Friday, June 28, 2013

New York City Mayor Bloomberg Draws Fire For Stating the Facts...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Libe
rty -vs- Tyranny



Not really a fan of New York Mayor Bloomberg, but when you're right you're right, political correctness aside of course. Speaking the obvious truth is bound to get ya in hot water. The Mayor did just that recently and sure enough he drew plenty of fire. It is absolutely disgusting what the aspiring to power political class will stoop to.

New York Post - Mayor Bloomberg claimed that people of color should be stopped and frisked more -- not less -- while whites are stopped too frequently.

"I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It's exactly the reverse of what they say," Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show, in response to the City Council passing two bills aimed at reining in the controversial policing tactic.

"I don't know where they went to school but they certainly didn't take a math course. Or a logic course.”

The mayor was referring to statistics showing that a majority of serious crimes in the city are carried out by young men of color {emphasis mine).

But candidates vying to replace him wasted no time in denouncing the comments. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

38 comments:

  1. Referring to colored people, young colored men, etc. as the Post does is lame and clunky and semantically tortured. It appeares they conjured the reference in an inaccurate paraphrase of Bloomie's words.

    There's no difference in meaning between "colored people" and "people of color". The difference is as much as the difference between, say "Indonesians" and "Indonesian people".; I choose to use neither term.

    Aside from the horrid abuse of the English language which lets liberals say colored without saying colored..... I am opposed to the racial profiling in Hizzoner's statement, and do not agree, sorry. Quite strongly in fact. I am not like that idiot Sammy/anon who loves to bash people for being of the wrong skin color.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since I didn't know what the law is under the "stop and frisk" procedure, I looked it up:

    "Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.

    In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

    The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

    The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The 'sole justification' for a frisk, said the Court, is the 'protection of the police officer and others nearby.' Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be 'reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.' As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment."


    The only concern would be the opportunity for bad cops to abuse this, and we can be fairly certain this has been abused by bad cops against innocent boys and men of color.

    I have no answers for a better way. It's all so discouraging. Every day I read either a new or a more intrusive action by the government on citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully understand your concerns as there are, always have been, and always will be some cops who abuse the aithority their position gives them, just as bad politicians/lawmakers do.

      I simply understand Bloomberg's point and find it has merit as he meant it. Bloomberg is certainly not a racist.

      Delete
  3. I can't stand Bloomberg. He's a nanny state progressive, so he'll get a pass on this one...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sometimes you have to break a few civil liberties eggs to make a saves a lot of black people's lives omlette. I guess that I have to give the fellow a pass, too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't mean to say I give him a pass.

    What I meant to say is the progressive race hustlers and tongue-cluckers will ignore this because he is their type of man: Dictatorial and progressive.

    A conservative would never get by with what he has done.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "A conservative would never get by with what he has done."

    But Silverfiddle, my friend, conservatives "get by" all the time when it comes to dictating what a woman can and cannot do with her body. Also, conservative governors have an unhealthy obsession with women's uteri, when they're not thinking about shoving unnecessary medical probes in their vaginas, and have done a pretty nasty job of shutting down women's access to low-cost women's health care, such as Planned Parenthood. I know of low-income and poor women who depend on PP for their health.

    You're very quick to point out how "dictatorial" liberals are, but fail to acknowledge that the cons do a bang-up job of telling people how to live their lives--mostly according to their religion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Planned Parenthood is a wealthy recipient of corporate welfare from the federal and state governments, with those at the top making out like bandits. The call for to cut off the billions of wasteful taxpayer-funded gifts is not the same as "shutting them down". I support the fiscally responsible action of ending this wasteful squandering of tax money, which is what many have proposed. I am not aware of any proposals to actually shut them down; and if there were I would oppose such proposals.

    Like with Obama's mistake of wasting tens of billions of dollars in a corporate welfare gift to big auto companies, the corporate welfare needs to end. Now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well I hope demarks is consistent in his crusade to make sure the government is fiscally responsible. Someone just left this comment on my blog, and I checked it out to see if it's true. It is:

    "On June 18, House Republicans passed Rep. Trent Franks’ (R-AZ) bill banning abortion after 20 weeks (H.R. 1797; aka, “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”). The high cost of social conservatism is evident in the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the cost of implementing the Republican bill.

    They write, “CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1797 would generate changes in direct spending that would increase federal budget deficits by $75 million over the 2014-2018 period and $225 million over the 2014-2023.”

    Luckily, Frank's bill has no hope of passing the Senate, and even if it did, President Obama would veto it anyway.

    These clowns are wasting precious time sniffing around women's reproductive organs when they should be working on jobs legislation. Nothing's changed. The GOP and its obsession with sex--and ignorance of women's issues--has made them a laughing tragedy as well as alienating women.

    How's that "Let's stop being the Stupid Party" working out?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Shaw: Les mentioned such a ban before I did (the 20 week limit)

    And so what if the masters of wild predictions prognosticate that killing a lot of people redudes the debt. The CBO predictions of the budget damage of Obama's plan to destroy healthcare were wayyyy off. Myself, I propose cutting waste spending, not snuffing out lives. Its a far more gentle way of reducing the budget problem. But I understand that some want to make people suffer as part of the budget process: remember Obama's famous promise to go after disabled kids or poor kids instead of cutting massive waste.

    But back to your $75 million figure (less than $20 million per year).... cutting Federal corporate welfare to PP would help the budget problem by hundreds of millions per year. That much money saved by cutting off the forced taxpayer gift to PP. Yet the really stupid party (Democrats) is dead set against this. This amount is also a tiny fraction of what the really stupid Dems blew on a handout to Big Auto....an instance of gross fiscal irresponsibility also oppose by the "at least somewhat less stupid than Democrats" GOP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes dmarks, I did state my agreement with the 20 week benchmark.. As I have stated repeatedly beyond the point at which a developing baby can live outside the women's womb abortion, except to save the life of the women should be prohibited. My beliefs are far from being influenced by religon as I am an atheist. Rather reason, at least for me, dictates that once a developing baby has reached viability it's right to live should be the determining factor. Besides, 4 months + is sufficient time for the women to make up her mind.

      Delete
    2. I agree that 4 months is sufficient time, but are you taking into account how difficult it would be for girls and women in rural states where clinics are being shut down to get an abortion? And in states where they're shutting down these clinics, what would be the waiting period to be helped? How about the girl or woman who has to save up enough money to be able to afford an abortion, since many of these red states want to get rid of Planned Parenthood, and no federal money is allowed to pay for an abortion?

      The pols who are making it more and more difficult to obtain an abortion are the same ones who want to put the 20 week limitation on obtaining an abortion, even when the laws they are passing or want to pass contribute to the difficulty in making that time limit.

      BTW, these are the same pols who want to defund food stamps and unemployment benefits, y'know, monies that help feed and clothe the already born babies. And shall we talk about the ACA, which helped these families obtain health insurance for babies and children that insurance companies threw off their coverage?

      When I see conservatives caring deeply about feeding, clothing, and getting affordable health care for living breathing babies, I'll believe their ardent concern over the unborn.

      So far, I've seen these conservatives fight tooth and nail everything that helps the living babies of families who are in trouble: food stamps, unemployment benefits, and universal health care.

      Delete
    3. Shaw.I am in upstate NY and travelimg today. Your thoughtful comments deserve a thoughtful response. Therefore. I will reply upon my return home this evening. Typing on my smart phone just doedn'r cut it.

      Delete
    4. "My beliefs are far from being influenced by religon as I am an atheist"

      I am a Christian, but have tended to be involved with "liberal" denominations. My opposition to abortion is from a human rights standpoint, not a theological one at all.

      The issue of religious issues vs non-religious (sectarian) isn't so easy to define. Is civil rights for African Americans a religious issue, because a very devout Christian preacher was the main advocating leader for it? Or should BOTH sides of the abortion debate be tossed out as invalid, because both sides have some people who argue from a religious point of view? (the anti-side, as we well know, but also the pro- side?

      Even gay rights can be considered. The major Atheist rulers of the 20th century were strongly homophobic, and definitely were not Bible-thumpers of any kind. Che Guevara proposed killing gay people off in death camps. From Wikipedia, on Stalin: "In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor". In fact, the plight of LGBT people under strong Atheist (socialist) rule was as brutal as anything imagined under theists.

      More on Che, an icon who is worshiped by so many on the Left:

      from "Ivor Casey", which is just one of many sources.

      "Under the Cuban revolution, however, Guevara's vision involved setting up ‘labour camps’, known as the UMAP labour camps, to incarcerate gay people."

      Speaking of stupid party, here is an article concerning the Obama administration honoring Che. Of course, Obama's EPA was run by Lisa Jackson, a real extremist who was proud to embrace the specific ideology of Che, Stalin, and Mao. (Obama made a mistake by firing Mao-worshipping Van Jones and not also firing her).

      Anyway, theists certainly have no monopoly on diverging from the dictates of reason.

      Delete
    5. dmarks, to deny that theists are not primarily responsible for keeping the issue front and center (life begins in the second of fertilization argument) is IMNHO just a bit naive.

      We are not talking about dictators, Che, Stalin, Castro, or Pol Pot. We are talking about a RELATIVELY free and ethical society. even its leaders So my view is invoking these figures and dictatorship is not really relevant.

      Delete
    6. I will take your comment item by item and respond …

      1) We agree on the four months and three weeks being sufficient time for women to make a decision.

      2) No I have not taken the issue of clinics being shut down into account. Hospitals can provide the service on an outpatient basis. Further, while I believe shutting down clinics to make access to abortion more difficult, assuming that is the only or true reason, is patently wrong. Those who feel as you do should be picketing and protesting, calling and writing state and national lawmakers, and volunteering to man phone banks for PP rather than wanting to extend the time a woman has to abort a developing Baby. After 20 weeks the baby is viable. In my book this makes abortion after 20 weeks legalized murder, unless it is to save the life of the women. AND, there is a thing called adoption.

      3) If saving up enough money s the issue then getting started RIGHT AWAY is a good idea. Again, at 20 weeks the developing baby is viable. At some point it must begin to have the right to continue life as a human child. Further, a sexually active woman, and man, who does not want a pregnancy to occur have some pre act responsibility to prevent it from occurring. Condoms, a diaphragm and gel , IUD’s and the pill are all options to aid in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Much cheaper than either an abortion or raising a child.

      4) PP provides valuable health services to women and therefore I do not support the effort to get rid PP. I also do not support that taxpayer dollars should be spent on abortion, EXCEPT in the case of rape where the woman bears no responsibility.

      5) I know bringing in food stamps, the ACA, and unemployment plays well to the emotional argument and many people, especially liberals’, independents, and progressives are swayed by the emotional debate. But it is just that, emotionalism being used to convince people to extend abortion access well after viability has been reached. IMNHO this is as wrong as the attempts by the other extreme wanting to take us back to pre 1972 and shutting down PP.

      6) The American federal government is chock full of wasteful sending that both the democrats and republicans have been and are now guilty of. The DOD, foreign aid, and many others that are unrelated to the issues you hold dear. Perhaps if our government was efficient and made intelligent decisions on how to spend the taxpayers’ dollars, like that improving our ability to compete (Read Three Billion New Capitalists) and improving our infrastructure and stopped of our war footing we might be able to solve more issues and balance the books. But that one for another day.

      I will close by saying the Federal Government is not Santa. At some point it must be able to pay for the services the citizens want. But, the citizens must at some point take responsibility for their own welfare and well being. The majority of Americans have always done this. They still do. There is also no denying a growing number who expect the benevolence of government to provide the safety net for………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. (i deleted and corrected this to fix the missing Aware word at the end)

      Les said: "dmarks, to deny that theists are not primarily responsible for keeping the issue front and center (life begins in the second of fertilization argument) is IMNHO just a bit naive."

      Sure they are. But those who argue this from a scientific/biological point of view and not a "theistical" view don't deserve to be swept away with the theists.

      "We are not talking about dictators, Che, Stalin, Castro, or Pol Pot. We are talking about a RELATIVELY free and ethical society. even its leaders So my view is invoking these figures and dictatorship is not really relevant."

      They are quite relevant when look at homophobia overall.

      Che Guevara, one of those Atheists who proposed killing off gays in death camps, said "In fact, if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm.". And Che is so well admired in our "RELATIVELY free and ethical society". There are many roads to tyranny in our society, and as you know, the journey isn't that long.

      Back much more on subject, you said "PP provides valuable health services to women and therefore I do not support the effort to get rid PP"

      Are you aware, Les, of any effort to actually get rid of PP?

      Delete
    9. With all due respect I simply find that the right is earnestly building straw men to knock down and then pat themselves on the back for having down some great and moral thing. it is frankly BS in my estimation. Every bit as much so as those who advocate abortion on demand WITHOUT and restrictions, such as the 20 week threshold.

      It is utter madness driven by foolish partisanship and religious gobbledygook. I have tired of the unreasonableness of the fundie religious right and I have tired of the take no prisoners progressive approach to unrestricted abortions as well. It is ALL bullshit.

      Perhaps you're right dmarks, discussion about dictatorial tenancies may be relevant. Because it is evident that the religious right and the (extreme) progressive on demand crowd have BOTH arrived at the point of wanting to impose their extreme position on society as a whole. To which I say again is BULLSHIT.

      Delete
    10. "....discussion about dictatorial tenancies may be relevant..."

      The protection of freedom does demand vigilance, after all. And yes you are indeed addressing two absolutist views which are extreme/fringe in regards to the American body politic. Yes, two.

      Delete
    11. And that is, after all the entire point of this post and the pains taken to express a moderate middle of the road view that I believe the majority of Americans do indeed support.

      HOWEVER... It is most likely the two extremes will continue to act as children do and keep the madness and insanity alive.

      Delete
  10. What do you guys think they usually find when they "stop and frisk?" It's usually marijuana. Possibly other drugs. As far as I know the problem is not illegal weapons or any evidence of "major crimes."

    Go to WNYC. Listen to the radio. Ever heard of the Brian Lehrer show? Weekday mornings 10:00 EST. Learn. Become part of New York. Learn to care about the people of the city. Become part of our nation. Get out of yourselves.

    We don't need some goofy moderate mayor giving voice to these racist feelings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you should get out of yourself FJ. Just sayin... :-)

      Delete
  11. I found a link to Lehrer's podcast:

    http://www.wnyc.org/audio/podcasts/

    He is part of the official government media in NYC. Still, some NPR/etc programs are worthwhile, despite that we are forced to pay tax money for official government media (a pure waste that can be zeroed out and save billions per year).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shaw said: "When I see conservatives caring deeply about feeding, clothing, and getting affordable health care for living breathing babies, I'll believe their ardent concern over the unborn."

    Done.... even the budget proposals by the so-called radical Objectivist Paul Ryan have increases in social spending.

    By the way, universal healthcare (a weasel-word for single payer, state control) has nothing to do with helping the people, and everything to do with the State helping itself to more and more undue power.

    As for food stamps? Republicans strongly favor this for the poor. That's bi partisan, really. But where you get controversy is food stamps for rich people. There has been a scandal of the Michigan food stamp program going to millionaires and other well off people. The Republicans have tried to stop this waste, but the Dems (the part of even stupider, to borrow Shaw's term) has been irresponsible and has stood up to keep this waste spending.

    There is also the SCHIP scandal: the Republicans wanted this to go to only poor kids. The Dems insisted that this program go to rich adults also.

    Free government food for Uncle Moneybags... thank you Michigan Democratic Party.

    So, Shaw, your statement "I've seen these conservatives fight tooth and nail everything that helps the living babies of families who are in trouble: food stamps, unemployment benefits, and universal health care." is not true when you look at real budgets. Where the difference is is that the Democrats fight for enriching bureaucrats even more, and defend the idea that these benefits should be given to rich people as well.

    ReplyDelete
  13. dmarks: "By the way, universal healthcare (a weasel-word for single payer, state control) has nothing to do with helping the people, and everything to do with the State helping itself to more and more undue power."

    Really? Tell that to the millions of Americans, young and old, who are on Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is a single-payer system that is more efficient than private insurance--it's not perfect; what programs can be when we have half the Congress fighting anything that would improve a program?


    dmarks: "So, Shaw, your statement "I've seen these conservatives fight tooth and nail everything that helps the living babies of families who are in trouble: food stamps, unemployment benefits, and universal health care." is not true when you look at real budgets."

    I just looked at North Carolina, and that state just stopped unemployment benefits for people out of work. Last time I looked, NC is run by conservatives.



    "In reality, the federal government is allowing states to be more generous than required, if they want to be. For most anti-poverty programs—like the one that used to be called welfare, subsidies for housing, childcare assistance, and heating assistance—states have a lot of leeway in deciding who qualifies. Eligibility is determined by how low a family’s income is and whether they have any assets, like a car worth more than $2,000. The food stamp guidelines were stricter but, in 1996, under the welfare reform law, states were allowed to give food assistance to people on certain other anti-poverty programs even when they had higher gross incomes and assets than would otherwise be allowed. There have also been incentives encouraging states to combine the application processes for a number of these programs, so that families don’t have to supply the same income information over and over again to the same county agency. It helped the state workers be more efficient and made it easier for families, but families still had to apply for food stamps to get them. Forty-three states participated. In no case did families have a gross income higher than 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and they still had to prove that their cost of living—after they paid for housing, childcare, and similar expenses—pushed them into poverty."

    More facts on SNAP programs HERE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw: you may be right about NC. I need to check on other sources. However, federally, and typically in most states, the GOP grows welfare/social spending programs, not that much differ from Democrats.

      As for the SNAP link, somehow it forgot the Michigan millionaire.. .who surely made more than 200 of the federal poverty line. Other abusers are wealthy college students.

      Delete
    2. Shaw said "...Medicare is a single-payer system that is more efficient than private insurance..."

      Aside from it being actually less efficient, you couldn't be more wrong about it being single-payer

      "...what programs can be when we have half the Congress fighting anything that would improve a program?"

      That is what you get when you have so many Democrats in Congress opposing reforms that would actually help healthcare.

      Back to Medicare being single payer, refer to this page

      The title is "Medicare is not a single-payer system, get it?"

      They summarize: "Medicare is a [government-controlled] insurance program, but is NOT based on a single-payer system."

      Delete
  14. Lets kill all programs with a little graft, theft, political corruption, or misuse. Start with the defense Dept. and work through the whole government.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh look, it's the crazy antisemitic Anon guy, under another name. Only he sounds reasonable this time. Maybe he learned not to post such crazy stuff...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps, perhaps not. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt. If your suspicion is correct we'll know soon enough.

      Delete
    2. And if it is... maybe he has chosen this moment to turn himself around.

      Delete
  16. Yes,
    Should we cut off our noses to spite ourselves?
    America made a deal with the devil decades ago, now they don't want to pay the bill and cannot control the beast. Kill the beast and tens of millions will become destitute almost instantly. That would only multiply our problems ten fold. We have a "weak sister" president and a do nothing Congress, especially the House. We have a legislative/legal nightmare of a bureaucracy, that locks into limited options. But I blame private corporations, especially for their lack of investment in the economy. If we truly want government out, corporate America has to show they can lead our society to prosperity, and they are not. I don't trust corporate America any more than the government, maybe less.
    Snark Rant Snark Rant

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... "But I blame private corporations, especially for their lack of investment in the economy. If we truly want government out, corporate America has to show they can lead our society to prosperity..."

      On this point I must agree. And this is coming from someone who spent 36 years of his life in management. Sorry corporate America but the finger is pointed at you as well as government enablers.

      Delete
    2. Les: Crony capitalism, indeed.

      Delete
  17. "The title is 'Medicare is not a single-payer system, get it?'"

    Not going to get into arguing semantics with dmarks. I'll stick with my claim that Medicare is a type of single-payer system, since the money is paid to a single entity, the government. And leave it at that. Our Medicare is not like Canada's or any other country's system, since Medicare is for seniors only, and it needs supplemental insurance to cover what is not insured. But payments are made to only ONE entity, the government, and the government pays out the costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a semantic argument. It's a fundamental difference.

      Your statement "Our Medicare ...needs supplemental insurance to cover what is not insured." also demands multiple payers.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.