union contracts and other two-tier personnel policies, my generation was the first to not receive defined benefit pensions. But young people today are unlikely to even receive health insurance, as businesses increasingly hire them as “independent contractors” to deny health insurance to them while providing it to existing employees from prior generations. To this, add the higher student loan amounts today’s graduates are burdened by, generated in part by excessive cost inflation in higher education (which presumably provides more income for more people). Forget the fear that the next generation will not be as well off; it has already happened. And public policies, attentive to the wants of senior citizens to the virtual exclusion of all else, particularly in New York State, pile debts and other burdens on to the future, for those 20-somthings to someday pay. In yet another shot in the generational war, state and local governments are refusing to allow people to know how large those burdens will be.

To the many peeps who have contacted or tried to contact me, enquiring as to why I haven’t written a column here for the past seven weeks: I’ll be back real soon.<.......> I had to take a lil hiatus in order to clear my head a bit. I also had to consider a couple runs for public office. I went to Trinidad for a brief visit (as a pre-requisite to possibly participating in the election campaign down there later this year) and for a little R&R. <....>

Today, I decided not to run for Congress in 2008 (it’s too late to start this/ especially as it relates to fundraising), but I am considering a run for the City Council in 2009; I will finalize that decision next year. There are talks afoot to do a wide ranging challenge of various district-leaderships (Dems.) in many boroughs during next year’s presidential excitement; so far these ideas are inchoate. There are many people who are rather disenchanted with the leadership of New’s York’s democrats and want to mix it up a bit. If those conversations mature then who knows what I’ll do next year; but I am definitely not running for Congress (11th) then, unless I hit the LOTTO soon/ lol. <....>

Yesterday wasn’t the best day for the New York Post’s Fred Dicker, who supposedly is the best-informed Albany reporter around.

Some may recall (though I’m sure Dicker hopes not too many) that he wrote a column in May predicting doom for Assembly Democrats if they tried to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage.

Here’s part of what Fred wrote –

Many insiders predict a significant number of the Assembly Democrats – and possibly a majority – will oppose the measure, led by conservative-oriented upstate and suburban lawmakers and a large number of African-Americans and Hispanics, many of whose constituents strongly oppose gay marriage.

New York’s MTA recently announced, to great acclaim, that it would “save the fare” for another year, continuing a political game that has gone on as long as there has been a subway system in New York. The long-term results of that game have been terrible. To prevent increases, money has been borrowed and maintenance deferred, until a crisis point is reached and the fare goes up anyway – by a massive amount, generally in a recession when people can least afford it. In the city’s history the typical fare increases have been 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%, even 100% (from five cents to ten cents). It is only during the 1984 to 1994 period that somewhat smaller increases – of 11% or less – were the norm. Deferred fare increases have been paid back with interest, one reason the pay-per-ride subway fare has in the end risen faster than inflation – by 45% from 1904 to today in real dollars. (see attached chart). Think about it – all those populist heroes defending the working people and middle class by fighting fare increases over all the years delivered a 45% increase in the cost of a subway ride adjusted for inflation over a century! There really is a sucker born every minute. In contrast U.S. postage stamps and inflation have gone up by about the same amount over the past century. Postage stamp increases have been smaller, with the latest at just two cents (5.1%), but more frequent – and generally not subject to grandstanding my members of Congress. In New York the game goes on, but according to the blog DCist, a transit board member in of all places Washington D.C. has proposed ending the game there once and for all.