REASON #4,307 TO HATE BLOOMBERG
He's in Connecticut today, campaigning with Joe Lieberman.
posted by Mike at 1:53 PM
Monday, October 30, 2006
About Me
- Name: Mike
- Location: Astoria, NY, United States
I'm a lawyer in my early 40s, and after looking for a way to do something other than the practice of law, I'm resigned to the fact that I can't earn bupkis doing anything else. I like lots of things, and I like to talk about them incessantly.
Previous Posts
- WELL, THAT'S A HELLUVA COINCIDENCE
- RANDOM FLICKR BLOGGING # 0336
- I AM THE DISSEMBLER AND I DISSEMBLE BEST
- SCOTT IN CHARGE
- WHO COULD ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE?
- 1848 REVISITED?
- BRAVE NEW GIRL . . . OR BOY
- GO NED
- A FORTNIGHT TO REMEMBER
- HUNGARY FOR FREEDOM
8 Comments:
What's to hate about Bloomy? Other than banning smoking in bars, banning trans-fats, not smacking around Pataki over Ground Zero, and favoring the Yanks in stadium deals, he's done OK.
I want my fries in the best stuff that makes them tasty. I know that they are bad for me Bloomy. But I already have a wife telling me what and what not to eat, I don't need the gov doing the same. What's next, making restaurants post calorie information.
Oops, spoke to soon...
In any event, he's a darn sight better than any dem that could have been in office. Mark Green? Please. At least he's not Rudy.
The dems need to find a younger person to groom for the mayor's office. All these people that have been around have too much baggage. Need some new blood.
Either that, or draft Bubba next time around. Assuming he ain't living in DC with Hillary.
Those are a few of the reasons.
Overall, I can't stand his imperiousness, as with the way he just decided, no one smokes in this city.
Remember how he declared, last July, that all bags on subways were subject to random search. I alos don't see my increased city taxes accomplishing anything. More taxes, and fewer firehouses, bond floats and tax breaks for the Yanks/Mets, his efforts to ram through the Westside stadium deal, along with the Olympics bid.
He's just doing what Rudy did, which is making the city friendly for tourists and hooking up high-level real estate developers, etc. But instead of a snarl, he condescends and preaches.
Screw em both.
There was an article in Vanity Fair written by Christopher Hitchens back in 2004 in which he spent the day violating all of Bloomie's new rules. Besides smoking, Hitchens took up two seats on an empty subway train, sat on a milk crate, and loitered in a stair well. Hitchens becried the loss of NYC's libertarian spirit at the hands of Bloomie. Whatever you think of Hitchens' politics, I think he's right on this one.
Okay, as a non-resident, I've got to ask: what's so bad about making the place tourist friendly? I love visiting NYC (especially since I get reimbursed for everything, though I could do without that annoying dinner I'm forced to attend in return).
And frankly, I'm glad NYC banned smoking in bars, that way, when bars in Houston complain about how they'll lose business if smoking's banned, I can always say that if New York bars can do it and survive, then Houston bars can do it and survive.
Of course, I'm not defending Bloomberg. If I remember reading something correctly, wasn't he a Dem who switched to Rep because he wouldn't be able to win the primary? That's enough to condemn the man there.
what's so bad about making the place tourist friendly?
I live here. I'm not interested in making it tourist-friendly. I wanna make it resident-friendly.
frankly, I'm glad NYC banned smoking in bars
I'm frankly gald there's no more smoking in bars. But I hate seeing one man tell thousands of business owners how to run their own businesses.
I'm frankly gald there's no more smoking in bars. But I hate seeing one man tell thousands of business owners how to run their own businesses.
That's the point. I understand the rationale (though the 2nd hand smoke as a killer thing has it's detractors), but its the way it was done that irks people. It would have been better to have the old "smoking rooms" with separate ventalation, or the restaraunt could go all smoke or no smoke, their choice. If people wated to go to a place, and it was all smoke, too bad.
It kind of shows his liberal leanings in a way. The old "nanny state" theory, govt taking care of you, as opposed to the Republican, less gov't is better.
Republican, less gov't is better
I read about that once. Ever happened?
Both parties are big, friggin nannies. Just strict about different things.
Goldwater Republicans were all about less gov't is better. It was their nod to Libertarians. When Libertarians give up trying to run for Congress as Libertarians, they join the Republican party (as Ron Paul did).
Add me to the list of people who thinks that the government telling bars whether or not they can have smoking is a bad thing. As much as I enjoy smoke free bars, the owners of the bars, not the government, should be making that decision. If someone wants to open up a smoke free bar then the marketplace will decide whether or not it's a good idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home