navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Racial Profiling inthe White House?
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Racial Profiling inthe White House? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2009-07-25 09:31 AM



The situation that came about concerning the incident with the Cambridge police and the Harvard professor gives me an uncomfortable feeling that the president may lean toward the side of racism. No, this is not Limbaugh or Hannity or anyone else talking....this is just me. I've heard no one else mention this theory but, after looking back and even looking at the present and projected future, there is much there for me to support this allegation. Why  do I feel this way?

Obama's twenty year association with Reverend Wright, a self-proclaimed racist.

His wife's comments about being the "first time" she was proud of the country when Obama won the nomination.

The way he slipped racism into his campaign on occasion, to the point that even Bill Clinton accused him of playing the race card.

This current situation where he claimed not to know the facts and then proceeded to call the police actions "stupid" and then went into a speech about how police departments use racial profiling, all of this in a national press conference on Health care, in which many millions were watching.

His association and participation with ACORN, an obviously racial group at the grass roots, pressuring banks to give out unsecured loans to minorities.

His "redistribution of wealth" actions, taking from the working class and giving to the poor.

The cap and trade and his proposed health care are aimed at raising taxes on middle and upper class. I have thought that he simply doesn't think about the consequences of his bills but I'm beginning to think he does. The upper and even middle ,  class work group is predominitely white. The poor are predominately minorities. Taxes on energy doesn't  affect the poor as much because they use less energy. Taxes on health care doesn't affect the poor, of which many  don't even have it but it does make them receiptients. One can say he is simply being a Robin Hood but I get the uneasy  feeling it's deeper than that, based on everything I've seen. Perhaps he has a grudge on the United States for their treatment of blacks throughout it's history. He certainly hasn't suffered economically or politically, having made millions and becoming President. Neither has his wife, who had never been proud of the country, although she went to the best schools and made millions herself. But perhaps he has a deep-rooted dislike for the "white America" which has treated blacks as second-class citizens, regardless of their positions. I'd like to think that's not true.

The situation with the police and the professor is nothing new. A black congresswoman went ballistic when  asked for her ID by a security guard, throwing a fit, berating the guard and screaming racism.
We had an incident  here  in Florida where a  black police captain in south Florida was pulled over in north  Florida for weaving   while driving. The captain went berzerk, screaming at the officer, grabbing his driver's license back from the officer's hand, and threatening to beat him up, screaming racial profiling all the while. He was arrested. At a press conference afterwards, the captain defended  his actions, claiming that his actions were justifiable because he felt he was pulled over unfairly. When asked by  the reporter if he was advocating the same type of response for anyone pulled over if they thought they were being unfairly, he backtracked very quickly and said that  PERHAPS he had acted rashly and, no, he did not advocate that at all and wound up apologizing for his actions.
Now we have a Harvard professor going ballistic because the police responded to a possible burglar incident at his home and wanted identification. The professor made sure everyone knew he was a close friend of Obama's.

What's with these people? A congresswoman, a police captain, a Harvard professor...all successful, all prominent....and all screaming racism to the point of attacking authorities just doing their jobs. Apparently being rich or successful does not take away deep-rooted racial "victimizatiton" attitude. It could even be that way for the President of the United States. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who is black,  had called Gates' arrest "every black man's nightmare."

Jesse jackson and Al Sharpeton are screaming for the officer's head...what a surprise.


Why did  Obama weigh in on this anyway? A president of the country getting involved in a local police situation and calling the police actions "stupid" without even knowing the facts? Smearing police departments all over the country for their tactics of racial profiling? I feel those same deep-rooted feelings in the president.

A multiracial group of police officers  stood with Crowley in Massachusetts and called on Obama to say he's sorry. Has he apologized? No, he hasn't. He claimed his words were "ill-chosen".

"I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently."   Yes, choice of words like "stupid" would give that impression.

"The fact that this has garnered so much attention, I think, is testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America," Obama said. No, the fact that this has garnered so much attention is the the president butted in where a president shouldn't and stuck his foot in his mouth.

Obama's take on the situation: "My sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in a way that it should have been resolved." No, the police officer could have resolved it very easily. The professor was the one out of control.

Has Obama apologized? No, he hasn't. He calls it "unfortunate" and a "teaching moment" but no apology. Let's hope it's a teaching moment for him. It COULD be a teaching moment for all of us.

There are some of you who may think I'm suggesting this because I just don't like Obama but I've given  it a lot of thought and welcome comments.


© Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
1 posted 2009-07-25 12:29 PM


Hmm..

Gates is a man and he's is reported to be Obama's "friend".

ACORN supports gay and lesbian rights groups.

Cap and trade is heavily supported by those groups too.

Maybe he's gay.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
2 posted 2009-07-25 01:34 PM


.


"playing the race card"


Duh


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

3 posted 2009-07-26 03:40 AM




     I need more information.

     My experience with the Cambridge police is that they are an excellent department of highly trained officers.  They have had to deal with a lot of highly charged situations over the years and are exceptional at doing so.  There are difficult officers in any department, but I have never heard of a Sergeant Crowley in that regard.  The department is especially careful in upscale parts of town, knowing that the town is composed of a combination of somewhat conservative folks and very liberal folks, all of which can be thorny as porcupines with a heat rash on any given day.

     My understanding is that the Sergeant Crowley responded to a report from a neighbor and found Henry Gates and his chauffeur having entered Professor Gates' house through the back.  Not knowing professor Gates, a request for identification was made by the Sergeant and was indignantly refused by the Professor.

     I can see both sides here.  The Sergeant, seeing two men wearing backpacks, in the back of a house — I don't know if the house had been reported as vacant by the caller or not — would naturally want to check out their suspicions and the complaint, but do it as tactfully as possible.  He chose to ask for identification.  I don't know how he asked or what gestures or posturings attended the request on either side.  I have no reason to believe it was anything other than a simple request, and as such a minimal use of police powers.  Response from Professor Gates by refusing the request for identification would naturally have lead to some sort increased police response as a matter of safety.  Exactly how that was done, I don't know.

     From the other side, the professor and his Chauffeur returned from a trip to China.  Unable to get in through the front door, they went around to the back, where they succeeded in getting in where they were shortly surprised by the arrival of Sergeant Crowley.  Was he alone?  I don't know.  But both the professor and his companion were evidently tired.  The Professor has a somewhat fiery reputation for his positions on black history, and is one of the foremost scholars in the field.  He writes regularly for The New Yorker and does not, apparently, suffer fools lightly.  He is extraordinarily sensitive to many of the issues that others are simply furious about, one of these being the crime of "Driving While Black."  The discrimination against blacks in the enforcement of law has been a bone of contention for him for years, and he is not one likely to back down in a confrontation of this type.  Whatever the legalities of the matter or the rights and wrongs of the matter, to be asked for identification by police who have entered his own home uninvited would not have been seen as a real option for him, but a serious slap in the face.  He made a statement that he would not show identification, and expressed some anger as I understand it, though I am not sure about the anger, and we was led off to custody.  I do not think he took a swing at anybody, for which we may all be grateful.

     Had it been me, I know it would have been going through my mind, though I hope I would have had the sense to suppress the impulse.  I can see and sympathize with both sides here.  I think that bringing President Obama into this is a sideshow.

     As far as I understand things, The President might well be honored to be Professor Gates' friend, as any President might be honored to be the friend of an esteemed scholar in a field of mutual interest.  As Gates may well feel honored in reverse.  I know lots of folks who might mention their friendship with the governor when the State cops pulled them over for speeding.  If both of them were white, does that make it racism? or a racist plot?

     Not unless they did it because you were both white, as opposed to simply being friends is the way I figure it, though heaven knows the logic is as full of holes as a doughnut.

     The way I figure it, Mike, you and I can afford to be paranoid about that sort of racism because we've never really been on the receiving end of it the way black folks have.  We catch what little scraps seem to be floating around, and think they're the real thing, like where they kill you for looking at somebody you "shouldn't be looking at" the wrong way.  Or where you don't get the transfusion you need because you're the wrong color and you die.

     You and I are just flirting with that sort of stuff.

     Even the anti-semitic stuff isn't as bad as it was thirty years ago.  Every now and again, you'll run across some, but not so often as to feel — at least most of the time and in this country — life is endangered.  

     White guys and being on the reverse end of racism is at best a pale reflection.  I thought I heard you say you were upset at grass roots organizing.

     The horror!  The Horror!

All my best, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2009-07-26 08:27 AM


Bob, Obama was wrong to malign the officer or the police department on national television the  way he did. As a former wearer of the badge, I can't even begin to tell you the damage it causes but I can assure you that right now there are police departments across the country very concerned about it. Neither Gates or Obama  could have picked a worse target than Crowley, who was trained in handling racial profiling and has taught classes in it to the officers in the Cambridge police department. If there is anyone in the world who would have used good judgement in this situation, it would have been Crowley.

But people who know Crowley were skeptical or outright dismissive of allegations of racism. A prominent defense lawyer, a neighbor of Crowley’s, his union, and fellow officers described him yesterday as a respected, and respectful, officer who performs his job well and has led his colleagues in diversity training.
“He’s evenhanded and, in the cases I’ve had with him, he’s been very much in control and very professional,’’ said Joseph W. Monahan III, a criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge and former Middlesex County prosecutor. Monahan has represented several defendants arrested by Crowley for domestic assaults and for drunken driving.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009 /07/23/officer_at_eye_of_storm_says_he_wont_apologize/

Obama could have diffused it at least a bit by aplogizing to the officer and department but he wouldn't even do that. Yes, he said he "misspoke" and his words were "misinterpreted", and he called Crowley to invite him to the White House for a beer...but no apology to either the officer or the department, which he claimed acted "stupidly". Apparently he is not a big enough man to do that.

I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station,” said Obama. “I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51574

An overreaction to pulling Gates out of his home Based on what he has heard? From who...Gates? Crowley claims, and witnesses support, that there was no pulling out at all... that Gates followed Crowley out of the house, ranting and throwing insults at the officer and would not stop. "There was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home and Professor Gates probably overreacted as well." You're a word man, Bob. Surely you can appreciate why Obama phrased his comment that way.  

I've heard that there are tapes of the incident and that the department is considering making them public....how I wish they would but I don't see it happening. There will be too much pressure to bear on  them not to. That's a shame.

The bottom line? A professor known for his temper and feiry rhetoric over racial discrimination overreacts to a police officer wanting identification after responding to a possible  burglary call and starts throwing insults at the officer and acting belligerently. That's about it. Is that something the president should weigh in on? Doesn't he have enough on his plate to not get involved in something like that? Would he have done it for Bill Gates, who I hear is also Obama's friend? No, why he did it was clearly racial and sends a warning to police departments that there is indeed a new sheriff in town and it would be good to be very careful...and even that may not be enough.



Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

5 posted 2009-07-26 11:17 AM





Dear Mike,

           I thought I tried to be evenhanded in my comments about the situation.  

     Your rhetorical question at the end is not so rhetorical to my ears.  I can't imagine something like that happening to Bill Gates, and I'm sort of surprised that you can.

     I do believe that the sergeant was acting as neutrally as a situation such as that will permit a man to act and still do his job.  He had a job to do, and it's easy to loose track that he was walking into a potentially dangerous situation.  He showed remarkable restraint.  All true.

     Black folks in the area know that this has not always been true, and will vary at times by neighborhood, officer  and perception of the situation by all parties.  Within my memory, I remember a kid  beaten to death inside  a paddy wagon.  Cambridge isn't all Harvard and tea parties, you know.  Everybody is on edge during situations like these.

     The notion of racial profiling by the President is a bit off the mark here, though.  I believe that you've taken an ugly incident and used it as a way to get in a gratuitous swing at the President.  And to make the white guys of the world sound downtrodden.  I commented on the notion of poor downtrodden white guys in my last posting, and I'd be interested in hearing your response.  You being oppressed by 10% of the population on the bottom of the economic pile, Mike?  The folks with twice the unemployment rate of white guys?  Apparently even Obama's Republican Lite style isn't reassuring enough for you; the man won't even give us an option of a National Health Plan with supplemental insurance for those who want to buy it, like a good Liberal would.

     Would Obama react the same way if it happened to Bill Gates?

     And which cop do you think would do that to Bill Gates, Mike?  Holy cow!

Yours in bewilderment,  Mr. Bob

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
6 posted 2009-07-26 11:44 AM


quote:
...a police officer wanting identification after responding to a possible  burglary call...


But didn't he get identification from him and then proceed to arrest him anyway?  Wasn't that rather going over board?
 
    

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
7 posted 2009-07-26 12:00 PM


I used Bill Gates because grinch seemed to think it was an acceptable comparison.


I am e-mailing you the official police report, Bob, that I received from an FBI friend. Read it and then make the call....


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

8 posted 2009-07-26 01:03 PM


Here is a link to the Cambridge Police Department where you can leave a message of support for Sgt. Crowley:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/cpd/contact/mailform.cfm?email_id=54&pv=Yes

I've also read the police report and I think the tapes of the police communications should be released as well.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
9 posted 2009-07-26 02:47 PM


What if it had been an older lady instead throwing a few flames out of her mouth?  Would she be arrested too?   Most likely not.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
10 posted 2009-07-26 04:15 PM


.

Wouldn't bet on that . . .
You don't know what's in the house
to be got when you turn your back.

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

11 posted 2009-07-26 08:40 PM




Dear Essorant,

          If it were your house, would you want the police to walk away simply because they were being given a hard time?  Remember, it might be you they were asking for identification, it might not be?  The only information they had was that there were people there and that the owners were away, wasn't it?

     I think you could make a case either way, but that the police in this case have a fairly reasonable one.  If Gates had not been a problem before he refused to show I.D. — and in your own home, you should probably have that right, though I don't know the law on that matter — he became a problem when he started to yell at the officers, who then had a potentially assaultive man at their heels, a level of threat that few officers would like to leave behind them because of the possible danger to the public.

     This is one of the potential dangers of any potential intervention into a crisis, that the intervention will make it worse rather than better.  One needs, in intervening, to have some notion of what to do if the situation escalates.  This is the function of both training and policy.  The Sergeant was, I hear, responsible for actually being a trainer in some things, and I hear nothing of him being in violation of policy.  If he has been, that will change matters somewhat.

Yours, Bob K.

      

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
12 posted 2009-07-27 11:30 AM



.


“None of us gets a pass once we evoke racial identity, not even the president of the United States, not even one of mixed racial heritage. Once we go down that road of racial self-aggrandizement, of seeing each other not by the content of our characters, but by the color of our skins, we invite nemesis — and there will be retribution. Because Barack Obama has consistently emphasized racial identity to further his own advantage, I fear others, both black and white, will be emboldened to follow his polarizing lead — in ways both novel and far more pernicious. We once trusted our uniquely qualified president to help lead us out of our racial morass, but so far he has only pushed us far deeper into it.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRlNDM5YTIxMGUzMjdiM2I5MWFjZDAzZTM3Nzg5N2U=&w=MQ==


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

13 posted 2009-07-27 12:00 PM




     It appears to me that The National Review is attempting to put a literate spin on their acute discomfort with actually having another race take part in the National Dialogue at the presidential level.  On the plus side, their take says that somebody over there has read their Aristotle.  Yale survives.  On the negative side, it shows their difficulty in distinguishing somebody else's leadership from oppression.

     If the Yalies are this touchy about having a black president, I can only imagine what they'd have to say about Yalie directed Jim Crow laws, Yalie directed racial mingling laws, and being shipped over to the U.S. in slave ships and in chains.  Also being whipped and starved and worked to death.

     It seems like the folks at The National Review can simply feel the weight of all that oppression settling in on their shoulders after the President has been in power for less than eight months.  It sounds rather like an advanced case of Princess and the pea Syndrome to me, without the pea.  Sounds like the panic of being out of power.  

    

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
14 posted 2009-07-27 01:48 PM


Bob,

quote:
If it were your house, would you want the police to walk away simply because they were being given a hard time?  Remember, it might be you they were asking for identification, it might not be?


Yes, if they got the identification and proof needed as they apparently did in this case.  There are more important things for police officers to do than arrest someone for simply yelling and having a bad temper at his own house.  He wasn't a threat to anything but the police officer's ear-drum.  

Well, at least it turned out well after all if they get to have a beer with the president and become friends.  


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
15 posted 2009-07-27 03:59 PM


.

“…Obamacare will push more institutions to adopt racial preferences by giving preference to those that have, in the words of the Democrat House legislation, a "demonstrated record" of "training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds." And notice the term "underrepresented minorities." They may as well have put up a sign "Asians need not apply."

Other provisions in the Democrats' bill would provide for "maintaining, collecting and presenting federal data on race and ethnicity," in order to "facilitate and coordinate identification and monitoring … of health disparities to inform program and policy efforts to reduce such disparities." We've seen these efforts before in the context of employment and education. Their end result is always a form of bean-counting that leads to racial quotas — which is bad medicine and won't improve health care for anyone. “


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez072409.php3?printer_friendly
.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2009-07-27 04:48 PM


Essorant, I have no idea where your comment comes from. You completely ignored the report, the testimony of the officer and the witnesses at the scene and come up with your own scenario. Yes, police officers have better things to do. Yes, the professor showed his I.D., AFTER berating the officer, AFTER screaming racial prejudice, AFTER threatening the officer with repercussions and AFTER demanding that the officer show his own credentials, which he did. It could have ended right there. When the officer went to leave, Gates followed him, continuing to throw out insults and accusations. When the officer left the house enroute to his car, Gates CONTINUED to follow him with the same insulting rhetoric and, after several attempts by the officer to warn him to stop _ which he ignored - he was placed under arrest. Your comment makes it look like the officer just felt like arresting him for no reason when the fact is that he showed more restraint than many others would. Don't police officers have better things to do? Yes, I can assure you they do.

The point that you all don't seem to be able to grasp is that this was NOT a racial situation. The neighbor called the police because two men were doing something to a door to try to gain access to the house. She did NOT mention they were black because they had their backs to her. The police responded, which is what they are supposed to do. Where's the racial part? After the officer confronted the two, Gates claimed he lived there and the officer asked for identification. Is there a problem there? Should the officer have not asked for I.D.? Anyone, even a burglar, could say "I live here", no? It was a reasonable request. At THAT point it became a racial situation with Gates screaming racial prejudice and refusing to promptly show his credentials. Then it became a bigger racial situation with Obama weighing in and talking about how racial profiling is a national problem and we should consider this a teaching moment. Good God in Heaven!!!!!! Those two "good friends" made it a racial situation! I can't believe you, or anyone else, cannot recognize that...

The lady who originally called it in has had to hire a lawyer. She has received hate mail, people screaming at her, calling her a "race-baiter" and being toasted on the internet with insults and threats.....and she did not even report the possible intruders were black! We have a mob mentality going on  here and Gates, along with Obama's help, created it. You want to complain about the officer? Be my guest....

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
17 posted 2009-07-27 06:48 PM


.

Maybe the black cop should have
asked the questions, taken the abuse
and made the arrest . . . or would
that make him Uncle Tom?  Let's wait
for the tapes and transcripts.  Or is
no one interested in what really happened?

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

18 posted 2009-07-27 07:06 PM


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jewish_World_Review

     The fact that a quotation appears as a Jewish publication says nothing about its politics.  Christian publications run a political gamut as well.  The politics in this Jewish publication are proclaimed by the publisher to be conservative; list of folks who publish the more secular articles there support him.  They include Rush Limbaugh's brother, Laura Schlesinger (sp?), Bill O'Reilley and much of the regular right wing wrecking crew.

     This article, suggested by Huan Yi, is a rehash of the regular right wing thinking on the issue.

     Having done their best to get rid of as much advantage as might be given to minorities, especially blacks, over the last administration, the gusto with which they seek to maintain and consolidate their gains seems understandable  If not affirmative action, however, which action?  Otherwise, it seems that the country is welching on a debt that needs redress.  Nobody is asking majority Americans to put on chains or accept whippings here, though apparently many on the right have difficulty telling the difference in accepting giving a little extra for a while to those whom we've stolen a great deal for centuries.

     This seems somewhat blind.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
19 posted 2009-07-27 08:16 PM


.


"Otherwise, it seems that the country is welching on a debt that needs redress"


300,000 plus "white" Northern boys and men died
in bringing death to 250,000 plus "white" Southern
boys and men to begin with . . .
Seems to me debt paid.

.

Yoinn
Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649
Michigan
20 posted 2009-07-27 08:16 PM


I don't usually involve myself here in the Ally or discussion forum, choosing to focus on poetry but this one kinda sets heavy on me. Maybe I can bring a little bit of experience from the law enforcement field to the conversation. It wasn't police work but the training is comparable.
  When a officer first arrives on a scene he  takes certain steps that are governed by his training and experience. After making a quick note of his surroundings he:
1) Find the Danger if it's not apparent
2) Rate the danger and who is threatend
   rating danger involves certain questions. Are there Weapons? How many people are there, both victims and suspects and bystanders.
3) BRING THE DANGER UNDER CONTROL ( this includes people who are not in control of their emotions)
From what i have read the Cambridge officers did everything by the book and when the investagation turned up that there was no B&E going on. It should have ended there. The Harvard Professor CHOSE to not let it end there and the officers were forced to CONTROL the DANGER that was present. What danger can a middle aged professor pose you ask?...Plenty is my answer. Irate people who are not in control are unpredictable. If you have ever faced a irate crowd that was whipped up by one person screaming, and I have, you know the danger it poses. The professor was arrested because he would not control himself after being told by the officers many times to do so. It had nothing to do with RACE. And I agree with Balladeer on that.
    Was the presdent wrong with his stupid statement? yes he was. He's new and he will learn to hide his true feelings like Bush if you give him a little more time. ( hey at least he speaks in complete sentences. something we haven't had in the white house in many moons ) There are much worse things crawling around in the underbelly of the white house than racial profiling.
My 2cents and there won't be anymore lol

Just reworked my old poetry page. Check it out before geocities takes it down. Yoin

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

21 posted 2009-07-28 10:41 PM




Dear Huan Yi,

                     The Emancipation Proclamation was signed late in the war. As far as Lincoln was concerned, slavery was not the issue of the civil war, as I understand it; keeping the union intact was, and he was willing to do whatever it took, pretty much to ensure that happened.  He was, as I understand it, against slavery, and took his opportunity when he could.  There was an enormous amount of public opinion in the north against the war being fought on the issue of slavery, the New York draft riots being but a single example of its expression.

     The efforts of the civil war were quickly smothered during the reconstruction, with the imposition of the Jim Crow laws. with lynchings and with similar expressions of anti-black rage on the part of the southern states.  The northern states were not very welcoming of those blacks that came north.  If the congress had thought that the Northern casualties were payment, I doubt that the whole "40 acres and a mule" reparations bill would have ever passed.  Not that it was ever actually acted upon.

     If the racism that had resulted in the actual physical bondage of the blacks in America had ended in 1865, you might even have something of a case.  There was blood on the streets in the 1960s, a hundred years later, when some of the freedoms that had apparently been won for blacks during the civil war were actually sought.  There were still folks with serious spelling issues wearing white sheets in Ohio when I was a kid.  The blacks all kept to their side of town, and I'm ashamed today to remember some of the ideas I thought and grew up with.

     We owed the Blacks then and we owe them today, not only what happened before 1865, but what's gone on since.  For the stolen families and education and wages and dignity and skills that they should have had an equal chance at earning with the same hard work that the rest of us put in for them.

     And of the dead of the civil war, I wonder how many of them were black?  And of the blacks who wanted to fight, how many were permitted to go?

     I think your answer here is too quick, and misses too many salient points, some of which I've tried to raise in response.

     Thoughts?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
22 posted 2009-07-29 09:47 AM


The police acted stupidly.

Gates acted stupidly.

Gee, how hard is that to figure out?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2009-07-29 11:00 AM


I agree....how dare they respond to a burglary call? What were they thinking????????????
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
24 posted 2009-07-29 02:04 PM


.


" The Emancipation Proclamation was signed late in the war."

After Antietam which was something of a
Union victory which his advisors said
was necessary not to make the proclamation
look like a loser's last cry.  The war then
went on for another two and a half
very bloody years.


"As far as Lincoln was concerned, slavery was not the issue of the civil war,"

Nonsense.  He was very mindful that if
he was too open he could lose a good
part of the Union army, including officers,
in the bargain.  It was his anti-slavery
position that caused the Southern states
to start seceding from the union shortly after
his election in the first place.

.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
25 posted 2009-07-29 02:04 PM


I agree Brad, though I'd also put the President on the list for commenting at all and applying an obvious bias when he did.

.

Yoinn
Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649
Michigan
26 posted 2009-07-29 02:51 PM


Why does everyone just assume that blacks were the only race to be made slaves? I offer this reading.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

Yoin

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
27 posted 2009-07-29 03:07 PM


Grinch

But remember the president was put on the spot at the press conference to express his judgement/thoughts about it. And he did preface his comments thus:

"I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.  I don't know all the facts. "

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/23/politics/main5182101.shtml)

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
28 posted 2009-07-29 03:55 PM


Ess,

He should have left it at that.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

29 posted 2009-07-29 04:30 PM


He also knew ahead of time that the question was going to be asked. Gibbs acknowledged that when questioned about it.

Our 'post-racial' leader got caught playing the race card to fabricate a 'teachable' moment.

Hopefully he's the one who learned something.

And just what did the police do that was stupid, treat a black professor who is a friend of the governor and president as they would treat any citizen under the same circumstances?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

30 posted 2009-07-29 07:17 PM




Dear Denise,

          From everything that I've seen, the police acted within policy and correctly.

     I would also say that Dr. Gates acted in an understandable fashion, though he would have done much much better to have had a longer fuse.

     There are situations that nobody does well in and in which everybody emerges feeling self-righteous.  Indeed, everybody may even be righteous.  I would fault Dr. Gates more fully here, but I can see where he might come by his reaction honestly; and why he might feel that failing to react as he did might be knuckling under to the less pleasant elements of white society.

     I don't see how the Sergeant could do other than arrest Dr. Gates once he followed the Sergeant outside and continued yelling.  A disagreement in private can often be allowed to pass as a disagreement between two people.  The same disagreement in public is a challenge to police authority and almost demands to be addressed as a police matter.  Alas.

     I would hate to feel that I had to take sides here, Denise, where I can see both sides of the story and sympathize with both sides.  Put me into the the situation on either side, and I'm afraid that I would have acted as the parties on that side acted.  As Dr. Gates, I would have felt hypocritical for not standing up for my beliefs and not expressing my outrage at being treated in a way that I felt was especially demeaning, even though I'd risen so far in the world.  As Sergeant Crowley, I'd have felt that I'd done my best to answer a potentially dangerous complaint only to have walked into a storm of what must have felt like unjustified abuse, simply for doing my job in as low key a way as I could.  When I attempted to break off the exchange without causing unneeded problems, I would have felt betrayed that Dr. Gates had not taken the chance to end the confrontation there.  A renewal of the abuse outside would have made me believe I had no choice but to deal with the man by containing him before he became violent and simply so that I could get about my business in case there were other, more potentially dangerous situations, that required my help.  Time containing Dr. Gates was time that could have been spent  with unknown other events later on my shift.  It is only with distaste and regret that I would have taken Dr. Gates into custody; it took my time away from being on patrol and visible to the citizen of Cambridge.

     They both had a good point.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

31 posted 2009-07-29 07:50 PM



Dear Yoinn,

     Blacks were not the only ones made slaves.  I'd be interested to see where your reference got his data, however.  I'd be especially interested in knowing where all those ships filled with white slaves came from.  I also believe that your author confuses the truly ugly labor practices of the times in England and other countries with slavery when they were truly ugly labor practices.  Indenture was common for children for example as part of apprenticeship programs, and the treatment the author describes was not uncommon treatment of apprentices.

     Transport was a punishment for folks convicted by the courts, many times of extraordinarily petty offenses.  It should be understood that many of these offenses were punishable by branding and death, even the petty ones, and that transport was a lesser punishment.  Debtors were also transported.  Imprisonment for debt could become a life sentence — or often a death sentence, truth be told — for many of these folks.  Prisons were not a well established institution at this time.

     The difference between white and black slaves is more than that, of course.  It was not impossible for a white slave to run away to another state and lose himself among the population.  It may have been possible for black slaves to do so, but  it was considerably more difficult.  And any notion of white slavery definitively ended in 1865, didn't it?  If not a hundred years before.  The discrimination against blacks continues today.  Americans have problems with lots of things, slavery being one of them.  To say that there were white slaves doesn't lessen our obligation to black slaves, does it?  You can add another chapter to the book,  you cannot erase the reality of another researched, documented, written and, unfortunately, lived.

     If that's in fact what you were trying to do.

     The 1855 story your source tells about the blacks and the Irish loading the cotton ship, by the way, says nothing about the Irish being slaves, although it implies it.  The potato famine was in full swing in Ireland at that time.  There were a lot of Irish immigrants to this country working at dirt poor wages.  Dock work was one of the jobs they took.  Slaves were Capital, and the owners tried to conserve them as a resource that would cost money to replace and train.  They were not responsible for hired help.  They were not trained by the slave owners and the slave owners would not have to bear replacement costs.  The Irish were not slaves, it seems; they were probably untrained day labor, plentiful and easily replaceable.  They came from another part of the labor market entirely, one that was in fact spelling the demise of slavery in the South.  It was cheaper to hire plentiful day labor who would feed and clothe and house themselves than to buy and maintain slaves.

    The vestiges of this wage slavery have been with us ever since.  It is a battle that we are still fighting, to get these folks to have decent pay for the work they supply.  In that sense, much of the slave system is still around in a more profitable form for the slave owners — at least the Marxists would say so.  

     But this is a discussion that probably belongs in a different thread entirely.  The system that took advantage of the Irish is part of the same system that takes advantage of many of us today.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
32 posted 2009-07-29 08:19 PM



quote:
I don't see how the Sergeant could do other than arrest Dr. Gates once he followed the Sergeant outside and continued yelling.


I really wanted to sit on a fence and call them all equally stupid but the chance to play devils advocate is so enticing.

A cynic, having read the officers own report, would have to ask why the officer invited Gates to follow him out of the house. Any defence lawyer worth his salt would certainly ask that question. While in his own home Gates was committing no offence whatsoever and couldn't legally be arrested. As I understand it your constitution affords him the right to rant and rave to his hearts content, however stupidly, in the confines of his own home.

Couldn't inviting Gates to commit a public order offence by asking him to step outside be seen as tantamount to coercion to commit an offence? Or at the very least an error in judgement that inflamed a situation that was, up to that point, contained within the confines of the house?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
33 posted 2009-07-29 08:46 PM


Of course I think the police acted completely within the bounds of the law, which is why the prosecutor has decided to proceed against the defendant... um.. what?  Oh, never mind.

Yelling is not disorderly conduct?  Oh.. ok then.  

Yep.  It was stupid.  What happened was stupid.  But, I don't think that the motivation on the part of the police was race -- even though I understand why Skip felt that way.

The only 'crime' that was committed was a false arrest.  Cambridge should hope Gates doesn't sue.  Perhaps the kegger will do the trick.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2009-07-29 09:32 PM


Personally, I would love to see Gates sue but I doubt he's that stupid...although he has shown those credentials recently.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
35 posted 2009-07-29 09:42 PM


A cynic, having read the officers own report, would have to ask why the officer invited Gates to follow him out of the house.

In the first place, the officer invite him to follow him out of the house "if he had any other questions regarding the matter".

Second, the officer  gave t he reason for wanting to leave the residence "was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units". I see no problem with that reasoning.

You can all try to excuse Gates or give justifications to his actions until the cows come home. It won't hold water...which is why Gates won't sue.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

36 posted 2009-07-30 03:25 AM




Dear Mike,

          That last sentence of yours is speculation passing as logic.

     As far as I understand it, you and Local Rebel are trying to decide Dr. Gates' course of legal action for him here.  I see no grounds for a suit, but then your legal degree may be current while I simply don't have one.

     When did you pass the Massachusetts bar again, Mike?  I mean in case Gail, my regular Massachusetts lawyer, should prove unavailable?  It's passed my mind.

     Jeeze.  

     It's a rotten situation with enough mistakes to go around — more I think on Dr. Gate's side here, but I couldn't tell you about how that would work out legally.  You're fighting about who to blame rather than trying to figure out what we can learn.

     You've heard me say the way I think the blame shakes out; what do you think we can learn from this mess?

Curiously speaking, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
37 posted 2009-07-30 06:46 AM


Bob, I simply said that I feel Gates won't sue. Your sarcasm about my passing the bar is unfounded and actually a waste of your talents.

What can we learn from this mess, Bob?

I would fault Dr. Gates more fully here, but I can see where he might come by his reaction honestly; and why he might feel that failing to react as he did might be knuckling under to the less pleasant elements of white society.

Well, according to you, it would seem the "because I'm black" would be a good defense for any black wishing to lash out at police in a repeated offensive manner any time he is confronted over anything. I mean, if a black Harvard professor, educated, financially successful and highly regarded can do it, why can't every black in the country? Gates should have known better. It's interesting that you consider police responding to a possible burglary call one of "the less pleasant elements of white society." Undoubtedly, police officers all over the country would thank you for such a glowing recommendation. At least, Obama agrees with you and wishes to convey the same message nationally. Your loyalty is commendable, misplaced as it may be. Perhaps a law should be passed advising police officers never to ask any black man for identification because it would damage their sensitivities and cause them to feel persecuted, based on the history of racial discrimination in the country. That would prevent situations like this from happening, I suppose.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
38 posted 2009-07-30 02:17 PM



quote:
In the first place, the officer invite him to follow him out of the house "if he had any other questions regarding the matter".


As I said the officer invited Gates to follow him outside.

Why?

quote:
Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units


Odd, he'd already made two transmissions from inside the house with the bad acoustics and didn't mention making another while outside, perhaps the acoustics of the porch were worse than the kitchen.

And why did he refuse to identify himself when asked? If he wanted to calm the situation refusing to answer that simple request was an odd way of showing it.

Once he established that Gates was the homeowner the officer should have apologised for the misunderstanding and exited the property. Instead he invited Gates to follow him outside where he'd "answer" his question with a swift rendition of Miranda's favourite tune.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

39 posted 2009-07-30 02:32 PM


Gates is the one who initially refused to show ID. The officer did identify himself.

And the officer should APOLOGIZE for the misunderstanding? HE WAS THERE DOING HIS JOB!!!! Sometimes that involves protecting idiot racists like Gates.


Yoinn
Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649
Michigan
40 posted 2009-07-30 03:04 PM


Grinch,
    The reason the officer asked the prof. to follow him outside is very clear to anyone that understands police work. SAFTEY. If your are being confronted or are confronting a angry person the LAST place you want to be is in a confined space, and certainly not if it his residence. Outside allows the officer to keep a safe distance while the matter either calms down or cuffs are needed. Also if you are waiting for back up..your better off outside. You making this out to be a instance where the officer was trying to TRICK the professor outside so he would be in violation is just laughable.

Yoin

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
41 posted 2009-07-30 04:17 PM



quote:
  The reason the officer asked the prof. to follow him outside is very clear to anyone that understands police work.


Maybe he should have thought about that before breaking every rule of safe law enforcement by entering the house in the first place without adequate backup.

Or are you saying that, after he entered the house and realised that he was faced with a old man with a walking stick and not two armed desperados intent on doing him harm he suddenly decided it was a bad idea and unsafe to be there.

Maybe the officer doesn't understand police work either.



quote:
You making this out to be a instance where the officer was trying to TRICK the professor outside so he would be in violation is just laughable.


Really? So he invited Gates outside simply to answer further questions. So what questions did he answer while outside? Why couldn't he answer them in the privacy of the house?

quote:
Also if you are waiting for back up..your better off outside


No kidding. So remind me, why did the officer go into the house in the first place?


quote:
HE WAS THERE DOING HIS JOB!!!!


If he was doing his job he Denise he was doing it badly. He entered the house when he shouldn't have, not only was that stupid and potentially dangerous it also infringed the constitutional rights of Gates as laid out in the 4th amendment. You do remember the constitution? That series of rights that you keep insisting should be upheld at all costs. Or don't you think Gates deserves the same rights as you?

Police officers are supposed to diffuse confrontational situations; they're the experts in such situations. Gates is a rank amateur, they deal with these situations on a daily basis, Gates has probably never been in such a situation and probably won't be ever again. The officer had a situation confined inside a house with backup within earshot, but decided not to placate Gates by answering his questions. Instead he invited Gates outside where he didn't answer his questions either - he simply arrested him.

All that AFTER he'd established that Gates was who he said he was.

So far the officer looks a little stupid, and that's only based on his version of events. If Gates' version is closer to the truth stupidity is the mildest charge he should be facing.

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

42 posted 2009-07-30 08:37 PM





quote:


I would fault Dr. Gates more fully here, but I can see where he might come by his reaction honestly; and why he might feel that failing to react as he did might be knuckling under to the less pleasant elements of white society.




Dear Mike,

           By reading my above comments about "the less pleasant elements of white society" as a description of the police at all, let alone the police doing their duty does a disservice to the police primarily and to me secondarily.  Blacks have had their rights forcibly violated by any number of elements in the white society, including the Ku Klux Klan and plain ordinary churchgoing lynch mobs.  Until the police forces of the nation began to integrate, it was certainly not unreasonable to look at them as enforcers of the status quo, which included at many times and in many places, laws about race.

     I would hope that you don't find the truth objectionable simply because it is real, but because is is immoral in this case; though certainly explicable and understandable, there may be some question of it being forgivable.  This doesn't mean that Sergeant Crowley is such a man.  From all reports he is a fine man and a fine officer who upholds and advocates the best that the Cambridge Police Department has to offer, which is a good deal.  Nor have I at any time said or even attempted to imply otherwise.  If you read such an implication into my words, you are not only wrong, you are impossibly wrong.

     If you think that a black man has the same reaction as a white man to having a police officer enter his home, I must acknowledge the possibility that there are occasional exceptions, but that the rule must be that the Black man has a history over his history in the country of more improper police behavior than the White man has.  I would venture to say by a considerable extent.

     I would also say that the police officers, no matter what their business, seldom felt that they were acting badly or were out of line even though their behavior was to enforce laws that we would often consider today somewhat ugly or immoral or, at the very least, out of line.  In enforcing the fugitive slave laws, for example, the normal notions of jurisdiction were suspended, and so were the rights of search and seizure.  It is unclear how many free men of color were shipped from the northern states back to the southern states, but the law did little to help them.

     You should be well aware of the crime of driving while Black.  I am aware of the crime, from my youth, of driving with Long Hair.

     You can bet that Professor Gates has a considerably more informed and scholarly and in depth knowledge of that situation than you do.  If you had wanted to draw the debate on who was right or wrong in this case, I would say, and have said, that I agree with you.  Since you want to talk about the history and the reasoning for why Professor Gates might feel the way he did, Mike, your case holds no water at all.  You don't know or understand the history, and Gates is the head of the black studies department at Harvard, who has both lectured and written on the matter.

     And, frankly, your attempt to suggest that I think that police are 'the less pleasant elements of white society" earns you no points with me at all.  In fact, as far as I'm concerned, those elements would not be the police at all, but would be some of the right-wing talk show hosts whose comments on President Obama's "racism" have been filling the airwaves recently.

     Most police that I've spoken to personally are committed to enforcing the law as even-handedly as possible.  Some of them have been racists, but as long as their enforcement doesn't reflect that and they make an effort to work around it, I think that's fine.  You can police the actions of the police.  This is not a country where we police their thoughts.  Or even the thoughts of a Professor Gates.  For Professor Gates, we are interested in the accuracy of his facts in his area of competence, Black studies.

     Blacks and police do have a history in this country.  I think Gates was reacting more to that than to his actual situation, which was a mistake on his part.  But I've said that before, and you've heard and seen me do so.

     What you haven't seen me do is say that police are "the less pleasant parts of white society."  That, Mike, took you to infer; and, even then, incorrectly.

Bob Kaven

Yoinn
Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649
Michigan
43 posted 2009-07-30 10:00 PM


Why ask me these questions Grinch? Why not just assume the answers they way you have done so far. You do a much better job of it then I will anyways. I am not going to comment further for two reasons.

1)"I really wanted to sit on a fence and call them all equally stupid but the chance to play devils advocate is so enticing."

You really are just bored and want to argue

2) I will never put any confidence in a man that describes the taste of a apple pie, when I know he has never ate one.

later Yoin

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

44 posted 2009-07-30 11:15 PM




Dear Yoinn,

           After replying to your material above, I thought that some of the allegations looked familiar.  I looked at the site from which you apparently found the article in question
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html


and I must urge everybody to have a look for themselves rather than to take my word or description.  

     It has quite of list of anti-holocaust and what appear to be anti-Jewish texts.  It seems like they are pushing texts that that have some very odd opinions about concentration camps and the role of Jews in the world.  I have no idea why they are so interested in the masons.

     You have every right to your opinions.

     But I believe that the opinions expressed in the quoted article above were in many cases misstatements and distortions.  I really would like to see some more reference material to support these statements, especially about the nature of indentured servitude and the extent of it in the united states.  I would also like to see you distinguish between the labor conditions of the day, which were appalling and which were eliminated by labor regulations and unionization in many cases, and with actual slavery.

     I feel that wage slavery, which is an economic issue and a very important one at that, is being purposefully being confounded here with slavery, which is not only an economic issue but an issue of civil liberties and the franchise as well.  It is being done in the article in a way that seems specifically designed to delegitimize the historical situation of many Blacks in this country, and to suggest that the White population has not, as a whole, benefited from the status Blacks have had imposed upon them.

     I am very interested in your response.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

    

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

45 posted 2009-07-30 11:45 PM




Dear Mike,

           Yes Mike, it is a waste of not only my talents but yours as well.  The question in the end remains, I think, what can we learn from this mess.  I think that is probably where both are talents are probably best used.  I am not interested in saying nasty things about Sergeant Crowley.  I have frequently felt Professor Gates to be a bit more pugnacious than useful.  On the other hand, he has a keen sense of what works for himself and for his constituency, and he has been an incredibly effective advocate from Black Studies as an authentic Academic Program.

     They are what they are.

     For us:  What can we make out of this that is useful for our country, our friends and our selves?

     I, for one, have learned that we are not beyond racism, and that nobody is, and that we shouldn't really expect anybody to be.  Like hatred.  Everybody hates, even hates the people they most love, as D.W. Winnicott points out in his essay on "Hate in The Countertransference."  

     What he says is basically is that it's not the hate that destructive, it's the denial that you have it, and the refusal to take responsibility for it that make things go Kaflooey  in the night.  I think that's true about racism as well.  I know darn well how I was brought up.  I know what I've struggled against my whole life and I know what's left of it.

    That's not about to go away.

     What I can do is make a point of watching to see where it crops up, and cleaning up after myself as I go.

     So what I can learn from this mess, to some extent, is to say "So what?"  or "You expected differently?" and then ask to see what happens as a result.  Does being a wise Latina mean that you don't clean up your act, or does it mean that you show a life-long prevasive pattern of unchanging behavior that doesn't change?  Some of the southern senators who were giving Judge Sotomajor were one way, some were the other.  I felt that, after listing to long chunks of that hearing, that Judge Sotomajor was concerned with the law and not with a racial agenda.  That's what I heard, and I made a point of listening to what she said.

     I though The President's comment about the Cambridge Police being stupid was itself stupid.  I don't think the President is a man who runs his life that way; I see him as quite deliberate.  In fact, I see him as the kind of guy who'd try to get both sides to sit down together and talk things out, which is what he's trying to do.

     What about you, Mike, what have you learned from this mess?

All my best, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
46 posted 2009-07-31 12:58 PM


Yoinn, you are seeing what some of have been seeing for some time...welcome.

Bob, what have I learned from  this? Only the same thing I learned a long time ago on this forum. I'll leave it at that.

Talk as much as both of you want to. Come up with as much rhetoric as you think it takes  to convey whatever scenario suits you. The fact still remains this was not a racial issue until Gates decided to make it one. I feel confident that the officer, who had studied race relations and racial profiling at the Acadamy and taught classes in it to his fellow officers would not be the one to give the impression that it was racial profiling.
It was a response to a burglary call....period. Talk about slavery all you want. Talk about the reasonability of a black feeling threatened or harrased by a white police officer all you want. Talk about slavery and labor unions until the cows come home. IT WAS A RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL AND NOTHING MORE!

I ask you again....should police not ask for id from any black for fear of setting off their hostility? Should the Cambridge police tell Gates that there will be no more responses to his house under any condition so as not to provoke any charge of racial profiling?

If Gates had been a decent sort, he would have understood the situation, shown his id and thanked the officer for his quick response to what could have been a break-in. He decided to scream racial profiling instead and hurl insults.

What have I learned from this?  At the risk of damaging our friendship, I'll take the fifth.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

47 posted 2009-07-31 02:34 AM




Dear Mike,

          The friendship is firmer than that.

     Gates certainly made it a racial issue from all the facts that I've seen.  With Gates it was a reflex.

quote:


Talk as much as both of you want to. Come up with as much rhetoric as you think it takes  to convey whatever scenario suits you. The fact still remains this was not a racial issue until Gates decided to make it one.




     I am not clear about the identity of the other person in the "both of you" that you speak of.  I'd like to know if I'm in good company or not.

quote:


Come up with as much rhetoric as you think it takes  to convey whatever scenario suits you.




     As near as I can tell, this is essentially meaningless statement.  You have just told me to tell you what I mean.  I already have.  You act as though that were not the reason for us talking here.  Rhetoric is the study of the methods  people use to do that, and sometimes an exercise in the use of those methods.  As such, rhetoric is something everybody uses in language all the time.

     So apparently you are telling me to do what you do and I do and what everybody who speaks or writes does all the time.  Exactly why you would be wanting to instruct me to continue to do what I am already doing somehow evades me.  Does this suggest that I should tell you to keep encouraging me.  Very well.

     Keep encouraging me to point out what seems obvious to me so that you should consider it.  I need to be encouraged because at some point I think that some of this stuff would be obvious to you as well.

     That doesn't mean to say that I don't think Sergeant Crowley behaved correctly.  I do believe Sergeant Crowley behaved correctly.  I do believe that Professor Gates was out of line.  I think it was foolish for him to have followed the Sergeant outside because I thought the basic business was finished inside the apartment, and that following the Sergeant outside was like crawling down the barrel of a cannon using a lit match for illumination.

     The point where we are disagreeing is simply this.  It appears to me that while you can see with perfect clarity exactly what the Sergeant was seeing, and understand precisely what the Sergeant was thinking and what he was doing — as I believe I do as well — your empathy and insight go completely blank and you go deaf when it comes to understanding what was going on for Professor Gates.  You are relentlessly locked in to the single point of view.  You apparently cannot imagine that there is another point of view with any other sort of reality to it, and when you try to grasp it — and I believe you try earnestly to grasp it, because you are a well-meaning guy — the understanding that you get slips through your fingers like trying to scoop wet sand in your fingers from the bottom of a lake.

     This doesn't mean there isn't another valid point of view.  You can see it very clearly when you think about white guys being the victims of racism.  That makes you, I think, unhappy, and it makes you want to speak out, which is why you brought up this thread.  You simply can't imagine feeling that sort of resentment against the police that you think of so highly.  And with good reason.

     And yet here it is.  Professor Gates has resentment built up for that kind of treatment again he and his for more than three hundred years, as you would as well in the same situation.  You'd be on a hair trigger too.  You'd be predisposed to see the evil in everything the other folks do and in whatever the other folks are.  You have feelings like that about Democrats in general.  If a Democrat looks at you the wrong way, there had better be a very good very detailed explanation, which you may or may not accept.  This isn't something you're about to grant on faith.

     The analogy isn't exact, Mike.  Both of us know that.  But you should also know that people really like to think of themselves as both correct and righteous and not slimy and underhanded.  And Professor Gates is likely playing by those same rules.  That is he actually believes he's right.  And if you're going to actually understand the situation without disposing of one party or the other, it generally works better to understand how each party honestly thinks they're in the right.

     You can have your own opinion as to how right and wrong actually breaks down, and clearly you do, but it doesn't help you understand how Police and Blacks mean well and miss each other at the same time.

     That gives you more power over the situation the next time it comes up than simply finding somebody to blame.  That let's you know where to intervene, if you have it figured out right, in a way that will allow a change to happen.  And not simply make a decision as to which one has to go stand in the corner.

     As for it not being a racial issue until Doctor Gates made it one, I'm not certain of that.  Nor am I certain that Sergeant Crowley would have seen it that way, if he is in fact as fine an officer as I believe him to be.  I think that he know when he found two black guys inside that house who looked like they may have been home owners that the situation was both racial and critical, and that he deserves a great deal of credit for managing it as well as he did, even with all the fall out that's come from it.  Both of us, I believe, have some understanding of how much worse such a situation could have become without a level headed, competent officer on the scene who knew from the beginning what was happening and who knew from the beginning what sort of end game he would have to be looking for.  Otherwise there would have been body bags, because stuff like that gets very out of control very rapidly unless somebody knows what's going on and is actively managing it; and it is fairly obvious that this particular somebody was not Professor Gates.

     If Sergeant Crowley didn't know it was racial from pretty much moment one, before Gates even opened his mouth, things would have been much worse.  I know that from having had to deal with violent crazy folks trying to hurt each other and trying to hurt me, and you know that from having been a cop and having seen things managed badly.  If you please.

     My talk about slavery and labor unions was in response to the highly distorted article from the publication list of a radical right wing publisher that Yoinn was trying to suggest was a presentation of established fact.  It was not a response to anything you said.  You should have a look at that list, however, and make up your own mind as to how reputable the facts may have been.  Actually, even a look at the history presented in the article itself demanded some sort of accounting for the assertions and implications being made there and being passed off as fact.

     As I said, don't take my word for it, have a look yourself.

     And yes, it was a response to a 911 call.  And I believe the police did a good job.  I am at odds with much of the Liberal talk shows about this.  I still insist that you have no understanding however of the whys and wherefores of Professor Gates' reaction, and that it is likely that Sergeant Crowley was way ahead of you here.  His successful management of the situation suggests that to me.  I would hope that, with consideration, it would to you as well.  Don't diminish the man's skill and ability.

All my best, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
48 posted 2009-07-31 10:42 AM


Thank you, Bob.  I confess that I'm a little confused by some remarks of yours.. You say As for it not being a racial issue until Doctor Gates made it one, I'm not certain of that. and then go on to speak of how the officer handled it excellently andthat it WAS a response to a valid 911 call and that the police did a good job. Who, then , made it a racial incident, if not Gates?

If Sergeant Crowley didn't know it was racial from pretty much moment one, before Gates even opened his mouth, things would have been much worse. I don't contend that that the officer consider it racial at all before Gates went goony, unles you are saying that any interraction between blacks and whites should be recognized as racial situations. Crowley handled it by the book. He responded to the call, encountered two people at the scene, one of which claimed to be the owner, and he asked for identification to verify that. He would have done the same had the occupant been black, white, yellow, orange or chartreuse.

Professor Gates has resentment built up for that kind of treatment again he and his for more than three hundred years, as you would as well in the same situation.  You'd be on a hair trigger too.  You'd be predisposed to see the evil in everything the other folks do and in whatever the other folks are.   Bob, your conception of what I would do or how I would feel is unqualified and you overestimate my hair trigger (in this case). Here you are stating that a black, even one as prominent as a Harvard professor, is predisposed to see evil in everything a white person does, based on black history. Well, that certainly makes it quite the situation, doesn't it.....a country where blacks walk around, scarred by 300 years of injustices, distrusting whites. Japanese-Americans, scarred by the thoughts of the Japanese interrment during WWII and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, walking around with a hatred and distrust of whites, native Americans walking around, scarred by thoughts of reservations and genocide perpetrated by the US government, hating whites. I'll tell you what. I can understand the feelings of all of these people. Bob, I have spent a good part of my life either dealing with minorities or being a minority myself. My sympathy for injustices committed against these people in sincere but it will not give them a free pass to do whatever they please and cite hundreds of years of persecution as an excuse. People like Professor Gates disrespect the blacks who are intentionally harrassed by cops....and, yes, it does happen, unfortunately. He damages their cause by his uncalled-for actions in this case.

You are relentlessly locked in to the single point of view.   Call it old police training, Bob. I don't consider that to be a bad thing. He was   responding to a possible burglary call and handled it by the book, without being distracted. I'm sure he was aware that it was a white dealing with a black and acted properly respectful in his handling of the situation but did not let himself be distracted by the fact that blacks have chips on their shoulders based on centuries of abuse, accorrding to you. He needed proof tht Gates was the owner of the residence and he asked for it. Period.

Police also know if what discrimination feels like. People act differently around them. When I was on the force, I was still young enough to enjoy social interraction and even bend the elbow once in a while. If I went to a party with a friend I was welcomed but, as it went around the room that I was a cop, I could feel the mood change. People acted more carefully around me, were a little more careful in what they said and an invisible wall was erected in many cases. Was it deserved? Well, I don't think so but it was there. SHould I have been outraged and screamed at the injustice of it? I don't think that would have worked out too well.

It appears that, by your view, blacks want to be treated like anyone else of any color and yet want it known that they have the right to go off the deep end any time they are confronted by authority, based on years of persecution.  You are against discrimination of any kind and yet support Sotomayor, who threw out the promotions of fire dept employees who had scored highest on exams simply because they were white.

You apparently cannot imagine that there is another point of view with any other sort of reality to it

You are right, Bob, not in this case. We are not dealing with points of view. We are dealing with facts. The officer asked for ID. The professor went berzerk. Those are facts. SHould those facts be changed because blacks had to ride in the back of the bus in the '50's? I don't think so. How about the scenario that the officer shows up, is told by the person there that it is his residence, takes that at face value and doesn't want to offend the fellow by asking for ID from a black man, and say goodnight.......and it actually was a burglar, who ransacks the house after the officer leaves? Can you even imagine how that professor would be screaming incompetence and stupidity at he police department and probably even claim that they did not do a competent job because it was the house of a black man???? I can assure you it would not be a pretty sight.

Yes, Bob, I continue being locked into my single point of view. The officer handled it professionally. The professor reacted like an idiot and created the entire bruhaha that ensued. Obama was an idiot for (1) calling the police stupid after admitting he didn't know what he was talking about and (2) trying to make a racial profiling issue out of it when it was not. The professor, Maxine Waters, the cop down here in my earlier example are all either hotheads who like to scream race whenever they are asked for identification or they are all in need of some serious psychological help.

It was a response to a burglary call.....................period. What did I lean from this? Obama is more of a fool than I thought with a strong resentment for "white America" and Gates is not deserving of any intelligent thought....and that's just for starters.

Yoinn
Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649
Michigan
49 posted 2009-07-31 10:56 AM


Bob, I have to admit that Huffman is a bit on the far right in some of his other writings. There are other sources on the mater of white slavery, a simple google of "white Slavery" will bring them to you. Stephan Talty is one author that comes to mind. Slavery may have much more to its core than just race as we have been force fed our whole lives. Religious beliefs, wealth etc also figure strong into its make up in my view. Again Im not into doing hours of research just to come here and argue the findings. Im more into poetry. Do your own research, keep a open mind and if the findings allow you to accept that in the past whites have also sufferd from slavery then you have grown. If not then at least you are more secure in your own beliefs.

thank you

Yoin

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

50 posted 2009-07-31 03:01 PM




Dear Mike,

quote:


Here you are stating that a black, even one as prominent as a Harvard professor, is predisposed to see evil in everything a white person does, based on black history. Well, that certainly makes it quite the situation, doesn't it.....a country where blacks walk around, scarred by 300 years of injustices, distrusting whites. Japanese-Americans, scarred by the thoughts of the Japanese interrment during WWII and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, walking around with a hatred and distrust of whites, native Americans walking around, scarred by thoughts of reservations and genocide perpetrated by the US government, hating whites. I'll tell you what. I can understand the feelings of all of these people. Bob, I have spent a good part of my life either dealing with minorities or being a minority myself. My sympathy for injustices committed against these people in sincere. . .




     I need to acknowledge here that this is not the entire quote, and that I am splitting the quote on purpose.  To restore the sense of context, though, before I go further, the next part of the quote speaks about how all of this is not an excuse.  The "excuse" spoken of in the remainder of the quote reads like it means " an excuse for bad behavior."  Having given some notion of the context here, for the sake of folks understanding the whole of Mike's message rather than simply part of it, I'd like to continue dealing with this first part.

     You see, yes, I actually do think that this is the situation, at least in part, and that the White folk of this country have cut a wide wound across the history of those peoples we've come in contact with.  There is a lot of fear and animosity directed toward Whites for that reason.  And as you say, Mike, "that makes it quite the situation, doesn't it[?]"

     Well yes it does.

     What you leave out is the matching feeling on the part of White folks toward the minorities which enabled us to act in this way toward the minorities in the first place, and which enables us to not notice that they've been excluded from the catalogue here.  Or to think that the feelings and actions of Whites don't have a place in this stew of discontent that we're discussing here.  Nevertheless, you do have sympathy for these folks.  You say so, and I believe you.  But you don't see that it carries over into this situation.

     My feeling is still that Sergeant Crowley acted correctly.  My feeling is that Professor Gates acted poorly.  The arrest was appropriate given that the incident was public.

     And I still can understand where Gates got his anger and why it came out the way it did.  I sympathize with his situation and understand it.  There are some real issues to be considered there.

     I don't think any of them have to deal with the Professor's guilt or innocence, mind you.  He remains responsible for his actual behavior, just as the rest of us are responsible for ours.  But the issues are important issues, and they have to do with the presence of racism in this society and the degree to which it affects behavior and judgement by everybody.  How close this strain is to the surface with us is the unfortunate incident of the Boston policeman whose apparently intemperate e-mail to the Boston Globe has gotten him suspended from both the BPD and the National Guard.

     Whatever the officer's feelings on the matter, the form in which they leaked through to the public seems to be polarizing to say the least.  His judgement does seem to have been off pitch here, and that is how close the matter is to expression on a day to day basis in this country.

     And many other countries, by the way.  

     The History that Professor Gates teaches, you see, has consequences.  Many people are suspicious of people who have spent time in jail or who have a known history of violent crime.  Ex-cons, we call them; and we are very cautious about them, about hiring them, and about their supervision; and we are never quite sure when they will be safe to accept back into society.  I don't know if we are right about this or not, but the police that I've known have been cautious of them as well, and don't cut them very much slack, and they will give you reasons for this that they consider good enough reasons.  

     As far as many of these minorities are concerned — and every member of every minority won't share the view, but a lot of them will — there is a long history of crimes that have been committed against them by white folks, and especially White folks in authority.  And their feelings about white folks, especially white folks in positions of authority, aren't all that different than yours would be about a parolee or an ex-con.  The debt may be paid, sort of, but it's a good idea to keep a close eye on what's going on to see if the old familiar stuff is going to re-emerge.  And a lot of non-White folks are on a hair trigger about this with a lot of evidence to back them up.

     How easy is it for an ex-con to build trust with a police officer?  

quote:


. . . but it will not give them a free pass to do whatever they please and cite hundreds of years of persecution as an excuse.




     No, sir, it will not.

     Nor do I hear anybody asking for "a free pass to do whatever they please."  I find myself quoting YOU here, and you are substituting hyperbole for fact.  Why you would quote people who are asking for equal rights under the law as asking for "for "a free pass to do whatever they please" is a puzzle to me.  Asking for the right to do the same as White folk have done since the founding of this country is only asking for the kind of outrageous demands that you characterize them as offering if one believes that they do not have a right to equal treatment under the law.

     And they do.

     Your comments about Judge Sotomajor are difficult for me to fathom.  Her ruling went with the majority ruling in the case.   Are you telling me that a majority of the whole court was discriminating against White folks?  Are you telling me that she was making new law from the bench?  From listening to the hearings, even the Republican senators didn't believe that.  She was making a ruling based on the law that was presented her and did not go outside that range, which is exactly what Republicans have been asking of all the nominees for years.  Did you want her to legislate from the bench, which the Republicans have for many years held was an abomination?

     You are going to have to make up your mind here, Mike.  Do you want somebody to legislate from the bench and give you the sort of decision that you'd love to have but which was not supported by the points of law in front of the court, or do you want somebody to stick to the law at hand and render a judgement on that?

     I mean, all of us want what's convenient for us at the moment, but in this case, we really have to make a choice where our values lie.  O'Bama, as a Republican Lite kind of guy, went for strict construction of the law.  What about you?

Sincerely, Bob kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
51 posted 2009-08-01 12:16 PM


Your comments about Judge Sotomajor are difficult for me to fathom.  Her ruling went with the majority ruling in the case.   Are you telling me that a majority of the whole court was discriminating against White folks?

Actually, yes. The others who voted with her were equally as guilty, the difference being that they are not in the running for the SUpreme court. The fact that the higher court reversed their decision is evidence that they were attempting a reverse-discrimination tactic that didn't work.

As far as the rest of your comment, lengthy as it is, I find little that has anything to do with this particular case. At the risk of sounding tedious, let me repeat that this was NOT a case of racial profiling or discrimination....period.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

52 posted 2009-08-01 01:35 AM




     Do you remember Dogberry from Much Ado About Nothing?

     Your comment about tedium reminds me of him, a noble sheriff, of course.  I will write it down that I have made you risk tedium.  

     The horror!  The horror!,  Holmes, it was of a shape much like a gigantic hound rushing in a sort of grim silence, phospor dripping from its enormous jowls!  Then — horror upon horror! — it sat me down and tried to explain racism to me!  

     Of course my mind buckled, and I grew faint.

     But I grow tedious, and must stop before I endanger other innocent bystanders.

Forgive me if you can,

     Your obedient servant,

                                Robt. H. Kaven


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

53 posted 2009-08-01 02:09 AM


Dear Mike,

          As to Judge Sotomajor, The Christian Science Monitor reports on the matter.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/14/sotomayor-wont-bud ge-on-‘reverse-discrimination’-ruling/

quote:


“The issue was not what we would do or not do,” she said. “When you are on a circuit [appeals] court, you are obligated to follow a circuit’s precedent.”

Ms. Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who agreed with a trial judge that the white firefighters’ case should be thrown out of court. That decision was overturned by the nation’s highest court in a 5-to-4 opinion issued two weeks ago.




     In other words, as a strict constructionist, Judge Sotomajor's personal opinion didn't come into it.  She was forced to follow precedent, and she did to reach the decision she did.  She was not allowed to make new law, only allowed to see if the circuit precedent had been followed appropriately.  It had been, and she ruled to throw the suit out, which she was bound to do by the rules of the game.

     The Supremes, who are allowed to break new legal trail, did so.  Judge Sotomajor did not have that option.

     This is not called reverse discrimination; this is called following the law and upholding judicial responsibilities.  As the Christian Science Monitor said a bit further down the page, (rough quote, not exact), The senators were disinclined to dispute the law with her.  While you may read that differently, bless you, my reading is that they were pretty much aware that within the limits of politeness she would have eaten them for lunch if they'd have tried.  Certainly if you listened to the hearings, you would be aware that politeness would hardly have constrained them.

     So:  Reverse discrimination allegations equals unsupported nonsense and a smear campaign designed to turn Judge Sotomajor's loyalty to her calling into the exact opposite of what it was, namely a personal and arbitrary political rather than legal decision.  You are operating on disinformation here.  I don't know where you came up with it, but it's disinformation.

Yours, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
54 posted 2009-08-01 07:37 AM


You're probably right, Bob. I don't know a lot about judicial things and prescendents. All I know in this uncultured mind of mine is that the firefighters who studied hard and scored the highest on the promotions test were rejected because there were not enough minorities represented and Sotomayor's vote sided with disallowing them to receive the promotions they deserved based on their race. If that is disinformation, please let me know. The firefighters who showed up at her confirmation hearing to protest her didn't think so.....but, being white, they were probably just confused and couldn't grasp the big picture.

It was also controversial because the Sotomayor appeals court panel initially dismissed the case by issuing an unsigned one-paragraph summary order. Such action is usually reserved for routine, unimportant decisions.

Hatch questioned why Sotomayor did not offer a more detailed analysis reflective of the difficult issues raised in the firefighters’ case. He said all nine Supreme Court justices took issue with Sotomayor’s approach to the case.


I can't seem to find the precedent that the judges cite they had to follow. Can you?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
55 posted 2009-08-01 08:44 AM


Bob/Mike

Odd as may seem I think you're both right.

The decision was wrong and right at the same time.

Sotomayor was compelled to make a ruling based on current law and previous precedent, she made the right decision. As did the court the case was referred from, based on the law and precedents set in previous cases from equal or higher courts.

The Supreme court isn't compelled to abide by previous precedent, or even laws if they contradict the constitution. They looked at the case and basically said that the decision was correct based on current law and previous precedent but that the conclusion derived from those sources produced the wrong result.

Sotomayor applied the law the only way she could, it just produced the wrong result.

The supreme court set a new precedent for lower courts to follow, basically they said "This was a correct decision but the criteria for reaching that decision is wrong - here's a new one - fill your boots". (ok maybe not in those exact words).



It's how the legal system works, they look at the law, how it was applied previously, and rule based on those previous precedents. When a case turns up that deviates enough from the previous cases it gets bumped up through the court system until someone decides that the case is sufficiantly different and has created an unjust result, at which point they set a new precedent.

That's why the law is likened to an ass, it plods on in one direction until it's told to alter course.

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

Charles Dickens


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
56 posted 2009-08-01 11:31 AM


Gates was being a jerk. That's not illegal.

The cop shoulda walked after verification, and let Gates make an even bigger arse outta himself than he already was.

The cop was a jerk to arrest Gates, and no I don't think it was because he was black. He let Gates' mouth get the best of him and he  made a bad call. Cops do that sometimes.

Obama was a jerk to even entertain the mention of it on national TV. He was an opportunistic fool who used the media to coddle the twaddle of a bro who pitched a silly fit. Both appeared uneducated and low class to me for two men of their standing/ backgrounds. About the way Clinton looked when he said "I did not have sex with that woman," on national TV. I guess everyone has a buffoon day.  

And Bob?

quote:
We owed the Blacks then and we owe them today,...


I owe the blacks about as much as the whites owe me. Nothing.

Kick in a few other colors, too. I've got about all races covered in my blood.

I'm entirely sick of the notion that someone owes me something due to the sins of past persecutors & forefathers and even EVE for God's sake. She really messed things up for women, so every female oughta get reparations regardless of race, creed or religious belief?? No.

As far as reparations goes? I'm disappointed in a lot of history, but using history as a constant bemoaning leg-up tool for the present is just infantile and self-retarding.

The White house was white a long time. That's over and people just need to get over it.





Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
57 posted 2009-08-01 12:34 PM



Even I can't argue with that Rwood.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
58 posted 2009-08-01 06:05 PM


[Edit - Comments aimed at another poster's behavior will be removed. - Ron]

[This message has been edited by Ron (08-01-2009 06:46 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
59 posted 2009-08-01 07:22 PM


Good luck maintaining that Ron.  But you can do so without me breaking the "rule" again.  I am done at this forum when it becomes that unreasonable. I don't have any disrespect for you and respected your judgement about a comment of mine you removed the other day.  But this one is going too far and is no longer reasonable.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

60 posted 2009-08-01 07:27 PM




     Sorry to disagree, rwood.

     There are lots of folks who agree with you.  

     Part of the problem is that by saying the White culture owes the Blacks is that it says there's something "less than" about Black Culture, Black society or Black anything.  I don't know if that's part of what you may be getting at in your comments or not.  If not, I urge you to consider the validity of that point of view in addition — not instead of — your own.  It certainly seems reasonable to me as well as what you suggest.

     Part of what I think Whites owe Blacks here is an extra moment of thought and consideration

     Accusations, like Mike's, that Judge Sotomajor was engaging in "reverse discrimination" really need to be looked at with an extra dose of critical thinking, if only to make sure that the facts are correct.  As both Grinch and I pointed out, Mike was suffering from an attack of disinformation.  He thought that both the initial judicial finding in the case and the appeals court finding would naturally go with what seemed to him to be the correct (Moral? Political?) outcome.  Mike has been somehow given the notion that Judges can and should make arbitrary changes in the law from the bench, and that they do it all the time.  It doesn't seem very much of a leap from that position to believe that Sotomajor's decision was a racist swipe at White folks.

     Fortunately, Mike was mistaken.  Judges are very much bound by precedent in making their decisions, and Sotomajor's decision stuck very close to precedent, from what I saw in the hearings.  The Republican Senators were pretty much unwilling to discuss her assertions about that with her.  Apparently the more legally trained among them, at least, knew better.  The fact that the there wasn't much of a write up on the matter by her appeals court was because the lower court had done a decent job of that and because there was no new legal issues being brought in for consideration.

     Given our history of race relations in this country, we owe a closer and more considered examination of issues around race, the laws congress has passed to help deal with relationships among races, and the legal decisions that are a record of how these laws have been interpreted and carried out.  This is simply one of the things that White culture owes Blacks.  White Culture owes Black Culture this because the historical record has shown that Whites have been very shaky in their ability to deal with other folks in any sort of consistent and just fashion, before we were a nation on this continent, and certainly afterward.

     I am pleased that you have no wish for special favors, of course.  I would be even more pleased if it was clear to me that everybody else shared your point of view.

     As in, for example, the understandable wish for police officers to be treated the same way that everybody else is treated at a party, for example, while expecting to be able to continue to act as police officers while doing so.  In my youth, I can remember a lot of parties with recreational substances thick on the ground.  I enjoyed them a great deal, and I assume that a police officer would have enjoyed them as well, had anybody there believed that the officer could be trusted to be there as a private citizen.  And if anybody there had gotten into a disagreement with such an officer about behavior at the party — the officer's behavior or anybody else's — the trust would have gone out the window in a second.

     The presence of an officer in any transaction will also result in special favors as well.  A neighbor of mine was a retired officer, and he was genuinely puzzled why other people no longer gave him free meals and discounts and did things for him that other people would have had to pay significant amounts of money for.  Parts for his part time electronic business suddenly began to cost the same as they did for other people.  He didn't get his smokes at a special price any more.  And so on.

     Rwood, you may not want special favors, many other people can't seem to get enough of them.

     You may think that it's a special favor that Blacks are given extra help in getting into some schools or in getting some jobs.  I don't think it'll go on forever.  In the meantime, when a company overcharges its customers, a lawsuit will require that that money be repaid.  When Tobacco companies knew that their product was killing people, lied about it and went on as though nothing was wrong, lawsuits required some sort of settlement there as well.  Think of this as the same sort of thing.  You don't have to accept the settlement, and the settlement won't continue forever, but the reason for it being there is fairly well established.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

61 posted 2009-08-01 11:51 PM


,



Dear Mike,

          http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CC02%5C2008%5C20080612_0001355.C02.htm/qx


     Here is the opinion from the appeals court.  It does have considerable precedent listed, but also it has some explanation about the legal frame of the case, which is helpful in understanding the whys and wherefores.

Hope you've good a good pair of waders,

All my best, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Bob K (08-02-2009 01:36 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
62 posted 2009-08-02 02:15 AM


Although it is not disputed that the decision to discard the examination results was based on racial considerations, the District Court determined as a matter of law that no racial discrimination had occurred "because [all of] the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted," and because "[n]othing in the record in this case suggests that the City defendants or CSB acted 'because of discriminatory animus toward plaintiffs or other non-minority applicants for promotion," The District Court also rejected plaintiffs' civil rights conspiracy and First Amendment claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state law tort claim.

So, since they decided not to hire anyone the white police officers could not claim racial discrimination, even though it is not disputed that the decision not to hire anyone was based on racial considerations....isn't that cute?

We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.

So, because the board invalidated the results due to the fact that there was a racial disproportionate impact, Ricci had no case?

Defendants contend that their decision, though race-based, was necessary because compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws required them to reduce the number of eligible white candidates

And that is not called reverse- discrimination?

If too many white applicants obtained high scores, the City stood ready to nullify the results in the hope that non-white applicants would score relatively higher on a subsequent examination.*

And that is not reverse-discrimination?

The District Court also held as a matter of law that none of the City's reasons for disregarding the examination results amounted to intentional discrimination because the City had acted based on the following concerns: that the test had a statistically adverse impact on African-American and Hispanic examinees; that promoting off of this list would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department and would fail to develop managerial role models for aspiring firefighters; that it would subject the City to public criticism; and that it would likely subject the City to Title VII lawsuits from minority applicants that, for political reasons, the City did not want to defend.

Andthat is not reverse-discrimination?

Thanks for the link, Bob, although I had to hold my nose while reading it. Those are an awful lot of words to just say, "You didn't get the promotions because you are white but you can't claim discrimination because we are throwing out the results of ALL tests (because too many whites scored too high).

That is a sad example of our judicial system at work. As far as Sotomayor simply following precedents, what about her comment ""court of appeals is where policy is made" ? Making policy is not the same as following precedents in my book. Is it in yours?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

63 posted 2009-08-02 04:35 AM


quote:

And that is not reverse-discrimination?



Dear Mike,

          Actually, no, it isn't.

     The Ricci folks were trying to prove it was, but weren't able to do so.  Given that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court, its standing for being brought in front of the appeals court, was not very good to begin with; it would have been better if The Supremes had said whether they were going to take the case first, which might have saved everybody time and money.

     The suit was narrowly defined.  Ricci said Reverse Discrimination while the city said that in order for there to have been discrimination Ricci and friends had to prove that there had been damages.  Because the city had thrown the whole exam out, there was really no case for damages at that time.  That was the grounds on which, I believe, the suit was fought.  You can see if you look at the reference that it was a Title VII suit.  This means nothing to me either, by the way. But apparently there has to be some proof of damages.  Nobody got promoted.  

quote:


Thanks for the link, Bob, although I had to hold my nose while reading it. Those are an awful lot of words to just say, "You didn't get the promotions because you are white but you can't claim discrimination because we are throwing out the results of ALL tests (because too many whites scored too high).




     You may be right here, but I think not.  You'll probably hate me for suggesting what I think the difference is, but I'll take a shot.  I may be wrong about this anyway, but I think that you have a crucial clause wrong, this one: "You didn't get the promotions because you are white[. . . .]  I think that the more accurate reading would be something like, You didn't get the promotions because we became aware quickly that we were very vulnerable to discrimination litigation from minorities as well as the potential for litigation from White and Hispanic officers. . . .

     It appears that the city felt they were caught between a rock and a hard place, and tried to control damages as best they could by throwing out the whole examination.

     The fact that there was such a disparity in scores between Blacks and their White and Hispanic counterparts could well mean that the Whites and Hispanics were much the better candidates — the way I understand you to be reading the test results — or could just as well be evidence of an ill constructed and culturally biased test.  The SAT tests were apparently culturally biased until at least the early 1980s, according to the testing course I took for my EdM.  So were many IQ tests.  How to detect and eliminate this sort of bias is not something that I would even pretend to have expertise in; you would have to have major work in statistics and testing before you'd even be able to formulate the question in a decent fashion.

     The city, once they saw those results, would have a very good idea how good a case minority folks would have — I would suspect better than fair, and potentially very expensive.  It is likely a bias free test would show a much less skewed set of results.  In all honesty, it is not impossible that a fair test would show the results that did show up, by the way; it is merely unlikely.

     The likelihood of this being Reverse Discrimination as opposed to a poorly designed test?  I'd say it's more likely worry about the possibility of a poorly designed test and the monetary liability that could come from that.  

quote:


That is a sad example of our judicial system at work.




     How would I know?  I have very limited knowledge or understanding of the judicial system.  

     You did, however, ask to see the precedents, and I put several hours into digging this decision and the precedents listed on it for you.  Where is Judge Sotomajor going beyond her mandate and legislating from the bench, Mike?  It sure appears to me that she's laying out the precedents and following them.  What's more, four out of nine of the Supremes agreed with her.

     The judicial system, at her level, is not supposed to make law.  She gave a solid judicial opinion that you don't like.  Perhaps if the case had been presented differently, it might have been decided differently at that appellate level.  But it wasn't.

quote:

As far as Sotomayor simply following precedents, what about her comment ""court of appeals is where policy is made" ? Making policy is not the same as following precedents in my book. Is it in yours?




      I must have missed that quote.  Where, exactly, did you see that?  Was it in the reference I passed on? — because I didn't see it there.  If it wasn't, how about a bit more detail?  When I listened to the hearings, she said nothing like that that I remember, and she was questioned about that pretty closely.

     And no, making policy is not the same as following precedents in my book.

     Before starting to research the material for this thread, I had no idea that law should not be made at the appellate level.  It makes sense, I guess.  I had thought that things ran somewhat differently, however.  I'm glad to have had to get that bit of extra information and education; one of the things that pip does to keep my brain from turning entirely to cornmeal.  

     And you as well, you crusty old dog, you.

Best wishes, Bob Kaven

icebox
Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383
in the shadows
64 posted 2009-08-02 08:38 AM


Why wasn't the woman (Lucia Whalen) who made the 911 call invited to the Obama beer fest?  Her character was much maligned and vilified in the press as being racist even though the tape of her call proves no such thing.

On the other hand, maybe she was invited and turned it down assuming if she showed up the BOYS would have her serving the beer.  Women are after all the waitresses at the banquet of life.

Two weeks after his arrest, Gates sent her flowers.  All woman sure do love flowers?  Uh-oh, a bit of genderism there?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
65 posted 2009-08-02 08:47 AM


must have missed that quote.  Where, exactly, did you see that?

All over the internet, Bob, but why not just hear it from the judge's own lips....?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
66 posted 2009-08-02 08:52 AM


I think that the more accurate reading would be something like, You didn't get the promotions because we became aware quickly that we were very vulnerable to discrimination litigation from minorities as well as the potential for litigation from White and Hispanic officers. . . .   and you claim that is different from saying because  they were white? If they had been non-white with those scores they would have gotten the promotions. Since they were white, they didn't....which means white made the difference, regardless of how the semantics are presented.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
67 posted 2009-08-02 08:53 AM


icebox, I have it on good authority that the lady was not invited because her favorite beer is BECK'S.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
68 posted 2009-08-02 09:38 AM


...and here, ladies and gentlemen we have Bob K, the amateur baseball player from Beatemup, California, who won a raffle and was chosen to participate in this year's home run derby with the greatest hitters in baseball. Alex Rogriguez has the lead with 7 out of 10 but, unbelievable as it may be, if Bob K its one more out of the park, this amateur will win one of the most coveted awards in baseball!! Bob had been practicing for months, hiring batting coaches, studying batting techniques and finding ways to overcome his myopia. What a moment! The whirr of the mechanical pitching arm, the ball in flight, the swing....AND THERE SHE GOES!...sailing over the left field fence and propelling the amateur Bob K into baseball legend. What a moment!! Bob K is jumping up and down, friends are patting him on the back and lifting him in the air and the home run crown of 2009 belongs to BOB K!!!!.....but wait. The officials have just declared that there will be no winner this year, not because Bob is an amateur but because "it would set a bad precedent" to have a non-professional hold the record and, since the honor will go to no one based on the tossing out of the results, Bob K has no avenue to protest.

That's ok. Bob will understand, I'm sure  

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
69 posted 2009-08-02 10:23 AM


Dear Bob,

quote:
Part of what I think Whites owe Blacks here is an extra moment of thought and consideration


What about the Mocha-Olive-Caramel-Peachy-Yellow-Red-Brown-Porcelain-(rainbow) skinned peoples?

And tall, little, skinny, hefty, plain, ugly, pretty, handsome peoples?

And heterohomobi’s??

and malefemherms?

etc, playfully, etc.

quote:
Given our history of race relations in this country, we owe a closer and more considered examination of issues around race, the laws congress has passed to help deal with relationships among races, and the legal decisions that are a record of how these laws have been interpreted and carried out.  This is simply one of the things that White culture owes Blacks.  White Culture owes Black Culture this because the historical record has shown that Whites have been very shaky in their ability to deal with other folks in any sort of consistent and just fashion, before we were a nation on this continent, and certainly afterward.


So…America is terribly inconsistent with cultural progress & justice compared to what other continent? Africa?

Sorry, Bob. Doesn’t fly with me.

I beg you to take a really good look at CONGRESS. They’re a colorful bunch. If that’s not a statement for progress upon race in the White House, then I don’t know what else is. Despite our tall, dark & handsome President, RACE is a bankrupted issue with me. But our economy being bankrupted? Now that’s an issue.

Special favors?

I like special favors from my loved ones and I like to pay them special attention, too. I just don’t want them from the Gov. They suck at getting to know me well enough to cater to my tastes and whims, but then that’s really not their job, now is it.  Nor should it be their job to look up my cultural skirt while overlooking my poor test grades!!

quote:
With my academic achievement in high school I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that's been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that - there are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects. Sotomayor


I’m sorry. Affirmative action? So….Academically? She supports a system that devalues people for face value as if they could never know or achieve their own worth. And she accepted a position despite knowing she didn’t deserve it above her more qualified peers. AND THEN she wants to make negative statements toward the culture that basically made sure she was a shoe in.

You bet your bippy I question her balance on the bench and it ain’t got nothing to do with race but the foundations of her character. Period.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
70 posted 2009-08-02 10:23 AM



Bob,

That last post of yours was a well thought out and put together piece.

I just thought I'd mention it in case you got the impression that nobody read it.

Mike,

Nice baseball story. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with how the legal system and how precedents work within that system but I guess you can't have everything.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

71 posted 2009-08-02 10:47 PM




Dear Mike,

          Thank you for giving the EDITED and OUT OF CONTEXT version of the quote WITHOUT MENTIONING IT.

     Perhaps, once again, you were hoping that I wouldn't look or check.  

     If you decide to go back and check, it's the  quote next to the one you gave that says THE ENTIRE QUOTE under it.  Why they would try to hide it like that is beyond me.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

72 posted 2009-08-02 10:56 PM




    My mistake, it's labeled COURTS MAKE POLICY FULL CLIP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo&NR=1

    There is a distinction she makes, by the way.

Dear Grinch,

           Thank you.  I was wondering what the connection was between what I was saying and the response I was getting.  

     It's nice to know that my prose was actually clear enough to be understood by somebody else, and that the logic was at least followable.  Thank you thank you and thank you again.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
73 posted 2009-08-03 03:47 AM


Bob, whenever I hope you won't look or check, I won't included the link.

Yes, I understand your "out of context" tactic. It's the same one you have used in the past. I remember it when I went back to display your comments in naming Clinton as a main contributor to the economic fiasco, as if whatever was said before or after changed the actual things you said. This is no different. She make a comment and then employs CYA to cover it.

Yes, we all have comments from others we admire. I think rwood's comments are right on, as well as Denise's. Sometimes they  get recognized and some times they don't. I always read your comments, Bob, although sometimes there are so many words I lose the point or meaning....call it my loss, if you will.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

74 posted 2009-08-03 01:11 PM




Dear Mike,

          Wow!

Sincerely, Bob Kaven    

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Racial Profiling inthe White House?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary