5 ms·

The Boston bombers had already caught the attention of several tentacles of our unconstitutional surveillance state. We have already changed our interpretation

The Boston bombers had already caught the attention of several tentacles of our unconstitutional surveillance state. We have already changed our interpretation of the constitution in the pursuit of an unattainable sliver of additional security and, as predicted by just about every qualified observer, it is not working. What on Earth does he propose to do that we haven't already done, anyway? Strip search stations on every street corner?

eplanit 14y ago
"What on Earth does he propose to do that we haven't already done, anyway? Strip search stations on every street corner?" Don't give him any more ideas. Be it sodium, sugar, tobacco, or terrorists, Mr. Bloomberg's first response is always the same: limit freedom.
astrodust 14y ago
Maybe each and every citizen can be forced to reside in a steel cage.
Zimahl 14y ago
Well, until the people of New York stand up against him and vote him out they deserve what they get. They seem to really enjoy a nanny state that even restricts what they can drink. You can't by a 32 oz. Coke but you can buy a jug of vodka.
- mtalantikite 14y ago
  The soda ban was invalidated, but the city is trying to appeal that ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates... Also, Bloomberg is still in office because he was able to change the term limits, which New Yorkers were against. It's hard to beat a politician with a personal net worth of $27 billion.
  - nickff 14y ago
    There doesn't seem to be much evidence to support the view that personal wealth can be used to 'buy' an election, or even substantially improve one's results: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/ http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaig... personal note: I do not support the abolition of term limits or the imposition of soda taxes; but I do not think he is in power simply because he is wealthy.
    - mtalantikite 14y ago
      I don't know, nothing in that article seems to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Most of the blurbs summarize to "money doesn't directly win you an election, but you sure as hell better have a lot of it". He certainly isn't in power simply because he's wealthy, but having a bottomless war chest and a large media empire makes it much easier.
      - Zimahl 14y ago
        You need money and time to run in an election. When you are rich you have one and the ability to get the other. That still doesn't explain that if the people of New York are so against his policies why he can make them happen. I'll assume that New York is just like any other city and the mayor can't just do something because they want to. Don't they have city councilmen? Aren't they beholden to the masses? Can't they be elected out if the people don't like what is being passed? As for term limits, if he can get re-elected what does that matter? The people are still voting him in! In any case it's still the fault of the people of New York.
        mtalantikite 14y ago
        Sure, there is a city council, and of course they can lose elections. Unfortunately people aren't that involved with local politics, in a city where the democratic nominee is likely to win. In the 2009 general election for mayor voter turnout was 18.4% here in NYC. Bloomberg only won that third term by 4.4 points. Overall you're right, New Yorkers don't hate Bloomberg, he's done quite a bit that lots of people like. I certainly don't hate him, but I do have many problems with him.
- moogleii 14y ago
  Well, until the North Korean civilian populace rises up and overthrows their dictator, they deserve what they get. They seem to really enjoy it. You can't get some rice, but you can sing songs of praise about your God King. But there's probably some other factors at play.
  - Zimahl 14y ago
    Oh don't be so obtuse. This isn't the same situation. No one (freely) elected Kim Jung Il/Un. Bloomberg was freely elected and does things that New Yorkers say they are against yet they continue to elect him. So, if you elected a guy that clearly is going to strip down your rights don't be surprised or outraged when it happens.
    - moogleii 13y ago
      I would suggest taking your own advice. The example was hyperbolic, but it was meant to be. It was meant to highlight the underestimation and oversimplication of his comment. Then again, with generalizations like "that New Yorkers say" and assumptions like "if you elected a guy", I suppose my comment also applies to you.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  The City (or Manhattan at least) can be locked down and have checkpoints at the choke-point entrances; not so much for the rest of the nation. For citizens used to security in their office and apartment buildings, having some security personnel check people "at the door" to the city is just a natural extension. The hard truth is that in an expanding security bureaucracy, the weak point becomes the bureaucracy; no need to sneak past security if you can sneak people into the security role who are on your side. Subversion is harder to do when the security bureaucracy is smaller.
  - jrs235 14y ago
    You need decentralized security. Consolidating power to fewer and fewer people, governments, departments makes it easier for a single person to obtain a position of trust and abuse the entire system. This is why we should repeal the 17th amendment. It's easier (and less expensive) to persuade the populace and buy an election (and buy a Senator) than it is to persuade numerous state legislatures and buy numerous state legislatures. Swing and buy 51 elections and buy 51 senators or try to influence and swing 26 state legislatures consisting of hundreds of people in order to achieve the same results. Consolidation of power is a bad thing.
- Lagged2Death 14y ago
  ...they deserve what they get... The mayor of a major city like New York has influence far beyond his authority. His statements on a matter like this make a contribution to setting the tone and framing the debate nationally, and therefore have an effect on all of us, whatever we may think the people of New York "deserve."
citizens 14y ago
> Strip search stations on every street corner? ...like Stop and Frisk? In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 533,042 times 473,300 were totally innocent (89 percent). http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

eplanit 14y ago

"What on Earth does he propose to do that we haven't already done, anyway? Strip search stations on every street corner?" Don't give him any more ideas. Be it sodium, sugar, tobacco, or terrorists, Mr. Bloomberg's first response is always the same: limit freedom.

astrodust 14y ago

Maybe each and every citizen can be forced to reside in a steel cage.

Zimahl 14y ago

Well, until the people of New York stand up against him and vote him out they deserve what they get. They seem to really enjoy a nanny state that even restricts what they can drink. You can't by a 32 oz. Coke but you can buy a jug of vodka.

mtalantikite 14y ago
The soda ban was invalidated, but the city is trying to appeal that ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates... Also, Bloomberg is still in office because he was able to change the term limits, which New Yorkers were against. It's hard to beat a politician with a personal net worth of $27 billion.
- nickff 14y ago
  There doesn't seem to be much evidence to support the view that personal wealth can be used to 'buy' an election, or even substantially improve one's results: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/ http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaig... personal note: I do not support the abolition of term limits or the imposition of soda taxes; but I do not think he is in power simply because he is wealthy.
  - mtalantikite 14y ago
    I don't know, nothing in that article seems to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Most of the blurbs summarize to "money doesn't directly win you an election, but you sure as hell better have a lot of it". He certainly isn't in power simply because he's wealthy, but having a bottomless war chest and a large media empire makes it much easier.
    - Zimahl 14y ago
      You need money and time to run in an election. When you are rich you have one and the ability to get the other. That still doesn't explain that if the people of New York are so against his policies why he can make them happen. I'll assume that New York is just like any other city and the mayor can't just do something because they want to. Don't they have city councilmen? Aren't they beholden to the masses? Can't they be elected out if the people don't like what is being passed? As for term limits, if he can get re-elected what does that matter? The people are still voting him in! In any case it's still the fault of the people of New York.
      - mtalantikite 14y ago
        Sure, there is a city council, and of course they can lose elections. Unfortunately people aren't that involved with local politics, in a city where the democratic nominee is likely to win. In the 2009 general election for mayor voter turnout was 18.4% here in NYC. Bloomberg only won that third term by 4.4 points. Overall you're right, New Yorkers don't hate Bloomberg, he's done quite a bit that lots of people like. I certainly don't hate him, but I do have many problems with him.
moogleii 14y ago
Well, until the North Korean civilian populace rises up and overthrows their dictator, they deserve what they get. They seem to really enjoy it. You can't get some rice, but you can sing songs of praise about your God King. But there's probably some other factors at play.
- Zimahl 14y ago
  Oh don't be so obtuse. This isn't the same situation. No one (freely) elected Kim Jung Il/Un. Bloomberg was freely elected and does things that New Yorkers say they are against yet they continue to elect him. So, if you elected a guy that clearly is going to strip down your rights don't be surprised or outraged when it happens.
  - moogleii 13y ago
    I would suggest taking your own advice. The example was hyperbolic, but it was meant to be. It was meant to highlight the underestimation and oversimplication of his comment. Then again, with generalizations like "that New Yorkers say" and assumptions like "if you elected a guy", I suppose my comment also applies to you.
sageikosa 14y ago
The City (or Manhattan at least) can be locked down and have checkpoints at the choke-point entrances; not so much for the rest of the nation. For citizens used to security in their office and apartment buildings, having some security personnel check people "at the door" to the city is just a natural extension. The hard truth is that in an expanding security bureaucracy, the weak point becomes the bureaucracy; no need to sneak past security if you can sneak people into the security role who are on your side. Subversion is harder to do when the security bureaucracy is smaller.
- jrs235 14y ago
  You need decentralized security. Consolidating power to fewer and fewer people, governments, departments makes it easier for a single person to obtain a position of trust and abuse the entire system. This is why we should repeal the 17th amendment. It's easier (and less expensive) to persuade the populace and buy an election (and buy a Senator) than it is to persuade numerous state legislatures and buy numerous state legislatures. Swing and buy 51 elections and buy 51 senators or try to influence and swing 26 state legislatures consisting of hundreds of people in order to achieve the same results. Consolidation of power is a bad thing.
Lagged2Death 14y ago
...they deserve what they get... The mayor of a major city like New York has influence far beyond his authority. His statements on a matter like this make a contribution to setting the tone and framing the debate nationally, and therefore have an effect on all of us, whatever we may think the people of New York "deserve."

citizens 14y ago

> Strip search stations on every street corner? ...like Stop and Frisk? In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 533,042 times 473,300 were totally innocent (89 percent). http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data