Proposed NY Law Would Ban Salt in Restaurant Food Preparation

Now, I have heard everything. The New York legislature is considering a bill (see text) that would ban the use of salt in restaurant food preparation. Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn), who introduced the bill, says that it is necessary to protect the health of people who dine in the state: "In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles. . . ."

The restaurant industry is boiling over the proposed measure. Angry chefs contend that the measure would chill their craft:

"Chefs would be handcuffed in their food preparation, and many are already in open rebellion over this legislation," said Orit Sklar, of My Food My Choice [a coalition of chefs, restaurant owners and consumers]. "Ortiz and fellow anti-salt zealot Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City seek to undermine the food and restaurant business in the entire state."

My Personal Take
As an avid cook, I cannot help but side with the chefs. Salt improves the taste of food, and it also helps keep it moist (e.g., in the "brining" process). People in New York should exercise moderation in their food choices -- rather than having the law dictate the creative expression of chefs.

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

Today, the New York State Senate voted against human dignity and equality when it rejected a bill that would have extended marital rights to same-sex couples. The vote was highly -- but not strictly -- partisan. Although every Republican opposed the measure, some Democrats voted against it as well.

A New York Times article contains a touching story regarding Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson's decision to support the bill. Hassell-Thompson, a black Democrat, represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County. During the floor debate, she passionately discussed the strife that homophobia, bigotry, and heterosexism cause:

[Hassell-Thompson] spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

“He had disappeared from our lives. And my father worried, but he could not ask him to come home,” she said, fighting back tears. Ms. Hassell-Thompson said she searched for her brother and eventually found him and asked him to come home. But he told her he was hesitant because he felt his family did not want to see him. "I said, 'But your sister does.'"

Hassell-Thompson's intimate plea could not melt the icy bigotry that New York senators displayed. This decision is a vote against equality and human dignity. It is also a vote against the will of the public; a recent Marist poll shows that a majority of New York voters support same-sex marriage. Shame on the New York Senate.

Obama Is Pathetically WRONG: Paterson Should Run!

While some liberals are complaining about the obvious racism among conservatives who oppose President Obama, another, more interesting, race issue has emerged. President Obama has asked Governor David Paterson of New York -- one of two sitting black governors and only the fourth in United States history -- not to run in the 2010 election. Paterson has rejected Obama's request -- good!

Paterson replaced Eliot Spitzer, who resigned following a prostitution scandal. Paterson was seemingly a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination until he made a major misstep. Earlier this year, he declined overtures from many people -- including Obama -- to choose Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated senate seat. Caroline Kennedy and her deceased uncle Ted Kennedy were key endorsers of Obama during the Democratic primaries.

Obama openly supported Kennedy, but he suddenly stopped speaking about the subject after the "pay-to-play" scandal involving his own senate seat erupted. Remarkably, many people in the media openly suggested that Paterson should choose Kennedy because she and Obama could do wonders for his fundraising efforts. Yet, these were the same type of issues that shaped the Blagojevich scandal.

Also, polls showed that a substantial number of New York voters did not even want Kennedy to take the seat. Her numbers worsened after an unimpressive speaking tour. But many Kennedy backers complained about Paterson's "handling" of Kennedy's "candidacy." Apparently, he treated her like any other potential appointee and asked tough questions. Ultimately, he chose Kirsten Gillibrand, an upstate moderate, for the position. This choice caused Paterson's approval numbers to skid.

Today, Paterson's approval ratings remain low. Paterson attributes some of the anger to race. This reason sounds more plausible than the fact that he decided not to appoint someone whom many New Yorkers did not want to hold the office.

If New Yorkers want people from political dynasties to lead them, they can choose Andrew Cuomo, who once warned Democratic primary voters that Obama would be unable to "shuck and jive" through a press conference. The New York Times predicts (or maybe hopes) that Obama's request that Paterson step aside should "neutralize any criticism [Cuomo] may face among the governor’s prominent black allies" for running against a black incumbent. If Paterson's "prominent black allies" are beholden to the White House, rather than their own principles, then the New York Times is correct.

The Bottom Line: Obama is absolutely, indisputably and shamefully wrong for doing this. While many liberals are attacking the racism of Obama's opponents (just as they did with Hillary Clinton -- but with far less damning material), Obama is "paying back" a black governor who refused to engage in nepotism and appoint the wealthy, white, privileged Carolyn Kennedy who campaigned for Obama, to the Senate. I see no reason why Obama deserves antiracist advocacy -- which he says is not even warranted -- while he is trying to push out a black candidate who has lost popularity seemingly for the mere fact that he stood up to Obama and the Kennedys.

Pathetic News Item: "Liberal" New York City Charging Homeless People to Stay at Shelters!

The New York Times has published a disturbing article that probably will not provoke much attention or generalized anger in this so-called era of change. Apparently, New York City -- the nation's "liberal" mecca -- has begun enforcing a previously unenforced 1997 law which allows the city to extract rental payments from folks who live in homeless shelters once they obtain employment. The law permits the city to charge a rental amount of up to 50% of the individual's salary.

As one would expect, advocates for the poor oppose the policy, which has already led to sad circumstances for homeless individuals. Consider the experience of Vanessa Dacosta, whom the article highlights. Dacosta is a single mother who lives in a city shelter. She makes $8.40 per hour and $800 per month as a cashier at Sbarro pizzeria. The city has informed Dacosta that she must pay $336 in monthly rent to the shelter or vacate the premises.

Dacosta spends $400 a month on childcare. The rental policy will force her to live on $64 per month after she pays her rent and childcare. Sadly, Dacosta would bring home about the same amount of money if she did not work at all. Without a job, she would have to struggle to pay for childcare, but she would not have to pay rent to the city. This policy clearly creates perverse incentives for people who, like Dacosta, are fortunate enough to find employment and who want to escape the shelter by saving money to pay for rent.

The article provides a stunningly callous statement from Robert Hess, the city's homeless commissioner:

I think it’s hard to argue that families that can contribute to their shelter cost shouldn’t . . . .I don’t see this playing out in an adverse way. Our objective is not for families to remain in shelter. Our objective is to move families back into their own homes and into the community.

I suspect that if Hess had spoken with Dacosta, rather than a reporter for the New York Times, he would have had a difficult time convincing her that the rental policy would not have an adverse impact on her life.

Closing Remarks
I usually do not "yell" on this blog, but this policy represents one of the most despicable examples of governmental callousness in recent memory. While this nation recklessly pours trillions of dollars into reckless financial institutions, New York City -- which houses many of those reckless financial institutions -- has quietly decided to force its most destitute and disadvantaged residents to pay rent at homeless shelters. Although this policy is even more offensive than AIG's bonus payments, I suspect that it will not create as much of a media frenzy. I hope I am wrong about this, but poor people are not "sexy" enough for mainstream media coverage.

Final question: Where are agents of change?

New York Proves It Is One of the Flakiest States in the Country

A new Quinnipiac poll confirms that New York remains one of the flakiest states in the country. The poll shows that New York voters harbor deep feelings of animosity for Governor Paterson. 60-28 percent of voters disapprove of Paterson's performance. Also, according to the survey, Paterson would lose to former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- by double digits.

Paterson's skid started after he declined to appoint Caroline Kennedy to fill the empty Senate seat created when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. Although politicians from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to President Barack Obama supported Kennedy, Paterson chose Representative Kirsten Gillibrand instead.

Gillibrand, who, as a member of the House of Representatives, won the support of conservative and moderate voters in her upstate district, could help provide campaign support for Paterson in this important region of the state. Nevertheless, his selection of Gillibrand and rejection of Kennedy set off a round of criticism.

Ironically, New York voters have punished Paterson for not selecting Kennedy, but polling data prior to his selection of Gillibrand revealed that most voters did not support Kennedy -- even though she polled higher than Gillibrand. Her numbers plunged considerably after she began a self-promotion tour, explicitly declaring her interest in the position. Despite their disapproval of Kennedy, New York voters immediately punished Paterson for bypassing her, and they continue to do so. Get outta here!

Let the Spin Begin: Does the New York Special Election Contest Between Tedisco and Murphy Say Anything About President Obama?

Tuesday's special election to fill Kirstin Gillibrand's House seat ended in a virtual tie (minus absentee ballots). Prior to and since the election, two conflicting narratives about its significance to national politics emerged. One spin said that the election contest between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican James Tedisco was a "referendum" on the Obama administration. The other side said it was not.

John Judis of The Nation believes that election reflects the voters' confidence in Obama:

Special elections in the first year of a new president are important because the parties turn them into national referenda. And this election was no exception. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden campaigned for Murphy in the closing weeks; Murphy, who was relatively unknown in the district, based his campaign largely on his support for and Tedesco’s opposition to Obama’s stimulus plan.

In the first month of the campaign, Murphy, a businessman from Missouri who recently moved to the district, trailed Tedesco--and since Republicans boast a 70,000 voter edge in registration, he should not have been able to catch him. But based on a campaign that emphasized his support for Obama, he did catch up and on election night surpassed him.

Murphy’s election night edge doesn’t suggest that the Democrats will romp in 2010. . . . But if Murphy had lost by a significant margin . . . it would have shown that within a district that Obama carried in 2008, there was a significant undercurrent of discontent with his presidency and his policies. . . .

Ethan Porter, an Associate Editor at Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, published an article in The Nation which argues that the election has nothing to do with Obama:

[T]he results of tomorrow's election will reflect very little about popular opinion of [the Obama] administration. Yes, national issues have intruded; the Democrats are blanketing the district with campaign paraphernalia tying Tedisco to Rush Limbaugh, and Tedisco has hammered Murphy for supporting the stimulus package. But this is a local race, in a district that's trended blue only very recently, and somewhat by accident. "Murphy should lose, given the constitution of the district," says Jonathan Becker, a long-time observer of district politics and a political science professor at Bard College.

Before the 2006 election, Republicans maintained a 15 percent enrollment advantage, and Gillibrand managed to unseat incumbent John Sweeney only after a police report surfaced showing 911 had once received a domestic violence complaint from his wife. Even after that, Gillibrand just squeaked by. Her victory was in large part owed to her ferocious campaigning skills; even in her first race, she had the aplomb and tenacity of a veteran politician. She only beat her 2008 opponent after developing a reputation as a star-in-the-making and building a formidable political machine. And even then, there were still about 70,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats in the district.

My Take
Exit polling is probably the simplest way to determine whether President Obama's performance influenced voters in the special election. But it is unclear if or when such data will emerge.

In my opinion, Judis sometimes overstates his arguments, and he probably has done so with respect to his analysis of this election's national significance. The fact that Republicans have a 70,000 voter registration advantage does not say much about recent electoral trends in the district. Gillibrand, whose nomination to the Senate caused the need for the special election in the first place, was a second-term Democratic representative of the district. And, as the New York Times observes, Gillibrand remains "remains highly popular across party lines." She and Governor Paterson also campaigned for Murphy.

Regardless of which candidate ultimately wins, his party will claim that the victory either supports or condemns President Obama's policies. The inevitability of the spin, however, does not make it an accurate statement of the voters' decision making.

NIMBY Politics and Guantanamo Bay Detainees

According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration may transfer some Guantanamo Bay Detainees to federal prisons in New York and Virginia to stand trial for acts of terrorism. The plan would undoubtedly set off very passionate NIMBY ("not in my back yard") politics. In the past, however, the United States has prosecuted terrorism suspects in New York and Virginia, and some of those individuals are currently serving sentences at a high security prison in Colorado.

Federal officials from Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA, Department of Justice, and the Department of State will review files of the remaining 241 Guantanamo Bay detainees. The review process will determine "whether to prosecute inmates in federal court, transfer them home or to third countries, or possibly resettle some of them in the United States."

Human Rights Groups Will Probably Get a "Mixed Bag"
Human rights groups have insisted that individuals detained in the war against terrorism receive access to ordinary civilian courts. They have challenged the use of military courts and indefinite detention of suspects.

While members of the Obama administration have expressed a preference for using federal courts when possible, they have not eliminated the possibility of creating "a new system of detention for cases where there is not enough evidence to prosecute someone in the regular courts, but the suspect is deemed too dangerous to release." "A new system of detention" is a vague concept, but it does not sound like an idea that complies with the demands for justice that human rights groups have made with respect to Guantanamo Bay.