Looks like more typical liberal politicos disparaging society's wealthy for their success and entrepreneurship. Bloomberg may have governed wrong on social issues, but his approach to promoting capitalism and a competitive marketplace for his city has been a bold and exemplary initiative. I doubt future mayors will surpass his quality for quite a few decades.
Translation: "Rich white dude sperm is very high in nutrients, please may I have some more, my corporate overlords?"
he certainly lined the pockets of the prison/military/LE industry.
Just shut up.
Not really. Feudalism requires at least some reciprocity between serf and lord. These neo-liberals don't think they have any obligations at all.
this piece > NY Times normally
police corruption stories > Daily News normally
It's an immensely satisfying article, yet does nothing to counteract the NY Times continued marketing and support for the "overclass"...
By 'overclass' you mean the people who actually buy their paper?
a wide variety of people actually buy the nytimes, people buy it despite/because the newspaper is about glorifying the purchasing power and policy choices for the "overclass". Read the style, dining and times, or home/garden sections and it's clear, read the weddings section and it's hilariously depressing. the focus in the 'news' is more subtle in how it focuses and defines economic and social policy. however, a wide variety of people read it.
Wait! There are fluffy sections such as home and garden and weddings??? I don't even bother to look at the fluff as I keep my focus on the meat. The NY Times does the meat VERY WELL.
I've just always found it odd that one of the country's richest men can be elected to govern such a broad swath of people. Seems like an obvious conflict of interest.
He spent what, like 230 million of his personal wealth demonizing his opponents? You can't fight that when your opponents have all of Wall Street and their media allies behind you.