Thursday, May 3, 2007

Editorial: "Anti-day labor bill’s veto was political"

The unnamed Courier editor concludes that the Governor's intention is political. Apparently he has a stringer inside her head.

I'll give you what the Courier hasn't: the bill, which makes it a crime to stand in certain places with an intention. It does not, of course, provide any criterion for determining a person's intention in the absence of doing anything other than stand. Or maybe stop to light a cigarette. I'm not the lawyer Janet is, but this bothers even lowly old me.

The Courier editor likes this bill. I wonder whether he's actually read it. Perhaps he likes it because he can always tell what a person's intention is.


courierfriend said...

I agree that you can't necessarily tell what a person's intention is, but it seems to me that the bill says people just can't block pedestrian or vehicle traffic, right? So people can still stand where they're out of the way, right? But I suppose "out of the way" could be subjective...just a thought.

leftturnclyde said...

Its pretty easy to tell the editor(perhaps Tim?) is pissed that this bill didnt get signed but it wouldnt have really addressed the whole issue any way ..just got them "dang meskins" off a highly visible street corner.

Of course if we as a community really wanted to get rid of these hard working folks, all we would have to do is stop hiring them for the cheap labour they provide.
Just a thought "unnamed courier Editor"

Steven Ayres said...

Funny you should mention that, Lefty. There was a companion bill to this one in the House, also sponsored by Kavanaugh and cosponsored by our Rep Lucy Mason (who did not sign onto the trespass bill), that would have made it a crime to solicit or encourage day laborers. It died in committee. Anybody want to speculate on political intentions there?