Good morning, Wendy:
Are you planning on voting today? Does the whole idea of voting make you as nervous as it does me? Just thinking about that weird, seemingly obsolescent voting machine (it’s hard to believe that something so pre-electronic in appearance can actually tabulate votes) with all those names and Propositions on it–ninety-nine percent of which I’ve never heard of–makes me feel like I’m back in high school, about to take a pop quiz on a book I haven’t bothered to read.
Why vote? Doug Bandow tells us in today’s Wall Street Journal that it’s ok–in fact, admirable–not to: Government stinks no matter who gets elected, and “a refusal to vote may be the most potent protest possible.” I was on the verge of heaving a sigh of relief–my indolence suddenly transformed to a “potent protest”–when I noticed that this guy Bandow works at the Cato Institute. Isn’t that one of those neoconservative think tanks? And isn’t this just a ruse, to keep squishy liberals like us away from the polls, so their cadres can turn out in force and re-elect Senator D’Amato?
Anyway, here’s my answer to the question “Why vote?”: Because, as George Melloan tells us on the op-ed page of the WSJ, experts agree that “turnout will be relatively light,” and that means no “long lines at the polling booths.” Get it? How often does something take place in New York that you don’t have to wait in line for? So I’m voting, on the same principle that makes we want to hail a free taxi when I see one, even though I don’t want to go anywhere.
Some NY Times highlights: The Dow is up for the fourth straight session in a row. Does that mean we can go out and buy things again? Here’s a truly comforting quote from an unnamed stock trader: “Everything is good right now, for now.” Doesn’t that make you want to kick up your heels and buy a mink coat?
The “Science Times,” my favorite section, offers “New Hope for the Losers in the Battle to Stay Awake.” It seems there’s a new drug that keeps sleepy people alert without causing heart palpitations or make them vacuum their houses obsessively. The continuation of the story on F8 promises a coming “new era of wakefulness compounds.”
Finally, did you know (as I learned on page seven of today’s NY Post) that Bernard Goetz, the “subway vigilante” of NY legend, is running for Mayor of New York in the year 2000? Isn’t it remarkable how the momentary celebrities of yesteryear just won’t stay dead, no matter how much you want them to? The Bernard Goetzs and Tawana Brawleys apparently feel an unstoppable urge to resurface periodically, despite the fact that their initial celebrity was of a mostly negative cast. Andrea Peyser’s column at the bottom of the page mentions some of Bernie’s political opinions: For instance, he “opposes circumcision,” and “would like to ban the feeding of live animals to other animals. But only south of 42nd Street.” Thank God we live uptown–I feel like swallowing a guppy right now.
Over to you, Wendy.
xxxooo,
Stephen
