’)Racism, we’re solving it!
A Boston police officer was placed on administrative leave after he allegedly used a racial slur when referring to Henry Louis Gates Jr.
In a mass e-mail, Officer Justin Barrett, 36, called Gates a ‘jungle monkey,’ according to a law enforcement source.
Gates, a black Harvard scholar, was arrested at his home earlier this month on a disorderly conduct charge after he tried to budge open the door of his Cambridge home.
I can’t possibly imagine why a black guy like Gates could possibly think that prejudice had any role in a police officer arresting him in his home. Unthinkable.
Pssst. Officer Barrett. You’re not helping.
Well, there you have it: proof positive that Obama is the source of all racism.
“when a cop calls you a jungle monkey, you should know to be quiet”-con bloggers
I’m anxious to see which one of these rightys will come to Officer Barrett’s rescue.
Barrett can stay home and listen to Rush Limbaugh on his own time.
Dumbass failed jock of a cop is just upset that Gates makes 100 times what he ever will in his life, and doing less work too.
Suck on that one, pig. Now you will lose your job and you’ll be lucky to work security at Best Buy for $9 an hour.
Pretty sure that’s an action that results in employment termination on my dept, but more likely for the misuse of the e-mail system than for the bigotry.
He ought to be fired.
His union will do everything it can to keep him from being fired.
BTW, fun geography fact for the clue-impaired: Boston is NOT Cambridge.
J.
This is obviously Gates’ fault. Somehow.
Agree with you on all three points, Jay, but I would add a fourth:
-the right wing should cut Gates and Obama a little more slack than they have been cutting them.
agreed?
Gates was an ass, who broke Chris Rock’s “How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police” rules. There never was a racial element in that story, except what Gates tried to inject.
Obama should have just STFU over the matter until all the details came out — and, maybe, even then.
The cop MIGHT have been a bit out of line in arresting Gates, who was a persistent and insistent asshole and essentially dared the cop to arrest him — and the cop bit.
Watch this story, though — the cop in question might get fired, but his union will fight it tooth and nail.
J.
Were Officer Barret still on patrol, I think his breathtaking stupidity and poor judgment might be an even bigger threat to the public than the racism.
The cop MIGHT have been a bit out of line in arresting Gates, who was a persistent and insistent asshole and essentially dared the cop to arrest him — and the cop bit.
Because we all know that being a persistent and insistent asshole is a crime in this country. Hence Bill O’s long stint in the slammer.
Gates was an “ass”, but Crowley MIGHT have overreacted, Jay? He’s an officer of the law, licensed to carry a weapon and use deadly force at his own discretion. He arrested a guy for calling him racist. I’d say Crowley overreacted big time.
And for the last effing time, yelling at a police officer is NOT sufficient cause to be charged with disturbing the peace in Massachusetts. I won’t bother linking to the relevant legal decisions yet again, because obviously no one has bothered to read them.
No, Cambridge is not Boston, but anyone who thinks they draw their police forces from different populations is kidding themselves.
If the guy sent the email from his BPD computer then yeah, he should be fired. If it was sent from his home … I don’t know. I suppose it will depend on departmental regs concerning private behavior.
I’m not saying I think the guy should be a cop, much less in a diverse city like Boston. I have serious doubts that he could show good judgement or be respectful when dealing with minorities. Perhaps that should be cause enough for him to lose his job.
Does a cop give up all free speech rights once he dons the uniform, even outside of the job?
Reprimanded and forced to sit through unpaid diversity training courses – yeah. Adiminstrative leave – probably. Fired – no.
Sorry, I can’t jump on the “fire an someone for being an asshole on their own time” bandwagon. I realize racist cops are a bigger problem than say, racist sanitation workers, but I get tired of people demanding the head of someone just because they say something stupid. It’s like demanding an public apology every time a politician says something which slightly offends one group or another. Politicians know when they have really stuck their foot in the shit – they go looking for microphones to apologize into – but as we saw this week with Congressman Thaddeus McCotter’s recent behavior demanding Obama apologize to the Cambrige P.D. – everybody thinks their Al Sharpton now.
Sorry, should have been “they’re Al Sharpton now.”
Gates was an ass, who broke Chris Rock’s “How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police” rules. There never was a racial element in that story, except what Gates tried to inject.
Oh, well, you still don’t understand Chris Rock although I find it funny that you would cite him as a prescriptive source of public behavior for Prof. Gates and, by inference. all black men.
So … you’re stereotyping all police officers because of the actions of one white cop? Gee, sounds like … racial profiling to me!!
ah Jay..how cool it is to see you posting here. Back in the day when you were a big dog at wizbang you banned me. You may try to pass yourself off as some kind of libertarian..but hey I noticed your racist posts there..and called you on them and you took care of that eh? You can take the guy out of wizbang..but ya can’t take wizbang out of the guy..or so it seems. (Or do you now regret your years at Wizbang?)
Having read the email in question, I take it back. This guy needs to be fired.
Having read the email in question, I take it back. This guy needs to be fired.
I would hate to deprive folks of the means to keep a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs but I’ve lived in Boston on two occasions and I wouldn’t this officer answering a call and dealing with me and my family. Things in Beantown are hard enough for black people.
Stunned. Simply stunned.
OK, can we say this police officer “behaved stupidly” without the ‘wingers having a conniption?
OK, can we say this police officer “behaved stupidly” without the ‘wingers having a conniption?
I doubt it.
Hold the Presses! A Boston cop used an ethnic slur referring to a black man? In 2009? You have got to be kidding!
We have obviously made no progress in racial relations if one white police officer can publish an ethnic slur…
I guess until that day comes when I see “white man and black men walking side by side” “Walking down a road that’s a century wide” , America will always be a racist hellhole.
Just stop it, please !
There was a time when neighborhoods burned over things like this. Cops were shot answering domestic disputes, fireman were assaulted putting out fires. You are starting to sound like petulant children.
This is South Boston in the late 60’s : http://a4.vox.com/6a00c2251d4c41f21900c22522aa8cf219-320pi
Give it a rest …
Give it a rest …
What? No.
Why would decent people not stand up to racism?
Chattering in a weblog?
Try giving your place in line in a Georgia drug store to a black girl in 1961.
Try fighting your way out of a bar because they called your buddy a n*****.
Try watching riots on television waiting to be assigned there.
This is quibbling, not standing up to racism. This is a kinderspiel.
Wanna fight racism? Go to the nearest Department of Social Services, and watch how light skinned Afro Americans treat dark skinned Afro Americans.
I helped black guys and gals adjust to post – sentence life. I still help black guys and gals adjust to new recovery from drug addiction.
If this were American racism, we could call it solved like 3.9% unemployment.
Chattering in a weblog?
Why yes, you?
I helped black guys and gals adjust to post – sentence life. I still help black guys and gals adjust to new recovery from drug addiction.
Bless your heart.
If this were American racism, we could call it solved like 3.9% unemployment.
This instance is not as bad as many, but what do we do, ignore it? Wait, don’t answer that?
“African Americans”, Frank. “Afro American” was briefly in vogue sometime in the 70s but I haven’t heard it used since the early days of the Carter Administration. I don’t know why I have to keep correcting you on that. It helps to make your case if you’re up to date on terminology.
‘Does a cop give up all free speech rights once he dons the uniform, even outside of the job?’
If you’re a racist dick off the clock, does anyone really believe that when the same prick puts on the uniform, he leaves his attitudes at home?
‘It’s like demanding an public apology every time a politician says something which slightly offends one group or another. ‘
You mean like the Cambridge police union or Right wing bloggers everywhere demanding President Obama apologize for answering a question?
Jay, Gates was in his own home and had provided two forms of ID telling the cop this. I’ll ask you again (didn’t get an answer from any of the boot-licking wing-nuts here): why are you so pro-2nd Amendment, but so anti-4th Amendment? The two really go hand in hand if you think about it.
That said, at this late date is surprises me that people still think their e-mail is somehow “private,” or that if you send out the latest dumb racist joke somebody down the line isn’t going to notice and tell your boss.
ITS FUNNY THAT WHITE PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A WHITE COP BEING POSSIBLY FIRED THAT CALLED A BLACK MAN A JUNGLE MONKEY.
MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT THEY WOULD THINK OF A BLACK OFFICER CALLING A WHITE MAN A WHITE HONKIE MOFO.
BUT OF COURSE, A NOBLE INTELLIGENT WHITE PERSON WOULD NOT MIND BEING STOPPED BY A BLACK COP WITH AN ATTITUDE AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE, LATE AT NIGHT WITH NOBODY AROUND!
STUPID HYPOCRITES
No, Jaim, he wasn’t in his own home. He was outside his home, in front of it, still yelling and shouting and raising a ruckus when he was arrested.
There is a legal difference between “in your home” and “on your own property,” just as there is a difference between “being in public” and “on public property.”
Think about this: when one is IN one’s home, one can do whatever one wishes. Three examples: urinate, defecate, fornicate. Now do all three on your front lawn, and you will be subject to arrest — even on your own property.
That’s just the way it is.
Ah, nogo: as I recall, you posted an “FU, I’m leaving and never coming back,” and kept coming back — so I helped you keep your pledge. Is this your way of thanking me for that favor I did you?
J.
Mike in DC: African Americans , is it?
Thank you so much. That just makes all the difference in this world to this European American, now doesn’t it?
As for how you “keep correcting me”, this is the second time. Just keeps happening over and over again, eh?
If there is any case being made here, it is that racism is so small a problem that an email containing an ethnic slur is news, and blogworthy
Indeed: I helped black guys and gals adjust to post – sentence life. I still help black guys and gals adjust to new recovery from drug addiction.
Bless your heart.
When you want the Federal Government to spend $100 billion on it, it is the most important thing in the world. But when a conservative tells you he actually walks the walk, that should be mocked. How typical. When was the last time you did anything to make your world a better place, besides asking other people to do it and pay for it?
Sorry Jay, not going to let you make up facts here. Gates opened the backdoor to his house with his own key. He was arrested after he was asked to come outside onto the porch where other cops were waiting (i.e., he was baited). To put it another way, why did the Cambridge PD drop the charges so quickly? Surely if they had such an open-and-shut case as you suggest they would prosecute Mr. Gates?
Really curious take on the Bill of Rights you have. 2nd Amendment yeah, 4th Amendment nay? Or is that only for blacks owning bigger houses and living in nicer neighborhoods than they should?
Jay,
If a cop came into my home and arrested me for having a stuck front door, I’d be mad as hell and would let the world know it.
The reasons the charges were dropped was that no crime was committed. I’ve heard and read multiple interviews with police officers and police chiefs that said the officer should have left immediately after it was established there was not break-in.
No crime; means bad bust, bad bust means bad judgment by the arresting officer.
Being a son of the south I recognize your form of racism. You may not use the N word in public but your a hater non the less.
Better tell that to Henry Gates, mike in dc.
Henry Louis Gaes, Jr.: “I’m the chairman of Afro-American Studies at Harvard and a professor of English.
The reasons the charges were dropped was that no crime was committed.
So … Karl Rove didn’t out Plame? Charges were never filed, much less dropped!!!
Charges get dropped all the time, for a variety of reasons. The prosecutor doesn’t think they can make a case, or doesn’t care enough to spend the time trying to make it. Or Gates called one of his buddies higher up the food chain and “made it go away”. Either way, the fact the charges were eventually dropped is not probitive in and of itself.
Not to mention the fact that smearing all cops with the actions of one Boston Police officer is in and of itself racist.
“I’m the chairman of Afro-American Studies at Harvard and a professor of English.”
Dennis, your citation of Gates isn’t proof of anything other than the department Gates refers to was created in the late 1970s or early 1980s. In fact, the use of the the term “Afro” in this case is meant to encompass not only African Americans but the whole of sub-Saharan African and the areas of the world where Africans were dispersed as a result of the slave trade and European colonization. This was the name of the department when Gates came to Harvard and it will probably be the name of the department long after Gates has retired and passed on.
Um, SaveFarris, “cop” isn’t a “race”, so it can’t be “racism”.
But to your point – this isn’t one cop, it’s another example of a racist cop. Big difference. It’s not that all cops are racist – it’s that enough are (or were recently enough in Gates life) that it’s not surprising that he would think a cop harassing him (as he sees it) is racist.
The department was created in the early 70s. Its current name is “African and African American Studies” – Gates should know this, of course, but this doesn’t change your point. “Afro American” is not the term to use to describe people.
Frank DiSalle…
You sound like the rarest of the rare… a conservative who really believes in conservatism without the selfishness, greed, arrogance and bigotry that usually accompanies it. I can have meaningfull dabates with a guy like that, without anger and animosity.
If you really walk the walk and not just talk the talk, you get props. (Short for “propers”-synonymous with “respect”)
Jay…
I listened in on this site with an open mind, hoping to find reasonable opinions. You can’t even admit that the cop overreacted in arresting Gates, an admission roughly equivalent to “1 + 1 = 2″. If you can’t admit that, nothing else you say is worthy of consideration
Helping people is a wonderful thing. However, while it may mean one doesn’t dislike a particular group of people, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that one may harbor stereotypical, patronizing or even pejorative biases or preconceptions of the population one is serving as a social worker. And it doesn’t rule out the possibility that one’s conception of what is best for that community may be erroneous as well.
Sorry Jay, not going to let you make up facts here. Gates opened the backdoor to his house with his own key. He was arrested after he was asked to come outside onto the porch where other cops were waiting (i.e., he was baited).
Oh for the love of God. Is this the new meme? That he was “baited”? Did you hear the radio transmissions? You can clearly hear some guy yelling (which Gates denies doing) in the background and unless it was another cop, then it confirms Crowley’s report and the reason why he left the home (he couldn’t hear the radio transmissions because Gates was yelling).
To put it another way, why did the Cambridge PD drop the charges so quickly?
Perhaps they didn’t want to deal with the public shit storm a disorderly persons offense would bring if they moved forward with the charges. After all, the icon of racial reconciliation himself, Al Sharpton, said he was going to be at the arraignment. Sometimes, dropping charges serves the best interest of everybody involved. It happens A LOT.
The reasons the charges were dropped was that no crime was committed. I’ve heard and read multiple interviews with police officers and police chiefs that said the officer should have left immediately after it was established there was not break-in.
And there are multiple interviews and reports from police officers and police chiefs who said that Crowley acted appropriately. BTW, Crowley WAS leaving after he had established Gates was the legal resident. Oh wait. I forgot. If you believe Jaim (and others who are spouting that crap) Crowley actually “baited” Gates outside where he immediately placed him under arrest.
No crime; means bad bust, bad bust means bad judgment by the arresting officer.
Once again, there are times when charges against a defendant are dropped as a means of serving the best interests of the public as a whole. It does not automatically mean the arresting officer acted in bad faith or displayed poor judgment. You guys really need to get better educated on these issues.
Being a son of the south I recognize your form of racism. You may not use the N word in public but your a hater non the less.
And there it is. Jay Tea, that’s what it all comes down to. You’re a racist.
It’s not that all cops are racist – it’s that enough are (or were recently enough in Gates life) that it’s not surprising that he would think a cop harassing him (as he sees it) is racist.
So racial profiling is justified … got it!
Ok, thanks, PTCruiser. My error.
It’s not a term I use but I didn’t know it was a term to be corrected on either. After mike in dc corrected Frank the first time, it stuck out in my mind and I do recall seeing the term ‘Afro-American’ several times in articles since. Could be most of them were in the same case as Gates and his current position at Harvard, but if I google the term, it doesn’t seem as if the word has been completely abolished.
Just for the record, I believe that Crowley overreacted to the situation. But just because he overreacted, doesn’t mean he acted with the malice of which he is accused (racism, baiting Gates outside to arrest him, profiling, purposeful constitutional violations, etc.).
Jay, isn’t it somewhat common in the case of someone acting the way Gates did and getting warnings to calm down, for the officer to arrest him and take him down to the station to cool off and think about it for a little while, knowing charges are likely to be dropped?
And as to the baiting charges so common here, where is that coming from? Did Gates even say he was baited?
Here is the link of the policeman’s report.
thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
In my opinion: if that’s the actual report, and if the 911 call posted on the internet is the actual 911 call, then somebody at the police department messed up really bad.
It’s kind of impossible to actually have a meaningful discussion with someone being as mendacious as SaveFarris is, but it’s not racial profiling when it was the behavior that led Gates to his suspicion.
and to add to Jay’s point – just because the cop isn’t racist doesn’t mean he sometimes treats black men and women differently because of internalized racism.
There is some debate about moving back to Afro-American for the American descendants of African slaves and reserving African-American for post-colonial immigrants from Africa. Professor Gates is actually tangentially involved in this debate specifically as it relates to those students Harvard University classifies as African-American. (a large percentage are African immigrants) There is also a secondary debate on how descendants of slaves from the Caribbean countries would fit in the nomenclature.
but it’s not racial profiling when it was the behavior that led Gates to his suspicion.
Of course it is: Gates saw a white man with a badge and thought to himself “If he’s a cop, then he MUST be a racist.” That’s why he went off like he did. If Gates doesn’t racially profile Crowley, then he doesn’t overreact when asked to show ID and this whole incident never occurs.
Jay, isn’t it somewhat common in the case of someone acting the way Gates did and getting warnings to calm down, for the officer to arrest him and take him down to the station to cool off and think about it for a little while, knowing charges are likely to be dropped?
1. Is Jay a cop? I didn’t know he was an expert on police procedure.
2. For the last effing time, there was no probable cause to arrest Gates for disturbing the peace under Massachusetts law. Period.
Do I not make myself obnoxious enough on this blog to be paid the scant attention it would take for you guys to read the links I’ve provided to Mass case law, on more than one occasion? Or do you just ignore facts when they are inconvenient?
Crowley overreacted. He was embarrassed to be called a racist in front of the public. Considering his history with the Reggie Lewis case I can sympathize with the guy. However, as a uniformed police officer he must be held to a higher standard. He can’t afford to let himself respond emotionally to any situation. Gates was pushing his buttons, and Crowley let him. Crowley fucked up.
What I don’t understand, is this.
First, listen to the 911 call posted on the internet. Does the caller refer to anyone as black? Even a single time? No.
Second, look at the police report posted at TheSmokingGun.com. Does the policeman’s report say that the 911 caller refers to two black men? Yes.
In my opinion: if these are the actual materials in question, then someone at the police department has some heavy explaining to do!
I misunderstood Crowley’s police report. Now I realize that Crowley wasn’t writing about what the 911 caller said on the phone, but what she was telling him in person while she held a phone in her hand. Dang, this can be confusing.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Jay, how do you reconcile your views of the 2nd and 4th Amendments? If Gates had shot the cop while inside of the private residence would that be OK with you? But if the cop asks Gates to step outside onto the porch to make the arrest that’s cool with you?
Not that I’ve ever expected much logic from you wing-nuts, but this is completely nutty. When the cop realized there was no crime (Gates showed him ID), he should have left immediately, end of story.
IMO he shouldn’t be fired either. Cops have a tough job, and chances are he simply lost his cool (as did Gates obviously, but Gates had every right as a private citizen on his own lawful property to lose his cool).
But just because he overreacted, doesn’t mean he acted with the malice of which he is accused
I will ruefully admit that on a few occasions I have screwed up on a job, and damaged a piano. It was never because of “malice,” because I have nothing against either the piano or my customer, but it is still a screw-up and it always costs me something to make it right.
You don’t have to be malicious to screw up. You just have to screw up, and when you do, it’s on you.
Gates had every right as a private citizen on his own lawful property to lose his cool
And women everywhere rejoice in the fact that cops will never again investigate a domestic disturbance. After all, if you’re allowed to lose your cool in your own home and a cop isn’t allowed in after you’ve indentified yourself…
You just have to screw up, and when you do, it’s on you.
Unless your name is Henry Louis Gates.
Southern Quaker-
To your first point, I asked Jay because he seems to have read and studied the issue of whether or not Gates was ‘baited’ out of his house that so many here take for granted, mysteriously so as he pointed out. If there are any cops posting here or experts on police procedure, rest assured I’d be asking them the same question if they weighed in on it. I asked Jay his opinion because I wanted to hear his opinion.
If you want to weigh in I’d be interested to hear your opinion on this aspect too, whether you’re a cop or an expert on police procedure or not.
Unless your name is Henry Louis Gates.
True. He didn’t screw up, and still got arrested.
Obviously-
-Gates overreacted
-The cop overreacted
-Obama should have chosen his words more carefully when he first commented on the issue, but got it just about right the second time
-The Boston cop incident shows us what we already really knew: that despite all the sensitivity classes racism still exists
-That helps us understand why Gates reacted as he did, though it does not change the fact that he overreacted.
-Hopefully Gates, Crowley and Obama will have a nice beer together.
- This incident will have effects on the way we approach similar incidents in the future. Hopefully the good effects will outweigh the bad effects.
“And women everywhere rejoice in the fact that cops will never again investigate a domestic disturbance.”
Oh please. Cops can investigate things when other people tell them there’s a disturbance. If there are signs of violence they can make an arrest. But here, follow what I’m about to type real closely — ONCE GATES SHOWED HE LIVED THERE, THE COP SHOULD HAVE LEFT IMMEDIATELY. What a lame-ass strawman.
No crime was committed. And the cop obviously lost his cool and decided to ask Gates out front so he could arrest him. No doubt it was a big dick-waving ego-contest at this point, but guess what? 4th Amendment rights still apply.
You wing-nuts have such a hard-on for gun-rights that you’re oblivious to potentially much more damaging infringements on the rights of citizens. Then again, you guys think the indefinite detention of American citizens is A-OK.
The department was created in the early 70s. Its current name is “African and African American Studies” – Gates should know this, of course, but this doesn’t change your point. “Afro American” is not the term to use to describe people.
Thanks for the update, Gus. The name change was probably done for reasons of clarification. Harvard does not like to change the names of departments and buildings. Over at the John F. Kennedy School for Government, for example, you can still find the name Lucious N. Littauer on plaques and inscribed on the front steps because Littauer, a Republican congressman and millionaire glove manufactuer, donated the money for building where Harvard’s first government programs were housed.
When the Kennedy Family gave the school money for the building that would eventually be called the John F. Kennedy School of Government its leaders attempted to do away with Littauer’s association with the program. (It had nothing to with partisan politics or that Littauer disliked the New Deal.) The powers- that-be insisted that his name be placed on the new building as well. As a result, Littauer is the only person whose name appears on two different buildings at Harvard.
There will be racism as long as people choose to see it; especially when the President does. Bah.
A few things we know:
–The police report was inaccurate. The woman who made the call made no mention of black men, while the report did (among other discrepancies). Crowley’s name was on the report. Something smells.
–Crowley called for unlimited backup after a 59 year old, short, slight man with a limp and a cane had “said he lived there.” Surely there is an adverb to help describe how Crowley acted.
–Officer Justin Barrett, 36, is your prototype Rush Limbaugh Republican.*
*Or Michael Savage Republican or Fox News Republican
Then again, you guys think the indefinite detention of American citizens is A-OK.
Who is this “you guys” you speak of?
ONCE GATES SHOWED HE LIVED THERE, THE COP SHOULD HAVE LEFT IMMEDIATELY.
According to the police report, he never did. All he showed was his Harvard ID, which identifies Gates as Gates, but not that XX Ware St. was his address. Crowley indicates he was willing to give Gates the benefit of the doubt (Gates knew where the house phone was, for instance) but for Gate’s uncalled-for tirade.
Unless your name is Henry Louis Gates.
Professor Gates was screwing up his job when he got arrested? I thought he was at home. Please explain.
2. For the last effing time, there was no probable cause to arrest Gates for disturbing the peace under Massachusetts law. Period.
Yes there was. You keep repeating this, but a cursory review of the statute shows that a cop could interpret Gates behavior as falling under the part of the statute that reads a person is being disorderly if they are acting “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm”. Again, it boils down to the determination of the officer who can choose to make an arrest or not make an arrest, but you’re simply wrong when you state that there was no probable cause. You’re wrong. So please stop repeating this.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Jay, how do you reconcile your views of the 2nd and 4th Amendments? If Gates had shot the cop while inside of the private residence would that be OK with you? But if the cop asks Gates to step outside onto the porch to make the arrest that’s cool with you?
Your 2nd amendment vis a vis 4th amendment makes absolutely no sense. And you stating that the cop asked Gates to step outside to arrest him is wrong. There is no corroboration whatsoever that Gates was arrested immediately upon stepping out on to the porch. None.
You don’t have to be malicious to screw up. You just have to screw up, and when you do, it’s on you.
The problem is, people weren’t accusing Crowley of just “screwing up.” He was accused of racism, lying, profiling and 4th amendment violations amongst other things. You were one of them. So don’t go trying to make this about merely “screwing up.”
According to the police report, he never did.
Gotcha!
Dennis,
As to whether Crowley baited Gates outside the property so he could be arrested, or just wanted to get out of the house because it was too noisy, I don’t think anyone here can be a judge – either way. I have my own suspicions, mainly because the arrest was unwarranted and happened so quickly after they left the house. However, I don’t have any way to judge for certain since I can’t get into Crowley’s head.
Both men were overreacting, perhaps even understandably given the circumstances – a perfect storm, if you will, of a tired black man who’s lived with a lifetime of subtle and not-so-subtle racial profiling, and a white cop who has been unfairly charged with racism in the past.
Both the left, with its focus on racial profiling, and the right with its focus on class, are ignoring the bigger issue in my mind.
Let’s give Crowley the benefit of the doubt, for a moment. It doesn’t really change things. So what if Gates was stilling yelling at him and calling him a racist? Crowley could have been the bigger man and walked away. He didn’t, he chose to arrest Gates on a trumped up charge. And most conservatives are defending him, based largely on the idea that Gates is some sort of race-baiting, stuck-up Harvard professor.
And that is what disturbs me the most – the idea that one can be arrested for yelling at a police officer on one’s own property, without any other provocation.
a cursory review of the statute
versus the case law that I have cited numerous times. The precedent in Massachusetts is that simply yelling (and even waving ones arms in agitation) at a cop – even in public view – is not sufficient cause for arrest.
And even if it were true that the law could be interpreted more broadly than the Mass courts have done, Jay, are you really saying that it’s okay with you for cops to arrest a man on his own property soley for making a fuss? Even an annoying, embarrassing fuss?
So much for civli liberties.
people weren’t accusing Crowley of just “screwing up.” He was accused of racism, lying, profiling and 4th amendment violations amongst other things. You were one of them.
I have never accused Crowley of anything other than screwing up his job, so you are now, what is the word, LIBELING me. Quote me or apologize.
For clarification, the difference between libel and slander is that slander is verbal, and libel is printed or otherwise published, deprecating lies known to the promulgator to be false.
Jay will now retreat into the predictable, “It’s not a lie if I didn’t know I was lying. And I won’t apologize for being merely stupid.”
And most conservatives are defending him, based largely on the idea that Gates is some sort of race-baiting, stuck-up Harvard professor.
Conservatives do not now nor have they ever liked Black folks save for the occasional Clarence Thomas or Ward Connerly. Most Black Americans are quite aware of this fact and in their heart of hearts they know that holding dialogues and engaging in other other fence building efforts with political conservatives is an enormous waste of time and energy. And it makes no difference to most of us how long and loudly political conservatives deny their racism. The fact that they can’t see that there was no reason to arrest Gates is sufficient proof of their general ill-will toward African Americans no matter how much they may deny it. I’m sure, if pressed, many of them would envy deny that he is qualified to be a professor at Harvard. Nothing new here.
Wilbur, you lost me:
Obviously-
-Gates overreacted
-The cop overreacted
-Obama should have chosen his words more carefully when he first commented on the issue, but got it just about right the second time
-The Boston cop incident shows us what we already really knew: that despite all the sensitivity classes racism still exists
-That helps us understand why Gates reacted as he did, though it does not change the fact that he overreacted.
-Hopefully Gates, Crowley and Obama will have a nice beer together.
- This incident will have effects on the way we approach similar incidents in the future. Hopefully the good effects will outweigh the bad effects.
What it shows is that there are always people who will PERCEIVE racism in a case when there is no conclusive evidence that it was a factor.
Crowley, for the most part, acted precisely in accordance with policy and common sense. He’s investigating a call of two men breaking into a home. He finds one; the other is still unaccounted for: he does NOT call off the backup. The one person is belligerent and uncooperative, reluctantly showing an ID that does NOT list an address. Once the ID with the address is shown, he leaves the home. The belligerent now-established legal resident follows him outside, ignoring instructions to calm down and warnings.
Others have painted scenarios that could have been unfolding that Crowley simply could not dismiss. There could have been a second person in the home, held hostage by intruders. Gates could have been a domestic abuser who was trying to get the cops out of the house before the victim was discovered. Gates could have been using the “race card” in an attempt to intimidate the officer into not doing his duty.
The only questions are whether or not Crowley should have ordered Gates to stop raising a ruckus outside, in public, under pain of arrest, and whether or not Crowley should have backed down from that threat once it was clear Gates was not going to stop shouting and carrying on.
Race need not be a factor. It is clear that Gates was being an unmitigated asshole during the whole incident. Had he exhibited the least bit of common sense and courtesy (“the police are here because someone thought they were protecting me and my property by calling them, and I should thank them and resolve this as quickly and politely as possible so they can get back to their duties”), none of this would have happened.
I’ve been pulled over by cops a few times. (For the record: no arrests, not even moving violations.) In each case, I was polite and cooperative and got off with a warning. In one case (I was drowsing off at the wheel, the cop thought I might be drunk, and his lights got me alert real damned fast), I even thanked him for giving my adrenaline a good jolt when I really needed it.
I’ve also been a witness to police brutality that I reported. It ended with a suspension and a thank-you letter from the chief.
You got a problem with a cop? Do NOT get in his face at the time. Take it up with his bosses after the fact. Do everything you can to de-escalate the situation, get it over with with as little fuss as possible. Remember: all the laws, all the rights, all the rules, are trumped at that moment by the fact that he has a gun, pepper spray, handcuffs, a taser, and a bunch of other things, and the authority to use them at his best judgment — subject to later review.
But that later review doesn’t keep your ass safe at that moment.
Common sense and courtesy, people. No, it’s not required by law. But it will make your life a hell of a lot easier.
J.
Not baited to go outside?
Haw! Have you people conveniently forgotten the “Ya mama” detail of Sgt. Crowley’s report?
The people have spoken. You 29 percenters need to realize it’s over.
There could have been a second person in the home, held hostage by intruders. Gates could have been a domestic abuser who was trying to get the cops out of the house before the victim was discovered.
He could have been smuggling circus elephants in his pants too, Mr. Tea. Of course, a possible break-in complaint wouldn’t give the officer probable cause to go looking for elephants now, would it? An officer called to a house to check on the possibility of one crime doesn’t automatically get a blank check to investigate for every imaginable crime.
Probable. Cause. Look it up.
I’m not so sure that is the case, SQ. I don’t think it has been here with the conservatives who post here. I tend to agree largely with Christpher Hitchens and several others,as I’m guessing you would too, that this should’ve been more of a constitutional rights issue than a racial profiling issue, at least that Gates would have a better case for had he chosen to. But since this went out here and nearly everywhere else as a case of racial profiling, with harsh accusations against Crowley for being a racist, and that far more has been defended than the arrest. And forgive me for this link to HotAir, but Ed Morrissey agrees with Hitchens, and there were 729 posts on that issue there, many of who also agreed.
But again, the jury’s not out on exactly what circumstances affected Crowley’s decision or whether he violated Massachusetts statutes or standard police procedure.
And as to your description of Gates as a tired black man who’s lived with a lifetime of subtle and not-so-subtle racial profiling, I won’t quibble with that, but if that’s the case, what other incidents in his life were similar to this that justified his immediate assumption of racial profiling in this case? I don’t think this report of the racist Boston cop’s horrible reaction to a journalists description of events has anything to do with why he reacted the way he did, we all know there are cops that think the way this guy did. Seems far more relevant to me some of the anti-white statements Gates has made in his past contributed to his overreaction in this case than something like the subject of this blog post made, after the fact.
No, not with regard to the ‘baiting’ accusation. Please, do tell.
Gates denied he said it, anyway, Quibbie.
Dennis,
I’ve seen Gates speak at a commencement ceremony. His life story is pretty typical for a black man born 50s to working class parents in Appalachia. The reason Gates walks with a limp, for example, is that a white doctor diagnosed his broken hip as “psychosomatic” because the young black boy had delusions of becoming a doctor when he grew up.
So yes, I think his life experience is highly relevant.
As for some of the “anti-white” statements Gates has made in the past, I assume you mean things like, “Bogus theories of ’sun’ and ‘ice’ people, and the individual scapegoating of other ethnic groups, only resurrects the worst of 19th-century racist pseudoscience — which too many of the pharaohs of ‘Afrocentrism’ have accepted without realizing.”
Yeah, a real whitey-hater.
that should read, “a black man born in the 50s“
Seems far more relevant to me some of the anti-white statements Gates has made in his past contributed to his overreaction in this case than something like the subject of this blog post made, after the fact.
Drinking in the morning, are we, Dennis?
This pretty much sums it up for me.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-28-2009/henry-louis-gate—race-card
Conan O’Brien put it best: “If this works out, the president is going to have Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad over for Jägerbombs.”
Look, the officer shouldn’t have arrested Gates, but it was a case of bad judgement, period. Gates is either racist, or hates the police, or both, because he assumes that despite the fact that he was broke into his house, the only reason to be suspected of the act he admittedly performed is that he was black.
Obama then showed that not only does his intuition tell him that a cop, maybe only if it’s a white cop, arresting a black man must be due to racism, but he also doesn’t have the wisdom to get all the facts involved before expressing that intuition.
So I congratulate Gates and Obama for giving credence to disbelief of future actual racism charges. Good job, fools.
So now Gates is a racist because he responded poorly to a cop asking him for ID in his own home.
Sonia Sotomayor is apparently racist because she expressed the opinion that a her experience as a latina woman might have relevance in certain court cases. (And let us not forget that Alito saying practically the same thing at his confirmation hearing is not racist.)
And you guys accuse us of lowering the bar on calling someone a racist?
SQ, these statements are what I was referring to:
“As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self.
Gates, an intellectual drawn back into the arena
Since mike in dc felt the overwhelming need to correct Frank for his use of ‘Afro-American’, perhaps he or someone else could explain the correctness or incorrectness of Gate’s use of the term ‘whitey’ in this case.
Maybe they could explain Gate’s explanation of why Crowley supposedly made up the ‘Yeah, I’ll speak to your mamma.’ allegation he said in his report that Gates said to him as perhaps his having watched too much ‘Good Times’ as a child.
Maybe they could help explain any of about eight anti-white references in this video of him in 1996, where he attacks the following:
White racist institutions
White racism
Duke (majority white college)
North Carolina
Clarence Thomas
Newt Gingrich
Contract with America
And uses the N-Word repeatedly.
—–
Think if there was anything remotely racist in Crowley’s past on the order of Gates’ here that have gotten little if any attention that it wouldn’t be splashed all over every liberal blog and national publication in America?
I’m just saying that these are more of a factor in the incident’s occurrence than the Boston policeman’s email after the fact, that liberal bloggers seem to think is exculpatory to Gates.
I have never accused Crowley of anything other than screwing up his job, so you are now, what is the word, LIBELING me. Quote me or apologize.
Right here you accused Crowley of making something up in his report (they call that LYING) to help justify the arrest:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/07/23/dave-chapelle-predicts-the-henry-louis-gates-jr-incident/#comment-165720
Next.
And even if it were true that the law could be interpreted more broadly than the Mass courts have done, Jay, are you really saying that it’s okay with you for cops to arrest a man on his own property soley for making a fuss? Even an annoying, embarrassing fuss?
So much for civli liberties.
Don’t try to change the subject. This is not about civil liberties ok? I’ve already said that Crowley overreacted (as did Gates. Remember, when he was warned the first time he was being disorderly, he could have continued to say what he wanted to say, but he chose to continue to make a scene (not ‘fussing.’ Babies fuss, not adults).
I’m just amused at how the narrative has shifted. First it was RACISM RACISM RACISM. Some are still clinging to this idiotic notion that Crowley “baited” Gates outside and immediately arrested him the moment he stepped out the door (which is not true). But most are now on the narrative about a cop overreacting and arresting somebody when perhaps he didn’t have to.
Guess what? No “beer summit” would be necessary if charges of racism, “rogue cops” and “profiling” weren’t hurled in the first place.
I’m thinking you won’t need to hire a lawyer if Repack Rider decides to sue you for libel, Jay.
Dennis,
Did you even watch the video? What exactly are the “anti-white” references you refer to? His (apparently) bad experience teaching at Duke? The fact that he credits affirmative action for helping him to compete on a level playing field? The fact that many institutions of higher learning in this country were segregated and racist before affirmative action?
Which of those statements is non-factual?
That’s what you call racist??
Don’t try to change the subject. This is not about civil liberties ok?
When one has been arrested without need, one’s civil liberties have been violated.
Dennis, in the first instance, we’re talking about the college admissions essay written by high school student Gates (which would have been over 40 years ago), and in the historical context, it isn’t exactly all that out of line. Similarly, I don’t consider Gates’ comments in the video to be “anti-white”–he’s commenting on the barriers to entry which existed at the time Affirmative Action was enacted, and how it has enabled white women and people of color to integrate those traditionally white male institutions and join the middle class.
Plastic Man isn’t capable of that kind of stretch.
a cop could interpret Gates behavior as falling under the part of the statute that reads a person is being disorderly if they are acting “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm”.
Or as its known to Officer Justin Barrett, 36, and his ilk, “The Uppity Clause.”
Pretty sure I said anti-white, SQ. But isn’t the term ‘whitey’, a racist term?
-It’s curious that those who condemn (rightly) a rush to judgment against Crowley seem to have no problem standing as judge, jury and executioner for Gates.
-Jay and others keep telling us that it’s not smart to mouth off to cops. In most circumstance I’d agree, but so what? Can we conclude that Gates did not act prudently? Perhaps, but that he should have been arrested for it? No, no, a thousand times no. If established Cambridge police procedure dictates the arrest of a citizen on his own premises when he is not presenting a threat to anyone or anything apart from his own reputation, then Cambridge police procedure needs some re-thinking.
-I gather that our conservative friends here resent that race was “brought into” it. From what I’ve heard I have no trouble believing that Sgt. Crowley does not deserve to be called a racist, but it is also not without reason that a black man finding himself in such a situation might not suspect that race had something to do with it. There are times that the racism card is overplayed by the left, but the all-too common reaction of the right is to adopt an attitude that suggests that racism is not still something we have to be concerned about.
- I am not among SaveFarris’s 29 percent who think Obama’s response to this incident was good (side-note, remember when Republicans didn’t think polls meant anything?), but it’s important to note that he did not bring race into it as has been charged here. Saying the Cambridge police acted “stupidly” is not to say that they acted out of racism.
- The hope-he-fails wing of the republican party (is there any wing left?), was hoping that Sgt. Crowley would be the next Joe the Plumber that they could use to beat Obama about the head and shoulders with. Unfortunately for them a) Joe the Plumber didn’t work, and b) Sgt. Crowley appears to be a man of too much integrity and character to allow himself to be used for such crass partisan purposes.
According to the police report…
And thank goodness this particular police report has a Pope-like infallibility. There are absolutely no discrepancies whatsoever. In fact, the woman who initially called the police never mentioned any black people, but Crowley’s report helpfully added that detail. Huzzah for responsible law enforcement! Huzzah for calling in all available police for backup for the 59 year old short, slight man who has a limp! Huzzah for The Man!
You seem disappointed that Sgt. Crowley isn’t Officer Justin Barrett, Indeed. How unfortunate Sgt. Crowley doesn’t have an email like that in his past. Somehow in your world a police officer not related in any way to this case has relevance to this case.
Or maybe you think Sgt. Crowley is of ‘his ilk’.
Shorter Indeed: “There’s a straw right…over…there… if I can just….grasp it. C’mon….c’mon… There, got it!
I think Stanley Fish can provide a great deal of information and insight into the allegedly racist remarks Gates made in 1996. In fact, Fish even explains why Gates and Gates’ father cheered for UNLV against Duke.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/henry-louis-gates-deja-vu-all-over-again/?scp=2&sq=stanley%20fish&st=cse
This one’s for Britney Dennis:
http://thepoorman.net/2009/07/30/you-can-lead-a-horse-at-water/
It’s funny ’cause it’s so fucking depressing.
And for the rest of you wingnutz:
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3077133
You seem disappointed that Sgt. Crowley isn’t Officer Justin Barrett, Indeed.
And you seem excited that Officer Justin Barrett, 36, is a huge fan of, as you like to call him, “El Rushbo.”
Or maybe you think Sgt. Crowley is of ‘his ilk’.
And maybe I don’t.
There, got it!
So which detail did I get wrong?
No, he’s a racist (or just hates police) because he chose to ignore the fact that the cop was investigating what he admits to doing and assumed the cop was targeting him because he was black.
I didn’t accuse anybody but Gates, Obama, and Crowley of anything. I don’t understand why it’s so common for commenters to lump people, including themselves, into broad groups.
I’ll never understand why Larry Johnson pulled up for that last second jumper instead of taking his massive frame right to the rack for the dunk or a sure foul. Preserved Indiana’s 1976 championship team as the last team to go undefeated, which may never go challenged again.
<I’ll never understand why Larry Johnson pulled up for that last second jumper instead of taking his massive frame right to the rack for the dunk or a sure foul.
Because Johnson had been fouled all night by Duke and the refs never called the violations. If he had gone to the hoop and was fouled, the refs would have still been blind.
I do that for you, Indeed. You seem to appreciate it so. I’d much rather post:
that harmless, lovable little fuzz ball, the highly-trained broadcast specialist, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, from behind the golden EIB microphone, firmly ensconced in the prestigious Attila-the-Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies, serving humanity simply by showing up, and he’s not retiring until every American agrees with him, do NOT doubt him, with shrieks of joy at the mere mention of his name (that’s Rush, for those in Rio Linda),the Mandarin of Talk Radio, with talent on loan from G-d, at the cutting-edge of societal evolution, with half his brain tied behind his back — just to make it fair, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned Maha-Rushie! America’s anchorman, truth detector, and doctor of democracy. A Real Man, a living legend, a way of life. Commander in Chief of U.S. Operation Chaos. Chief Waga-Waga El Rushbo of the El Conservo Tribe. Chief of the Patriotism Police. Leader of the Conservative Movement. A Weapon of Mass Instruction. El Rushbo (a little Spanish lingo, there). He is the man who is running America (you know it and I know it). He knows the Democrats like every square inch of his glorious naked body. He is ready to do what he was born to do—that’s host…
but I thought ‘El Rushbo’ alone would suffice.
You forgot:
Classic! Officer Justin Barrett, 36, loves that one! And many more!
Again, it boils down to the determination of the officer who can choose to make an arrest or not make an arrest …”
or choose to shoot or not shoot him, in which case, Gate’s could have choose to shoot or not shoot back.
But under no circumstances, should Gates have raised his voice.
Hey, who says we can’t agree on things, PT? Refs did the same thing to Calbert Cheney and Indiana the next year in the Final Four game. Dukies were just then perfecting the art of the flop that they still get away with, just not as much as when they got the 91 and 92 championships.
You forgot:
Mister ed, haven’t we been over this a hundred times before? Once again, can you provide anything in the way of documenting evidence that America’s Anchorman ever said this besides someone saying he ‘thinks’ he heard him apologize for having said it?
Well, Officer Justin Barrett, 36, sure knows he said it! (Why do you think he’s such a devoted fan?) I don’t know why you keep denying Teh Truth? Lee Atwater’s Ghost knows Teh Truth. Why can’t you admit it?
I know it.
You know it.
The American People know it.
From Huffpo
That’s it for me.
that harmless, lovable little fuzz ball….
Man, and they call Obama fans brainwashed sheeple.
Sure they do. Just no one has any evidence of something that whoever is claiming it, supposedly is claiming it happened sometime back in the 70’s.
But America knows it.
More for Britney Dennis, Officer Justin Barrett, 36, and their ilk:
Just a reminder. Need more?
Hey, you and Officer Justin Barrett, 36, and your ilk have fun together Britney, mm-kay?
Yeah, the whole “oh yeah? Well, you can’t prove Rush is racist!” thing again. Whee. Aside from a Himalaya sized mountain range of circumstantial evidence, we can’t prove it to a scientific certainty. It just remains a theory, like gravity.
Indeed/Mister ed-
Again, you always reference this fair.org blog, who themselves never list a reference. I google every one of those supposed slurs you and this fair.org claim that the Doctor of Democracy made and I go through the first five or six pages of links and there is never anyone reputable or anyone I’ve ever even heard of.
Why is that? Or why don’t you just say you heard him say that? It’d be just as believable.
Not that, mike, just that guys like Indeed never seem to print the examples that we have evidence that he said them, because they are subject to scrutiny, just like the term ‘whitey’ that Professor Gates used. They are always quotes like the ‘take that bone out of your nose’ that no one has anything remotely concrete that he ever said anything like that.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
Again, you always reference this fair.org blog, who themselves never list a reference.
Oooh, so sorry. We have some nice parting gifts for you:
As seen above. Did you miss those? Need more?
Oh, and lookee here:
Maybe all those other sources (you could look them up too if you wish) are also wrong. If so, your hero could sue for libel! Huzzah! Think of the money He could make off those big liars! He could use the proceeds to go to the Dominican Republic and fuck children! Huzzah!
Looks like you and Officer Justin Barrett, 36, share some common interests. Congrats!
the Doctor of Democracy
Whozzat? Rush? Rush Limbaugh? Are you fucking serious with that shit? That America-hating, troop slandering, treasonous, deaf-from-drug-abuse oxygen thief?
If only he could lose his voice next.
Gates overreacted to a cop who was trying to make sure his home was safe. The police officer overreacted by arresting a guy just for yelling at him. So why are we still talking about this?
That’s it for me.
me too
They are always quotes like the ‘take that bone out of your nose’ that no one has anything remotely concrete that he ever said anything like that.
Indeed. Not only are all those myriad sources (like the “Los Angeles” so-called “Times,” pshaw!) totally wrong–and Britney can prove it!–but Rushy would never ever ever say those things. He’s just not like that. Why just ask Officer Justin Barrett, 36.
freD-
Read the Snopes article. They refer to this fair.org blog, whoever they are, too. No one, and not Indeed, ever can provide any link that has anything at all concrete. It’s urban legend. But this place seems to attract a lot of urban legend truthers here.
Wide-eyed zealots, if you will.
The funny thing is, a prominent liberal only has to say something remotely racial once or maybe twice for conservatives to say they have a pattern or habit of making racist remarks(e.g. Sotomayor). But Rush and O’Reilly and Beck can say fairly blatant stuff dozens of times and their critics have to “prove” their “unfounded assertions”. When proof is offered, it’s either ignored or rationalized away. The syllogism seems to work this way:
I don’t like racists.
I do like Rush Limbaugh.
Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is not racist.
Newsday, October 8, 1990, Dennis. Why would Rush regret making a remark he never made?
It’s urban legend.
It’s a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy! Including, but hardly limited to:
The Los Angeles Times
Steve Rendall, Jim Naureckas, and Jeff Cohen
Newsday
The American Prospect
The Boston Globe
The Chicago Sun-Times
LA Weekly
CBS Sportsline
The Palm Beach Post
The Columbus Dispatch
and
Michael J. Fox
Here’s one place you could start to debunk this horrible, gross Urban Legend, Britney:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
Have fun! Would you like more totally bogus sources, which are like, part of a nefarious league of diabolical Rushy-haters, whose mission it is to spread untruths about such a great American?
Perhaps you could get your ideological comrade, Officer Justin Barrett, 36, to lend you a hand (Lee Atwater is, sadly, unavailable). I bet Officer Justin Barrett, 36, doesn’t believe those America-hating Liars either. You could totally sue for libel! You really should. Think of the justice which will finally come Rushy’s way!
Good point, mike in dc. How many times do we have to hear about Jesse Jackson re: “hymietown”?
Do you even have a link to that article, mike in dc? Something, anything, that corroborates the urban legend, or at the very least, puts it in some kind of context? A transcript….anything? Anyone? Bueller?
You guys are like the birthers, only with far less to go on.
Indeed brings it with full barrels with wiki quotes.
Wide-eyed zealotry, indeed, Indeed.
The Big Pill
July 30, 2009 at 8:45 am
If you really walk the walk and not just talk the talk, you get props. (Short for “propers”-synonymous with “respect”)
Heh.
I am 63 , not 100 and 63. “Props” goes back in the day when I was “in the street”. Thanks for the kind words, I am a 12-Stepper now and do what I can to carry out what JFK asked of me. I am a baby boomer, who followed the path of Buckley and Freedom, rather than Dylan and Equality.
mike in dc
July 30, 2009 at 8:47 am
You don’t say.
Wow… Just wow. This continues to boggle the mind.
Indeed brings it with full barrels with wiki quotes.
No silly, the wiki link had links to all of those totally bogus publications I listed above. Did you check those out? Are they all, like, totally bogus? It might take you a while. Did you get Officer Justin Barrett, 36, to help you? He’s a big Rushy fan too, you know. For some reason.
Have you proved that that Michael J. Fox is a big liar yet? Keep trying!
the path of Buckley and Freedom
Indeed:
So much freedom. Or was this made up by Evil Liberal Liars too, Britney?
Can we agree on one thing…
In his official report he states witness referred to “backpacks”
Now…what witness? certainly not the woman who call it in.
read it and weep
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
also..
from the 911 call transcript
Operator: Alright. Want to tell me exactly what happened?
Witness: I don’t know what’s happening. I just had an elder woman standing here and she had noticed two gentlemen trying to get in the house at that number 17 Ware St. And, uh, they kinda had to barge in and they broke the screen door and they finally got in when I looked, I went further closer to the house, I noticed two suitcases. So I’m not sure if these are two individuals who actually work there, I mean who live there.”
Now all she says is suitcases..but she refers to “elder woman”.
Who did the officer talk to? If the caller then clearly he is lying…if someone else? Who?
oh yeah..folks trying to be rational with Jay Tea…ask him about his association with a place called Wizbang…(no link from me but you can find it)
Dennis,
Any rational person will favor the public source which depends on having a reputation of fairness over some heavily biased anonymous voice. The latter may be accurate, but the odds heavily favor the former.
Provide a link to the ‘bone out of your nose’ urban legend, Indeed, you wide-eyed zealot birther freak, and knock if off with the wikiquotes crap that you couldn’t get away with in a middle school electives class.
Holy jeez.
Indeed, you wide-eyed zealot birther freak, and knock if off with the wikiquotes crap that you couldn’t get away with in a middle school electives class.
And what about the links withing the Wiki? I gave you a list of the sources above (a starter list). Have you addressed those yet? Will you ever? Did you ever get your buddy, Officer Justin Barrett, 36, to assist you? For some reason, I bet you two are fast friends.
Is Michael J. Fox a big liar?
Dennis:
New York Newsday, October 8, 1990 (Limbaugh regrets making “take that bone out of your nose” remark)
Enough already. He said it, you have to live with it.
So your proof that all conservatives today are rampantly consumed with racism are … an article from the 50’s and a thinly-sourced quote from the 70’s.
Congratulations, guys. Well done.
There could have been a second person in the home, held hostage by intruders. Gates could have been a domestic abuser who was trying to get the cops out of the house before the victim was discovered.
People keep saying this, but is there any evidence that the cops on the scene were at all concerned about this possibility? Did they search the home for hidden victims or hostages after arresting Gates? Did they request a search warrant to do so? Certainly no hint of any of that in the police reports I’ve seen.
Good God! There could still be hidden victims in Gates’ basement!! As we speak!!!
[hoping to get the conversation off a certain fat-bastard, pill-poppin bozo-fest]
So your proof that all conservatives today are rampantly consumed with racism are …
All the proof I need is my own two eyes. It certainly isn’t difficult to get y’all ranting about the topic feverishly.
New York Newsday, October 8, 1990 (Limbaugh regrets making “take that bone out of your nose” remark
And it’s absolutely impossible that Rush made up that quote in order to earn some “shock jock” street cred and/or to enrage the tolerance brigade and cause a stir while his show was still young and growing. There’s just no way be be insincere about something just to make a larger point. No … Rush would never do something like that.
ok Jay Tea..perhaps you are not the person who was a part of Wizbang…and just share a name. If this is the case…I apologize.
But be aware there was a Jay Tea who was an important part of Wizbang.
And it’s absolutely impossible that Rush made up that quote in order to earn some “shock jock” street cred and/or to enrage the tolerance brigade and cause a stir while his show was still young and growing.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
So your proof that all conservatives today are rampantly consumed with racism are … an article from the 50’s and a thinly-sourced quote from the 70’s.
Yeah, all those Republicans sending racist emails over the past year (well documented, if you don’t recall) never happened either. There’s a reason why Rovesputin liked to “create [his] own reality” and mocked us “reality based.” SaveFarris is yet another example.
But if you want to also believe that Rush Limbaugh never said any of that crap, or that Officer Justin Barrett, 36 is not the prototype Rush Limbaugh Republican, who am I to stop you.
Peace!
I just want to know what the numeric threshold for questionable/inflammatory/pejorative comments of a racial nature by a conservative is, in order for another conservative to agree that said person MIGHT, in fact, be a racist or someone with some issues with people of color. 2? 3? 5? 10? 20? 30? If it’s 30, I’m pretty sure teh google will turn up that many instances of questionable/inflammatory/pejorative comments of a racial nature by Mr. Limbaugh, and probably several times that many by Mr. Savage, and a similar number for Mr. Buchanan.
Or is the point that unless we have him on tape saying “n—er, n—er, n—er”, Rush isn’t racist as far as you’re concerned?
The conservative position in 1963, as I interpreted it, was that “Civil Rights” referred to the rights of all citizens. When the deceptive ploy of affirmative action was imposed, first as “quotas” and then “set-asides”, many people were outraged.
They were silenced by … guess what? Liberal censure and disapproval.
This happens in Alabama, and we’re yammering about a Harvard Professor and a Boston cop.
Indeed: From the article you cited:
Yet the Democrats have been doing precisely that for 60 years.
Yet the Democrats have been doing precisely that for 60 years.
Riiiiggghhhht.
Nothing about your awesome Freedom Boy, Buckley?
…you wide-eyed zealot birther freak…
Pretty awesome that Britney-Dennis is now reduced to attacking Reality-Based Liberals by comparing them to the Republican Base. Brilliant!
Oh, and Britney, any luck debunking
The Los Angeles Times
Steve Rendall, Jim Naureckas, and Jeff Cohen
Newsday
The American Prospect
The Boston Globe
The Chicago Sun-Times
LA Weekly
CBS Sportsline
The Palm Beach Post
The Columbus Dispatch
and
Michael J. Fox?
Still working on that?
You sure spent an awful lot of time trying to defend the indefensibly racial overtones of the ‘crazy-faced, wide-eyed zealotry’ nine-pictured creepiness on display here a couple nights ago to be making that kind of statement, Wilbur.
Dennis, I object to your use of the racist phrase “wide-eyed” to describe other posters on this thread, at least some of which are of Asian, African or Caucasian stock. All of these races have been subject for time immemorial to attacks on the appearance of their eyes in one way or another (cf. ’slanty-eyed coolie’, ‘google-eyed sambo’, ‘beady-eyed cracker’), so your use of the term is an indefensible propagation of any of thirty-seven thousand or so stereotypes. And don’t get me started on the long-suffering people afflicted with Graves disease and other sources of exophtalmia, all of which you have gravely (sorry!) insulted with your casual flinging-about of such harmful terms.
There, you have been silenced by the PC thought police in utter disregard of your first amendment rights!! Let that be a lesson to you!!!
This happens in Alabama, and we’re yammering about a Harvard Professor and a Boston cop.
Hey, Paleo Pat can’t be with us, but thanks to Frank his website is back! Thanks Frank!!
Now does the case you refer to have something to do with race? Were the cops white? Did the suspects shout racial epithets? I’m trying to figure out what context you’re slotting it into.
Ridiculous…
Wilbur: The man was deaf and black . He was arrested for not respondimg to the police. Prof Gates should apologize to him for taking up our time when this guy needs his and all our help.
“The newspaper says the officers attempted to book Love on charges including disorderly conduct, but a magistrate on duty wouldn’t accept the charges.”
But he wasn’t a Harvard Professor , or the President’s pal, so who cares?
And, oh yeah, the wise Latina who did her duty as she saw it and alerted the police ? She wasn’t invited to White House Kegfest 2009.
I’d want to know a lot more about the case before condemning the cops of anything, including racism.
But if what you mean is that there are a lot more important things for us to be talking about, I’d agree.
Now who is responsible for keeping the yap fest festering? Well you’d probably say the Blue Meanies and I’d probably say the Red Devils, but hell, 155 posts on one thread is enough. Let’s go have a beer, Frank.
O’Douls, of course
Yet the Democrats have been doing precisely that for 60 years.
Dennis,
Oliver should ban you from this site. Seriously.
Yet the Democrats have been doing precisely that for 60 years.
Dennis,
Oliver should ban you from this site. Seriously.
Frank DiSalle wrote that. (I don’t think that merits a banning, but either way, it was Frank.)
“Indeed”,
you said, “The police report was inaccurate. The woman who made the call made no mention of black men, while the report did (among other discrepancies). Crowley’s name was on the report. Something smells.”
That’s what I thought, at first. I thought it totally smelled! But we need to consider that in Crowley’s report, where he mentions black men, he’s not saying that the 911 phone call may have included the caller’s reference to black men. I looked up the whole document itself. It’s all right there, and I don’t see where he’s saying that particular thing. He’s talking about where he’s talking with the woman in person, where the woman is standing and holding a phone but she’s not making the 911 call. From all I can tell, those are two different instances.
I don’t know what Crowley was told by the dispatcher. But what matters is whether Crowley’s testimony in his report matches what he said the woman told him in person, which was not the 911 call.
From what I’ve been able to read of the 911 caller’s testimony and her lawyer’s testimony, the woman and her lawyer both deny that she ever mentioned race. That’s obviously clear if you listen to the 911 audiotape. But I don’t see where Crowley’s report refers to the 911 audiotape in the manner that you say it does. There is no audiotape of the in person conversation (at least, not so far) between the woman and Crowley.
So we have to look at this: Crowley made a written report around the time of the incident. Whether he was mistaken about whether she referred to two black men during their in-person conversation, you and I don’t know. All we have is his testimony and her testimony.
So, if you want to say it’s a “he-said, she-said” thing, maybe it is — but you can’t prove that Crowley lied about what he and the woman said in their in-person conversation.
PTCruiser: I could simply say that the Democrats — especially around here — have been calling all Republicans racists for years, and no one has suggested banning anyone.
But, instead, I will tell you that white authors and black authors alike have written dozens, if not hundreds of books, and at least 1000’s of articles on how Democratic programs purportedly designed to uplift the poor keep them ignorant and destitute all their lives.
They further provide you with convincing evidence that these programs are based on both unconscious and conscious ideas about minorities that are viciously racist.
Finally, they illustrate that it is mostly Democrats who initiate these programs, and mostly Republicans who fight them.
Since I don’t believe anyone should be banned simply because they are 100% wrong, I would vote for you to stay.
I could simply say that the Democrats — especially around here — have been calling all Republicans racists for years
All Republicans racists: no.
All Republicans racist-enablers: yes, but for many of them only by inaction (which is still bad, of course)
I will tell you that white wingnut authors and black wingnut authors alike have written dozens, if not hundreds of books, and at least 1000’s of articles on how…
there, amelior8ed.
The funny thing about Dennis Liebowitz is that his head is so far up his racist ass that he’ll never understand why the rest of the world looks upon him as a bigot.
Kind of funny. Mostly sad.
First off, apologies to Dennis.
Secondly, pay attention Frank. Pay close attention to why I believe you should be banned, although it will never happen here.
I don’t care if you think that most or all Democrats are racists. I wouldn’t agree with you but upholding the reputation of the Democratic Party is not exactly my cross to bear.
You should be banned, in my opinion, because what you wrote explicitly endorses Buckley’s opinion of the intelligence, character and humanity of Black Americans. You will, of course, deny that your post about Democrats does any such thing but that is what I would expect from you.
Everything that Buckley ever wrote and said about Black Americans was utterly false and, to steal a great line from Mary McCarthy, this includes “and” and “the.” For you to imply, as you certainly did, that what Buckley said is true but the blame should be placed on Democrats, not Republicans is why I believe that the owner of this website should ban you.
Since I don’t believe anyone should be banned simply because they are 100% wrong, I would vote for you to stay.
I don’t have a vote here regarding your status or mine but I believe you crossed a line regarding your endorsement of Buckley’s description of Black Americans. The very least I can do when I visit this site in the future is to refrain from having any exchanges whatsoever with you.
PTCruiser: I thank God for small gifts.
PTCruiser: I thank God for small gifts.
Your momma must have said the same thing about you when you were growing up.
Frank said – “Wanna fight racism? Go to the nearest Department of Social Services, and watch how light skinned Afro Americans treat dark skinned Afro Americans.”
Go to your nearest Italian American household and listen to how they talk disparagingly about every ethnic group but themselves.
Fight there Frank.
Holy crap ! A personal insult and am ethnic slur?
This is like psychodrama! All the stuff is coming out…
OK PTCruiser: You will, of course, deny that your post about Democrats does any such thing but that is what I would expect from you.
Intellectually dishonest, and a cheap shot. You have no idea what Buckley meant, the citation is redacted, and there is no way to access the original source. Further, there is no indication that Buckley (if he is indeed the author) disparaged either the “intelligence, character [or] humanity of Black Americans”.
So that makes you a master of phony indignation.
Canadian bacon: I am an Italian American. You are a bigot. If you would like to, you could come to this Italian American household and hear what I have to say about two bit Canadian pricks like you. Check with freD if you want to know how to locate me.
CBS news and ABC news have reported that Gates is distantly related to Crowley.
You’re Sicilian, huh Frank?
You have no idea what Buckley meant, the citation is redacted, and there is no way to access the original source.
I really don’t think I need to respond at all except to say that I am old enough to remember having read what Buckley wrote in its original format. I can’t take you seriously and other folks here should stop doing so as well. You’re not a serious person. Not at all. C’est la vie, Frank!
Maybe that’s why there’s a photo of Sgt. Crowley seen helping Proferssor Gates down the steps at the White House as President Obama is shown walking out ahead of the two, oblivious to the situation that Gates could’ve used a hand.
Obama wasn’t oblivious to the fact Gates used a cane in his press conference when he described Crowley’s arresting Gates as having acted stupidly.
as President Obama is shown walking out ahead of the two, oblivious to the situation that Gates could’ve used a hand.
I think Gates is faking it anyway. You know, like that liar Michael J. Fox.
Dennis, Pres Obama is often seen walking ahead of others. The body language is evident. The Narcissist – in – Chief is in this for the power. He doesn’t care where the Ship of State goes, as long as he is the Captain.
St Elizabeth’s in 2011!!
I am an Italian American. You are a bigot. If you would like to, you could come to this Italian American household and hear what I have to say about two bit Canadian pricks like you.
Usually, when you want to dispel a racial stereotype, you don’t go acting on it.
Check with freD if you want to know how to locate me.
Frank, you’ve been bragging about how you post all your personal information for years. Then, when someone calls your bluff, you say they’re “stalking” you? Welcome to Internet Safety 101.
Dennis, Pres Obama is often seen walking ahead of others. The body language is evident. The Narcissist – in – Chief is in this for the power. He doesn’t care where the Ship of State goes, as long as he is the Captain.
Frank, you’ve declared yourself to be the Grand Arbiter of what constitutes true religion, you’ve states that you can use another country’s citizens’ lives to further your own goals, you’ve called atheists amoral, and you’ve called poor blacks “feral”, and we’re supposed to believe that Obama’s the arrogant one. Riiiiiiight.
Finally, they illustrate that it is mostly Democrats who initiate these programs, and mostly Republicans who fight them.
Education: Republicans want to eliminate the public school system.
Drugs: Crack cocaine (predominately used by blacks) carries a harsher punishment than powder cocaine (used mostly by whites). The War on Drugs(TM) was started by Bush I.
Voting: Many Republicans (yourself included) have called black people “stupid” for not voting the way you want them to.
Frank DiSalle, 7:18 pm: Intellectually dishonest, and a cheap shot. You have no idea what Buckley meant,
Frank DiSalle, 11:17 am: Pres Obama is often seen walking ahead of others. The body language is evident. The Narcissist – in – Chief is in this for the power. He doesn’t care where the Ship of State goes, as long as he is the Captain.
Everyone knows only intellectually honest Frank is able to read minds.
Frank DiSalle: I am an Italian American. You are a bigot. If you would like to, you could come to this Italian American household and hear what I have to say about two bit Canadian pricks like you.
Far be it for non-bigot non-hypocrite Frank to disparage an entire people because of his feelings about an individual.
Sean : I was only referring to one “two bit canadian prick” .
The study of body language – kinesics and kinesiology – is not mind reading. I’m sorry, did I mention a topic they haven’t covered on Nova ?
Finally, I am glad you brought that passage up. It has been referred to at least three times in the last week in this blog.
I have found a more complete reproduction of the paragraph. And – surprise! surprise ! – there is an important piece missing .
In the paragraph that is often quoted , the bolded portion is always left out :
See? There is no doubt there that they are separating the issue to which they are referring from the legal rights to which all men, white and black are entitled. But that part had to be left out to make it seem that he was saying that whites were superior to blacks.
But consider this: by any valid sociological metric, were not most whites in 1957 superior to most blacks? : Nutrition, health, education, life expectancy, income, housing, sanitary standards…
Back then, I saw people down there living in shacks we wouldn’t keep tools in up north. Was that their fault? No Was it evidence that they were inferior to whites, or that whites were superior to them ? NO. It was evidence, as the article pointed elsewhere, where it was edited out, that the southern white man was obliged to bring their standard of living up to that of everyone around them, and they had failed to do so.
If that’s racism, then it is. But I think it’s racist to fail consistently at that mission for over 50 years, as the Democrats have done, and yet claim to be the champion of minorities.
Zython, I am sick of you making up stupid crap about me, and then contriving semi-clever punch lines to make you feel smug.
Leave me alone . Go bother someone else. Go play pinochle with News Reference on Mars (thank you, Wilbur)
Zython, I am sick of you making up stupid crap about me, and then contriving semi-clever punch lines to make you feel smug.
What the hell did I “make up”. If you don’t want me to use the stupid crap you say against you, then you should stop saying stupid crap.
Leave me alone . Go bother someone else.
Whaa whaa. I’ll leave you alone when you decide to stop destroying the country and its citizens. Deal?
The study of body language – kinesics and kinesiology – is not mind reading. I’m sorry, did I mention a topic they haven’t covered on Nova ?
Are you a Kinesicist? Maybe you double majored in it along with phrenology?
But consider this: by any valid sociological metric, were not most whites in 1957 superior to most blacks? : Nutrition, health, education, life expectancy, income, housing, sanitary standards…
I am not aware of any respected sociologist in 1957 who would agree with or William F. Buckley.
BTW, Frank, you really don’t want to know what black folks really believe and say about white folks sanitary standards. We cleaned your houses, washed your clothes and cooked your meals. I have never met a black housekeeper, maid, butler, chauffeur or Pullman porter who thought that white folks sanitary standards were superior to blacks. You are living in a fantasy world.
Frank DiSalle: But consider this: by any valid sociological metric, were not most whites in 1957 superior to most blacks? : Nutrition, health, education, life expectancy, income, housing, sanitary standards…
You really should be more careful when discussing a topic where words, and the meaning of words, is paramount. Although, noting which words a person chooses when making their points can be quite revealing of the view actually held despite the view seemingly being presented.
Superior? No. Better off? Of course.
“Pres Obama is often seen walking ahead of others. The body language is evident. The Narcissist – in – Chief is in this for the power.”
So when he supposedly “bowed down” to that mid-east monarch (and conservatives had a fit about that one) how did that advance his self-perception about his place of power? And I would think a president walking ahead of others is a basic protocol element in government corporate culture. Your observation/assessment seems a tad inaccurate.
I was not referring to the domestic housecleaning habits of black households versus white households. I was referring to the availability of clean water and good plumbing.
Cruiser , when you add adjectives like “respected” to sociologist, you are setting up the argument to say that sociologists that agree with you are “respected”; sociologists that agree with me are not (see Wilbur’s comment above about how only “wingnut” authors would agree that it was Democratic racism that has hindered black progress).
I have grown weary of this name calling that stands in for argument. Tell me clearly: Using any material measurement by which to compare a white person’s lifestyle with a black person’s lifestyle, that the average black man in the Deep South was doing as well as the average white man. I say use these measurements: income, general health, nutrition, life expectancy, education, housing. Care to pick some others ? Go ahead.
You really should be more careful when discussing a topic where words, and the meaning of words, is paramount
That’s YOUR problem — not mine. “Superior” means better than, and referred to the conditions, not the people. I made that quite clear. If you didn’t get it, don’t blame me .
Wasn’t this clear enough?
Was that their fault? No Was it evidence that they were inferior to whites, or that whites were superior to them ? NO.
Wiz: I did not say a damn thing about his bowing down to the Saudi leader. And what you “would think” about government corporate culture, means nothing to me. Check back over the news clips of Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon.
If it’s part of the “basic protocol element in government corporate culture”, it came into existence on Jan 21, 2009.
What the hell did I “make up”
Pretty much all of it. Now go away.
Frank DiSalle: “Superior” means better than, and referred to the conditions, not the people. I made that quite clear. If you didn’t get it, don’t blame me .
Yes, Frank. I got your meaning perfect fine. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear enough. “You really should be more careful when discussing a topic where words, and the perceived meaning of words, is paramount.”
Better.
You mean I should I should anticipate that someone, somewhere, may misunderstand?
You are kidding, right?
Words mean things, OK?
I cannot choose to use a word other than , say, “oak”, because to you, “oak” means a blue triangular object.
Good God!
What the heck are they teaching in school nowadays?
Frank DiSalle: Words mean things, OK?
And sometimes more than one thing.
Granted “oak” is fairly specific. My dictionary shows only two definitions essentially the same definitions (any tree or shrub belonging to the genus Quercus of the beech family; the wood or leaves of such a tree).
It shows over a dozen for “superior”. Including “of higher grade or quality”.
But don’t let me stop you from comparing the adjective superior to the noun oak.
Good God! Did schools teach that there was only one meaning for everything back in your day?
that the average black man in the Deep South was doing as well as the average white man.
I don’t think you ever visited the Deep South during the period when Buckley thought it would be okay to use violence against Black Americans. My recall of my visits is that aside from the restrictions imposed by state sanctioned apartheid that existed then the so-called average white man, as you describe him, in the Deep South did not, on the whole, have it much better than the average black man. The average white man had his white privilege but it didn’t amount to very much except when measured against what blacks were denied. The system didn’t really provide much material wealth and comfort to the average white man and his family in return for their fealty to the illusion of white superiority.
You’re still living in a fantasy land. Worse, you have absolutely no knowledge of how black people in the Deep South actually lived that any Black American should respect. Why don’t you stick to Italian-Amerticans, say, living in Boston’s North End.
Sean : Yes. There were fewer things on those days.
PTCruiser: Where did you extract the meaning that the use of violence against Black Americans was justified?
And, as a matter of fact, although I was quite young, I did visit the South around 1957, my first visit having taken place before my 11th Birthday.
And are you saying black people in the South were doing better than whites, as well as whites, or worse than whites ?
Make up your mind…
The fantasy world you’re living in is one where poor whites were doing about as badly as not – very poor blacks . By allowing poor whites to bat blacks around on weekends , and maybe hang a few, rich whites kept themselves in power.
But you keep on believing what the Democrats have been telling you since 1928. It has worked out so well to date, has it not?
We’ll have to change that saying to “Fool me once , shame on you. Fool me 200 times, shame on the Republicans”
Frank DiSalle: Sean : Yes. There were fewer things on those days.
???
Sean : That’s a joke, son … A joke .
That’s YOUR problem — not mine. “Superior” means better than, and referred to the conditions, not the people. I made that quite clear. If you didn’t get it, don’t blame me .
Just say “better off” instead. That should get your meaning across better.
Check back over the news clips of Presidents Bush
You mean like when Bush nearly knocked over a recovering heart surgery patient?
Pretty much all of it. Now go away.
You mean stuff like this?
Again, if you’re THAT ashamed of the stuff you’ve said, you should stop saying this kind of stuff, rather than blame me for bringing it up.
You mean stuff like this?
You mean where it says we killed 40,000 terrorists in Iraq?
I see no mention of civilians, or human shields. Now you have actually cited an example of your making sh*t up
You mean like when Bush nearly knocked over a recovering heart surgery patient?
This has absolutely NOTHING — I repeat, NOTHING — to do with kinesiology.
Just say “better off” instead.
You’re already re-writing my comments; now you want to dictate what I should write?
Please, go away!!!
You are simply harassing me, because no one else is telling you what a horse’s ass you have become .
I see no mention of civilians, or human shields. Now you have actually cited an example of your making sh*t up
You said:
You see, they have this silly strategy of drawing terrorists of all types into a weakened , unstable country and killing them like fish in a barrel.
You have a point. You’re supporting using an entire country as bait, not just the civilians, that’s SO much better.
This has absolutely NOTHING — I repeat, NOTHING — to do with kinesiology.
You’re right. What I said is real.
You’re already re-writing my comments; now you want to dictate what I should write?
It’s called a “suggestion”, douchebag. If you want people to think that you believe that white people are “superior” to blacks, then that’s your business. Just another thing to add to the list of horrible things you’ve written.
Please, go away!!!
I’m sorry, I didn’t know this was your blog.
But you keep on believing what the Democrats have been telling you since 1928. It has worked out so well to date, has it not?
What exactly is your obsession about black folks and Democrats? And what do you believe that Democrats have been telling black folks since 1928? Why does the way in which black folks exercise their voting franchise send you and other right-wingers around the bend? Is it because they don’t listen to you? Frank, it seems you have some deep seated issues here. It doesn’t trouble me in the least, for example, about how Italian-Americans vote. In fact, it doesn’t trouble black folks at all about how ethnic Americans vote but it seems to drive many of them, including you, over the edge. What’s up with that?
“Wiz: I did not say a damn thing about his bowing down to the Saudi leader.”
I know you didn’t Frank (is the banter back and forth with Sean D/Zython wearing on you, making you inadvertently lash out at everyone? Or are you trying to be an obtuse fuck? Point that crap at them, I was just trying to have a non-rant discourse with you)
My statement was genuinely intended to get YOUR take on how if he bowed down (which he didn’t) OR if he was just showing a modicum of courtesy to a monarch, how would either of those actions jibe with your assessment of him as a narcissist? Hell, a savvy narcissist is damn meticulous about his/her body language and making sure it (at least appears to) reaffirm their self-perception of their status/stature.
“And what you “would think” about government corporate culture, means nothing to me.”
Actually I KNOW there are rules governing that sort of thing, I just didn’t want anyone to go “can you cite a reference? Huh? Huh?” ‘cause even though I’ve read some of the written policy in the past, I don’t have it readily at hand, and I’m not inclined to put any extra free time researching obscure details in cyberspace….
I was simply alluding to the slew of protocol policy and guidelines spelled out in Federal executive service policy manuals (and I’m sure the offices of the President and executive branch have an additional mountain of policy/procedures all unto themselves) which I’M SURE specifies things like who walks where, walking into and out of meetings/buildings/cars etc….
“Check back over the news clips of Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon.”
What exactly would I be checking for? Assuming you did check, did you empirically check a ‘relevant sample’ of presidential clips and evaluate how many walked (or didn’t walk) ahead of the other persons in the clip and use those figures to come to your contention(hypothesis) that Obama must be a narcissist personality? (and by comparison, the other are not?) I’m sure there are clips of those presidents notably cognizant and adhering to established protocols and others when they’re (relatively) nonchalant and casual about their visible demeanor. I do remember seeing in a documentary on Nixon, a clip of him dressing down a staffer and then physically pushing him to go take care of some issue. I wouldn’t take that observation as a definitive indicator of his character, only that for whatever reason, at that moment, he was pissed. I’ll bet all those presidents you mentioned probably had some similar episodes; just they didn’t make it to videotape. Obama will have some too (probably has already)
I believe your statement is inaccurate (not because some of your views are different from mine) but because it is anecdotal.
Zython : I meant go away from me, not the blog.
To answer you simply PTCruiser, Republicans would like very much to be involved the effort to bring black citizens to the same lifestyle here in America as its white citizens, but we can not, because we are labeled as racists. Secondly, Democrats, who invariably favor activities which preserve the symbiotic relationship between the government and the black community are not, in my view (and the view of many Republicans) being truly helpful to blacks.
So, we are prevented from helping blacks while at the same time suffering politically for “failure to help them”.
That is frustrating.
Forgive me, wiz, you are partially right. Zython is an ankle biter, and I have let him get on my nerves.
My point was simple, and I didn’t plan on launching a discussion on the President’s body language. Someone mentioned that the policeman had helped Prof Gates , while Pres Obama was paying no attention. I have seen this dozens of times on the news, while recalling that almost any time in the past I had seen the Pres leave a meeting, he was nearly always walking alongside someone in a conversation.
Anecdotal is anecdotal, not inaccurate. I may have stumbled upon the truth in a non-scientific fashion. I am sure someone like Charles Krauthammer, a man who used to practice psychiatry, could provide you with with more evidence that Pres Obama is self-absorbed, perhaps to the point of narcissism.
Ffrank DiSalle: Republicans would like very much to be involved the effort to bring black citizens to the same lifestyle here in America as its white citizens, but we can not, because we are labeled as racists.
Nice circular
logicwhining you’ve got going there, Frank. Republicans such as yourself would like to help but can’t because you’re (unjustly, presumably) labeled racist, when it’s your unwillingness to help (not to mention a history of minority-oppressing actions) that lead to your being called racist.To answer you simply PTCruiser, Republicans would like very much to be involved the effort to bring black citizens to the same lifestyle here in America as its white citizens, but we can not, because we are labeled as racists.
This is a straw man argument. The issue is not whether or not you and your fellow GOPers are racists. Black folks won’t support y’all for public office because we don’t agree with your policies. Can you get to that, Frank, and accept it. Most of us, not all of us, do not accept and support the policies advocated by the GOP.
In 1964, for example, when Barry Goldwater was faced with voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill he chose, relying on the legal advice of William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to vote against this bill. In our collective opinion, it doesn’t matter whether Goldwater was a racist or not. The reality is that he was faced with making a decision to could have helped to strike down state sanctioned racial segregation and he chose to vote against the bill.
Secondly, Democrats, who invariably favor activities which preserve the symbiotic relationship between the government and the black community are not, in my view (and the view of many Republicans) being truly helpful to blacks.
Black folks don’t have a symbiotic relationship with the government and they deeply, deeply detest it when you and other GOP activists and promoters make this claim. If black folks have such a relationship then it is no different than the relationship enjoyed by nearly every other citizen in this country. Why do we need to be singled out for your ire?
Here is a link to an essay on this issue I wrote in 2004 that was published at the website BlackElectorate.com:
http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=1177
When the GOP offers something of value to black voters then they’ll vote for GOP candidates. Until that time, stop your whining, puhlease!
How exactly do you define “more attractive to black people?”
The Democrats seem to do it primarily with bread and circuses, essentially promising free goodies without having to pay for them…. except with more votes and more power.
There’s an old saying about when that happens… and seems to be proven more true every say.
How exactly do you define “more attractive to black people?”
Why would I have to define or explain this proposition? I assume that if you attended school at least to the 8th grade, and have demonstrated sufficient common sense to come inside during a thunderstorm that you understand what I meant.
The Democrats seem to do it primarily with bread and circuses, essentially promising free goodies without having to pay for them…. except with more votes and more power.
Please let us know when freebies are being passed out. Everybody that I grew up with, regardless of the color of their skin, got passed over. My own personal view is that I have been denied so much in this country because of the color of my skin that I damn sure ain’t gonna turn down anything somebody wants to give me because of the color of my skin. I’m just waiting on the freebie line to open up.
“Canadian bacon: I am an Italian American. You are a bigot. If you would like to, you could come to this Italian American household and hear what I have to say about two bit Canadian pricks like you. Check with freD if you want to know how to locate me.”
Not an ethnic slur at all – Just stated a fact. I have lived among you and Italian American men from your generation are some of the biggest racist I’ve ever encountered. This explains your bigoted pov. And it doesn’t surprise me that your household speaks poorly about Canadians, just another example of the point I made regarding your racist cultural DNA. BTW no interest in locating you but thanks for the offer. I have fled the racist culture that you still embrace whole heartedly. Cheers.