SHEEPSHEAD BAY'S ONLY INDEPENDENT NEWS BLOG

BMB - You're half-right, in a way, it's a knock and boost for me. Remember, there's only a month left to campaign (actually, less now, but when the Councilman submitted his letter, there was little more than a month left to campaign) - to demand an additional 63K - more money than the average working person in our district sees in a year! - when he was already receiving for 21K is not only gluttonous and wasteful in these economic times, but is yet another example of how the Councilman "works" the flawed system to his advantage.

Just like he did with term limits.

Just like what he does with discretionary "pork".

Other politicians, like Bill Di Blasio, recognized that and gave the money back to the taxpayers. But Lew has stayed true to his pattern.

I've poked in a few times here to check out the discussion... quite a response.

I'm a little confused tho. I realize that Mr. Berardelli has been criticizing Mr. Fidler for taking additional money from the Campaign Finance Board. But, as I understand it, they only give that money on the assumption that there is a race with a credible opponent. So, if Mr. Fidler was granted that money then that means Mr. Berardelli was judged by them as sufficient opposition as to warrant funding - right? So, it seems to me, that criticizing the extra money is the equivalent of Mr. Berardelli arguing that he is in fact not a serious challenger for the council seat.

I'm sure that's not what he means, but I don't see how someone can have it both ways - criticizing the money implies there's no real race, yet saying there's a race implies a candidate might reasonably want extra money

Oh, and btw...
@Arthur B: Ending your post with... "I’m gonna go kill some stuff..." Wow. I'm just glad you amended that! =P Enjoy Champions Online.

"extending term limits is not sufficient reason alone to defeat an incumbent"

Hell yeah it is. The spineless city council succumbed to the king's financial threats and granted him and themselves another term.

The city council is supposed to enact the will of the people. Not subjugate it!

I am not voting for anyone who voted to extend term limits.

Throw the bums out!

Lew, this group calls itself the Jewish Community Council of Marine Park. Far as I know they are not a registered chartable concern. They are a community group composed of Jewish members of the community. I see that as exclusionary. Much as I would if there was any group that was activist in a community and yet not representative of its totality.

Regardless of any charitable work they might be engaged in they are also seeking to be a political presence in the community. It is that aspect which is potentially troubling.

I'm sorry but when groups seek to make changes which suit their purposes and might infringe on the rights and privileges of other I feel that the term exclusionary is proper and correct. Especially as it precludes the possibility of interaction within this group by anyone who is outside their definition.

No one is saying anything about the work of any organization. That is not the issue.

Once again, race, ethnicity and religion has nothing to do with pointing out that you took money from a special interest group with different objectives than those of the neighborhood civic association, namely zoning, as cited earlier. You are trying to deflect that fact by attacking the messenger.

As far as whether Marine Park is now or is becoming a divided community, I refer you to comments on this very site agreeing with me.

Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it undisputed, Lew. And differences of opinion between us on you choosing to take money from a special interest doesn't make me or anyone I work with "anti-Semitic".

For you to throw around a phrases like ‘anti-Semitic’ is irresponsible and divisive in and of itself. Those words leave a lasting stigma, even on those who have done nothing wrong. And to be so cavalier in labeling someone with hate is beyond repugnant.

Arthur, Read the article about a "divided" Marine Park community on Gene's website written by his staff. It is not now nor has it been a community divided...until this article. What is the subtle appeal here? Lew is with the Jews so....
Trust me that Jews that I know who have read it feel the vibe strongly. I have stood up to hate in ALL of its forms. I am no less likely to do it when it is directed at my own religion.

The fact that some including Gene can't see it is their own insensitivity. Frankly, I don't think Gene wants to see it.

And Lisanne, what right do you have to refer to this group of people as exclusionary?

The JCC ofMarine Park is a council of Jewish community groups and organizations brought together largely for charitable purposes. Their Project Chazon which provides bags of food to hungry people and is non-sectarian has been their most significant activity.

I would call the group more like Catholic Charities, a great social services group in this City, than a civic group.

And yes, this exclusionary group stood side by side with their neighbors in opposing an unwanted charter school at IS 278. BTW, it was the Hebrew Language Academy for those who do not recll.

Arthur, I never use the terms of hate lightly. I have a long record on the issue regarding many ethnic groups and religions.

But if you read that article and read it carefully, for all the literal protestations about what it doesn't "say", it has a clear purpose.

And for the record, I have received more campaign contributions from residents of Marine Park who are unaffilliated with Marine Park JCC than the other way around.

And as to my horrific quote in the paper that I want to help them grow and flourish as a community, it is a remark that I have made to other groups seeking to build a better community in our City rather than flee to the suburbs.

I'll pick this up when Ned is able to put the together a debate as opposed to what would now appear to be a kindergarten "no you" fight.

Lew from Brooklyn

Gene, it's not just you. It's anyone who has said on this thread that they are discomforted by the creation of an exclusionary "civic" group.

If anyone deserves to be King it's me. I have the name to go with it!

As far as public debate, I too have told Ned what it takes to get one done - give me time and place. No conditions.

You feel disrespected as a councilman. I feel disrespected as a citizen for the past eight years. So do a lot of other people.

Playing the victim does nothing for nobody, least of all a two-time incumbent.

One reason I feel disrespected is you continually try to put your words in my mouth - you paraphrasing me is ridiculous. People can read what i wrote for themselves without your spin!

I have stated that discretionary funding needs to be re-worked - that includes all levels of government. I then point to how your use of discretionary funding is especially harmful to communities, causing reliance on local politicians, stifling creativity and self-sustainability, and creating fear that talking out of turn will hurt organizations.

By the way, I'm your opponent - not the Mayor. Isn't it amazing that the Mayor plays the game, but Lew give me the name. I only wish I had $50,000 or more to throw around.

You know, like you do now since you "gamed" taxpayer dollars from the Campaign Finance Board.

I love how the deals cut with each County Committee is pinned on me - I never knew what power I had in this city until Lew told me about it! It's comical.

I never sat in on one meeting with the Mayor and the County Chairs, and made no such deal. I did not know of any funding when I voted to let the Mayor run on the Republican line back in March, but I was not so naive to think that he was going to get something for nothing.

As far as any endorsement, that's great news, if true. No one has told me. The Mayor taking notice of my little campaign and approving is a great boost, and energizes me to double and triple my efforts.

Finally, this is now the second time that you have insinuated that I am perpetuating some kind of anti-Semitism. As I said, this unfounded accusation is dangerous because it comes with a stigma that is hard to shake. There is nothing anti-Semitic about questioning you siding with a special interest group with views contrary to that of the neighborhood's civic association. Frankly, I just think your "If I were King" mentality resents being questioned about anything you do.

I ask everyone what's more disrespectful - a satirical game or throwing around terms like "anti-Semitic" without foundation.

Dude, seriously.

Why the hell do you keep bringing up Anti-Semitism? Nobody here has done or said anything Anti-Semitic. If you cry Anti-Semetism one more time you'll be like the Jewish Al Sharpton. Knock it off man! It's a phrase that gets tossed around WAY to much, especially when it's not deserved.

I have to say that I do not participate on blogs so that my opponent can flame and talk trash and talk down to me. It does nothing to elevate the debate.
As to a public debate, I have told Ned what it would take to get one done and its pretty simple. A moderator of impeccable public respect and reputation, with an understanding of city wide issues and not just those restricted to one neighbhorhood when the district covers many neighborhoods and a properly controlled environment which would allow public dissemination.

I feel that the tenor of Gene's comments at least border on if not surpass disrespectful. I will dialogue with anyone so long as it is respectful.

All I posted ---and there is no selective reading here----that it was now clear that for Gene, the Mayor's role on term limits did not disqualify him.

Gene has now confirmed that this is the case.

Interestingly enough, Gene's other issue appers to be discretionary funding. Interesting because the Bloomberg Administration was caught doing the exact same thing---even though it is a violation of the law for the Executive Branch to do it. Don't take MY word for it....see the newspaper articles on it, including the one from last month in the NY Times.

And this coming from a candidate who has truly re-defined pay to play. He has bought all the players. In fact, today we learned that the $50,000 payments to each County Republican Party were just the first round...and that at least one county has already acknowledged receipt of a second helping.

So I guess Gene has his own double standards as well. Becoming quite a deft politician.

Finally, I wrote that Gene can expect the Bloomberg endorsement because someone connected with his campaign bragged about it....interestingly just days before Gene announced his Mayoral preference.

I will now return to running my own re-election campaign and hope that the level of dialogue appreciates from whack a Lew games, personal insults and closely veiled appeals to anti-Semitic feeling.

Lew from Brooklyn

Lew,

I don't think Gene played politics here. As a Republican he's not bound to support the Democratic candidate. To do so,of course, would be an act of independence. So your party would have to nominate a really compelling candidate. Gene doesn't believe Thompson meets that criteria.

I'm sure if Tony Avella had won the Democratic nomination Gene would have supported him, as they have similar views on many issues. I'm also sure that you would be supporting him as well, despite your differences. Because that's politics. And that's the Democratic party in NYC. Oh, I am sure you wouldn't have exercised much energy in helping him get elected. But you wouldn't have endorsed Bloomberg.

LOL Lisanne! Thanks for the vote of confidence! I must remain humble and will wait for what happens on Election Day.

Arthur: I really don't frequent Wikipedia and don't ever cite it as a source. I believe that anyone can put just about anything up there. My bio on the campaign site will suffice for now!

No reason he shouldnt have one now though. A neutral site with a list of facts and truths that can't be politicized is a good thing.

When he gets elected someone will write one for him.

Gene. I noticed Lew has a Wikipedia Page and you do not. Might I suggest you get someone from your campaign to rectify that?

And by the way Lew, did you happen to see what I said about the Mayor and term limits earlier? I'm guessing no.

Either that, or that selective reading kicked in again. Or you were deliberately trying to mislead people.

Lew, my position on term limits doesn't matter - the people decided. And thus far, term limits plays a major part in people's decision. Ask your dethroned buddies in City Council about that.

And just to be clear, because as shown here, your reading comprehension skills are a little dull: no one issue is the end-all and be-all - and each voter has their own reasons. I don't tell people what to think, I present a case. As I said, your term limit vote was the impetus for my run. Voters vote for different reasons.

I want people to know that you trashed their votes on term limits by voting for your own self-interest. But I also want people to know how you "work" the system to maintain control. Like your vote in term limits. Like the use of discretionary funds. Like your campaign finance gluttony.

So are you sure about what I'm saying now?

And by the way, I only play semantic games on Thursdays. Stop insulting the intelligence of the people around here by politicking and get real.

As far as your prediction, I hope your little birdie is right - an endorsement from the Mayor for a first-time candidate with no money like me would be quite a boost. I doubt my criticisms of him recently helped my chances. But, maybe like my view of him, the pluses outweigh the negatives.

http://www.yournabe.com/articles/2009/09/10/kin...

And a bold prediction....Bloomberg will be endorsing Gene in the very short term future.

A little birdie told me.

Lew from Brooklyn

So Gene, not to beat a dead horse, but just to be clear, your position is that extending term limits is not sufficient reason alone to defeat an incumbent. Just want to be sure.

Lew from Brooklyn