Curse of the gunnies, pt. 203...
February 2008: Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon hosts the regional meeting of Bloomberg's Mayors' group, where "mayors discussed the escalating crime trends."
June 2008: Baltimore mayor Sheila Dickson is the subject of a search warrant and grand jury probe into corruption. Thousands of dollars in unreported gifts from a developer who got city contracts, zoning changes, and tax breaks.
Didn't take long....
...Dixon...Jackson...? Did she change her name to conceal the foulness of her crimes, or has Doctor Freud struck again. FAP !
Posted by: Dave Dudley at June 24, 2008 08:14 PM
It just occurred to me to wonder what they actually discuss at a Bloomie conference. It can't possibly be how to reduce crime via gun control. They know the difference between their "position" and reality as well as we do.
So, I wonder what they actually talk about. How to better position their gun control message to be more effective? How to coordinate their message?
Posted by: Virginian at June 24, 2008 08:26 PM
I am convinced that many of these big city mayors are corrupt and much of what they do is to reign in power for themselves or for the inevitable bid for the Governor's mansion. They are mere reincarnations of Aaron Burr or Boss Tweed that ran Tammany Hall in NYC back in the good ole days. At least then you could carry a gun and nobody would shove a microscope into your posterior when you chose to defend yourself.
Posted by: ATL at June 24, 2008 09:02 PM
If you are corrupt on your oath to the Bill of Rights, I expect that you are corrupt in every other way as well.
Posted by: Robert at June 25, 2008 09:33 AM
Should the minutes of any such meeting be available for publi review? Isn't there some accountability in all of this? Surly we don't just allow the talking points for these conversations to just float off into oblivion...do we?
Posted by: Kris at June 25, 2008 05:00 PM
I am not at all sure that these conversations should be unregulated, unregistered and unlicensed. What provable need do they have, shouldn't the sheriff be the one to decide if they need a conversation? Shouldn't there be applications to fill out and file, with background checks to ensure that the participants are not prohibited conversers due to past acts of fraud, or broken promises, or misleading statements, or public corruption?
Hey, just asked, their conversations will have an impact on the public safety, only a barbarian would not see the need for "reasonable restrictions" on conversation. It's the least they could agreed to.
Posted by: straightarrow at June 25, 2008 10:26 PM