Idiot With A Gun Vs. Idiot With An Agenda: Burress Vs. Bloomberg
Unfortunately there isn’t an IQ test for the millionaires club, just ask Plaxico Burress. This doesn’t concern me though — Idiots are bound to do idiotic things, regardless of whether or not they have a gun.
Billionaires, however, are a very different story. Plaxico Burress is never going to make a billion dollars, nor will anyone else in the sports world. Even The Icon, Michael Jordan, has only made about 400 million. You know who is a billionaire? Michael Bloomberg.
Recently, Bloomberg has been floating the idea of a third term as New York City Mayor, which is all fine and dandy — except for the fact that its technically illegal, well sort of.
The New York City Council can, and indeed did, vote to allow Bloomberg a third term. They apparently believed Bloomberg when he claimed his financial experience was an absolute necessity, and a change in leadership now would spell doom for an already crippled financial system. (Washington Post Article)
The New York Times also points out an interesting snippet:
The New York Times survey of City Council members in early September found that a majority were willing to amend the term-limits law, in order to allow Mr. Bloomberg and the Council — two-thirds of whom are scheduled to be forced out of office in 2009 — to seek a third term.
The Council committee that must first approve such a bill is run by Councilman Simcha Felder, a strong Bloomberg ally.
Over the last seven years, the mayor has directed millions of dollars in city money to community groups supported by Mr. Felder, according to city records.
This has angered a portion of the council (maybe that OTHER third?), and the citizens of New York City:
During a heated debate before the council vote on Thursday, council members, one after another, accused Bloomberg of arrogance, manipulation and making deals to fix the results from the beginning.
“His legacy will be forever tainted,” said Councilman Charles Barron. “And the people have long memories.” — AP
Rudy Giuliani tried to grab a third term after September 11th but was forced to back down due to a public outcry.
New Yorker’s voted against an extension to term law twice (’93 & ‘96) and currently 90% of New Yorkers would prefer a public referendum to a Council vote. (Reuters)
Bloomberg’s past two campaigns have cost him 70 and 85 million dollars (LINK) and there is speculation his campaign spending could balloon to upwards of 90 million dollars for the upcoming 2009 campaign.
Has it crossed anyone else’s mind that the Plaxico Burress situation is nothing more than a campaign push?
Bloomberg spent his previous campaign trying to prove to the residents of NYC that he was just as tough on crime as Giuliani was, and his cuts to the police force didn’t effect crime rates (NY Times).
Plaxico Burress will become Bloomberg’s scapegoat. While most celebrities get special treatment when they do something stupid, Plaxico is going to get the opposite.
Burress did something stupid, very stupid, but people do stupid things all the time. I can forgive Burress. Bloomberg, on the other hand, is using the mistake of a man who is clearly quite troubled, for his own political gain.
Before you immediately curse the name Plaxico Burress, ask yourself what is more careless: accidentally shooting yourself in the leg, or accidentally shooting a hunting buddy in the chest?
It’s true that Plaxico didn’t have a license for his gun in New York, but he did have it licensed in Florida. Is that worth a three and a half years minimum sentence?
It’s clear to me that Bloomberg’s using the media coverage as a method of campaigning, which leads me to believe that this isn’t about fairness but rather about getting re-re-elected.
Shame on you, Mr. Bloomberg
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?