Bloomberg's In Over His Head

Politically tin-eared Michael Bloomberg isn't aware of the volatility of the march up Seventh Avenue two weeks from today. Angry crowds do things that ordinary people won't do, especially when provoked.

If Mayor Bloomberg were a genuine public servant instead of a wealthy dabbler, he would recognize that his primary responsibilities are to the safety of the public. He would grant demonstrators a permit to march straight up Seventh Avenue and cross 59th Street into Central Park, where they are headed anyhow. Bloomberg's phony concern for the grass in the park is wildly provocative and he doesn't seem to know it.

When the cops lose control - as they did during the antiwar protest in February 2003 - they'll regain it with tear gas, plastic bullets, and bashing heads. There will be blood all over the place, and Bloomberg - a rich fool - will be responsible.

insane idiot.

The reason for the denial of permission to use Central Park is Bloomberg's concern for the grass. He's totally out of touch. He has no experience in politics, and it shows.

The grass will be fine, or maybe it won't. Whatever.

How about our Democracy? Our Bill of Rights?

for the environment.

If Bloomberg has real concern about environmental issues he should denounce Bush for his environmental policies.

He's just kissing RNC ass, that's all.

Stay safe and well, everybody.

And I don't mean that in a complimentary way. Sure, the grass is in danger! We must protect the grass! Right Mike.

> When the cops lose control - as they did during the antiwar protest in
> February 2003 - they'll regain it with tear gas, plastic bullets, and
> bashing heads. There will be blood all over the place,

That's what the Rethuglicans want.

> and Bloomberg - a rich fool - will be responsible.

But he won't be held responsible in the media, because the media
do Bush*'s bidding.

It's not a question of strategy any more, it's too damn big for that. All of this talk of what the Republicans want and how "we" should respond is irrelevant. This is going down unless a judge intervenes and forces Bloomberg to relent.

Huge angry crowds plus government stupid provocation equals a riot. It's going down. It's happening. Cooler heads are not going to prevail, that's wishful thinking.

Then they have the pretext to go around arresting everyone there for "terrorism".
And then everyone who ever knew them.
And so on.

"What we have seen from our opponents is encouragement of this kind of over-the-top hatred of our President and everything America stands for"....

I can just smell it coming. Keeping protesters out of Central Park is like saying: "You can fly all you want, you just can't use the airports".

letting the protestors use Central Park.

He wants it to be like Chicago 1968.

This isn't foolishness.

It's his strategy to elect George W. Bush by saying, look at those wild Kerry supporters.

(edited because I meant to hit "preview" to check the formatting, and wanted to add my own thoughts on the matter)

It's all part of the plan. If there's any violence, the FBI has free rein to use ALL the provisions of the PATRIOT act against the demonstrators and/or anybody who provided "material support" - including a place to stay, use of a phone or computer, a few bucks...

From the ACLU archives (Emphases mine):

Section 802 of the final version of the anti-terrorism legislation, the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (H.R. 3162, the "USA PATRIOT Act") creates a broadly defined new crime of domestic terrorism. We oppose this definition of terrorism because it is unnecessary and could be used to prosecute dissidents.

Under federal law there are already three definitions of terrorism - international terrorism, terrorism transcending national borders and federal terrorism. The September 11th attacks violated all three of these laws.

Under Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

The Administration has not adequately explained why this new crime should be created or why the definitions in existing anti-terrorism laws are insufficient. This over-broad terrorism definition would sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest if those acts were dangerous to human life. People associated with organizations such as Operation Rescue and the Environmental Liberation Front, and the World Trade Organization protesters, have engaged in activities that could subject them to prosecution as terrorists.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, once the government decides that conduct is "domestic terrorism," law enforcement agents have the authority to charge anyone who provides assistance to that person, even if the assistance is an act as minor as providing lodging. They would have the authority to wiretap the home of anyone who is providing assistance. Also, the government could prosecute the person who provided their home under a new crime of "harboring" a terrorist (Section 803) or for "providing material support" to "terrorists."

The ACLU does not oppose the criminal prosecution of people who commit acts of civil disobedience if those acts result in property damage or place people in danger. That type of behavior is already illegal and perpetrators of these crimes can be prosecuted and subjected to serious penalties. However, such crimes often are not "terrorism." The legislative response to terrorism should not turn ordinary citizens into terrorists.

In addition, this provision gives the federal government the authority to prosecute violations of state law, which should be prosecuted in state courts, not in federal court.

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l102301d.html

There's been a long discussion amongst people pro and con here in the city. It took years to restore the grass and 2 areas are now fenced off for permitted uses only: The Sheep Meadow and the Great Lawn.

http://gonyc.about.com/library/weekly/n_centralpark.htm

Here's some of the discussion from an email group I belong to:

Evidently New York City doesn't own the park after all: it has been privatized, like so many other "public" spaces and locations, and the owners don't want to see their investment in grass seed ruined by people actually using the park. UFPG has been negotiating with the wrong people!
__<name removed>

__<name removed>: In other words, I think that the conservancy will reclaim governance of the park. I don't see the political situation that would in effect restore the park to the department of public parks, Central Park or Prospect Park. That's because of the fundraising. You could say that private fundraising could dry up, but when private fundraising dries up we'll be in another fiscal crisis as well, so I don't know if I see the government taking back the park.
from "The Park's Future" below, at

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20040713/202/1031

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20040713/202/1031