Rivalry between Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador? I don’t think so.

Ever since Lance Armstrong announced his return to professional cycling, speculation has increased about the potential rivalry between Armstrong and Alberto Contador. I don’t profess to hold any goblets of truth here, so at best this post is just another drop in the speculation bucket.

Let me first get this out of the way. Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador are world class cyclists and champions in their own rights. They both have egos that have for better or for worse made them the champions they are today and both can climb mountains on their roadbikes at speeds and distances that 99% of mortals can’t.

What has made this interesting, of course, is that both of these riders are on the same team — Astana — during the 2009 Tour De France.  The first four stages of this year’s race have caused many pundits to believe that Armstrong is positioning himself ahead of Contador — the team leader — in some strange quest to “steal” the yellow jersey from Contador.

Of course, memories of the rivalry between the elder Hinault and young Le Mond come immediately to mind, although in the Armstrong/Contador debate, Hinault is Contador and Le Mond is Armstrong.  But nothing could be farther from the truth.

Anyone who has followed the Tour De France at all for the last ten years knows that without question, the race is won and lost primarily in the mountains (in the last few years, it appears the race was won and lost with injections of EPO and blood doping). In that regard, the 19 or so second gap between Armstrong and Contador at this point is, as far as the final results are concerned, insignificant. The placings at this point when it comes to GC mean, and particularly to podium spots, absolutely nothing. 

Armstrong is no fool. He has come here to win, but perhaps not in the way he has done so in the past.

Armstrong is a brilliant tactician. As we have seen in the past, Armstrong will do whatever it takes to win, from weighing everything he put into his mouth to feigning fatigue back in 2001 when Ullrich was his main rival.  Put another way, nothing is by accident when it comes to either Armstrong’s preparation for Le Tour or his cycling conduct during Le Tour. 

I think Armstrong is purposely distracting attention away from Contador, which ultimately benefits Contador. This will be hard to swallow for Armstrong fans, but Contador is the strongest rider out there right now on the Astana team.  Armstrong is making it appear to other teams that he is the strongest rider out there and has aspirations to win.

Cycling, of course, is a team sport, and imagine how these perceptions completely mess up tactics for the other teams in countering Astana.  Armstrong can ride strong now, because frankly its not the mountains. If Armstrong and Astana wanted to be predictable, they’d make Armstrong ride with Contador and Levi, protecting them as they made their way to the mountains. But by displaying attack mode at this stage, teams are going to change their tactics, forcing, for example, GC riders on other teams to expend energy to bring back Armstrong . . .when frankly, Armstrong is not a contender for the number 1 spot. Even if teams know this, they have to have their top guys expend the energy, because you just can’t ever count out a 7 time champion. And that very fact benefits Astana and, particularly, Contador. 

It’s actually quite brilliant on Astana’s part.  This does not mean Contador has an easy ticket to Paris, but it will be made easier by Armstrong’s sacrifice and distraction.

In the end, I think Armstrong will receive more credit in the history books for supporting Contador in his quest for his second Tour win, than trying to win himself and coming up short.

The Coup in Honduras: A Fallacy of Legal Reasoning

Octavio Sanchez, a lawyer and the  former presidential adviser (2002-2005) and minister of culture (2005-2006) of Honduras has apparently been chosen by the Honduran Congress as its head constitutional scholar.  In that capacity, he has been assigned to provide thorough legal reasons of why it is simply “nonsense” for anyone or any country to call, label, or suggest that the recent events in Honduras amounts to a ”coup.”  Apparently, Mr. Sanchez came highly recommended by Iraq’s former information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, also known as Baghdad Bob and Comical Ali.

Before I delve into Mr. Sanchez’s arguments, let’s first look at the definition of a coup.  According to wikipedia, a coup is the “unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military.”  According to dictionary.com, a coup is “a sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.”

With that in mind, let’s look at Mr. Sanchez’s arguments about the absurdity of calling the recent events in Honduras a coup (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html):

1) In 1982, Honduras adopted a new Constitution that enabled an “orderly return” to democracy;

2) “Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who through his own actions stripped himself of the presidency”;

3) “When Zelaya published [a] decree to initiate an ‘opinion poll’ about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term.  His actions showed intent . . .and triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.”  Assemblies are convened to write new constitutions.

4) “Article 239 states that ‘no citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be president or vice president.”  Thus, anyone who “violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”  “Immediately” means instantly, as in “no trial required” or no “impeachment needed.”

5) Zelaya was detained in Costa Rica because “Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office.  With him inside the country, that would have been impossible.”

6) “We have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men.  From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.”

Sanchez’s own ‘legal’ arguments, particularly the last one, reveal without any interpretation fallicious reasoning.  In that regard, Sanchez would have fit in nicely as an attorney in the former Bush administration. 

Nonetheless, to begin, and as Sanchez points out, Honduran law clearly allows for a constitutional rewrite, but of course the power to do that does not rest with the president.  Instead, an assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by Congress.  Further, and in addition to Article 239 (which was included in the 1982 constitution to essentially bar dictators from the past from running again), Article 374 bars any amendments about the length of a presidential term, among other issues.  Under these circumstances, even if a vote was taken pursuant to Zelaya’s “intention,” it would have had no legal weight whatsoever.

One way to look at it is with this legal analogy.  Just say you purchased a gun legally from the store.  Your intention was to murder to death John Smith.  You go to his office and shoot him in the back of the head.  Little did you know, John Smith had already died of natural causes 2 hours before you shot him.  Modern legal reasoning establishes without question that you are not guilty of murder or attempted murder.  Similarly, the Honduran constitution is so rigid (just take a look, for instance, at Article 42, along with Article 239 and Article 374) that any actions by Zelaya as it related to this “Constitutional Assembly” were meaningless and would be afforded no weight.  It was simply impossible, legally and constitutionally, to do what Zelaya had apparently wanted to do (or at least what the Congress thought Zelaya was going to do) with this “Constitutional Assembly.”

But to Sanchez, it doesn’t matter whether something is legally or constitutionally impossible.  What matters is that the letter of the constitution was violated, particularly Article 239 — without taking into consideration at all the intent behind the inclusion of Article 239:  to prevent dictators from running for office.  Back before 1982, Honduras, as with other Latin American countries, had serious dictator problems.

In any event, even if one agrees that Zelaya’s actions were per se unconstitutional, nothing justifies his forcible removal from Honduras to Costa Rica.  According to Sanchez, his exile was necessary because “Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office,” and with Zelaya in Honduras, “that would have been impossible.”  But with this point particularly, Sanchez neglects to mention anything about the constitution and instead seems to obtain these points out of thin air.  So, with that in mind, I decided to quote some parts of the Honduran constitution:

Article 69: “A persons liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through process of law.”

Article 71: “No person can be arrested nor kept incommunicado for more than 24 hours without being placed before a competent authority to be judged. Judicial detention during an investigation must not exceed six consecutive days from the moment that the same is ordered.”

Article 81: “All persons have the right to circulate freely, leave, enter, and remain in national territory. No one can be obligated to change home or residence except in special cases and with those requirements that the Law establishes.”

Wow.  What about these articles, Mr. Sanchez?  I guess they only apply to some people and not others.  At least to me, such a circumstance certainly doesn’t resonate with a country that adheres to the rule of law.

Chris Behnke: A Twist to his photograph of Obama shirtless

Here’s a brief story about Chris Behnke, a notable paparazzo:

I’m sure most of you have read this story of the photographer who took a photo of Obama shirtless in Hawaii.  There was all this talk of how close photographer Chris Behnke was able to get to take the photo — approximately 200 yards (I can only wonder if the secret service detail has been fired).  I can only imagine how much money Behnke scored for the shot.  But there’s another interesting twist that isn’t reported.

Chris Behnke is a Punahou graduate, class of 1994.  As you may recall, Obama is also a graduate of Punahou, albeit it much earlier.  Coincidence?  Of course not, but it shows at least a Hawaii connection — however minimal — between Behnke and Obama.

Chris Behnke graduated from Punahou High School in 1994.  He then graduated from Loyola Maramount in 1998, with a degree in film production.   He currently lives in Los Angeles, California.  His father is notable stock broker Richard Behnke, who runs Abel-Behnke Corporation, in Hawaii.

 

The Loony Bin is Dismissed

The Loony Bin is Dismissed

Andy Martin v. Linda Lingle, et. al.

In the last few weeks, as you may have read, Andy Martin filed a “lawsuit” against the Governor of Hawaii and others, alleging that he and the rest of the U-nited States of America had the right to obtain a copy of Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.  As expected, on October 22, 2008, the Supreme Court of Hawaii denied this claim.  There are so many different explanations of the memorandum decision that I thought I would just add it here so you can interpret it for yourself.

ORDER  Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Andy Martin and the papers in support, it appears that the issuance by the Department of Health of a certified copy of a vital statistics record to petitioner was not mandatory, but involved the exercise of discretion and judgment. See HRS § 338-18(b) (Supp. 2007) (The department shall disclose vital statistics records to those persons enumerated in HRS § 338-18(b)(1) through (13); otherwise, “[t]he department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.”).

Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief against the respondent public officials. See In Re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai’i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available.); Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawai’i 273, 274 n. 3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994) (”A duty is ministerial where the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion and judgment.”).

It further appears that the Hawai’i Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai’i do not provide petitioner with a clear and indisputable right to a telephonic hearing or an expedited hearing in Civil No. 08-1-2147. Scheduling a hearing for November 7, 2008 and requiring petitioner to personally appear at the hearing was within the discretion of the respondent judge and was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief against the respondent judge. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai’i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act.). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, October 22, 2008.

Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et. al.

Andy Martin’s friend, Philip J. Berg, filed a claim against Barack Obama and others, claiming a whole litany of things of why Obama is not eligible to run for president as well as how Barack and the DNC were conspiring together to violate federal law.  On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Berg’s claim in its entirety.  Berg put everything and the kitchen sink into his complaint, so as you might imagine, the decision was long, as it addressed each of Berg’s several points separately.  It reserved about a paragraph or so for each of Berg’s “complaints.”  For the purposes of brevity, I’ve attached the relevant portion of the decision that pretty much sums it all up.  Berg’s claim was denied for two reasons:  1) Berg did not have standing to file a lawsuit and 2) even if Berg did have standing, he failed to state a claim.

A. Lack of Jurisdiction — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a court must grant a motion to dismiss if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The party asserting that jurisdiction is proper bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994); Packard v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993). A challenge to jurisdiction may be either factual or facial. See CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 145 (3d Cir. 2008)(citing 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350, at 147-55 (3d ed. 2004)). Where the challenge is facial, as Obama and the DNC’s is here, courts must take the well-pleaded facts of the complaint as true and must draw all inferences in a manner most favorable to the plaintiff, as with ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977).

B. Failure to State a Claim — When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), this Court must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002). However, “a court need not credit a complaint’s ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions’ when deciding a motion to dismiss.” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).

I guess it’s now back to the drawing board for both Andy Martin and Philp J. Berg.  I can’t wait to see what they happen to come up with next.

EXCLUSIVE: Another Supreme Court Filing DROPS against Barack Obama

EXCLUSIVE: Here’s the most recent Supreme Court Filing against Barack Obama.  It keeps PILING UP against Barack Obama.  He’s in a load of trouble now.  I think it’s all over for him.  The internet powerhouses have truly done it this time with another great example of their legal minds.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI’I
SUPREME COURT DOCKET NUMBER: CONFIDENTIAL

CHRISTOPHER JONES,
Petitioner,
HON. LINDA LINGLE, Governor; DEREK JETER, NY Yankees
HON. SARAH PALIN, Governor and VP Candidate;
Respondents.

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A BILL OF LADING
INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The question of the authenticity, public availability, and carbon content of the birth certificate of Senator Barack Obama (hereinafter “Senator Barack Obama”) has become a source of increasing embarrassment for me, myself, and especially I. Although Sena”tor” Barack Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his own web site, and despite the fact that it has been corroborated to be a true short form birth certificate by the Hawai’i Department of Health, Senator Barack Obama still refuses to acknowledge that the birth certificate is fake, despite the fact that there is not even an iota of proof that it is, in fact fake. Accordingly, it is clear now – and do not ask how I know this because, let’s just say, I know this – that he was, in fact, born in Kenya, much less born at all.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. The Petitioner
Petitioner Christopher Jones has been writing about Obama for over sixty-three years. Despite the fact that Senator Barack Obama was “purportedly” born in 1961 (a year that, as we all know, was the first “upside down year” and thus does not exist in duality or singularly for that matter), I have been following him for much longer than that. Trust me. I had an eye on him for some time and frankly I can’t trust an uppity intellectual such as Senator Barack Obama, who, according to my sources, is related to Sadam Hussein and is without question the Anti-Christ. I am the author of a book that hasn’t been published yet, “The History of Toilet Paper and the Asses That Loved Them.”

Although I am not a practicing attorney, I did go to law school but my passage to the Bar was steadfastly blocked by so-called “administrators” because, apparently, “they” thought I had some sort of “moderately servere character defect.” Yeah, whatever. We all know everyone who disagrees with me is a just a liberal, socialist, marxist bastard bent on burning the constitution and replacing it with the pig latin version of the Communist Manifesto, which, according to my sources, was written by the Isreali Mossad in 1987 and first drafted by Dr. Seuss in 1783 before he received his MD.

2. Birth certificate
I, along with about seven thousand others, including Santa Claus of all people, have applied for and was denied a copy of Senator Barack Obama’s birth certificate, along with a list of the last twenty things he had eaten from the frozen foods section. This is clearly an issue of national importance, because although we know that Senator Obama is qualified, we just can’t “trust” someone like Obama because, well, we can’t. I don’t think it would be a “safe” choice, particularly with this financial crisis, which was started by marxists such as Alan Greenspan and The Invisible Hand.

RELIEF REQUESTED
The Court should decide that the misapplication, misinterpretation, miscommunication, miscombubulation, and misappropriation of the relevant statue (see Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, a photograph which is attached to this Petition) raises issues of sufficiently massive public and national importance that this Court has no choice but to entertain.

BASIS FOR GRANTING RELIEF
The constitutional issue
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), the Supreme Court of the “United States of America” ruled that when a defendant is interrograted while in custody, the police, prior to that interrogation, must provide certain warnings and, if they don’t, the resulting confession will be suppressed. Similarly, this Court should give me Obama’s original birth certificate as well as the list of the last twenty things he has consumed from the frozen foods section, FORTHWITH.

The procedural issue
There is an anomaly under the procedues of Hawaii law, i.e., to provide someone with no standing to even request such items to get such items, and to provide someone with such items even though the request in the first place is frivolous. Of course, as we all know, legal procedures are simply procedures of the intellectual and we all have seen what has happened when we are too “intellectual” with things. After all, just look at the Constitution. Thus, procedurally, I am asking, and again pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, and it’s companion case, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), that this Court should grant me RELIEF as well as the money to publish my next book, “Obama: The Love of My Life and His Connection to the Crisis in the Suez and the Race to Space (Part 7: Where is the Dog?).”

The substantive issue
There are clearly no substantive issues here.

CONCLUSION
Most respectfully, Petitioner asks this Court to call me as soon as possible. I’ll be hanging out on 73rd Street and Lexington tonight with my friend Lester.

DATED: October 24, 2008
Honolulu, HI
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTOPHER JONES

Obama Born In Kenya? (The real question: What planets are Philip J. Berg, Andy Martin, and Judah Benjamin from?)

In a seemingly last ditch effort to kickstart a dying campaign, lapdogs of McCain/Palin, such as Philip J. Berg, Andy Martin, and Judah Benjamin, have again been pushing the theory that Obama is ineligible to run for president.  In the beginning, the theory of the lapdogs was that Obama was not a “natural born citizen,” because his mother was not old enough to qualify Obama for automatic citzenship.  This “theory” was quickly refuted with proof that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m.  As most people know, Hawaii gained statehood on August 21, 1959.  Thus, as the credible, corroborated, and accurate proof revealed, Obama was born in the United States and was a natural born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized one.

Apparently recognizing the overwhelming evidence, the lapdogs of McCain/Palin, particularly Philip J. Berg, Andy Martin, and Judah Benjamin, decided to change their theory . . . not suprisingly.  Instead of presenting a hyper-technical argument about what it means to be a natural-born citzen – such as the now refuted arguments against McCain’s eligibility (he was born in the Panama Canal Zone) – Berg, Martin, and Benjamin have taken a new approach that shows how desperate the McCain/Palin campaign has become.  The theory is this:  Senator Barack Obama was born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya.  Unfortunately for Berg, Martin, and Benjamin, there is no credible, corroborated, and accurate proof of this at all.  Not an iota, unless you include the unnamed “sources” that they claim to have.  Of course, they have been unnamed for some time now, probably because they don’t exist and, even if they did, their information can neither be corroborated or deemed credible.  For McCain supporters, I don’t know whether it’s the guilt that is driving supporters to believe what is essentially bull at its highest and purest level.

Judah Benjamin, who I take it is one of the “scholars” of this Barack-isn’t-a-natural-born-citizen-theory, has used a “clever” way of making an argument, similar to the technique Palin used during the debates when the moderator asked her to talk about the economy and Palin said, “I would like to talk about energy policy.”  Yeah, okay.  Do you think we’re that stupid?  Benjamin spends a whole article assuming — without pointing to any proof — of how Barack and all the democracts violated all these laws IF Barack, in fact, was born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya.  Through the article, the “if” slowly disappears and then, towards the end of the article, it becomes a fact (for example: “alternatively, his UK and Colonies Birth Certificate issued in Mombasa in August 1961 could be [a] fraudulent and Illegal Document” . . . what birth certificate issued in Mombasa???) 

Here’s an example of Mr. Benjamin’s, err, thorough reasoning:

Unfortunately for [Barack Obama], his actions in regard to the Admission of his UK & Colonies and Kenyan Citzenships and his Indonesian Citizenship by Adoption, his frequent apparent Breaches of the Logan Act, his probable breaches of the Hobbs Act, the Hatch Act, USC Title 18 Part One Chapter 63 Section 1346 and the RICO statute make this defense wholly untenable, especially when one considers the fact that [Barack Obama] holds a JD from Harvard Law.

Interesting.  Too bad none of this actually makes a lick of sense.  Mr. Benjamin then goes on to talk about a resolution in April 2008 stating that McCain is eligible to be president.  The resolution, which was non-binding, stated, “There is no evidence of the intention of the framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s president.”  Mr. Benjamin, apparently either because he doesn’t know how to read or just wants to avoid the whole purpose of the resolution, finds ominous that Barack Obama supported a clause within the resolution that stated, “Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President.”  Mr. Benjamin, in his “enlightenment,” argues that this is the damning piece of evidence, the smoky gun behind the grassy knoll, that Obama was trying “to create a blanket resolution covering all foregin born candidates.”  Interesting, but like most of Mr. Benjamin’s claims, it does not flow from logic.  The whole point of the clause and the resolution here was that McCain, who was not born in the United States, was still a “natural born citizen” despite this fact.

In the end of his article, Mr. Benjamin get’s one thing right when he says, “I do not insist that any of this is true and to me it makes little difference if it is.” 

No kidding.  And to Philip J. Berg:  what happened to you, man?

You can find his article, along with the mysterious Clinton supporters who are now supporting McCain, here.

Bloomberg Gets His Wish: 29 to 22 to extend term limits

Just when you thought that the world was coming back to order again, there is this.  The New York City council voted to extend term limits from two to three.  Forget that New York City voters voted on this very issue, not once, but twice . . . flatly, expressly, and unequivocally rejecting proposals to extend term limits from two to three.  Forget that the main man behind this, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is an uber-billionaire who clearly held sway with the Council — all of whom, of course, now can run for another term. 

Bloomberg’s justification for extending his term limit from two to three had to do solely with the financial crisis.  Of course, let’s forget that Giuliani asked for the same thing after September 11, 2001, via a three month extension, but that was resolutely rejected.  If anything, it shows Giuliani wasn’t the brilliant politician as Bloomberg and his team of hacks are.

Christine C. Quinn, the Speaker and Bloomberg’s lap dog, commented about the extension of term limits in the most Orwellian of ways.  She said, “They should have the right to vote for the current mayor, or a new one, for their current City Council member, or a new one. That is exactly what is at stake today.”

Huh?  That seems to be putting the cart before the horse.  Yeah, sure, with an extension of term limits, voters can now choose to vote for Bloomberg, Person A, or Person B.  But that is not what’s at stake here, Ms. Quinn. 

First, what is at stake here is how an already inept council can destroy the will of the people.  Twice, and I will repeat this, twice, have the voters explicitly rejected by way of referendum any extension of term limits.  But no, apparently that doesn’t matter.  Nonetheless, the council, with the support of Bloomberg and two other billionaires, was able to get this horrific bill on the floor for a vote. . . a vote that everyone knew what the results would be, despite all the speeches by the politicians.

To be sure, as Ms. Quinn and others have pointed out, the people could vote out Bloomberg in the next election, as well as other people on the council who are enjoying the fruits of a third term that the people of the City of New York had previously took from them.  But that completely misses the point.  The point here is an abuse of the democratic process.  Plain and simple.  Just because an inept city council decided to conduct a vote doesn’t somehow bypass the abuse of the process.  There’s no “cancel out” here. 

It is also an abuse of something else that is not talked about as much:  the power of incumbency.  Incumbents, by the very fact of their office, have extraordinary power to get reelected.  Part of their job, by its very nature, includes running for reelection.  Need stats to back that up?  Just look to Congress.   For the House of Representatives, incumbents are winning more than 80 percent of the time.  For the Senate, incumbents are winning more than 75 percent of the time.  I mean, let’s look at Senator Chuck Schumer.  How many times do you see him on tv?  Sure, he’s ”reporting” to the public about what’s going on but he’s also telling people, “Hey, I’m your Senator and vote for me.”  It’s free ad time. 

Term limits recognize how the power of incumbency destroys democracy, i.e., the ability of challengers to lodge a solid and credible campaign.  That’s why it’s not surprising that the voters — twice — rejected an extension of term limts.  Here, Bloomberg’s third term has essentially wiped out the chances of numerous candidates to run for election, not to mention the other “seats” in the other districts.  So, while the voters will have a choice this upcoming election, one must ask what kind of choice is it really.

And, what is particularly bothering is the apparent “emergency” that Bloomberg and by extension, the other assembly persons who are benefitting from this extra term, are using to support their term limit extension.  Yes, Bloomberg is a popular Mayor.  And yes, the financial crisis is, in fact, a crisis.  But to believe that it is such a crisis that Bloomberg and the council have the right to violate the will of the people is just ridiculous and simply overstates Bloomberg’s ability over anyone and everyone to get the job done.  Years from now, what will be the next justification?  There will always be something.  And, frankly, Bloomberg is no FDR.

What happened today was an affront to democracy.  Shame on the council.  Vote them all out.