"Congestion Pricing": What Mayor Bloomberg must do

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Congestion Pricing" plan is an ego trip, or a plan to pay back Wall Street, corporate America and the real estate industry for all they've done to make Bloomberg a billionaire.

To say it works in London therefore it will work in New York is nonsense. London is laid out differently. It makes absolutely no sense to invest tax dollars on "Congestion Pricing" until you have worked out the method for providing for the additional riders to New York's mass transit system.

Our present system already does a poor job. In order for you to persuade car users to give up their cars you have to convince them that mass transportation can get them where they need to go in a timely, safe, comfortable manner, at a price that won't break them. You also must convince them that the system will stay that way.

Here is what the mayor must do.

He must upgrade the train stations and provide them all with working bathrooms. He must upgrade the trains and buses. He must figure out a way to get more mass transportation to more places and run more routes more often. If he can solve the problem of moving more people he should then bill Congress for the expenses and go on with "Congestion Pricing".

Personally, unless he has a plan for placing trains and buses on the West Side Highway and the East River Drive I'd say it can't be done with the limited North and South thoroughfares through Manhattan. But if he proceeds, he'll have to figure out how people are supposed to get to Manhattan's hospitals, hotels and Broadway shows, where everyone driving to the 86th Street border is supposed to park, whether the people who live in the 80s are going to have to pay $8 every time they move their cars and how many millions the city is going to have to spend to educate all its citizens and tourists of this crazy new plan.

Or is his real idea that people below a certain income just can't come into Manhattan anymore because they can't afford it.

Bloomberg for President?

Can Michael Bloomberg win as an Independent Candidate?

In my humble opinion, the answer is no.

Independent candidates can win local elections, mayoral elections and state elections, but building a staff of the necessary workers to pull off a national election is too much to handle. People think that TV has narrowed the chances, but I believe it still is not enough. The only way an Independent candidate can win a national election is if there are local Independent parties and a slate for people to work for. Generally, a national candidate have very few favors he/she can call in.

Whatever their problems, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have party loyalists who will carry petitions and campaign for candidates they do not believe in because they are chosen by the party. An Independent hasn't got that clout, nor can be buy it.

Can Bloomberg beat Giuliani? I believe he can, but only because of the Bernard Kerik baggage that Giuliani has to carry and will be made an issue in the campaign. If it is possible to conceive, Rudy Giuliani may be the only person who can pick a worse Attorney General than President Bush.

I also believe in a national campaign neither Bloomberg nor Giuliani would carry New York State.

The rest of the state has not benefited one iota from Bloomberg's plans to make New York City the Corporate Capital of the World. 

Leave them laughing

"Leave Them Laughing" is an entertainment phrase that says, know when to leave the stage.

The McConnell, Gingrich and McCain group should learn that lesson.

Instead of claiming that leaving Iraq now will embolden our enemies and demoralize our troops they should give a little more thought to the alternative - the lives we'll save.

When President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and announced that we have accomplished our mission, that was the time to declare victory and leave the stage.

Whether you believed or disbelieved in the war is not the point. Since his famous announcement, this mismanaged war has been all downhill. Nothing is more demoralizing to a soldier than to learn that the promises made to him were pure bull. When you get National Guardsmen and women who are not really trained for this kind of combat and keep adding time to their tour of duty, nothing the Anti-war people will say is more demoralizing.

Here is another analogy: A fighter getting mercilessly beaten in the ring, thanks his cornerman for saving his life. He says, " I was being beaten so bad that I could not think, my cornerman realizing this threw in the towel." I later became a champion.

Sometimes you have to face reality.

Understanding political terms

Here are some political terms you ought to really understand.

Bipartisan: "We are hoping to receive bipartisan support." What it really means is if you vote my way you are right, if you do not you are an ideologue and an idiot, and I do not want to hear from you.

Get involved: "It is important for you to get involved in the political process." What it really means is send me your campaign contribution.

Campaign Reform: "We are hoping to push campaign reform before the next election." This really means do not send a campaign contribution to my opponent. 

Political Pundit: "CNN and Fox will get their talking points from a political pundit." This is a person who gets paid for spouting party rhetoric. See also apologist, propagandist. See Ed Rollins, Robert Novak, James Carville, Paul Begala, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter etc.

Loudmouths and money

If you listen long enough you will hear every loudmouth speak when their brain is not working.

Imus was utterly stupid about his remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, insultingly speaking about people he did not even know - and who were academically on target. He was not talking about Little Kim, or Foxy Brown. He must have thought he was a rap artist, who mouth those expressions to make money.

Then he goes and apologizes to the likes of Rev. "Hymietown" Jackson, and Rev. "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton. If either of these men spoke out about the raunchy and denigrating lyrics of the rappers as vociferously as they condemned Imus, maybe they could clean up the rappers' acts.

After Imus's firing, Rev. Sharpton recently said rappers are next, but in going after obscene rap he will meet resistance in the black community, where many, including music mogul Russell Simmons, view the lyrics as ghetto poetry.

We make a mockery of the situation when we allow Talk Radio people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Howard Stern.
James Carville, Bob Grant, Michael Savage, and Imus to make scads of money and then be offended by what they say. Some of them spew outright hatred, while others traffick in a raunchy, insulting comedy that's funny to some and hurtful to others. Unfortunately if we outlawed this kind of speech, we would end Talk Radio . . . and political campaigns. 

But the radio talkers and TV pundits are only the tip of the iceberg. The high-paid corporate suits who hire these people and their demeaning talk, know exactly who their audience is - and where their wallets are.

Wrong rhetoric, wrong time

Today I listened to Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, one of the President's apologists for a terrible war plan.

This administration went to war with the unprepared troops they had. They went to war with the wrong intelligence. They also went to war with the wrong equipment. Then they fired the Generals and the Architect of this war.

General Petraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates say we should give them another six months and more troops and they can win this thing. What they can't do is explain what "winning" means. If winning means further decimating the Iraqi
population and our own armed forces - and making Iran bolder - then I don't want to win. 

The Democrats are giving Petraeus and Gates a year, twice what they say they need.

But Sen. Kyl criticizes them for giving the enemy the timetable for our withdrawal.

It's Petraeus and Gates, however, who have provided the timetable. Six months. But someone needs to ask them what they intend to do if we have not succeeded in six months.

The public has had enough of this war and the Democrats know it. They keep saying the public voted them in to stop the war. So stop it. Meaningless and gutless non-binding resolutions are a waste of time. They should make use of their public support and stop playing chicken. 

Attorney General: The People's Lawyer

When John Mitchell was President Nixon's Attorney General and Robert Kennedy was his brother's Attorney General, I wrote my Congressman with a question: "Where in the Constitution or any amendments is the provision that makes the Attorney General the Presidents lawyer?"

I never got an answer.

I have asked this question repeatedly of our distinguished elected officials and either they do not know or care.

But it seems to me the Attorney General should be the people's lawyer and above partisan politics. He should even protect the people from an abusive President, Democrat or Republican.

I therefore think he should be proposed and nominated by a senate panel of four Democrats and four Republicans (with an Independent, should there be one) and confirmed by 75% of the Senate.

I have always believed that the Attorney General function should be to protect the Constitution and the laws of the land for everyone and the prosecutors should not be appointed at the President's behest and subject to his or her political philosophy.

The winds of change give us different political parties in power, but laws should not be subject to these changes.

The Attorney General should only be fired for malfeasance and subjected to an impeachment procedure conducted by the House of Representatives.

Tax cuts or troop support

The Conservatives who keep telling us how they support the troops have some explaining to do.

They were offered the choice of giving our troops the proper armor and arms to fight in Iraq and properly care for them should they be wounded ... or a tax cut.

They could not figure how they could give a tax cut and still take care of the troops they say they support but when push came to shove they chose the tax cut.

So much for caring for the troops.

SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

Resolve

When you ask average Conservatives what they like best about President Bush they say it is his resolve. He believes strongly and religiously what his mission is. It is a show of his strong character.

The Dixie Chicks also showed strong resolve. At a loss of some of their fans and income, they took a stand. They showed resolve. They were rewarded with a return of some of their fans, got new fans and maybe got back some of their lost revenue.
The people who admired President Bush's resolve were intensely annoyed with the Dixie Chicks resolve. Only time will tell whether they win back their deserters.

I wish the Democrats in Congress would show some of the Dixie Chicks' resolve although it is not whether you have resolve that counts, it is whether you are right or wrong. I have resolve, but if I am wrong I am not doing anyone any good by being resolute.

Being right and resolute is the best of both worlds.

Guest? Who invited them?

Mrs. Brown was a lovely neighbor. She had an open door policy. She would share coffee with her lady neighbors, and every once in a while prepare a luncheon to sit and exchange pleasantries.

Mrs. Williams was one of her neighbors. One day she saw Mrs. Brown coming out of her car with packages. She offered to help her, and asked her why she had so many packages. Mrs. Brown explained she was having a party for her mother-in-law that afternoon.

That afternoon, Mrs. Williams came with her husband and two children to Mrs. Brown's party.

Mrs. Brown had prepared just enough, but decided to let Mrs. Williams join them. That was a mistake. She can no longer get rid of Mrs. Williams who barges in every time she sees cars pull up to Mrs. Browns house. Even locking the door no longer helps. Mrs. Williams just rings the bell.

I do not feel sorry for Mrs. Brown.

I also do not feel sorry for the illegal immigrants who barge in unannounced. I do feel sorry for the legal immigrants who wish to make a home here and contribute to the American dream. They have to share housing, education, hospitalization, etc. with those who may or may not care to be part of the scene.

Like Mrs. Williams who went home to her own family after partaking of Mrs. Brown's kindness, the Guest Worker program will not benefit anyone but the Guest Worker and the Corporations that need cheap and exploited labor.

What if we win?

Because of poor and skewered intelligence over 9/11 and WMDs we have gone to war in Iraq - and we went into this one unprepared militarily and without a defined mission.

Winning, of course, is the objective, it always is in war. But how will we define victory?

If Iraq gets a stable, elected, democratic government? If we put down the insurgency?

Will either of those accomplishments bring back the brave warriors we have lost? Will it bring back the innocent Iraqis who have also died for this cause? Will it weaken al Quaeda or stop them from sneaking across our open borders? Will it ease the animosity that we have created?

In other words ... suppose we win.

Whenever we leave, as we have promised to do, can we assure anyone that the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites won't start killing each other again? If they do, are we committed to go back again - and again? Will Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt allow an Islamic democratic government to flourish? I think not.

So even if we win we lose and at a tremendous cost of lives - and billions of dollars.

We have been told that leaving Iraq will embolden the enemy. It may. Being there has already done that and continuing to stay there will do that also. If we are going to embolden the enemy I would rather do it with less loss of lives.

What a waste of money

To those of you who believe that you are not touched by the war, here is a brief recap.

To start a war you've got to propose a reason. The reason in the case of Iraq was that Iraq had WMDs and poison gas that they were going to use and that America was in immediate danger. This was the same Iraq that tried to inflict damage on the Israelis during the Gulf War with little success.

The Bush administration sold this to gullible Democrats and the public. So we "Shock and Awe" them into submission. Declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

War over. NO way. Sadaam goes into hiding. After the mission was accomplished the carnage started. We got careless. We took away their arms and ammunition, but left them unguarded. So the Iraqis plot their revenge. We were told we would be welcomed with bouquets, instead we are welcomed with bombs. Because we were in a rush to start this war we sent our troops ill-prepared and with poor armor for their humvees.

We arranged for seemingly democratic elections. They elect a government and everything looks good. War over. NO way.

We make a huge tactical mistake. One of the rules of war is to know your enemy. There is absolutely no reason to get caught in an insurgency, which may turn into a civil war. Our military leaders didn't foresee that. They also should have foreseen that Iraq would become a haven for Syrian and Iranian terrorists, and that both of them would fund the Shiites. On top of that they should have foreseen the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds hatred for each other and the U.S.

The Iraqis have learned American politics. Their government asks for money and when they use it up they ask for more. We are caught in what should have been foreseeable. We are asking the very people we fought against to help us maintain order so that we can rebuild what we destroyed. All of this at a tremendous cost in lives, and broken bodies. Even with a scorecard one can't tell our enemies from our friends, because even our friends are enemies in Iraq. Would anyone in their right minds send more troops to this cause?

How does it affect you? Think of what we could do for our schools, for health insurance, for Medicare, for affordable housing, for New Orleans, and for countless ways to make us really safer with the billions squandered on this fools errand.

Bush, Lieberman and Iraq

The "Great Decider" decided that the Saudis who were backed by the Taliban and did the 9/11 damage were really Iraqis.Then he decided that the people who told him there was no danger from Iraq from WMDs were lying to him. Now he has decided that we need more troops in Iraq so that we can win this war, and we cannot allow the enemy to declare a victory. He sold this nonsense to Joseph Lieberman, who has bought into the concept of winning the war.

Neither one has been able to convince me what winning the war means. Does it mean having an Iraqi government that we like and the Iraqi people hate, or having an Iraqi government that hates us and the Iraqi people like? The other question is who is our enemy? Is it Al Qaeda or the Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?

They also claim that retreat is not an option. Every military book I read considers it a viable option. In any case we will have to leave Iraq sometime. To some, even after ten years, it will look like a retreat. We have left soldiers there who will never come home.

To be a "Great Decider" one does not necessarily have to make great decisions. I would settle for good decisions.

The record speaks for itself.

The president's 'new' 'plan'

To those of you who bought into the President's new plan, I think you ought to understand that it is premised on a very risky assumption.

We have been told that our success in this war depends on making Iraq safe, and the only way to do this is to send in more troops to take care of the Sunni militia and the Mahdi army. But the insurgency must be quelled by the Iraq army. What, however, happens if Maliki decides he would rather not try that? It becomes a failure.

What happens if he decides to try it, and the Mahdi army refuses to give up their arms, and fights back. We then have a family squabble that has become the civil war we are trying to avoid. That too is a failure.

Sometimes when you intervene in a family squabble, the participants make up and hate the interventionist.

Here is what I believe the Democrats in charge should do. If they honestly believe their own rhetoric then they cannot in all sincerity vote the funds for this "surge." They should spend the next week or two taking their case to the public. If they have a good case, and I believe they do, they can persuade the public that this is the sensible path.

If, as we are now told, that regime change was our objective - not the WMDs - then we have already achieved our goal. The Democrats may believe that opposing escalation is too risky politically, but being honest about one's objectives is very important. It shows the world true resolve. Taking a small loss is always a better choice than taking a disaster.

We owe it to our soldiers, sailors, air force, marines and even civilians who gave of themselves, the satisfaction that they did not do it in vain. The best way to do that is to keep their friends from also making the same sacrifice.  

Strategy? What strategy?

To those of you who watched Sen. Lindsay Graham espouse the president's new strategy in Iraq, on Meet the Press, please remember that this was the same person who thought impeaching President Clinton was more important than the problem in Kosovo.

The "new" Iraq strategy? We have to send more troops to win the war, because we cannot afford to lose.

This, however, is atypical of the Republican strategy in other areas: We cannot pour more dollars into school aid unless we make the schools more accountable. We cannot afford to pour more dollars in a losing war on drugs. We cannot afford to spend more dollars on the losing war on poverty. We cannot afford to spend more money  on Medicaid, Medicare, and Health care for our citizens. 

We must, though, spend more money and invest more troops in the losing war in Iraq, because we cannot admit we are losing.

Bush Plays Texas Hold 'Em

The president sits down at the card table with Joe Democrat, Ahmad Kurd, Ali Sunni and Sam Maliki. He is dealt a ten of diamonds  and a king of diamonds. Joe is dealt a nine of spades and  jack of spades. Ahmad is dealt a king of hearts and king of clubs. Ali is dealt a queen of hearts and a queen of clubs. Sam is dealt an ace of clubs and an ace of hearts.

The president bets $20,000 and Joe sees him. Ahmad raises him $40,000 and Ali Raises Ahmad $40,000. Sam knows he has the best hand but he wants to set a trap so he just sees the raise. The president, not wishing to cut and run, sees Ali and so does Ahmad.

The dealer then opens a nine of diamonds, a seven of hearts and an ace of diamonds. This gives the president four diamonds and a heart, Joe a pair of nines, Ahmad a pair of Kings, Ali a pair of queens and Sam three aces. The president bets $50,000, Joe sees him, Ahmad and Ali also sees him, but Sam Raises him $100,000. They all see the bet but Joe.

The dealer then turns over a queen of diamonds. This gives the President a flush, Ahmad a pair of kings, Ali three queens and Sam three aces.

The president bets $100,000. Ahmad folds. Ali sees and so does Sam thinking the President may have a flush.

The last card is an ace of spades. The president still has his flush, Ali has a full house and Sam has four aces.

The President bets $100,000. Ali raises him $100,000 and Sam goes all in. The president already has so much invested he wants to stay the course so he sees Sam as does Ali.

Sam takes the big pot.

As Kenny Rogers once sang,"You've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." When you are playing cards or fighting a war the same strategy prevails.