Two interesting articles about Bloomberg the Miracle Mayor over the weekend.
This piece in the New York Sun says that "Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking a judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the upcoming trial of a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. While trials are often tightly choreographed, with lawyers routinely instructed to not tell certain facts to a jury, a gag order on a section of the Constitution would be an oddity."
I'm not fan of modern, gun-nut interpretations of the Second Amendment, but banning references to it in a trial? Controlling, much?
Then there's this piece in the Daily News about how Bloomie budgeting a whopping $2.1 million into the City's new budget to "on a massive charter reform that, depending on various theories floating around, will try to:"
a) Allow Bloomberg to run for a third term.
b) Do away with the public advocate or borough presidents.
c) Remake the way development deals and zoning changes are done in the city.
d) Turn some signature Bloomberg projects, such as PlaNYC, into permanent goals.
e) Streamline a 300-page document filled with minute and redundant dictates.
The cost is twice what the last Charter Revision Commission spent in 2005.
Hey, if you want $2.1 million to revise a document, you've probably got some big plans.
Finally, in a press conference in England with the Mayor of London, Bloomberg, pompously giving advice to his fellow politician, said, when asked how the new London mayor should handle the press, "You don’t have to match your answers to their questions. If you don’t give the right answers to their questions, they asked the wrong questions."
I'm sorry. Was that supposed to be funny?