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)

New Development in Daniel Talbot Case: Lodie Changes Plea

Derek Lodie (Boston.com)

It was announced today that Derek Lodie, the teenager charged as an accessory to murder in the slaying of Revere Police Officer Daniel Talbot almost two years ago, has changed his plea to guilty of accessory to manslaughter before the fact and received 8-12 years in prison. The charges have stemmed from a September 29, 2007 incident in which Lodie allegedly was walking behind Revere High at 1:30 am when he got into a verbal altercation with Daniel Talbot. Talbot apparently was taunting Lodie about being a member of the Bloods street gang and allegedly led the suspect to believe that he and his fellow officers were members of a rival gang (Lodie's attorney suggested this, and the D.A.'s office has stated to me that "The evidence does not suggest that Lodie knew Officer Talbot and his compatriots were police officers, but nor does it suggest that anyone led Lodie to believe they were members of a rival gang.").

The prosecution says that Lodie then called up Robert Iacoviello, a suspected Blood member, who then ambushed Talbot while Talbot and Lodie argued. Two other individuals have been charged - Gia Nagy and James Heang - as accessories after the fact for storing and helping to get rid of the murder weapon (which has not been found - see comment below, the alleged murder weapon has been recovered).

The story of what happened still does not make perfect sense, and the prosecution's refusal to make public tapes of the incident from Revere High's surveillance cameras (on public property, paid for with public funds) only further clouds the whole thing. One officer, Sergeant Evan Franklin, who was with Talbot at the time (five people have been confirmed as being there - Talbot, Talbot's fiancee, Franklin and two other Revere Police officers) has been fired for directing a responding unit to not respond to the scene but rather take an inebriated Franklin home. Couple that with the fact that four police officers are behind a public high school at 1:30 am drinking and a 20 year old with no formal firearms training is able to shoot one of the officers in the head while escaping from returning fire unscathed, and we have a very tragic and confusing situation.

In all, Lodie is getting off pretty easy, considering that in Massachusetts if you are an accessory before the fact in a felony you are punished in the manner of the principal (i.e. he who committed the felony.) So, in essence, Lodie got 8-12 years for killing a cop, which is a pretty lenient plea deal given the alleged crime.

It's hard to say what role Lodie's plea change will play in Iacoviello's upcoming January trial. The media is not saying whether Lodie will testify for the prosecution, though I cannot think of another reason to give Lodie 8-12 years for this. The DA's office, however, states that Lodie did not sign a cooperation agreement. Hopefully during trial the videotapes of the event (there is some fear that they have been damaged or destroyed) are made public so that we know what truly happened that fateful morning behind Revere High.

What was that Lincoln Quote?

When Barack Obama was elected president we heard about his seeming obsession with our 16th president. He read books on Honest Abe, used his bible at his inauguration and even themed the January festivities after the top hat enthusiast's famous Gettysburg Address. Given all of this Obama must have come across one of Lincoln's most famous quotes, uttered in his famous speech named for the quote, that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Now Lincoln was alluding to the dispicable practice of slavery in the States, but if we twist the quote a little bit and make it "A party divided against itself cannot stand," we see trouble looming for Democrats.

Yes, I'm going back into the realm of the public option. That elusive Ross and Rachel portion of the health care bill (on-again, off-again: lame Friends reference, forgive me). President Obama said back in August it wasn't essential to the bill. In September House Speaker Pelosi said it was essential while at the same time House Majority Leader Hoyer said it wasn't. In other words, there was no Democratic leadership on the issue, and that lack of leadership continues today over the public option.

It was bad enough that Schumer said a few weeks ago that an embarrassing loss in the Senate Finance Committee was really a win for the public option, but now he is saying that he and other key Democratic senators convinced the White House that the public option was the way to go.

But if Schumer and company have convinced the Obama administration to really get behind a decent public option, why are reports coming out that Obama essentially told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he is on his own for getting votes. If the Obama administration were really behind the public option, if they were "convinced" of its validity, why would they make it clear that they would turn their back on Reid in a crucial vote-getting campaign to prevent a filibuster?

Here is why, if we get a public option, it will be watered down: the Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Are they really unable to sit down, say this is our plan, and just stick to it? It's funny that Obama will take a risk on the 2016 Olympics for Chicago (read: going to Copenhagen without knowing for sure that Chicago would win the bid) but when it comes to insuring millions of Americans he doesn't want in unless he is guaranteed a victory. Schumer is saying one thing, and reports come out indicating the opposite. Reid could emerge as a leader on this, and Obama undermines that.

I would love to be proven wrong. I would love to get a robust public option that really shakes up the insurance industry and gives a decent level of care to millions of uninsured Americans. The problem is that no clear leader is emerging in this fight and the very backroom politics that is supposed to be used to get votes and get things done is creating miscommunications within the party and leaves the public scratching their heads and opponents on the offensive. Like Lincoln (kind of) said: "A [party] divided against itself cannot stand [for anything]." The problem is they're falling on us.

Photo - Obama and Reid (Politico)

The Party's Alive and Well: Goldman and JP Morgan Living it Up

Before we start reveling in the fact that firms like Citigroup and AIG are going to see executive pay regulation from the Obama administration, the two firms conspicuously missing from the list of firms being watched are going to hand out near-record payouts to their executives a year after they themselves caused the financial mess that has led to rampant un- and underemployment, and a lowering in the average American's salary.

And before you say "Well, Goldman only got $10 billion in TARP funds and paid it back." What we seem to forget is that Goldman underwrote a lot of AIG debt, meaning if AIG defaults without government assistance, Goldman's $3 billion+ earnings this year turns into a multibillion dollar loss. Additionally, Goldman still has to buy back its warrants from the government, which it is shrewdly trying to do below market prices. Talk about appreciation for bailing them out.

Additionally, before we kid ourselves, Wall Street is back to its old ways, only this time it's not with people's mortgages; it's with their lives. They are packaging life insurance policies the same way they did with mortgages, and then hoping that the people they bought the policies from (the elderly and sick, to name two categories they are targeting) die quickly so they get a bigger return on the payout.

When I called Congressman Barney Frank's office and began asking questions about Mr. Frank's willingness to enter legislation to rein in firms that received TARP money but technically paid it back (again, the issue of warrants and AIG underwriting emerges here in terms of Goldman, at least), I was transferred to the House Finance Committee. The nice woman who picked up the phone explained to me that while the House has been working on shareholders' rights issues and corporate governance (where this executive pay cut seems to be stemming from), for firms like Goldman there is no recourse because of the TARP fund issue. When I asked if she knew if the Committee would be introducing legislation to rein in executive pay at firms like Goldman, she said she did not believe so. When I asked if it was even on their docket, she referred me back to the whole shareholder's rights issue and that they have done what they could. When I characterized it as a "Do what you can now, deal with others later"-type situation, she agreed. Going after a firm like Goldman would require a) a serious backbone (they have a lot of money, and C.R.E.A.M. is not just a Wu-Tang song) and b) hard work. Both seem to be in short supply right now in Washington.

I guess when you have Geithner's ear whenever you want it, you can get a lot done. So while most Americans toil and grind each day out at work for less than they used to get (granted they still have a job), the fat cats on Wall Street, who would have lost their McMansions had we, the taxpayer, not bailed them out of a problem that they created themselves, are living it up and will see massive profits and massive paychecks. I guess what's good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for Main Street.

Photo - Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO (NY Mag)