Twelve Years of Bloomberg as Mayor: A New Yorker’s Perspective (Part Two)

As I announced last Monday, I will be doing a couple of posts on what it was like to have current presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg as mayor (and particularly justice-related topics from his time as mayor). This is the first of two such posts, as honestly, I have too much material to fit into one post.

This first post will focus on his treatment of other people while he was mayor, particularly his treatment of people of color, Muslims, women, and the poor. Buckle up, because this is going to be rough…

While he has apologized repeatedly for the existence of stop-and-frisk under his police force while he was mayor, I think it’s difficult to talk about his time as mayor without talking about that practice. The practice, which allowed police to stop someone temporarily to search, question, and detain someone, disproportionately targeted people of color. Consider the fact that, in the 2010 United States Census, African Americans made up under 23 percent of the total New York City population[1] but consistently accounted for over half of stops.[2] My family’s experiences match up with these statistics—while my brother, and I, and our white friends, never got stopped-and-frisked, my younger brother heard horror stories of friends of color in middle school (kids who were 11 or 12 years old) getting stopped-and-frisked by the New York Police Department, even though they (like nearly 90% of those stopped at that time) were doing nothing wrong! Mayor Bloomberg may’ve apologized for the practice,[3] but the apology does not undo the damage done to my brother’s friends who were stopped, among many others. The apology does not take away the fact that his police force basically treated black and brown kids like accused criminals.

Nor does the apology undo other racist practices under the Bloomberg administration. It does not undo the fact that Bloomberg’s education policies deepened segregation in New York City schools[4]—something he has not apologized for to my knowledge. He also has not apologized for the fact that his Department of Education created policies that denied educational opportunities to people who were thought to be black, including my brother![5] He has not apologized for the disinvestment in public housing in New York City[6]—relevant because the population of public housing in New York is overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic.[7] And he has not apologized for saying that the end of redlining, “a practice used by banks to discriminate against minority borrowers,” led to the 2008 economic crisis.[8]

People of color weren’t the only people the Bloomberg administration discriminated against. He had and still seems to have an Islamophobic streak, for Bloomberg’s New York Police Department also had extreme levels of surveillance of Muslims.[9] When he repeatedly says that his one regret is stop-and-frisk, it also means that he does not regret the discrimination of Muslims through this surveillance. That’s very telling.

For those of my readers interested in women’s issues and women’s rights, Bloomberg repeatedly struggled with sexism while he was mayor. Here’s an excerpt from an article at The Atlantic, a lot of which includes remarks he made while he was mayor:

There’s more: Bloomberg reportedly saying to a journalist and the journalist’s friend, as he gazed at a woman at a holiday party, “Look at the ass on her.” (He denied having made that comment.) Bloomberg, according to a top aide, seeing attractive women and reflexively remarking, “Nice tits.” Bloomberg, mocking Christine Quinn, the then-speaker of New York’s City Council, for going too long between hair colorings. (“The couple of days a week before I need to get my hair colored,” Quinn once said, “he’ll say, ‘Do you pay a lot to make your hair be two colors? Because now it’s three with the gray.’”) Bloomberg mocking Quinn again, she said, for failing to wear heels at public events. (“I was at a parade with him once and he said, ‘What are those?’ and I said, ‘They’re comfortable,’ and he said, ‘I never want to hear those words out of your mouth again.’”)[10]

The same article I just cited also went into the culture of sexism at his company, and it is no secret that Bloomberg faces numerous allegations of fostering a hostile work environment for women at his company[11] (something Senator Elizabeth Warren exposed in the recent debate). While my piece focuses on what it was like to have him as mayor, I don’t want people to forget about the workplace hostility against many women at Bloomberg, the company.

As for the poor, Mayor Bloomberg advocated for policies that hurt the poor. He argued for a tax on sugary soft drinks, which would have disproportionately affected the poor. He defended the proposed tax, even though he acknowledged that the tax would disproportionately hurt the poor![12] That, along with a lack of investment in public housing (which I previously mentioned) and the increasing unaffordability of the city while he was mayor,[13] show that he was not a friend of the poor.

There is probably even more that I’m missing here, but you probably get the point by now: unless you are white, somewhat wealthy, male, and not Muslim, Mayor Bloomberg was not an advocate for you.

And yet, I have even more injustices to say about Bloomberg as mayor even beyond his treatment of others. To be continued…


[1] https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/planning-level/nyc-population/census2010/t_pl_p3_nyc.pdf

[2] https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data. Also, for those who deny the existence of white privilege, consider the fact that whites make up a third of New York’s population but only about 10% of stops.

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/michael-bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-apology/index.html

[4] https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2019/11/25/michael-bloomberg-is-running-for-president-what-you-should-know-about-the-billionaires-education-record-in-new-york-city/

[5] My brother is white, like me, but the education system in New York thought my brother was black. It’s a long story. Read this old post of mine to view the story: https://blindinjusticeblog.com/2018/04/24/institutional-racism-series-how-it-affected-where-i-went-to-school/

[6] https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/a-marshall-plan-for-nycha

[7] Even though this statistic was from 2017, a few years after Bloomberg left office, from my understanding, these statistics are also a reflection of what the demographics were like when Bloomberg was mayor: https://furmancenter.org/files/NYCHA_Diversity_Brief_Final-04-30-2019.pdf

[8] https://apnews.com/8cbb1fafbb4faf01e8d9571363979501

[9] https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/us/new-york-muslim-surveillance/index.html

[10] https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/mike-bloomberg-comments-women-metoo/570448/

[11] https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/mike-bloomberg-comments-women-metoo/570448/

[12]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/05/michael_bloomberg_tax_the_poor_for_their_own_good_141890.html

[13] https://www.wnyc.org/story/304422-new-york-remade-city-more-desirable-ever-also-too-expensive-many/

Twelve Years of Bloomberg as Mayor: A New Yorker's Perspective (Part One)

As I said in my recent “blog news” post, I hope to focus on issues that are either misunderstood or “under the radar” during this election season. 

One of those “under the radar” issues is the mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg in New York City, especially since he is viewed as the “alternate to Bernie” (for those who are scared of Bernie Sanders). And, considering the fact that I lived in New York for nearly his entire tenure as mayor (with the exception of my freshman year and part of my sophomore year at college), I feel that I have something to offer on this under-the-radar issue. I feel it’s under the radar because, while certain elements of his past, such as stop-and-frisk, have been highlighted, many other elements of his time as mayor seem not to be discussed as much as they should be.

Some people may ask why these elements should be highlighted. After all, his tenure as mayor ended over six years ago. It’s relevant for three major reasons:

  1. Since a mayor is a governmental executive, his time as mayor can give insights as to what sort of governmental executive he would be as President of the United States.
  2. Many of the issues he faced as mayor, ranging from environmental issues to racism, are issues the country is grappling with right now.
  3. Part of what he is running on, at least in his ads, is focused on his track record as mayor.

Since his record as mayor is relevant to the current presidential campaign, I will do a couple of blog posts on that over the next week: a post next Thursday (different from my usual schedule as I tend not to post new content except for blog news on a Thursday) and a post next Monday. This schedule is designed so that people are well-informed about Mayor Bloomberg before Super Tuesday on Tuesday, March 3rd. The posts will be relevant to various topics of justice, and will particularly focus on the wide range of injustices that happened while he was mayor (wider than what the mainstream media is even covering). Note that none of the injustices will go much outside the purview of him as a mayor; despite his record as a businessman being well-deserving of scrutiny, I will not focus on that aspect of him in my next two posts.

I am hoping that my mini-series (which is NOT the series that is in the works, according to a recent blog post I wrote—this is actually a bit of an impromptu series) can raise awareness of how Bloomberg was and what he stood/stands for, from a New Yorker’s perspective. Albeit, a perspective of a New Yorker who did not face the brutal consequences of his policies that, say, my Muslim friends experienced. But a New Yorker nevertheless.

Early 2020 Blog News

Since my previous “blog news” post in late 2019, I’ve had some further developments related to the blog and blogging in general, as well as some new ideas for the blog. So, with that being said, here are a few pieces of blog news and ideas:

I’ve had readers ask me how (if at all) I will address the 2020 United States presidential election. The answer to that question is that I will look to address major issues relevant to the election that are either misunderstood or not talked about as much as they should be.

In a way, my recent post talking about the 1994 crime bill in some detail offers a sneak peek of what I plan to do on here this year for the election. By focusing on issues that are either misunderstood or “under the radar,” I hope that this little space on the internet can offer a fresh and constructive take on issues that will be discussed this year.

I will start a new blog series very soon.

As to what the series will be on, I have a couple of ideas I want to pursue at some point, and one in particular I’m leaning towards starting. You will find out soon, though!

I had a guest post published on another blog! My post, which was on why I think the United States is more into football/soccer than many people realize, was published on Renard’s World.

Obviously I’m biased because I wrote the post, but I hope some of you check out my post (which you can find here), especially if you want to see the side of me that is a soccer/football fan. I also highly recommend that readers check out the blog that I got this post published on, Renard’s World. While the blog really is on anything that tickles the fancy of the blogger (to use the words of the blog’s main author, Renard), his blog is a must-follow for anyone who wants to learn more about blogging.

Speaking of guest posts, people can feel free to reach out to me if they’d like me to do a guest post on their blog!

I’m happy to have a guest post on another blog about any of the types of topics I blog on at Blind Injustice (ableism, ageism, economic justice, immigrants, LGBTQ+ issues, mental health, etc.), faith/Christianity, as well as select sports topics (especially if it’s about soccer/football, NASCAR, or baseball). All you need to do is reach out to me on my blog or at blindinjustice2017@gmail.com. I offer only three conditions: that you’re okay with my sharing your blog (like I’m sharing Renard’s blog above), that you’re patient with me if I end up with a backlog of people who want me to write guest posts for them, and that if you want me to blog for you more than a couple times a year, you pay me (not that I need the money, but it’s just that I will only spend significant time on a blog that’s not mine if I get some sort of financial compensation for it).[1] If you’re worried about remembering all of this, fear not—I will add a “collaborate with me” page on the blog in the coming days.

For now, that’s pretty much it. I’ll only have a few weeks within the next several months (the weeks of Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day) when I won’t publish a new post on a Monday, so you will read more from me in the coming months!


[1] If you want me to post on your blog multiple times a year and pay me for it, my rate will be 10 cents an hour to start. So, while I’m not free, I’m also not that expensive.

Addressing the “Good for Your Age” Compliment

“You’re smart, for being a young person.”

“You look good for your age.”

“You are athletic for your age.”

The “good for your age” compliments seem nice and flattering at first. But actually, these “compliments” are a backhanded knock on people your age.

For people who think that I’m being too sensitive, consider the implications of the compliments I expressed at the beginning of my piece:

  • “You’re smart, for being such a young person.” Implication: Young people are usually not that smart.
  • “You look good for your age.” Implication: People your age usually don’t look “good” (whatever good is).
  • “You are athletic for your age.” Implication: People your age aren’t athletic. By the way, I’ve known of people over the age of 100 to run marathons, so people can be athletic at any age.[1]

In summary, these compliments of being “good for your age” are indirectly critical of others of a particular age in ways that are ageist. It’s ageist because people (or groups of people) are judged solely on the basis of the age they are or the age they look.

Instead of making such ageist comments, we can just avoid the age-based compliments. Instead of saying that someone is smart for their age, say that the person is smart. Instead of saying someone looks good for their age, say that the person looks good. Instead of saying that someone is athletic for their age, say that someone is athletic. Ultimately, your traits need not be based on age because, really, age is just a number.

Please note that I will not publish a post next Monday because it will be Presidents’ Day.


[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/01/568665002/at-age-101-shes-a-world-champ-runner

What is the 1994 Crime Bill, and Why is it So Controversial?

Many of the readers who have listened to some of the debates between candidates for President of the United States may be aware of a line of attack often used against former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders: “You voted for the 1994 crime bill.”

It’s a line used when the candidates on stage, all of whom are trying to become the presidential nominee from the Democratic Party, are trying to distinguish themselves from Senator Sanders and former Vice President Biden on the issue of criminal justice. It is especially important for other candidates to distinguish themselves from those two candidates because Senator Sanders and former Vice President Biden are viewed as frontrunners for the Democratic Party nomination. It is also a line that the other candidates use to try and convince their voters that they, not Senator Sanders or former Vice President Biden, should be trusted on the issue of criminal justice.

Which begs the question: What is the 1994 crime bill, and why is it so controversial? With the first caucus of the election year happening in Iowa tonight, answers to these questions are important.

The tricky thing about summarizing the 1994 crime bill is that the piece of legislation tried to address many issues, ranging from funding for police to gun control to domestic violence. The short story is that the 1994 crime bill, whose proper name is actually the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was supposed to focus on enforcement of and prevention of violent crimes, though it did some things beyond that scope (a couple of which I will talk about later in this post). For a detailed summary of the 1994 crime bill, view the bill’s summary here.

As one might expect with a bill trying to deal with a wide range of issues, the reality of how “good” or “bad” it was is actually more complicated than many candidates might make it out to be.

In spite of that fact, there are, undoubtedly, parts of the bill that should make one question Biden and Sanders on criminal justice (since they both supported the act and Biden helped write it[1]). For example:

  • The bill “stripped all Pell Grant funding for college education for prisoners.”[2] This sort of action counters the narrative among many (especially on the left) that incarceration should have a restorative element, that it should not just be about punishing someone for their actions, but that they also can be able to work towards being productive contributors to society when/if they leave prison.
  • The bill provided $6 billion (in 1994 dollars) in funding “for prevention programs which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers”[3]—money that was, from all accounts, spent on punitive measures for the most part. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea to let people with experience in law enforcement be able to have a say in how to prevent violent crime. The problem? As it turned out, that money was predominantly used for punitive measures[4]—measures that would go against the ideal among many Democrats that there should be a restorative element to time in prison.
  • The 1994 crime bill is blamed for being a factor in a drastic increase in incarceration in the United States.[5] The extent to which the current mass incarceration issues should be attributed to the 1994 crime bill is up for debate, especially since the increase in mass incarceration was already beginning to happen, but there seems to be significant agreement from criminal justice scholars that the bill made this problem worse.

However, there were also some aspects of the 1994 crime bill that are either popular with progressives or popular on a bipartisan basis. Three of those aspects are as follows:

  • There was considerable gun control in the 1994 crime bill. According to the bill’s summary, the bill, “Bans the manufacture of 19 military-style assault weapons, assault weapons with specific combat features, “copy-cat” models, and certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds.”[6] While one could debate the effectiveness of this form of gun control, the fact is that gun control tends to be a major aspect of most candidates’ platforms on the Democratic side, and that therefore the 1994 crime bill did much of what a lot of Democrats want on guns (including Democrats critical of Biden and Sanders for their support of the 1994 crime bill).
  • One of the most popular aspects of the 1994 crime bill was the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA, which was within the 1994 crime bill, added measures to better hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable.[7] For example, before the 1994 crime bill, “domestic abusers could cross state lines to avoid prosecution for beating their spouses, as law enforcement was not to required to listen to orders of protection filed in other states” (something that, from my understanding, was not possible after the act passed).[8]
  • VAWA, which as I said was under the 1994 crime bill, also created the National Domestic Violence Hotline.[9] Before finding out that this hotline was established so recently, I have to admit to taking the existence of this hotline for granted; however, the fact is that the hotline is younger than I am (I’m twenty-five) and was only established thanks to the 1994 crime bill.

So, while it might make for a good debate line to be critical of Biden’s or Sanders’ support of the 1994 crime bill, the reality is somewhat complicated. Some aspects of it, such as the generally more punitive approach to crime as a result of the bill, have been quite controversial and even problematic. Other aspects, such as the creation of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, are quite important. Regardless, it’s important to recognize both the good and the bad in the 1994 crime bill (as well as Biden’s and Sanders’ support of it), because otherwise, we’d be doing an injustice to ourselves and to others when evaluating the platforms these candidates have on criminal justice.


[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/politics/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-incarceration-fact-check/index.html

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36020717

[3] https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36020717

[5] Ibid.

[6] https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt. I should note that this provision of the bill expired in 2004: https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire

[7] https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt

[8] https://time.com/5675029/violence-against-women-act-history-biden/

[9] https://www.vera.org/justice-in-focus-crime-bill-20/confronting-violence-against-women