Go Long!

Does anybody think that any of New York's Democratic candidates for mayor have a prayer of beating Mayor Bloomberg? If you do, let me know what you're smoking and I'll try some.

This election looks to be a slam-dunk for the checking account, if not the record, of Michael Bloomberg. Most New Yorkers seem to think he's doing a good job, and the odds are that no Democrat, except possibly one with pockets as deep as the Grand Canyon, has a prayer of contending with the tsunami of paid media with which the mayor will bombard the city in the next two months or so.

That being the case, as the Russians used to say, what is to be done? If you're going to lose anyway, why not experiment? Try out some ideas and see how the voters respond to them. After all, you've pretty much got nothing to lose, so why not, as they say in football, go long? It might be the political equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, but you never know.

Here are some of the ideas that voters might find appealing:

Lower the drinking age to 18. This one is a no-brainer. If you're old enough to drive, vote, serve your country in the military and possibly die in action overseas, you're old enough to buy and consume what Rush Limbaugh likes to call "adult beverages." Thinking otherwise is just stupid. And if you run on this issue, you might get a lot of younger voters to vote Democratic who otherwise might not vote at all. Beer is to 18-21 year olds what Social Security is to seniors.

Legalize marijuana. This one can be defended on a pragmatic basis. We are engaged in what has been called a war on terror. This war is going to cost a fortune, and is already straining the resources of a city government that can't afford the extra expense. So what the hell are we doing locking up people for smoking a doobie? It's just ridiculous. I know the feds think that they make the rules on these sorts of things, so I say we should just legalize the stuff and let the courts fight it out. If cigarettes and alcohol are legal, pot should be too.

Get rid of Giuliani's anti-porn laws. Okay, this one is a wee bit risky. Although everybody in New York watches porn (so does everyone in the country, for that matter -- I've always said that if everyone who ever bought or rented an adult video voted for the same candidate for president, that candidate would win in a landslide), such is society's hypocrisy where these matters are concerned that no politician can be thought of as being pro-pornography. Well, I say screw them. Porn is as American as apple pie, and as fine an example of laissez-faire capitalism as you'll find in this country (it's not generally known how many people in the porn industry are conservative Republicans, but it's more than you'd think), so why try to curtail it? After all, the pornographers are probably the only ones who pay their taxes without complaining and never hold the city up for tax breaks to stay in town.

Send the U.N. packing. Now, I'm not one of these U.N.-bashing conservatives like John Bolton -- rather the opposite. In fact, I like the U.N. But there's an argument to be made that it should no longer be in New York. There are several reasons for this: 1) Having the U.N. in town makes New York a haven for spies from other countries, which in an age of terrorism we can no longer afford; and 2) The U.N., being an international organization, belongs in a neutral city, like Geneva. I also think that 3) Having the U.N. occupy all that real estate on the East Side of Manhattan is a luxury this city can no longer afford. We need affordable housing (which means housing not built by Donald Trump for people whose taste is even worse than his, thank you very much), and one of the places to build it is in the 40s on the East Side, where the U.N. is now.

Legalize prostitution. This is just common sense. Combatting most forms of prostitution in New York City is like spitting into the wind -- a massive waste of time. While I think that street prostitution should be discouraged because it's a quality of life issue, what two consenting adults do in private, with or without money being exchanged, is no one's business. The religious right might howl about how depraved New York's morals are -- but you know what I say to that? Fuck 'em. I'd rather have legal prostitutes getting checked by a doctor once a week than have the whole thing (which is going to be around anyway) unregulated. Like I said, it's just common sense.

Roll back the taxes on cigarettes and Bloomberg's anti-smoking laws. While I am passionately anti-smoking, I also think that the punitive taxes currently in place on a pack of cigarettes just promotes illegal activity. What you'll lose in revenue you'll make up from the pornographers and the call girls. And while you're at it, I'd get rid of the law that says you can't smoke in bars. Since drinking's going to kill you anyway, why not smoke while you're at it? After all, it's supposed to be a free country.

Sounds pretty -- God help me -- liberal, doesn't it? Well as far as I'm concerned, liberal isn't a dirty word. And I think the Democrats running for mayor should try to push the envelope on issues like this and see how the voters respond. After all, given their poll numbers, they've got absolutely nothing to lose.

Tom Moran

Bush to Congress: "Screw You"

George Bush has done it again. The minute that Congress left town for the summer, Bush went ahead and made contentious UN Ambassador nominee John Bolton a recess appointment -- in effect saying "Screw You" to the Senate that had stalled on confirming him.

Senator Edward Kennedy called the move (which is good until January, 2007, when a new Congress in convened) an "abuse of power," which seems to be a little redundant, since this entire administration has done nothing but abuse their power -- starting from before they entered the White House. It's typical of the way this administration operates. They want to have their way -- no matter what. And if the rule of law proves inconvenient, well, so much the worse for the rule of law. They want what they want and they will do whatever it takes to get it, whether it's ethical or legal or not.

But there is a real possibility that this tactic might just blow up in their face. I think that Democrats in Congress have had quite enough of Bush's contemptible methods of going behind their back in violation (of the spirit, if not the letter) of the constitution. Bush has nominated John Roberts for the Supreme Court, and many people, including myself, were convinced that Roberts would have an easy time getting confirmed by the Judiciary Committee and then by the full Senate.

Now I'm not so sure. Unfortunately for President Bush, Supreme Court justices can't be made by recess appointment. And I think it's entirely possible that Judge Roberts will have a much harder time than he might otherwise have had in getting confirmed by a Senate that takes a dim view of the way that this president has gone behind their backs in appointing Bolton to the UN.

Will Roberts be rejected by the Senate because of Bush's thumbing his nose at them by appointing Bolton? Possibly not. But he's not going to get a free ride, either. And I'm assuming that, whatever his odds were of confirmation, they just got a whole lot worse.

Payback's a bitch, Mr. President. My guess is that you're about to find that out.

Tom Moran