I appreciate your trying to reason with the troop of howling monkeys as they tear you to pieces. It's admirable if hopeless. Perhaps the hopelessness is what makes it all the more admirable.
Just checking out your site here. I'm impressed. I don't think I share your political opinions but I do share your interest in psychology.
I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but I have to say it. It wasn't clear, but I got the idea that you are transsexual. Is that correct?
Anyway, like I say, I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but you're a knockout! Seriously. I just love women in every way and if chose to be one and weren't born one, then, good for you!
This is not any kind of irony or even "irony."
You were nice enough to respond to all the BS over at Culture11 (I just wrote a response and then decided to check out your web site). Then I thought, Wow! I'm glad I wrote such a measured and thoughtful response to you because if I hadn't, I'd be really ashamed of myself by now after seeing this.
Why not drop me an email? roquenuevo@mac.com
I live maybe three thousand miles away from you, have no money for travel, I'm in a great relationship right now. I just think you're great, is all.
I am not a transsexual lady, merely a lady with an ironic sense of humor. It amuses me to interpose flights of polysyllabic rhetoric with over-the-top, airheaded feminine exclamations; it is my own private joke. There are a few quirky people out there who enjoy this, and many others who find it horrendously annoying.
I am also in a very stable relationship, and five months pregnant. More proof that my gender is original and biological.
Oh, admit it: The womb was transplanted during your sex change operation. You're as surprised as anyone it still works since it came from an 85-year-old itinerant painter named Molly.
Ordinarily, the idiot angst exhibited by the electorate would be far more frightening than their fevered imaginings of the immanent utopias/dystopias that await the nation should their candidate win/lose.
Everyone seems to have morphed into either some perpetually swooning Southern Belle suffering the vapors at the least little suggestion, or, some rabid junkyard dog that’ll attack something, anything, everything.
Yet, I come across this… : “New York City Council voted, 29 to 22, on Thursday afternoon to extend term limits, allowing Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year and UNDOING THE RESULT OF TWO VOTER REFERENDUMS that had imposed a limit of two four-year terms.” (Caps are mine)
… and I think to myself, maybe they’re on to something. Maybe I’m the idiot!
The Mayor Bloomberg thing really has me confused. I'm not a New York resident any more so in a sense it doesn't matter to me; but I do live close to the city, so of course anything that goes on there affects me somewhat. And since I grew up in New York, I follow what happens there. And this thing has me bamboozled. On the one hand, I like Bloomberg in a lot of ways and I like a lot of what he's done for the city. (Although I admit to not being an expert or anything.) I disagree with the idea of term limits in this case; they were enacted after Ed Koch was mayor for, like, ever, and his opponents decided to make sure nothing like that ever happened again (kind of what happened with FDR). I thought Koch was okay (I was really young). I can see the arguments both for and against term limits.
So I'm happy that Bloomberg got around them in a way. But I have to admit this seems kind of like a naked power grab. Knowing Bloomberg, it's probably more like, he just wanted to keep on being mayor, and saw this was the way to do it. Because he's practical like that, and also not very political. But it still seems kind of the wrong way to go about it.
In a sense he's saying to the voters of New York, "I know what's best for you, so shut up and take your medicine." Knowing many voters in New York, I can't disagree -- a lot of New Yorkers are stupid as all hell. But letting stupid people vote is part of our democracy, as it should be.
So I'm all thrown off by this. I don't know what to think.
I know very little of what was behind the vote but it seems the reasoning was the "financial emergency" required a stable, uninterrupted leadership. If either of you know or suspect other reasons, enlighten me. If that was indeed the reason, then why bother with the coming election at all. Bloomberg is mayor for another four years or until the emergency ceases to be one, whichever comes first. There is always the problem of other emergencies emerging but then New Yorkers can all go about their daily lives with their fingers crossed and a prayer on their lips.
Chris, a lot of New Yorkers may be stupid as hell but I suspect the percentage of stupid is about the same in the NYC council.
This vote is far more ominous to me than, it seems, to most New Yorkers. Is there ANY uproar over this in NYC? Annoyance?
Referenda are ideal for something like term limits as politicians are not likely to vote a limit on themselves. NYC voters twice vote for limits and the effected, the politicians, overturn the results. I am dumbfounded!
Certainly New Yorkers are no stupider than anyone else, and the Council members are about the same.
The financial emergency may have been the excuse. It may even sincerely be Bloomberg's reason. It's hard to tell.
Of course there's an uproar in the city over this. A lot of people are upset about it. They're saying it subverts the democratic process and so forth. The problem is you always see, on the news around here, someone standing up at a political meeting and yelling about something. So this is just more of the same, really.
The impression I often get from Bloomberg is that he's a very capable, very straightforward kind of guy, who's saying, "Screw this, let's just get it right." Unfortunately, sometimes what he's saying "screw this" about is democracy. I think he probably believes in the ideal of the benevolent philosopher-king. He seems to me as if he'd make a pretty good one. But, of course, there's a reason why the Founding Fathers threw out the idea of monarchy.
George, you've got to understand something. A certain amount of corruption is an unavoidable way of life in NYC. It is so pervasive that a squeaky-clean politician who follows all the rules cannot do his job at all; he will get pulverized by the multitude of diverse lizards who make a good living by refilling the same pot hole 8 times, raising train fares while failing to improve service, pretending to inspect cranes, etc., etc.
Thus any successful NYC mayor has to be a bit of a lizard himself. Witness Giuliani. You recall that I was adamant that Giuliani not get the Presidential nomination?
Furthermore, a NYC mayor has more chance of getting things done if he's around for awhile. I hated Bloomberg five years ago, when the firehouse down the block was closed, the garbage wasn't getting picked up, and we were told not to recycle our glass.
Then, suddenly, we had a new 311 line to call the city for help and information, and it actually worked. Suddenly the glass was being recycled--actually recycled, instead of collected for a fee and dumped into landfill anyway. New protected bike lanes are beginning to appear. The closed firehouse was down the block from my ex-boyfriend, and he's an a**hole who deserves to have his house burn down. ;-)
Bloomberg has proven himself to be a good manager and a decent guy. It's true that we are in the middle of a financial crisis, and that he understands finance. Given the severity of all the other issues facing us, I guess New Yorkers aren't all that bothered by the question of term limits. Perhaps that's horrifying, but life in NYC tends to grind you down, to the point where unadorned pragmatism starts looking really sane.
I understand big city corruption. I live in Chicago. Here, corruption is synonymous with practicality and considered THE cardinal virtue (not the painting).
Darlings, where to start? Sometimes I feel as though I have lived a thousand lives in this one, dewy and unlined though my complexion may be. To Tell All may be to intimidate; thus I maintain, at most times, a discreet reserve. But here I share my musings, perhaps revealing the secret to my exquisite poise and charm.
13 comments:
I appreciate your trying to reason with the troop of howling monkeys as they tear you to pieces. It's admirable if hopeless. Perhaps the hopelessness is what makes it all the more admirable.
Hey there Pretty Lady!
Just checking out your site here. I'm impressed. I don't think I share your political opinions but I do share your interest in psychology.
I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but I have to say it. It wasn't clear, but I got the idea that you are transsexual. Is that correct?
Anyway, like I say, I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but you're a knockout! Seriously. I just love women in every way and if chose to be one and weren't born one, then, good for you!
This is not any kind of irony or even "irony."
You were nice enough to respond to all the BS over at Culture11 (I just wrote a response and then decided to check out your web site). Then I thought, Wow! I'm glad I wrote such a measured and thoughtful response to you because if I hadn't, I'd be really ashamed of myself by now after seeing this.
Why not drop me an email? roquenuevo@mac.com
I live maybe three thousand miles away from you, have no money for travel, I'm in a great relationship right now. I just think you're great, is all.
Thank you, Roque, for your graciousness.
I am not a transsexual lady, merely a lady with an ironic sense of humor. It amuses me to interpose flights of polysyllabic rhetoric with over-the-top, airheaded feminine exclamations; it is my own private joke. There are a few quirky people out there who enjoy this, and many others who find it horrendously annoying.
I am also in a very stable relationship, and five months pregnant. More proof that my gender is original and biological.
Cheerio!
Oh, admit it: The womb was transplanted during your sex change operation. You're as surprised as anyone it still works since it came from an 85-year-old itinerant painter named Molly.
Pretty Lady
Ordinarily, the idiot angst exhibited by the electorate would be far more frightening than their fevered imaginings of the immanent utopias/dystopias that await the nation should their candidate win/lose.
Everyone seems to have morphed into either some perpetually swooning Southern Belle suffering the vapors at the least little suggestion, or, some rabid junkyard dog that’ll attack something, anything, everything.
Yet, I come across this… :
“New York City Council voted, 29 to 22, on Thursday afternoon to extend term limits, allowing Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year and UNDOING THE RESULT OF TWO VOTER REFERENDUMS that had imposed a limit of two four-year terms.”
(Caps are mine)
… and I think to myself, maybe they’re on to something. Maybe I’m the idiot!
Well, we can always refuse to re-elect him, can't we?
The Mayor Bloomberg thing really has me confused. I'm not a New York resident any more so in a sense it doesn't matter to me; but I do live close to the city, so of course anything that goes on there affects me somewhat. And since I grew up in New York, I follow what happens there. And this thing has me bamboozled. On the one hand, I like Bloomberg in a lot of ways and I like a lot of what he's done for the city. (Although I admit to not being an expert or anything.) I disagree with the idea of term limits in this case; they were enacted after Ed Koch was mayor for, like, ever, and his opponents decided to make sure nothing like that ever happened again (kind of what happened with FDR). I thought Koch was okay (I was really young). I can see the arguments both for and against term limits.
So I'm happy that Bloomberg got around them in a way. But I have to admit this seems kind of like a naked power grab. Knowing Bloomberg, it's probably more like, he just wanted to keep on being mayor, and saw this was the way to do it. Because he's practical like that, and also not very political. But it still seems kind of the wrong way to go about it.
In a sense he's saying to the voters of New York, "I know what's best for you, so shut up and take your medicine." Knowing many voters in New York, I can't disagree -- a lot of New Yorkers are stupid as all hell. But letting stupid people vote is part of our democracy, as it should be.
So I'm all thrown off by this. I don't know what to think.
PL and Chris
I know very little of what was behind the vote but it seems the reasoning was the "financial emergency" required a stable, uninterrupted leadership. If either of you know or suspect other reasons, enlighten me. If that was indeed the reason, then why bother with the coming election at all. Bloomberg is mayor for another four years or until the emergency ceases to be one, whichever comes first. There is always the problem of other emergencies emerging but then New Yorkers can all go about their daily lives with their fingers crossed and a prayer on their lips.
Chris, a lot of New Yorkers may be stupid as hell but I suspect the percentage of stupid is about the same in the NYC council.
This vote is far more ominous to me than, it seems, to most New Yorkers. Is there ANY uproar over this in NYC? Annoyance?
Referenda are ideal for something like term limits as politicians are not likely to vote a limit on themselves. NYC voters twice vote for limits and the effected, the politicians, overturn the results. I am dumbfounded!
Certainly New Yorkers are no stupider than anyone else, and the Council members are about the same.
The financial emergency may have been the excuse. It may even sincerely be Bloomberg's reason. It's hard to tell.
Of course there's an uproar in the city over this. A lot of people are upset about it. They're saying it subverts the democratic process and so forth. The problem is you always see, on the news around here, someone standing up at a political meeting and yelling about something. So this is just more of the same, really.
The impression I often get from Bloomberg is that he's a very capable, very straightforward kind of guy, who's saying, "Screw this, let's just get it right." Unfortunately, sometimes what he's saying "screw this" about is democracy. I think he probably believes in the ideal of the benevolent philosopher-king. He seems to me as if he'd make a pretty good one. But, of course, there's a reason why the Founding Fathers threw out the idea of monarchy.
George, you've got to understand something. A certain amount of corruption is an unavoidable way of life in NYC. It is so pervasive that a squeaky-clean politician who follows all the rules cannot do his job at all; he will get pulverized by the multitude of diverse lizards who make a good living by refilling the same pot hole 8 times, raising train fares while failing to improve service, pretending to inspect cranes, etc., etc.
Thus any successful NYC mayor has to be a bit of a lizard himself. Witness Giuliani. You recall that I was adamant that Giuliani not get the Presidential nomination?
Furthermore, a NYC mayor has more chance of getting things done if he's around for awhile. I hated Bloomberg five years ago, when the firehouse down the block was closed, the garbage wasn't getting picked up, and we were told not to recycle our glass.
Then, suddenly, we had a new 311 line to call the city for help and information, and it actually worked. Suddenly the glass was being recycled--actually recycled, instead of collected for a fee and dumped into landfill anyway. New protected bike lanes are beginning to appear. The closed firehouse was down the block from my ex-boyfriend, and he's an a**hole who deserves to have his house burn down. ;-)
Bloomberg has proven himself to be a good manager and a decent guy. It's true that we are in the middle of a financial crisis, and that he understands finance. Given the severity of all the other issues facing us, I guess New Yorkers aren't all that bothered by the question of term limits. Perhaps that's horrifying, but life in NYC tends to grind you down, to the point where unadorned pragmatism starts looking really sane.
I understand big city corruption. I live in Chicago. Here, corruption is synonymous with practicality and considered THE cardinal virtue (not the painting).
I just saw a comedian say that Chicago was named by a guy who couldn't get his girlfriend to move out. He kept saying, "Chica, go! Chica, go already!"
More 'Conservatives' For Obama!!
Post a Comment