Response:

1-2.  My Publisher’s Notebook in the Oct. 19-31 issue was not an endorsement, as I made clear. I simply wanted to balance out the continuing blasting of Bloomberg by I. Friedin (whom, by the way, I have not “silenced” at all – see the response to Question 6). And the ads were scheduled – and paid for – long before I ever wrote the particular Publisher’s Notebook. If there had been any quid pro quo, as you suggest, I would have run a full endorsement, as most of the borough’s and city’s other newspapers did, and there certainly would not have been any column in the same issue proclaiming, “I was mugged by Bloomberg!”
3.  You raise a good point here. Perhaps the choice of “little” was too mild. On the other hand, “favoritism” might not be the best choice, either. After all, Bloomberg couldn’t conceivably be interested in gaining anything financially from fellow big-businessmen – I think we can safely assume that he’s happy with his $17.5 billion. But it may be true that he is simply more comfortable with these people.
4.  I wouldn’t call for a 12 ½ percent increase in taxes on the bonuses for financial-services millionaires – I’d call for a 75 percent increase – and I think the feds should take back 100 percent of the bonuses if they were awarded as a result of the outrageous federal bailouts.
5. I agree with you here. Bloomberg should get the money from his fellow rich folk. But that’s easier said than done.
6. I don’t understand how you can accuse me of “silencing” I. Friedin when his columns have appeared regularly in Bay Currents for years now – including in the issue in which my so-called “endorsement” appeared – and will continue for the foreseeable future.

I am sincerely disappointed that you feel I have “sold out.” I hope my response has been effective in dispelling that notion.

David J. Glenn