In USA Today (9/11/13), reporter Martha Moore tries to explain what the Democratic primary elections in New York City will mean for the general election later this year:
Much of the upcoming general election campaign will likely focus on the legacy of those two decades: a dramatic drop in crime and the police tactics involved, soaring housing prices and an intense focus on testing to improve schools.
The “police tactics” referenced here would seem to mean stop-and-frisk, the controversial and unconstitutional practice that proliferated during the Bloomberg years. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they had anything to do with a “dramatic drop in crime,” the majority of which preceded the widespread adoption of stop-and-frisk. Supporters of stop-and-frisk would like you to think the tactic of stopping and searching hundreds of thousands of mostly young people of color was crucial to New York’s safety, but reporters should question that, not merely repeat it.
The piece also alludes to the supposed need for the Democratic primary winner to move to the right in order to win, a corporate media staple:
The winner among Democratic primary voters will have to pass another threshold test to win the November 5 election, says Evan Thies, a New York Democratic consultant. In the primary, candidates criticized [Mayor Michael] Bloomberg for focusing on the wealthy at the expense of everyone else: [Bill] de Blasio, for instance, called New York “a tale of two cities.”
Now, Thies said, a Democrat like de Blasio must make a more pragmatic case: “How does he argue that he’s fit to manage the city and not just lead a popular revolution?”
And Moore also writes:
Democratic primary voters were ambivalent about Bloomberg’s legacy: In exit polls, three-quarters of them said the next mayor ought to move the city away from Bloomberg’s policies, and about a third said they were seeking a candidate for mayor who “can bring needed change.”
I’m not sure how that would qualify as “ambivalence” about Bloomberg.
So the right wing trolls are claiming that they have a victory and that Black is really white. What a surprise…(lifts the eyebrow).
Remember the purpose of the Mini-True is too ensure that the Middle and Inner Party members see “black as white”, and hold that thought until the it’s time to claim that “White is Black” and conveniently forget that “Black is really white”, until the next time the Big Brother says that black is white again.
“”A Party member is expected to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline. The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one’s own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.”” – Emmanual Goldstein, Enemy of Big Brother….
Democratic politicians are only going to win by “moving” to the left The old trope about “moving to the right” is so moldy I haven’t heard it used by even any of the brain dead corporate media since Obama won in 08..Of course, Pres. Obama provides the perfect example of the new tactic which is to just say whatever they want to hear – the PNAC signatories, AIPAC and the banking lobby will provide further instructions immediately after the election
It is sad that we are not able to get real news out to Americans. Even with the internet much of what you get is filtered through Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc. that real information is hard to find.
The good news, no more coverage about Weiner. Unfortunately, no one in the national media has yet to notice that a sitting governor might be indicted at any time for corruption. Of course, because that governor happens to be a right wing, Republican would have nothing to do with the media’s neglect to cover. Why cover a corrupt Republican governor when you can make Weiner jokes and connect him to Hillary?
Testing to improve schools? How about testing to facilitate privatization?
i love when you throw out a line like “there is no evidence stop and frisk works”.That is a lie.There is tons of evidence it works.Ask those who enforce it.The Police!Ninety plus percent thinks it works.So it is damn high handed to just act like their opinion is useless.Im not arguing the constitutionality.I AM arguing for….how well it works.