Barrett's Email Debated: Seriously?

I find it unbelievable that there is even a debate surrounding whether Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett should be fired after his racist email calling Henry Louis Gates, Jr. a jungle monkey. Some people have come out to say that it's a free speech issue and that Barrett should not be fired. Others, including Boston Mayor Menino, want Barrett off the force immediately.

Here's what a lot of people do not understand about freedom of speech: its principles allow you to say whatever you want in this great country, but what it does not do is give you immunity from punishment. Under the guise of free speech, I can walk up to my boss and call him a grade A asshole. Should I not be fired for that because I was practicing my right to free speech, or does the fact that I have shown my inability to remain professional trump that (in the public or private sector)? Take a guess which route my boss would take (and he would be justified).

The fact of the matter is that certain people cannot do certain jobs. It is never justified for a racist to be a police officer (and sending an email in which you call a black person a jungle monkey to a newspaper earns you a racist label). This country's criminal justice system is based on the equality of the law (at least since 1868). It also is based on the rights of the accused. To have a police officer who clearly thinks less of one group of people because of their race and who thinks that suspects have no rights makes no sense; he would not be able to properly do his job. When you cannot properly do your job you do not deserve that job.

Barrett should be fired and have to pay the taxpayers back for his suspension. There is no room for him in any police department or any job that involves him dealing with a diverse clientele. Imagine him back on his beat and having to deal with anyone; Barrett would garner no respect because of his actions. He also has probably lost the respect of his colleagues, who turned him in. Not only was his email racist, it was an extremely stupid thing to do and if it is any indication of his judgment, he does not belong on our streets with a gun, never mind with any authority. Peace.

Photo - Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett (NY Daily News)

Justin Barrett Calls Gates a "Jungle Monkey," Then Tries to Say He's Not Racist

Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett (CNN)

I thought that with Gates and Crowley meeting Obama today for a beer (which has been covered ad nauseum, down to what kind of beer they're going to drink) this issue would be mostly resolved. Gates overreacted and Crowley unjustly arrested him. End of story.

But then Lucia Whalen, who I thought initially wanted her privacy, held a news conference to say that she picked her words carefully and would call 911 again. But then her lawyer came to the mic and chided Obama and his administration for not inviting her client to the beerfest that Gates and Crowley will have today. She quipped, "Maybe it's a guy thing." So now people can incorrectly say that Obama is sexist and racist when talking about the same incident.

After Whalen's press conference I thought finally Gatesgate would die down. But then when I awoke this morning I was shocked to get a CNN alert about the Boston police. It seems that Officer Justin Barrett sent an email to coworkers and the Boston Globe calling Gates a "jungle monkey." The full text is here, but here are some lowlights: "Your defense of Gates...assumes he has rights when considered a suspect," "for if I was the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC," "You are a hot little bird with minimal experiences in a harsh field. You are a fool. An infidel," "He [Gates] has indeed transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey," "Your article title should read CONDUCT UNBECOMING A JUNGLE MONKEY-BACK TO ONE'S ROOTS."

Boston Police Officer Justin
Barrett (Daily Kos)

So what is Barrett's defense? The two classic ones: 1) I can't be racist - I have a black friend! 2) My comments were taken out of context. Barrett said, "I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist." Sorry Barrett, but when you call a black person a jungle monkey multiple times and then send it to that "hot little bird" Yvonne Abraham over at the Globe for media consumption, there aren't many more levels of racism you can descend to. As to things being taken out of context, just read the email linked above. There's no way around this one: Justin Barrett is a racist and, as such, does not belong on the Boston Police Department in any capacity. In addition, he thinks that suspects have no rights and calls Abraham and "infidel" - a xenophobic word in and of itself whether used by terrorists in modern-day lingo or by the Christians back in the day.

Mayor Menino thinks so, too, and has called for Barrett's dismissal from the force: "I said, ‘He has no place in this department, and we have to take his badge away.’ That stuff doesn’t belong in our city, and we’re not going to tolerate it." The National Guard has suspended Barrett barring a full investigation into the manner. Barrett has been suspended from the BPD, but he's still being paid.

If I were Sergeant Crowley I would be extremely angry at Barrett. Crowley, who made an unjust arrest and probably just wants everything to simmer down (whether it was motivated by race we don't know and speculating about it is worthless). Now he is thrown back into the spotlight thanks to the actions of a person he's probably never met. Barrett has embarrassed himself, the Boston PD and the National Guard. Not only is he racist, but he sends a racist email to a newspaper. In his email he states, "I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid." Racism and self-hate; now that's a dangerous combination.

NFL Reinstates Vick, Sets a Great Example

It was announced earlier this week that Michael Vick will be conditionally reinstated into the NFL. Some people may look at this as a second chance for Vick, but in reality it's really chance seven for the troubled star, who had everything and threw it all away so that he could have dogs fight each other in a heinous dog fighting conspiracy.

Let's quickly go over Vick's career off the field. In 2004 two of Vick's friends were charged with drug trafficking after being pulled over in Vick's pickup truck in his hometown. Dan Reeves, the Falcons coach at the time, sat Vick down and let him know that even though Vick was not in the truck at the time, he was still responsible because the truck was his. Vick was told that he should be careful who he hangs out with and that his behavior and image directly reflected that of the Falcon franchise. Mistake number one (and this one came with a warning).

Again in 2004, Vick and some of his entourage were going through the Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta when one of Vick's friends picked up a watch that did not belong to anyone in the crew and pocketed it. It turned out that the watch was a TSA employee's and what ensued was a back and forth between the TSA employee, a Falcons "fixer" known as Bill "White Shoes" Johnson, and Vick about returning the watch. It took the TSA employee to attempt (not threaten, but attempt) to file charges against Vick and his crew to get his watch back. Mistake number two.

In 2006 Vick settled a lawsuit with a woman who contracted genital herpes from the quarterback when he neglected to mention to her that he had the sexually transmitted disease before getting down to business. It later came out in court documents filed by the woman that Vick had seeked treatment for the disease at a clinic under the name "Ron Mexico," which led the NFL to ban customizable jerseys with the name "Mexico" on the back. While not illegal, this incident is certainly a mistake and embarrassed the league and the Falcons, not to mention Vick. Mistake number three.

In 2006 Vick flipped off the home team's fans in the Georgia Dome after losing to the New Orleans Saints in November. Vick was fined $10,000 by the league and additionally donated $10,000 to charity. Mistake number four.

There were two other incidents - the water bottle incident and his missing an appointment on Capitol Hill - that were minor enough to be put into only one mistake (in my mind) instead of two separate ones. Mistake number five.

Which leads us to the most egregious of his mistakes, which, of course, was the dog fighting. In his "Summary of the Facts" associated with his guilty plea, Vick admitted that he participated in the murder of dogs who did not test well for fighting at the property in Virginia that he purchased for the cruel acts. This included hanging or drowning the dogs. Authorities also found what is called a "rape stand" on the property owned by Vick. Needless to say you have to be a pretty heartless and sick individual to participate in this kind of thing.

So when people say that NFL Commissioner Goodell is simply giving Vick a second chance, they could not be more wrong (unless they think that only felonies are mistakes). When you habitually display behavior such as Vick has and continue to screw up chance after chance, why continue to indulge him? I wouldn't allow him back after the dog fighting alone because it was premeditated and so heinous, but add in the horrible judgment and multiple chances to get a head on his shoulders that Vick ignored, and it becomes even harder to justify to allow him back into the league so he can make millions again. Peace.

Photos - Michael Vick on the field (Washington Post), Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner (Wikipedia)

Palin's Nixon-esque Epiphany: The Media Does Not Play Nice

While I was caught up with Gates-gate, something else was happening that I wanted to expand upon but did not have the time: Sarah Palin's abrupt departure from the governorship of Alaska. While bizarre by itself - as someone who constantly touted her executive experience leading the state on the campaign trail with John McCain last year - her parting words were very similar to another embarrassment for the Republican Party.

When Richard Nixon lost his bid for the governorship of California in 1962, he gave what he deemed his "last press conference," telling the media that they won't have "Nixon to kick around anymore." He hoped that his words would make "the press recognize that they have a right and responsibility to, that if they're against a candidate, to give him the shaft, but also recognize that if they give him the shaft, put one lonely reporter on the campaign who will report what the candidate says now and then." We all know that this was not Nixon's last press conference, and he went on to win the presidency of the United States, and then tarnished the office like no one else could.



Contrast Nixon's "last press conference" with Palin's "last press conference." She stated, "You represent what could and should be a respected, honest profession that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy. Democracy depends on you, and that is why -- that’s why our troops are willing to die for you. So how about in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin’ things up." So the formula for the fake last press conference goes as follows: tell the press what their job/responsibility is, and then cry foul for being personally attacked by the media. It sounds like Palin thinks she got shafted like Nixon.

But Palin's criticisms of the media is akin to the boy crying wolf. Remember back in October when she tried to say that the media was infringing upon her right to free speech? Comments like that tend to illegitimize one's views on a particular subject. Did Palin get a bum rap in the media? Sure. The real question is, did she deserve it? The way I see it, the media just did the majority of the vetting that McCain's campaign neglected to do. Were some of the media's things wrong? Sure. The last thing I would have done is publish a story that said that the governor's newborn was her daughter's unless I was 110% sure it was true. Hurtful? You bet. But again, and I'm not saying that Palin was asking for it, because it was way out of line, but did Palin think that the media was going to play fair?

I mean, come on, this is a country which has produced Rush Limbaugh as a figurehead of the Republican Party. A person who plays "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show, a person who says that he hopes the Commander-in-Chief fails, who goes through wives like underwear and who gets away with illegal drug transactions by paying the DA's office, is one of the most influential media elites. Bill O'Reilly, someone who pays off a former employee after sexually harrassing her. Hell, G. Gordon Liddy has a nationally syndicated radio program. And Palin brought her family (which was in turmoil) into this company, thinking the media had a code of conduct?

Unfortunately, it just seems to be the nature of the game. It's almost like a rite of passage. McCain went through it in 2000, Obama sure as hell went through it (they had to dig as deep as Rashid Khalidi - seriously?). Palin went through it, as well. So while Palin may have a point in that she was not treated well by the media (for justified and unjustified reasons), to say that it was unfair is a bit much, as the media tried to dig up as much as possible on everyone (remember George Stephanopoulos' question about Ayers that was fed to him by Sean Hannity?). Hell, we're having a debate during one of the most trying times in America about where Barack Obama was born. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Is the media messed up? Of course. Have I done too many question and answer phrases in this post? Absolutely. But the one thing about the media is this: by debasing everybody in order to get more viewers and ad revenue (you think O'Reilly's $9 million salary pays for itself?) it puts everyone on an even playing field. Sure, that playing field may be extremely muddy and a crappy one to play on, but everyone's on it. So Palin's right, the media does not play nice, but by selling out and sensationalizing everything, in a sense one could say that they play fair. And besides, America already fell for the whole "silent majority" and "I'm being unfairly targeted as a bad person" thing with Tricky Dick Nixon. And if you think we're going to fall for that again because we'd rather focus on an already debunked rumor than the issues and what this nation really needs, well, then you might be in the right spot (provided you can prove beyond your birth certificate, local newspapers, governors, and non-partisan fact checkers that you were born here). Peace.

Photo - Palin resigns (Esquire)

Moving On: Gates and Crowley Will Bury Hatchet Over Beers

It was very nice to hear that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Sergeant Joseph Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department would be going to the White House to bury the hatchet over a few beers. It is probably the best solution to a problem that has rallied both sides of the argument over racial profiling in general and both participants' behavior in this particular incident. At the end of the day they were both a little wrong, with Gates seemingly overreacting and Crowley unjustly arresting him.

Today Boston.com had a piece on the caller who dialed 911 to initially report the "break in" at Gates' home on Ware Street by Harvard, stating that the caller claims she did not cite race. I found it very surprising because nearly all of the media reports immediately following the incident stated that when the caller spoke to 911 dispatchers she mentioned that two black men were breaking into the house. Even in Crowley's police report it indicates that she knew the race of the alleged perpetrators: "She [the caller] went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of [redacted] Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." That pretty clearly states that the caller was well aware of the race of the individuals.

And while the Boston.com article contains flat-out denials (through the caller's lawyer) from beginning to end that the caller did not know the race of the two individuals, Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, while saying that the caller did not mention race in the 911 call, seems to backpedal a little bit:

In an interview at police headquarters last night, Haas said "it was very clear that she wasn’t sure" what the men’s race was. He also said that when the dispatcher questioned Whalen for more details, she told police she could only guess about the race of the two men. "She speculated . . . that one might be Hispanic."

Someone involved in this does not have their facts straight. Either race was mentioned in the call or it wasn't; you can't say it was and then say, "Oh, well, she might have speculated that one might be Hispanic." If she did, then race was mentioned. If she did not postulate as to the skin color of the men, then race was not mentioned. The only way we'll know is if the 911 tape is released (which Haas says might be released in just transcript form, despite the fact that the caller has no qualms about fully releasing the audio).

It's nice to see Gates and Crowley put their differences aside and plan to enjoy a cold one with the president. The incident put race and police treatment of minorities back in the spotlight (whether you think Gates was a victim of racial profiling or not). The problem is that a new story will come up in the next week or so and we'll forget about this. Until another incident occurs. Then CNN and all these outlets will do specials to get more viewers (and ad revenue) until the next big story. Will racial profiling be eliminated or decrease because of this incident? No. If more cut and dry cases of racism (such as Amadou Diallo) did not stop racial profiling, a very ambiguous case such as this will not come close to ending the practice. We are a very long way from post-racial America (if it is even possible). Peace.

Photos - The White House, where Gates and Crowley are scheduled to have beers (Visiting DC)

The Problems with Democracy II

In my last post I focused on the problems with American democracy from the constituency angle, namely the long-term-vision shortcomings of the American voter and how the inherent necessity of representatives to represent these voters often precludes sound, sustainable public policy. But there’s another, arguably more important, facet of the problematic tendencies of our democracy. And that, ironically, is that the American voter doesn’t have enough say in the process. At least, relative to the sway that well-financed organizations and companies can hold.

It seems that politicians are much more interested in the concerns of special interest groups than with those of their own constituents. Why is it that the largest corporations and trade associations in this country have so much power over the way Congress votes? I completely appreciate that these companies are, in many ways, vital to the American economy. They provide large shares of our GDP and employ many of our citizens. But the Constitution—for good reason—charges elected representatives to represent the people, not the private sector. Often, the interests of profit-maximizing corporations directly oppose the public interest. But the voice of the public interest pales in comparison to those of special interests, or at least it falls upon all-too-deaf ears.

Ordinary Americans don’t have the time or resources to be able to share their concerns with their elected officials the way paid professionals do. And when there’s a sizable number of largely poor people who aren’t having basic needs met (e.g. health care), you can bet they won’t be paying a lobbyist to show up in the halls of Congress and ask for a public option in health care reform. In too many cases, people whose needs are not being met are forced to rely on nonprofit organizations that are funded by wealthy idealists, and the genuine morality and conscience of politicians (for those select few who still retain these rare attributes).

But that’s really not good enough. Corporations should have a voice in Congress, but only to the extent that their dealings help the national economy and help keep people working. Unfortunately, much more powerful factors are also at work that shouldn’t be. The whole concept of campaign contributions has completely reshaped our democracy. There have been many laws put forth, and several passed, by those "moral" politicians mentioned above, which seek to reform campaign financing, but they are few and far between, and do not address the some of most pressing of the problems.

Why is the corn industry so heavily subsidized when those subsidies serve to hurt small farms, impoverish farmers in other countries, and make our food substantially less healthful? Why is the health insurance industry making such huge profits while dozens of millions of people are without health insurance? Why are utilities still permitted to build coal power plants, pollute our atmosphere, and heat our planet?

Money from organizations and corporations given to political campaigns needs to be dramatically curbed if we want any hope of giving the people a true voice in this country. And in the meantime, let's see to it that there's a great deal more transparency with regard to special interest group visits to Congressional offices, and other aspects of the political process infiltrated by special interests. The political process should have absolutely nothing to do with money. It should be reserved for those who, rich or poor, feel a genuine desire to serve their country. And that means enacting laws that benefit the citizens of this country, not the wealthiest and loudest interest groups.

Images: health care rally (Nashville scene blog), special interests (LiveTheSolution.com), money barrow (NorCal blogs)

Should He Have or Shouldn't He Have? The Obama Press Conference

NOTE: If you have arrived here from Boston.com, the quoted post is one below this.


Watch CBS Videos Online

As the story of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s arrest continues to percolate, a new issue is arising regarding President Obama's comments about the Cambridge PD "acting stupidly" when they arrested Gates. The White House has since clarified that Obama's remarks did not mean that Sergeant Crowley was stupid, but that cooler heads should have prevailed. Unions and supporters of Sergeant Crowley have called for Obama to apologize for his remarks.

So should Obama have weighed in on this issue? Let's remember that Obama did not offer up the issue voluntarily, he was asked about it and he gave his opinion of the matter. We can all criticize Obama for not having been there (and thus not knowing 100% of what went down), but none of us were there, either, and yet we continue to debate the issue. Obama, in my mind, had every right to talk about it, but I would have gone about it a bit differently.

Was "stupid" the correct word choice? It would not have been at the top of my list. We have to remember, though, that being black in America is a very different experience than being white; there is no way around that. We can fantasize about post-racial America and all of that, but as Michael Eric Dyson said a few days ago, the only black man living in post-racial America lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The fact is that this arrest has hit closer to home for some folks than for others.

Let's look at the facts. There is an undisputed history of racism and racial profiling in this country (just today it was reported that police down in Texas have been suspended for circulating racist emails about Obama). We all remember the whole bussing embarrassment in Boston, and who could forget Charles Stuart's unbelievable actions? All you have to do in this country to find racial undertones is scratch the surface. So when Gates was asked by a police officer why he was in his own home, is it that unreasonable for him to assume that his race may have had something to do with it?

Additionally, Obama's words are often taken out of context. He was not calling anyone on the scene stupid, he was saying that the arrest itself was stupid. Again, not the word choice I would have gone with, but don't forget that the charges were dropped at the request of the same department that employs Crowley as a Sergeant. If this were a good and legal arrest, Gates would be facing charges right now, but the fact remains that it was not. Does this make Crowley a bad person? No. He just made a mistake. What is telling is his stubbornness in not apologizing or at least backing down.

Was race a factor in Gates' arrest? I have no doubt. From the phone call from this mystery 40 year old woman who could not even recognize her neighbor (who happens to be somewhat of a celebrity), (EDITOR'S NOTE: As stated in the previous post, the actual caller seems to have just been relaying information given to her by a neighbor, who may or may not have been influenced by the race of Gates and his driver - that we'll probably never know) to the discussion Gates and Crowley had, race was all mixed in like the Oreo McFlurrys I used to make on 128. But we have to look at the facts: Crowley arrested Gates for a questionable crime and all charges were dropped at the insistence of Cambridge PD. Whether you think Crowley's a jerk or Gates is a jerk, the fact is that Crowley was overruled by his superiors; there's no getting around that. Peace.

Sergeant Crowley Refuses to Apologize; Still Thinks He Did Nothing Wrong

Last night President Obama chimed in on the Henry Louis Gates arrest to chide Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department for "acting stupidly" when they arrested Gates for being in his home. Today it is being reported that Crowley refuses to apologize and regrets nothing about the incident which the DA and Cambridge PD have refused to further because it is flawed in so many ways. As of this posting we have still not found out the identity of the 40 year old woman who initially called police on Gates for entering his own home.

Unsurprisingly, the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association (of which Crowley is a member due to his Sergeant status) put out a statement offering their "full and unqualified" support of Sergeant Crowley. They also stated: "His actions at the scene of this matter were consistent with his training, with the informed policies and practices of the Department, and with applicable legal standards." Let's back up a moment. Crowley arrested Gates for "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public place." While Gates may or may not have been loud and/or tumultuous, he was in his own home. That's like arresting a person for public nudity for taking a shower in their house; it doesn't make sense. And if, as the union statement alleges, Crowley had followed the "informed policies and practices of the Department" and "applicable legal standards," then why did the DA drop the charges at the insistence of Cambridge PD? If what Crowley did was by the book and correct, why was Gates not even arraigned before all charges were dropped?

The answer is simple: because Crowley was wrong. He has publicly embarrassed the department, he has the president of the United States criticizing him, and he has the mayor doing damage control because of his actions, but he feels with certainty that he owes no one an apology. In fact, Crowley this morning took to the airwaves to tell his version of the story. Who did he go to to say it? Dennis and Callahan on WEEI. While the two can be funny about sports, they have proven to be less than stellar when it comes to social issues. Anyone in Boston remembers when they were suspended for their racist remarks regarding an escaped gorilla from the Franklin Park Zoo when they compared the animal to a METCO student trying to get to school in the suburbs (click the link for the full story). Why would Crowley, who is being accused of racial profiling, go onto a show whose hosts were suspended for racist comments? It shows poor judgment, just like arresting Gates did.

Crowley still goes with the "You didn't see Gates, you don't know why I arrested him" spiel. He's right, we don't know why he arrested him. The DA's office and the Cambridge PD brass do not know why he arrested him. The mayor of Cambridge does not know why he arrested him. That's why they had all charges dropped. The real problem here is that Crowley will not face any type of discipline for falsely arresting someone; for wasting Cambridge time, money, and resources in such a difficult time budget-wise. Thusly, there is no disincentive for Crowley to arrest someone else in their house trying to pin a public property crime on him/her again. We would be having a completely different discussion if the charges stuck for more than a week on Gates, but they were dropped well before arriagnment, meaning the arresting officer (in this case Crowley) was wrong. He made the mistake of arresting Gates. An apology from Crowley would have ended the media coverage. Instead, in his stubbornness, he refused to apologize, made an international news story out of it, and then goes on a station hosted by two people who have made racist jokes on air and been suspended for it to tell his side of the story. Tell me which of the two - Gates or Crowley - displayed poor judgment. Peace.

Photos - Sergeant James Crowley (Boston.com), Gates being arrested for a public property crime (note his location on his own private property) (Boston Globe)

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Arrest: You're Kidding Yourself if You Don't Think Race Played a Factor

When I read the headline the other day "Harvard professor Gates arrested at Cambridge home" I was shocked. Here is a very bright individual, with a great job and national prominence being arrested. I quickly clicked on the link to find out what it was for and was even more shocked: it was for gaining entry into his own house. I knew what was coming next, and could not really blame Gates and others for saying it: race most definitely played a part in this incident.

I debated writing about this incident because I thought it was pretty clear cut. I knew the charges would not stick, and I figured people would chalk it up to what it is: a regrettable incident that most likely would never have happened had Gates been white. But some people are coming out and saying, "Oh, Gates should have just been polite to the officer and followed all of his commands, blah blah blah." Picture this scenario: you just get off a double-digit hour flight from China, you're exhausted, you get home and your front door is busted so you employ the help of your driver to help you get it open. You enter the back of the house (with your house key because, remember, you LIVE there), can't get it open from the inside and go back around to get it open from the outside. You call up the proper folks at Harvard to get your door fixed and you're probably pissed off at this point. Then a cop comes knocking on your door demanding proof that you live there.

Would this have happened if Gates were white? We'll never know, but looking at the pictures of Gates during his arrest he looks like my dad would on a day when he didn't have work, dressed in jeans and a polo. He's not dressed like a thug, nor does he look strung out or anything like that. So why did this mysterious passerby/neighbor (which, if it is a neighbor is a pretty shitty neighbor for not recognizing the resident of the house) call the police? Because she sees two black guys in the middle of a tony neighborhood trying to get a front door opened. Never mind that Gates is very well-known and highly recognizable (especially with his glasses on). Had Gates been white, at the very least this person would have thought twice about calling Cambridge Police if she even called at all.

*EDITOR'S NOTE: Having listened to the 911 tape, it seems that while the caller seemed to know that at least one of the potential intruders was not white, there is no indication that she was sure they were black, either. She also claims she was calling on behalf of a neighbor and she was merely a passerby, so while it is accurate that the caller seemed to not know the race of Gates and his driver (beyond the fact that she thought one of them might be Latino), the neighbor who apparently relayed her concern to the caller may or may not have been motivated by race.

Now let's go into the police action. Sergeant James Crowley shows up at the house, demanding ID and proof that Gates lived there, and then walked into the house uninvited by Gates. That alone would piss me off (nevermind the flight from China and the door being busted). Crowley stated in the police report, "I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me." There's nothing surprising about being pissed at the police entering your home unjustly. I take it Crowley does not have police knocking on his door demanding proof that he lives wherever he lives, so he would probably not know how it feels. Plus, the charges have been dropped and I can tell you from personal experience that when a DIS/CON is dropped it is usually because the arresting officer did not interpret the law correctly and unjustly arrested the defendant. So for Gates to be outraged that he got arrested is not far off; in fact, in my opinion, it is fully justified.

When you read the list of people coming to Gates' defense it reads like a who's who of some of the brightest intellectuals in general and in the realm of race relations (sociologically and legally) in today's world: Lawrence Bobo, Charles Ogletree, S. Allen Counter (who had his own incident with Harvard Police after being mistaken for a robbery suspect). This means that folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can keep quiet because the professionals have this one. Let's recap the facts here quickly: Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct after some anonymous witness thought he was breaking into his own home, a verbal confrontation with a police officer ensued (which is not illegal), Gates was arrested for said confrontation, the charges resulting from said confrontation were dropped. Now you tell me who is in the wrong here, the person unjustly arrested or the person doing the improper arresting? Peace.

Photos - Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (Harvard), Gates' arrest (Boston Globe)

Pedro Espada Not the Only One Getting a Raise

The two state senators who held up the legislative process in New York for the past month and a half will both be getting raises and more prestige in Albany (if that's the proper word for more power in an incredibly corrupt system). As discussed earlier, Espada will be getting an extra $41,000 for being majority leader of the invertebrate Democrats. Now, however, he will be joined by (alleged) woman-beater Hiram Monserrate in the promotion and raise department.

It seems that Monserrate will be reinstated into the chairmanship he lost when he was indicted for slashing his girlfriend's face with broken glass in a jealous rage. When his chairmanship of the Consumer Protection Committee was stripped back in March, he also lost the $12,500 stipend that went with it. However, the Democrats in Albany were so desperate to get such an embarrassing individual back into their party they reportedly offered him the chairmanship back in exchange for Monserrate leaving the Republicans and going back to the Democrats (which prolonged the stalemate the Senate has been in since). Monserrate claims this is not the case, but he also claims that his girlfriend was cut after he was bringing her water and he tripped and the glass happened to break in his hand and mangle his girlfriend's face. Maybe he should investigate the manufacturer of the defective glass, because that sounds like it could be an issue for consumers.

Monserrate is in the news again for his (alleged) felony assault on his girlfriend. It seems that he used money donated to him from various law enforcement agencies to help fund his defense against the felony charges against him for (allegedly) slashing up his girlfriend. While the incredible irony of the whole thing may be lost on some people, considering that it is rumored that another man's PBA card that Monserrate found in his girlfriend's purse sparked the entire incident, the fact that it is illegal to use campaign funds for personal expenses not related to government work remains true. Monserrate paid the money back in May, but last time I checked you can't steal something from a store and then pay the owner back a few months later and escape without punishment (not without a good lawyer, at least).

The Senate, however, is still in stalemate because of the absence of Senator Daniel Squadron (D-Brooklyn). That leaves the Democrats with less than the 32 votes needed to pass legislation, as the Republicans are acting like middle schoolers and using Squadron's absence to form a unified front that would block the Democrats from passing legislation. Squadron is on his honeymoon with his new wife. While I understand that he planned his wedding (which was over the weekend) and the ensuing honeymoon for a few weeks after the regular assembly was scheduled to be over, these are very special circumstances, and his boss (Paterson) is asking all Senators to be in Albany for special sessions. Would it suck to have to change his plans because of the incompetence of his colleagues? Absolutely. You know who it really sucks for right now, though? The people. Peace.

Photos - Monserrate (NY Daily News)

New York Senate Stalemate Over: Still Rubbing Salt in the Wounds

While the New York state senate stalemate appears to be over (at least for now), the real losers continue to be the people of New York. The real winner? Probably Pedro Espada, who not only gets to be majority leader of the Senate, but also gets a pay raise (he's earned it, right?). Espada went back to the Democrats (who apparently took some convincing by future felon Hiram Monserrate) Thursday night, after being told that he would be majority leader, ending the ridiculous 31-31 stalemate that has paralyzed the state.

But Espada did not go back to the Democratic fold for the people. Sources say that a seperate Democratic faction that was getting pretty fed up with the nonsense in Albany (it only took them 31 days) were planning a deal with Senate Republicans that would have given the Republicans a clear majority and would have pushed good ole' Pedro out of contention for a leadership position in the Senate. Only then did Espada go running back to the Democrats, after he made them all look like a bunch of political eunichs.

If you listen to the rhetoric being espoused by Democrats in Albany, you would be hard pressed to find any sincerity. For example, John L. Sampson (D-Brooklyn) said "To all 19.5 million people in the state of New York, we apologize. Sometimes you have a dysfunctional family, dysfunctional family members, but at the end of the day, we understand that we are all one family and we are all home now. Home to stay." Sampson is the new leader of the Democratic caucus (not to be confused with the other two positions being doled out to Democrats: Espada as the majority leader and Malcolm Smith as the president of the Senate), and not a very good analogy maker. Dysfunctional families only hurt themselves with infighting and shame; they tend not to affect 19.5 million people.

Espada's words were even more off of the mark. "Sometimes best friends fight. I never left home. I had a little leave of absence. My brothers and sisters welcomed me back, and we come back stronger than ever." The Democrats are not best friends with Espada (and I would guess that neither are the Republicans). Espada probably ruined a lot of goodwill that the senators may have had with their constituents, as incumbency may be more of a burden for some legislators due to the laughingstock that the New York State Senate has been to the rest of the country as of late (though, as discussed previously, some senators may not have an issue with it). Espada probably thinks that he is best friends with everyone because his ego is so big, but I would venture to guess that he won't be a popular guy in the coming months.

The only statement that resembled reality came from Dean Skelos, the leader of the Senate Republicans. "There are so many factions there that would like to, quite honestly, slit the other factions’ throat. I think it’s going to be very, very difficult to lead and govern." While the whole image of entire factions of Democrats taking razor blades to other Democratic factions' throats in an Albany bloodbath is a little much, Skelos is right in that the Democratic party in New York is in serious discord. It would not surprise me at all if another Democratic faction broke off before year-end. Because, really, how long can you ally yourself with someone who compares himself to Jesus causing a ruckus among the moneychangers at the temple and another person who thinks legitimate criticism of him amounts to a jihad?

At the end of the day, the senators in Albany can be described using a popular colloquialism (in that I heard it yesterday and read it in a book that very same night): ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag. They are a complete and utter embarassment and if more than 5 total get re-elected, then we really do live in Idiot America. If Espada and/or Monseratte are re-elected, the water should be checked in their districts. I am embarassed by Espada, Monseratte, and every senator that did not unequivocally stand up and say that what was going on was wrong (which, by my count, is every senator). But maybe there's a reason no one stood up and said something; because when you shine the light on one cockroach, you shine the light on them all. Peace.

Photos - Malcolm Smith, Bill Perkins, and Pedro Espada enjoy a good laugh at the expense of New Yorkers (Washington Post)

The Problems with Democracy I

A new study by the Pew Research Center shows that there is a vast disconnect between the views of American scientists and the American public. Only about half of the public agrees that climate change is caused by humans, and 11 percent believes climate change doesn't exist at all. About one third of Americans believe there is still an ongoing debate on the subject. Meanwhile, nearly all scientists believe that human activity is directly related to climate change.

Many in the scientific community acknowledge that they have not done enough, and scientists in general do not do enough, to actively engage the public with regard to their research and findings. The media also deserves some blame for focusing too much on "both sides" of issues, instead of on objective expertise. But ultimately, scientists tend not to have any more say in public policy than anyone else, and in many cases, are largely overlooked or ignored.

The notion of American democracy is predicated upon the will of the people. And though it is not always the people who in fact have their will carried out (I'll touch on this in a later post), it is clear that the will of the people—the laypeople, if you will—is not necessarily the most logical, utilitarian, or even remotely beneficial drive for public policy. Indeed, the average person is caught up in their own narrow context within society (How much money will this cost me? How does this benefit me? Why should I care?).

One of the biggest selling points for conservatism is its championship of low taxes. And don't get me wrong; I don't like paying taxes either, and I happen to think there is a huge amount of government spending that is unnecessary, wasteful, and even harmful. But many Republican politicians capitalize on Americans' general attitudes by justifying our seemingly innate selfishness with their tirades against spending—even on programs that will ultimately serve to benefit far more people in the long run (e.g. universal health care).

Americans don't want to be taxed and don't want to have our money taken away. Americans don't want "government standing between you and your doctor," and don't want to have to pay more for the energy we consume. And so it makes sense that politicians exploit these widespread aversions. But this black and white idea of government staying out of our business and leaving us and our money alone simply doesn't make sense. In a world where no perfect market exists, it is government's responsibility to protect consumers, provide people with basic services that everyone should be entitled to (education, health care, public safety, etc.), and address negative externalities that affect citizens who would otherwise not be able to defend themselves.

When people are thinking strictly about their wallets—in part because politicians and the media are only fanning the flames of citizens' all-too-narrow perspectives of public policy—it serves to undermine the well being of society as a whole. Americans too often don't possess the wherewithal to make sound judgments about what policies would be best for them and the country as whole, especially in the long run.

And this doesn't even account for the increasingly frightening reality that people outside of the US are greatly affected by our activities. In the case of climate change, the people who are most vulnerable to losing their livelihoods, largely because of our country's exorbitant consumption habits, have absolutely no voice—within the context of our narrow Westphalian nation-state democracy—to be able to enact or even influence any changes.

The idea of the "perfection" of republican democracy is still hotly debated. People with no expertise or far-reaching knowledge about most subjects elect representatives—often for reasons that have little or nothing to do with policy initiatives—who are meant to serve the needs and wants of their constituents (and often exploit constituents' fears and selfish tendencies to maintain their own power). Policymakers and their advisers are too often far disconnected from the scientific community, and see no political advantage to seeking expert advice. Meanwhile, their policies can affect Americans and non-Americans alike who are unable to influence the political process at all. Modern democracy has serious flaws that continue to go unaddressed today.

Then again, as Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Benevolent dictatorship, anyone?

Images: Statue of Liberty (wayfaring.info), taxes (justinperry.net), Julius Caesar (tqnyc.org)

Will Espada and Monseratte Be Re-Elected? Ask Marion Barry

With the New York state senate in complete shambles, Espada and Monseratte may be breathing a bit easier due to the actions of a former D.C. mayor over the weekend. It seems that Marion Barry was arrested for allegedly stalking his ex-girlfriend Donna Watts-Brighthaupt. Reports from Barry, Watts-Brighthaupt, and the police all seem to contradict each other, with Barry saying their meeting was mutual, Watts-Brigthaupt saying she had nothing to do with the arrest, and the police saying that Watts-Brightaupt flagged them down to arrest Barry. Nonetheless, two stark facts remain: Marion Barry is a mess, and Marion Barry continues to be re-elected.

Barry's criminal history is ridiculous, even for a public official. His most infamous arrest came after he was caught on videotape with former girlfriend Hazel Diane "Rasheeda" Moore smoking crack. Despite having videotape evidence of the former mayor smoking crack in a hotel room, Barry was convicted of only one count of cocaine possession (all other charges being thrown out after a mistrial declaration by the judge). Some members of the jury took it upon themselves to dispute facts that not even Barry's lawyer disputed. They believed that the very same government that employed most of them was conspiring against Barry because he was black. Not because he was smoking crack on videotape in a hotel with an ex-con; no. Because he was black.

I'll be the first to decry racism by prosecutors and the government, but one thing people seemed to forget is that he was caught smoking crack on videotape with a sketchy individual (this cannot be repeated too much). It doesn't matter what race you are when you're on tape smoking crack; you're guilty. One would think that a conviction for possession of crack (not to mention a highly embarassing videotape with you muttering "The bitch set me up!" as you're led away in handcuffs) would derail one's political career. Not Marion Barry. Barry continued his mayoral duties through his arrest and trial and ran for a ward seat in DC, but lost. In 1992, after being released from prison, Barry ran successfully for a Ward 8 seat, defeating four-term incumbent Wilhelmina Rolark. He won back the mayorship in 1994, served one term, stepped down, and re-entered politics in Ward 8 again in 2004. Despite several tax issues (which has led to his having probation extended because he does not file his tax returns), he was easily re-elected in 2008.

So why is Marion Barry's political career a good omen for state embarassments Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate? Because it shows that you can be a drug addict who does not pay his taxes and still get elected to public office. Espada should expect to get a few indictments by year's end for various misgivings (not living in his district, campaign finance issues) and Monserrate is already under indictment for slashing his girlfriend's face. With all the talk of voting out the incumbents from this year's do-nothing senate, the sad reality is that it will not happen.

So why does Marion Barry continue to get elected? He has two major advantages that alone could boost his poll numbers, but when combined are almost unstoppable (akin to Captain Planet). One, his incumbency. He held the Ward 8 seat before he became mayor the first time; he has significant name recognition. Second, Barry is black. In an area of D.C. that is 93% black, to be an incumbent of the same race of your constituents is huge. Hence, despite his long list of shortcomings, Barry continues to be wildly popular to his constituency while being a punchline of jokes for the rest of the country.

Espada has similar advantages that Barry enjoys. Espada's background (born in Puerto Rico, came to the United States as a five year-old) plays well with his voters, who are predominantly Latino (with Puerto Ricans and Dominicans making up a very large chunk of his electorate). Espada does not shy away from his roots in any way, shape, or form. For example, when he gave a tour of his Bronx "home" he was sure to sport the colors of his homeland. Espada's incumbency and his roots outside of the American mainland will help him tremendously when his reelection campaign is called upon (if he is not a convicted felon at that point and thus precluded from running).

Monserrate enjoys the same kind of demographic advantage. He represents a largely Latino constituency and while Monserrate was born in America, he is of Puerto Rican heritage and has been very active in the Latino community (notably helping to found the Latino Officers Association and winning a very large lawsuit against the NYPD). Combine this with Monserrate's keen attention to the plight of illegal immigrants and his coming incumbency and there is little to indicate that he would be voted out (again, assuming that he is not a convicted felon at that point).

Have Barry, Espada, and Monserrate done good things for their constituents? Probably. Does that give them free reign to do whatever they want (such as smoking crack, not paying taxes, holding an entire state's legislative process hostage)? Absolutely not. But one thing that separates these three from reality is shame. They have none (Monserrate recently compared himself to Jesus post-table tossing in the temple and Espada said that all the ire against him amounted to a "jihad" against him). As long as they hold a position of power, they could care less what the rest of the world thinks about them because at the end of the day they enjoy the perks of being an elected official. While their actions affect a very large group of people, the only folks they have to answer to are their constituents, and they do just enough to stay in their good graces. We're just collateral damage. Peace.

Photos - Barry smoking rock (Washington Post), Espada showing off a photo and some PR pride (NY Daily News), Monserrate (NY Post)

Why Mark Sanford Needs to Resign

I've called for resignations from less-than-faithful governors before, and now I'm doing it again. I was going to call for it earlier before everyone else began to, but the New York state senate continues to reach new levels of incompetence and pettiness and the MTA is screwing over everyday New Yorkers. But the time has come for me to say it: Mark Sanford needs to step down. the same way McGreevey stepped down and the same way that Spitzer stepped down. The writing is on the wall for Sanford.

Even as the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) finds no "misuse" of state funds by Sanford, the stark fact remains: he (or someone within his office) lied to the people of South Carolina. While he told his advisors (or, again, one of his advisors told his constituents) that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail to recharge his batteries after a brusing legislative session, in reality he was in Argentina with his mistress. A lie about the whereabouts of the executive of the entire state as serious as this one calls for resignation.

But to top that, Sanford is a hypocrite. Not only does he not want gays to be allowed to be married, he doesn't even want them to be allowed to adopt. Meanwhile, he thinks that it's OK to break the sacred vows of marriage that he feels he has a special right to because of his sexual orientation, and to leave his kids on Father's Day weekend to get some with his woman on the side. Now tell me that kids growing up in a stable, loving environment where a same-sex couple love and are faithful to each other and are around for family holidays is more detrimental than a governor who puts his family in the spotlight for his infidelity. Sanford should resign just on the fact that he wants to dictate legislation negatively affecting millions of American citizens but does not want to follow his own reasoning.

Now many people might say that technically Sanford did nothing illegal. That's fine, but he has proven himself to be untrustworthy, a liar, and, to be frank, a scumbag. If that's the kind of guy people do not mind having as governor, then to each his own. But would Mark Sanford have been elected if his potential constituents knew about his affairs and his penchant for either lying to his staff or having someone on his staff lie to his constituents? On top of all this he is treating reporters like therapists and spilling his guts. It's cringe-inducing in its awkwardness. It's like you want to shake him by the shoulders and tell him to shut up and talk to a shrink in private.

I'll give Mark Sanford one concession: reading those emails, he was clearly in love with his Argentinian mistress. It's really no excuse, though, because the vows of marriage are "til death do us part," not "til I find someone else I fall in love with." Sanford needs to focus on his life and his family - something a little more important than him retaining power for whatever reasons he thinks he should. He's like your friend at the bar who has had too much to drink and goes into the whole "I love you guys" speech when everyone else is still semi-sober; you stop him before he embarasses himself, get him home, and let him sleep it off. Sanford needs to do just that; resign, go home, and sleep it off. Peace.

Photo - Mark Sanford (Politico)