Guilt By Association: Why Romney May Wish To Avoid Bloomberg

Among Mitt Romney's rumored choices for running mates, one name stands out above all: Michael Bloomberg. But the old-school Republican could bring something else to the Romney camp that could destroy the campaign entirely, the New York Blizzard of 2010.

December 27th, 2010 has been hailed as the "busiest day for 911 calls since Sept. 11, 2001" in an article published December 29th, 2010 by the New York Daily News. That day was faced with the helplessness of being trapped by seemingly endless drifts of snow, and a city government that seemed unwilling to protect its citizens.

By December 30th,  Mayor Bloomberg finally ventured out to see the aftermath of the four boroughs and how they fared without the support that Manhattan had received. It is speculated that since Manhattan is a major tourist destination, the city went out of it's way to ensure the streets were cleared. New York Public Advocat Bill de Blasio, second-in-line to the Mayor, had sent a letter to the office of Bloomberg demanding an explanation for the late and ineffective response, which remained unanswered. Even after plows finally made it to the outer boroughs on and after December 30th, the streets were not salted, thereby weakening any effect that plowing would have to the 20 inches of snow; a final insult to the lives lost during the storm.

Flash forward two years later, and the man at the helm of this city is now being hailed as a 'safe' choice for Mitt Romney by ESPN columnist L.Z. Granderson. It seems that the memory of the Republican party, once again, is fuzzy and measurable in nano-seconds. This textbook result of ineffectual leadership should be foremost in the mind of Romney, and to head off any bad press at the proverbial pass, he'd ought to look to another running mate. Preferrably a running mate with less blood on their hands.

Bloomberg's track record of attempting a $34-million dollar cut in childcare services and the forced layoff of over 4,600 teachers in the City of New York is -comparatively- light work in the face of the blizzard. This does nothing to give the impression that he is an "old-school" Republican and is more in-step with the modern incarnation of the standard issue Republican: "All for None, and More For Me" being the generalized concept.

Given Bloomberg's history, and the already shaky foundation of Romney's campaign, choosing Bloomberg as a running mate may prove to be the winter of Romney's discontent.

An Open Letter to Stereotype Enthusiasts

To Whom it May Concern,



If you've ever said, "you're not *really* black," then you're part of the
problem. I hope that got your attention, because this is going to be a long
and painful read for some of you. This letter is to inform all concerned
that I am identifying only with the "human" race, as opposed to identifying
as "black" or some other such designation. If you think it's cool to tell
someone they're "not really" a specific race based on their behavior not
sticking to a specific stereotype, then you are an idiot. It is one of the
most appalling yet subtle pretenses we've used to divide ourselves.

Perhaps I'm speaking as the victim? Not exactly. I'm guilty of this
stupidity myself. The difference is I've learned from it, and you to whom
this is addressed have not. A note on the "you're not really
black/white/asian/latino" phenomenon that has permeated our society, I'm
not. No, I am "not really" black. I'm a human being and my character or
behavior is not defined by my color or ethnicity, it's defined by my
fucking behavior; tell me this is not a difficult concept to grasp. The
fact that I've even heard the phrase in its several iterations at this
stage in human history makes me want to vomit.

Then there's the low-calorie version, the "what are you mixed with"
question. I'm mixed with... well I don't know. Carbon? Yes, carbon. Does it
really matter what the hell my ethnic origin is? Are you asking because
it's gonig to change your opinion of me? It probably won't, but many think
it will. You automatically establish a dividing line between yourself and
the person you ask that same vile question in the subject's mind. If
the subject of the question doesn't think anything of it, then perhaps they
should, because your ethnicity does not define your conduct.

Who gives a shit about ethnic pride for that matter? As George Carlin put
it, you've won a "lottery." A completely and utterly arbitrary system of
vetting in which people are born into a nation, into a family of a certain
bloodline, and are then faced with the cultural/economical/social
landscape which they were spat upon. Pride, again in the spirit of Carlin,
is earned. John Locke's Theory of Value and Property, holding any weight,
would put ethnic or national pride at absolutely "nil."

So don't look at it as being politically correct when I urge you to take
any and all of what's stated into account. Take it as encouragement to be a
world citizen, take it as news you can use towards a better cohesiveness.
But whatever you do, at the very least, take your anqituated notions to the
dumpster and be a human being; nothing mundane about that.

Sincerely,
Rey Ignatius Fawkes