He does have a point that very few people come to New York to play for the Yankees. However, I think he unreasonably discounts the number of people who come to New York for purely business reasons... and wholly ignores the number of people who come to New York because they can find a job mopping floors for those who come to New York to "do fashion, photography, literature, painting, music, acting, comedy and more." That's what I found the most disturbing about his whole focus on the arts program: he doesn't seem to even consider the existence of the New Yorkers who render his somewhat elitist existence possible.
Also, his plan to deal with litigation by removing more money from the budget of the agency sued is either a complete joke or displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of litigation. And that's all I'll say about that, because otherwise it could go on for far too long.
Plus, he's leaving New York, never to return, right? If you give up on this city, do you deserve to be taken seriously when you opine on what should change in order to entice you to stay? To exercise a tired cliche, in my humble opinion, fuggedaboudit. One should run for political office not only because one is an amoral, power-hungry jackal, but also because one cares about the city, district, or what have you so deeply that you would stay whatever happened; but you have some ideas on how to improve life for the citizens there along the way. Of course, there are numerous exceptions to this theory, but that's my idealistic proposition for the day.
Hong Kong--and everything else--is pretty much as you describe it. I just wish things worked differently sometimes. (from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, anyone?)
No comments:
Post a Comment