Comments by fjcjr
Posted on August 22 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice article to announce such a sad event. Fr. Hogan was a great man, and we are better people for having known him.
Posted on August 14 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The purpose of the high tax on tobacco was to get people to stop smoking - at least that's what we were told. In reality, it's all about revenue, as the letter above explains. It would be refreshing if our legislators would just say it, rather than the line that the law is for our own good. It's a money grab, nothing more.
Posted on August 4 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is, but given that the Dems control the whole board (save one seat), it's more relevant to the Dems in this discussion.
Posted on August 4 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This article neglected to mention the most important qualification for a potential democrat party candidate: The ability to keep his ideas to himself, and do only what he is told.
Posted on August 4 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The state of affairs in NY State policitcs is a huge embarrassment. The state is going down the tubes, and we continue to elect people that are at worst criminals, and at best corrupt, and we wonder why we are where we are. Cuomo is a thug, and an embarrassment. He's an excellent example of the fact that we got the government we elected, not the one we need.
Posted on August 1 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Taxing things like cigarettes, liquor, and sugary drinks doesn't cause people to change their behavior and use less. That's not what the tax is about. These taxes are purely about money. Many NYS legislators complained when they raised the cigarette taxes to crazy levels and they didn't get as much revenue as they should! They wouldn't be saying such things if it was really about getting people to stop smoking. There is no group more addicted to nicotine than the NYS Legislature! God help them if New Yorkers really quit!
Posted on July 13 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a well reasoned piece, however, I think the writer undermines his credibility when he cites the names of major clients of Kirkland and Ellis, and the principal attornies of the same firm. This entire paragraph has no relevance to the argument he makes in support of tenure, Arguments for or against tenure need to stand on their own merits, not who brings the issue. It would be the same iif I shot down his argument solely because he has been a long term educator. Personnaly, I disagree with his premise that tenure is entirely necessary. People that are employed by businesses never have such benefits, and often they enjoy a long employment based on their merit, or lack thereof.
Posted on June 2 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He is either not qualified to run a lemonade stand, or it's ok to make predictions you know are false if the "greater good" is to be served. Power prices will not go down with this rule, and most people that can think know it.
Posted on June 2 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How can it be that a proposal that will cost $8.8B to comply will shrink power prices? This doesn't make sense.
Posted on May 25 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! I rarely agree with the positions of the editorial board, but this is a very clever turnabout on Bruno's position. Touché!