Monday, August 03, 2020
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

LPR Reflections
on Various Public Policy Matters

December 1, 2013 --

Previously, The New York Times Had a Different Approach to Immigration

The New York Times, today calling for mass immigration, had a different view, June 14, 1939. In its third editorial on The St. Louis Affair (the Hamburg-American liner carrying more than 800 Jewish refugees from the Nazis, turned away from Cuba and barred from the United States) the Times explained that the days of mass migration to the United States had ended.

All the Hypocrisy That's Fit to Print

The New York Times, in its lead editorial November 22, cheered the Senate vote to end a supermajority requirement on presidential appoinments to the executive branch and lower federal courts. The editorial noted that the rules change calling for a simple majority on the presidential appointments "substantially altered the balance of power in Washington." The editorial was titled "Democracy Returns to the Senate." LPR does not recall demands from the Times for a simple majority vote on presidential appointments by President George W. Bush, appointments that were defeated because these appointments failed of attaining the 60 vote supermajority.

It's not Alinsky, it's Lenin

The Wall Street Journal editorialized, November 22, that the Senate rules change on presidential appointments was "prodded" by Democrats who were "younger liberals" and influenced by the Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky who polarized public policy by demonizing those he regarded as his opposition. First, there is nothing "liberal": about Senate leftists, whatever their age. Second. Alinsky, himself, followed the path established by Samuel Adams against the British ("Put your adversary in the wrong and keep him there.") in the 1770's and Lenin's polarizing policies in gaining power after the Russian czar was overthrown. (LPR believes that the vicious, vile comments directed by MSNBC's Martin Bashir toward Sarah Palin come out of the Lenin playbook.) The Wall Street Journal sees a "silver lining" for conservatives when they regain a Senate majority -- that they, too, will enjoy confirmation of Senate appointments by simple majority. Is The Wall Street Journal confident that Republicans will ever regain a Senate majority?

Besides, Senate Democrats had no problem switching from defense of supermajority approval of appointments made by President Bush to the rules change demand for approval by simple majority for appointments made by President Obama. Republican response to this unprincipled change has been tepid, at best -- but then, Republicans no longer consider themselves an opposition party. As they have been transformed into the "Go Along Party," GOP have morphed into GAP. Republican remain unaware, apparently, that the guiding principle of the left is: damn procedural fairness and consistency; full partisanship ahead.

Pity Michael R. Bloomberg

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has just one month left of his tenure as New York City czar. LPR pities Mr. Bloomberg because he has shown himself to be far too wealthy to have a clue to the problems of the struggling class. LPR was reminded of the mayor's shortcoming in having no idea as to the true value of money in New York City on getting another parking ticket (LPR's first since last February) for tarrying a few months in a bus stop while getting hot chocolate at a Dunkin Donuts shop on Lexiington Avenue. Cost of this tarrying -- $115, which is about ten percent of this writer's monthly Social Security income. The $115 fine for this offense was set by Mr. Bloomberg soon after he was elected mayor. Back then he was believed to be a billionaire times 7. Today, after 12 years in office he is a billionaire times well more than 20. What is $115 to Mr. Bloomberg -- a fraction of a penny? LPR does not expect that the parking fines will be made more humane by Mr. Bloomberg's successor. How refreshing it would be to have Mr. Bloomberg establish a foundation to change the rules he imposed on New Yorkers while he was in charge -- call it the Unnanny Foundation?