Seriously. Obviously I hate the bailout and am really proud to come from a state where they said NO take your socialism, we'll keep our states rights and our charity and our gun rights.
Anyway.
I don't like the bailout. I think it's stupid. I think it defies all economic principles.
But there is one institution that could really use a boost. The MTA.
For non New Yorkers (are you friendly? do you give your seats up for pregnant women?), I'm talking about the Mass Transit Authority. Basically this is the public transportation in the NYC Metropolitan area. Most frequented are the Subways but the buses and even ferries are pretty popular as well. So there are crazy parking fees and gas is $1941029410 a gallon etc etc, and in NYC everyone loves mass transit. There are a few somewhat unique features of mass transit in New York.
-Subways run 24/7. The most you will ever wait for a train is 15 minutes. And you'd have a right to be really annoyed in that case because it doesn't happen to often. In other cities, such as DC, the train shuts down in the middle of the night and if you have to get to work at 5:30 AM then you are in trouble. Also other cities sometimes even have days of the week where there is no mass transit.
-No matter where you are going, the price is the same--as of now $2. You can ride from Queens to Brooklyn, transfers and all, and only pay $2. Or, you can ride from 34th & 6th to 23rd & 6th, and it's still $2. The later is a punishment for extreme laziness which I support.
-The system always seems to be losing. Despite the overcrowded trains, the cops kicking the bums off the stairwell, the great musicians and not so great musicians for entertainment... the MTA can never really keep up.
So the MTA had a few options. Let's do some basic microeconomic theory Obviously, PROFIT= REVENUE- EXPENSES and since profit < 0, then expenses > revenue, and the MTA either has to make more or spend less.
Let's analyze these two options.
1. Spend Less
Ways to spend less include:
a. LESS FREQUENT TRAINS. This is my preference, and I don't mean cutting out daytime trains. I mean cutting out all but maybe two trains that run on each line between 3:00 AM and 5:00 AM. This would mean those who travel at these strange times would have to either plan their commute accordingly or else hang out in the Starbucks for another thirty minutes. This would save millions for MTA in the course of the year and in effect take care of the deficit. But NYC is famous for running all night so they can't do that. Moronic.
b. LESS HOURS FOR THE MTA TICKET BOOTH WORKERS This wouldn't be such a bad idea because mostly they just yell into the intercom for us to look at the map. Most people that take the subway either know the routes, can read a map pretty well, or don't speak English anyway. But we don't want to cut [unnecessary] jobs. I guess.
c. THERE IS REALLY NOTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE THEY CLEAN THESE PLACES OR ANYTHING.
2. Make More
Say you are selling a book and want to make as much as possible. Would you sell the book for $500 dollars? Of course not! Nobody would buy it. You'd figure out how the highest price most buyers would spend, and charge that. Of course. But the MTA has this great idea that no matter what they charge , they will get the same number of clients..if they charge fifteen cents or ten dollars. This is ignorant. People will just have to find another way to get to work, or maybe not work at the same place or live in the same place. What this could cause is clear...a major strain on the economy. Over 11 million people use the MTA each day. What happens if they can't afford to get to work? MTA wants to change the fair from $2 to $3. This is a 50% increase. It's pretty huge.
The more logical way to make more is to attract more. This is clear because selling one book for $500 makes a lot less than selling 100 books for $10. Duh. You can obviously say eleven million people is too much already and I never get a seat on the train except the seat next to the sleeping drunk guy and I wish less people rode the train. And you'd be right. But do you really think this is how MTA gets a revenue? Think about the ADVERTISEMENTS. Think about all the empty space. Ok, I hate being bombarded just as much as you do, but you know that we are all so engrossed in our own worries and our iPod and our iPhone and whatever else that most of the time you don't notice them. So what about more adds? What about audio or video adds? Thats a lot of money.
So here's our dilema. We have three real options
-Less trains. MTA is not going to do this because they want their reputation for 24/7 whatever.
-More adds. New York has this new fear of branding so this won't happen for another five years but don't worry. It WILL happen.
-Higher fees. This is what MTA is willing to do although its going to overall hurt the economy.
So none of these options are good for both parties (being MTA and the clients, which can be redefined as the general public).
What does our President do? ( I clarify that P. Bush is just as responsible for this bailout as P. Obama is, but either way it is wrong wrong wrong)
He thinks our money would be better spent renovating government buildings and repaving roads and putting fresh coats of paint on stop signs, why not subsidize the MTA?
Ok Right friends, don't shoot me. I did suggest government subsidizing the MTA. Temporarily. As opposed to the NYC economy completely falling apart when they want to charge 50% more for a ride to work.
Don't get me wrong if it were up to me...no bailout. But if they have to take my money, this is a place I think it would be good to go to.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Pirates...or Patriots?
Hearing the word "pirate" probably arouses fond childhood memories of playing the backyard, or maybe adventure novels read in middle school. In my case, it usually reminds me of high school, because my school mascot was the pirate.
If you are just hearing about the 2009 Pirate Crisis, you're probably on the wrong blog. But anyway it's nothing too far away from the 2009 Israel/Hamas Crisis. Or the Oil Crisis. Or 911. It's basically Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups encouraging Somalian pirates to continue their crusade against evil, or something like that...
(And you know what? It's working.)*
Senior Al Qaeda official Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri (try saying THAT ten times fast!), or Abu Sufian al-Azdi for short, encourage
" The crusaders, the Jews and the traitorous rulers did not come to the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden except to wage war against you in Somalia and abolish your newly established emirate, and by Allah, they shall be defeated. They shall bring a curse upon their people." (from a tape acquired by CBS news)
Okay, first of all I want to point out that these pirates have captured Greeks (most definitely not Jewish, anyone know the story behind Hanukkah?), Lebanese (see 2005 and the turning back of the clocks of Beirut), Egyptians (ehhh...), etc., etc., NO ISRAELI SHIPS. So If their goal is actually Jews than they have some bad aim.
Secondly, if these countries wanted to "wage war" against Somalia and Djibouti, don't you think they'd do it instead of just floating through the water to do some trading? Hello.
Thirdly, these attacks are clearly random. These are often not government owned ships and owned by corporations.
Obviously it's sick that America isn't really treating this at part of the War On Terror. Is it really not considered terrorism when a bunch of teenagers with guns attack and American ship? If they had been older would it have been? Or maybe if they were having a TEA PARTY? Or maybe we don't want to stereotype.
Just because these pirates are named things like Abduhl Wal-i-Musi obviously doesn't make them terrorists. But it doesn't mean we should try to be politically correct. Because they attack us and they have guns and they hate and they aren't scared of anything and they are encouraged by Al Qaeda...this certainly points to terrorism to me.
To treat these people like they are poor teenagers with guns is not only wrong its dangerous. Ignoring threats to our safety is a lot more dangerous than risking the Dixie Chicks criticize you in France.
I don't know why our President is worried about that anyone. President Sarkozy is not a fan.
There are three main ways the media has been handling this.
1. The Conservatives--Right as usual.
2. The Obamanatics -
The media, such as CNN and all of your other proudly liberal mainstream channels, have been dumping praise on Pres Obama this last week or so for giving the military the go ahead to save Captain Richard Phillips. Uh. Seriously? What was the alternative? "I give you permission to save your captains life and not let him get shot by some sixteen (excuse me, he might be seventeen) year old Somali kid." What? Am I the only one baffled by this? I guess you can't take anything for granted these days. I assume an American President would support the military in any possible way but with none of our 800 billion going to anything having to do with safety (other than environmental safety, whatever that means), but it's a new era. Hold on tight.
The main stream media has not really been praising our military for saving Cptn Phillips, or talking about how amazingly brave he is , or suggesting ways to avoid pirates in the future. Anybody should clearly see that the hero here was not our dear President but the MILITARY.
3. The Fringes
Here I am speaking of the your favorite crazies to watch on the news. What they say is so bizarre that it's easy to forget they are serious. But they are... Example : The Reverend Al Sharpton. Americans tend to call these people pirates. Some reasons include they are on boats, they have guns, they hijack boats, the ask for money, etc. That's basically what pirates are. Maybe they don't have swords or parrots or say arggh, but these people are dangerous. Al Sharpton commented on this, and said that he agrees more with the definition these people give themselves
"VOLUNTARY COAST GUARD".
This guy is a nut. If he is such a fan of these patriots, what is he doing wearing a suit being interviewed on CNN? Get out there and fight the power!!!!
Bottom line is: These pirates are way more than a nuisance and need to be treated that way. This isn't a new problem, this isn't an American problem, and it's not a Somali problem. It's a global problem. What a shame that there is no such thing as a global community (don't get me wrong, there never really has been one) to get together and try to sort this out.
*Sorry for all the (parentheses) in this post. And all the other posts. I really like them. Deal with it.
If you are just hearing about the 2009 Pirate Crisis, you're probably on the wrong blog. But anyway it's nothing too far away from the 2009 Israel/Hamas Crisis. Or the Oil Crisis. Or 911. It's basically Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups encouraging Somalian pirates to continue their crusade against evil, or something like that...
(And you know what? It's working.)*
Senior Al Qaeda official Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri (try saying THAT ten times fast!), or Abu Sufian al-Azdi for short, encourage
" The crusaders, the Jews and the traitorous rulers did not come to the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden except to wage war against you in Somalia and abolish your newly established emirate, and by Allah, they shall be defeated. They shall bring a curse upon their people." (from a tape acquired by CBS news)
Okay, first of all I want to point out that these pirates have captured Greeks (most definitely not Jewish, anyone know the story behind Hanukkah?), Lebanese (see 2005 and the turning back of the clocks of Beirut), Egyptians (ehhh...), etc., etc., NO ISRAELI SHIPS. So If their goal is actually Jews than they have some bad aim.
Secondly, if these countries wanted to "wage war" against Somalia and Djibouti, don't you think they'd do it instead of just floating through the water to do some trading? Hello.
Thirdly, these attacks are clearly random. These are often not government owned ships and owned by corporations.
Obviously it's sick that America isn't really treating this at part of the War On Terror. Is it really not considered terrorism when a bunch of teenagers with guns attack and American ship? If they had been older would it have been? Or maybe if they were having a TEA PARTY? Or maybe we don't want to stereotype.
Just because these pirates are named things like Abduhl Wal-i-Musi obviously doesn't make them terrorists. But it doesn't mean we should try to be politically correct. Because they attack us and they have guns and they hate and they aren't scared of anything and they are encouraged by Al Qaeda...this certainly points to terrorism to me.
To treat these people like they are poor teenagers with guns is not only wrong its dangerous. Ignoring threats to our safety is a lot more dangerous than risking the Dixie Chicks criticize you in France.
I don't know why our President is worried about that anyone. President Sarkozy is not a fan.
There are three main ways the media has been handling this.
1. The Conservatives--Right as usual.
2. The Obamanatics -
The media, such as CNN and all of your other proudly liberal mainstream channels, have been dumping praise on Pres Obama this last week or so for giving the military the go ahead to save Captain Richard Phillips. Uh. Seriously? What was the alternative? "I give you permission to save your captains life and not let him get shot by some sixteen (excuse me, he might be seventeen) year old Somali kid." What? Am I the only one baffled by this? I guess you can't take anything for granted these days. I assume an American President would support the military in any possible way but with none of our 800 billion going to anything having to do with safety (other than environmental safety, whatever that means), but it's a new era. Hold on tight.
The main stream media has not really been praising our military for saving Cptn Phillips, or talking about how amazingly brave he is , or suggesting ways to avoid pirates in the future. Anybody should clearly see that the hero here was not our dear President but the MILITARY.
3. The Fringes
Here I am speaking of the your favorite crazies to watch on the news. What they say is so bizarre that it's easy to forget they are serious. But they are... Example : The Reverend Al Sharpton. Americans tend to call these people pirates. Some reasons include they are on boats, they have guns, they hijack boats, the ask for money, etc. That's basically what pirates are. Maybe they don't have swords or parrots or say arggh, but these people are dangerous. Al Sharpton commented on this, and said that he agrees more with the definition these people give themselves
"VOLUNTARY COAST GUARD".
This guy is a nut. If he is such a fan of these patriots, what is he doing wearing a suit being interviewed on CNN? Get out there and fight the power!!!!
Bottom line is: These pirates are way more than a nuisance and need to be treated that way. This isn't a new problem, this isn't an American problem, and it's not a Somali problem. It's a global problem. What a shame that there is no such thing as a global community (don't get me wrong, there never really has been one) to get together and try to sort this out.
*Sorry for all the (parentheses) in this post. And all the other posts. I really like them. Deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
