de Blasio continues support of Cuomo reelection, in spite of NYTimes non-endorsement

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio today reiterated his continued support for Gov. Andrew Cuomo's reelection campaign, even though the governor was denied the endorsement of the powerful Editorial Board of The New York Times in the upcoming Democratic Party gubernatorial primary.

"I don't conjecture about any editorial board and what it does...I'm strongly supporting Gov. Cuomo"-@BilldeBlasio on Times non-endorsement

— Dana Rubinstein (@danarubinstein) August 28, 2014

For months, Gov. Cuomo has appeared to be a person of interest to federal prosecutors, as the U.S. Attorney's Office for New York's southern district investigate the unfinished files of the now-defunct Moreland Commission and the role of Cuomo administration officials in thwarting the panel's investigations. In July, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara issued a warning letter to Moreland Commission members, asking that his office be kept informed if Gov. Cuomo or other administration officials try to influence the public statements by former commissioners in respect of the panel's record of performance.

In the time since Gov. Cuomo took action regarding the Moreland Commission to "shut the whole thing down," political bloggers and government reform activists have been expecting that possible federal criminal charges could be brought against senior Cuomo administration officials, if not against Gov. Cuomo himself. It remains to be known how could Mayor de Blasio continue to support Gov. Cuomo's campaign if Gov. Cuomo is potentially exposed to impending federal criminal charges, some political bloggers wonder.

Alteration of Headline by The New York Times Aimed to do "Damage Control" for Embattled Governor Cuomo

Did political operatives for Gov. Cuomo bully The New York Times into changing its headline ?

the @nytimes are a changing. #BeforeAndAfter cc @tmcgev @joepompeo @HuffPostMedia @brianstelter @onthemedia pic.twitter.com/dHT4cLXxsw

— Azi (@Azi) July 1, 2014

RELATED G.O.P. Power Broker in Albany Accused of Lying to F.B.I. (The New York Times)

When The New York Times published its article about the federal indictment of State Senator Thomas Libous, the headline read, "G.O.P. State Senator, Ally of Cuomo, Is Indicted." Minutes later, the headline was altered to remove any reference to embattled Gov. Andrew Cuomo, "State Senate's No. 2 Republican is Indicted." The alternation of the headline, mentioned on Twitter by intrepid reporter Azi Paybarah, triggered scrutiny from Mr. Paybarah's Twitter followers. Rebecca Baird-Remba replied to Mr. Paybarah's tweet with, "hmm. is there a particular reason they edited cuomo out of the headline?" Many political bloggers and government reform activists await the fallout of grand jury findings and other investigatory outcomes as a result of the premature implosion of Gov. Cuomo's Moreland Commission. The Moreland Commission was a state-wide, corruption-fighting panel with subpoena power, staffed with various hot-shot district attorneys. But before the Moreland Commission could indict any corrupt politicians, or publicly name corrupt politicians facing corruption-related investigations, Gov. Cuomo bargained away the Moreland Commission's existence for short-term political gains. In the time since the Moreland Commission ceased to exist, a few local and state level indictments have been made, but so far the heavy hand of the powerful federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for New York's Southern District have yet to fully open the flood gates to what bloggers and activists anticipate may be a deluge of corruption indictments that reach higher than local and state prosecutors have ever dared to attempt. The backpedalling in The New York Times headline may be an indication that political operatives close to Gov. Cuomo fear a public relations backlash, or worse, as federal prosecutors ratchet up their investigation of corruption up in Albany. If State Senator Thomas Libous "flips" on other corrupt high-ranking Albany politicians, does his indictment foreshadow the opening of the floodgates of the federal corruption crackdown that government reform activists have been expecting since the break-up of the Moreland Commission ? The indictment against State Sen. Libous came about as a result of a sitting grand jury in the Southern District's White Plains office. Three months after Gov. Cuomo pulled the plug on the Moreland Commission, scandal and controversy still swirls around his motivations. Moreland Commission Executive Director Regina Calcaterra is still drawing her annualized salary of $175,000 after Gov. Cuomo disbanded the corruption investigation panel, The New York Daily News reported, leading some astute political observers to question the reason why Ms. Calcaterra needs to be being paid off like this.

The New York Times wakes up to a harsh reality about de Blasio's piling examples of selling out

PUBLISHED : WED, 08 JUN 2014, 01:46 PM
UPDATED : THURS, 13 JUN 2014, 19:35 PM

The NYTimes' Ginia Bellafante on Mayor Bill de Blasio : The absence of any real template for governing from the vantage point of economic liberalism

RELATED For de Blasio, Deals, Drama and (Maybe) Progress (The New York Times)

In today's Sunday edition of The New York Times, the columnist Ginia Bellafante examined new mayor Bill de Blasio's record of broken campaign promises and other compromises in his young administration. "For years since, you could get by calling yourself a liberal in New York State politics simply by loving pro-choice arguments and same-sex marriage as much as you loved Wall Street and real estate developers. That is no longer so, which leaves centrists moving toward compromises that look semi-noble, and liberals in the position of seeming to have settled for too little and sacrificed their souls too much." On the closure of Long Island College Hospital, Ms. Bellafante wrote that, "the sense that Mr. de Blasio exploited the issue, declared victory in the face of a loss and then moved on has clearly taken hold." Ms. Bellafante's observation is backed up by a column by Liza Featherstone in amNewYork : "Bill de Blasio betrayed his believers in Cobble Hill," in which the author of the column wrote : "There are signs de Blasio is willing to fight for ordinary New Yorkers. Additional paid sick leave and universal pre-K are nothing to dismiss. But when the interests of ordinary New Yorkers conflict with those of the real estate industry, which donated heavily to de Blasio's campaign, is Mayor 99 Percent setting aside his protest placards? Many in Cobble Hill think so." In respect of the de Blasio administration's plans to preserve affordable housing, Ms. Bellafante noted that there was a "mounting sense that he has reneged on promises to involve neighborhoods in decisions that intimately affect them." This is backed-up by the relentless postings on the Atlantic Yards Report blog, and you can begin by reading this post : "As de Blasio announces affordable housing plan, Atlantic Yards (delay, modular, lack of neighborhood planning) remains an awkward backdrop," in which the author of the blog noted of the mayor's affordable housing plan : "There was no mention of the planned affordable housing that he and others cited to justify their support for Atlantic Yards, likely because that housing has taken so long to be built--and perhaps because it recalls the absence of ground-up neighborhood planning." (emphasis added) With respect to Mayor de Blasio enabling Gov. Cuomo to lock up the Working Families Party nomination, Ms. Bellafante wrote : "When Mr. de Blasio recently facilitated a deal between the leftist Working Families Party and Mr. Cuomo to secure the organization’s endorsement of the governor for re-election, it pushed certain quarters of the left toward lamentation." This is backed up by one of numerous tweets in the aftermath of the WFP deal to endorse Gov. Cuomo, brokered by Mayor de Blasio, such as this one by Tom Watson : "Still some surprise/horror that progressive deBlasio cut a deal with Cuomo in the #WFP saga. Of course he did, it's politics." (emphasis added) Ms. Bellafante also provided a balance to her criticism, by noting some achievements in Mayor de Blasio's first five months in office. Taken as a whole, Ms. Bellafante's article is an indication that growing liberal disappointment with Mayor de Blasio is seeping into the pages of The New York Times, something that took 15 years to happen with former Council Speaker Christine Quinn's political career. This change is due to the impatience with which voters now express about political deals made between politicians that betray campaign promises, such as with the embarrassing Working Families Party endorsement, an observation that Ms. Bellafante herself made when she wrote, "What looked like a mayoral assertion of authority to some felt like abdication to others."

de Blasio's high poll numbers amongst minority electorate may sink, if the NYPD continue their racially-tinged, broken windows policing tactics

RELATED Mayor de Blasio’s Approval Rating Improves, Poll Finds (The New York Times)

A majority of Black and Latino voters said that they approved of the job Mayor de Blasio was doing, a new poll shows, The New York Times reported. But it is not clear that this new poll factored in the immense anger in the Harlem community in response to a shock and awe invasion by the New York Police Department to round up innocent young public housing tenants on trumpted up charges of conspiracy to commit gang activities. Already, the new poll shows that the new mayor has lost more than half of the support amonst whites. If the police continue their crackdown that targets people of color, it won't be too far long before the mayor loses support amongst his minority base.

In the face of dooms-day science, The New York Times continues to publish pro-fracking editorial propaganda

PUBLISHED : WED, 30 APR 2014, 09:56 AM
UPDATED : MON, 12 MAY 2014, 03:30 PM

Science keeps showing mankind that we face of a dooms-day once the West Antarctic ice sheet collapses and melts, but The New York Times keeps publishing pro-fracking propaganda in its editorial pages, making one wonder if the newspaper's new angel investment objective must secretly involve investing in oil and gas companies as a way to make money, because obviously its editors have decided that it can't turn a profit while remaining objective about the environmental catastrophe caused by fracking and other environment-destroying industries. The newspaper's latest installment is an editorial co-written by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Environmental Defense Fund veal pen "Yes Man" Fred Krupp in which both men advocate fracking without one single mention of the earthquake consequences of the controversial and poisonous gas extraction procedure.

• RELATED : The boom-boom of earthquakes to destroy the planet if pro-fracking special interests get their way. (The Right Way to Develop Shale Gas (The New York Propaganda Times)

After many European nations panicked over Russia's hostility toward the Ukraine, threatening Russian petroleum sales and shipments to Europe, editors of The New York Times jumped on the opportunity to again advocate for more fracking in North America, so that gas could be shipped across the Atlantic to Europe, going so far as portraying fracking as a tool of diplomacy and rendering a financial windfall to the dirty and dangerous fracking industry.

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary available in 2012, reporters for The New York Times proclaimed in January 2013 that fracking was safe in New York state.

Burning more fossil fuels will only further cause more greenhouse gases to build up in the atmosphere, leading to global warming, warns the National Wildlife Federation.

And the next chance they get, the Editorial Board of The @nytimes will still be advocating more #Fracking. @magiorNYT #drillbabydrill

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) May 12, 2014

Michael Petrelis Exposes Misuse Of San Francisco Taxpayer Money In Promotion of Inaccurate Marriage Equality Book

Revisionist book by The New York Times reporter Jo Becker raises questions about possible ethics violations in San Francisco City Attorney's Office

Activist and muckraking blogger Michael Petrelis has obtained public records from San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office, showing how San Francisco city employees on the City "clock" were coordinating with The New York Times reporter Jo Becker and her various publicists to promote her controversial new book about the marriage equality movement, "Forcing the Spring." The 110-pages of public records is available on Google Drive.

• RELATED : Becker Had SF City Attorney Ask Judge Walker to be at Photo Op (The Petrelis Files)

In an e-mail Mr. Petrelis sent to Ms. Becker, to top editors of The New York Times, and to Mr. Herrera, Mr. Petrelis forwarded a link to his latest blog post and asked, "Will the San Francisco media continue to ignore these serious ethical lapses at the City Attorney's office ?"

Mr. Petrelis, like many LGBT activists, bloggers, and leaders, have been outraged by the inaccuracies of the modern social movement for marriage equality in the United States, as presented in Ms. Becker's book. Many reviewers of Ms. Becker's book believe that she gives too much credit to the recent progress of marriage equality across the United States to, amongst others, Chad Griffin, who was one of many individuals involved in the litigation to overturn California's controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages when the ballot initiative was passed in 2008. Incredulous as it may seem, Ms. Becker called Mr. Griffin the gay "Rosa Parks."

• RELATED : Jo Becker’s revisionist history on marriage (The Washington Blade)

For his part, Mr. Petrelis has been blogging about Ms. Becker's scandalous book, reporting about how the San Francisco City Attorney's office has been using city infrastructure, city employees' time, and other city resources to promote Ms. Becker's inaccurate book.

• RELATED : KQED Gay Reporter Rims Jo Becker, SF City Atty Herrera's Butts (The Petrelis Files)
• RELATED : How NYT's Jo Becker Made SF City Attorney's Office Her PR Firm (The Petrelis Files)
• RELATED : SF City Attorney Paid Griffin How Much as His Prop 8 Adviser ? (The Petrelis Files)

One wonders whether city investigators in San Francisco will question the use of taxpayer resources for Ms. Becker's private profit.

In the aftermath of the Stonewall riots of 1969, political activism by gays, lesbians, and trans* New Yorkers took off. In 1971, members of the Gay Activist Alliance in New York City "zapped" the city's marriage office, occupying it with the radical demand gays and lesbians be allowed to get married. The activists threw an "engagement party for two male couples," complete with "wedding cake decorated with two grooms and two brides," according to a YouTube video of the protest. In this emboldened new era, demands to end marriage discrimination crossed over into the mainstream. According to Mr. Petrelis' blog :

… On May 2, 1974, a one-hour debate organized as a mock trial and aired on a show called "The Advocates, The PBS Debate of the Week", and the subject was "Should Marriage Between Homosexuals Be Permitted ?" and the event was held on the University of California at Irvine campus. Leading the charge for the gays was longtime gay pioneer Frank Kameny who was masterful in his presentation and how he framed his arguments. …

Joining Kameny were out lesbian Elaine Noble who was a professor at Emerson College at the time, a year before she was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Dr. Richard Green, a psychiatrist from UCLA, and quite the bear but I don't what his sexual orientation is.

The opposing side was led by Florida civil rights attorney Tobias Simon, who was joined by Robin Smith at Occidental College, and Dr. Charles Socarides, listed as an Associate Clinical Professor at Albert Einstein Medical School.

Socarides was the father two blights upon the LGBT community, the first being the now-discredited bogus "conversion therapy" that held a person with same-sex attractions could be changed to desire the opposite sex, and the second was his son Richard Socarides, a Democratic political strategist who holds the dubious distinction of having written talking points for President Bill Clinton deflecting LGBT advocates' anger over the signing of the Defense of Marriage Act when he was the White House gay liaison. … (Frank Kameny v. Charles Socarides: 1974 PBS Gay Marriage Debate * The Petrelis Files)

In the intervening years, as the cumulative effect of LGBT political organizing grew grew, the arc of legal treatment towards the community grew from one viewing us based on our "sexual preferences" to one being based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," the difference being that we were stopped seeing as making a choice about our sexuality and instead being born this way, an easier argument to make for being born with natural rights and liberties, making the community's demands for equality easier to make. (The way that our community identified itself also change, from being termed "homosexuals" to "gays" to "gays and lesbians" to GLBT to LGBT, etc.) However, the inevitable backlash against LGBT organizing against discrimination, including against the state-sanctioned discrimination that denied LGBT couples the right to get married, was codified on the federal level by none other than President Bill Clinton, when he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996. As alluded to by Mr. Petrelis, President Clinton's treacherous enactment of the law was made possible by the shady help of Richard Socarides, a gay political operative, who many New York City activists view with disdain for having enabled President Clinton to codify federal discrimination against civil marriage rights for LGBT couples. President Clinton later changed his mind about DOMA, but only after it became politically advantageous for him and for his wife, Mrs. Clinton.

Then, in 1999, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruling in Baehr v. Lewin helped to spark the modern marriage equality movement. Activists were further emboldened by the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which finally invalidated all state laws against sodomy, a backhanded way that governments had traditionally used to oppressed the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and trans* Americans. A year later, in a nod to how progressive social movements have historically been shown to grow in the United States, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, added fuel to the fire in the drive for marriage equality by authorizing the city to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. His sole act helped to give hope to a broad spectrum of LGBT activists and allies by showing that a progressive reform made in one municipality could be replicated in other municipalities. The mayor of New Paltz, New York, copied Mayor Newsom's move, but the New Paltz effort was stopped by legal action. Legal action also put a stop to the San Francisco effort, triggering legal action, the whole Prop 8 ballot initiative, and subsequent litigation over Prop 8. When the traditionally conservative state of Iowa instituted same sex marriage rights in 2009 following its own Supreme Court ruling, LGBT activists in New York state where shamed about their inability to make progress on marriage equality in the shadow of leadership in other states, despite New York's reputation for being the nation's undisputed liberal and progressive leader. Marriage equality advocates had always been pressing their cause in New York state, but local politicians, such as former New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn never wanted to gamble any of her political capital on risky new government policy proposals, especially after she had spent years distancing herself from the radical activism that runs the liberal and progressive politics of New York City. Indeed, as the most visible LGBT official in New York City at the time, Ms. Quinn failed to organize the LGBT community in New York to block former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's successful effort to quash marriage equality in New York when he appealed, in 2005, a favourable court ruling supporting equal civil marriage rights. After the unrelenting direct action campaign, begun in 2010, by one group, Queer Rising, put marriage equality back on the social agenda, the big money LGBT groups felt more comfortable in deploying resources to support a renewed push for marriage equality in New York state. After marriage equality became law in New York state, activists across the world were inspired by the ability to pass legislation to extend civil marriage rights to LGBT New Yorkers. In the wake of success in New York, marriage equality activists were emboldened to organize and change the laws in such far away nations as France.

LGBT is the most common acronym to describe the minority community oppressed by state-sponsored laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but a more inclusive term is QUILTBAG, which stands for Queer/Questioning, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender/Transsexual, Bisexual, Allied/Asexual, Gay/Genderqueer. Although more memorable, QUILTBAG has not gained wider use.

Questions about Full-Page NYTimes Open Letter to Pope About Homeless QUILTBAG Youth Services

Was the Controversial Full-Page New York Times Ad Shaming Catholic Pope Francis A Complete Waste of Money ?

The cost of an open "plea to Pope Francis on behalf of troubled gay youths needing housing, healthcare and other basic necessities" printed as a full-page advertisement in last Sunday's edition of The New York Times may have been an expensive waste of money, according to a post published yesterday on the blog of San Francisco activist Michael Petrelis.

• RELATED : Gay Homeless Org Wasted $150,000 on NYT Pope Francis Ad (The Petrelis Files)

The open letter, penned by Carl Siciliano, pictured above, the executive director of a Manhattan shelter for homeless QUILTBAG youth, the Ali Forney Center, was estimated to cost approximately $150,000 to be printed by The New York Times, and the cost was paid for by chichi furniture makers Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams, the blogger Mr. Petrelis wrote.

Once a highly visible activist when he lived in New York, Mr. Petrelis periodically follows New York politics and activism, blogging from San Francisco about these issues on the World Wide Web. When Mr. Petrelis first approached Mr. Siciliano about the cost of the advertisement, Mr. Siciliano was evasive, directing Mr. Petrelis to the furniture makers, who paid for the advertisement.

2014 04 13 Ali Forney Center - Open Letter to the Pope (Pope Francis) - Full Page Advertisement in The New...

Mr. Petrelis sought to open up a dialogue with Mr. Siciliano over the possible misuse of $150,000 in donor money to pay for a one-time, full-page advertisement, but Mr. Siciliano ended communication with Mr. Petrelis after issuing a denial, forcing Mr. Petrelis to blog about the issue and, later, circulating a link to his blog post to several New York City activists, including some journalists. Mr. Petrelis's e-mail was subsequently forwarded amongst New York activists. "In my view, the funds were wasted on a PR stunt that did nothing of direct benefit to Ali Forney Center clients, but sure bought a lot of gushing media and blogger coverage," Mr. Petrelis wrote on his blog, adding, "I say that money could have been put to much better use paying for motel vouchers or subsidizing apartments for homeless New York City gay youths."

In trying to hold Mr. Siciliano accountable for the possible misuse of $150,000 in donor funds for a one-time public relations "stunt," Mr. Petrelis and other activists noted that Mr. Siciliano and his donors have arguably wasted a large sum of money hoisting shame or blame onto the Catholic pope in Rome for conditions in New York City over which the pope has no real responsibility.

• RELATED : Homeless Youths File Federal Lawsuit Against New York City (NYC : News & Analysis)

Over three months ago, a class action of homeless New York City youths filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn federal court. The Legal Aid Society, acting as counsel to the plaintiffs, sued New York City, demanding the full resources to finally and fully provide shelter to all homeless youths in New York City, as required by law. When New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his first preliminary budget, his administration promised to "eventually spend $12 million a year to fund programs for homeless youth, including queer youth," Gay City News reported. But the $12 million isn't enough to full fund the provision of shelter to the estimated 3,800 homeless youths in New York City. At $12 million, the spending comes out to less than $3,160 per year per homeless youth -- which comes out to about the cost of one month's rent for the average New York apartment. At that funding, the promised budget allocation isn't enough for rent, much less sufficient for healthcare and other basic services, which Mr. Siciliano was trying to shame the Catholic Church into providing.

Mayor de Blasio's proposed $12 million budget allocation is woefully insufficient to fully provide shelter for homeless youths, even though the federal and state laws require the city to make this provision to any homeless youths ages 16 to 20, who request shelter, according to the Legal Aid Society's class action lawsuit. Even though the population of homeless youths are estimated to number about 3,800, the New York City budget only makes 253 shelter beds available for homeless youths.

In the wake of the de Blasio administration's failed homeless youth policy comes the Ali Forney Center donors funding what was basically an attack ad against Pope Francis, even though it's the city's legal responsibility to fully provide shelter to all homeless youths. It's not known why Mr. Siciliano, the Ali Forney Center, and their donors would try to muddy responsibility from rolling up to the mayor, unless Mr. Siciliano was trying to score political points by providing political cover to the mayor's failed policy in exchange for a greater allocation of the mayor's nominal expansion of homeless youth funding, a predicament predicted under a de Blasio city budget that is being squeezed by high expectations after nearly a decade of unmet economic needs under the former Bloomberg-Quinn administration. Rather than admit the reality of the economic pressures on the New York City budget, the mayor spun an token, yet wholly insufficient, increase in homeless youth funding as a "win" -- even though it doesn't fully address the issue, as required by law.

Let's hope that Mr. Petrelis's blog posting, and the circulation of his e-mail among New York activists and journalists, will help restore the focus of homeless youth responsibility back on City Hall -- and not on Vatican City.

This Week in Carolyn Ryan Journalism Realness

Is Carolyn Ryan engaged in a smear campaign against President Barack Obama, or is she only reporting the truth ? Public Editor's "AnonyWatch Review" weighs in.

Before we delve into the latest chapter of Carolyn Ryan's media bias, let's begin by first examining the obsession with "polish" by readers of mainstream journalism. By polish, we mean the fetish with exacting spelling, grammar, syntax, and punctuation on big-name news Web sites.

• RELATED : AnonyWatch, Chapter 2: A ‘Poisonous’ President and a Banker’s Secret Yogurt (The New York Times)

Earlier today on Facebook, a social media network friend of mine shared a status update in which she made the observation that typographical errors in mainstream media Web sites were distracting, and they degraded her perception of the quality of news being published on said Web sites. This led to a back-and-forth discussion of this topic. At the end, I raised some concerns about how an obsession with typos may distract from the fact that very few journalists (either mainstream or alternative bloggers) very rarely tell the whole truth, that the real quality of journalism may transcend typos and should be judged, instead, on the larger quality of reporting the truth. For example, Anemona Hartocollis, the metropolitan healthcare reporter at The New York Times, gets her copy published in a form that is generally free of copy errors, but her journalism is biased as all get out. Ms. Hartocollis's reporting is emblematic of the corporate agenda in mainstream journalism. Whenever Ms. Hartocollis reports about another community hospital closing in New York City, her reporting only represents the corporate speak of profits-and-losses, and she makes no attempt to humanize the healthcare cuts' impact on real people's lives. Because corporate public relations spin is devoid of any moral obligation, Ms. Hartocollis reduces all her healthcare reporting to be about dollars and cents, siding with Gov. Andrew Cuomo's and his budget axman, Stephen Berger's, desire to make scorched earth cuts to healthcare. As far as Ms. Hartocollis's reporting is concerned, she's never attempted to ever report about the human right to healthcare. Just because Ms. Hartocollis's copy is clean of typos, it doesn't mean it's anymore truthful than a Medicaid Redesign Team press release.

Another example I noted in the back-and-forth on Facebook today was that of a blogger, with whom I'm on the outs. She butchers the presentation of information on her blog like nobody's business. Sometimes, her stream of consciousness blog postings contain incomplete sentences, but more often than not she gets it right when it comes to exposing government and real estate corruption. Her reporting delves deeper than the reporting of some reporters published in The New York Times, for example. Another blogger I know makes big-time typos, too, and sometimes his text "disappears" because of slip-shod copying-and-pasting, but from his blog his readers can learn how to see the corrupt political chess pieces move on big social issues. I acknowledge that it is important to present information, especially journalism, in a way that is accessible to readers, but mainstream journalism, even factoring into account all the waves of "corporate layoffs," still have access to resources like copy editors, interns, other editors, and webmasters that can proof writing after it's been submitted. But, as have been noted time and again, mainstream journalism has come to reflect a corporate agenda that distorts the ability of mainstream journalists to report the whole truth.

Over time, astute readers of political reporting learn that to discover the truth, once must read multiple sources of the same story in order to "average," "balance," and/or "correct" the news. If readers were to solely judge writing on cosmetics, that criteria will short change readers on the truth. Obvious mistakes should be corrected, but some bloggers don't even have editors. So, I'll always defend bloggers before mainstream reporters. But even then, I don't look at polish as being the only criteria for realness.

Carolyn Ryan's use of anonymous sources to report about President Obama's political backlash in the final midterm Congressional elections

Two weeks ago, Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan oversaw a report published in The New York Times about Democrats's fears about "their midterm election fortunes amid President Obama’s sinking approval ratings." The article contained a passage with a shady anonymous attribution :

“One Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said Mr. Obama was becoming ‘poisonous’ to the party’s candidates. At the same time, Democrats are pressing senior aides to Mr. Obama for help from the political network.”

Public editor Margaret Sullivan chastised Ms. Ryan for the use of an anonymous quote, an issue of recent concern to the public editor and the readers of The New York Times. In her defense, Ms. Ryan pieced together a weak defense in which she denied engaging in an hominem attack on the president. It's difficult to believe that Ms. Ryan, as editor, or Jonathan Martin and Ashley Parker, as the reporters of the subject article, would go out of their way to wrongly roll up responsibility for the flagging fortunes of the national Democratic Party on the president. But the larger political reality that Ms. Ryan and Ms. Sullivan ignored is how the Obama administration silences dissent through political machinations, maneuvering that every high-level elected official uses to control his or her own political narrative. Ms. Ryan was famous for espousing the political narrative propagated by former New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn when Ms. Ryan used to serve as the metropolitan editor for the newspaper. But now, Ms. Ryan has perhaps learned to challenge power holders, and, by relying on the sentiments of an anonymous source, Ms. Ryan may actually be expanding the political reporting in The New York Times rather than just repeating the official party line of the politicians she's tasked to cover.

No doubt that Ms. Ryan's anonymous sources for the subject article really exist, because many Democrats are plainly fed up by President Obama's corruption scandals involving the National Security Administration, the Monsanto Protection Act, and other political controversies. The public editor was critical of Ms. Ryan's use of an anonymous source, but if Ms. Sullivan would like to further examine why Democrats are afraid to speak out against President Obama, perhaps the editors of The New York Times should examine President Obama's political persecution of liberal advocates and institutions he locks up in the veal pen ? In her further defense, after Ms. Ryan endured so much criticism about her biased reporting that benefitted Ms. Quinn, Ms. Ryan may finally be learning the truth about how journalism really works when one is fully reporting uncomfortable truths about the corrupt political machinations of an elected official. Some sources may not want to go on the record for fear of political retribution. Like a typo hear or their, sometimes journalism realness doesn't always come neatly packaged and wrapped. After President Obama's veal pen gets examined, maybe editors can turn their attention to Ms. Hartocollis's media bias ?

Obama Administration Is “Greatest Enemy" of Freedom of the Press

NYTimes Reporter : Obama White House Is ‘‘Greatest Enemy of Press Freedom’’ Today

From Poynter :

New York Times reporter James Risen, who is fighting an order that he testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer accused of leaking information to him, opened the conference earlier by saying the Obama administration is “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” The administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting,” Risen said, to “create a path for accepted reporting.” Anyone journalist who exceeds those parameters, Risen said, “will be punished.”

Exactly. @JoeNYLaw

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) March 25, 2014

• RELATED : NYTimes Reporter : Obama White House Is ‘‘Greatest Enemy of Press Freedom’’ Today (Mediaite)

It's not known, though, if staff reporters at The New York Times are able to give voice to the serious constitutional violations by the Obama administration, then why won't the newspaper's political editor allow reporters to fully report the truth as news ?

In Twitter exchange, NYTimes reporter admits he looks the other way on human rights abuses

LGBT rights activists upset with NYTimes reporter over incomplete article

Sam Borden, a reporter for The New York Times, wrote an article about some American Olympic athletes being upset with LGBT activists, who are calling attention to the violent anti-LGBT crackdown taking place in Russia under President Vladimir Putin ("American Lugers Annoyed by Group’s Gay Rights Video," 11 Feb 2014).

Christian Niccum and Preston Griffall, both American Olympic athletes competing in Sochi, said they were ruffled by some of the social media activism of LGBT supporters and allies. In particular, the pair of athletes objected to a YouTube video by Canadian Institute of Diversity and Inclusion lampooning the savage heterosexism now sweeping Russia.

In the article, the American athletes bemoaned stereotypes that they now felt that they must endure because of the CIDI video, but The New York Times reporter never asked the athletes what they thought about the violence that LGBT Russians must face in the current oppressive crackdown atmosphere in Russia.

Perhaps if Mr. Niccum and Mr. Griffall had been able to have empathy for the plight of LGBT Russians, the Sochi Olympics might garner them some additional fans. But the silence from American Olympic champions and even from reporters from The New York Times seems to suggest that there's an unofficial attitude of appeasement toward President Putin's violent crackdown.

Here is the CIDI video, which ridicule only scratches the surface of the brutal heterosexism in Russia. Even this small amount of humorous criticism triggers painful cognitive dissonance for athletes and media, who'd apparently want to keep the extreme violence locked up in a closet. This video has now been viewed over 5 million times on YouTube :

American Presidential Elections vs. The Miss America Pageant

Really, just how hard would it be to reform federal elections, if we cared ?

NYTimes Public Editor to People of Color : Drop Dead

Request to discuss concerns about the Bratton appointment to head the NYPD is denied.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: nytimes, public
Date: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Bill de Blasio // How’s He Doing ?
To: Louis Flores

Dear Mr. Flores,

Thanks so much for taking the time to write. While we very much appreciate your concern, and are keeping a close eye on early coverage of Mr. De Blasio's days at the helm, the volume of requests of this nature that we receive is simply too great for the public editor to honor each one. Given the seriousness of the issues that you bring up, there is certainly a possibility that they could help illuminate themes and issues that may well make a good subject for a future column. Thanks again for writing, and for caring about what's published in The Times. Feedback from readers like yourself is essential and I'll keep your email in mind when reading evaluations of Mr. De Blasio's tenure.

Best,
Jonah Bromwich
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Louis Flores
Date: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Bill de Blasio // How’s He Doing ?
To: public@nytimes.com

Dear Ms. Sullivan :

On the Web site today, The New York Times gave a brief assessment of Mayor de Blasio's administration, thus far :

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/new-york-today-hows-he-doing/

• Over all, Mr. Grynbaum said, things have gone relatively smoothly for the mayor – “with the notable exception of his pizza faux pas on Friday.” (Mr. de Blasio’s regular-guy image took a global hit when he ate pizza with a fork.)

How can this be a fair assessment ? Many activists have issues with the new mayor, not the least of which center around the appointment of William Bratton as NYPD commissioner ?

(I have my own serious questions regarding campaign finance and the role of lobbyists in the campaigns and transition, but I'm contacting you on behalf of some of my activist friends, who are more focused on police reform.)

Some of my activism friends have issues with the fact that their concerns are not being fairly represented in The NYTimes. Is it possible to have a phone call or to Skype with you, so we can share some of these concerns ?

In the past, I've protested outside The NYTimes when we thought there was a media bias in the paper. But this time now, I (personally) would like to see if we can have a more productive relationship if we started out with a discussion.

Please let me know if we could speak. If you agree, I'd like to invite a couple of activist friends to participate on my end, so that you can hear directly for the people.

Thank you kindly for your consideration.

Best regards,
-- Louis

Louis Flores
1 (646) 400-1168
lflores22@gmail.com

New Yorkers Continue To Be Deceived About Council Speaker Race

The NYTimes reports that the Council speaker race gets decided in "back rooms," but fails to report the back room deals.

After having been shut down last week-end, The NYTimes City Hall reporter Kate Taylor describes the Council speaker race with this one truth : the speakership "tends to be decided in back rooms." It's the process that is corrupt, and The NYTimes stops short of describing what back room deals are taking place, and that should be cause enough to once again sound the loud alarum bell to announce to the people the approach of corruption, but sadly the people have no say in the Council speaker race. Until the people demand a say, no alarum bell will ever be loud enough to drown out the backroom dealings. It doesn't matter who becomes speaker, because the winner can only win after brokering back room deals that only serve the winner. And the biggest loser in all this is not the speaker candidate who fails, but the public, who gets shut out of having any say -- and who gets deceived by media, like The NYTimes, who fail to report the true extent of the back room dealings.

Sam Roberts Stops City Hall Reporter Kate Taylor From Fully Discussing Council Speaker Backroom Deals

This Week In Self-Censoring, Corporate Newspaper Editors

On this week-end's edition of The New York Times Close-Up on NY1, the editor Sam Roberts asked City Hall reporter Kate Taylor to give a report back on the Council speaker race. Mr. Roberts only tolerated the most brief of report backs ever provided in the show's history. The instant that Ms. Taylor reported that leading Council speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito may not have the votes needed to win the speakership, Mr. Roberts said, "We'll leave it right there," or something similar to that. Mr. Roberts had to cut off Ms. Taylor, before she could give the public a report back on all the corrupt backroom deals being wagered in the desperate power grab waged by Ms. Mark-Viverito's camp.

Even though very little scrutiny is being put on Councilmember Daniel Garodnick, Ms. Mark-Viverito's challenger for the speakership, both candidates have "manned up" with teams of real estate lobbyists/enablers. The Council speaker will be selected on Wednesday, when the next session of the municipal legislature will first convene in the new year. It remains to be seen if, before then, either side really becomes so disconsolate that they may actually break the kinds of laws that will trigger a federal corruption investigation. In the fight for the speakership, Ms. Mark-Viverito's team of lobbyists have thus far flouted campaign finance regulations, one of her lobbyists faces a Campaign Finance Board investigation, and Ms. Mark-Viverito has been engulfed in allegations of ethics violations.

The New York Times still has its head stuck in the sand on Christine Quinn

85% of Democratic primary voters rejected Christine Quinn in the mayoral election, but The New York Times still defends its baseless endorsement of a corrupt political hack.

In it's hasty review of political lowlights of 2013, The New York Times reporters Andy Newman and Annie Correal included a brief reference to Christine Quinn's loss in the Democratic mayoral primary.

The newspaper's reporters prefaced the mention of Ms. Quinn's campaign loss by framing her political career as showing "No major ethical lapses here."

The reporters seem to ignore Ms. Quinn's backroom machinations, her term limits betrayals, her enabling of 10 hospital closings in New York City during her speakership, and her slush fund scandal, amongst other ethical lapses, as documented in "Roots of Betrayal : The Ethics of Christine Quinn."

In its round-up of political lowlights, The New York Times seems to rationalize that the corruptive influence of money in politics that marred John Liu's Democratic mayoral campaign didn't also play out during Ms. Quinn's political career when, for example, by January 2013, executives from developers and landlords had donated over $800,000.00 to Ms. Quinn's political campaign for the 2013 election cycle, representing by one estimate to be 14% of the $6 million that Ms. Quinn had raised as of that point for her next political campaign. By this time, Ms. Quinn estimated that New York City had lost a total of 300,000 affordable housing units, and she blamed politicians up in Albany, even though as the City Council speaker, she was in a position to make a difference. But Ms. Quinn failed to deliver greater protections for Mitchell-Lama residents, and she herself accepted lower affordable housing requirements at the Hudson Yards project. Near the end of Mike Bloomberg’s mayoralty, it was reported that the billionaire mayor had managed to rezone 37% of the land in New York City. Under Ms. Quinn's leadership, the City Council failed to seize on this opportunity to make affordable housing a priority. As speaker of the City Council, Ms. Quinn had the most influence over land use issues, and the large role that real estate developers had in her campaign finance war chest suggests that Speaker Quinn wasn't about to stand up to developers when they were such a large source of campaign contributions.

So, when The New York Times talks about the corruptive influence of money in politics, it will condemn Mr. Liu for it, but it will stick its head in the sand when it comes to Ms. Quinn. Many believe that the editorial bias that favors Ms. Quinn stems from the former metropolitan editor, Carolyn Ryan, who has since been promoted to the politics editor and has been moved out of town to Washington. Activists have staged protests in the past to denounce Ms. Ryan's editorial bias that seemed to favor Ms. Quinn (VIDEO 1) (VIDEO 2) (VIDEO 3) (VIDEO 4).

Racism And Police Brutality Concerns Can Go On, Depending On Schools' Chancellor Pick : Sam Roberts

Sam Roberts Alluded To Believing That Bratton's Racial Profiling Concerns Would Be Placated By An Agreeable Schools' Chancellor

Last week, Michael Grynbaum said on The New York Times Close-Up program on NY1 that he noticed that there had been some "hand-wringing in the progressive blogosphere" about the appointment of William Bratton as the next New York Police Department commissioner, adding that there were concerns about how would the Bratton appointment affect stop-and-frisk.

Stop-and-frisk is a controversial program of the NYPD, which has been found to be a state-sponsored program that discriminates based on race, violating the civil liberties and civil rights of millions of innocent New Yorkers caught in its indiscriminate dragnet use.

Mr. Grynbaum concluded his remarks on this subject by saying that some of the mayor-elect's leftist base were troubled by the appointment

To these concerns, Sam Roberts flippantly said, "And maybe that will be alleviated in the coming week, when he is likely to name a schools' chancellor," as if the racism and police brutality of the NYPD "will be alleviated" by what ? The naming of a minority schools' chancellor ?

Is Mr. Roberts out of touch ? Does he need cultural competency training ?

The N.S.A. spy programme is causing a growing diplomatic crisis for Obama

La N.S.A. Espionne Les Françaises by connaissable

Did White House officials approve the N.S.A.'s spying of 35 world leaders ?

The growing scandal of the U.S. spying on our European allies is threatening to engulf the White House, and, typically, administration officials are trying to protect the president from accountability for the scandal. "Inside the administration it has touched off behind-the-scenes recriminations between the White House and the intelligence agencies over how much detail was given to White House officials about which world leaders are being monitored," The New York Times is reporting, adding, "A senior administration official declined to say what Mr. Obama knew or did not know about monitoring of Ms. Merkel’s phone, but said the president 'doesn’t think we are in the right place.' " If it is illegal to spy on Germans without proper legal authority, did the Obama administration break German law by spying on the German chancellor ? If the Republicans weren't such a joke right now, they should be leading the charge to investigate these allegations.

• N.S.A. monitored calls of 35 world leaders after U.S. official handed over contacts ; NSA encourages departments to share their 'Rolodexes' (The Guardian)
• Angela Merkel and François Hollande lead push at E.U. summit to reshape transatlantic spying and agree new code of conduct (The Guardian)

The official U.S. response has "evolved" from accusing the N.S.A. contractor Edward Snowden of being a "spy," to denying reports that the U.S. has spied on European citizens, to trying to isolate the White House from legal and political ramifications of the unconstitutional and illegal N.S.A. surveillance programme. Since our own impotent reporters inside the Beltway appear to enable the Obama administration's expansion of the NSA espionage programme, then the only outside pressure that is going to make a real difference is going to be the foreign press, especially from our allies. Let's see if our allies have the courage to "draw a line in the sand" or to propose economic sanctions against the U.S. until President Obama dismantles the illegal surveillance state his administration steadfastly helped to build ? The N.S.A's espionage may now amount to acts of crime in the eyes of foreign nations. If American courts are not going to recognize the violations of law by the N.S.A., then surely the courts of our allies will.

Meanwhile, the political legitimacy of the N.S.A. surveillance programme continues to come under fire. President Obama's rationale for spying was that it was intended for foreigners, not Americans. Now that European leaders are complaining about the tracking of "foreigners," how legitimate is the N.S.A. surveillance programme now ?

(Updated : Friday 25 Oct 2013 8:20 a.m.)

---

France In The NSA Crosshairs : Phone Networks Under Surveillance

I was unable to post this information as a status update on Facebook this morning, so I am sharing it here, hoping that I can link back to it on Facebook.

France summoned the U.S. ambassador on Monday to the French Foreign Ministry office on the Quai d'Orsay to protest allegations in Le Monde newspaper about large-scale spying on French citizens by the U.S. National Security Agency.

"If an allied country spies on France or spies on other European countries, that's totally unacceptable," French interior minister Manuel Valls told Europe 1 radio, according to a Reuters report published by The New York Times.

Meanwhile, CNN is also reporting that according to Le Monde, this is how the system worked : "When a telephone number is used in France, it activates a signal which automatically triggers the recording of the call. Apparently this surveillance system also picks up SMS (text) messages and their content using key words. Finally, the NSA apparently stores the history of the connections of each target -- or the meta-data." It wasn't immediately clear from the article if the conversations were being recorded or just the data surrounding each call. The CNN report added that the Le Monde investigation followed a separate report in the German news magazine Der Spiegel, which showed that the NSA "systematically" eavesdropped on the Mexican government. It hacked the public e-mail account of former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, which was also used by Cabinet members, according to Der Spiegel.

Separately, in an article published in English this morning by Le Monde, Glenn Greenwald shared a by-line in an article questioning why France has not been as critical as Germany or Brazil of the U.S. spy programme on sovereign nations. The article concludes with indication of the global nature of the U.S. spy programme : "One of the documents which Le Monde was able to consult notes that between 8 February and 8 March 2013, the NSA collected, throughout the world, 124,8 billion telephone data items and 97,1 billion computer data items. In Europe, only Germany and the United Kingdom exceed France in terms of numbers of interceptions."

(Originally Posted : Monday 21 Oct 2013 9:15 a.m.)

Explication of The New York Times Mayoral Endorsement of Christine Quinn

Queers Against Quinn respond to @nytimes endorsement of @Quinn4NY https://t.co/E9IjDCe4iR @colvinj @SallyGold @Azi pic.twitter.com/gPc2aoFt2t

— Stop Christine Quinn (@stopchrisquinn) August 24, 2013

The New York Times Mayoral Endorsement : Christine Quinn, the Democratic Choice

Following is a line-by-line explication of editorial in which New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is endorsed by the Editorial Board of The New York Times :

WHAT THE NYTIMES WROTE	WHAT THE NYTIMES MEANS
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is almost gone.	Real estate developers and big business interests are worried about who is going to carry out Mayor Bloomberg's policies for the next eight years.
At year’s end there will be nothing more he can do to shape, alter or improve the City of New York.	The Editorial Board has been tasked by Mayor Bloomberg to help elect Christine Quinn.
It’s the end of 12 years of governing under one man’s singular, often inspiring, sometimes maddening priorities, which were as big as a rising ocean and as small as your soda cup.	The Editorial Board is afraid of calling out Mayor Bloomberg for the dictatorial ways that he has run New York City. He wouldn't have made it to three terms, unless Christine Quinn violated the two voter referenda that imposed term limits, something the Editorial Board is trying to cover up.
It was a vision that succeeded brilliantly, but incompletely.	The Editorial Board believes that Mayor Bloomberg should have done more to help the 1%.
But don’t worry, New York.	The Editorial Board doesn't want the Real Estate Board of New York or the Partnership For New York City, our last two groups of major advertisers, to worry.
Mr. Bloomberg’s is hardly the only way to run a city, and the excellent news is that there is a candidate who is ready to carry on at least as well as he did.	The Editorial Board is going to help Mayor Bloomberg anoint his own chosen successor.
She is one of seven Democrats who have been toiling for months in the primary race, standing before voters day and night in a marathon of civic engagement.	The Editorial Board believes that even through Christine Quinn has been in public office for 15 years, she has had to hurry up and do her "wawk and tawk" tour to try to introduce herself to the taxpayers paying for her political slush fund.
A common complaint is that this year’s candidates look small, like dots on the slopes of Mount Bloomberg.	The Editorial Board thinks that even though the crop of candidates are not billionaires, if we have to do with peons, we can accept Christine Quinn, because she's proven to have sold her soul to big business interests, which is the only thing that the Editorial Board cares about, frankly.
But that isn’t fair; all but a few are solid public servants running substantive campaigns.	The Editorial Board has to give lip service to the other candidates, so voters could fool themselves into thinking the editors might possibly consider a candidate other than Mayor Bloomberg's heir apparent.
Though the race was crashed, and distracted for a few irritating weeks, by the unqualified Anthony Weiner, it has since sobered up, and voters are paying attention.	The Editorial Board did its best to keep focusing on Anthony Weiner in a negative light, so that the editors could dispatch him as quickly as possible, so that the editors could focus on fluffing Christine Quinn's sagging campaign.
It is clear by now — and last Wednesday’s debate made it even clearer — that the best in the group is Christine Quinn.	The Editorial Board is trying to make this hard sell of Christine Quinn, so we will go to any lengths to push her campaign on voters.
Ms. Quinn, the City Council speaker, offers the judgment and record of achievement anyone should want in a mayor.	The Editorial Board believes that Christine Quinn has a corrupt enough record that she will nicely fit into the broken political system.
Two opponents — Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, and William Thompson Jr., former comptroller — offer powerful arguments on their own behalf.	The Editorial Board wants to give these two fools more lip service, yadda-yadda-yadda.
But Ms. Quinn inspires the most confidence that she would be the right mayor for the inevitable times when hope and idealism collide with the challenge of getting something done.	The Editorial Board believes that Christine Quinn will be a perfect puppet to her REBNY and PFNYC masters.
Ms. Quinn has been an impressive leader since her days as a neighborhood advocate and her early years on the City Council.	The Editorial Board believes that Christine Quinn has fully sold out and betrayed her activism roots by now. She's gotten that shit out of her system, and she is a complete "Yes Woman" to her campaign contributors and special interests.
We endorsed her for the Council in 1999 as someone “who can both work within the system and criticize it when necessary” — a judgment she has validated many times since.	The Editorial Board analyses this as meaning that Christine Quinn will do what she is told by big business, and she will continue to undermine democracy and shred the social safety net when instructed.
She has shepherded through important laws protecting New Yorkers’ health, safety and civil rights, including measures banning public smoking, protecting tenants and small businesses, and battling slumlords.	The Editorial Board wants to remind big business interests that Christine Quinn has a record of doing what Mayor Bloomberg told her to do.
She sponsored the sweeping 2007 legislation that made the city’s exemplary campaign-finance laws even stronger.	The Editorial Board is only telling you a half-truth here, because Christine Quinn also weakened campaign finance laws this very year to benefit outside groups being able to spend unlimited amounts of money to further corrupt political campaigns.
She pushed successfully for a state law making kindergarten mandatory for 5-year-olds — giving thousands of poor and minority children a better start on their educations.	The Editorial Board likes it when Christine Quinn focuses her campaign on childish issues, because that helps voters forget her betrayals on term limits and her corrupt record with slush funds.
As speaker, Ms. Quinn has been a forceful counterpart to Mr. Bloomberg, and has turned the Council from a collection of rambunctious, ill-directed egos into a forceful and effective legislative body.	The Editorial Board believes that Christine Quinn subjugated herself to Mayor Bloomberg, and she used her slush funds to reward and punish her political allies and enemies like a good political boss should do.
In wrestling with budgets she has shown restraint that runs counter to lesser political instincts.	The Editorial Board is most impressed that Christine Quinn was able to focus on a political agenda that favoured the 1%, even when it meant driving up poverty and homelessness in New York City during the Bloomberg-Quinn administration.
She fought, for example, for a Bloomberg plan to keep a year’s surplus as a rainy-day fund.	The Editorial Board liked that Christine Quinn didn't use surplus funds to fight poverty or homelessness.
There was fierce opposition from Council members who wanted to spend the money.	The Editorial Board congratulates Christine Quinn turned her back on the needy, especially LGBT homeless youth, which is not an easy thing to do, given her identity. Let's give her some credit for that !
Ms. Quinn was right, and the city had a cushion when the recession hit.	The Editorial Board is impressed that Christine Quinn found ways to prevent tax hikes on the 1%.
Mr. Bloomberg has raised expectations that hard decisions should be made on the merits — that the city needs a mayor who is willing to say no.	The Editorial Board is endorsing Christine Quinn in part because Mayor Bloomberg told us to, and plus we may need to be bought out by Mayor Bloomberg if the newspaper business keeps losing money.
More than with the other candidates, that description fits Ms. Quinn.	The Editorial Board believes that Christine Quinn is the most corrupt candidate, and the extremes that she will go to embrace corruption is why Mayor Bloomberg respects her so much, that's what he told the Editorial Board during our back room meeting.
As an early leader in the campaign, with a target on her back, she has faced anger and derision without wavering.	The Editorial Board has tried to keep extending political cover to Christine Quinn, so that she wouldn't suffer such a steep drop in the polls.
We admire her staunch support for the city’s solid-waste management plan, which is good for the whole city but bitterly opposed in some neighborhoods.	The Editorial Board picked this lousy issue to focus on, because the editors didn't want to touch the slush fund scandal.
She has been willing to challenge the mayor’s misjudgment and insensitivity, as when he tried to require single adults to prove their homelessness before they were allowed to use city shelters.	The Editorial Board mentions the only thing Christine Quinn has done to address a small part of the homeless problem, so that the editors could keep running the façade of a "liberal newspaper."
Mr. de Blasio has been the most forceful and eloquent of the Democrats in arguing that New York needs to reset its priorities in favor of the middle class, the struggling and the poor.	The there is no way that the Editorial Board could ever support a candidate that wants to help the poor.
His stature has grown as his message has taken root — voters leery of stark and growing inequalities have embraced his message of “two cities.”	The Editorial Board endorsed Christine Quinn so that we could shift the campaign conversation to be about identity politics, not about income inequality.
He has ennobled the campaign conversation by insisting, correctly, that expanding early education is vital to securing the city’s future.	The Editorial Board picked early education as an issue for Mr. de Blasio, because that's an issue that provides the editors with some political cover in the Christine Quinn endorsement.
And yet, Mr. de Blasio’s most ambitious plans — like a powerful new state-city partnership to make forever-failing city hospitals financially viable, or to pay for universal prekindergarten and after-school programs through a new tax on the richest New Yorkers — need support in the State Capitol, and look like legislative long shots.	The Editorial Board has brought back Anemona Hartocollis to continue to write shoddy and entirely biased reporting to undermine Mr. de Blasio's platform on saving community hospitals.
Once a Mayor de Blasio saw his boldest ideas smashed on the rocks of Albany, then what?	The Editorial Board was told by Mayor Bloomberg that he would pull strings with the state GOP politicians up in Albany to undermine any candidate other than Christine Quinn.
Mr. Thompson, meanwhile, who nearly defeated Mr. Bloomberg four years ago, has run a thoughtful campaign grounded on the insights he gained in important elective and appointed posts in New York City.	The Editorial Board can't take Bill Thompson seriously. His wife has taken millions in charitable donations from Mayor Bloomberg. There's no way that the Thompson family isn't already indebted to Mayor Bloomberg, even the editors would figure out this much.
A former president of the old Board of Education, Mr. Thompson argues that he is the best candidate to fix the city schools, but his close ties to the United Federation of Teachers, not always a friend of needed reforms, give us pause.	The Editorial Board was told by Mayor Bloomberg that the next item on our political agenda is to bust up the teachers' union.
The teachers’ union is one of the municipal unions itching for retroactive pay raises in contracts that expired under Mr. Bloomberg and need renegotiating.	The Editorial Board is going to start a campaign to deny the teachers' union any pay raise.
For all the growing testiness of the campaign, the Democrats share much common ground.	The Editorial Board believes that enough real estate and big business campaign donations have steered the Democratic candidates into adopting campaign platforms that embrace an ideology of neoliberalism.
All agree on equality, opportunity and fairness.	The Editorial Board doesn't give a shit about equality, opportunity and faireness -- except as it would apply to our dwindling list of advertisers.
They concede that the best of the Bloomberg years — the economic diversification and growth, the astounding drop in crime, the transit innovations, the greener and cleaner public spaces, and big plans for the future — must be preserved.	The Editorial Board wants a mayoral candidate that will continue Mayor Bloomberg's policies of gentrification, stop and frisk discrimination, higher transit fares for commuters, the sale of more parks for sports stadiums, and more zone-busting real estate development.
And they agree that the worst must be corrected — starting with the Police Department’s unconstitutional use of stop-and-frisk, which has abused and humiliated hundreds of thousands of innocent New Yorkers.	The Editorial Board believes that stop and frisk should be ended in the outer boroughs, but its use should continue in Manhattan, perhaps even increased.
Ms. Quinn has no specific plan to require the richest New Yorkers to pay more in taxes in service of important civic goals (she says she will raise taxes as a last resort), but neither has she made a long list of unrealistic promises.	The Editorial Board is happy to see that Christine Quinn will keep sparing the 1% from having to pay their fair share, and, even better, Christine Quinn isn't making any promises to the poor or working classes of New York City. If low-income New Yorkers can't afford to live in New York City, they can always move to New Jersey.
The biggest challenge has not been talked about much — next year the new mayor will have to confront a budget crisis with no money to spare and all those expired municipal contracts to settle.	The Editorial Board is salivating at the opportunity that Christine Quinn will have to bust up a few municipal unions.
The mayor we will need then will not be the police reformer or education visionary, but a skilled and realistic negotiator.	The Editorial Board doesn't want Christine Quinn to reform the police department. As stated, the editors prefer to continue stop and frisk discrimination and police brutality as a way to drive out undesireables from the five boroughs, or from Manhattan, at least.
Some positions Ms. Quinn has supported are unwise or objectionable.	The Editorial Board is thrilled that Christine Quinn so readily adopted neoliberal and racist policies without complaint.
She has been too strong in supporting Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the architect and stoutest defender of stop-and-frisk.	The Editorial Board expects that Christine Quinn will expand the use of stop-and-frisk.
She has supported, too blindly, Mr. Kelly’s practice of spying on Muslims at prayer, a similar false choice of public safety over the Constitution.	The Editorial Board finds this kind of discrimination excusable, and notice how the editors didn't mention how the NYPD also menaces people of color and LGBTQ and gender non-conforming New Yorkers. Basically, the editors don't care about civil rights and civil liberties violations.
She can become mumbly when talking about things that the real estate industry opposes, like changing zoning laws to require construction of affordable apartments.	The Editorial Board likes that Christine Quinn won't bite the hand that feeds her.
She has a reputation for shouting, but has shown a capacity to listen, and to be persuaded to change her mind — attributes we will count on seeing more of if she is elected.	The Editorial Board is already receiving estimates and bids for the installation of sound proofing in Gracie Mansion.
We had already made up our own minds in favor of Ms. Quinn, but the Wednesday debate would have clinched it anyway.	For years, the Editorial Board has been instructing reporters to write their articles from a point of view of bias that fluff's Christine Quinn's image and her campaign.
Candidates were asked what legacy they wanted to leave after two terms.	The Editorial Board has arranged it for fix to be in so that Christine Quinn can serve two terms as mayor.
“More people in the middle class,” Ms. Quinn said.	The Editorial Board helped Christine Quinn with this lip service.
It was a perfect answer, and she could have left it there.	The Editorial Board told Christine Quinn to shut her mouth and not ruin her interview with the editors.
But, Quinn being Quinn, she threw in supporting details.	But being the big mouth that she is, Christine Quinn went on tawking and tawkig and tasking, so much so that many editors put on their earphones and started listening to the latest Lady Gaga song on their iPhones.
She wants 40,000 more apartments the middle class can afford to live in.	The Editorial Board did hear that Christine Quinn has a plan to help funnel tax breaks and low-cost loans to developers, so that taxpayers could subsidize real estate profits to some of her campaign donors.
She wants to repair crumbling public housing, providing “quality conditions” for 600,000 people.	The Editorial Board promised to help support Christine Quinn carry out Mayor Bloomberg's plan to allow the development of luxury high rises on the last little bit of open space in NYCHA housing projects.
She wants to make the school day longer and replace textbooks with electronic tablets.	The Editorial Board also liked what it heard when Christine Quinn said that she wants to outsource teachers to a series of computer learning modules in 45 minute segments.
At the buzzer, she threw in: make the city “climate-change ready.”	The Editorial Board is looking forward to finding out how Christine Quinn has funnel more tax dollars to real estate developers that keep wanting to build along the rivers and beaches of the five boroughs. The editors view this as a risky proposition, but Christine Quinn seems to be obsessed with making more and more back room deals with real estate developers. The editors want to see how much she can get away with.
A lot of good ideas that, in Ms. Quinn’s case, add up to an achievable vision, and one we would be glad to see come to pass.	The Editorial Board is going to help Christine Quinn win by running more fluff pieces about her new luxury condo, her week-end home, her cooking skills, her favourite café, and her love of animals.