Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Chasing a Fantasy



I silently fume at the ESPN stat line for Mario Chalmers. The young Miami Heat point guard has just dropped a total dud of a game: 5 points and 1 assist. The one assist roiled me, because going into the final game of the week I was behind by only two assists against my fantasy basketball opponent. At the very moment I had counted on him, Chalmers had choked and cost me a category. That was the final straw- after weeks of watching Chalmers play poorly or disappear during crunch time, I dropped him from my fantasy basketball team, the Roving Storm.

In these dark and desperate times, few things bring me greater joy than managing the Roving Storm in the online fantasy league, When The Garden Was Dead, where I double as commissioner, competing against eleven friends in a 20-week season. The league’s name refers to the moribund Madison Square Garden crowd, which has had to endure the worst run in Knicks history at the same time it has had to weather the Bush presidency, two wars and an economic collapse. Yes, it’s been a tough decade. In the world of fantasy basketball, however, those problems melt away, replaced by the headaches that come with running a basketball team.

It starts with underperforming players. I curse loudly as I watch Baron Davis shoot 1 for 14, again. The bastard just doesn’t know when to stop! Of course, if he doesn’t respond to his real-life coach, he’s not going to respond to his fake coach yelling at the TV screen. But I can dream.

I make trades to bring balance to the team, including one controversial swap (Ben Wallace for Paul Pierce) that leads to a massive email war over the definition of collusion. I ultimately rework the trade (Marcus Camby for Paul Pierce), placating the more hostile opponents of the trade, who had been rallying other team owners to veto it. I feel like Barack Obama, ending with a lesser deal than I would have liked, but so winning the votes required for passage. My sympathy for the Senate healthcare plan momentarily increases.

Making trades is hard. My opponents are not stupid- no one wants a washed up, injured Tracy McGrady, his impressive career be damned. I am forced to drop McGrady for nothing. Knicks General Manager Donnie Walsh has no such option in dumping his worthless hacks, who are under multiyear contracts.

Sundays, the Lord’s day of rest, are particularly anxious. In fantasy basketball leagues people field their thirteen-player teams against opponents for one week, Monday through Sunday. The teams are matched up according to eight categories: points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, three pointers made, field goal percentage and free throw percentage. Each of these categories can be won or lost in a given week, and these results are compiled over the long season. Most teams are evenly matched in at least some of these categories, and until the final NBA game ends Sunday night, the results for the whole week hang in balance.

Fantasy basketball fundamentally changes the way a fan watches NBA basketball. Other than the Knicks, I now rarely root for any team to beat another, far more concerned with the individual players on the court. Hardly any NBA game being played at a given moment does not involve either one of my fantasy players or one of my opponent’s. This makes rooting during games a truly absurd exercise. When Kevin Love is guarding Carl Landry (both are my players), I root for Carl Landry to score, or, in the alternative, for Kevin Love to block the shot or get the rebound off Landry’s miss. During one very close game between the Bobcats and the Knicks, I was schizophrenically rooting for the Knicks to win, but for the Bobcats’ guard Ray Felton to score as many points as possible in the process.

I worry sometime that all NBA players are becoming a series of statistics, the way insurance companies think of patients or military commanders deploy soldiers. One of the keys to fantasy success is the ability to remove conceptions you may have of a player (“he’s clutch under pressure,” “he’s a good defender,” “he’s an all-star”) with more perfunctory questions: “what is his field goal percentage?” “How many blocks a game does he get?” “How has he played in the last thirty days?”

ESPN pits the four best fantasy teams in each league against each other for four weeks of playoffs, which in turn end with the conclusion of the NBA regular season. That is good. Whether or not I win the “Living The Dream Cup,” I’ll be able to kick back and watch the NBA playoffs like a normal fan, appreciating the beauty of the game, without stat lines racing through my head.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

The Fear Behind The Fear



Would Jack Kerouac kick back and hammer out his poems in smooth jazz café? Maybe, if it had wireless internet. My current dig has everything you want- great coffee, reliable wireless, plenty of seating, and a happy little collection of local Brooklyn newspapers that old men ingest while they sip tea and watch the first snow of the year fly by their windows.

There are a lot of things that you used to make me afraid of getting old. Doesn’t it make ya wince when you watch an old flick and think, "Man, he used to look like that? And now he looks like this?" It’s bad enough to watch relatives age, but seeing it happen to impregnable famous athletes and movie stars is more sudden dispiriting. Yes, yes, looks are superficial and all that, but what about brains? Until I saw Guido Calabrese majestically and literally hold court in the Second Circuit, I was having trouble wrapping my head around the older and wiser concept. Then you’ve got health issues, oh man, the health issues. It’s pretty easy to picture that part of the journey. Long gone are the days when I would knock myself unconscious diving into a brick wall playing Chinese handball. Recently I pulled a muscle while I was sleeping. Tough times indeed. Nobody ever is what he used to be. But now there’s a new cause for agingaphobia, and it has to with Sergei Brin, Steve Jobs and all the other techno mad men.

Watching a sexagenarian open an attachment is painfully unfair. They worked all their lives to get this far, and now they can’t even open the modern envelope. I gasp- that could be me one day. After all, I declared boldly in 1998 that email would never take off. I was the last guy to get a cell phone, preferring to memorize numbers in my head or scrawl them on my hand as I marched into the night with quarters in my back pocket. I didn’t send a text message till 2006, and learned how to upload pictures what seems like yesterday.

As we get older and stop making sense, our children and grandchildren will play with toys that seem like magic, and young associates will roll their eyes every time we say, “the what?” or “how/where?” Every step you fall behind now is two you’ll have to make up later. Lyndon Johnson knew this- that’s why the Great Society begat Head Start. Every runner knows this- that’s why you’ve gotta work the hills. The internet is no information highway, my friends, it’s a raging river, and all boats are sinkable. My new year’s resolution is to keep my head above water, fear of technology trumped by fear of falling too far behind to enjoy the future milk and honey years

.

Tiger and Me

“Sometimes I wish I was Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods. Sometimes I wish I was Tiger Woods.”

- Dan Bern, “Tiger Woods”

Sports fans don’t care about athletes’ personal lives. Especially golf players’ personal lives.

Recently, people have been questioning why it took so long for the public (or for that matter, his wife) so long to find out about Tiger Woods’ string of extramarital affairs, even though it was common knowledge on the PGA Tour.

Some have even accused the reticent sports reporters of perpetuating male chauvinism by not considering it news.

In contrast, sports reporters are far more respectable than their political peers, who love pursuing gossip rather than put in the hard time learning about policy and how it affects our country.

Sports reporters operate under two assumptions:

1) Sports fans care more about how an athlete performs than his personal life;

2) An athlete’s personal life rarely, if ever, has a bearing on how he performs.

Believe it or not, sports columnists are evaluated by their readers on the strength of the breaking news and sports analysis they bring to their columns, and only the sharpest writers, like Bill Simmons or the late Hunter S. Thompson, are permitted to deviate into side tangents.

If a sports reporter’s livelihood depends on earning the trust of the players and the franchises he is covering, it is of little interest to that reporter to get 15 minutes of fame (or less) talking about an affair, a drug problem, or a gambling addiction.

These “‘Former Player X’ Hits Rock Bottom” stories usually only surface when an athlete is no longer of use to the reporter for sports-related journalism.

Political reporting used to operate in this way too. It was presumed that serious newspapers had a serious readership.

Reports appropriately calculated that rather than break a story of Marilyn Monroe leaving the White House at three in the morning, they’d rather stay in the good graces of the Kennedy administration long enough to properly cover the Cuban Missile Crisis.

President Clinton’s affairs were the perfect storm- a charismatic leader facing his Achilles heel (adultery), an ideal nemesis in the hysterically hypocritical Republican leadership, and the carefree emptiness of the go-go late 90s.

Soon after, newspaper sales started to sink, and editors realized covering a sex scandal was a lot easier than covering climate change or the Stupak amendment, and less controversial than covering gay marriage or the Stupak amendment.

Playing to the lowest common denominator is fun and easy in America. Look at Huffington Post, which has become a gossip magazine with occasional political analysis. It’s how you bring in the bucks.

Sports, incidentally, will never face this problem, because there will always be a market of (mostly) men willing to pay money for good sports analysis.

I just dropped $26 to buy Bill Simmons’ Book of Basketball, even though I can read his articles for free online and I already know a lot about basketball.

Except for hipsters, guys can kick back with friends or strangers, drinking beer and talking sports. And sports fans know A LOT about sports.

Guys who are complete idiots in life- nearly failed out of school, can’t hold a job- they will know the history of a sport.

They will successfully debate you on the fine points of whether a certain shot-blocker is actually a good defender or whether it is possible to compare baseball players from different eras.

It can break your heart to think about what a better country we would live in if sports fans knew a third as much about American history, civics and public policy as they do about sports.

As for Tiger Woods, this is what sports fans know about Tiger Woods.

When he was a teenager, golf reporters were hyping him as potentially the coming savior of golf- the greatest of all time.

Few people under the age of 40 like watching golf, but we were in the halo of the Michael Jordan era at that point, and watching “the greatest” in any sport was a worth a look.

And Tiger Woods delivered.

In a sport that’s incredibly hard to “dominate” in the same fashion as other solo sports like tennis or boxing, Woods in his prime cowered his opponents before demolishing them.

At the 1997 Masters, the 21 year old tied or broke 26 records en route to winning the prestigious event by more shots than any player in history.

From 2000-2001 he became the first modern golfer ever to hold the Tour’s four major championships at the same time (the “Tiger Slam”).

In 2008 he won the U.S Open with a torn ACL, clearly playing with agonizing pain as he labored to a one-shot win. Friends and I watching that called it perhaps the most impressive performance in the history of sports.

I’ve never been remotely interested in Woods’ personal life. He has always struck me as unflinchingly boring, which I had just chalked up to him being a golfer.

It wasn’t until I heard about the four and fifth cuckolder of this unending saga that I started reading about it.

Honestly, it is a fascinating scandal. He seems to have a taste for cocktail waitresses and porn stars.

Rather than a ‘mea culpa’ fling, he seems to be a serial cheater, before and after his marriage to a gorgeous Swedish supermodel. “What hope is there for the rest of us?” one of my female friends sighed.

When I read about him doing it in the back of his car with a pancake house waitress, it occurred to me that maybe something was up.

Maybe the lifelong prodigy, always under the tight supervision of his loving dad Earl (who passed away in 2006), playing in top ranked tournaments since he was nine years old, missed out on a regular youth.

Maybe he was never able to party in clubs and hook up with girls in the back of his car when he was in high school or college (Stanford alums, feel free to comment).

Maybe this is like Michael Jackson’s rebellion at a repressive youth, only instead of taking advantage of little boys, he’s taking advantage of adult women.

His wife has left him, just as Michael Jordan’s wife left him.

Next year he will win the Masters, and in a few years he will pass Jack Nicklaus for the most all-time major championships.

It will be taboo to bring this whole debacle up, kind of like how no one in sports talks about Kobe Bryant’s alleged rape charge anymore.

So there it is. That’s about as much thought as I will put into the Tiger Woods scandal. Back to taking care of my fantasy basketball team.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Reform the Democratic Party- ban conflict of interest donations for Committee Chairs

are this on Twitter - Reform the party- ban conflict of interest donations for Committee ChairsTweet this submit to reddit

Corporate money corrupts politicians, and and corporate money follows them up the ladders of power. That’s why the Max Baucus is controlled by the health "insurance" companies, why energy lobbyists control climate change reform, and why Wall Street always get its way. I have a modest proposal for a reform that is both practical and difficult to assail: prevent Democratic committee chairs from receiving campaign contributions from the industries they have jurisdiction over.

THE PROBLEM

In life it is sometimes difficult to separate cause and effect, but in Congress it is pretty easy. Once a person is on a committee, he or she immediately becomes shark bait for the corporate interests regulated by legislation coming out of that committee. So the donations roll in.

 title=

The most notorious example of money for hire is Montana's own Max Baucus, who took in $1.17 million from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle.
Blanche Lincoln has already taken in $353k from the healthcare lobby this cycle.
Money from the defense industry flows in for Rep. Ike Skelton.
The financial sector is already throwing big money at three Democratic challengers, Ginnoulias (IL), White (TX) and Fisher (IL), ensuring another wave of corporate Democrats.
John Dingell, the House Chair of the Energy Committee until Waxman iced him this year, took in $493k last election cycle despite cruising to re-election.
And agribusiness, sweet Jesus, they just throw a lot of weight around.

Advantage, corporate fatcats.
 title=
*Anyone clicking on these links will recognize that I am a huge fan of Open Secrets- those folks deserve a tremendous amount of credit for creating such a vast, user-friendly database.

THE SOLUTION

The answer is easy, we should just have publicly financed elections. Election seasons will be six weeks long, we'll vote on Saturdays, corporate influence will be curtailed, and.....
Wait, what? Sorry, I must have dozed off. If we are talking about solutions for right now, fall of 2009, we need a reform that will meet at least two criteria:

  1. The reform cannot be unconstitutional. That is problematic, since right now we have the most conservative, pro-corporate judiciary since the 1920s, at least. Fortunately, parties are allowed to govern their own affairs. If this reform is a rule promulgated by the Democratic party, their members can be made to follow it.
  1. The reform cannot paralyze Democratic fundraising. Ideally, no Democrat would take money from corporate interests. Unfortunately, the wee little people on this site and elsewhere do not make up strong enough warchests...yet.

Using these two criteria, banning committee chairmen from receiving funds from the corporations their committees oversee is a good first step. We learned from BaucusCare that committee chairmen still have a lot of power, decades after James Eastlandhung his hateful hat up. Making them take an objective stake in these issues will help usher progressive issues through tremendously. The rule would be in effect for as long as they remained chairs of their committees. The rule could apply to subcommittees as well.

THE OBSTACLES

There are, of course people who would not be down with this. And I use the term "people" loosely, as I am referring to members of Congress. You might here this kind of pushback:

Lame Response #1: Committee chairs run for re-election too! They need those funds.
Rebuttal: No they don't. If they need untold millions, there are other places to find it. Jeff Bingaman , chair of the Senate Energy Committee, got twice as muchfrom lawyers (450k) as the energy industry (220k) last time he ran. So he wouldn’t exactly starve to death without the company of his ConEd and Exxon friends. And if the chairs are really in a pinch, grassroots volunteers and institutions like organized labor and the DNC will fight for them. If they are good Democrats, of course.

Lame Response #2: The money's not for me! It's so I can dole it out to helpless little freshmen members running for re-election in swing districts. I rake in the money for them.
Rebuttal: One friend on the Hill told me that junior members of Congress live in fear of crossing Charles Rangel, who in 2008, donated or channeled money to 156 of them. That's why his ethics investigations will never cost him his seat. It's true that big dogs like Rangel, Frank, and others do channel money to their members. But presumably the corporations are still waiting with those paychecks, and they have to go somewhere. (I finished this diary before the frontpage post on Rangel, and for the record I completely agree with that post).

Lame Response #3: But I get money from the good guys who happen to be under my jurisdiction. If I chair education, are you gonna stop the Teachers Union from giving me money?
Rebuttal: Sorry bro, if they are a "good group", they can spend the money helping other members good on their issues. If you're as good as you say you are, your coffers will fill up, just without the conflicts of interest.

Lame Response #4: I mean, dude, how do you even define "my jurisdiction." If I chair the Judiciary Committee can I take money from a law librarian?
Rebuttal: Now you're just grasping. This is a Democratic Party rule, not the law, so it will only work if people follow it in spirit. It's not like how you spend the rest of your day, nervously skirting around the precipice. If you flagrantly break this rule, you will be stripped. If you accidentally take a contribution from an otherwise legal source, whatever.

IN CONCLUSION
Let's discuss this idea, and other ways to clean up the party. We may not have a lot of heroes in Congress, but as they say...
 title=

We do have some good people, like Henry Waxman, who as a major committee chair, could set a good example.
So let's throw out some ideas. Let's get some party reform going now. We don't have to wait for an election. Hell, it just might even look nice to voters heading into 2010.

The alternative is to throw our hands up in despair about our corporate masters. But if you're gonna do that, at least do it George Carlin style.

Friday, September 11, 2009

New York City Democratic Primary Endorsements: September 15th Primary

This has been a painful year to watch in New York politics. Between the Kennedy/Gillibrand appointment fiasco, the travesties at the New York State Senate, and the barrage of scandals at the City Council, this year has done much to discredit New York public officials at all levels. Fortunately, the 2009 elections will allow some new blood to move into office. These people might shake things up, and begin repairing the train wreck that is New York governance. Having canvassed a number of neighborhoods, watched debates, and spoken to a number of people inside and outside the following races, I am prepared to endorse a set of candidates for the September 15th Democratic Primary.

Not everyone who reads this is a registered Democratic voter in New York, but please pass this on to friends, family, neighbors and roommates who are. Local elections are hard to pay attention to- the issues may seem provincial, the differences between candidates less than seismic, and media coverage scant. However, I make these endorsements with the confidence of having measured the people and their districts in person. I am only one person, but unlike unions, newspapers and other interest groups, you can be rest assured that these decisions were made on one basis- who is the progressive who can best represent his or her constituency. Any affiliation I have with any of these candidates began only after properly sizing up the field, and if I have respect for one of their opponents, I will so indicate.

I have listed the neighborhoods corresponding to each district.
The races are listed in order of importance to me. I am not addressing the Democratic Mayoral Primary, as Bill Thompson will win easily. More on the general election between him and Mayor Bloomberg to come at a later date.

Norman Siegel- New York City Public Advocate: All registered New York Democrats can vote in this election.
This is the race I am most passionate about this cycle. The Public Advocate position, created sixteen years ago, seems almost tailored to Norman Siegel, who has spent his career fighting for civil rights and free speech. You read his bio here:
http://normansiegel.com/bio . This is the only political office Siegel has ever run for, and would ever run for. The Public Advocate is a watchdog office, designed to serve as a bulwark against corruption and shortcomings by the Mayor and City Council. Events of the last eight years, like the corrupt Yankee Stadium deal or City Council slush fund, underscore the need for a strong and effective fighter in this position.
Siegel’s opponents, former Public Advocate Mark Green, Councilperson Bill DeBlasio and Councilperson Eric Gioia, all have strong resumes as reformers. However, each also nakedly betrays their ambitions for higher office. Green has lost almost every race conceivable in New York politics, and should he win this race, will be running for Mayor in four years. DeBlasio was running for Brooklyn Borough President before switching to a race without an incumbent. Now, there is nothing wrong with ambition in politics. But the Public Advocate should be someone who is ready to stand up to the Mayor or City Council when the cause is right, not just politically popular. Incumbent Betsy Gotbaum tried to focus on children’s hunger, which is great, but politically easy.
We need a public advocate who is not afraid to go after corrupt politicians and local party bosses, regardless of political affiliation, ideology, or popularity. We need a public advocate who will fight for the rights of the homeless, stand up to police brutality when it occurs, and investigate conditions at Rikers Island. We need a public advocate who will stand up for poor and disempowered people, even if they won’t deliver votes for him during the next election cycle. Siegel’s opponents are on the right side of most issues, but when the going gets politically unpopular, they will choose their careers first, and the people second. Norman will never have any trouble making that choice. That is why I support him for Public Advocate.

Swaranjit Singh
- City Council
Queens (23rd Council District): Hollis Hills, Queens Village, Little Neck, Douglaston, Bayside, Bellerose, Floral Park, Glen Oaks, New Hyde Park, Hollis, Hollis Park Gardens, Holliswood, Fresh Meadows
Swaranjit Singh is a personality and a half, and he would bring a much needed perspective to the City Council. This winter I was looking at fundraising numbers (I know, I’m that cool), and found that Mr. Singh, a political unknown, had suddenly raised more than any non-incumbent running for City Council. I soon met with him in person, and found him to be incredibly engaging and passionate. In the aftermath of September 11th, Mr. Singh was one of the leading Sikhs spreading a message of tolerance and raising awareness, running workshops at schools, police stations and synagogues. Mr. Singh constantly and accurately stresses that he is not a career politician, and though he occasionally will lapse into political incorrectness, he is bursting with integrity, and is deeply concerned with the issues facing his neighbors and would-be constituents. His full bio is here: http://www.singhforcitycouncil.com/meetmrsingh.htm.
Mr. Singh would be the first South Asian elected to New York City or New York State elected office. That is startling, given that New York City houses a quarter of American South Asians, several hundred thousand legal immigrants and citizens. Watching Mr. Singh engage the local South Asian community at events in the Bellarose area was inspiring, as the district has never had a serious candidate of South Asian origin.
Mr. Singh’s race and personality would not be enough to merit full support for him, but his stand against the local Democratic machine seals the deal. Singh is running against the Weprin family. The local political club is named for Saul Weprin, the incumbent councilman’s (David Weprin) father. David Weprin is now running for Comptroller, and his brother, Assemblyman Mark Weprin, is running to replace them. Should David lose his race for Comptroller, he will presumably run for Mark’s Assembly seat. This is the kind of gross family politics that even the Kennedys can’t get away with anymore. If the Weprins were progressive, that would help, but since they are not, its all the more reason to support Mr. Singh.
“I’m not Barack Obama,” Mr. Singh concedes. “But this would still be historic.”

Evan Thies- City Council
Brooklyn (33rd Council District): Brooklyn Heights, Greenpoint; parts of Williamsburg, Park Slope, Boerum Hill
Incumbent: David Yassky, running for Comptroller
I had the privilege of meeting Thies early during this campaign cycle, and was immediately convinced that he would be an excellent fit for this district, both respecting the needs of the longstanding community, and welcoming the hipster crowd that has brought a lot to these neighborhoods. His main claim to fame is serving as Chief of Staff to incumbent David Yassky, which only gets you so many points. As indicated by his lack of a Yassky endorsement, however, Thies is very much his own man.
Thies is a tireless policy wonk, something needed in a City Council full of blow-hards. He knows the issues inside out, and is brimming with ideas to introduce in the Council, including much needed election and ethics reforms. Thies is not exactly an electrifying personality, but in this quirky Williamsburg district, his sanity was refreshing during the debate I attended. While running for office is inherently an exercise in vanity, this is particularly true in the 33rd District, where four of his opponents are either ornery old men or slightly (to significantly) off their rockers. A fifth, Steve Levin, is a pawn of Brooklyn political boss, Vito Lopez. See the always excellent Tom Robbins article on Williamsburg/Bushwick politics here: http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-09-01/columns/power-plays-by-party-boss-vito-lopez/. The final candidate, Joanne Simon, is a perfectly fine disabilities rights lawyer from Park Slope. However, Thies is more attuned to issues in the Williamsburg/Greenpoint area, which is undergoing rapid and important change. He is also, at the risk of sounding agist, younger and more in tune with the changing electorate itself. We need competent, fresh blood in City Hall.

Josh Skaller- City Council
Brooklyn (39th Council District): Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Columbia Street, Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Kensington, Boro Park.
Incumbent: Bill DeBlasio, running for Public Advocate
This is the kind of districts that progressives dream about, a mega-liberal bastion within the generally liberal Brooklyn political community. Such a community deserves someone who will unapologetically stand up to corporate interests, and that candidate is Josh Skaller. Skaller recently served as president of the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, one of the strongest progressive political clubs in the city, and has been involved in a number of grassroots campaigns in the area.
I canvassed with him twice, and two things about him stood out. First, he is a genuinely great guy. No sleaze, no fake smiles. You will never wake up to news about him being caught in a corruption scandal. Second, his strident anti-developer beliefs are sorely needed in the City Council. Developers provide tons of money to campaigns, including liberal Democratic campaigns, and thus exert enormous influence in shaping city policy. Skaller will not let them run rampant in Park Slope, and hopefully, will stand up to them throughout the city. Finally, Skaller has been endorsed by Norman Siegel, who makes very few such endorsements.
A former councilmember, Steve DeBrienza, and Brad Lander are Skaller’s two major opponents.

Diana Reyna- City Council (Incumbent)
Brooklyn (34th Council District): Williamsburg and Bushwick, Brooklyn; Ridgewood, Queens.
Reyna is a good councilperson under attack from the Brooklyn political machine. I’ll direct you to the same article that I linked to for Thies above. Reyna is by no means perfect, but she is a good fit for the district, and is worthy of another term. She has appeared engaged in local concerns, and her politics are good, particularly her work on affordable housing. She has the capacity to handle a district undergoing significant change. Additionally, her opponent is worrisome.
Among progressives in Brooklyn, it is essential to recognize that Brooklyn will always be a Democratic county, which makes machine politics more dangerous. Plus, as we all know, not all Democrats are created equal. Those in the legal profession should be particularly concerned with the Kings County machine’s approach to boosting under qualified judges as political patronage. Reyna’s main opponent, Maritza Davila, is another Vito Lopez protege, and a director at a non-profit that Lopez has been funneling money through both legitimate and more questionable purposes for years. See article: http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-09-01/columns/power-plays-by-party-boss-vito-lopez/ .

John Liu- Comptroller: All registered New York Democrats can vote in this election.
This is an eminently boring race, so don’t worry if you’ve tuned out. The Comptroller invests the City’s massive pension funds, an audits city agencies. It’s an important position that requires hard work, but also the ability to make yourself relevant to city government, something Bill Thompson, the incumbent failed to do. I support John Liu largely by process of elimination after watching a listless debate a few months ago. Melinda Katz, a former Republican, should not hold city-wide office in New York. David Weprin is a little too pro-Wall Street for my tastes, based on his conduct at the debate. David Yassky is an ever-calculating pol who will probably do the job competently, but he does little to inspire. Experience is a wash, all four of these candidates have roughly equivalent qualifications for the office.
Liu was originally running for Public Advocate, a race in which I would not have supported him. He is a bit of a grand-stander, and is a typical New York politician who would rather be seen than get things done. A recent flap with his mother over whether he worked in a sweatshop as a child has been embarrassing. However, Liu also made history as becoming the first Asian-American elected to office in New York when he became City Councilperson in 2001. Today there are several districts where Asian-Americans have a shot. His politics are good, and he is both relentlessly energetic and optimistic. His clamor for attention will be helpful under a Bloomberg mayoralty that is so good at drowning out dissent. Finally, Liu is simply a likeable guy. If he can use his personality to bring some attention to the role of the Comptroller in running a city and holding the Mayor’s office accountable, that will be a win in itself.

.

???????
Manhattan District Attorney: All Democrats registered in Manhattan are eligible to vote in this race.
Candidates: Richard Aborn, Leslie Crocker-Snyder, Cy Vance
People shouldn’t make endorsements unless they feel strongly about a race, an intuitive but often violated political principle. I studied the Manhattan District Attorney’s race pretty closely, and though I will probably cast my vote for Richard Aborn, it is not without some hesitation. Of the three candidates, I am most opposed to Leslie Crocker Snyder. She has an impressive resume as a former prosecutor under Morganthau, and is something of a trailblazer as female prosecutors go. But she is also vigorously “tough on crime”, using that playbook against Morganthau in the 2005 DA race, which of course she lost. There are few things that annoy me more than scoring cheap political points at the expense of the criminal justice system, which is already heavily skewed against defendants. One particularly tasteless episode featured an “endorsement” from the victim of a heinous crime who claimed that Snyder would more vigorously pursue justice than Morganthau had been, as if the current Manhattan DA’s office were weak-kneed on crime issues. I have also seen Snyder up close during a panel discussion, which has only reinforced my impression that she lacks the compassion to wield so much power in the New York criminal justice system.
In contrast, both Cy Vance and Richard Aborn speak at great lengths of the need to focus on alternative sentencing, rehabilitation, and prevention, rather than punishment. Aborn is unapologetically to the left of Vance on some of these issues, and if you are voting purely on ideology, Aborn is your guy. What bothers me about Aborn is not his politics, but his qualifications. Though he was an Assistant District Attorney many years ago, his main claim to fame is being a leading advocate for the Brady Bill. Taking credit for an anti-gun bill that passed last century (1993) might mean something if you’re running for Congress, but it has limited utility in a District Attorney’s race. As Norman Siegel likes to point out, different jobs require different skill sets. Nothing in Aborn’s background makes me think he can run the massive operation that is the Manhattan DA’s office, though to his credit he has stayed involved in criminal justice issues as a consultant for various candidates and agencies. One need only go to his website and check out his endorsements to get a sense of how much better the DA’s office would be if Aborn ran it. My question is, can he run it?
Cy Vance is a completely different animal. This guy is pure political pedigree, the son of Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State, Cy Vance. I volunteered at a fundraiser for him at a fancy hotel in Union Square. The guest list was a whos-who of aristocratic New York families, including the Morganthaus. Vance’s politics are perfect for the Manhattan electorate, particularly the elite electorate- moderately progressive policies and tempered rhetoric, behind a clean cut handsome face. He is no threat to the status quo- he is the status quo, which in New York fortunately allows him to talk about the poor and the misguided war on drugs without being labeled a radical or a socialist. He is the most likely of the three candidates to run his office exactly as Morganthau does- so if you’re happy with the way things are, vote Vance. He is not as progressive as Aborn, however. His anointment is also jarring- Vance had lived in Seattle for 16 years before moving back to the city to run for this office. Cy Jones or Cy Smith could never run for DA if they had spent the majority of their careers three thousand miles away. If political nepotism makes you uncomfortable, Vance is not your choice. There is little doubt that he will keep the trains running on time, however- he’ll have the right people holding his hand to see to that.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Mad Hatters and the MTA

“There aren’t enough opportunities for civil discourse like this,” Assemblyman Richard Brodsky beamed as he began his opening remarks Wednesday. The Museum of the City of New York was partnering with former Parks Commissioner Henry Stern’s good-government group, New York Civic, to host a discussion called “The Future of the M.T.A.” “Civil discourse” is one of Brodsky’s favorite phrases, along with “Soviet-style bureaucracy” and “fiduciary duty,” but this panel and audience was the wrong place to find it.

Stern prides himself tremendously on his non-partisanship, though like former Mayor Ed Koch, his neutrality often manifests in defining anything remotely left of center as extreme liberalism. To his credit, the panel he put together ran the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the ideologically disparate panelists were all well-versed on different topics, leading to a wildly disjointed conversation, and a painful Q ‘n A follow-up.

The first speaker, Councilmember Gail Brewer is an oddball by reputation. She is on the right side of tech issues, like expanding wireless access in New York City, but her impact on the panel was minimal. Her main idea seemed to be putting cameras on buses to take pictures of cars blocking bus lanes, an idea rejected by the State Assembly last year.

The second speaker was Assemblyman Brodsky, who I was looking forward to liking, given his work bringing attention to the outrageous tax subsidies Michael Bloomberg gave away for Yankee Stadium and Citi Field. Brodsky decried the lack of political and public will supporting improvements in the transportation, routine stuff. He obviously does not know Henry Stern (aka “Starquest”) all that well, because when Brodsky paid homage to two former state senators in attendance, Stern totally interrupted his flow to ask if he knew their connection to history. Rebuffed by Brodsky, who wanted to finish his prepared remarks, Stern later took the time to explain that the former legislators were responsible for New York City’s “pooper-scooper” laws in the late 70s, eliciting a round of applause from the audience. “We all owe these men gratitude for our streets being as clean as they are today.” Starquest at his best.

The third speaker, Nicole Gelinas of the right-wing Manhattan Institute, vomited five minutes of misleading statistics into the microphone, slamming educational spending, healthcare for government workers, and most importantly, labor unions. Stern loathes the Transit Workers Union, and blames them for most of the MTA’s ills. I can see why he wanted Gelinas on the panel. The two engaged in a decent amount of old-fashioned union-bashing till Brodsky thankfully stepped in, to another round of applause from an increasingly beleaguered crowd. Gelinas fumed that due to rush hour, many subway track inspectors don’t work hard for their entire 8-hour shift, unlike, say, think-tank writers. The vitriol with which she went after “blue-collar workers” was very un-Reaganlike.

The final speaker, Paul White, from Transportation Alternatives, seemed aware by the time things got to him that he was visiting the wrong zoo. He helpfully listed some MTA history, attributing much of the authority’s woes to city and state budget cuts in the early 90s, which led to an increased debt load, which everyone now agrees is the MTA’s biggest problem- the MTA is $28 billion in debt, spending $2 billion a year just on debt service. White also blamed the Feds, noting that federal highway programs requires as little as 10% in local matching funds, while local transit systems had to pay as much as 40%. Michelle Young, of Untapped New York, pointed out to me that there is no hard rule dictating these percentages, and that they are the result of competitive bidding, but that still means the federal government is clearly making local transit systems claw harder for smaller scraps of federal funding than rural highway programs.

Much of the crowd seemed unfamiliar with Stern, which is too bad, because golden moments, like his citing of Rule 18X6 (“The Devil Made Me Do It” – 18 letters, an excuse, 6 words) make absolutely no sense to someone unfamiliar with his Parks Department practice of proliferating dozens of insights to live by and codifying them as rules. After bizarrely attributing the MTA’s woes to the TWU, a union still weak and reeling from getting its ass kicked during the 2005 transit strike, he tried to be more even-handed, going after the corruption of the Pataki administration appointing Al D’Amato hacks to the MTA board. Man, what a sad state we live in.

Starquest's most charming anecdote involved his visit as a young councilman to Deputy Mayor Stanley Friedman’s office. Friedman apparently had a poster reading “Crime Doesn’t Pay… As Well As Politics” on his wall, and had his initials carved into the lenses of his glasses. Friedman, the notorious future Bronx Borough President, was eventually sent to jail for corruption. Starquest has more interesting anecdotes about New York City politics than anyone I know, but the crowd was not in the mood, hissing for him to let the ever growing line of audience members ask their questions.

The disappointing panel was followed by a more depressing question and answer period. I had assumed a certain level of intellectual self-selection for people attending this event, most of whom either are on the New York Civic mailing list or members of the Museum. Indeed, many of the audience questioners were well-dressed folks with lofty titles, or bizarre ones (“I own the air rights under the 148th street 2-train station.”). One questioner proposed that the MTA be placed under the control of the Port Authority. Another asked why there weren’t more bikers in Westchester County. Honestly, this is why we have such few “forums for civil discourse.” The fact is, most of our elected officials are either corrupt or incompetent, and the citizenry they represent is largely apathetic or crazy.

My friend Rachel once expressed disappointment that her computer repairman was having trouble fixing a hard drive issue. The repairman solemnly looked up at her and remarked, “It’s pretty amazing that this computer can work at all.” That’s how I feel about New York City and the United States of America, but so it goes, so it went, and so it keep going and going, all of us just keep trucking along.

When a short, wide-eyed gentleman took the mic, he finally added some common sense into the discussion, asking why New York City couldn’t take control of the subway and bus systems and regulate them as city entities, noting that Councilman Tony Avella has introduced such a bill in the City Council. Unfortunately, even the most rational question had to be asked by a man shouting into the microphone at the top of his lungs. It was jarring.

Brodsky, who chairs the Transportation Committee in the Assembly, readily promised to hold hearings on the matter, should it pass the City Council, calling it a “reasonable question.” This startling concession could be chalked up as typical political blow-hardism, but Brodsky is one of the few people in the state with the clout to make this idea move. Since only one reporter and very few of his constituents were at the event, I doubt he’ll ever follow up on it. Plus, having Avella sponsor the bill won’t exactly endear it to the Bloomberg/Quinn cabal. Oh well, I’ll bring the issue up if I ever see him around. Thank you New York Civic, for a bizarre evening. Democracy is entertaining, just don’t expect too much from it.

Oh, and the future of the MTA? I suppose it too will keep trucking along, carrying its mad hatter passengers, operated by its unwieldy union, managed by its incompetent political hacks, criticized by rabid ideologues, discussed by New York’s mad hatter citizens, and still standing, always barely, forty years after it was created by the Rockefellers to stop Robert Moses. Like the War of the Titans that consumed Mount Olympus, the MTA was born out of a power struggle beyond the grasp of regular citizens, and if anyone wants real MTA reform, they need to wait for the participants of that next great struggle to declare themselves. I’m guessing State Senator Pedro Espada will not be one of them.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Check out new Janos blog!

Dear all,
I know this site has been dormant forever. There are good reasons/excuses for that. I've been heavily involved in a few local campaigns, to the point that I wouldn't feel sharing information that the campaigns might consider internal. Clearly that was not a problem on the Obama campaign. I've also been evaluating options for livingthedream.org, which should go live this summer. Finally, I have started a new site that will feature daily posts, GeneticsLaw.blogspot.com. I encourage you to check out the intro post. The opportunities to foster discussion about some critical issues that affect all of us are limitless. I hope to see you all there.

Again: GeneticsLaw.blogspot.com

And should the muses give me a kick in the ass, you may see a dispatch down the road. It's not as if Michael Jackson coverage, Obama's broken promises, the future of the NBA and the situation in Iran don't stir the blood!