Leaving office, Mayor Bloomberg reminds that he is, in fact, a heartless billionaire douchebag

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In response to the eye-opening (and very sad and deeply troubling) New York Times series about an 11-year-old homeless girl, Dasani, "Invisible Child," Michael Bloomberg said this:

This kid was dealt a bad hand. I don't know quite why. That's just the way God works. Sometimes some of us are lucky and some of us are not.

He did say that he was proud of the work New York City has done to help the homeless (and that it's pretty much the best place on Earth if you're homeless, which is, oh, a bit of a stretch) and that "we're certainly going to continue to try to help the parents to achieve stability and independence," but his alternately back-patting and head-up-the-ass view of homelessness, and specifically of the plight of the homeless, including Dasani and her family, only reinforces the notion that he's completely out of touch with much of his city and pretty much clueless with respect to some pretty significant social and economic problems.

I suppose it's better that he attributed success and lack thereof to luck rather than, say, privilege or personal ability, but why bring "God" into it? Does his "God" really want Dasani to be homeless while he lives a life of extreme luxury?

Yeah, you're a very rich man, Mayor, but you can go fuck yourself.

U.S. Election Extravaganza 2013

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Maybe.

So here we are. A huge, historic day for the greatest country that has ever graced the face of the earth.

Actually, that's not true. None of it.

But it is Election Day in America, and there are some important, interesting races around the country, and there are already results coming in, with votes in...

Virginia... and New Jersey... and New York City... and... and... Alabama?

Yes, the (great?) state of Alabama, where one-quarter of my family is from, including my wonderful, sadly now-deceased maternal grandfather, a WWII hero and, later, baseball broadcaster. There's a House race in that state's first district, with, predictably, two right-wing Republicans on the ballot. So whatever.

(There are also a lot of other local elections taking place, and I'm sure many of them are important and interesting, but we're going to stick to the national stories here.)

Does any of this matter, though? I mean, is there any larger narrative? Will the results tonight tell us anything about the political state of the country, about where the country may be going headed into 2014, with the midterms coming up a year from now, with President Obama's approval ratings low, though not nearly as low as Congress's, with the Affordable Care Act struggling to get going and of course under a constant barrage of dishonestly from Republicans?

I would say no, not really.

Gov. Chris Christie has won re-election in New Jersey. I believe that was called weeks ago, no? It might as well have been. He's a bully and a blowhard, but there's no denying his popularity, and he certainly qualifies as the GOP superstar du jour, with all signs pointing to a 2016 presidential run, with the media salivating over his prospects, even if in reality he stands zero chance of winning the Republican nomination because he's just so out of line with mainstream right-wing Republicanism these days (though he'd likely be a formidable national candidate, just as he might have been the best choice as Romney's running mate last year). Sure, it says a lot that he can win in a blue state, and he's certainly no ideological extremist, but Republicans have a long history of winning state-wide races in my former home state and it's not like Democrats put up a truly viable alternative. Sorry, but Barbara Buono is no Cory Booker.

So, again, whatever.

The more interesting race by far has been in Virginia, where centrist (and corrupt) Clintonite Dem Terry McAuliffe has been ahead of Tea Party social conservative extremist Ken Cuccinelli, he who hates blow jobs, in the polls and appears to be on track to win in that oh-so-purple state. Last night on The Daily Show, a somewhat funny bit suggested that it's a race between two equal evils, two equally unlikeable candidates. That's Jon Stewart's independent shtick, but it's anything but true in this case. I'm hardly a fan of McAuliffe, who has spent much of his political career wallowing in the deep underbelly of the Clinton machine, but he's an opportunistic, self-aggrandizing centrist. He's not nearly as progressive as I would like, but he's at least on the right side of the issue when it comes to, say, women's health, the environment (more or less), and poverty, while The Cooch is a far-right extremist and ideologue who represents the nefarious fusion of anti-government Tea Party radicalism and socially moralistic Christianist theocratism. There's the choice. And the choice is clear. That's what Virginia voters are saying.

As for The Big Apple, well... after years and years of Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, two right-leaning law-and-order types who were tough on crime, minorities, and Big Gulp drinkers, it's obviously time for someone who represents the city's more progressive aspirations for a better life, not just a "safer" life, and that someone is Democrat Bill de Blasio, whose toughest competition was in the Democratic primary and who will beat Republican (and former Giuliani lieutanant) Joe Lhota by, what, 40 points? More? Let's just agree it'll be a landslide. It remains to be seen how de Blasio performs as mayor, and perhaps there are questions about how effectively he'll manage the city and be something more than an aspirational figure, but there's no denying his broad support among the city's various demographic groups and the fact that he's generated a good deal of excitement during the campaign.

By the way, it's still too early to call in Virginia. Not surprising. The early votes from the more rural parts of the state tend to go Republican, while the Democratic votes from the denser northern parts of the state come later, and so The Cooch will continue to lead until, hopefully, those urban, suburban, and exurban votes turn the tide in McAuliffe's favor. But it'll take time. This is purely anecdotal, but Virginia vote-counting and reporting always seems to be a slow, slow process.

Alright, a short break... be back soon.

**********

Okay.

At 9:30 pm, it's a really tight race in Virginia, but McAuliffe has closed the gap significantly. It's now 878,515 to 875,160, or 47-46, for The Cooch, with 87% of precincts reporting.

Christie's up 59-39. Yes, yes, a big win. Let the media kick their stupid "Christie 2016" narrative into an even higher gear. Perspective, people, perspective.

In New York, the race has been called for de Blasio even though, as of right now, CNN has no votes reported. There you go.

**********

By the way, make sure to read the comments. One of our co-bloggers, Frank Moraes, is weighing in as well.

**********

McAuliffe has taken the lead. It's now 911,726 to 906,841, or 47-46, with 91% reporting. I was going to say it's hard to believe that many people actually voted for The Cooch, but, no, it's not surprising at all. It's Virginia, after all, with large parts of the state deeply rooted in the Confederacy, and of course this purple state, like the country generally, remains deeply divided along partisan lines regardless of candidate.

**********

And CNN -- and probably others, but that's what I've got up on the screen at the moment -- has called it for McAuliffe.

It's still 47-46, and so a closer election than expected (and than the polls were suggesting was likely to be the case), though the final numbers will likely show a larger McAuliffe victory, with votes still coming in from populous Democratic areas.

Why is that, this closer-than-expected race? Republican vote suppression efforts, anyone?

**********

At 11:19 pm, it's McAuliffe over Cooch 45-45.

Meanwhile, Christie won big and de Blasio is crushing it. And, for what it's worth, Bradley Byrne beat Dean Young in AL-1.

Oh, what an extravaganza it's been.

Good night, everyone.

Anthony Weiner's rise

By Carl 

(I promise, that's the only dick joke in the post.)

Anthony Weiner has officially announced his candidacy for mayor of the city of New York, to replace three term gadabout-with-nothing-better-to-do-than-trash-my-city Michael Bloomberg.

I'll probably end up voting for him in the primary.

That speaks less of Weiner, who has always come off in my book as a bit of a dick (ok, sorry, my bad), than it does about the other candidates running in the Democratic primary, which is essentially the coronation of the next mayor. Weiner is currently polling second at 15%, and that poll was taken before he formally announced. Christine Quinn, the "frontrunner," is polling at 25%, which speaks volumes about a woman who has been Council Speaker for twelve years.

Quinn should be the presumptive nominee, but at 25% she's polling very weakly for someone with as much visibility as she's forced upon New Yorkers, and with good reason: she's really pretty shitty, unless you live in the West Village or happen to be gay. For those constituents, she's about as progressive as they come.

For working and middle class New Yorkers, not so much.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: The NRA comes to the rescue of Sen. Kelly Ayotte

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The National Rifle Association.

Where: New Hampshire.

What's going on: Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has been getting hammered for her vote against recent gun control legislation. The fact that she represents a state close to the horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut hasn't helped her, and her polling numbers have taken a hit.

The NRA has now come out with a new pro-Ayotte ad, their first TV ad in the state, though they have been running spots on the radio there.

The ad starts with a picture of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been backing ads critical of Ayotte for her vote against gun control legislation that failed in the Senate. It suggests that the attack is in some way inaccurate, though Ayotte's vote is a matter of public record.

The ad is built on the premise that Ayotte has in the past voted for other measures that the NRA believes are consistent with public safety:

The ad goes on to highlight a series of Ayotte's votes that it characterizes as working to improve background checks, reform the mental health system and increase resources to prosecute criminals using guns.

Even if true, her no vote on the highest profile gun control measure in a long time makes her vulnerable and she and the NRA know it:

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, half of voters said Ayotte's vote on background checks made them less inclined to vote for her, and only a quarter said it made them more likely to support her.

Lucky for her she isn't up for re-election until 2016.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Cartoonists against gun violence

By Richard K. Barry

In a short film sponsored by Mike Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, some of the country's most celebrated cartoonists contributed their work to encourage lawmakers and Americans to address gun violence.

It's narrated by actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore. 



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Freedom is free. Fascism, however...

By Carl 

So it turns out that Mayor Mike Bloomberg has yet another black eye in his third term – Occupy Wall Street:

After eleven months of talking in the courts, New York City has agreed to pay Occupy Wall Street almost a quarter of a million dollars.

The lawsuit, filed on May 24, 2012, by lawyers representing OWS, claimed that 3,600 of 5,000 books in the free People's Library were destroyed during the violent raid and eviction of the protest camp in Zuccotti Park.

In addition to books, also destroyed were computers, live streaming equipment and bicycles which were owned and operated by an environmental nonprofit, Time's Up.

It's barely a victory... after all, people were harassed and arrested and injured for the crime of protesting and assembling peacefully, and $186,000 of that is eaten up by attorneys' fees... and yet, it's a start.

The greater victory is this: the city actually acknowledged responsibility for the actions of its police officers. This is diametrically opposed to the usual, "Who? Him? Don't know him. Rogue cop."

I can sympathize with the city, but to a limited extent. The administration of a city the size of New York demands some corner-cutting somewhere, and the fact that rights were trumped is indicative of that. Safety and health have importance, too, as well as the rights of other people.

With OWS, however, we see a situation where – some sanitation issues aside – peaceful protestors were using a public space, admittedly provided by a private corporation but in exchange for zoning variances, effectively making it a public space. It was this company that demanded OWS be removed, which started the whole mess back in 2011.

Read more »

Stupidest Shithole in America: Mississippi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(It's our second entry in this new series. For the first -- Nelson, Georgia -- see here.)

I'm no great fan of Mayor Bloomberg's "abritrary and capricious" ban (or, rather, attempted ban, now that a judge has blocked it) on large sugary beverages, but from a public health perspective, and pretty much from any civilized perspective, this is worse: 

Fattest State in the Country Passes 'Anti-Bloomberg Law'

Mississippi's governor is poised to sign legislation — referred to (at least by NPR) as the "Anti-Bloomberg Bill" — that would ban local governments from regulating menu calorie counts, portion sizes, or "consumer incentive items" (e.g., Happy Meal toys) at restaurants and in vending machines. Mississippi has a solid winning streak going and it doesn't need anyone mucking it up.

There's something to be said for, you know, consumer choice, and for freedom generally, but this willful, and indeed gleeful, embrace of obesity and general unhealthiness is just obscene.

New York judge stops Michael Bloomberg from going all "arbitrary and capricious" on your beverage-guzzling freedom

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Times:

A judge struck down New York's limits on large sugary drinks on Monday, one day before they were to take effect, in a significant blow to one of the most ambitious and divisive initiatives of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's tenure. 

In an unusually critical opinion, Justice Milton A. Tingling Jr. of State Supreme Court in Manhattan called the limits "arbitrary and capricious," echoing the complaints of city business owners and consumers who had deemed the rules unworkable and unenforceable, with confusing loopholes and voluminous exemptions. 

Which is amusing, because "arbitrary and capricious" pretty much describes Bloomberg himself.

Look, I'm all for sensible efforts to improve public health, and America's endless appetite for massive quantities of shit is deeply disturbing (and damaging both to health and to the economy), but this never really made sense to me and always seemed like a possible thin end of the wedge for similar bans (like, should there be a ban on the density of pizza toppings or on the number of scoops you can have on an ice cream cone?)

What is needed -- and I say this not as a libertarian but as one who respects the limits of government action -- is better education, better habits, and better preventive care, not more rules and regulations, particularly when the application lacks consistency and the target makes little sense. Yes, these drinks are bad for you, particularly in such large quantities, but it's not like a sugary drink is heroin and I don't think we really want government regulating our food intake. To the extend that it does, or should, the threshold requiring action should be very high.

Endorsements

By Mustang Bobby

Does it really matter to you if someone else endorses a candidate?

I suppose it's interesting that Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the plutocrat's version of a maverick (he was once a Democrat, once a Republican, now an independent) endorsed President Obama the other day, but after the last week, it would be churlish of him not to at least thank him for helping out after the deluge. But I don't think he did it just for that reason alone; he's seeing which way the wind is blowing, so to speak, and the wind today seems to be coming from Chicago, not Boston.

But in truth I don't think endorsements should matter all that much to the average voter any more than a celebrity endorsement sells more coffee or boner pills. Most voters go into the polling station with one thing on their mind: What's in it for me? Forget the big issues like climate change or trade with China; will voting for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney make my life better here in my little world?

But there's one reason a lot of the campaigns make a big deal out of celebrity endorsements. They appeal to part of our brain that makes us read People magazine or Liz Smith's gossip column: it's the brush with fame that turns us on. Hey, I'm just like Brad Pitt because I like Barack Obama too!

It also cues up the lizard brain: make it about the primal fears of the voter and you can talk them into anything. A candidate will scare the crap out of you with threats of gays getting married and slutty college girls getting abortions even if you live in a town where the gay population is more likely to show up at Rotary on Tuesday than at the courthouse demanding a marriage license, and it's the housewife in need of a mammogram who loses when Planned Parenthood is run out of town.

So if you'll fall for that, perhaps you'll be impressed if Meat Loaf endorses Mitt Romney and Bruce Springsteen endorses Barack Obama. But neither of them are going to matter a whole lot when your local school district can't afford to fix up the classroom or the free clinic shuts down when some Jesus-shouting snake-handler warns of Hell on the sidewalk because they handed out condoms.

I endorse Barack Obama for president. So what?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Some good news from New York City

By Michael J.W. Stickings

When he wasn't endorsing President Obama for re-election yesterday, Michael Bloomberg was focusing on post-Sandy relief and recovery and otherwise being extremely quotable. For example:

Let me also point out, I don't think we've had a murder in two or three days. That's some good news. 

Indeed it is, Mr. Mayor, indeed it is.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorses Obama

By Richard K. Barry

Well done, Mr. Mayor.

In a surprise move, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Thursday Hurricane Sandy helped him make up his mind that Barack Obama was a better choice for the country.

In an editorial at Bloomberg, he wrote:

The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast — in lost lives, lost homes and lost business — brought the stakes of next Tuesday's presidential election into sharp relief.

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

Ultimately, Mr. Bloomberg seems to have reasoned that with the stakes so high it might be a good idea to endorse the guy who believes in science.

In the endorsement, Bloomberg cited several things Obama has done to combat climate change, but he also cited other reasons like the president's support for abortion rights and same-sex couples -- important issues for the mayor.

Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had been seeking the mayor's endorsement, but the mayor noted that however sensible Romney had been in the past on issues like immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and health care, he "reversed course on all of them."

Climate change may well have been what swayed Bloomberg ultimately, but not knowing or trusting what Mitt Romney stands for at any given moment seems also to have been a major factor. 

I hope others take heed.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Michael Bloomberg, narcissist extraordinaire

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

I give myself a huge thumbs up!

The Times (via NYmag) is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg isn't going to endorse anyone for president -- but that's really only because he only wants to endorse someone exactly like himself:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York has remained coy about whether he plans to endorse a presidential candidate this year, even as Mitt Romney and President Obama aggressively court the billionaire media mogul.

The most that the mayor and his aides have said is that Mr. Bloomberg, who did not endorse in 2008, is carefully weighing his options this time around.

But during casual conversations at charity event a few days ago, Mr. Bloomberg was far chattier — and candid — about the subject, according to three people who overheard him.

Mr. Bloomberg said that he believed Mr. Romney would probably be better at running the country than Mr. Obama, according to two guests.

But Mr. Bloomberg said he could not support Mr. Romney because he disagreed with him on so many social issues, these two people said. The mayor mentioned two such issues: abortion rights and gun control.

As a result, Mr. Bloomberg said, he intended to remain neutral, said one guest.

By better at running the country, by the way, the billionaire probably means more likely to slash his taxes and make him even richer. On that front, yes, Romney is very much his kind o' guy.

Look, I generally like Bloomberg. He's a massive narcissist, and I can't stand his holier-than-thou (and in many ways right-leaning) centrism, nor his business-oriented worldview, but he's a decent enough "Red Tory" with admirably progressive social views, and he's been admirably right, and courageously so, on high-profile local issues like Park51 (the "Ground Zero mosque") and, more broadly, religious freedom (and by that I mean genuine religious freedom, not the religious freedom espoused by right-wing theocrats, which is just the freedom to institutionalize bigotry).

Obviously, I'd like him to endorse President Obama, though it's pretty clear his narcissism is getting in the way of any endorsement at all. What I don't understand, though, is what the president has done to make him think Romney would be better at running the country.

On issue after issue, including economic ones, Romney has been pandering to the right, to his party's base -- well to the mayor's right. I get that Bloomberg would prefer Romney's tax policy (which just amounts to cutting taxes on the rich, on people like... Romney and Bloomberg), and perhaps even that he would prefer Romney's hostility to regulation (even though Bloomberg is no enemy of regulation, at least when it comes to, say, sugary beverages), but Obama's fiscal policies have for the most part been solidly centrist. Bloomberg obviously prefers Obama to Romney on social issues like marriage equality, but does he not support Obama's efforts in foreign policy, particularly when compared to Romney's lack of experience and, when he does wade in, ignorant bullying? Even Obama's health-care reforms were centrist -- a market-oriented approach once promoted by Republicans (like, oh, by Mitt Romney himself).

So again, what has Obama done? How has he not run the country to Bloomberg's liking? Should he have let the auto industry go under? Should he have not ordered the mission to take out bin Laden? Should he not have pushed an economic stimulus package to pull the country back from the brink of disaster?

Or is this just Bloomberg being Bloomberg, musing idly but not really to be taken all that seriously, shamelessly self-promoting from atop the pedestal of his own imaginary superiority?

Moscow Spring

By Carl 

You'd think Vladimir Putin would have learned a lesson from last year's civil unrest in the Middle East and America.

You'd think Putin would have learned that stealing an election does a President no good, and that it taints not only him but his administration and party orgnization for at least a decade. After all, he was Bush's "Pootie Poot." 

And you'd be wrong:

There were "serious problems" in the vote that returned Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency, the head of the major international election observer mission said Monday, adding fuel to an opposition testing its strength with plans for a massive protest rally.

Putin rolled to victory as expected Sunday to return to the Kremlin and keep his hold on power for six more years, but opponents claim the voting was rigged. A rally has been set for Monday evening on Moscow's Pushkin Square, one of the central city's most iconic locations, with news reports say some 12,000 police and troops will be on duty to ensure order.

A brief synopsis by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe observer mission did not address complaints of widespread cases of people casting multiple ballots, but said the election "was assessed negatively" in almost a third of polling stations observers visited. 

Well, I mean, it's not as blatant as stealing 600 votes in Florida, or the entire state of Ohio, but it's not a good way to kick off your "re-election."

According to RT.com (think Putin's Pravda), upwards of 30,000 people protested in St. Petersburg ahead of the election, which means it was probably more like 50,000. And that was in support of fair elections, not protesting Putin's theft.

The mayor of Moscow (not Mikhail Blombergski, by the way) has already categorically stated that no permanent encampments will be allowed in his city, so at least one Russian is aware of the historic parallels.

What drives a zealoted tyrant to decide that he's above the law, above the people? The afore-referenced Michael Bloomberg defied not one but two ballot referenda and ran for a third term as mayor of New York City. Likewise, President Bush stole two elections. Neither man is particularly beloved by his people and neither has had an administration worth discussing except as examples of what happens when bad men steal power and become tin-plated dictators with delusions of grandeur.

Yes, power is seductive and yes, power is useful, but it is corrupting and wresting power wrongly is always, always, a bad idea.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

NYPD spying on Muslim community damages trust, relationships

Guest post by Rabia Chaudry

Rabia Chaudry is an associate fellow of the Truman National Security Project and the president of the Safe Nation Collaborative.

A few years ago I joined about twenty other Muslim community leaders gathered to meet a regional outreach officer from a law enforcement agency. Many present had been living in the area for decades and were pillars of their communities. The officer introduced himself, noting that he had been in the region for over 15 years. He then mentioned that about 90 percent of his work, and the work of his agency, was in the Muslim community. We were shocked; none of us had ever met him before. We left the meeting feeling unnerved that there was so much "work" being done upon us without our knowledge. It was my first realization that the relationship between law enforcement and American Muslims was dysfunctional.

Training agents and officers that Islam is inherently violent, mapping Muslim establishments and mosques, infiltrating Muslim students at universities, and spying on Muslim leaders – these are only a few of the numerous stories recently uncovered about missteps taken by U.S. law enforcement agencies in their dealings with Muslims. The extent to which these invasive tactics have been unapologetically supported by officials such as Mayor Bloomberg, and apparently funded by the White House, has shocked the civil liberties world and eroded the trust of American Muslims.

The systematic dismantling by some law enforcement agencies, most notably the NYPD, of the goodwill built with Muslims over the last decade is truly puzzling. Studies show that there is no prevalence of radicalization amongst American Muslims, no correlation between religiosity and violence, and no reliable profile of a terrorist. Furthermore, Muslims have assisted authorities in foiling one third of all terror plots involving other Muslims since 9/11.

So the question must be asked: why do law enforcement agencies continue to engage in policies and tactics that, in light of empirical evidence, are futile in the fight against terror? Why are tremendous amounts of resources being wasted in monitoring and profiling communities of Muslims when the net result amounts to nothing more than notes on halal fried chicken joints or the number of times students prayed during a white water rafting trip?

Cynics may suggest that our law enforcement agencies are full of bigots and xenophobes or have no regard for civil liberties. However, I have more faith in those who risk their lives daily to protect us. The only reasonable explanation of the behavior of agencies such as the NYPD, LAPD, and FBI is that they sincerely believe that Islam is an intrinsically violent, radicalizing force and that Muslims are potential threats to security.

Such a conclusion is absurd not only to the nearly two billion peaceful Muslims in the world, but also to those who live and work alongside Muslims every day. Yet our law enforcement agencies continue to be taught that the Quran encourages violence, that religious and practicing Muslims view violent jihad as an obligation, and that peaceful Muslim practice deceit. According to "Manufacturing the Muslim Menace" (pdf), a comprehensive 2011 study by Thomas Cincotta of Political Research Associates, there exists an entire industry devoted to teaching law enforcement officers to hate Islam and Muslims.

It is said that you cannot build a tower on a crooked foundation. In this case, the foundation must be rebuilt. The only way to remedy the destructive education about Islam and Muslims given to law enforcement is to re-educate them. In fact, last year the White House and Department of Justice came to this very conclusion. They issued guidelines for trainers on Islam and Muslims and called for closer local collaboration between Muslim and law enforcement communities. The memo seems not to have reached everyone, however. Just recently, Tennessee approved law enforcement training by John Guandolo, one of the same Islamophobic trainers cited in Cincotta's study.

It has to be understood that American Muslims hold the highest stakes when it comes to keeping America safe from threats arising from rogue Muslims; no group has more to lose from a terror attack. Law enforcement must realize that it works from a place of common interest with Muslims and that the cooperation and trust of Muslims is essential to successful counter-terror operations. These understandings will only be internalized and reflected in policies and strategies when law enforcement agencies are re-trained on Islam and Muslims. Considering the significant damaging of trust in the past few weeks, it is time that law enforcement worked with Muslim communities instead of around them by making it a priority to arm themselves with accurate information about Islam.

Zuccotti Park, Michael Bloomberg, and the 1% Police State: "Wherever there's a cop beatin' a guy..."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you know, Michael Bloomberg ordered his NYPD thugs to clear Zuccotti Park the other night. As James Downie wrote at WaPo:

Early Tuesday morning, New York police raided and evicted the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Zuccotti Park in southern Manhattan. The behavior of the NYPD and the mayor's office, in ordering this brazen action while blocking the press and the public from reporting on the eviction, is a disgraceful display of unnecessary force on a protest that for the most part has behaved lawfully and respectfully throughout its two-month existence.

*****

The offered reasoning for the eviction? The same canard as the last time Bloomberg wanted to sweep away protesters: "public health and safety." Never mind that Occupy Wall Street has continually cleaned the park itself, or that health experts who have visited the park have pronounced it sanitary, or that even Bloomberg could cite only one incident that threatened public safety in his statement about the eviction. No, such "facts" were turned away, just as the police sought to turn the media's cameras elsewhere. All this while, as Matt Taibbi put it last week, "in the skyscrapers above the protests, anything goes." Nobody arrested the bankers for pushing fraudulent loans and subprime mortgage investments, or the ratings agencies and government regulators that neglected their duties and helped Wall Street crash the global economy. But putting tents in a public park? Time to bring out the batons and pepper spray.

As hard as the NYPD and New York City's government might try to obscure the truth though, one truth remains: At 1 a.m. this morning, in the heart of New York City, protesters exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly were swept away by the state, while that state also did all it could to prevent media coverage. No matter what one may think of the occupiers or their cause, nothing they've done justifies blockading the press or ignoring court orders. Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and other New York leaders who ordered the eviction should take a long, hard look at their handling of the occupation. This morning's action may not be what a police state looks like, but it's certainly how one begins.

Indeed it is. I've praised Bloomberg in the past, particularly for his eloquent handling of the Park51 Islamic community center ("Ground Zero mosque") controversy, but this is bullshit. The OWS protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful (and clean), including in New York City. Yes, there have been a few instances of inappropriate behavior, but the right (and the defenders of the status quo generally) have held the rare exceptions up to impugn the entire movement. And ultimately, while Bloomberg and others have defended the First Amendment right to free speech (and assembly), they put their foot down -- and clamp down -- whenever the threat to their wealth and authority gets a little too real.

This is how the 1% stays in power. They tolerate you, and then they crush you.

Thankfully, though, the protests will continue, if now without tents and sleeping bags. (And maybe being evicted from Zuccotti Park, even only temporarily, was the best thing to happen to OWS.) The fight must go on.

**********

A while back, I posted the incredible version of "The Ghost of Tom Joad" Bruce Springsteen does with Tom Morello. The original -- perhaps Springsteen's best song on his best album -- is also great, though. It's slower, quieter, acoustic, more haunting. Here's The Boss performing it the way it was first meant to be:

Now Tom said "Mom, wherever there's a cop beatin' a guy

Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries
Where there's a fight 'gainst the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me Mom I'll be there
Wherever there's somebody fightin' for a place to stand
Or decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody's strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you'll see me."

"Ground Zero mosque" opens, America still standing

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, Park51, the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" (though it was neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque), opened its doors on Wednesday "without controversy," the Daily News reports.

I can only assume that the various anti-Muslim bigots who made such noise last year, including not a few high-ranking Republicans, as if the presence of this community center so close to Ground Zero (but more generally, its very existence) would herald a new age of anti-American jihadism launched from within, had more pressing targets to vilify.

(Is that right, Newt?)

Meanwhile, most New Yorkers, including Mayor Bloomberg, who eloquently advocated for Park51 (and for religious freedom generally), took it all in stride.

And how could they not?

Upon opening, the center featured a photography exhibit of "city children representative of 160 ethnicities from around the world... compiled by a 44-year-old Jewish shutterbug from Brooklyn, Danny Goldfield."

Not exactly threatening.

Another thing that makes politics so hard

By Richard K. Barry

In today's New York Times there is a story about New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In it, he bemoans the fact that after years at the helm it's hard to maintain one's popularity. Political pros know there are two sides to incumbency. The first is that being around a long time keeps your profile high making it harder for challengers to get noticed. The other side is that being around a long time gives you ample opportunity to piss people off. Hence Bloomberg's comment:

Every time you make a decision you lose half the people. After five decisions there is only you and your mother, and I'm not sure about her.

The corollary to this is that in politics people may appreciate the things you did that help them, but they remember the things you did that hurt them.

A thought for the day.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Mayor Mike blows it

By Carl 

This op-ed, to no great surprise, is a bundle of elitist hackery that speaks volumes about how Mayor Michael Bloomberg has handled New York City's finances through two budget crises.

It's not that he doesn't make some points (I'll get to those), but it's the overall tone of privilege, which is sort of funny coming from a billionaire, self-made or no.

To wit:

Across the country, taxpayers are providing pensions, benefits and job security protections for public workers that almost no one in the private sector enjoys. Taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue paying these costs, which are growing at rates far outpacing inflation. Yes, public sector workers need a secure retirement. And yes, taxpayers need top-quality police officers, teachers and firefighters. It’s the job of government to balance those competing needs. But for a variety of reasons, the scale has been increasingly tipping away from taxpayers.

Now, like I said, Mayor Mike has a point: There is an enormous burden on taxpayers to fund budget deficits. In New York City in particular, the budget by law has to be balanced (barring catastrophes) in order for the city to receive state funding. And the costs of pensions and health care are outstripping the rate of inflation, particularly at a time of near-zero inflation.

But... this article smacks of so much hypocrisy that I had no choice but to address it.

The argument you never hear, the argument that Mayor Mike ought to hear and then shut his piehole over, is this: Public-sector workers make MUCH LESS SALARY than their private sector counterparts. A clerk in a bank gets a 10-15% higher salary, plus vacation, plus paid sick time, and may even be eligible for a bonus each year.

Yes, that's right: a clerk at Goldman Sachs can make a bonus that brings his income significantly higher than the private sector premium already paid! The equivalent clerk at the city Department of Finance? Not so lucky.

So what makes people want to serve the public? It can't be the appreciation, a glance at the New York Post or FOX News will show any public servant just how appreciated they are. These outlets lie in wait for some poor soul who hasn't slept in three nights because his wife is due to deliver a baby to fall asleep on a park bench, even momentarily, so they can smear his face across front pages for millions.

Just ask an EMT who has to drive an ambulance down a crowded street to try to pick up a heart attack victim just how much appreciation he gets from motorists stuck behind his rig, lights flashing and EMTs hustling about. Why, the shouted "Hosannas" would make a stevedor blush!

It's not the salary or the awesome potential to make millions, because you know what? No one makes that kind of money in city government.

No, they do it because they get two guarantees: job security in tough economic times and the promise of a pension at the end of the road.

And even in New York City, thousands of civil servants have been laid off by the bushel and now there's talk of 6% of the teachers being axed, most from the poorest schools furthest behind grades... who will then be closed because they underachieve academically. Mayor Mike, with this article, demonstrates that even pensions are not above his vulgar rapacity.

It's a win-win for the billionaires that Bloomberg is kowtowing to! It's a lose-lose for the other nine million citizens who work their fingers to the bone, trying to make ends meet and give their kids some kind of leg up in life.

See, the dirtiest secret of them all is, we wouldn't be in this crisis if Bloomberg and his predecessors, particularly Rudy 9-11 Giuliani, hadn't given away the candy store to companies who even glanced at New Jersey and winked at the mayor. You want to understand why the city's finances are in the toilet? Companies like NASDAQ and Citicorp pay no taxes to New York City, of any consequence, based on sweetheart deals to retain their presences in our fair town.

The irony is, where the hell would they have gone? If you want to be taken seriously as a player, you have to have your offices in the biggest financial capital in the world (well, except that's now London, but I digress).

Even Lehman Brothers... LEHMAN BROTHERS, who couldn't make money in a market that practically printed it!... got tax incentives to stay here and build a garish headquarters in Times Square. And then went bankrupt.

But hey, Mr. Mayor, you go right on balancing the budget on the backs of the clerks and the firefighters and the teachers and the santitation workers and all the people who voted for you last time out, then hop your little jet to Bermuda to get away from the stench of burnt charcoal and chalk dust and uncollected trash... who needs you?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Michael Bloomberg on religious freedom and the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday on Governor's Island, just off Manhattan, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, responding to the controversy surrounding the planned Islamic community center near Ground Zero, a silly controversy drummed up by conservative bigots, most of whom are not New Yorkers and yet who want to tell New York what to do (e.g., Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich), gave what I can only describe as a truly brilliant speech on the freedom of religion, the acceptance of cultural difference, and the diversity of American pluralism. It is worth reading in full, not least as an invaluable reminder of what America is supposed to be all about, contrary to prevailing conservative ideology, but here, in light of the controversy, is the key section (bold added):

The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, 'What God do you pray to?' (Bloomberg's voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) 'What beliefs do you hold?'

The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

The conservatives attacking the "Ground Zero mosque" -- which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque -- do not honour those who died on 9/11, nor the Constitution, nor America itself. Rather, they spew bigotry, anti-Muslim bigotry, and seek to divide the country into "us" and "them," in so doing playing right into the hands of those who question America's commitment to its long-held values, proving America's enemies right. And in opposing the construction of the community center, these conservatives are proving to be a lot like al Qaeda and bin Laden, intolerant religious extremists who reject religious conciliation and understanding.

America should be better than that, and better than its enemies, and Michael Bloomberg clearly wants it to be. Ground Zero will remain what it has become, sacred ground, no matter what surrounds it, but the Islamic cultural center will be proof that America actually lives up to its values and principles -- to freedom -- even in the face of uncompromising adversity.

U.S. to move 9/11 terrorism trial out of NYC

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NYT:

The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere.

*****

The reversal on whether to try the alleged 9/11 terrorists blocks from the former World Trade Center site seemed to come suddenly this week, after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg abandoned his strong support for the plan and said the cost and disruption would be too great.

But behind the brave face that many New Yorkers had put on for weeks, resistance had been gathering steam.

I understand the security and logistical concerns involved with trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 plotters in Manhattan, as well as the strong resistance to it, but, as I just said on Jazz Shaw's Mid Stream Radio show, on which I was a guest from 1:30 to 2:00, I think the symbolism of doing it New York, America's primary terrorist target, as well as perhaps the most important city in the world, would have been immense, an expression of American strength, authority, confidence, and determination, a statement that the U.S. isn't backing down in the face of terrorism, and isn't solely relying on military might, that those who are charged with such horrendous acts will be treated fairly, under the law, according to America's values and principles -- in short, that America isn't like its enemies.

Given the significant hit America's credibility and moral standing took both at home and abroad as a result of how it handled the war on terror -- a disastrous war in Iraq, torture and "enhanced interrogation," Gitmo and military tribunals, etc. -- a civilian trial in New York would have done a great deal, it seems to me, to show that America has recovered from the abuses and excesses of the Bush years.