A usually defiant Michael Bloomberg showed the faintest crack in his stubborn stop-and-frisk reasoning in an interview with The New Yorker's Ken Auletta. "If I had a son who was stopped, I might feel differently about it, but nevertheless," the mayor "conceded," according to Auletta...Allow me to translate: "There but for the grace of bazillions of dollars and the accident of birth go I."
One could only wish the election for Mayor could be accelerated a few months so we would no longer have to hear El Bloombito's deep-felt empathic pronouncements.
Meanwhile, Bill De Blasio, a candidate for New York City Mayor, has come out with an ad in which he promises to end Stop & Frisk. It has an appearance by his now-famous son - who appeared in a previous ad and which may have caused De Blasio to jump in the polls into or tied with the lead in the race.
It's not at all clear what De Blasio means when he says he will "Stop" Stop & Frisk. Does he mean he will fire Ray Kelly, NYPD's Chief and Bloomberg's partner in all things unconstitutional about the policy? Will he drop the appeal that has been filed against Judge Scheindlin's decision, ordering significant oversight and and curtailment of NYPD's Stop & Frisk Policy? Will he (can he?) order NYPD officers to simply stop doing any kind of Stop / Search without probable cause?
His policy statements, as analyzed by the New York Time's City Room, suggest that what he has said he will do is replace Kelly (yeah!!) and support two Community Safety Act bills, one banning racial profiling and the other creating an inspector general. IMHO he should also clearly state that the City will drop the appeal and rein in the police immediately - not await direction from the monitor appointed by Judge Scheindlin.
Nevertheless it's a breath of fresh air to hear a serious candidate for Mayor of New York City come out with a strong statement against the whole business. And for taxing the rich.
Oakland could be so lucky.