Is it just me...?

Is it just me, or does it seem a little disingenuous for Michael Chertoff to publish an Op-Ed in the New York Times entitled New York, You're Still Number 1? It's sort of like saying, "Just kidding! You're still a HUGE terrorist target. You just get less money now."

In fairness to Chertoff, he owns the fact that "New York is receiving less this year than in 2005." Apparently the reason for the drop in funding is that Congress budgeted "about $600 million less for our grant programs, including approximately $125 million less for the urban areas initiative." Ah, okay. What?

At least he helpfully explains why New York has no national icons or monuments:

"Finally, I would like to clear up two other misunderstandings. First, contrary to news media reports, significant landmarks like the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge were included in our deliberation over where money would go. It is true that they were not classified as national monuments and icons. Why? To help New York's application.

"We purposely placed these structures into other categories: the Empire State Building into the large office building category and the Brooklyn Bridge into the bridges category. We did so because those categories generate a higher complete risk grade for New York's financing proposal than icons like Mount Rushmore that, while important symbolically, would have fewer human and economic consequences in case of an attack."

So they're a large office building and a bridge in order to get an appropriate level of funding. Why can't they be both? Isn't it fair to say that the Empire State Building is both a national icon and a large office building? And wouldn't an appropriate level of funding reflect consideration of both statuses? Apparently that's not on the form, but maybe next year's will include a new tick-box.

Also, what's the Statue of Liberty if not a national monument or icon? I'm pretty sure it's not a bridge or an office building. So... State park? Historical site? Tourist attraction? But then why are tourists attracted to it?


Heck, while I'm on the news, here's another quick screed...

Now that the proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage failed in the Senate, can it get out of the news? I know Republicans will use it in reelection bids, but I don't need to read or hear about this daily. It's an obvious publicity stunt, a non-event wasting public time.

And I wish we could stop calling that amendment's target audience "the Republican base" or "values voters" in favor of something more to the point, "ignorant bigots." Doesn't present usage offend either Republicans or people with values? Shouldn't it especially bother Republicans with values?