A friend of mine used to live in NY and he tells me how lots of people think that Giuliani, by fighting crime, ruined the city. By making the city safer, the residents had to start dealing with the influx of annoying tourists that they couldn't avoid, whereas once you learned where trouble was, you could just keep away.
Also, his argument is that the city lost lots of "colorful characters". People that were not exactly dangerous but were not exactly postal card-worthy. The city is just not the same without those weirdos, he said.
Perhaps that is the also the reason that my friend likes (Cambridge's) Central Square so much. Not a day goes by without some freaky (and usually funny) event close to the T.
The point is: amichail is a colorful character, yes, and the place wouldn't be the same without him. But does it necessarily mean that it would be worse?
Also, would you encourage "more amichails", or one is all we need?
Also, his argument is that the city lost lots of "colorful characters". People that were not exactly dangerous but were not exactly postal card-worthy. The city is just not the same without those weirdos, he said.
Perhaps that is the also the reason that my friend likes (Cambridge's) Central Square so much. Not a day goes by without some freaky (and usually funny) event close to the T.
The point is: amichail is a colorful character, yes, and the place wouldn't be the same without him. But does it necessarily mean that it would be worse?
Also, would you encourage "more amichails", or one is all we need?