Another Post Apology, Same Old Racist Attitudes

By the end of last week, an editor at the Post finally made a non-apology apology for their racist cartoon after many in the community came out to protest the Post's actions. Since that did nothing to address the problem that the cartoon generated, the protests continued and the press surrounding the story became increasingly negative for the newspaper rag. So who else does the Post bring out but the head honcho himself to make yet another "apology."

From The Albany Project (because I refuse to link the Post anymore):

As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.

What Murdoch is make this look serious and even professional. It does not snipe and make childish remarks such as berating Al Sharpton and others that saw the cartoon and were compelled to give their time to protest the racist behavior of the cartoonist and editor who let it be published. Yet, it is still not a true apology. I put that sentence in bold up above because as the comments at The Albany Project show, there is no way to interpret this cartoon as anything but racist. You have to be racist in order to find humor in it. Mocking the stimulus bill is one thing, but to do it in this fashion is not only about the legislation Barack Obama had signed into law last week. I sincerely find it hard to believe that Murdoch's comments are nothing more than an attempt to kill the story that his paper has serious racist elements lurking inside.

Andy Stern Talks To Obama About Health Care

As Andy says, this isn't a Democratic or Republican problem, it's an American crisis and we must all work together to solve it.

Fight For DC Representation Gets Tougher As Senate Vote Nears

Since it's creation the District of Columbia has never had representation in Congress. Sure, they have a delegate...and a damn good one, but she can't vote as the other 435 members can. For years now there has been an effort to give D.C. a Congressmember and now that the Dems are in power, the ability to get it done has greatly improved. However, as the bill winds its way through the process, those that do not want a solidly Democratic seat added on are voicing their absurdities "concerns."

From ThinkProgress:

Today, the Senate began debate on S. 160, a bill to “provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives.” DCist reports that the chamber will likely hold the cloture vote tomorrow.

In a new piece in the National Review, former Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky tries to make the case that D.C. residents don’t deserve full federal voting rights. Spakovsky, of course, has a history of vote suppression allegations while serving in the Bush administration.

In his piece, Spakovsky goes beyond the traditional constitutionality claim made by opponents, such as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). He claims that D.C. residents don’t need a full voting member in Congress because every federal lawmaker is supposedly looking out for their best interests. Toward the end, he also claims that this bill — supported by Republicans such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — is nothing more than a “raw grab at political power” by Democrats.

Good thing though, there are smarter, and more truthful people around to correct Spakovsky's effort at keeping D.C. residents license plates reading "Taxation without Representation." Perhaps he likes to see them as he heads out of the District to wherever his home is, but it is long past the time that we straigten this matter out.

NY Blade Goes For Yetta!

For some reason or another, I missed a very important piece of news on Friday. The New York Blade has already made an endorsement in the city elections this fall. Perhaps it was the desire to be at the end of the week (as I already am for the end of this one) but I'm glad a friend had forwarded it along. Yetta Kurland added the prominent GLBT paper to her list of endorsements in the race to unseat Speaker Christine Quinn. Yetta wants to change things up in the Council, and the Blade can clearly see it...and wants to see it happen.

From The NY Blade:

Kurland has been a civil rights attorney the past decade, which has given her experience empowering people. She is an impassioned teacher who has worked as an adjunct professor at New York University; she also opened an alternative language center, and she’s been the vice president of the Stonewall Democrats.

Currently, District 3 is represented by Christine Quinn, who is openly gay and is the City Council speaker. Quinn is likely to seek reelection, which is possible since the council, with the backing of Quinn and Mayor Bloomberg, extended term limits for this election (Kurland opposed the extension without a referendum).

“I have respect for Christine Quinn and honor her contributions to our community,” Kurland told us. “But it’s time for change in this city, and the term limits issue typified that. I think I offer a chance to restore the voice of our community to city government and to be able to stand up for those too often ignored by those in power.” We agree.

The Blade also notes her advocacy in education reform, GLBT issues, her career as a civil rights attorney and her passion to be a voice for the community. The paper is absolutely right in their assertion about Yetta. Currently District 3 is represented by the Speaker of the Council and while that may be considered a boon for her constituents, the damage she has done to the city by being at the Mayor's side in the last few years is too much to bear. That slush fund scandal didn't help matters either. Basically, when the powerful stop responding to the people that they are supposed to represent, it's time to make a change. Yetta Kurland is that change.

Sen. Shelby Tries Backtracking From Questioning Pres. Obama's Citizenship

Senator Shelby is trying to have it both ways now that his words at a small forum have been made widely public. To rile up his conservative friends, he put on the tin foil hat that proudly exclaims that there's a chance Barack Obama is not a real American by birth, even though the story has been thoroughly debunked. When the story blew up in the mainstream, Shelby accused the paper that recorded it as not telling the full story, while the paper stands by it. Now whether or not who's right...why on Earth would Shelby even bring up the subject in the first place unless he wanted to dish out red meat to his GOP audience? Yeah, that's a rhetorical question.

CA Assemblyman Proposes Taxing Marijuana

Desperate times calls for desperate measures, and out of all the states in the Union, the Golden State has a budget that is worse off than many others, even though everyone is having a troubling time. So what could be a revolutionary plan that could help the fiscal solvency of the state and at the same time scare the bejeezus out of social conservatives?

Taxing and regulating marijuana of course:

Speaking at a landmark press conference today, California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced comprehensive legislation to tax and regulate the commercial production and sale of cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol.

“With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes”, Assemblyman Ammiano said. “California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana.”[...]

As introduced, Ammiano’s measure would allow for the licensed production and sale of cannabis to consumers age 21 and over. Licensed cultivators would pay an excise tax of $50 per ounce of cannabis. In addition, the proposal would impose a sales tax on commercial sales. (Ammiano’s proposal would not affect the state’s medical marijuana law, allowing patients and caregivers to grow their own medicine.)

Imagine that, ratcheting down the war on drugs by a notch or two and helping to reduce the deficit of one of the world's top ten economies. NORML estimates that it would raise more than a billion a year in addition to the elimination of state law enforcement programs that are set up to catch growers, distributors and users. Treating marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes is a smart idea, and even though our puritanism runs deep, there are veins of common sense embedded in our foundation as a country.

While a many Americans on the west coast are in support (see the article) of this type of action, it remains to be seen if the bill could actually pass the Assembly and Senate, then be signed by Governor Schwarznegger. He may be a moderate Republican, but he is certainly no Ron Paul. Then again, times are really, really bad, so I won't count Mr. Ammiano's proposal out yet.

Bloomberg's Support Keeps Slip, Slip, Slipping Away

Ever so slowly, the pace of the city polls will be quickening, taking the pulse of a city about to elect (or re-elect) a Mayor and approximately two-thirds of the Council. Today we saw Marist College come out with their latest snapshot of the five boroughs, and it gives Mayor Bloomberg both good and bad news.

From Marist College:

BLOOMBERG APPROVAL RATING DROPS 7 PERCENTAGE POINTS...AT LOWEST LEVEL IN NEARLY 4 YEARS:
Although a majority of registered voters in New York City -- 52% -- say Mayor Michael Bloomberg is doing either an excellent or good job in office, the mayor’s job approval rating has dipped 7 percentage points bringing it to its lowest point since June 2005. Bloomberg has been losing ground in voters’ eyes since early last fall. In Marist’s November survey, 59% of the city’s electorate thought the mayor was doing an above average job, a 9 percentage point drop from the previous month. In October, Mayor Bloomberg enjoyed a cushy 68% approval rating.

TURN IT AROUND...PLURALITY OF VOTERS SAY NYC IS MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION:
49% of New York City’s electorate believes the Big Apple is headed in the wrong direction. Only 37% think the city is on the right track. In November, voters divided over the city’s trajectory. At that time, 45% of voters said the city was headed in the right direction, and 47% thought it was moving down the wrong track.

CHANGE IS IN THE AIR...IS IT TIME FOR A NEW MAYOR?
55% of registered voters think it’s time for someone else to lead New York City while 40% say Mayor Bloomberg deserves to be re-elected. Voters reported similar sentiments four years ago when Bloomberg ran for and won re-election. When the Marist Poll asked the identical question in March 2005, a majority of voters -- 56% -- reported it was time for Bloomberg to go. Just 39% said Bloomberg deserved to be re-elected at that time.

BUT...BLOOMBERG RETAINS COMMANDING LEAD OVER DEMOCRATIC RIVALS:
Just what are the odds Mayor Michael Bloomberg will win a third term? The answer: Pretty good if New York City’s mayoral election were held today. When pitted against Congressman Anthony Weiner, City Comptroller Bill Thompson, or City Council Member Tony Avella, Bloomberg leads Weiner 53% to 37%, outpaces Thompson 53% to 36% and defeats Avella 57% to 30%. Bloomberg’s lead has changed little since Marist’s November survey. At that time, Bloomberg was in front of Weiner 51% to 37%, he led Thompson 52% to 32%, and the mayor fended off Avella 54% to 28%.

In a nutshell, Mayor Bloomberg would win if the election were held today, but since it's not, there is plenty of time for his opposition to dig into those negatives the Mayor has and capitalize on them. If I were on either Weiner's or Thompson's campaign, I'd be stressing how bad times are and connect them with what the Mayor has done to add to our problems. Now if the electorate only made above $300,000, I'd say there isn't much to be done. However, the median salary in the city is about a quarter million dollars shy of that number, so start connecting him to the problems of the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. Bloomberg is going to run on his great "fiscal stewardship" and people will believe him if they do not hear how that managment has only been for the benefit of the wealthiest of New Yorkers.

Oh and as the poll continues on, keep reminding voters about the term limits fiasco, over and over and over again.

Got it?

President Obama Corrects GOP, Money For Education Is Not A Waste

For too long our public education has been beaten down by conservatives, whether it be on cable news programs, opinion pages or by cutting funding for our schools. Well, Barack Obama has a word or two for critics of the stimulus bill who think that investing in our kids is a bad idea.

How A NYC Authority Lost $476,400 Of Your Money On eBay

In these dire economic times, citizens are being asked to sacrifice in terms of taxes and city/state programs. The Mayor is asking for this, the Governor is asking for this and in the Legislature, at least Majority Leader Smith is on their side for this type of 'shared sacrifice.' With that, you would hope that the money the city and state does have, that they would spend and save it wisely. Unfortunately, the Authority in charge of Governor's Island development took a page out of Sarah Palin's book and lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

From PolitickerNY:

In 2007, the city-state agency charged with developing Governors Island, the 172-acre former Coast Guard base off of Lower Manhattan, bought a Martha’s Vineyard ferry for $500,000 to help open the island to visitors.

This morning, the vessel was sold by the agency on eBay. The winning bid: $23,600.

The auction closes a less-than-glorious chapter for the agency, the Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation, which is also facing major budget constraints (i.e. the state budget proposal doesn’t provide any money at all for GIPEC). When officials first bought the boat from the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, supporters of the island seemed rather pleased with the purchase, which would double its fleet size and allow for far more traffic (there's a smaller ferry that runs from Lower Manhattan to the island).

I understand that cars, boats, planes, trains, etc depreciate in value once used, but by that amount in less than two years is absolutely ridiculous. It just goes to show that while elected officials talk a good game about fiscal responsibility, their control over related agencies is practically non-existent. Now the winning bidder, r***7, has never purchased anything on eBay and no information is available. Well, lucky them and have fun with the boat sir or madam.

What really gets me though, is that the starting bid for this boat that cost the taxpayers $500,000 was a measly $10.00. Fiscal responsibility...the joke would be funny if it weren't such a sad state of affairs about how our government works.

Keep NY Moving Gears Up to Keep M.T.A. Fares Down

It's still cold and blustery outside, but the buds on the trees are getting ready to open, yearning for spring as the people that walk by them. What does that mean in this context you ask? Well, that's a clear sign it's time to battle over the budget and here in the city, that means the fight over where the fares will be in the coming year is on. The Authority has been threatening $103 dollar monthly cards unless they get state funding, so that additional money from the Governor and Legislature is crucial. Not only must the fight be taken to them, but to get the people who ride become aware, so that we can have even more strength when the decisions are made. That means there'll be ads and petition-gathering out in full force.

From Keep New York Moving:

Anyone who rides mass transit knows that we've got a crisis on our hands. Unless our leaders act now, we could soon face cuts to train and bus service and double-digit fare hikes. Even worse, there's no money for the vital transit rebuilding program, which makes it possible to buy new subway cars and buses, rehabilitate crumbling stations, and fix aging infrastructure, such as tracks and signals.

In these tough economic times, with millions of New Yorkers relying on affordable, reliable public transportation for their livelihoods, investing in transit is necessary for our economy, our environment and the future of New York.

TAKE ACTION! Sign the Keep New York Moving petition.

Click the link to do your part and spread the word to back up the ads you'll see on the subways soon.

Gov. Arnold To Gov. Jindal, Show Me Your Stimulus Money!

While on the show yesterday, Arnold was asked to Sanford's statement over taking stimulus money, but since he took his state's share, the request by California's Governor goes to his fellow Republican Executive in Louisiana, Gov. Jindal. Bobby Jindal denied his state approximately $90 billion in unemployment monies because he erroneously though that it would raise taxes. So, Gov. Jindal, hand that money over to California, they need the finances just as bad as you do. Oh and citizens of Lousiana, you know what to do with Jindal next time he's up for re-election (or if he goes after the party's ticket in 2012).

Praises For Quinn Start Showing Up As She Stands Up To Bloomberg

Adam Lisberg of the NY Daily News was singing praises for Speaker Quinn this weekend after watching her stand up to the Mayor over the last couple of months. Indeed, Quinn has been on the more progressive side of issues while the Mayor sits comfortably where he is on the Upper East Side (my apologies to Upper East Siders who disagree with the Mayor). It really is almost as if she has changed from the willing ally back when she passed the term limits extension through in October.

From The NY Daily News:

Now that she's not running for Mayor Bloomberg's job, Christine Quinn has turned into his best opponent.

The City Council speaker stood up last week to back a detailed plan for a half-millionaire's tax that she said would help the poorest New Yorkers - while conspicuously spurning Bloomberg's plan to raise the sales tax on everyone.

A week earlier, Quinn used her State of the City speech to push high-tech government initiatives that should have been thought of by the guy who set up 311 - like creating one online application for all new city businesses, merging back office operations and selling .nyc as an Internet address.

That came a day after she led the Council in overriding Bloomberg's veto of a bill easing residency requirements on DC37 members. They differed only on technical points, granted, but a veto is a veto.

And it was the Friday before Christmas that the Bloomberg administration caved in to Quinn's push to junk a $117 million plan to revamp the city's senior centers.

All great things I agree, as Lisberg dutifully notes them down in the article. He then lauds her style for not talking up these issues in her State of the City address because, "That's not her style." Meh. Mr. Lisberg you have got to be kidding me here. Look, it is great that she's acting like the progressive that she once was, or still is deep down inside.

The issue for her critics though, such as I and those in the Council that opposed her bid to screw the voters and extend term limits so that she and the Mayor could run again is simply unforgivable. This isn't a single-issue, anti-Quinn campaign though, it is a matter of credibility and seeing those that have it. Disrespecting the voters who instituted term limits twice goes to the very heart of having good leadership in the city. Bloomberg, by the way he went about that extension (such as waiting for enough time to pass so that he could claim there wasn't enough time to send the question to the voters again) shows that he simply wanted to hold onto his power. Quinn could have stood up to him then, but she didn't and neither did the 28 other CMs that she helped vote the way of the Mayor and their own self-interest (especially those who were in their second terms).

As to the question of having a powerful Mayor with a worthy opponent, why doesn't those in the media such as Mr. Lisberg wonder about respecting New Yorkers and letting them have a Mayor and Council that actually reflect their views and opinions, and not just the billionaires who lust for power and their "deputies" that wish to have the same some day.