Yesterday we questioned whether it made any sense to trust the judgement of London mayor Ken Livingston-on anything. Having Livingston act as the poster child for congestion pricing, given his bizarre and dangerous views on so many other things, makes little or no sense. Which is why we chastised the Times for allowing the unhinged mayor to have an Op-Ed platform.
Today, in a column in the NY Post, Amir Taheri underscores our point about the views of "Ken the Red." What Taheri emphasizes is what Nick Cohen has pointed out in his book, What's Left? How Liberals Have Lost Their Way-the manner in which left wing and supposedly progressive folks have begun to embrace Islamic fascists because of the way they challenge Western "hegemony."
Livingston has done this for years, and continues to do so today, even in the face of another terror plot against his city and country. As Taheri points out, "Worse still, Ken Livingston, London's quixotic leftist mayor, has shifted the blame from the terrorists to the British at large, who are supposedly tempted by 'Islamophobia.'" Does this in any way ring true?
Taheri again: "Even the most rabid and anti-West and pro-terror Islamic clerics are granted visas to come to the United Kingdom and spread their message of hatred ( at time, as guests of Ken Livingston and his friends)." Yet Livingston is now sanitized and properly cleansed by the NY Times to act as the spokesman for congestion pricing.
Quite frankly. we wouldn't follow the model of any city that has the poor judgement to elect Livingston as mayor-and the socialist crew over in Stockholm aren't that much better in our view. The fact that Livingston has already doubled the initial congestion tax and wants to charge SUV's around $50 bucks to enter the city only adds to our reluctance to accept his judgements on public policy. If this creep is given any more invitations to come to New York to lecture us, we should let our muddle-headed mayor know what a mistake that would be.