Mayor Bloomberg suggested Friday that New York City public housing residents should be fingerprinted as a way to fight crime in the system’s 334 buildings.
Bloomberg, speaking on his weekly radio show, said NYCHA residents make up 5 percent of the city’s population while 20 percent of New York City crimes are committed in public housing.
“The people that live there, most of them, want more police protection… If you have strangers walking in the halls of your apartment building, don’t you want somebody to stop and say, ‘Who are you? Why’re you here?’”
“What we really should have is fingerprinting to get in,” he went on. “And of course … there’s an allegation that some of these apartments aren’t occupied by the people who originally have the lease.”
Ed Brayton looks at crime stats
I have a hard time expressing just how much I loathe New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his latest appalling claim about the NYPD’s blatantly unconstitutional stop and frisk policy are a perfect example why. Despite the massive racial disparities in who gets stopped and frisked, Bloomberg thinks it isn’t quite racist enough yet:
One newspaper and one news service, they just keep saying ‘oh it’s a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group.’ That may be, but it’s not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the [crime]. In that case, incidentally, I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they’re saying. I don’t know where they went to school, but they certainly didn’t take a math course. Or a logic course.
Really? You stop too many white people? Then why does it turn out that a higher percentage of the white people who are being stopped are found to actually be breaking the law than the black and Latino people you stop? In fact, white people who are stopped and frisked are twice as likely to be found with a gun. Could it be because your officers have to have stronger evidence to become suspicious of a white person while they are automatically suspicious of a dark-skinned person? Not only is that conclusion logical, it is supported by a mountain of social psychological research too.
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe this week, Sen. Manchin (D-WV) fired a salvo in his escalating war with the NRA - or, as he tells it, the NRA’s Washington leadership.
Responding to an NRA attack ad that claimed he was ‘working with President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’ and betraying his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by pushing forward with the now-defeated Manchin-Toomey bill that would have strengthened background checks on gun purchases, Manchin said “They’re trying to say I’ve changed, but I haven’t changed… the leadership of the NRA in Washington has changed. In 1999, background checks were good!”
It’s notable not just that Manchin seems sincere about enacting background checks in the wake of Newtown, but that he’s willing to fight back against the NRA in doing so. The NRA’s attack ad tells its members to phone Manchin’s office and complain about his “betrayal”; Manchin turns the tables in his ad, and asks NRA members to phone the NRA and complain about their lack of support for background checks.
Manchin is, above all else, a shrewd politician. He’s a Democrat who has managed to win by large margins, first as governor and then as senator, in an increasingly red West Virginia. If he’s made the calculation to call the NRA’s bluff and dare them to come after him, then he’s decided that they’re nothing more than a paper tiger at this point, full of bluster about their ability to bring down politicians who don’t follow their increasingly retrograde orthodoxy but without any ability to follow through. If Manchin demonstrates that he can spit in the teeth of the NRA and not suffer any damage, it may well embolden other, more timid Democrats who think they need to maintain an A-rating in order to keep their jobs.
It helps that Manchin isn’t facing re-election for a few years yet, of course. It’s easier to be brave when you aren’t in the heat of a campaign. But this election cycle could end up being the swan song for Wayne LaPierre’s brand of crazy as a truly scary political force. Between Bloomberg’s Independence USA super PAC hammering Democrats who tow the NRA line, and Manchin attempting to prove that there are no real consequences for defying them, the NRA may suddenly find that they can’t make Congress dance to their tune the way they used to.
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But if there’s going to be real movement towards a better, saner gun policy in this country it’s clearly going to have to happen over the NRA’s grave. Manchin’s an experienced hunter, but this is the most important hunt he’s ever been on. I wish him nothing but luck with this one.
Chavez the Popular Autocrat Leaves a Legacy of Ruin
By the Editors
March 5, 2013
The death of President Hugo Chavez marks the beginning of a perilous and hopeful moment for Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere.
There is no denying the impact of the charismatic ex-paratrooper, a plotter and survivor of coups who demolished Venezuela’s political power structure, won three elections with wide support and used the wealth from the world’s largest oil reserves to advance, across the Andes and beyond, his home- brewed ideology of “Bolivarian socialism.”Bashar and Asma al-Assad on a state visit to Venezuela in 2010 (HO/AFP/Getty Images)
How long that incoherent ideology will survive its creator is an open question. The challenge now facing Venezuela and its neighbors is to ensure a peaceful transition to a new elected government. Under Venezuela’s constitution, an election must be held within 30 days. Given the supercharged atmosphere surrounding Chavez’s death — just hours earlier, Vice President Nicolas Maduro blamed Chavez’s enemies for his cancer, and claimed that opposition groups were sabotaging the nation’s power grid — the potential for unrest during the campaign looms large.
In last October’s election, Chavez used the tools of incumbency, including not just government largesse but also dominance of the news media and other soft authoritarian strategies, to disadvantage his challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski. That pattern will repeat itself, with the added uncertainty and tension that may come from rivalries between Maduro, National Assembly President Diosdado Cabelloand others within the post-Chavez camp.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will propose a ban on Styrofoam, the substance commonly used for take-out food containers that is almost impossible to recycle.
The mayor who has already targeted fat, sugar and salt in the city will turn to extruded polystyrene foam, saying it clogs up landfills, does not biodegrade and might harm human health.
Bloomberg will raise the proposal in his final State of the City speech on Thursday. The city provided reporters an advance text of the speech on Wednesday.
Bloomberg, in his 12th year as mayor, has made public health and sustainability hallmarks of his three terms in office, and he has taken aim repeatedly at the fast-food industry - most recently in his controversial plan to bar the sale of large portions of sugary soda, which goes into effect next month.
Styrofoam, he says, should go the way of lead-based paint, which the city banned from residential use in 1960. An estimated 20,000 tons of Styrofoam enter the city’s waste stream each year, and it can add an estimated $20 per ton to the cost of recycling because it needs to be removed from the recycling stream, the city said.
“After all, we can live without it. We may live longer without it. And the doggie bag will survive just fine,” the text of Bloomberg’s speech says.
Dow Chemical Co, which makes Styrofoam, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Similar bans have been adopted in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Oregon.
The plan was likely to meet opposition from small businesses, since alternatives to Styrofoam tend to cost between two and five times as much.
Jesus H. Christ this guy is a control freak, and New York is his very own personal Sim City.
n yet another attempt to appease irrational critics, the White House released a photo of the president shooting a gun to prove he is not an enemy of the Second Amendment and that he has in fact shot a gun before (as if that’s required to not want criminals or the mentally ill to have access to semi-automatic weapons.)
And surprise, surprise skeptics are not satisfied, saying the picture is fake and his affinity for shooting phony, even though there’s evidence of President Obama talking about practicing shooting a rifle with members of the Secret Service way back in 2010.
“One picture does not erase a lifetime of supporting every gun ban and every gun-control scheme imaginable,” said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association.
Well Arulanadam should tell Michael Bloomberg about all of Obama’s gun-control support because it seems each time there’s been a mass shooting the outspoken mayor of New York tears into the president.
“The president has spent the last three years trying to avoid the issue, or if he’s facing it, I don’t know of anybody who has seen him face it,” Bloomberg said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” days after the Aurora shooting.
Bloomberg was right of course.
As a candidate in 2008, Obama talked about reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons, but he hadn’t aggressively addressed guns from a policy perspective until December’s Newtown tragedy. In fact, in a blatant display of hypocrisy, while the NRA demonized Obama for something he didn’t do, they endorsed Mitt Romney, who actually did sign a law banning assault weapons while governor of Massachusetts.
But those are all just facts.
And when you’re dealing with crazy people, it doesn’t really matter how many facts you present, because — well — they’re crazy and they’re just going to believe what they’re going to believe.
The sick and paranoid freakshow known as Alex Jones takes a new twist when he tapes a series of bizarre rants following his meltdown appearance on CNN with Piers Morgan.
Jones apparently filmed the video in his hotel room immediately after leaving CNN’s studios — or rather, as Jones described, being escorted out by security.
Jones did not take that well. ‘See, the way this will work is, ‘Oh, see they’re here protesting the gun grabs,” he said. ”Oh, see, some crack dealers shot them.’ And if you don’t know that Bloomberg is total mafia, you’re not living in reality.’
He added that he’d positively identified several undercover police officers throughout the day and even saw one man who was armed. ‘If something happens to us, we’re killed by crackheads, it was the NYPD or the mafia they hired, period,’ Jones said.
Jones went on to compare himself to George Washington fighting the British, which he said he believes is similar to traveling to New York and telling off Piers Morgan. ‘Right here in New York, Washington fought the British, 15 to 1 odds. He didn’t win every battle, he lost most of them, but he persevered. That was what’s important.’
As one poster noted, Jones could be suffering from late stage syphilis….a reasonable hypothesis considering the clearly mentally unstable nature of this person. Yet again, he could just be another carnival barker milking the gullible sheeple in the same fashion of Beck and Limbaugh.
Many of those surveyed said that maintaining their standard of living has become a struggle, with 85 percent saying it is now harder to do so than a decade ago. Also, while 51 percent said in 2007 that their children would have a higher standard of living than them, only 43 percent think that will be the case now. 26 percent now think their children’s standard of living will be worse; four years ago, 19 percent did.
With the economy the central issue of this year’s presidential election, Bloomberg nonetheless notes that the middle class are “reluctant” to blame President Obama. 52 percent said his policies would aid the middle class while 42 percent said that Romney’s would.
With an estimated net worth of $250 million, Romney is seen as being out of touch with the needs of the middle class. 62 percent of the survey’s respondents say that Republicans favor the rich. 37 percent said Democrats were more likely to support their interests while only 26 percent said such of the Republicans
For some reason the actual video from Bloomberg TV doesn’t load for me (link below), so I had to embed from some Paulbot YouTube channel.
JFTR: I am not rooting for either of these guys.
I have to apologize to the Lizard that originally posted this article. I didn’t write it down and now I can’t find the Post. Please remind me so I can give credit where credit is due.
The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.
The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.
Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.
A fresh narrative of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 emerges from 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions. While Fed officials say that almost all of the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.
The U.S. jobless rate hasn’t dipped below 8.8 percent since March 2009, 3.6 million homes have been foreclosed since August 2007, according to data provider RealtyTrac Inc., and police have clashed with Occupy Wall Street protesters, who say government policies favor the wealthiest citizens, in New York, Boston, Seattle and Oakland, California.
The Tea Party, which supports a more limited role for government, has its roots in anger over the Wall Street bailouts, says Neil M. Barofsky, former TARP special inspector general and a Bloomberg Television contributing editor.
“The lack of transparency is not just frustrating; it really blocked accountability,” Barofsky says. “When people don’t know the details, they fill in the blanks. They believe in conspiracies.”
In the end, Geithner had his way. The Brown-Kaufman proposal to limit the size of banks was defeated, 60 to 31. Bank supervisors meeting in Switzerland did mandate minimum reserves that institutions will have to hold, with higher levels for the world’s largest banks, including the six biggest in the U.S. Those rules can be changed by individual countries.
They take full effect in 2019.