28043877
(In Yiddish — to “kvetch” is to complain)
In days gone by (or if you prefer days of “yore”), there was a radio commentator by the name of Gabriel Heatter. Heatter always opened his show by saying, “There’s good news tonight.” If Heatter were around today, I wonder where the hell he would find the good news? Although, as I understand it, KYW Eyewitness News is promising to include more uplifting news in its coverage. Hey Ukee and Jessica, how many times can you run a story about a fireman rescuing a kitten? So in a country that’s trying to decipher the definition of “extreme vetting,” I will do what I do best. Extreme kvetching.
How can Gov. Tom Wolf and his legislature solve any problem if they can’t figure out a simple way to buy an alcoholic beverage in this state? I know I should be thankful for the recent changes enacted in the state liquor stores. One change is that you may now purchase wine at our local supermarket. But really, do you have to be a conservative Republican to think that it would be easier to just privatize the sale of liquor and beer? We’re ot being radical here. We’ve given up on bringing this state into the 21st century. But for starters, how about Pennsylvania entering the 20th century?
Here’s just one example of the state’s bizarre law. We watched the recent Super Bowl in a bottle shop on East Passyunk Avenue. The shop sells wine and beer. Since it doesn’t sell food, patrons may bring in their own or have the food delivered. So far, so good. Let’s say, you have a few folks in your group drinking wine. The store sells wine by the bottle, so you figure you can purchase a couple to get you through the vision of seeing NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell handing the Super Bowl Trophy to Tom Brady again. However, if you buy a bottle of wine in the store, the law says that you can’t drink it in the store. You may only drink wine purchased by the glass. No doubt this is the result of a compromise between those who favor privatization and those who worry about the multiple constituencies that would offend. This is the kind of thing that gives compromise a bad name …
A showdown is on the horizon in Philadelphia, and I’m not referring to the soda tax fight. There is little doubt in my mind that President Trump will cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities such as Philadelphia. I’m sure that such a move would prompt testing the funding cutoff in court. Anyone who tells you they know how a judge would rule in such a situation is blowing smoke at you. Lawyers will tell you no one knows how a court will decide. Forget for a moment whether you back the mayor’s pro-sanctuary city stance or you are against it. If a cutoff in funding is upheld, Philadelphia would lose big bucks and I don’t think we’re going to try and get it back by increasing the soda tax, even if by then, it hasn’t been tossed by the court. This dark cloud on the horizon is already being noticed by Council President Darrell Clarke. Clarke is already hinting that he would be in favor of complying with the feds. Kenney remains adamantly opposed to what he considers “caving” to the demands of the president.
Until now, Philadelphia’s status as a Sanctuary city has not generated much heat. Also, it is important to note that Kenney and City Council have had a lovefest compared to some past relationships. But the reality is that absorbing or replacing the loss of funds could change all of that. Philadelphia, like most big cities, can’t afford to lose federal funding. Would voters stand firm in providing sanctuary for refugees if it means the city making financial sacrifices? And if an expected outcry from their constituents would ensue, how would members of Council react? Stay tuned. …
The state Senate has voted to make abortions legal for up to only 20 weeks rather than the current 24-week period. As of this writing, Wolf says that he would veto such a measure if it came to his desk. Let’s be honest. Pro-life groups will not be satisfied until abortion is completely banned (although some would make exceptions in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother). It seems evident that the change would really be about what recent changes in other states are about — making it more difficult to get an abortion. The supporters of the change claim that technological advances over the years show that a fetus is now viable outside the womb at 20 weeks rather than 24. But there is no scientific evidence to support their argument. Maybe that’s why the bill was approved by the state Senate without any testimony from medical experts. And as such, the bill is just another example of politicians distorting science to support their agenda. …
There have always been a lot of reasons to hate the Philadelphia Parking Authority. But the recent investigative reports in the Inquirer about top officials grabbing big bucks by compiling huge amounts of comp time just boggles the mind. And you thought you couldn’t be surprised about anything the PPA has done in the past. …
