Councilwoman Darlene Mealy Must Go

Twenty-nine Councilmembers voted to allow themselves and the Mayor a chance to run for re-election despite two referendum in favor of term limits in New York City. It was a disgraceful day for democracy and a shame to see these people vote for a bill that was only for their own self-interest. All of them are top targets to be voted out of office next year, particularly such turncoats as David Yassky and the ringleader of this crap, Speaker Christine Quinn. Now I must add another one to the top of the list, Darlene Mealy. If anything, her response to switching her vote for the Mayor added a new definition to the word "weak" as well as "spineless."

From The NY Times:

In an interview over the weekend, Ms. Mealy spoke for the first time about her decision, insisting that her change of heart was based on a sincere desire to establish better relationships with the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to benefit the constituents of her district in Brownsville.

“This was the best way to build my relationship with the speaker and the mayor,” Ms. Mealy said. “And truthfully, I had no relationship with them. I think my district will benefit from my changing my position.”

Because the mayor and the speaker had the votes to pass the bill, she said, it served no purpose for her to be a dissenting vote and fracture relationships with the city’s two powerful leaders. After all, she reasoned, they might take revenge by cutting programs for her constituents.

“It didn’t make sense for my district to be hurt,” Ms. Mealy said. “I need to get resources for my district. We’re already so low on the totem pole. It’s actually pathetic. I felt I was acting in the best interest of my district.”

What is pathetic Ms. Mealy is your decision to cave to Quinn and the Mayor for political favors. The people in your district voted for you because they thought you had principles that you stuck to, obviously they were wrong about that. Then you added other large heapings of bull turds to the already lame excuse, such as:

“Larry Seabrook told me about the history of referendums, where they came from and how they had often been used against black leaders,” Ms. Mealy, referring to Mr. Brown.

“There were rich people who wanted to change the law, just to get Willie Brown out,” she said. “And here in New York we had Ron Lauder who was behind changing the law,” she added, in a reference to Ronald S. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir who financed campaigns to get voters to approve New York City’s term limit laws in the 1990s.

And finally:

On her turnabout, she added: “I felt I was looking out for my district. I did what I thought was right. My heart is right.”

It sounds like you were looking out for yourself, not your district. As for the correctness of your bodily organs, perhaps you should check your spine and your conscience (neither are organs obviously) as well. The referendum were not simply Lauder's idea and this had nothing to do with putting black people down. Installing term limits was a reaction by the city to combat corruption, pure and simple.

I'm glad that Mealy wants challengers to take their best shot at her seat. They certainly will, starting possibly with former Councilmember Tracy Boyland. Whomever is running against you, they already start with my support compared to your unprincipled behavior.

What Happened To Councilwoman Mealy?

What the Council did yesterday to democracy in our city was atrocious. Thwarting the will of the voters will be a mark of shame for the institution. It was self-serving politicking at its worst. Speaker Quinn was in the tank for the Mayor from the get go as were many in the majority but not everyone. James Vacca switched his vote late in the game but the outspoken Councilwoman Mealy went from being adamantly against the Mayor to standing in line behind him. So what happened?

From The NY Times:

Less than two weeks ago, City Councilwoman Darlene Mealy stood on the steps of City Hall, along with Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and a group of ministers who opposed Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to extend term limits.[...]

However, when her name was called to vote on Mr. Bloomberg’s bill in the City Council chamber on Thursday, Ms. Mealy votes yes, and with a decidedly more somber tone to her voice.

If she wasn't excited about the bill when she opposed it and dejectedly voted in favor of it, what could have happened in the mean time? Did she get something out of it and what could the Mayor and Quinn have given her?

“She has said that she was under intense, intense pressure,” Mr. Barron said. “I think it merits some kind of investigation, to be quite honest.”

In an interview, Ms. Mealy was asked whether she had been threatened in any from either City Council speaker Christine C. Quinn or Mr. Bloomberg.

“I don’t want to discuss it,” she said.

Oh but we want to discuss Ms. Mealy. Your constituents as well as the entire city deserves an explanation. Here's what the Times thinks it could be:

Since then, she has not had a particularly high profile. However, earlier this year, Ms. Mealy acknowledged that she had sought to have the Council allocate about $25,000 for a nonprofit group operated by her sister. However, the Council never made the funds available.

$25,000?

Is that really enough to make someone switch their vote? Is that the price of democracy for one Councilmember? For a woman who voiced her opposition early and in public, that seems like a small price to buy a vote. If that's what it is, then that is extremely sad and Mealy deserves the boot next year. Yet my gut says there has to be more. Quinn denies any arm-twisting, but her word is worth less than squat at this moment. Mealy needs to come forward and tell the truth behind her change of heart or else face the full fury of her district.

The Nannies Of New York

The hard-working nannies in the city that watch thousands of children every day do a great service. The ones that sit in city council and other spots around New York are not. Instead of real legislation that makes a difference in the lives of New Yorkers, they come up with ridiculous laws and stunts that are aimed at potty mouths. Oh my, those dangerous potty mouths.

From The Huffington Post:

First the city voted to ban the Noun that Begins with N -- the derogatory term for blacks that has been pushed out of public public speech but shoved its way into entertainment, chiefly rap music. A local NAACP branch even gave the word a funeral, coffin and all, as a show of hope that ugliness can be buried along with a word that is freighted with ugliness.

The city ban has not been accompanied by any enforcement measures -- police, for example, cannot slap a strip of duct tape across the offending mouth and effect an arrest. But so successful has this legislation presumably been that New York City Councilwoman Darlene Mealy, of Brooklyn, now wants to add the word ''bitch'' to the no-no list.

(snip)

If the players in this would add a little Harry Potter to their summer reading, they'd learn at least as well as George Orwell could demonstrate that fearing a word gives it power, and banning it makes it more powerful still.

Look at how the word "queer" has evolved from an insult -- which it still is in some people's minds -- to a word that some gays embrace defiantly. They use as both a shield and a weapon, to make its original ugliness boomerang back on the person who hurled it so viciously in the first place.

This post is right on. Giving words power with fear of the law makes them so much worse. Laughing at the words is what we need most. It isn't about the word, its the power behind it. This is why I love "Borat" so much. Both of us are Jews, and his use of the character to laugh at anti-semitism is pure brilliance.

Words change in meaning all the time, that is how language works. Just think about how one interprets "colored" and "negro" now, thirty years ago, sixty years ago, etc. So to Councilwoman Mealy and other morons like her, stop with this crap and draft laws that make a difference for your constituents that improves their lives and not their mouths.