Posted on 01/05/2011 2:35:00 AM PST by Scanian
'Unfortunately, partisan politics has immobilized Washington," Mayor Bloomberg told Time magazine in 2007. Bloomberg, according to Michael Grunwald's cover story, was half of a dynamic duo revolutionizing American politics. The other partner: California's then still-shiny governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Together, they were "The New Action Heroes" who, Grunwald said, were "doing big things that Washington has failed to do."
Today, the Big Apple remains immobilized not from partisan politics but by Bloomberg's arrogance. Hizzoner was more concerned with getting salt off New Yorkers' plates than he was with getting it on the snow crippling their streets.
"The Governator," meanwhile, leaves California $28 billion in the hole, his former presidential ambitions an absurd joke and the state's GOP in tatters.
Both men were deemed heroic for abandoning ideology to focus on pragmatic problem-solving. Bloomberg has made this something of a crusade. He helped launch the laughingstock group No Labels, which seeks to get the "politics out of problem-solving."
But people disagree about how to solve problems, and may disagree about what is a problem in the first place. In a democratic republic, we hash out these disagreements through this thing called "politics." Getting politics out of problem-solving is synonymous with getting democracy out of politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The reason for ideology is it provides a roadmap to knowing where you’re going in politics. A political career without it is akin to a blind man flailing about without a guide dog.
So beware politicians who tell you don’t have to pick sides. They do even when they claim they’re not taking a side at all. That’s just pure hokum.
I sincerely hope that the public stops giving any respect to failed leaders like these 2.
I make no bones about it. I consider Bloomberg to be as evil a man as Soros.
These two have a had a pin stuck in them and all the gas is spewing out.
I wonder if I recommended grass lawns on the New York City rooftops, would they actually take it as a good idea? After all, rooftop lawns are “green” and demand some employment to trim them every now and then. That would be my suggestion as a NYC resident anyway, if I were one.
Shoot, in Sweden sod roofs were all the rage last time I was over there. It’s been a bit of a surprise that they haven’t caught on here.
It started in the U.S. with Chicago, where a Wal-Mart and an Apple store, along with a few other high-rise buildings, were the earlier ones to do it. IMO, I think NYC and a few other cities have an issue with catching on to this. It’s less expensive, and potentially gets you a good deal for the buck as well. I see it this way. If you already need to wash and scrub the rooftop (i.e. do the work to pump water many stories vertically to the rooftop), why not use that water to water the sod on top? In addition, with enough rooftop lawns, that would demand employment for those who work in lawn and garden services to cut the grass or check to see that the sprinkler systems work occasionally. Finally, with enough sod roofs, you are reducing the urban heat island affect, in which concrete fluctuates more rapidly in temperature than does sod, which could mean both less heating/AC, depending on the season.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.