Justin Barrett of "Jungle Monkey" Fame Still Being Paid by Boston Police Department

Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett (CNN)

While following up on the about Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett, the person who wrote to the Boston Globe's Yvonne Abraham, who he calls a "hot little bird," chiding Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for being a "banana-eating jungle monkey" who has returned to his "roots," I could only find articles about Barrett's suspension and frivolous lawsuit. I thought to myself that this was pretty typical of the media, picking up an interesting story and then doing no follow up when the next hot story had come along. It turns out that Officer Barrett is still being paid by the Boston Police Department with Massachusetts tax dollars.

I called the Boston Police Department just to make sure, and they confirmed that Officer Barrett is suspended from the force with pay. So he's not even doing work and is being paid. I called the Mayor's office, knowing that Menino had previously called for Barrett to be fired, but got no comment on Barrett's suspension and continued tax dollar drain. The BPD said that Barrett's employment with the department was pending a termination hearing, but no one I spoke to seemed to know when that hearing would take place.

Now here's the ridiculousness of the entire situation: in an economy where unemployment is so high and layoffs are happening left and right as companies try to downsize, to have someone employed in a position he is not qualified to handle is ludicrous. Even going beyond the racism/sexism in Barrett's email, the line, "Your defense (4th paragraph) of Gates while he is on the phone while being confronted (INDEED) with a police officer is assuming he has rights when considered a suspect." That's Constitution 101 and any half-decent police officer should know that even suspects have rights in this great country.



Barrett's continued employment by the Boston Police Department while other city services are cut is a slap in the face to every person out there who has suffered and will suffer because of city budget cuts. I know that if I had sent an email like that to a newspaper and embarrassed my company the way Barrett did the BPD, HR would not think twice about letting me go, especially in this economy. So why is there a double-standard here and why is Barrett still being paid with Massachusetts tax dollars in the worst recession in recent memory?

Ruben Diaz Sr. Says Stance Against Gay Marriage Nothing Personal; Logic Would Dictate Otherwise

Today the Gray Lady is running a front-page (digital-wise, at least) profile of Ruben Diaz Sr. and his stance against gay marriage. Diaz uses the classic, "But I have [insert group you are prejudiced against here] friends! I can't be bigoted!" defense. It didn't work for Justin Barrett, and it's not too convincing with Diaz, either. Simple logic points to the fallacy of Diaz's argument that his stance against gay marriage is nothing personal.

Let's take a look at the outrage that occurred when a justice of the peace in Louisiana would not marry an interracial couple. The justice, Keith Bardwell, ended up resigning after being excoriated in the media. But what Bardwell did is the law of the land in the majority of American states when it comes to another type of marriage. Two men or two women cannot marry because of their (unchosen) sexual orientation. Yet when justices of the peace or other civil servants refuse to marry two people of the same gender they are following the law, not shamed into resigning from a post they never should have held in the first place.

So let me float this scenario by you: I'm a relatively well-known figure in New York and I say that while I don't hate interracial couples, they just should not be allowed to marry. Don't get me wrong, I hang out with interracial couples, I even have family members involved in interracial relationships, but to say that they could get married would force me to "turn my whole value system upside down." Again, it's nothing personal, I just think that they should be barred the right to marry because it's in the Bible (Deuteronomy 7:1-4). If I were to say that as a well-known figure in New York I would be run out on a rail, rightfully so.

But replace "interracial couples" with "homosexuals" and you have Ruben Diaz's argument. So why is it wrong to discriminate against interracial couples, but not homosexual couples? And to go even further, why does voicing your opinion against one get you a prominent, not unsympathetic write-up in the New York Times and the other makes you a relic of America's errant segregationist and racist past? To say that intruding on others' lives in order to bar them from making a very personal decision (one that many people look forward to in life) is not personal is inherently contradictory and irreconcilable, kind of like saying allowing gays to marry would somehow injure American society. Peace.

Photo - Ruben Diaz Sr. (New York Times)

Republicans and the Senate Climate Bill

The Senate climate change bill, or “Kerry-Boxer,” as it’s called, just passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate—with no Republicans voting for it. In fact, no Republicans have attended the bill’s markup in the last three days; they’ve been boycotting it. Claiming that they need to wait for a more comprehensive analysis by the EPA, all seven EPW Republicans refused to show up to Committee meetings in protest of how “quickly” the bill is rushed through the committee. This is despite the fact, of course, that the House passed their climate bill in June and the Senate bill is not overwhelmingly different.

The most outspoken critic of the bill’s allegedly unfair passage through Committee, and apparently the most ardent defender of EPA analyses, was Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe. No heed should be paid to Inhofe’s childish maneuvering and mendacious quotations. He would never support any form of climate change legislation, and he would do whatever was in his power to defeat any such bill under any circumstances.

The problem is the other six Senators on the committee, two of whom could potentially be reaches as Republican supporters of climate legislation—George Voinovich (OH) and Lamar Alexander (TN). Granted, they probably wouldn’t have ended up voting for the final bill anyway, but this bill will need some moderate Republican support if it’s going to have to find 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster (Inhofe would no doubt personally carry out the filibuster for months if he had to).

Now that the Democrats have passed the bill through Committee without any Republican input, moderate Republicans outside of the Committee—who may have been a much better hope for cloture votes—are criticizing Chairman Boxer’s move. Snowe and Collins (ME), Lugar (IN), Murkowski (AK), Gregg (NH), and Graham (SC), all supported the delay, and now bemoan the bill’s movement out of Committee.

Hearing Republicans talk about climate legislation, as I did yesterday when I went to a panel on which Lisa Murkowski spoke, is incredibly frustrating. Their solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is largely focused on increased oil and gas development in the United States. There will no doubt have to be big—and detrimental—compromises made. But hopefully the most esteemed legislative institution in our country can overcome its penchant for juvenility and pass a bill that will actually address the most urgent global threat of our time.

Images: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) (schema-root.org)

Election Day Hangover 2009

It's amazing what $90 million can get you these days. One of those things is the mayoralty of New York, though you'd have to fork over a little more (or a little less, perhaps) for a mandate and/or the respect of your constituency. As predicted, Michael Bloomberg defeated Democratic challenger Bill Thompson, but what was surprising was the slim margin separating the two men (51%-46%). So what does that mean for third term Bloomberg?

Some may have you believe that Bloomberg has lost some political capital because of the slim victory, but let's look at the guy for a second. He's not going to pussyfoot around just because he didn't dominate the election. This is a man who abolished term limits, which had been affirmed twice in the 1990s, just so he could stay on for an egotistical third year. Bloomberg is not exactly tactful; it may be harder to get things done because liberals can point to this election, but in reality Bloomberg tends to get what he wants (exhibit A: a third term in a two-term limit city).

Another good question being floated around: what if Anthony Weiner had run? Well we may have a Democratic mayor right now instead of an independent(ly wealthy) one. We can sit here and play the what if game all night, but suffice it to say how appropriate it would be for someone named Weiner to step up and show that the Democratic party actually has some balls.

And just a quick aside to the state of Maine: WTF? New England states have been the leaders in the fight against sexual orientation inequality and you go and pull this? I love how conservatives espouse minimal government intrusion (watch how quickly they'll cry about gun laws) but then approve the state-backed prohibition of marriage for an entire group of people. Marriage equality will happen one day, it may not be tomorrow, it may not be next year, but it will happen, and when it does history will not treat those who fought so hard against equal treatment for all that kindly. Peace.

Photo - Bloomberg wins third term (Times Online)