Cover Up at NYSDOT?

It has been seven months since Willets Point United, and its traffic consultant Brian Ketcham, demonstrated the blatant deficiency of a Van Wyck ramp report submitted by NYC EDC to the NYSDOT. The state agency is responsible for initially approving these ramps-or not-with the Federal Highway Administration having the last word on their feasibility. So the question that we ask, is there a cover up at NYSDOT?

In this interim seven month period, EDC and its consultants, in apparent secrecy and collusion with the oversight agency, have been working feverishly-to address the gross defects of their original submission (a revised ramp report was first slated to be ready in March). But, the WPU and Ketcham, after having been the key actors in insuring that the original report was sent back for revision, (in spite of promises from NYSDOT that they would be included in the revision process) have been left out; leaving EDC's original axe to grind consultant as the sole interlocutor with the state on the ramps feasibility.

As a result of the agency's reneging on an open, professional review process, WPU has been forced to file numerous Freedom of Information requests just to obtain information that, if transparency was valued, would be shared collegially in the interest of insuring that the impact of the ramps on the entire Queens highway grid system would be honestly evaluated. Instead the EDC consultant, AKRF, whose work was not only deficient but, arguably deceptive, has been allowed to act as the sole provider of technical knowledge to the agency.

The compelling question is, why has NYSDOT circled the wagons and resisted the free and open exchange of information? This is the question that WPU's Ketcham has asked DOT Commissioner Stanley Gee in a letter to the agency head. In particular, Ketcham raises the issue of NYSDOT's accountability to the public: "Given your distinguished career at the Federal Highway Administration and more recently at New York State Department of Transportation, I am bringing to your attention current Departmental practices that undermine your objective of improving its performance, accountability and communication within and outside the agency."

Ketcham goes on to highlight the agency's curious stonewalling:

"Over the past year, I have been reviewing these projects and nearly 90 other new projects near the Willets Point site. I have generated numerous letters to your agency regarding these projects along with submitting a number of technical reports for your agency’s review... In addition, on February 19, 2010, I also presented much of these materials to representatives of Region 11 along with representatives of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). At that meeting we were promised a technical dialogue with NYSDOT along with an open process for the review of this project. However, no open process has occurred and all my submissions have been ignored. What is going on with NYSDOT? Recent FOILed documents suggest your agency appears to be inappropriately colluding with NYCEDC and the FHWA to approve a project which they know to be seriously flawed. I trust this is not the case."

And then Ketcham gets to the information that WPU has received-information that raises serious questions about NYSDOT's impartiality: "Over the last year, I have identified numerous problems with this project that have been publicly ignored by NYSDOT and by NYCEDC. Recently released internal memos obtained using the Freedom of Information Law suggest that the technical staff of NYSDOT shared many of these concerns but appear to have been overruled by policy makers that have been under pressure to facilitate the approval of the AMR and thus of the Willets Point Plan."

So, after acknowledging serious problems in the EDC ramp report, NYSDOT proceeded to shut off any public vetting of the data submissions-relying exclusively on AKRF. But was this prudent and in the public interest? It is even more questionable considering that AKRF has a prior consulting relationship with NYSDOT-and is in fact used by the agency for all or most of its third party reviews. It is the closeness of this relationship, in our view, militates against both transparency and thoroughness.

Concerns over AKRF's impartiality are certainly not new. In the environmental and eminent domain reviews surrounding the Columbia University expansion, AKRF represented both the university and the Empire State Development Corporation-and was excoriated by the Appellate Court for this conflict of interest. Arguably, in the case of the Van Wyck ramps, the relationship between the agency and this consultant could easily impair impartiality, given the fact that there would be an a priori assumption on the part of NYSDOT staff that AKRF's work didn't need to be fully vetted.

This, at least according to the e-mails that WPU obtained, appears to be exactly what did happen-and the, "Environmental Group," at NYSDOT was poised to green light what turned out to be a defective AKRF submission:

"Jimmy Lau (NYSDOT), 9/25/2009 at 12:48PM: "... I read through the Willets Point Draft Access Modification Report. ... In every aspect the report is complete and well documented through my cursor [sic] review.... After this review I have no major comments that would change the relevance of this submission and that they should finalize this report and submit for final design approval."

But this cursory and cavalier review was demonstrably inadequate-as the subsequent intervention by Brian Ketcham underscored fatal flaws in the ramp report. But the Ketcham critique should have triggered a red flag at NYSDOT concerning the integrity of its consultant contractor AKRF. Ketcham's letter to the commissioner makes the point that AKRF's ramp report thoroughly contradicted the original EIS traffic study that AKRF supervised in its role as lead consultant in the Willets Point land use review:

"The draft AMR assumed that, in contrast to the 50% of total Willets Point traffic reported in the FGEIS, just 16% would utilize the new ramps. This unexplained discrepancy leaves a third of the PM peak hour traffic, about 1,900 vehicles, unaccounted for in both the Willets Point FGEIS and in the AMR, presumably on local roads."

How could AKRF, given its dual role in the crafting of the two discrepant studies, submit the second report-if it were acting in good faith-with no reference to the original land use review? Here's the money quote from the Ketcham letter:

"AKRF was the lead consultant for both the FGEIS for the Willets Point Plan and the AMR for the Van Wyck ramps (as well as the FEIS for nearby Flushing Commons. They must have or should have been fully aware that these two reports present traffic projections that are hugely different. AKRF’s role was further compromised by their ongoing contractual relationships with NYCEDC and with NYSDOT which ordinarily relied on them to provide third party review of environmental analyses. Clearly, something is wrong with NYSDOT’s review process."

The existence of these discrepancies and the coziness of the relationship between NYSDOT and AKRF/EDC is why the state's leading environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote to the agency-and to the FHWA-advocating for a fully independent review of these Van Wyck ramps under the National Environmental Policy Act. The fact that NYSDOT blew NRDC off in its request dramatizes the suspicion that whatever is going on at the agency, isn't a fair and open review process.

The environmental impact of the massive Willets Point project-a development that will flood Queens roads and highways and severely challenge the inadequate mass transit infrastructure-needs to be reviewed impartially. What we have seen in the original land use review, and now in the ramp oversight as well, is a review process that is simply broken. The failure to analyze what this project's impact would be-along with an additional 20 million square feet of additional development-will have a profound, and severely negative, consequence for all of Queens County.

We'll give the persevering Ketcham the final word: "NYSDOT must undertake an independent review of the Willets Point FGEIS and the Van Wyck ramps AMR. Your agency does this routinely as is evident in your ongoing term contract with AKRF to review Region 11 EISs. A dozen groups representing Queens communities within two miles of the Willets Point site strongly support an independent engineering review. There is clearly precedent for taking this action. So, what is stopping you from hiring another consultant to undertake an independent review?"

Election Reform's One Armed Bandit

Greg David has an incisive look at the folly of election reform in NYC-and how the deck is stacked against any and all businesses: "Last week, with so many people away, the city's Campaign Finance Board issued a self-congratulatory report trumpeting how changes to the city's campaign finance laws had empowered small donors and further eroded business participation in elections. Left completely unaddressed were the consequences of eliminating business contributions from city politics and what role unions might be playing."

Now, as most folks know who read this blog, we have a number of close labor allies. But that doesn't take away from the fact that a reform that empowers one interest while restraining another, is not reform-no matter how hard the foolish mayor and his muñeca across the hall trumpet this Potemkin Village: "The revisions prohibited giving by limited liability corporations and sharply limited contributions from companies doing business with the city. As a result, donations from such businesses fell to only 4% of the total, down from 22% before the law. Is it any wonder the City Council has become more receptive to issues like living wage, paid sick leave and other measures most businesses find hostile?"

As a result, the normal disadvantages of small business are magnified by these restrictions-and the council's progressives promoting the aforementioned policies pay little heed to their impact on the 190,000 businesses that drive the city's neighborhood economies. So while David rightly puts his finger on the inequities in the current law, he forgets that the big real estate companies-and the law firms that service them-are receptacles for term limited pols and have a real political influence; at least in the city's land use process.

So when it comes to some of the big development fights-like Flushing Commons and Willets Point-the small businesses that are threatened have a difficult time gaining traction at the city council. And, of course, the preservation of existing jobs isn't as alluring as having new jobs that can be used as an employment service for political allies.

But we digress. Greg Davis's point about the out sized role of labor has some real repercussions-especially since the public sector unions can not only contribute, they can mobilize their members as well: "The report also fails to consider that the lower campaign limits were not applied to unions, even those who represent city workers. I think we call this stacking the deck. Not only can unions contribute more, no one raises an eyebrow when unions mobilize their members to work in political campaigns. Just imagine the outrage if a CEO of a major New York company did the same."

As Gotham Gazette points out: "According to the Campaign Finance Board, the top five contributors to City Council candidates in the last citywide election in 2005 were unions or union affiliated political action committees. Some critics said if government contractors are included in campaign contribution limitations, unions should be too. "Clearly there is an 800-pound gorilla in the room," Oddo said of union's exclusion in the bill. "(The bill) is under inclusive, and it doesn’t address all the incarnations of influence and perceived influence garnered by money," he added."

But then GG really dramatizes David's point: "Others said in retrospect, unions should have been included in the legislation but doing so could have killed the measure. "They could have never gotten the council to give them support," Felder said if unions had been included. "It was very personal."

Exacerbating this built in inequity is the fact the city's good government groups are themselves generally hostile to business-a fact demonstrated by their response to the so-called reform:

"But others said the legislation remains notable not for what has been left out, but for what has been included. Several government watchdog organizations, including Citizens Union, Common Cause/NY and the New York Public Interest Research Group have hailed the legislation and used it to contrast the tight rules on campaign finance in New York City with the lax rules for state elections in New York.

"We commend the city for advancing these forward-thinking reforms," said Megan Quattlebaum, associate director of Common Cause/NY. "Now, it's time for citizens to demand that lawmakers in Albany get out from under their shroud of winter darkness and follow in New York City's footsteps by drastically overhauling what remain some of the worst campaign finance laws in the nation."

All of which leads-because of the absence of healing antibodies-to a natural brake on any governmental reform that reduces the size and scope of government-the real cause of so much small business tsuris. So without any real countervailing political power, local government, like Topsy, continues to grow-a fact that David, in his need to absolve the mayor's sins, doesn't address: "In the meantime, most business people fail to see the threat because they believe Mayor Michael Bloomberg is mostly on their side. That's pretty much a good assumption, but whether future mayors will be as protective of their interests remains to be seen."

To us, the nine Bloomberg years have been a period of wasted opportunities-precisely because of the way in which the mayor constantly channels his inner John Lindsay. Bloomberg, a small man with a long monetary reach, mostly aggrandized the public sector when he could have been a true governmental reformer. The fact that he heralded the election reform measure that is more like a one arm bandit, only underscores his politically congenital deficiencies-something that does, however, lend prescience to David's concern about his successor.

The Tolerance Scam

We were amused by the gathering of usual clerical suspects in Washington; gathered to decry the rising level of intolerance posterized by some wacko pastor done in Florida-and who better than the bien pensants over at the NY Times to herald the era of bad feeling: "Prominent Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders held an extraordinary “emergency summit” meeting in the capital on Tuesday to denounce what they called “the derision, misinformation and outright bigotry” aimed at American Muslims during the controversy over the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero."

Are these people serious? We would wager that, to a person, these righteous thinkers all support the GZ mosque-with no thought to the insensitivity of the mosque's promoters. All this, and our viewing of the Giuliani 9/11 documentary on NatGeo, got us to thinking. For nine years America has been under assault from a virulent and intolerant strain of Islam; and, in spite of the endless provocation, we have behaved as a people with remarkable restraint-refusing to blame an entire religion for the actions of a few (although a dangerously large few in our view)

And the comments of the former mayor during the documentary reminded us of how even the acerbic Giuliani-the guy who tossed Yasser Arafat out of Carnegie Hall-counseled tolerance for Muslims during those awful days after the attack on the twin towers. And American restraint is borne out by the data on hate crimes in the years post 9/11: "Hate crimes directed against Muslims remain relatively rare, notwithstanding the notoriety gained by incidents such as recent vandalism at the Madera Islamic Center. Jews, lesbians, gay men and Caucasians, among others, are all more frequently the target of hate crimes, FBI records show. Reported anti-Muslim crimes have declined over recent years, though they still exceed what occurred prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks....In 2008, 105 hate crime incidents against Muslims were reported nationwide. There were 10 times as many incidents that were recorded as anti-Jewish during the same year, the most recent for which figures are available."

So now, after almost a decade of preternatural calm-given the initial and subsequent provocations-left leaning clergy are trying to conflate opposition to a mosque at Ground Zero (and just stand in front of 51 Park Place and watch the bulldozers work on the site) with some rising tide of Islamophobia. As the Times tells us: "The clergy members said that those responsible for a poisoned climate included politicians manipulating a wedge issue in an election year, self-styled “experts” on Islam who denigrate the faith for religious or political reasons and some conservative evangelical Christian pastors."

This friends underscores the extent to which the entire gathering was a political statement-and had little to do with tolerance per se. If there is a poisoned climate-and the evidence is slim that there is one-it just may be because 70% of Americans feel that the mosquevites are being thoroughly insensitive to their feelings-something that the infamous imam highlights in a, where else, Times editorial today:

"Many people wondered why I did not speak out more, and sooner, about this project. I felt that it would not be right to comment from abroad. It would be better if I addressed these issues once I returned home to America, and after I could confer with leaders of other faiths who have been deliberating with us over this project. My life’s work has been focused on building bridges between religious groups and never has that been as important as it is now.

We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House. More important, we are doing so with the support of the downtown community, government at all levels and leaders from across the religious spectrum, who will be our partners. I am convinced that it is the right thing to do for many reasons."

But without the support of the vast majority of the American people who this imam deigns to even acknowledge in his self-serving essay-some bridge builder! But he goes on to make a point worth reviewing: "Above all, the project will amplify the multifaith approach that the Cordoba Initiative has deployed in concrete ways for years. Our name, Cordoba, was inspired by the city in Spain where Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed in the Middle Ages during a period of great cultural enrichment created by Muslims. Our initiative is intended to cultivate understanding among all religions and cultures."

Here's where the traditional doublespeak of the Islamist can be gleaned if we engage in a bit of deconstruction. Cordoba was a great city of cultural understanding as long as the Muslims ruled it-and everyone else knew their place; and, of course, the great Cordoba mosque was built on the site of an appropriated church dedicated to St. Vincent. But let's not forget that the Islamists see any area that has previously been part of the umma as eternally remaining within its parameters-so the Cordoba initiative can be seen in this triumphalist-and prophetic-light as well.

Which brings us back to the mendacious Time Magazine-the one the Onion lampooned: "And that's precisely what the good people at the Onion have done, with a fake-news-with-more-than-a-few-grains-of-truth report that announces that Time will be launching Time Advanced, a magazine for "adults,"..." Time's exploration of a faux Islamophobia, exhibits the kind of spuriousness that one would expect from rather doltish college sophomores looking to put a hate on a rival fraternity.

We don't remember Time exploring the fact that Jews in America are six times as likely to experience hate as are Muslims in America-and that figure rises exponentially in Europe where the recrudescence of anti-Semitism is indeed a serious issue: "In 2006, a whopping 66% of religiously motivated attacks were on Jews, while just 11% targeted Muslims, even though the Jewish and Muslim populations are similar in size. Catholics and Protestants, who together account for 9% of victims, are subject to almost as much abuse as Muslims in this country. Last year's anti-Islamic hate crimes totaled 156. While just one hate crime is one too many, that's a 68% drop from 2001." (emphasis added)

But, right on the heels of its ginned up hate-a-thon, Time's next effort in ecumenism is to explore the reason why Israeli's really don't want peace. And how does the magazine dramatize this? By telling its dwindling readership that the Jews are too busy making money to worry about making peace with the Palestinians: "I know it’s commonplace to read in the latest issue of Time or Newsweek that Obama is a god, that Islamophobic Americans are collectively prejudiced against Muslims, that the response after 9/11 was overblown and unnecessary (over 30 subsequent terrorist plots have been foiled, and, for some reason, renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo, Predators, intercepts, etc., have all been embraced by the Obama administration), but the recent Time piece on Israel by a Karl Vick is probably the most anti-Semitic essay I have ever read in a mainstream publication."

And then there's this from Time: "Among Vick’s interviewees is Heli Itach, a modern-day Shylock who brags about the money to be made selling condos in Jerusalem (“‘Even when the Qassams fell, we continued to sell!’ says Heli Itach, slapping a palm on the office desk”). The accompanying photo shows carefree Israelis on the beach."

So spare us all of this tolerance scaremongering; it is an exercise in virulent disingenuousness that blocks out the real scourge of intolerance that has insidiously been spread throughout the Muslim world by the Islamists-and it is a conscious campaign to deligitimize any organized effort to mobilize against, not Islam, but that very same Islamism. Confronting that real and present danger is a lot more challenging-and perilous-than attacking your own good folks as bigoted haters.

Testing Our Credulity Again

In this morning's NY Post a former senior analyst at the Board of Education lays out the case that the fraudulent state test scores were even worse than we had first thought: "New York's "test mess" is worse than even the avowedly reformist state education leaders have acknowledged -- and it may not be over yet, either. A close look at the data (some of which became available only via the Freedom of Information Law) strongly suggests that the exams created each year by CTB/McGraw-Hill -- which purportedly measure the math and English proficiency of 1.2 million New York students -- are fundamentally flawed. That means that even Regents Chancellor Meryll Tisch and state Education Commissioner David Steiner's "recalibrating" of the scoring can't fix the problem."

It seems that there are two distinct parts to the math test, one multiple choice, and the other reasoning involving calculation, and the two parts have been way out of synch: "Like most such tests, CTB's exams contain both multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. The latter ask students to produce a response, for example showing how they solved a math problem or writing answers to express their understanding of reading passages. Constructed-response items take more time and money to administer and score -- but educators generally believe these questions measure a higher order of knowledge and thought than multiple-choice items, which kids typically find less challenging. Yet results from both types of questions should point in the same direction -- that is, if this year's 4th graders do markedly better on the math multiple-choice questions than they did the year before, then they ought to improve on the math constructed-response items, too."

But did they? Not so much: "In other words, on well-developed tests, the results on both types of questions are in harmony -- pointing in the same direction and nearly parallel from one year to the next. After all, each is supposed to tap a different level of knowledge of the same subject. Performance should move in a synchronized way. That's exactly the pattern shown on the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- nationally and in New York. The "nation's report card" uses both types of items to measure reading and math proficiency -- and the performance of New York kids on both is strikingly consistent over time. Not so, the results on the state exams."

This means that these flawed tests can't simply be recalibrated and a full scale investigation is called for: "Any testing professional should recognize this as an alarm bell: Something is seriously wrong with these exams. (And it is the tests, not the students or anything else: Again, the NAEP exams, covering the same areas, do not show these bizarre divergences over time.)...What's needed is an independent probe of the testing program, one with sweeping authority to investigate the role of Education Department officials, CTB measurement specialists and the state's technical advisers in all aspects of the program."

But what this also means-and New Yorkers are getting wise to the fraud-is that the Bloombergistas scammed us when they were huffing and puffing about miraculous test increases: "Larger gains were usually made on multiple-choice items than constructed response. This boosted the overall score -- leading to press releases and headlines that suggested everything was improving. Worse, data that contradict that storyline went undisclosed: The public didn't see separate analyses of constructed-response scores."

Now we know that memory fades, but our memory about the Bloomberg education pledge-and the hoo ha about graduation rates-remains strong; and DOE's constant trumpeting would be enough to cure us of any onset of senile dementia: "After years of near stagnation, our reforms have increased the graduation rate each year since we’ve been in office—and I’m so proud to see that graduation rates are up again this year,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “This year, English and math scores went way up, schools got much safer, and many more of our high school seniors have earned their diplomas. This is a great day for New York City schools.”

But in the end, we were simply taken to the cleaners; underscoring the age old maxim that, while figures don't lie, liars figure.

Schneiderman's, "Annex," Crumbling

We wrote last week about the Wayne Barret slicing and dicing of the Eric Schniederman-Al Sharpton love-in: "We remain shocked at how the race baiting schnorrer Sharpton has become a must get endorsement in Democratic circles-and that he is a sure sign of the ethical demise of Democrats. But Schneiderman elevated toady to new heights: "Schneiderman cited Sharpton's pursuit of justice and said he would "seek to follow that model as AG," adding: "The House of Justice will have an annex in Albany for the first time in the history of the state." It was craven excess, an unconscious declaration of how transactional Schneiderman actually sees the office he seeks. No one really expects a Sharpton cubicle in Schneiderman's office, but the AG-to-be was declaring that an organization that the current officeholder, Andrew Cuomo, investigated just two years ago would have an inside track with Schneiderman because its leader was helping to make him AG."

Well now it appears that if Eric reaches the AG's office he will have to set up an annex at the NAN; if only to process the fraudulent activities-at least if the NY Post story from yesterday is true: "An accounting firm hired by Al Sharpton's National Action Network found the civil-rights group in such financial disarray that it flunked its record-keeping -- and may not even survive, The Post has learned. The scathing critique was spelled out in a hard-hitting internal audit of NAN's books, a copy of which was obtained by The Post. "The organization has suffered recurring decreases in net assets -- and has been dependent upon advances from related parties and the nonpayment of payroll tax obligations -- to maintain continuity," the firm KBL concluded in an April 2 audit of NAN's 2008 financial records, the most recent available."
 
This is an embarrassment to Democrats-and when will the entire party get out of Sharpton's clown car? If the Dems veer leftward by giving Schneiderman its nomination-while the electorate moves in the other direction, the appeal of Republican Dan Donovan will increase exponentially. We'll see if the Dems can avoid the calamity in the making.

I Lost My Job Through the NY Times

In Sunday's NY Times the paper, acknowledging the dire straits of the US economy, went comfortably to its ideological well and counseled Democrats to meet the country's economic challenge by spending more money: "This week, the Obama administration is expected to unveil a plan for jobs, but early word indicates that it will be a political response designed to campaign specifications, and not to the scale of the problem. Administration officials are said to be considering a package centered on business tax cuts, because those are presumably more palatable to Republicans — and to Democrats who are afraid of losing to Republicans and cannot think of a better response than to mimic their ideas. The administration seems to have forgotten that the Republicans who run the show in Congress are happy to oppose their own ideas if Mr. Obama embraces them. New tax cuts, especially in place of spending, are also dubious policy. When it comes to spurring growth, direct spending to increase demand in the economy is more effective than most tax cuts."

Let's put aside policy for just a second, and analyze the political deftness of the Times' advice. With a veritable tsunami on the horizon, Democrats are rightly in a state of absolute panic: "With many polls indicating the Republicans may win back control of the House of Representatives (and possibly the Senate as well) in the upcoming mid-term elections, Jim VandeHei, the executive editor of Politico, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the Obama administration is in a horrible position. "Does the White House understand this?" asked guest host Harry Smith. "Do you feel any sense of panic or concern" on the part of the administration? "They get it. There's panic. There's concern," VandeHei said. "

Part of the reason for the hemorrhaging of support for the incumbent Democrats is a result of the country's growing sense that the party's huge original government spending porkulus has failed-and the attempt to double down with more spending that will increase an already unsupportable debt is likely to accelerate the electoral debacle to come. But the Times lives in its own ideological bubble; how else to explain: "When it comes to spurring growth, direct spending to increase demand in the economy is more effective than most tax cuts."

And we must have missed how it came to pass-before the midterm election-that: "the Republicans who run the show in Congress..." But the Times is more than tone deaf-it is stone deaf to the rising chorus of Americans who are fed up with the already promiscuous-and ineffective-spending. After suggesting a massive public works program to be paid for by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, the paper observes: "But a reasonable trade-off along those lines seems out of reach. There is no sign that the Republicans will cooperate with anything Mr. Obama wants. And the Republicans have spooked Democrats into talking about tax cuts on the campaign trail."

It has nothing to do with being spooked by the formerly moribund GOP; and is more about political concentration generated by the thoughts of the party's electoral demise. Have the editorialists over at Eighth Avenue not seen the generic polls-or how about Ohio where G. W. Bush, the leader of the Republicans self immolation squad, is now polling better than President Obama by a comfortable margin?

But then again, we need to recognize the source of this sage advice. How inappropriate is it for the Times to discuss job retention and growth? Not very, if you're from a do what we say, but not what we do world. This is, after all, the company that is canning staff right and left-100 here, 100 there. When it comes to its own business, the Times understands that downsizing and cutting back is essential for the company's survival-for the country as a whole, not so much.

And the Times seems to be clueless about the public pension explosion that devolves from, what else, the increasing size and scope of a unionized government work force. When it comes to its own shop, however, we find the following: "Despite cutting 100 jobs less that a month ago, the New York Times has announced a further 28 editorial employees from its New York Times News Service will lose their positions in 2010. The editing of the news service will be moved to the Gainesville Sun, a Florida newspaper owned by the paper's parent, the New York Times Co. Reuters reports that the move is expected to see The Sun's 'less-costly', non-union staff take charge of the service, which re-edits articles from the Times' print edition and distributes them to the wire. The Times also revealed that non-union employees would not longer receive contributions to their pensions at the end of the year. The company plans to instead contribute 3 percent of non-union employees' salaries each year to their 401K plans."

So, while the Democrats proceed with their death bed conversion over tax cutting-a tactic that lacks any degree of integrity-the Times continues its company's schizophrenia; practicing sound business practices to survive in the boardroom, while counseling economic hari kari for the party of its heart in its editorial sanctum. Our only advice to the Times: keep this silliness up, and even liberals will cease to take you seriously.

InFatuated With Government Meddling

Over the weekend we learned that all of the Bloomberg efforts to thin New Yorkers down have done no such thing. As the NY Times reported-with a great headline, "City’s Efforts Fail to Dent Child Obesity," - "New York City schoolchildren are as heavy, or perhaps even heavier, than the national average, despite the Bloomberg administration’s dogged efforts to improve the health of city residents,
according to new data from the city’s health department."

Do you think this might be the right time to stop digging-before the hole gets even deeper? Not a chance; as in all things government, nothing succeeds-at least when it comes to funding public programs-like failure: "Among New York City children who were overweight, 22 percent were obese, compared with 19.6 percent nationally. “I’m sorry to say it’s in line with the nation, but we’re certainly working hard to get it down from here,” said Cathy Nonas, the director of physical activity and nutrition for the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene."

Please Cathy, just cease and desist-and direct all of the DOH resources to a public health issue that you might be able to solve-like the bed bug epidemic. But what does the city survey show?  "The numbers were broken down by ZIP code and showed that less-affluent neighborhoods had the most severe problems. In the 2008-9 school year, the highest rates were found in Corona, Queens, where 51 percent of schoolchildren were overweight or obese. That was followed by parts of Harlem, with 48 to 49 percent, and Washington Heights, with 47 percent. In contrast, some of the city’s wealthiest areas had the healthiest children. The West 60s near the Hudson River in Manhattan had the smallest share of overweight or obese children (11.7 percent), followed by part of TriBeCa (15 percent), SoHo (17.7 percent) and the East 50s, including Turtle Bay and Sutton Place (18.3 percent)."

So all of those calorie posting and trans fat policy efforts aren't doing the job? Who knew? It may all come down to education and class-but Nonas treats us to the following nugget: "Yet she said it would be naïve to think that measures like banning trans fats and posting the calories of foods served in restaurants would be enough to bring about a decline in childhood obesity." Or have any impact at all.

But that didn't stop the Department of Nannies from imposing more financial and regulatory burdens on the already struggling city restaurants. But the regulatory demiurge is as difficult to control as binge eating disorder: "She added that the city would use the data to decide where to concentrate its exercise and nutrition programs. Since the data was collected, she said, the city had substituted milk that is 1 percent fat for regular milk, or skim for chocolate milk, and had banned sugar-sweetened beverages from school vending machines. The school system has also restricted bake sales to once a month. She said the health department and the school system were introducing a pilot project to train 3,000 teachers, from kindergarten through the third grade, in exercises that children can do during classroom breaks. One routine has children pretending they are cabdrivers who have to bend down to go through a tunnel and jump to get over a pothole."

Maybe the mayor should pay the kids to lose weight? But the issue remains a serious one, and some thinking outside of the box should be required. As the NY Post reported: "But it's not enough just to tell parents their kids are obese, said Keith Ayoob, a dietician at Albert Einstein School of Medicine. "This isn't a cosmetic issue -- it's a health issue. We're going to have an epidemic of Type II diabetes," he said. "It's a huge wake-up call."

But it's good to know that DOH won't stop its digging: "Cathy Nonas, director of physical activity and nutrition programs for the DOH, said the city is aggressively engaged in the battle of the bulge. The city's Fitnessgram program tracks individual students and provides annual reports on their health -- including their BMI. Students straying into the high end are targeted for special support and attention from school nurses. "We're taking it on like we've taken on tobacco," said Nonas. "We're really concerned."

But the comparison to cigarettes is misleading-and shows that the department doesn't have the right perspective; after all, you can't tax all of the fat and sweet foods, can you? Given the Bloomberg weltanschauung, however, we won't be surprised if it tries this approach. But in our view, we need to examine how to empower kids and communities-something we suggested to Dr. Oz and his Health Corps, a program that misguidedly focuses on high school kids, and has deteriorated into a classroom teaching effort that, like all such efforts, has a track record of failure (yet the program keeps getting inordinate funds because of its founder's notoriety).

No, the proper response needs to start much earlier-and must try to motivate parents, children and communities in the healthier living effort. This campaign needs to get out of the school and into the neighborhoods-but the bureaucratic, top down approach, of the Bloombergistas militates against this kind of targeting.

That being said, given the current economic climate, it seems reasonable to suppose that the folks in the areas of high obesity have more on their minds that healthier living. Still, if we are going to be more successful we need to get away from an exclusive school based approach. Does any one know a good community organizer?

EDC You Later

The NYC Economic Development Corporation is as unaccountable a public agency as we have in this town-and the lack of oversight devolves from its "quasi" status-neither fully public or private, it escapes the kind of scrutiny that it merits-given its outsized role in the city's economic development.

So it's not surprising that the agency's living large at the tax payers' expense-as the NY Daily News reported on Sunday: "The agency that collects rent on city property failed to turn over millions to the city - but still managed to spend big bucks on extravagant travel. The Economic Development Corp. paid for luxury hotels in China, London, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Miami and Washington, expenses from January 2008 through April show. The records show that EDC operates under looser travel rules than city employees, who are supposed to fly coach, stay in economy hotels and limit how much they spend on food and drink. In contrast, EDC dropped nearly $17,000 to fly two workers to China to drum up investments, charging taxpayers $600 for a meal at a Beijing restaurant."

But this lifestyles of the rich and famous behavior is egregious for another rather compelling reason-the agency, or whatever you want to call it, is a notorious shill for the rich and famous; at the expense of the small business community that is victimized by EDC's policies. So, as the Marxists might say, it's no accident that its staff is going luxury first class-even while the city experiences record levels of small business foreclosures and bankruptcy.

The only elected official who seems concerned about EDC's unaccountability is Comptroller John Liu: "Still, Liu called the ostentatious travel spending "most unfortunate. This high-flying lifestyle further betrays the EDC's long-ingrained culture of being above the rules and of unchecked spending of the public's money," he said."

And Common Cause also weighs in: "There's no justification," said Susan Lerner, head of New York Common Cause. "It's economic development money, it's taxpayer-related funding. Why wouldn't they follow the same rules?" EDC is a quasi-city agency that manages city properties and tries to spark economic growth with tax breaks for developers and corporations."

It's long past time for this stealth group to be governed by the rules that other city agencies must comply with-after all, they also violate the very statutes that they are incorporated under-giving money to LDCs in Coney Island and at Willets Point without following established protocols. That these entities proceeded to engage in illegal lobbying on EDC's behalf merely adds more injury to insult to injury.

We would, however, be remiss, if we didn't mention EDC's effort to build a grand Malecón at Sherman Creek in Washington Heights. Whatever one thinks about the merits of the proposal, one thing is absolutely sure-this has nothing to do with economic development, and will, in fact, hurt the existing businesses in and around the proposed esplanade. Make no mistake about it, the malecón is a park project-and a reading of EDC's discussion of the project finds no mention of any economic benefits. So why is the agency engaged in this work? Yet beacoup bucks are being spent to develop a master plan for this park-with no one questioning the agency about its activity.

All of which underscores the need for such oversight and public review; and we would suggest that the comptroller galvanize political support at the city council for the task. The leadership of the speaker would be helpful, but that would be true on any number of fronts, so why single this one out? But the unexamined role of EDC speaks to the lack of transparency of the Bloomberg administration and its overall insensitivity to the needs of the close to 200,000 small businesses in New York. But whatever the motivation, oversight is badly needed.

NY Post and the Alliance: Perfect Together on Indians

We have been inveighing against the continuing arrogance of the tribes-particularly the Senecas-in refusing to follow the cigarette tax laws; and the NY Post has been in the forefront of the media's coverage of this contentious issue. The recent court delays have only fueled the Indian's sense of entitlement-not to mention their anti-tax coffers.

On Sunday, the Post mirrored our call for a strong governmental response to any Indian violence that might emanate from the state's enforcement effort: "Action from the courts is expected soon, but in the meantime the Senecas — the biggest cigarette retailers by far — are gearing up for battle. Tribal leaders are threatening to deny Albany millions in fees from casino operations if the cigarette tax goes into effect. The Seneca tribal council voted to withhold the roughly $64 million in slot fees it owes each year, using its revenues as a cudgel against the state. At the same time, some council members are hinting at possible violence — and a replay of 1992 and 1997, when the Senecas set fires on the state Thruway and attacked state troopers who entered the reservation to collect the smoke tax."

Well, if the Senecas want sovereignty, then these actions would amount to a declaration of war-and should be met with a strong, swift governmental response: "When the court orders expire, Gov. Paterson says, tax collectors will avoid trespassing on Indian territory and will instead tax the wholesalers who provide tribes with cigarettes in the first place. We hope it’s enough, and that the matter will soon be settled peaceably. But if the Senecas do resort to violence, then Paterson needs to respond quickly and with appropriate sanctions. If that means sending state troopers to the reservations — and simply barring public access to tribal casinos that ignore their tax-collection responsibilities — then so be it."

And the Post goes on to emphasize the double edged sword comment that we-along with State Senator Kruger-had made about the Indians so called sovereignty. We'll give the paper the last word:

"The Senecas may comprise, as they contend, a sovereign nation — but they also have their hands out when it comes to taxpayer-funded school aid, Medicaid assistance and other tax-funded social programs.That is, they are sovereign when it comes to meeting tax obligations — but not at all when it comes to consuming tax dollars.

It’s long past time for this charade to come to an end.

We trust that Paterson will see that it does."

Charting an Error of Commission

We have been charting the vagaries of the Charter Revision Commission and must come to the conclusion that the entire episode was a colossal waste of time and money-and a monument to the solipsistic behavior of the mayor. Having over turned the will of the voters on term limits, he constructed a charter revision line up that must have missed the message of the day-and, having done so, has concocted an unappetizing gruel that the voters of NYC should spit right on in November.

Make no mistake about it, when the voters passed two term limits referendum they made it very clear where they stood-and the three term shuffle that the current commissioners have put before the voters bears little resemblance to the popular sentiment. City Pragmatist has been doing an excellent job following all of the sleight of hand: "The proposals being placed on November’s ballot by the New York City Charter Revision Commission don’t offer voters real choice. The commission has restricted options by lumping the changes into just two ballot questions, putatively because this year’s new paper voting forms are too small to show the proposals individually."

The NY Times reinforces this this morning: "Two years after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg extended the limit on New York City’s elected officials from two terms to three, paving the way for his re-election, nearly three-fourths of city voters favor reversing his move, according to a New York Times poll....The commission, however, decided to shield sitting city officials from any change. Under the proposal on the ballot, those already in office would be given a chance to serve three terms even if voters approved a two-term limit. The Times poll shows that voters overwhelmingly oppose that exemption. Sixty-one percent said that whatever they adopt in November should apply to incumbents, not just newly elected officials; 29 percent think current officeholders should be excluded."

Generally when we feed our dog his pill, we do the same thing-we disguise it amidst all of the other good things he likes to eat. But in the case of the Charter Commission, no subterfuge will disguise that all of this mess is a much too bitter pill to swallow-and voters should vote NO on everything.

First there is the term limits amalgam-and we'll follow the City Pragmatist on this question-with a tip of the hat to their labeling of the proposal as, "Matthew Goldstein's Hobson's Choice." "The proposals being placed on November’s ballot by the New York City Charter Revision Commission don’t offer voters real choice. The commission has restricted options by lumping the changes into just two ballot questions, putatively because this year’s new paper voting forms are too small to show the proposals individually. A lot can happen between now and 2021. We don’t think Question 1 deserves your vote."

We're much better off waiting for the next mayor to fully resolve this issue in the way the voters had originally wanted. And the need to give this commission's ideas the bum rush is even more pronounced with Question 2 on the ballot-a wolf's proposal in the sheep'
s clothing of, "governmental reform." There are a number of irrelevant proposals in this question, but two stand out in all of their perniciousness.

You see, the same mayor who couldn't push his chosen people to simply promote a clear cut two term limit-after all, they are independent, aren't they?-managed  to get these muñecos to re-introduce his administrative tribunal proposal that will further empower the Bloomberg regulatory state. CP captures this essence:

"City Administrative Tribunals: Authorize the Mayor to direct the merger of administrative tribunals and adjudications into the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings and permit the Department of Consumer Affairs to adjudicate all violations issued by that department;
This is about more centralization of mayoral control, and about applying a “one size fits all” approach to diverse agencies through the unified selection and training of Administrative Law Judges. It may violate collective bargaining agreements. It also could make it easier for future mayors to use their political influence to control ALJ selection or assignment. Not a good idea."

But it would do more than even that-and the folks at City Pragmatist missed the import of the DCA adjudication clause. This is something that Bloomberg has been trying to do for years-having first failed in his original charter boat disaster in 2003; and subsequently failing again and again in the legislative route.

As we commented a few years ago:

"On Tuesday the City Council will be holding a hearing on Intro 201, a measure that would expand the current regulatory authority of the DCA. Here we go again! The Bloomberg administration has been attempting- unsuccessfully because of the Alliance's efforts- to increase the DCA's regulatory reach for the past six years. If it wasn't able to do so through law, than it tried to sneak the regulatory expansion through a Charter Revision referendum (overwhelmingly defeated).

As the NY Sun editorialized on these efforts two short years ago (this was the Bloombergistas third attempt), in an editorial appropriately titled, "Undue Process:" "In many ways some might suggest, Introductory Bill 390 can be seen as emblematic of the way that the Bloomberg administration has sought to relate to the city's small businesses: to act as judge, jury and executioner." Now we are once again faced with the recrudescence of the same regulatory impulse, this time in Intro 210.

When is the mayor's minions going to get the message? Neighborhood retailers need, just as do the city's financial markets, less regulation and a reduced tax burden in order to be more productive. When it comes to small business, however, the mayor simply has a tin ear."

Apparently, when it comes to the expansion of regulatory authority-and by extension arbitrary mayoral authority-the small business message will never make it to the mayor's delicate ears. How many times does this Freddy Krueger-like initiative need to be beaten. Haven't the city's small businesses suffered enough from Bloomberg's regulatory demiurge? We suppose that the city's record levels of small business bankruptcies aren't sufficient-Bloomberg shooting for some kind of Guinness Book of Records mark.
 
And then there's the Conflict of Interest Board proposal that-unbeknown to most voters-has given the mayor a total pasedena. Gotham Gazette captures this masterpiece: "The commission did “not recommend change at this time” to loosen the mayor’s iron grip on the Conflicts of Interest Board, which seems to make members of his administration exempt from penalties, whatever their size."
 
But the COIB is badly in need of an overhaul that would put the mayor right in the cynosure where he or she belongs. This is the same mockery that couldn't find its ass with both hands-exemplified by its giving Deputy Dan Doctoroff a clean bill over his conflicted relationship with the developer Steve Ross of Related. Another reason to give this charter crap sandwich a resounding slam dunk into the circular file.
 
It is, however, the term limits sham that should prompt mass voter retching in November-and, as the Gotham Gazette points out, the commission further sullied itself-as did the NY Daily News editorialists-by failing to call the Bloomberg spade a spade over the debacle here: "For example, on term limits (the issue that for all intents and purposes led to creation of the commission) the report attributes the move to extend them in 2008 to the City Council. As for the mayor’s role: He established the Charter Commission and ” asked that the voters be given another opportunity to weigh in on the issue.” Somehow that isn’t quite how we remember it."
 
In some ways, this charter commission exhibits a degree of consistency. Having been called into being by someone whose honesty on the question of term limits was, well, limted, it proceeded to reflect the integrity of its creator. As a result, we should all put the kibosh on this wasted effort when our turn to weigh in arrives on November 2nd.

Make My Day Moment

Liz Benjamin at YNN has been tracking the fight over the collection of taxes on cigarettes sold by Indian scofflaws-and the comments from the Senecas should have Governor Paterson locked and loaded: "Despite two consecutive days of unfavorable court rulings, Gov. David Paterson still believes the state’s new plan to tax cigarettes sold to non-Indians on tribal lands is legal, and will survive pending challenges. But actually collecting those taxes still appears to be a difficult task. Members of several of Indian tribes say they will resort to violence if the state tries to tax them. Thursday, Liz Benjamin spoke to Seneca Nation Tribal Councilor JC Seneca – who says they have no intention of complying with the new state tax, even if they lose in the courts."

Really? Instead of worrying about potential violence, the governor should be issuing the kinds of  Make My Day warnings that Dirty Harry gave to assorted miscreants-and there's no doubt that the Senecas fall into that miscreant category. A major problem here, as we have pointed out, is that the governor mistakimgly put the tax cart before the collection horse-and the resulting Indian summer of love left the tax cupboard bare. So now Paterson has nothing to show for his tax increase except shuttered wholesalers and retailers-and continuing Seneca woof tickets.

Is it any wonder that Paterson is frustrated? He has dithered on this issue instead of being forthright from the beginning-and now, as the NY Post reports, he is taken aback by the disingenuousness of the tribes: "The governor said he met with 10 tribal leaders yesterday. "I find it frustrating," Paterson said. "Some of the groups -- not all, but some of them -- only came to the table to negotiate at the last minute because they didn't think that we would actually implement this."

All of this has really gotten Jim Calvin of NYACS really burned-and he's calling on the governor to put the tax increase in abeyance until this issue is resolved. As YNN reports: "Facing a massive budget deficit this year, the Governor and state legislature passed a budget containing dozens of revenue enhancers. Among them, a tax hike on cigarettes, and a plan to collect taxes on those cigarettes sold to non-Indians on tribal lands. Now that it appears the state won’t be getting revenue from the Indian sales – owners of corner stores and mom and pop shops say they’re facing a crippling disadvantage."

And, as NYACS said in its press release: "The New York Association of Convenience Stores today asked Governor Paterson to issue an executive order suspending the 58% tax hike on cigarettes that took effect July 1, in fairness to long-suffering retailers whom state and federal courts have now deprived of the "other side of the bargain" -- the promise level playing field starting September 1. "In light of the court rulings blocking the start of tax collection on Indian sales of cigarettes to non-Indians, the New York Association of Convenience Stores respectfully requests that you temporarily suspend the cigarette excise tax increase that was enacted July 1," wrote NYACS President James Calvin."

We are rapidly reaching a point where push is gonna come to shove-because after the dust settles, the law will be upheld. If at that point insurrection results, it will be up to the governor to bring down the full force of the government on those who wrongly believe that they are above the law.

New Yorkers Unsure About the Mosque?

The NY Times has an interesting report on the reaction of New Yorkers to the Ground Zero mosque-and what's most interesting to us, is the headline that states, "New Yorkers Unsure of Islamic Center, Poll Finds." Yet, when you read the story, what you find is the exact opposite-New Yorkers in liberal NYC don't want the mosque built anywhere near the current hole in the ground over by Battery Park City: "Two-thirds of New York City residents want a planned Muslim community center and mosque to be relocated to a less controversial site away from ground zero in Lower Manhattan, including many who say they favor the project, according to a New York Times poll. The poll indicates that support for the 13-story complex, which organizers said would promote moderate Islam and interfaith dialogue, is tepid and uncertain in its home town, confined mainly to Manhattan and those who identify as liberal."

The bigots are really coming out of the woodwork-but most folks understand the difference between what's permitted and what's proper: "The poll, however, reveals a more complicated portrait of the opposition in New York: 67 percent said that while Muslims had a right to construct the center near ground zero, they should find a different location. Most strikingly, 40 percent of those who expressed support for the plan to build it in Lower Manhattan said later in a follow-up interview that they would prefer it be moved farther away, suggesting that even those who defend the plan question the wisdom of the location."

And, as the Times points out, Mike Bloomberg isn't much of an opinion leader: "The poll, the first survey to focus exclusively on city residents, was conducted Aug. 17 to 31 with 892 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points. It suggested that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the center’s most ardent and public defender, has yet to unify public opinion around the issue. Asked if they approved or disapproved of how he has handled the subject, city residents were evenly split."

But the mayor's bipolarity on constitutional rights and liberties is what shines through for us. A NY Post editorial paints the picture in a particularly hypocritical hue: "Mayor Bloomberg advises The New York Times: "The government should not be in the business of telling people what to do." To which we say: Ha ha ha haha ha ha! Thanks, Mike. That was a good one. Previous mayoral pronouncements on the proper role of government in peoples' lives have been, of course, somewhat less libertarian in tone. They went something like:

* "Drop the donut, Fatso!"

* "Unhand the saltshaker, Knave!"

* "No sugar for your sodapop, Buster!"

Then there's tobacco -- which he has succeeded in taxing so oppressively that's it has become almost as attractive to the black market as that other devil weed, marijuana."

But when it comes to the bedrock constitutional rights of Muslims, Bloomberg opts to build his church (in the fashion of Martin Luther nailing his theses on the castle wall): "Mike's admonishment, to be sure, came in the context of the discussion over the Ground Zero mosque -- and his point was that government has no business dictating how people should pray. But that's so self-evidently true that it's a wonder he even raised the topic. Still, we're glad he did. A little hot-weather hilarity is always welcome."

But Bloomberg's hypocrisy is far from amusing to us-and it serves to divert attention away from the mayor's nonfeasance for nine years. Think about it, there is currently a seven story hole in the ground where the Twin Towers used to stand-and we are debating whether it is okay to build a mosque next to this holey symbol of government failure. In our view, we shouldn't even be having any discussion of the mosque until the reconstruction of Ground Zero is accomplished-we'll put it on our to do (later) list.

And New Yorkers, unlike the out of touch Bloomberg, understand that the issue is one of sensitivity. As one man told the Times: "Freedom of religion is one of the guarantees we give in this country, so they are free to worship where they chose,” Mr. Merton said. “I just think it’s very bad manners on their part to be so insensitive as to put a mosque in that area.”

It should also be pointed out that this isn't the first time that Bloomberg has lost his way when it comes to offensive Islamists. Remember the prison imam that the mayor couldn't fire? It happened four years ago-and, as the Chief's headline told us: "Jail Chaplain Is Suspended For Offensive Words; Mayor Claims Firing Would Impinge On Free Speech."

What did the guy say? Nothing too offensive; and anyway it was taken out of context: "During Mr. Abdul-Jalil's speech last April, he urged his Muslim audience "to stop allowing ... the Zionists of the media to dictate what Islam is to us." In another address at the same conference, he said, "We know that the greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House." In a statement released shortly after the Mayor's announcement, Mr. Abdul-Jalil said that his comments were never intended "to be disrespectful or to hurt anyone." He added, "I preach love and respect for all people of all faiths. I am sorry if my words were taken out of context and caused offense to anyone."

Sound familiar? But Jalil's comments didn't bother the Left-after all, they were saying the same things about President Bush. And Imam Rauf, our current imam du jour, has the same kind of slipperiness-knowing what to say before different audiences. Lest you think that Jalil had simply had a momentary lapse of sanity, let's hear what else he had to say: "During his speech last year, Mr. Abdul-Jalil also claimed that Muslims incarcerated in Manhattan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks had been tortured. "They are not charged with anything, they are not entitled to any rights, they are interrogated," he alleged. "Some of them are literally tortured, and we found this in the Metropolitan Correctional Facility in Manhattan."

And the best response Mike Bloomberg could muster was a reprimand-when it was within his rights to can the bastard whose views should have made him person non grata everywhere; but especially in our jails where many Americans have been converted to the most virulent strain of Islam: "The city could have fired Mr. Abdul-Jalil, who serves at the pleasure of the Correction Commissioner without civil service protections."

This is, as the NY Post reported in February, a pattern with the Bloombergistas: "It's time for City Hall to take the chaplaincy program at the Department of Correction and shake it like the dirty rug it has become. Wednesday, Imam Zulqarnain Abdu-Shahid was arrested as he entered the Tombs in lower Manhattan. The Muslim prison chaplain said he "forgot" that he had utility blades and scissors in his carrying bag. Abdu-Shahid was immediately suspended as chaplain, and for good reason. Quite apart from the contraband charges, it turns out he's a convicted murderer -- having been found guilty in 1979 of murder and robbery involving a Harlem supermarket hold-up. And it appears that the department was wholly unaware of Abdu-Shahid's record."

And then there's Imam Umar: "Three years earlier, Imam Warith Deen Umar, the man previously in charge of hiring Muslim chaplains for state prisons, declared that the 9/11 hijackers should be considered martyrs." And given this here no evil, see no evil attitude in Mayor Mike's administration, why should anyone be surprised that he's against vetting the GZ mosque funding?

As City Room reported the other day: "Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo should not investigate the financing of the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Tuesday, reiterating his support for the project. “I think it’s a terrible precedent,” he said. “You don’t want them investigating donations to religious organizations, and there’s no reason for the government to do so.”

So, Bloomberg doesn't believe in vetting anything that involves Islamists-and when one of them exhibits his true colors, the mayor invokes his first amendment rights to justify why he didn't fire him?" And what's up with City Room's description here? "Mr. Bloomberg made his remarks about the controversial development project, known as Park51, in response to questions about a Quinnipiac University poll released on Tuesday that found voters in New York State deeply divided, with more than 70 percent of them wanting Mr. Cuomo to investigate the project’s financing." (emphasis added)
 
Hah, as James Taranto points out in the WSJ, it is Bloomberg and the dwindling 22% that is sharply divided from the city's clear thinking majority. So, while we applaud our fellow New Yorkers about their queasiness around the siting of the GZ mosque, we urge them to become more aware of how the man who can't be bought-but who, in turn, has bought an undeserved third term-has sold them a bill of goods about who he really is.

Whither the Rule of Law?

The latest snafu in regards to enforcing the NY State tax laws, raises the question of whether the rule of law will be upheld-or will an undeserved lucrative criminal enterprise will be allowed to flourish with impunity at the expense of helpless small business owners and NY tax payers? The decision of the Federal judge in Buffalo cries out for an investigation from the US Attorneys office-since the sovereignty claims of the tax scofflaws have been exposed as baseless by this country's highest court.

Now a state judge has joined his federal colleague and has thrown this whole controversy into limbo. As the NY Times reports: "A state law to tax cigarettes sold by Indian tribes in New York had barely gotten off the ground on Wednesday when a state appellate court judge brought it to a halt, blocking an effort that Gov. David A. Paterson said could help stabilize the state’s finances. The judge’s decision, to stop the state temporarily from enforcing its plan, came a day after a federal court ruling prohibiting tax collections specifically on cigarettes sold by the Seneca and Cayuga Nations, two of the largest tribes in the state."

On what grounds? The Times doesn't say-but the governor's office vows to fight on: "But the Paterson administration said it was determined to carry on the fight and make its case in court. “We believe the state’s legal arguments are sound and we believe that ultimately the state will prevail in this matter,” Jessica Bassett, a spokeswoman for the governor, said in a statement."

Meanwhile there is a budget hole-something between $150 and $200 million-that needs to be filled. But the larger question is whether one small group of special pleading criminals-folks who have amassed a fortune while operating spuriously under a cloak of victimhood and past injustice-will be allowed to flout the law and victimize the rest of us. And the Indians, for their part, want to re-litigate the 1994 decision that then AG Oliver Koppell had successfully prosecuted all the way up to the Supreme Court.

As the NY Post reports: "The Indians' challenges are in multiple courts because they're attacking the taxation on several levels. The Senecas' federal court suit, which the Cayugas joined, seeks to invalidate the state tax law by arguing New York lacks jurisdiction to regulate Indian nations within their territories. The tribes' state court challenge, meanwhile, opposes the expedited way New York tax officials chose to adopt the regulations to implement the law, not the law itself."

But aside from all this legal flim flamming, the threats of violence still remain. As the Buffalo News tells us: "Seneca Nation Tribal Councillor Travis Jimerson told a crowd of about 100 at one of the morning rallies that he wanted to remind the state and state leaders that New York "was built around us. They never beat us. They never removed us," Jimerson said. "We're a nation that's never been beat. Many have tried, and they failed."

And then there's this: "Richard Nephew, a member of the Seneca Nation Tribal Council, told the crowd at the rally at Big Indian that he believes that the media rarely point out what the state owes the Seneca Nation, instead focusing on what the nation owes the state. The state made promises in 1976 surrounding the construction of Route 17, which crosses the Allegheny territory, Nephew said. "We're still waiting for those promises to be kept," he said. Nephew also called the Thruway that runs through the Cattaraugus territory "an illegal business conducted by New York state on our territories."

Give us a break! If the state owes the tribe money for the right of way, make that deal with them-but don't give them a multi-billion dollar annuity that is killing the small shop keepers all over New York. And, if they are sovereign, why are we providing the 25,000 Indians in the state with all of those American health and welfare benefits?

Enough is enough. Enforce the law and let these judges step aside for the sovereignty rights of the State of New York.

Get off the Schneid

Wayne Barrett has a devastating attack on the manner in which he believes that State Senator Eric Schneiderman-a candidate for attorney general-is paving the way for a Republican victory in the general election should he manage to win his party's nomination. He begins with Schneiderman's obsequiousness vis a vis our pal Al Sharpton:

"While I was away on vacation last week, Al Sharpton, one of the worst tax scofflaws in New York, endorsed Eric Schneiderman for the state's top law enforcement office. No big deal. Any one of the four other Democrats running for attorney general would have, oddly, welcomed the endorsement of the man everyone presumes has great influence with New York blacks even though he got eight percent of the total vote in the state's 2004 presidential primary, barely nosing out Dennis Kucinich, and only a third of the black vote, a universe away from the 85 percent Chicago's Jesse Jackson got in NY a decade before him. Here's what astonished me. Schneiderman could have just said "Thank you, Rev." Instead, obsequious Eric said how great it was to get "the Good Housekeeping seal of approval from the man from the House of Justice," which is what Sharpton calls his National Action Network (NAN) headquarters in Harlem."

We remain shocked at how the race baiting schnorrer Sharpton has become a must get endorsement in Democratic circles-and that he is a sure sign of the ethical demise of Democrats. But Schneiderman elevated toady to new heights: "Schneiderman cited Sharpton's pursuit of justice and said he would "seek to follow that model as AG," adding: "The House of Justice will have an annex in Albany for the first time in the history of the state." It was craven excess, an unconscious declaration of how transactional Schneiderman actually sees the office he seeks. No one really expects a Sharpton cubicle in Schneiderman's office, but the AG-to-be was declaring that an organization that the current officeholder, Andrew Cuomo, investigated just two years ago would have an inside track with Schneiderman because its leader was helping to make him AG."

And, as Barrett points out, the Schneiderman-Sharpton dancing with the stars intimacy will be prime campaign fodder for the Republican AG nominee, Dan Donovan: "Republican Dan Donovan, who salivates to face Schneiderman in the fall, will throw the tape up in a statewide TV ad and probably win his own Good Housekeeping seal in November. The seal, by the way, just celebrated its 100th anniversary, and it guarantees a replacement for any defective product. Donovan may well replace the devastatingly defective alliance for justice that Schneiderman and Sharpton are peddling."

But on one hand you got to give Schneiderman credit for ideological purity. At a time when the electorate is moving in a more centrist direction-and when Albany budget woes and dysfunction are prime issue-Eric is moving steadfastly in the direction of progressive purity. A tactic that may win him the nomination, but will make it very difficult in this year to capture the state's top law enforcement position.

But an embrace of the National Action Network may prove to be the kiss of death: "So the organization with a prospective annex in Schneiderman's office is extending one defiant middle finger in the direction of the same office, and Schneiderman is so oblivious to his potential oversight responsibilities he is giving the House of Justice his own Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Starting with Bob Abrams a couple of decades ago, New York State attorney generals have been more interested in Sharpton's possible crimes than his advice."

Barrett goes on to ridicule the NY Times for its praise of Schneiderman's miraculous Independence from Albany's culture of corruption: "Am I missing something? The New York Times endorsed Schneiderman, as did The Nation. He's supposed to be the progressive hero in this divided field, a reformer who has proven his willingness to take on the powers-that-be. The Times actually said in its endorsement that Schneiderman had "again bucked his own party leadership" when he pressed a domestic violence case against State Senator Hiram Monserrate, forcing him from office. No one has fairly credited the Times in recent years for its sense of humor. In fact, Schneiderman helped install John Sampson as chairman of the Democratic conference a few months before the Monserrate vote and Sampson was at the Sharpton endorsement, just as he has been again and again at Schneiderman campaign events. He is one of Schneiderman's loudest backers."

And the Monserrate "trial," was in fact a device that was crafted by senate leadership-with Sampson designating Schneiderman to head it up: "Schneiderman so boldly broke with his leadership that he joined virtually the entire Democratic delegation in the Monserrate vote, making it apparently an entire conference of renegades all worthy of higher office no doubt. Charades are rarely offered as rationales in Times endorsements, a reflection of how thin the actual reform resume is for the paper's new "independent" icon."

But the role of public employee unions is going to be front and center in this fall's election-and the NY Times, in true Pravda fashion, has airbrushed Eric's positions and relationships: "The easiest way to tell the Times is just kidding is when it uses the word "bucked," because it is so stuck on that phrase that the Eric endorsement rolled it out again to say Schneiderman took on the powerful public employee unions, who apparently like legislators who buck them so much that they all endorsed him anyway. Maybe it is a new use of the term and has something to do with how many "bucks" these impressionable unions are giving Schneiderman now."

And what about the out-of-control public employee pensions? Once again the Times misconstrues and misleads: "The only Times evidence of Schneiderman's supposedly "bucking" the unions was his support of "a less costly pension plan for new state employees." In fact, as the Times itself reported, the unions jumped at the Paterson pension deal, which bound the state to a no-layoff, no-furlough, no pay-raise-deferral policy. "The agreement," said the Times in 2009, "requires legislative approval, but endorsements by the governor and the labor unions virtually assure success." Now legislative approval of this deal -- which was virtually unanimous -- has been elevated to a badge of courage for Schneiderman, proving his stiff spine in the face of union pressure."

This is a profile in courage? We can imagine Republican Donovan secretly contributing to Schneiderman's campaign-drooling at the prospect of facing the most left wing of the four potential nominees: "Can you manage the beers hoisted at union halls when they got the news that their boy Eric was getting both them and the key editorial board that thinks public officials should be independent of the unions? It's a touching triumph of paradox in a time of peril, when pensions and other costs threaten the viability of state government."

So Schneiderman will, if he manages to win a low turn out primary, be running with the mantle of support from Al Sharpton and the public employee unions-along with a decade long record of having served in Albany and no law enforcement background. Should he win, that traditional move to the middle from the primary to the general election will be the equivalent of Chairman Mao's Long March-with the Democratic Party as Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang.

Indians Accuse the Governor and the Mayor of Taxicide

YNN is reporting that the Seneca are once again resorting to lies and distortions in their ongoing effort to undermine the rule of law-this time taking out an ad that accuses the two law makers of, "death by taxes." Here's what the intrepid Liz has found: "The Seneca Free Trade Association took out this full-page ad in today’s Buffalo News that hits Gov. David Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg for the (currently stalled) effort to collect sales taxes on cigarettes sold to non-Indians on Indian land. The ad states that “Death by Taxes” is “not just a clever pun about today’s economic times, but an actual threat made by NYS Governor David Paterson and encouraged by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg...”

Of course, neither the mayor or the governor said anything remotely threatening-but both men have been keenly aware of the threats of violence echoing throughout the tribal network ( not to mention the actual violence that took place in the nineties). But what we thought was rather droll is the following characterization of Bloomberg and Paterson as being tools of some unnamed special interests: 'They may think nothing about sacrificing Native Americans to make good on promises made to special interest groups and campaign contributors…When Native Americans are beaten and killed in the days to come it will easily be defended as WE ARE JUST DOING OUR JOBS.”

Now that's a mouthful crying out for some deconstruction. In the case of the mayor, of course, he hasn't taken a dime from anyone but his own accountant-so that accusation is simply farcical. The governor has done business with a wide range of groups and interests-and we would be shocked if an investigation uncovered no Seneca contributions to all of  NY's last three governors. These Indians are Players!

But of course, both the governor and the mayor are actually trying in this case to represent not only the public interest, but the rule of law-and with multi-billion budget deficits why should the Seneca be given special dispensation from our tax laws? And let's be real, the governor's concern with violence is certainly not some kind of psychotic break-and the Seneca's charge is a classic example of projection.

Put simply, any violence and loss of life would only be a consequence of efforts by the tribes to forcefully flout the law. If that happens, the instigators have only themselves to blame.

Judge Scalps Tax Payers

According to our informed sources, there is a good chance that Judge Arcara will end the tax enforcement once the two week delay is finished-but in the meantime there is havoc since the judge's ruling only applies to two tribes. As the Times Union reports: "Just as state tax agents were preparing to act on the Legislature's and Gov. David Paterson's decision to collect taxes from Native American cigarette merchants, a federal court judge in Buffalo on Tuesday gave a reprieve to at least two Indian nations. Ruling in favor of the Seneca and Cayuga tribes, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Arcara temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law until a hearing to determine if a trial is in order. The hearing on his preliminary injunction is scheduled in two weeks."

We still can't figure out the basis in law for the judge's decision-and he mercifully refrained from stating any legal reasons for the stay. After all, there simply are none. But the danger here is that this will turn into an excuse for the governor to negotiate something with the Indians that falls far short of enforcement-and we will still have a huge revenue hole in the state's budget that  needs to be filled.

So, once again, tax payers and tax paying retailers are being told to suck wind-and this has state senator Carl Kruger hopping mad: "We were looking forward to the implementation date," said Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a major advocate for taxing Indian cigarette sales to non-Indians. "This throws a monkey wrench in the process. What we're doing is at the rate of $1 million a day we are feeding the legal defense fund of the Native Americans as they move forward with their agenda of claiming sovereignty." He said he is upset that the same nations accept government assistance and benefits such as Medicaid."

And these bogus sovereignty claims need to be put to rest for good: "Tim Coulter, executive director of the Indian Law Resource Center, who has worked for decades with New York tribes, said: "The big picture is the law is wrong; it isn't just for one government to tax the activities of another; for instance the federal government doesn't tax the states."

Which gets us back to Senator Kruger's comments about the level of public support that the tribes are accessing-they simply can't have it both ways. And please, the Indians should keep their gross and untenable accusations-as well as their lachrymose bleatings about an inability to compete to themselves: "The governor is rushing this without telling us what the implementation will be," said Lancy Gumbs, trustee of the Shinnecock tribe. "This is just a flat-out siege of our economics, an economic genocide."

Jim Calvin of NYACS puts this into the perspective of the struggling store owners: "We're deeply disappointed," said James Calvin, president of the New York State Association of Convenience Stores. "We don't see any circumstances that would justify delaying enforcement; all these issues have been argued and reargued ad nauseam."

As the Governor Paterson told the NY Times: "The decision to impose taxes on cigarettes sold by Indians was driven in part by the state’s own financial straits. Gov. David A. Paterson said the taxes would raise about $200 million. “We are not interfering with the sovereignty of any Indian nations,” Mr. Paterson told reporters at an unrelated event in Harlem. “We are just making changes to the way we distribute cigarettes in our state.”

But the Times misses the crux of the 15 year old battle to get a level playing field in the state-it has not been a deference to Indian sovereignty that has forestalled tax enforcement-it has been the fecklessness of the state's chief executives: "Because tribes are considered sovereign nations, New York State has not collected taxes from Indian tribes, allowing them to sell cigarettes for significantly lower prices than non-Indian competitors. As cigarette taxes increased over time, cigarette sales boomed in Indian reservations, becoming the backbone of the economies of some tribes."
 
So we await the adjudication of this matter with that old deja vu ad nauseum sense of Bill Murray in Groundhogs Day. Once again, tax payers and store owners-along with the dwindling number of stamping agents-are being forced to sit and wait for justice delayed to become justice. It's long past time.

Palestinian Misunderstanding of Islam Kills 4 Israelis on Eve of Mideast Peace Talks

Isn't it amazing how there is so much Islamic misunderstanding going on-leading to horrific violence-and the misinterpretation of the scriptures is being done, not by apostates, but by Muslims themselves? As one web site reminds us: "Four Israelis were killed on Tuesday night when gunmen opened fire on their car at the entrance to Kiryat Arba, near Hebron, in the West Bank." And a bit later we find out that it was those same folks at Hamas who claimed responsibility, you know, the ones that good old Imam Rauf can't quite get himself to label as terrorists.

And, just so we don't forget to inform you about just who this guy is-and scratch our heads and wonder about all of those Jewish electeds that rushed to his defense-here is a bit of eye opening information from Politico (via Weasel Zippers):

"As Ground Zero-area mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf heads home a few days early from his State Department-sponsored trip to the Mideast, the Wall Street Journal quotes from two letters he wrote to the NY Times in the 1970s in which he is less-than-committed to preserving the Jewish State of Israel.

The interest has been peaked, in part, because of the comments he was quoted making on “60 Minutes” in which he called the U.S. an “accessory” to the 9/11 attacks in the days shortly after the carnage, and a separate interview recently in which he wouldn’t denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. (emphasis added)

There is this letter from 1977 in reference to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s trip to Israel, in which Rauf urged giving “peace a chance,” but, as the WSJ concludes, it may have been merely to the point that doing so would help establish a greater goal:

“In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure,” Rauf wrote. “In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.”

Preaching right next to Ground Zero? We don't think so.

Ranks of the Bigots Swell

Yesterday's Q-Poll throws a dash of cold water on Mike Bloomberg's attack on the supposed bigotry of the opponents of the GZ mosque. As the NY Post reported, not only do New Yorkers want the mosque moved; they also want AG Cuomo to investigate the funding sources: "Move the mosque! Seven in ten New Yorkers say the proposed mosque/Islamic community center near Ground Zero should be relocated because of opposition from 9/11 families — and an equal number want state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to probe the group’s finances, a new statewide poll released today found. “Overwhelmingly — across party and regional lines — New Yorkers say the sponsors ought to voluntarily move the proposed mosque to another location,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Poll."

7 in 10-that's a lot of bigots Daisy Khan. And the investigation should commence forthwith since the more we know about developer Gamal, the more he comes off as a hustling low life. The Post editorialists nails this: "No wonder the guys who want to build that Islamic center near Ground Zero are quiet as mosque mice about financing: Turns out, as The Post first reported, their own financial records are, well, a bit short of blue chip. Indeed, Sharif El-Gamal, who owns the site -- as The Post's Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein reported Sunday -- owes nearly a quarter of a million dollars to the city in back payments. His firm, 45 Park Place Partners, simply skipped its property-tax bills in January and July, according to the Finance Department. Gamal's folks say he delayed payments while seeking a lower tax rate, The New York Times reported."

Do you think that the mayor might want to take back his assertion that questioning the funding sources of the mosque would be un-American?  As the Post goes on to point out: "All of which sheds new light on the question of how Gamal and Rauf will get the $100 million said to be needed for the mosque project. Rauf has talked out of both sides of his mouth about that. He's told US audiences that the cash will come from US Muslims but suggested to an Arabic newspaper that he'll get funding from Arab countries."

But, as City Room reports, Bloomberg is sticking to his dead end position on funding: "Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo should not investigate the financing of the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Tuesday, reiterating his support for the project. “I think it’s a terrible precedent,” he said. “You don’t want them investigating donations to religious organizations, and there’s no reason for the government to do so.” Mr. Bloomberg made his remarks about the controversial development project, known as Park51, in response to questions about a Quinnipiac University poll released on Tuesday that found voters in New York State deeply divided, with more than 70 percent of them wanting Mr. Cuomo to investigate the project’s financing."

In our view, the terrible precedent that was set was done so in November, 2001, when New Yorkers elected this tone deaf and political abhorrent man as their mayor-the rest is just commentary.

Now we know that politics makes for some very strange bedfellows, but for the mayor to be sleeping with Gamal-let alone the two faced Rauf and Khan-is just a bit too unseemly for us. We'll give the Post the last word here: "As we've said repeatedly, they have a right to build an Islamic center hard by Ground Zero -- inappropriate as many find that to be. But they have to be able to pay for it. With clean money. And until they say -- at the least -- how they'll do that, there's little cause to back their project."

High Caloric Stupidity

It wasn't bad enough that Mother Bloomberg-without a scintilla of scientific evidence to demonstrate efficacy-implemented a calorie counting rule (not law) in NYC? Now, doubling down on stupidity-since the post rule studies show little or no effect on consumer choice-the federal government is getting into the act. All we can say is that the ideologues over at Center for Science in the Public Interest must be pigging out over all of this-after all-CSPI was the instigator of calorie counting its never ending jihad against fast food.

The WSJ has the gruesome details-and it appears that counting calories may become ubiquitous: "The expansion stems from provisions in the health-care overhaul enacted in March. The government wants calorie listings posted to make it easier for consumers to select healthier options, and the restaurant industry backed the move so it could avoid a patchwork of local ordinances that are developing. So far, the expansion of the calorie counts beyond restaurants has drawn praise from nutrition advocates but push-back from industries that say the original legislation was never intended to hit them."

So, who exactly is covered? Well, just about everyone: "In preliminary guidelines released last week, the Food and Drug Administration said the scope of the law stretches beyond restaurants to encompass airlines, trains, grocery-store food courts, movie theaters and convenience stores that qualify as chains. Within grocery stores, the agency said, it is considering including salad bars, store bakeries, pizza bars and delicatessens. Stadiums aren't listed since they aren't chains."

Now keep in mind that there has yet to be one study done to determine whether all of this will do consumers any good-after all, we've had package nutritional labeling for two decades, and in that time the country has launched, in tribute to the effort, an obesity epidemic: "Research has shown mixed results on whether New York City's requirement has prompted consumers to select healthier foods. A 2009 study published in the journal Health Affairs didn't find evidence that menu labeling influenced the total number of calories purchased by New York residents. A Stanford University study of Starbucks outlets in New York City found that average calories per transaction fell by 6% after menu listings took effect."

Take a second look at the above information. In traditional fast food joints-no effect; but in upscale Starbucks, catering to the thinner latte crowd, a minimal impact. And, of course, no one bothered to do any costing of the measure for the beleaguered businesses-another mandate for small business, courtesy of ObamaCare.


As we pointed out last year-citing the NY Times: "So, as we warned New Yorkers when the silly idea of calorie posting was first proposed, there was no evidence that the concept would have the slightest effect on the behavior of fast food customers-and we have been proven correct. As the NY Times reports today, the whole experiment has been a colossal waste of time and money: "A study of New York City’s pioneering law on posting calories in restaurant chains suggests that when it comes to deciding what to order, people’s stomachs are more powerful than their brains...It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result. But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008."


Let us put this as simply as possible: menu labeling is just the tip of the ObamaCare iceberg. If nothing is done to drastically alter-but preferably repeal-this law, the calorie counting will eventually be seen as only a minor nuisance. But make no mistake about it, if the Feds are paying for your health care, well, you know the old saying, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." And it will be an off-key tune that all of us will be forced to dance to, whether we have the rhythm or not.