Rabu, 21 November 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


In Other Words: Be Useful and Don’t Be A Jerk

Posted: 20 Nov 2012 09:50 AM PST

If you’re interested in making a living as a freelancer, Fred Hicks , who knows freelancing from both sides, has a couple bits of advice for you.

Don’t stop there, though. Keep on to the heart of his point: communication always matters. People who get in touch quickly, stay in touch, and communicate openly and honestly about what they’re doing and why earn trust and get work. Those who don’t, don’t, not because they’re bad at what they do but because they leave their client hanging in the wind.

No one likes to be left hanging. That’s jerk behavior. Don’t be a jerk.

There’s also a bit in there about gaining a good reputation. I, personally, haven’t seen that turn into more than one or two paychecks, but I know it does. Good work begets more good work and being useful eventually creates other ways where you can be useful.

Good stuff from a guy whose work I really like.

Selasa, 20 November 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


How I Learned to Love Vodka and Accept the Taxpocalypse

Posted: 19 Nov 2012 01:36 PM PST

I like when I’m on the same side of an issue as Stephen Green. Here’s a bit of his open letter to Speaker John Boehner.

I'll repeat: Give President Obama and the Democrats the tax hikes they demand, and which most polls show the American public accepts.

You'll let us avoid the fiscal cliff — a phrase I'm going to do my best to avoid using from now on. A better phrase, if less elegant, might be, "the totally artificial fiscal construct engineered by our so-called leaders a while back, just in case they hadn't already assed up the economy quite enough." But I digress.

Give them the tax hikes. Look big, look magnanimous, look bipartisan. Be sure at every mention of the tax hikes to talk up the spending cuts and entitlement reforms Obama and the Democrats promised to talk about in a grand bargain down the road. Someday, whenevs, as soon as Obama gets his round tuit in the mail. The important thing is to change the subject.

This sounds a lot like where I am on the Taxpocalypse ruckus kicked up by Bill Kristol shortly after the election.

Barack Obama wants to raise tax rates a little? Give him the go-ahead to raise them as much as he wants. Let him double the rates on "millionaires and billionaires". Let him increase the rates on the middle class (which will have to happen fairly quickly, by the way). Stand up and say, "America has spoken. President Obama's desire to raise taxes and spend more money is clearly also the will of most of the voters. As he said, he won. we will help him achieve all his goals and put all his economic plans into place. We only hope that once you have seen the results of his foolishness you will consider us a viable option again".

After that, let him do whatever he wants. Wait. Watch. Take careful notes of all the new taxes and what those taxes are doing to the economy. Talk to your new media outlets and make sure they all have solid numbers every single month. Run an ad every once in a while that simply notes the progress: Democrats raised taxes by X percent. They promised X amount of revenue. We have really gotten X amount of revenue. The economy has grown by X rate and we need it to grow by X rate. We have created X number of jobs and lost X number of jobs. The New Great Recession is X months old.

I’m not particularly eager to see the hammer fall, especially since I’ll be right there with the rest of the country when it does, but I’ve looked at this problem from every angle I can imagine and I don’t see a way around it. Better to prepare now to roll with the blow and pop up with a crippling counter-attack than waste our energy trying to block a punch that’s going to blow through our meager defense no matter what we do.

Kamis, 15 November 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


The Lay of the Land, A Week After the Election

Posted: 14 Nov 2012 11:12 AM PST

Compare and contrast.

This was House Speaker John Boehner’s post-election move.

On a conference call with House Republicans a day after the party's electoral battering last week, Speaker John A. Boehner dished out some bitter medicine, and for the first time in the 112th Congress, most members took their dose.

Their party lost, badly, Mr. Boehner said, and while Republicans would still control the House and would continue to staunchly oppose tax rate increases as Congress grapples with the impending fiscal battle, they had to avoid the nasty showdowns that marked so much of the last two years.

Members on the call, subdued and dark, murmured words of support — even a few who had been a thorn in the speaker's side for much of this Congress.

This was President Barack Obama’s post-election move.

Labor union leaders emerged from talks with President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowing a side-by-side battle against Republicans to bring about higher taxes on the wealthy as part of an effort to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

“It was a very, very positive meeting,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters in the White House driveway after the meeting.

“The president, like we are, [is] committed to preserving the tax breaks for the middle class and making sure that rich people pay their fair share. He’s very, very committed to that, we are committed to that,” Trumka continued. “We are very, very committed to making sure that the middle class and workers don’t end up paying the tab for a party that we didn’t get to go to. And the president is committed to that as well.”

In fact, for the liberal activists who helped reelect Obama, the campaign isn't over.

"MoveOn is staying fully mobilized after last week’s election," Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, said in a statement after meeting with the president.

Mr. Ruben said he appreciated "that the president again promised not to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor,” adding that “our members are committed to defending Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security from any benefit cuts as part of a budget deal."

And this was the move from popular Republican Governor of Florida Rick Scott (via Stephen Green, who has a pretty solid read on Scott’s retreat).

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, one of the most vocal critics of the federal health care overhaul, is dropping his staunch opposition to the law.

Scott said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press that he now wants to negotiate with the federal government. He said it's time for Republicans to offer solutions to help families after they lost their bid to defeat President Barack Obama.

"The election is over and President Obama won," Scott said. "I'm responsible for the families of Florida … If I can get to yes, I want to get to yes."

[...]

"I don't think anyone involved in trying to improve health care should say 'no, no, no," Scott said. "Let's have a conversation."

Appearances matter. The attitude you project is more important, especially in politics, than who you are or what you do.

Who is projecting strength and confidence and who has swallowed defeat and is projecting loser rays like a collapsing black hole projects x-rays as it swallows a nearby star? Who has engaged their base, on whom they will depend to carry their message to friends and family and who just told their base to stay home and pull the covers over their heads for a while? Who welcomed in at least one important grassroots organization and gave it all sorts of cachet with people who will throw money at it and who hasn’t?

Selasa, 13 November 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Maybe We Ought to Listen to Bill Kristol this Time

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 11:27 AM PST

Less than a week after winning a second term, President Barack Obama has unveiled his first true priority — higher tax rates on “the wealthy”.  House Speaker John Boehner quickly adopted a supine position, which he only hemi-demi-semi-repented after a sharp kick in the caboose from the Republicans he, in theory, represents.

Let me lay down the President’s public position here. We’ll come back later.

“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue, and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes,” Mr. Obama said in the East Room of the White House.

“I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan. I’m open to compromise,” he added. “But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced.…And on Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach.”

On Sunday, renowned Republican Bill Kristol, who I would ordinarily ignore after his ridiculous Romney rah-rahs, appeared on Fox News with an idea…a crazy, stupid idea.

“Elections have consequences… The leadership in the Republican Party and the leadership in the conservative movement has to pull back, let people float new ideas. Let's have a serious debate. Don't scream and yell when one person says, ‘You know what? It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.’ It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000. Make it $500,000–make it a million. Really? The Republican Party's going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires? Half of whom vote Democratic, and half of whom live in Hollywood, and are hostile to Republican principles?"

This has conservatives like Joel Pollock of Breitbart, Jim Hoft , and The Lonely Conservative in high dudgeon, which I understand. We know who Barack Obama is. We know who his friends and mentors are. We know what his version of “compromise” looks like. We can safely decipher the subtext of the Presidents remarks as “I won, so make with the tax hikes, losers”. Those who seek a “balanced approach” to a debt of $16 trillion dollars are the same kind of people who think we should split our Squatch-hunting time between the forests of the Pacific Northwest and downtown Manhattan.

But, we conservatives have been fighting on the low-tax ground forever and it’s increasingly apparent to me that we’re getting our tails handed to us. The math is on our side. Economics works for us, not progressivism. Of course the left-wing press for higher taxes on “the rich” eventually means higher taxes on and more government control of everyone. We’ve said for almost my entire adult life the benefits — the truth — of smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations are self-evident.

Obviously, they are not. In fact, not only aren’t they self-evident, they’re not particularly easy to sell nowadays. If they were, we’d just have finished the second term of President McCain with full majorities in the House and Senate, Barack Obama would be a discredit back-bencher, and Harry Reid would be the head of some obscure boxing commission in Nevada. There is, quite literally, no one on the right at present who can beat the Democrats’ well-practiced, focus-grouped, razor-sharp message that “the rich” are getting over on the rest of us and, for the sake of the Republic, we have to give them a fiscal haircut they’re barely notice.

Republicans lost this argument years ago. They have no answer for it, as we’ve seen over the last few election cycles (save 2010, when we took control of the message ourselves and dragged some Republicans to big wins). Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney with it so hard and so often that, had the election been a wrestling match, even Bobby “The Brain” Heenan would have called for mercy.

Maybe it’s time for us to take Bill Kristol’s suggestion seriously.

Hear me out here. Ronald Reagan made the case for limited government well in 1979, but he had help. A lot of help. Make no mistake; I am not diminishing Reagan’s marrow-deep understanding of why conservative economics works nor do I want to discount the decades he spent honing his message in hundreds of public speeches and radio broadcasts. Let’s look at the numbers, though. The top tax rate in 1979 was 70 percent. A married couple with an AGI of $63,000 — in inflation-adjusted dollars — faced a tax rate of 28 percent. Today, that same couple making that same amount (inflation-adjusted, remember) faces a rate of only 15 percent. That same Richie Rich now has a 35 percent tax rate. This is what I mean by help. It is a lot easier to say “don’t crank up taxes on the rich. In fact, lower taxes on everyone” when the middle class is paying almost 30 percent of their income to Uncle Sam every year and business owners and job creators are forking over 70 cents of every taxable dollar. Nowadays, those numbers are much smaller, and since we conservatives have spent so much time arguing on the numbers, the Democrats have stranded us on a relatively small patch of ground. Arguing tax rates instead of making the compelling moral case for lower taxes and responsibly-sized government put us ground we shrank ourselves. Now, we’re down to defending people like Warren Buffett and George Clooney against the rapaciousness of the very party mandarins they wholeheartedly support.

So make the rates higher. A lot higher.

Barack Obama wants to raise tax rates a little? Give him the go-ahead to raise them as much as he wants. Let him double the rates on “millionaires and billionaires”. Let him increase the rates on the middle class (which will have to happen fairly quickly, by the way). Stand up and say, “America has spoken. President Obama’s desire to raise taxes and spend more money is clearly also the will of most of the voters. As he said, he won. we will help him achieve all his goals and put all his economic plans into place. We only hope that once you have seen the results of his foolishness you will consider us a viable option again”.

After that, let him do whatever he wants. Wait. Watch. Take careful notes of all the new taxes and what those taxes are doing to the economy. Talk to your new media outlets and make sure they all have solid numbers every single month. Run an ad every once in a while that simply notes the progress: Democrats raised taxes by X percent. They promised X amount of revenue. We have really gotten X amount of revenue. The economy has grown by X rate and we need it to grow by X rate. We have created X number of jobs and lost X number of jobs. The New Great Recession is X months old.

Be sympathetic to the coming cries of the electorate. There will be pain and we need to hear it very clearly and commiserate with it. Point out how we’re all feeling it except, maybe, for those people precious to the Democrats who got government exceptions, waivers, and pork.

It’s going to be ugly for a while, but we can’t change that. It may be that the best we can do is listen to Bill Kristol, let the President have what he wants, buckle up for the ride to Recessionville, and take good notes about how we got here. In just a couple or three years America will need us sorely and we’ll have to lead the nation back.

Sabtu, 10 November 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


World War Whoa!

Posted: 09 Nov 2012 12:25 PM PST

Okay, I have a few concerns* about the movie adaptation of World War Z, but this trailer is awfully good.

Awfully. Good.

*I still don’t buy Brad Pitt as an action hero, or even as a leading man. He doesn’t command my attention when he’s on-screen. I’m not thrilled that they narrowed a book of such amazing scope in order to fit it into one movie. Finally, ye gods those zombies are fast. I really don’t like fast zombies.

Jumat, 09 November 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Some Thoughts on Immigration Reform

Posted: 08 Nov 2012 11:43 PM PST

I’m not looking to start a conversation on immigration reform here. Wait, that’s not entirely true. I’m not looking to be part of a conversation on immigration reform. I don’t believe it’s possible to have such a conversation without buckets full of acrimony and more strawmen than Barack Obama in a press conference on the unemployment rate.

Did I mention I once say Buckets Full of Acrimony open for Pop Will Eat Itself in ’96? Yes, Fingers Malloy, that was for you.

Where was I. Right. Immigration reform. The reason we’re talking about it is because Barack Obama crushed Mitt Romney among Hispanics this past Tuesday. This has put the Republican Party in full-on panic mode, and like any panicky elephant, there’s been a bit of furious stomping and trumpeting.

Now, I know the arguments, pro and con, very well. I can argue either side of the issue well. For the record, I don’t want any form of comprehensive reform I’ve yet seen from either party. If you wanted to slap a label on me, I guess you could call me an “enforcement first” supporter on the issue. I admit, though, there are some awfully tough issues in play the answers to which won’t make anyone especially happy (that, by the way, puts me above most people who talk about the issue).

I want to put down a few bullet-style thoughts. Like I said, I’m not looking to be part of a conversation here, but if anything I say here gets a reasonable conversation rolling, so much the better.

  • Comprehensive reform is an instant loser. Immigration is a ginormous issue and any attempt to solve the whole thing in one Obamacare-sized bill is going to get you the same sort of “quick, pass it before anyone reads it” shenanigans we saw with Obamacare, the Vote-Buying Act Stimulus Bill, TARP, the auto bailouts, Cash for Clunkers, and so on. Break it down into bite-sized chunks (and know that a couple of those chunks will be big bites). Be methodical. Take your time. Solve the problem step by step.
  • Immigration means more than Central American and Mexican immigration. Whatever we do has to treat people from Mexico like we treat people from Cuba like we treat people from India like we treat people from Honduras. Treat everyone equally. Encourage legal immigration from everywhere.
  • The first step to any immigration reform plan has to be a complete overhaul of the legal immigration system. It’s a mess, broken beyond our ability to slap a few pieces of duct-tape over the cracks and make is fly anymore. It takes too long to become a legal immigrant. It costs too much money. There are far too many restrictions. The system practically pushes people to come here illegally. Hire more agents — lots more. Cut the required paperwork by half, at least. Lower the fees. Do the bureaucratic equivalent of laying out a welcome mat on a well-lit porch. We can not move people from illegal immigration to legal immigration if we don’t have a competently-run, humane system. Can. Not.
  • Secure the borders. Period. This must be a stand-alone piece of legislation and it must be bullet-proof. There is no way in Heaven we can bail out our ship while there’s a gaping iceberg-rent in the hull with water rushing in. Note here I’m not saying we need a 20′ wall all around the country. We’re pretty smart people. We can figure out something better.
  • No “path to citizenship”, not as I’ve seen any proposal in the past ten years. It is patently unfair that someone can sneak into our country, avail themselves of our freedoms and prosperity, then simply be allowed to remain while others sit in their own countries, patiently waiting for their turn to come here legally. There are thousands, probably tens of thousands (I’m too lazy right now to look up the exact number) of people on the legal immigration list. They deserve first shot. When they’re in, I’ll consider letting illegal immigrants stay or putting them at the front of the line to get processed in as legal immigrants without further penalty. America is a fair and just nation. Letting illegal immigrants profit from their crime is neither just nor fair.
  • Yes, I know that my last bullet point may seem unfair to the children of illegal immigrants who are themselves illegal. It’s not their fault they are here. Nevertheless, they can not stay. If a poor man robs a bank and uses the money to build a house for his family, we don’t let him keep the house when he is caught. He owes full restitution and the house is going on the block to make his debt right. That, also, is unfair to his children, but that is how the rule of law works. It’s not fair to the citizens of this country to sell their citizenship for cheap. Like I said, we are fair and just.

We have plenty of room for lots and lots of immigrants. Roll out the welcome mat, but make sure we get everyone in in good order. Properly. Fairly. Quickly. Cheaply. Safely. These are the watchwords for any reform I’d support. You get those tacked down and I’m with you. Until then, not so much.

 

One Small Point About Social Conservatives and the Election

Posted: 08 Nov 2012 09:19 PM PST

I don’t have a huge point here, but I want to leave one little fact on which we may want to gnaw like a meaty thigh bone for a few days. Erick Erikson wrote a post at Red State in which he said this:

It is time to throw the social conservatives out of the GOP. Look at what they got us — Barack Obama. It was the social conservatives who did it. They insisted the GOP support real marriage and children. To hell with that.

I'm getting this, in various forms, from lots of tea party activists. The GOP establishment in Washington is whispering it to each other. They look at Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock and conclude that they, not Tommy Thompson, Heather Wilson, George Allen, Scott Brown, etc. are the problem.

It is time to get rid of the social conservatives.

What's really going on here is that the people who voted Republican, but who disagree with pro-lifers and defenders of marriage, have decided it must be those issues. They can't see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role.

Here in Maryland, we had a ballot initiative called Question 6, which would legalize gay marriage. As such things go, it was a fairly mild question with protections for religious objections that passed pretty handily, 51.9% to 48.1%. Now for my little fact.

The “against” vote, where you’d expect to see the social conservatives represented, drew 1,168,572 votes as of this evening (the results are still unofficial on the web site). Mitt Romney got 905,352 votes, over 263,000 fewer.

I’m not going to read much into that; others who are much wiser than I can handle that (and I’m very sure they will). I’ll only note that the big social conservative issue on the Maryland ballot drew more attention from the SoCons than Mitt Romney did.

By a lot.

Rabu, 07 November 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Learning to Be a Better Salmon

Posted: 06 Nov 2012 11:04 PM PST

This strikes me as very, very important.

More facts to face: the media is liberal.  The news organizations are liberal.  They protected their candidate.  And it worked.  But that’s part of the hand that we conservatives have been dealt. That ain’t gonna change.  We need to figure out a way to win despite the fact that we’re swimming upstream in the culture.  Whining about it isn’t going to get us to a solution.

I don’t know quite what to do with it yet but this is a big deal. Conservative new media has made big strides but we’re still growing up. Admittedly, we’re growing up faster than I ever imagined, but we have a long, long way to go. We’re not building new voices who can really do the work. Oh, we’re building an entirely new generation of pundits, but that’s exactly what we don’t need. We need journalists — honest-to-God ink-stained wretches who know how to dig the meaty center out of a story, prepare it with impeccable skill, and plate it with panache. We need storytellers — people who can take a principle or moral or hand full of facts and turn them into a compelling tale that will inspire, convict, instruct, or entertain. We need teachers — people who will pour their decades of media experience into the minds of anyone who will listen (and we need people who will build the platforms for those teachers). We don’t have many of those and, worse, we’re not teaching people how to become any of those things.

Worse than that, we’re not rewarding very well those who do the grunt work to dig out those stories, tell the tales, or teach the skills with the prizes that really matter — paychecks and real prestige inside our movement.

I admit, I’m part of the problem, too. I’m a pundit, a talky-guy, a bloviator. I don’t tell compelling stories, but I will do better. I don’t share what I know nearly well enough, but I will share more. I don’t do “just the facts” posts as often as I should, but I will work harder to learn how. I like to think I have ideas worth putting into practice but at the end of the day, I’m just tossing up my opinions along with almost everyone else. There has to be more than that. A lot more.

This is not a “hairshirt” post like the last one. Honest. Consider it a marker, a little thumbtack stuck in the cork board. New Media has come an awfully long way, but we still have more to do. Today is as good a time as any to do a quick reassessment and strike out in a direction we think will be more useful over the long haul.

I don’t know how to get all the things I think we need, but I’ll give it a try. Maybe you’ll jump in, too.

Well, I Was Wrong

Posted: 06 Nov 2012 08:26 PM PST

I wrote this post not long after I finished recording this week’s episode of The Delivery when the election returns were pouring in like a flow from a backed-up sewer. I admit right up front it’s not carefully-edited and I didn’t plan any of it out. I simply wrote and hit the “Publish” button. That’s the way blogging goes sometimes.

Tonight was, by any measure, a disaster for the Republican Party. Not only did its hand-picked candidate, Mitt Romney, lost to arguably the weakest incumbent President in my lifetime but the party got destroyed in a number of Senate elections that should have been wins. The party is weaker now in Washington than it was after the historic Tea Party election of 2010.

I did not think it would turn out this way. I freely admit, I looked at the enthusiasm of the activists around me, saw the hard work of everyday people who have full-time jobs and families yet spent countless hours working to turn out the vote for a candidate they clearly did not want all that much and I thought…yeah. I thought this was an election the party hierarchy couldn’t louse up. I thought we could drag the dead Romney campaign horse over the finish line.

I forgot something important, though. I forgot that when you’re dragging a dead horse, you’re, well, dragging a dead horse. It’s not a bouquet of flowers or a wheelbarrow full of bacon. It’s a stinking, bloated carcass that anyone with any good sense would have left where it was. Only in politics are we expected to put our sanity aside to the point where we’ll willingly latch onto said carcass and heave it forward inch by nauseating inch while trying to convince our friends and family that it doesn’t stink quite as badly as that other fetid corpse over there.

I was wrong.

Several months ago, on The Delivery, I said there were several candidates who could beat President Obama but none of them would because none of them would put up the sort of fight winning required. Obviously, I reconsidered that opinion, but it turns out I shouldn’t have. I was wrong to go back on my first impression.

Early on, I believed that voting for someone was a far more powerful thing than voting against someone. I didn’t see where any of the candidates had made anything like a compelling case for them. Goodness knows, Mitt Romney did nothing of the sort during the election. He attacked his opponents with a fury he didn’t even unleash on President Obama. Even the candidates I liked seemed to shy away from pushing themselves over pushing against the others. I had hoped those pundits and professional Republicans who said you could win an election by not attacking the President’s weaknesses were right. After all, they’re paid the big bucks to get these things right and I am Just A Blogger.

I was wrong.

As the general campaign wore on, I figured Team Romney and the GOP knew what they were doing. Sure, they were holding back huge sums of cash instead of forcing Democrats to fight against good candidates in mostly blue states but that was only smart politics. Pragmatic politics. They didn’t build a ground game, preferring to let others do the heavy-lifting, but I was told that was smart politics, too. I believed it. And I convinced other people to believe it, too. I figured Team Romney and the GOP had a plan when they mostly stayed silent as the story of Benghazi grew so large that even the hesitant national media had to cover it in depth. I figured they had something in store as the President crushed our candidate over and over and over again on his economic plan even though he never bothered to put one out of his own. I truly believed they were worthy of trust and I put my own credibility on the table with theirs when I asked you all to help me.

I was wrong.

So now here we are, folks. Losers. In deep trouble as individuals and a country, with a broken economy, a megalomaniac for President, a foreign policy in something worse than tatters, and slim prospect for improvement for at least the next four years, if not the next decade.

I helped bring that about. I knew better. I promise you I did, but I didn’t say all the things I ought to have said, didn’t push the the things I believed were right. I got meek and I was wrong. I’m sorry.

Sabtu, 03 November 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Aw, Who Needs Police, Ambulances, Generators, Food, and Water Anyhow?

Posted: 02 Nov 2012 12:42 PM PDT

Maybe it’s not fair to say that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has become so much like a crazed Roman Emperor that he’s going to put his horse on the city council, but he does have the whole “give them bread and circuses” thing down pat. He stood up today to defend his decision to hold the New York City Marathon on Sunday, despite the small problem that a huge chunk of his city was recently blown to flinders then swamped by several feet of seawater.

The marathon will move forward, and “there will be no diversion of resources” away from services to victims of Hurricane Sandy, said Mayor Michael Bloomberg today at a press conference in City Hall.

“If I thought it took any resources away from that, we would not do this,” he said, referring to recovery operations. “But we have plenty of police officers that work in areas that aren’t affected. We don’t take all of them and move them into areas that are affected.”

Obviously, the Mayor doesn’t know much about crisis management and resource allocation. The trick, as you can easily figure out with a small dollop of common-sense, is not to put every police officer in the area of crisis, but to keep the maximum number of police officers available and ready to deploy when the unexpected inevitable complication arises. Like, say, a large number of people gathering at a gas station where the supply of fuel might not be abundant.

Simon Ressner, a lieutenant at the Fire Department, said that the police and fire departments and ambulance drivers are often needed unexpectedly in a disaster situation like this one. He noted that at least four police officers were at one gas station at Flatbush that he passed Thursday en route to evaluate the safety of some burned homes in Breezy Point, Queens. About 300 people had gathered to fill their gas cans, and the police officers were there to control the crowd.

"There's a concrete example of why you need all the city resources available right now," said Ressner, who added that he was 80 percent sure he would run Sunday. "I've written two e-mails to the Road Runners saying, 'Just postpone it.' That way, you'll still get the money, you'll still have a high-profile event, but it would show that you're being sensitive. But now, we're not going to show the world we're resilient, we're going to show them we're selfish."

Or how about a scheduled meeting with FEMA officials that drew a couple hundred people but didn’t draw the actual FEMA officials?

Tonight, in Broad Channel, a sliver of land on Jamaica Bay which was hammered by the hurricane, there was a near riot when 280 people arrived for a much anticipated meeting with FEMA representatives, but the reps didn’t show up. That caused already frayed tempers to boil over, and residents blocked traffic to vent their anger.

“It’s fair to say there’s a very high level of frustration,” says Dan Mundy, a longtime resident of Broad Channel and a battalion chief with the FDNY. “It got ugly for a couple of minutes. People blocking traffic. We had the meeting in a pitch black parking lot and were able to calm them down.”

And that’s just the police. The Mayor didn’t mention the medical personnel who would be on the scene (ever seen a race without a couple ambulances in the near vicinity?), the supplies of food and water for the participants, or the generators. All of those resources are needed elsewhere and will be diverted to support an event that could be moved to another date.

Granted, that does mean a few thousand runners will have to reschedule their hotel and flight reservations, but I don’t see that as a huge problem given that hotel space is a bit rare right now. Besides, I suspect the runners will find the airlines and hotels would be more than happy to work with them in exchange for all the good (and dirt-cheap) publicity they’d get out of it.

UPDATE: The Mayor’s office announced late this evening the marathon is cancelled. I would have thought a postponement was the better choice, and a cancellation at this late hour on a Friday would put one heck of a crimp into lots of people’s plans, but what do I know? I’m not the smartypants Mayor of New York.