Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Michael Bloomberg’

Stop and FriskI don’t vote in this country , although it will be twenty-two years on November 2 of this year I have been living in the US. I probably never will. I also still do not understand why, in the so-called global world we live in, voting is still tied to citizenship. That’s so passé.  If you are resident in a country, pay taxes there, you should be able to vote.  Perhaps not in presidential elections, but in local and regional ones.

I any case, I do not have the first clue whom I would be voting for if I could. Ok, I would rule out casting my vote for Carlos Danger and his unconditional support of Israel’s settlements in occupied territories, and for Christine Quinn for supporting Michael Bloomberg’s third term.   As to the other fellows, their websites tell us they all have the family and professional background to bring the middle class New Yorker a better life. More boring, you die.

The hottest “issue” on the agenda of the candidates is “the stop-and-frisk” policy by Michael Bloomberg, motivated by an excessive attention on safety that originated in Giuliani’s administration. I will not cry if it goes. Yet I would like the candidates to be more ambitious and to root out the stop-and-frisk policies implemented in family courts that affect black, latinos and also white fathers. What fathers experience in family courts is the stop- and-frisk “pay child support and maybe, you’ll see your kids.”  But about family court justice in New York, the silence of the candidates in the democratic primary is deafening.

Read Full Post »

It took me a week to swallow Ethan Bronner’s piece in the New York Times, “Right to Lawyer Can Be Empty

Russel Davis (Raymond McCrea Jones for the New York Times)

Russel Davis (Raymond McCrea Jones for the New York Times)

Promise for Poor,” on March 16. The punchline: everybody has a constitutional right to a lawyer in the US since 1963 (bless the sixties) in criminal courts, but Gideon v. Wainwright does not guarantee this right in civil matters. Hence, there are a bunch of folks in Georgia (the State that Bronner gathers his evidence from) who end up in jail for cases as varied as foreclosure, job loss, spousal abuse and custody, for lack of proper representation; like Bill Jerome Presley, no criminal record, who spent 17 months in jail for failing to pay… $2,700 in child support.  Mr Presley lost his job in the recession, could not pay child support, was sent to jail and brought back to court shackled to be sent back to jail again, cause, I guess, the judge could not understand why Presley had not saved enough in jail to come up with the child support money; or Russel Davis, Navy veteran with post traumatic stress disorder, also jailed for failing to pay child support.

Like the other guy, I can’t but lament the dire political times we are in, when debt is made a national priority by the republican aisle in Congress. Were this not the case, perhaps more public money would flow into family justice – among others- and lawyers would be provided to poor folks who cannot afford their services. But it’s only part of the problem. Poor folks – mostly poor non- custodial fathers – would not be facing jail in the first place if not for those imbecile family laws – obviously  in Georgia, but in New York State too, as readers of this blog know- that bloomed in the wake of the dismantlement of “the welfare system as we knew it.” The free-market feminist underpinnings of these laws was that idleness is an incentive to more idleness. Stop subsidizing idleness and everybody will lift oneself up out of poverty. And if that does not happen, at least  family courts will make sure the bastards pay child support. As for the right to see their kids, they have the market.

Poverty breeds crime, as the proverb says. Nowadays, it sure breeds jail time irrespective of crime. That’s the upshot of these brillant legislative changes.

The funny thing, at least for New Yorkers, is that city’s ads against teen pregnancy are covering these days the subway trains and bus stops. This campaign has been highly criticized, and rightfully so. The gist of it: poor, black, latina, female teen, don’t get pregnant. The campaign did not forget any cliché: on one of these ads, one can read “chances are he won’t stay with you.”  You know, men. Irresponsible deadbeats.

Every time I am in the train and I see the whipping children of Bloomberg’s ads, I have popping up in my mind a poster with a man, race indifferent, casually dressed, and the slogan: “Dude, if you cannot foresee 21 years of uninterrupted employment, beat it. Don’t have kids. You may end up in jail if you don’t pay child support.”

And below the picture of this fellow: “And if you are not happy with it, take it to Congress, or wherever you have to, to the street or on cranes.”

Read Full Post »

For a politician, posturing to be fiscally responsible is very convenient.  In the name of cutting the deficit, you justify the wackiest measures. And you cut the fat where it is not. Republicans in Congress want to slash unemployment benefits if Bush tax cuts for the rich are not extended after December of this year…because, you know, the rich might not spend as much as before and that’s bad for the economy.

In New York City, the mayor’s crusade against obesity too rides the horse of fiscal austerity. The victims: perhaps food stamps beneficiaries, and Rikers Island inmates.  In the city, rehabilitation will now entail a new dimension: being slim. How? Six slices of bread a day instead of eight, no more chocolate and vanilla puddings for the inmates. Savings: $ 350,000 a year. What are we talking about? 0.015% of a $ 2.367 billion gap to be closed for fiscal year 2012. Paternalism is politically cheap and fiscally inconsequential.

Read Full Post »

There is no doubt that soft drinks are making people fat, and that giving soft drinks to children increases their chances of becoming obese. Health officials warn that 12 ounces of soda everyday add 15 extra pounds per person per year. There is one obvious solution to curb the problem: a corrective tax on the consumption of sugared drinks and soda purchases.

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and New York State officials did certainly think about it. But in these insane times when corporate power and tea-partiers have confiscated the political discourse while democrats are hiding, a tax on these products is a long shot. The solution, for our health-minded, paternalistic New York State law makers: a ban on the purchase of sugared drinks and sodas with food stamps. The poor shall be virtuous, even if nobody else is. Also, the proposal plays the trendy cord of fiscal responsibility: how dare the poor gorge themselves with sweet drinks they buy with our hard-earned tax dollar anyway? Finally, the proposal is conveniently risk-free: The poor don’t vote.

Why not a ban on the possession of car by the poor to curb global warming?

Read Full Post »

Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.