MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
In my opinion the only mainstream American politician that talks any sense right now is Michael Bloomberg and if he runs for president I would get off my ass and work for his election.
"You have a lot of kids graduating college, can't find jobs," he said on a radio show. "That's what happened in Cairo. That's what happened in Madrid. You don't want those kind of riots here. The damage to a generation that can't find jobs will go on for many many years." BBC News
I think the above statement shows incredible sensitivity to today's big-picture reality... if you listen to the whole interview, all his remarks drip practical intelligence.
Looking back, I especially liked the way he handled the "Ground-Zero Mosque" controversy, and I especially like the way he shrugged off all the crap he had thrown at him for the evenhanded way he handled the whole thing and also the way he finessed turning the 9-11 into a religious festival, which could have been a disaster, with the whole world watching. He talks the talk and he walks the walk.
Everything he says about the political situation that I have heard makes sense. Common sense, broadminded, practical, a proven doer and sensitive to the reality we live in.
Why president?
Cutting to the chase, I think that only a Jewish President of the United States, one with brass balls, will ever be able to bring peace to the Middle East, a situation, which has the possibility/probability to hasten America's decline by decades ... To me it is obvious watching Obama founder, that nobody but a fair-minded, brass-balled Jew could ever stand up to AIPAC and all who sail in her and hope to win the fight.
Comments
Oy. Come to Manhattan and try making a left turn in Midtown then we'll talk.
by MrSmith1 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 7:47am
Try making a "left turn" anywhere in the USA
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:09am
I would vote for him in a heart beat. But to quote the late Jimmy Walker. "Why would anyone want to be president of the United States when they could be mayor of New York."
by cmaukonen on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:58am
Like Mount Everest... because it's there.
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:35am
I didn't know that you would support someone for president who is buddy buddy with all the right-wing Israeli supporters.
Who knew????
P.S. This New Yorker didn't vote for Bloomberg for Mayor. I voted for the vastly underfunded Bill Thompson, who almost snatched victory from jaws of defeat.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:48am
I was impressed by how he handled the Ground-Zero Mosque hoohah. He is Jewish so, if he can stand the Goldstone treatment and he sure has enough "fuck you money" to stand almost anything, he could face off with AIPAC and live to tell the tale. In short, I certainly think he would be hard to intimidate or buy off, which is what AIPAC does.
He seems like a common sense liberal. In the radio interview he keeps repeating, "we are all in this together", when those we laughingly call "conservatives" think as Maggie Thatcher did, that there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families. In short, I don't think he would turn out to be an empty windbag like Obama or nuts like any of the Bible beating, Republican crazies that are running this year.
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:09am
I admire him but he is way too vested in the faux wealth producing financial sector aka NYC to really represent the whole country.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:32pm
I don't know if he is any weirder then a black man from Hawaii.
Anybody that can run New York can run anything.
Also the way the USA is organized right now, I like that he can pay his own way without going hat in hand to the special interest groups.
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:45pm
I said Bloomberg was vested, not weird. :-)
FWIW, pre-election, Obama's economics were his main negative in 2004. He kept them vague which I read as a general disinterest in the subject so I thought about what he may have picked up from his personal economic milieu by osmosis. The grandparents that raised him sounded like standard issue Eisenhower Republicans; his grandmother was actually a bank vice president*; he attended private and elite schools; and he taught at Chicago -- CHICAGO -- as in Chicago School of Economics, for which the University is duly proud and world famous. His whole teaching experience there had to also be a sort of immersion course in Friedman-think.
*I know, I know. The only bank employees who never make vice president are tellers and back office people. I did think how smart and convenient it would have been if she was a personal loan officer since her husband sold furniture.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:02pm
But his mother was a hippie...Why does Obama hate his mother's people?
by jollyroger on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:24pm
I'll leave that to Seaton to answer. A bit too Freudian for me. ;-D
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:32pm
I looked into that during the campaign. His mother was a very, intelligent, brave, adventurous, interesting woman, but quite flaky... I think he was embarrassed by her. Also I think he was left alone too much as a child. The First Lady once commented that sometimes she got the impression that Barry was raised by wolves.
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 3:32pm
quite flaky
Well, duh...I said, "she was a hippie". Is "flaky" supposed to be a criticism?
by jollyroger on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:30pm
Having now visited the blog entry re:Eric Stone, and particularly your confession re:acid, I understand somewhat more about your approach...sorry bout your luck.
by jollyroger on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:49pm
I confessed I never dropped any.
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:25am
by jollyroger on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 2:38am
Too many people I knew got seriously fucked up by acid... I'm glad I stayed away.
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 5:10am
I think he knows he couldn't win because of his personality and wouldn't run unless doing so as a losing candidate could help accomplish something he wants (even he doesn't have enough money to spend nationally the equivalent he spent to get elected in NYC despite his predilections and peccadiloes.) Actually he really dislikes playing politics, is a control freak, and he requires a somewhat dictatorial platform to govern in the way he likes; having to deal with Congress would drive him nuts.
The employment topic is something he really cares about. Few people paid attention to the following story when it ran in early August, he's already put his money into it. You can't do this kind of thing as president, just unilaterally decide something needs to be done and get private funding for it, you have to instead be able to convince a lot of other people it needs to be done and get their approval. He knows he's not good at the convincing and politics thing, so if he wants to get something done he goes around the rest of the government. NYC's strong executive position has allowed him to do some of those dictatorial things. That's not something the presidency is set up to allow very often.
He is a smart enough man to know that he couldn't stand being president for very long, would end up saying "f you all" and walking out.
Also too,an ahem to all you who despise what you call the "oligarchy" and "Wall Street," I will be very shocked if you agree with David. Bloomberg IS both. This is what they are. Not evil people, but people who by virtue of their success, think they know better how to run things than most of humanity. And a reminder: with ones like Bloomberg, that includes things like what you eat and what you smoke.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:53pm
As the saying goes, people who think they know it all are really annoying to those of us who really do.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:56pm
Anybody who steps forward and says "follow me" has got to think that they have a clear idea of where they want to go and what they want to do, and have the ability to convince others that their ideas are good ones. It's called "leadership".
I think the tobacco and food rulings in NYC are very positive. Public health is a public problem: cancer and diabetes are often preventable and cutting the smoking and the cholesterol allows devoting limited resources to other problems. I think hizzoner is dynamic and progressive, just like the organization he created that bears his name. He is a real, proven leader, not a self created myth.
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 3:31pm
I'm surprised to learn you like to see a president who would lead with a strong free trade policy while using more corporate tax relief to keep jobs in the U.S., who would be tough on public employees' unions, not to mention that you agree that a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq is irresponsible, and that you feel that the U.S. should strongly support the citizens of Siderot against Hamas. And that you think as highly of Goldman Sachs as he does, and that you agree that “Wall Street is not a group of rich fat cats. It's the average man on the street that you're talking about.” Very surprised.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 4:07pm
Oh and BTW
Bloomberg Backs Obama’s Israel Policy, Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2011
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 4:30pm
Public health is an area where many of us can be inconsistent. We want to have universal health care, but many of us also loathe the idea of the government telling us what we can do with our bodies. I'm not too keen on it myself, but if we expect government to pick up the tab when we've done something stupid to ourselves, maybe it makes sense for the government to try to keep us from doing stupid stuff to ourselves. I'm not committed to this position - I'm just throwing it out there. Another alternative is to treat our bodies kind of like they have warranties that become voided when we do stupid things to them. I.e., the government provides universal health care for you unless you break rules x, y, or z. Obviously, there are flaws in that proposal as well.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 4:06pm
If government is expected to pick up the tab is a really big if. It is also a perquisite for it to ban substances. Even then prohibitions should be based on a substantial body of truly scientific evidence and not on the personal preferences or profit motives of some special interest group which is what happens all too often.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 5:39pm
Bloomberg is a smart guy who, no doubt, knows a lot about what ails us.
But he's also an arrogant technocrat who has very little respect for the fact that most people do no want to live the way he thinks they should live.
He's a tyrant who follows the rules. And I don't follow tyrants.
by Michael Maiello on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:42pm
I think the bans on smoking and junk food are terrific. We have a very strict ban on smoking in Spain and it is working to the benefit of all.
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:28am
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Oh, you just wish that Spain could have a taller leader. I get it!
by Richard Day on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:37am
I wouldn't want to see discriminatory Stop & Frisk policing nationwide:
A Smell of Pot and Privilege in the City
Bloomberg Gives With One Hand; Takes With the Other
by Donal on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 6:22am
Bloomberg justifies this in the radio interview as a way of taking handguns off the street. The one thing you get listening to him is a sense of reality and reality is a stubborn thing. Job recruitment and education are the only remedies to neighborhoods where reality dictates "stop and frisk". The rest is demagoguery. So on one hand "jobs and education" to change the reality and on the other hand "stop and frisk" till it changes... it makes sense to me.
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 7:54am
"Reality dictates 'stop and frisk.'"
Really? Why do you so casually denigrate the idea of a free society, David?
by Red Planet on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 8:12am
Don't be so naive, the principal victims of crime in poor neighborhoods are poor people... the first beneficiaries of active law enforcement are therefore the inhabitants of those neighborhoods. The important thing is to combine that with education and jobs. What is a "free society" without jobs, education and safe streets?
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 11:39am
The principal victims of Stop & Frisk are anyone on the street that looks poor. The purpose is not so much to prevent crime as to gentrify areas and attract upper class shoppers by getting lower class people off the street.
by Donal on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 12:38pm
I think I'm pondering what you're pondering, David: a perfectly smoke-free, fat-free, toke-free, risk-free, choice-free society, where the pale, deserving upper classes are safe, in their private-security-highrise condominiums and gated communities, from the not-so-pale and less fortunate masses. After all, one needn't be discomfited by encountering the the unwashed when the need arises to venture into the outer world.
"Stop and frisk." Yes, indeed. "Active law enforcement, too." "Warrantless wire-tapping" is a good idea, I'll warrant. Hey, I know, let's put our scientists to work on a methodology for identifying future miscreants before they misbehave. Then we can easily be rid of them.
There are no problems that a well-managed authoritarian state cannot fix.
Was Giuliani your kinda guy, too?
by Red Planet on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:05pm
The first difference between Bloomberg and Guiliani is Bloomberg's commitment to health and education.
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:12pm
, the principal victims of crime in poor neighborhoods are poor people.
I take it that you would support a policy pursuant to which metal detection would substitute for the more intrusive frisk, which has the effect in the event the friskee is unarmed, but carrying contraband, of still bringing him/her "into the system" (the real goal of the frisk, not weapons suppression).
by jollyroger on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 4:02pm
I get the feeling you romanticize the "freedom" of people who victims of the system even before they are born. Health, education, getting rid of weapons, drugs, prostitution... social engineering... I'm all for it.
by David Seaton on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 12:30am
I wouldn't brag about it...ymmv.
by jollyroger on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 1:19am
To be fair, news today is that they are admitting and addressing that problem:
Though it remains to be seen if this is like the "there's no quotas for parking and traffic tickets" thingie.
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 2:19pm
"... he made the trains run on time." Oh, wait - he didn't.
by Donal on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 8:13am
The way Bloomberg handled the Ground-Zero Mosque business was anything but fascistic.
BTW, the trains in Spain (at least those on the plain) run more punctually with democracy than they did with Franco.
by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 12:27pm
Of course. He was dealing with two groups, each of which had money for lawyers.
by Donal on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 12:40pm
There's new cracks today in Bloomberg myths that even I was willing to buy:
Funny how it sounds like the TPM.com software tech story, only on a much much bigger scale, including the experts leaving real quickly when they saw teh horror.
I myself was enamored with Bloomberg's 311 call system when it was initiated. Because it was good for the little, easy to do stuff. But then I found out that it made it virtually impossible for a little guy without any connections (me) to even write to, much less talk to, an individual city department. There is no direct accountability to citizens for the actual city government functions, they don't have to deal with citizens anymore, they do not have a phone number or a listed office. You have only 311 operators to talk to, they are your only connection to your government. It's an ingenious way to protect them from citizens so they can go about working at whatever they and their superiors think they should be doing, without interruption from citizens. If they don't respond to a query or complaint, the 311 operator just puts a note on the system. And there it sits for months more until you consider the long time-tested alternate routes of the local TV station help line or the few still having listed phone numbers like elected council members.
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 1:55pm
Bloomberg is horrible... until you consider the alternatives.
by David Seaton on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 9:58am
You mean Bloomberg's the Democracy Churchill was referring to?
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 12:22pm
My thought is that Bloomberg will not run because he doesn't think an independent can win and he doesn't want to affiliate himself with either party. That makes sense to me. Not that I think anybody can do much with the venom-spitting politicians in Congress that only care about the next election, but I think he would be more empowered than others if not beholden to either party. So he can't be president unless we write him in.
by rlc (not verified) on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:47am
I thought Netanyahu was our Jewish President.
How do you say "who's your daddy?" in Hebrew, by the way?
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 2:18pm