Sunday Morning Open Thread

The Tour de France rides into Paris today. Pretty pictures. Sunday Talk shows will be all Gates I imagine. Not tempting me to start watching them again.

This is an Open Thread.

< Was The Fischer Homes Prosecution About Publicity, Not Justice? | Lamar Smith: Deport 'Em All >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Union members acting heroically... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by magster on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:34 AM EST
    ... again.

    Krugman on why the free-market ... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    can't solve our health care problems:

    There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don't know when or whether you'll need care -- but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor's office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

    This tells you right away that health care can't be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can't just trust insurance companies either -- they're not in business for their health, or yours.

    Krugman wrote this on his blog because he was getting a lot of email and comments claiming that we needed a free-market solution.

    I wonder who these people are?  Most average citizens have understood Krugman's point for decades.

    He brought it up on This Week too (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:18:27 AM EST
    PK is a national hero IMO.

    Did he suggest people ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:30:00 AM EST
    look at the companies who advertise during This Week when judging the information they promulgate?

    Lots of drug and insurance company sponsors last time I watched.  They also dominate cable news.


    National Hero (none / 0) (#23)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:08:13 AM EST
    is a bit of a stretch for a columnist who is wrong as many times as he is right (i.e. wrong on Nationalization of Banks among other things)

    I read his health car column from Friday. It was good. But surprisingly David Brooks latest column on the same topic was as good if not better.


    I think I can ... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:15:42 AM EST
    unequivocally state David Brooks is NOT a national hero!



    You either have a problem (none / 0) (#43)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    reading or you just choose to ignore what was actually written. In either case you look kind of foolish.

    FWI I never said Brooks is a national hero. I said his article was as good or better than non-national hero Krugman's.


    My wild guess . . . (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    I wonder who these people are?

    The insurance industry, perhaps?


    They only "free market" we've ever had (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by esmense on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    in "health care" is the patent medicine market of the 19th Century -- promised "cures" and highly touted remedies sold to desperate people who had no basis on which to judge their efficacy and safety.

    Although modern medical professionals are well educated, certified, etc., and procedures are based in science, peer-reviewed, etc, modern "fee for service" actually is based in the patent medicine model -- "experts" set the price they want and peddle their cures to desperate people without the knowledge to judge whether the treatment they receive is in fact safe, effective or necessary.

    What makes legitimate medical care sold on a fee for service basis both different from the patent medicine model and unworkable in terms of providing affordable care is that, unlike the cheaply produced patent medicine cure, the cost of legitimate, effective medical care is (and always has been) much too high for most individuals to bear on their own.

    That's why, in the past, before wide-spread employer supported health insurance and significant government involvement, legitimate medical care was NOT seen as a profit making venture -- but rather as a social responsibility, supported and undertaken by the community and/or religious institutions. The well to do and religiously devout were expected to contribute to the support of hospitals and the care of the poor. And doctors, who earned immense respect as educated professionals, did not earn the kind of money needed to purchase vacation homes in the south of France. (Or the wealth enjoyed by the most popular patent medicine purveyors.)

    If we want affordable health care we are going to have to abandon the notion of fee for service. If we want health care to be available to all, we are going to have to revive the idea of health care as a social responsibility rather than a profit making business.

    The "free market" can't provide us with real, legitimate care -- only cheap promises and, for far too many, deadly results.



    true grit (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Sumner on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    It is refreshing that people like Glenn Greenwald and Ray McGovern, simply will not give up on the torture prosecutions.

    It is reassuring at least some Americans understand just what is at stake, not to follow through.

    New Cult Forming (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    Palintologists (quite the ironic name, imo):


    Palin arrived about 12:15 p.m. Sunday at Pioneer Park in downtown Fairbanks, where thousands gathered for the picnic and her resignation speech.
    Among those present was Donna Michaels, 57, of Fairbanks, who wore a red T-shirt that said: "Palintologist."
    The T-shirt defined a Palintologist as "someone who studies Palin and shares her conservative values, Maverick attitude and American style."


    "She's really not stepping down. She's stepping up to do something bigger and better," said Michaels, who attended the picnic with her daughter and two granddaughters, one of whom who wore Sarah Palin-style eyeglasses.[emphasis added]


    Palin eyeglasses (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:11:39 PM EST
    I actually don't have a problem with young girls copying her personal style (better than some of the other options!!). Sharing her values is a whole 'nother ballpark, especially if they go into public service etc . . . . Also, I can dream that they would notice other women and their backgrounds/experience and compare it to Palin's. While they may share Palin's values, I can only hope they notice women on all sides and what they did to get where they are. I think some of Palin's "rise to the top" is valid as she did create her path in a way and it's nice to see alternate paths for those that can't do the top schools etc, but . . . the fact remains, most women have to be twice as smart, work twice as hard and gosh darn it, be twice as likable. Must not forget the temperament!

    Guaranteed (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:31:13 PM EST
    The eyeglasses are lenses that reflect Palin's worldview. Copying her eyeglasses means worshiping what she stands for. Not a fashion statement, imo.

    Depending on age (none / 0) (#153)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:51:49 PM EST
    that worldview can change. They could be in "crush" stage for more than one reason. There was a fair amount of focus on women when Hillary finished her run. I'd be a heck of a lot more scared if Hillary hadn't just finished her long campaign. And in Alaska, I think you will find a larger population that does share her mindset, along with other pockets in the US. But I do think there are girls out there that may be taken in by her "story" and her run for VP over her extreme right mindset. The past couple years have got to have formed young girls minds beyond far right and Hillary. Young people are sponges and can "see" far more than we give them credit for, even these days.

    nice hour-long interview with Sec. Clinton (none / 0) (#1)
    by DFLer on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:05:45 AM EST
    on meet the press

    She does give good interview! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:14:18 AM EST
    Every time I hear her interviewed, I may not agree with everything she says, but I can't help thinking "OMG! I'm so glad I don't have to listen to Condi Rice!".  Listening to Rice would set my teeth on edge every time.  Labor pains!

    (Well, we still have VP Biden for this administration's verbal gaffes.  Is it a requirement or something that every administration have a court jester?)


    Hillary was her usual (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    articulate, well prepared self. And David Gregory was a bit less idiotic than usual. I admit to a tug of wistful sadness when she all but totally ruled out a future run for the WH.

    On Hillary' future Presidential plans (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:05:28 PM EST
    Of course she has to all but rule it out now. Imagine the circus if she did not at this point.

    2016 is 7 years from now.


    I almost see her following Bill's lead (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:15:56 PM EST
    after her SoS gig is up.

    Ironically (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    I imagine there will be a great deal of Dem Party pressure on her to run in 2016.

    She would clearly be the best card our Party has to play in 2016.

    Obama will swallow all the attention and no prominent figures will arise in the 8 years (hopefully of his Presidency.)

    That's what happened during the Clinton Presidency (and why Gore was the heir apparent obviously) and the Bush Presidency.

    In the end, the GOP turned to McCain in part because there was no one else.


    Who will be vice president... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:55:27 PM EST
    ... in Obama's second term?  I'd think that whoever Obama selects for that position in 2012 would be the likely frontrunner for the democrats in 2016.

    Joe Biden (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    He won't run in 2016 imo. 74.

    If I recall correctly... (none / 0) (#104)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:55:31 PM EST
    ... Biden was added to the ticket in order to boost the "experience" factor.  Four years from now, hopefully Obama won't need that sort of "seasoned pro" backup to convince the voters to choose the Dem ticket.

    So unless Biden wants to become presient in 2016, what would be the benefit to the president or the party of having him serve as VP in 2012?  If Obama and Biden were to agree on which person they'd like to have become president in 2016, I'd think that they could do a lot to help out their choice in the 2016 race by adding him/her on to a 4-year stint as VP in 2012.


    You do not change VPs (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    in reelection campaigns.

    FDR was the last one to do that. Does not happen anymore.


    Yeah, Biden's sticking around. But I (none / 0) (#122)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    bet he's going to spend the next bunch of years taking up fishing.

    Changing VPs definitely (none / 0) (#156)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:01:57 PM EST
    has gone out of style, but under the right circumstances it could be possible.

    If, for instance, JB reeled off a bad string of horrendous gaffes, both foreign and domestic, such that he was actually seen to be not only wrecking our foreign relations but also damaging the Obama re-elect prospects at home.

    He would need to be eased out at that point.  Perhaps a job over at the Pentagon or as DNI or head of the FBI.  Some fairly prestigious position where he could be sold as a bold reformer who would shake things up.


    I'm warming up to a (none / 0) (#79)
    by steviez314 on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:56:13 PM EST
    Whitehouse for the White House '16 campaign.

    69 years old is just old to run for President. (none / 0) (#91)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:53:24 PM EST
    And I doubt the party would be any warmer to her then they were this go around.

    Ronald Reagan was 69 (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    John McCain was 72.

    Women have longer life expectancies.

    It just is not so.


    John McCain was a virtual laughing stock (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    because of his age. Clinton was getting called too old and part of a past generation this time around. 8 years more would just solidify this.

    It's not about life expectancy, it's about voting for your Grandma to be President. And they won't do it.

    Furthermore, I still don't see how Clinton overcomes the caucus system that beat her in general, and in the all important Iowa in particular.


    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    John McCain was a virtual laughing stock because of his age.

    That was not the issue, among others, as to why he was a laughingstock. Regarding his age he was a laughingstock because he chose Palin as veep.

    Not to mention that the primary reason he was a laughingstock was because he had eight years of BushCo around his neck.


    Oh (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:01:08 PM EST
    And I disagree that Hillary's age will be a negative. If anything it will help her, especially after eight years of SOS experience. She will be unstoppable.

    It was "John McCain, grumpy old man" (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:05:07 PM EST
    24/7 in the media. They did the same thing to Dole. Ronald Reagen was just about the only politician who could get away with being old.

    We live in a youth culture. Believing that being old will help her goes against every piece of evidence out there.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    Well that youth culture will be eight years older and eight years wiser in 2016. Sorry McSame lost because of BushCo not because he was old, imo.

    Well, there are going to be new, young voters in (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:14:58 PM EST
    8 years. It's not limited to the ones we had now.

    In my opinion, Clinton has less of a chance in 2016 then she did in 2008. And since she lost in 2008, I guess it isn't much of a chance.


    Youth Population Diminishing (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    In all of the projection series, the future age structure of the population will be older than it is now. In the middle series, the median age of the population will steadily increase from 34.0 in 1994 to 35.5 in 2000, peak at 39.1 in 2035, then decrease slightly to 39.0 by 2050. This increasing median age is driven by the aging of the population born during the Baby Boom after World War II (1946 to 1964). About 30 percent of the population in 1994 were born during the Baby Boom. As this population ages, the median age will rise. People born during the Baby Boom will be between 36 and 54 years old at the turn of the century. In 2011, the first members of the Baby Boom will reach age 65, and the Baby Boom will have decreased to 25 percent of the total population (in the middle series). The last of the Baby-Boom population will reach age 65 in the year 2029. By that time, the Baby-Boom population is projected to be only about 16 percent of the total population.

    US Census Bureau


    Seems to me (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    mental sharpness is the big factor.

    Reagan had more than his share of senior moments, and he's fortunate he was able to recover from that first debate with Mondale.  McCain struggled with similar issues.

    If Hillary is as sharp in 2016 as she is today, I doubt age will be a huge factor.  But who knows if that will be the case?


    IMO, age will be a factor re (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    a Clinton candidacy solely because she is female.  See male v. female aging movie stars.

    Different Standard (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:20:48 PM EST
    As much as movies are reflective of where we are and our social values I do not think that the same gender/agism standard would apply to Hillary as POTUS in 2016 and Hillary as movie star in 2016.

    Feel free to substitute, any movie star of your choice, for Hillary as movie star in 2016.


    Hope you're right and I'm wrong. But (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    not holding my breath.

    I don't remember McCain having any (none / 0) (#118)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    mental sharpness issues.

    lol (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:16:41 PM EST
    How's your memory? Not so good, imo.

    Joe Biden is about 4 years older... (none / 0) (#98)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    ... than Hillary.  I wonder if he'd be considered too old to run for president in 2016?  The way things are going now, I'd bet that he probably would be.

    Hypothetically, if Obama decided forego a second term in order to do something more interesting like, say, become the first ever combo UN General Secretay/Pope, would a guy like Biden at age 69 be considered too old to run for president in 2012?   I wonder...


    I'm not so sure about that (none / 0) (#102)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    now that the part has kicked her in the teeth.  I don't think they will be quite so eager to bash her if there is a next time around.  

    I would be delighted if Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    threw her cap in the ring for 2016.  But I couldn't bear to see her excoriated for both her gender and her age.  

    I just think another run in 2016 would be like (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    2008, but even worse.

    I don't know why they'd be eager to embrace her (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    after so much effort to beat her this time around. Is Pelosi, Kerry, Brazille, etc. suddenly going to decide they don't hate her guts anymore? I doubt it.

    Hate Her Guts? (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:07:05 PM EST
    Absurd. You are mistaking the game of politics by projecting your personal feelings about the race.

    None of the people you mentioned can hold a candle to Hillary's popular appeal. Her biggest mistake was hiring Mark Penn. And Obama is a supertalent.

    It would be hilarious if Hillary won in 2016 and Obama, or Michelle became SOS.  


    i don't know if they hate her guts (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    what they hated was the person who stood in the way of their historical moment.

    and she's not that person anymore.

    but i'm torn, there probably still is an underlying disconnect there based on hillary knowing how to interact with, say, folks from arkansas, in a way that they don't.


    Must mean "party." (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:25:34 PM EST
    Hillary '16 looks very (none / 0) (#159)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:09:54 PM EST

    There would automatically be a much higher scrutiny -- looks, mental state -- for a female Dem candidate pushing 70 than, say, for her opposite in the Repub camp.

    Double even that heightened scrutiny because her name is Clinton.


    Same here (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    Even though I had figured that's the way things were, it still got to me.

    "Sunday Talk shows will be all Gates..." (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:37:01 AM EST
    I really expected some substantial legal discussion of Gates/Crowley here. Did I miss it?

    So many smart lawyers, and none of them had a thought about the charge of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts?

    And no, I didn't miss BigTentDemocrat's low-concept, no-citations rant about the cops, and I didn't miss Jonathan Turley's excellent article about Crowley's cause for a defamation action against Gates, with its recollection of the successful suit for defamation against Al Sharpton by assistant D.A. Steven A. Pagones: $345,000.

    So I had to try to figure Gates/Crowley out for myself, but now maybe some of the legal talent on TalkLeft will take the trouble to add a few intelligent comments to my diary about the relevant statutes, case Law, and model code.

    Turley's article was crap (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    There is no resemblance between Gate/Crowley and Sharton/Pagones. None. Only a fool would compare them.

    Indeed (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:11:14 AM EST
    on issues of race (and others),  Turley has proven himself to be quite problematic. I find it hilarious that Olbermann uses him.

    He is neither very good on the law generally  (imo of course) nor really progressive.


    Maybe Turley will sue me npow (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    for defamation.

    Is there a bloggers' union to (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    stand up for you?

    Hard to Even Mention (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:29:13 PM EST
    whatever 'defamation' might have been visited on Officer Crowley by Professor Gates in the same breath as the actual atrocity Pagones suffered.

    In 1987, Steven A. Pagones was a young assistant district attorney in Dutchess County when a 15-year-old black girl from Wappingers Falls, Tawana Brawley, said that a gang of white men had abducted and raped her. Three men acting as her advisers said Mr. Pagones had been one of them.

    A year later, a grand jury found that Ms. Brawley had fabricated the entire tale. In 1998, a jury found that the three advisers, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, had defamed Mr. Pagones and awarded him $345,000 in damages from them. Ms. Brawley, whom Mr. Pagones had also sued, defaulted by not appearing at the trial, and the judge ordered her to pay him damages of $185,000.

    Those of us living in upstate New York at the time had front row seats and it was an endlessly sickening episode on so many levels.


    Reality Based Community ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:25:56 AM EST
    posted an article, focusing on the issue of police misconduct in the Gates arrest.  You can read that here.

    It quotes the exact wording of the Massachusetts statue on disorderly conduct.  It also has a link to Crowley's full statement which was part of the police report.

    I'm not a lawyer, but this article seemed like a good legal analysis to me.


    i disagree with the first paragraph (none / 0) (#18)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:49:43 AM EST
    i believe that in the example provided, the officer was not called to investigate a break-in and having happened across the nice woman struggling to get back into the house lended a helping hand.

    but i believe that if the officer had been dispatched to investigate a break-in, in that case that there is protocol to be fulfilled to prove that he investigated the break-in thoroughly.

    i was hoping to read that and see an appropriate argument about the abuse of the disorderly conduct statute and the first paragraph set about racially polarizing the event prior to making that argument.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    "Brought race into it" did they?

    And yet, I do not know why you could not discuss the rest of the article without discussing the first graf.

    Seems you had to "bring race into it" too.

    You illustrate my point sooooo well.

    You, who yell at the top of your lungs about "bringing race into it" find it impossible to not do it yourself.



    LOL (none / 0) (#21)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:01:37 AM EST
    i should not respond to the race issue when other people bring it up because i will then be guilty of bringing it up myself?

    i'll read the whole thing and i'll probably agree with an argument that cops abuse the disorderly conduct statute (so less urgent need to respond to it).

    the thing is we know cops are dicks to white people too.  i can provide first hand testimony to that fact.


    It was not brought up here (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:32:48 AM EST
    The link was offered for its analysis of the police conduct.

    And yet YOU brought the issue of race to THIS SITE regarding that article.

    So yes, LOL, it was you who "brought race into it " in THIS THREAD.

    Mond you, I am not condemning you for it. I am APPLUADING you for it.

    You are demonstrating my point - to wit, race is always in it. ALWAYS.


    i feel (none / 0) (#46)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    when someone links to an article, the entirety of the article is fair game.

    i was under the mistaken impression that your response to my comment was an attempt to discourage discussion thereof, specifically my contribution.

    i was wrong and i apologize.


    It is fair game (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    I am not berating you. I am pointing out that you make my point that "race is always in it."

    I thought it was particularly clear here when a person who always bemoans "race being brought into it" was the person bringing race into it in this thread.

    I am very happy you did that as it so solidified my point.


    i was pretty clear yesterday (none / 0) (#69)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:10:17 PM EST
    i think it was yesterday where i acknowledged a disctinction between introspection and false accusations.

    i stand by it.


    furthermore (none / 0) (#80)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    for the record, i didn't bring race into this thread.

    With regard to that article? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    Sure you did.

    Surely (2.00 / 0) (#97)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    If you would like to observe the irony of someone bemoaning bringing up race bringing up race in this thread, then I can observe the irony of someone who says race is always in it telling someone else that they brought race into this thread.

    Clearly more clever than productive.  I just hope I'm not delusional when I tell myself if no one linked to that article in this thread and that article did not start off by making race an issue I would not have had the occasion to respond to race in this thread.


    I'm confused ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:09:12 AM EST
    doesn't drawing attention to police misconduct potentially help all victims of police misconduct?

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:11:54 AM EST
    sans the introductory paragraphs giving one the impression that the white woman is always treated kindly.

    There you go again (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    Bringing race into it.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    the original race baiter were Gates and Obama with big assists from Sharpton and Jackson who didn't waste a breath trying to capitalize on Gates' indiscretions.

    In fact Gates was going to go as far as to have Sharpton stand with him at an arraignment which shows you that an education and a generally good standing in the community does not guarantee a man common sense.


    something (none / 0) (#49)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    you encourage.

    Indeed (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    It proves my point. Race is always in it.

    Read the rest ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    of the article.

    How about (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    Gates misconduct? You cop haters totally ignore his misconduct. In fact many of you yesterday said a citizen has a right to yell and scream and call cops anything they want. Well no they don't. Which is why Gates got arrested and once he cooled his heals and quit saying nonsense like 'I'll talk to your Mama on the porch' they released him.

    Stop the insults (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    Or you will be suspended. From my threads at least.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#50)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    There was no insult intended.

    The "cop haters" stuff (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    was insulting.

    drop that line.


    you have to say (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    in my opinion you are all cop haters.

    then it's not slander.


    It's not allowed period (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    So don;t you think your modification makes it ok.

    Read the ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:28:38 AM EST

    No need to read articles (none / 0) (#36)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:32:09 AM EST
    to exercise common sense.

    Besides as I said in another post -"it's over". Gates has said he is moving on. I suggest you do too.


    What does "I'll talk to your momma" (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:50:25 AM EST

    In the (none / 0) (#60)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    'hood, and in most of the Black community when you bring up someones Mama it is considered a huge insult. Doing so is fighting words and I can tell you that people have been killed for such an insult.

    For a Harvard professor to be using such ghetto language is truly embarrassing. And in doing so he was insulting the officers - not that that was the only insult he dished out that day.


    I almost LOLed (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    when I heard that Gates said that.  Harvard professor?  Really?  It just seemed so juvenile - "your mother!".

    I'm not sure what I was expecting - maybe "a disgrace to the uniform"?


    I assume you mean (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    it would be embarrassing if he had said it, because obviously you have no idea whether he did.

    You assume wrong (none / 0) (#152)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:44:57 PM EST
    I read the actual police report that was printed in the Boston Globe. Obviously you didn't.

    You are a riot almost every post Steve. People here on Gates side who also have not read the actual report have been posting he said this and the other guy said that - and nowhere did you try to challenge that they didn't know what was actually said. Of course not. But have someone quote what you don't want to here and what do you do? Provide actual evidence that I am wrong? Of course not. You never produce evidence or even a reasonable argument. You simply insert one of you wiseguy comments as if it passes for something that even resembles intelligent debate. Not only did you not read the report you obviously never took a debate class.

    If you were only astute enough to look at what you post one would hope you would see not to post your nonsense.

    Now may I suggest you google and read the actual police report before sticking you foot in your mouth again.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    You can yap all you want but you still have no more evidence that the police report is accurate than anyone else does.

    How do you know Gates said that?  "Gee, I read the ACTUAL police report!  The one that tells the story of one side to the controversy and is disputed by the other side!"  Heh, thanks for setting everyone straight.

    "How do you know God exists?  It says so in the Bible?  Oh, gotcha."


    Very funny as usual (2.00 / 0) (#172)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    Here you have police report that is undisputed by Gates who even said he was going to sue and was reported to be consulting with his attorneys and even Al Sharpton was involved. An intelligent person would think if you publicly said you were going to sue and that your attorneys and Al Sharpton had a copy of the report which they has access to and it was inaccurate that there would have been a lawsuit forthcoming and if not the police report must be right given the attorneys looked at it and talked to Gates. Instead Gates has said No Law suit and that he is" moving on".

    No one including Gates or his attorneys or Al Sharpton is disputing the police report which btw the incident was witnessed by 7 passer byes who could have shot down the report had it been false. But Gates goes quietly into the night.

    Now I know, I said an intelligent person would think the police report was right giving the attorneys and Sharpton who is sue happy - but we are dealing with you here which explains you baseless view.


    Ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:13:26 PM EST
    the police report is "undisputed," even the parts that Gates specifically said were false.  Right-o.

    If there were false parts (none / 0) (#184)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:46:41 PM EST
    why didn't he sue? Why didn't his attorneys sue? Why did Sharpton quit making noise?

    You laugh at a police report when you have absolutely nothing to refute it! You question a police report that you have not read and question it when you were not only not on the scene but you don't know half the facts at hand. Yet in your distorted world your word means more than the cops or Gates' subsequent actions of "moving on". You really are quite the character.

    And just what did the police do wrong that they would try to cover up? All they did was respond to a request by a neighbor to investigate a possible burglary and then followed SOP. Did Gate ever say the officer said anything out of line to him? Nope. Did Gates say the police mistreated him? Nope. Did he dispute as the police report says that they gave him every courtesy upon arresting him? Nope. All Gates said is that the police were racists and NEVER backed that claim up with what they did to be racists which had they done something then him and Sharpton would have had a civil rights case and acted on it because that is what the both of them live for. But zip is what they did.

    And yet you don't have the capacity to add all that up? Instead all you have is an unfounded clownish accusation that the report might be false? A report you have not read but Gates, Sharpton, and the attorneys did. A report that many legal people have read and not a one that I have seen has claimed it was false but here you sit saying it is or could be? You are truly funny. Tragically so.

    Your turn. Keep digging. Please!


    Really (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:41:01 PM EST
    the fact that you repeatedly claim I have not read the report, when I read it practically the moment it became available, is kind of sad.  Someday you'll try to have a real discussion with someone without all the insults and accusations, maybe.

    "How dare you question a police report!"  Uh, because it's one person's side of the story, and the other person says it didn't happen like that?  Maybe?


    Not to mention (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:42:23 PM EST
    Gates has specifically disputed several aspects of the report... including the dubious "mama" comment... yet all talex can do is keep repeating, ad nauseum, "no one has claimed the police report is false!"

    Please provide linkage for Gates's (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:44:05 PM EST
    account of what happened.  I have read his attorney's written statement.

    There was an interview (none / 0) (#199)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:49:13 PM EST
    with Gayle King on Sirius... not sure if a transcript is available.  He said the "mama" comment never happened and that it sounded like the police did their research for the report by watching an episode of "Good Times" or something.

    It seems to me that the police report paints a very stereotypical, hackneyed story of Gates' behavior, which is why some people find it utterly implausible and many people likewise find it completely believable.  Maybe it depends on whether you believe black people go around saying "yo mama" when things get heated.

    In an earlier comment, I believe talex explained that that is how people talk in "the 'hood," so it is possible he possesses an expertise that you and I lack.


    Here is the Sirius interview of (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:03:44 PM EST
    Gates:  link

    He does not address the statements Crowley and Figueroa attribute to him.


    Somehow I picture Prof. Gates as (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    the type of arrestee who goes to the front counter at the police station, requests a copy of the arrest report, and writes his own "counter report" to be attached to the Sgt.'s report.  Did he?

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    I don't believe we have a full narrative from Gates' perspective, but he did specifically deny the "mama" comment, among other things.

    Talex is really such a nasty piece of work, I cannot understand how he keeps getting welcomed back here.


    Hardly welcomed (none / 0) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:23:44 PM EST
    Could you get ahold of the tipster (none / 0) (#190)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:12:19 PM EST
    and do a phone interview?  I am very curious as to what she observed and heard.  Also those Harvard security people and the maintenance man. Anyone else?  Oh, some bystanders.

    No (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:12:21 PM EST
    As far as I know. What does seem apparent is that the original arrest report was changed. Gussied up?

    Query: who released the redacted (none / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    arrest report?/

    Also, all I saw were redactions, not expansions or "gussying."  What are you looking at?


    Oh, Sorry (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:53:45 PM EST
    It was a bit confusing. THe boston globe published the initial report and then "scrubbed" it. Lots of allegations were flying around from both sides over that.

    Although I got that confused with the fact that there are two reports, one is called a supplemental incident report, and is a short narrative, the other is called an incident report.

    Looked to me that the first one made Crowley look bad so he reduced it to the key elements.

    tumultuous and alarming the public.

    smoking gun has it all.


    These are the two reports I read: one (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:57:58 PM EST
    by Sgt. Crowley and one by Officer Figueroa (who confirms in detail Prof. Gates was out of control).  

    Oh Got It (none / 0) (#188)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:59:52 PM EST
    DId not see the names.

    Answer re source of the arrest reports: (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:45:44 PM EST
    apparently the court.  

    as i understand it (none / 0) (#64)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    in the police report gates is quoted as saying that so you'd probably have to ask him.

    As you understand it? (none / 0) (#158)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:07:12 PM EST

    Yeah believe the guy who was causing a scene and not the police that were there to protect him home.

    Let's see if I can top you. As I understand it Gates has not denied what is in the police report because it it probably all recorded anyway - and I understand it that he will file no lawsuit - and I understand he says he is moving on.

    To listen to him now I would understand it that he wants no part of a pissing contest.

    BTW in the police report Gates is quoted telling the police after his arrest that the front door won't lock because someone tried to break in when he was away and damaged it. So what does Gates do when the police come out to investigate a burglary at the request of a neighbor? Does he thank them? No! He cries racism when they are there to protect his property that someone according to Gates previously tried to break into. WTF is up with that?


    A good analysis, based in the law (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    which is a relief after so many comments based on what commenters think is the law and what they think happened.  Thanks.

    Btw, elderly neighbors of mine, not seen by any of us in months, have taken in (or have been taking in by -- we're concerned) a grandson often comes out on the porch, screaming his head off.  He's quite "tumultuous" and darned disorderly in his conduct.  No one dares to go near him then.

    It's about to the point that one of us neighbors is going to call the cops, from what I gather from conversation on the block.  I'm not going to be the one to do it, because I cannot count on the response being by smart cops, and I don't know that the guy ought to be arrested.

    But I sort of hope it does get done, and that smart cops come, so that someone can get inside and see what's going on there with our elderly neighbors. . . .


    Can a social worker be sent (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    to check on the neighbors?

    Very Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    Too often it feels like the only line of response where we are worried about the welfare of someone we aren't close to (or related to) is the police, and some police forces (and some individual POs) are better at that kind of intervention than others.

    Where I live the county has something called Unified Family Services which most people associate with services for neglected/abused children but which in recent years (sadly, but thankfully) has expanded to include oversight of things like elder abuse/exploitation.


    Although many times the worker (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:31:22 AM EST
    requests law enforcement accompany him/her if the situation may be or become dangerous.

    But not a good point, sad to say (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    in my city.  Contact with such social services before, for another elderly neighbor who was senile and in serious straits -- she would not let anyone inside, including her children; after she passed, it took them a year to take the trash out of the house, and it was discovered that she had not had hot water for a decade, etc. -- only made the situation worse.  The social workers for the city (note, not all -- I know good ones, but they don't work for the city) acted quite unprofessionally.

    (Btw, at the other end of the age spectrum, the other age group unable to protect themselves, our city social services are under investigation now after the murders of many children it has placed.  And that's on top of other investigations of terrible housing and treatment of the mentally ill under municipal "care," too.)

    So I don't want to inflict more amateurs masquerading as professional social workers on these elderly neighbors -- wonderful people, btw, with tremendous dignity.  We on the block still are mulling what to do, and one may have a contact that could be of use, an old friend of theirs, to get someone inside.


    Why not try a civilian contact (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    first?  Neighbor to neighbor?

    If the situation is so alarming that no neighbor is willing to knock on the door, then either the police or social services should be called immediately.

    If the situation isn't that bad, then concerned citizens could always inquire if there is something they can do to help.  Wouldn't hurt to have a contact list of social agencies that may be able to help.  A friendly face?  A helping hand?


    Well, they're bedridden now (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:19:31 PM EST
    as we have heard from informal contacts -- I will not even say who or how online, as it could cause them problems for breaching confidentiality -- and that is why they cannot come to the door, answer the phone, etc.  Yes, all those have been tried.

    And see elsewhere re our city social workers.  We are not going to try that again, as they made it worse with their unprofessionalism. . . .


    There is respite care (none / 0) (#123)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    for caregivers.

    It's an option that not many people are aware of.  Caring for dependents is stressful job.   The first rule of caregivers is to take care of yourself.


    That Was My Other Thought (none / 0) (#114)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    If you knew another family member or friend, although I thought that might be touchy when the person of concern is a grandson...

    Well if he is (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:29:23 AM EST
    "disorderly in his conduct" then you should call the police before the grandson does something that can't be undone leaving you 'good neighbors' wishing you had the ball to have had done something when you could.

    At the very least he is disturbing the peace and you are all too timid to stick up for your own rights? And at on the negative side he is practicing elder abuse and you stand by and wait for the next person to call? This is exactly  why we need cops because the average citizen in some ares is even to afraid to pick up the phone.

    Call the damned police already!


    See my comment above (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    about it not being a simple situation as you think, about past contacts with the city, etc.  And no, we don't know that he is practicing elder abuse.  And we know that when calling the cops, they cannot do anything unless we have evidence of that.

    And I know well that in caring for the elderly, sometimes we just have to let off steam.  Most of us just don't do it on our front porches.

    As for balls, that's what those who have them think it's all about.  Those of us who don't have them use our brains, instead, and use our past experiences with nonprofessionals, so we use caution before possibly making a situation worse.


    Wellbeing check (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:13:29 PM EST
    Not having seen your elderly neighbors for months and a guy showing irrational behavior and screaming on their porch is plenty of evidence to ask for and get what I think is called a "wellbeing check" by the police.

    If a neighbor knocks and asks to see them for a social visit and the guy refuses, then one of you needs to call the cops and ask for that wellbeing check right away.  I understand they may not follow through appropriately and that you don't trust social services types, but something really needs to be done here to find out whether these folks are at least minimally OK, seems to me.

    You can only do what you can do.  Somebody needs to check on these people.  Even having an incompetent official check on them is better than nobody checking on them.


    If he is (none / 0) (#54)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    standing on the porch yelling then he is disturbing the peace which is against the law. The cops will probably just warn him unless of course he become belligerent with them at which point they will do what they should do and that is take him in.

    If all he gets is a warning the cops will record that and if he continues to break the law he will eventually be arrested and should be. I sure would stand for some nut to be disturbing the entire neighboorhood without taking action. You let some screaming outsider disturb the entire neighboorhood to the point you talk to each other about it and do nothing? Let the cops sort it out, that's there job.

    As for elder abuse I think if you check up on it verbal abuse can be counted as elder abuse.

    Call the cops already. They will interview the grandparents and determine if there is any abuse. And if not then good, but at least you will have peace in your neighborhood again. He is one screaming guy - not the mafia you are dealing with. Call the cops already. If not for yourselves at least for those grandparents. I shouldn't have to tell anyone here that screaming grandsons has lead to worse situations when not stopped early on.


    See, there is disturbing "the peace" (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:17:14 PM EST
    which happens plenty in our student neighborhood, but we don't call them out every time, as it can get very costly for students -- and after all, we all chose to live in a student neighborhood for the many upsides.

    And then, there is disturbing the peace of my elderly neighbors by perhaps taking away a necessary caretaker, etc.  And again, see above for more info about past calls to cops and what they can and cannot do; you don't know my city, our laws, etc. . . .


    Is calling the police, or dealing (none / 0) (#86)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    through the grandson the only way to get to the elderly couple? Does the grandson ever leave the house to get groceries? Anyone friendly enough to call them? No other relatives known?

    Really awful things have happened to elderly people while their extremely friendly and normal seeming children and/or grandchildren are living with them.

    I think you are really, really wise to not act on the worse case scenario before knowing more.

    Neighbors bring casseroles to neighbors when they think they might be in need....or a nice pie that "so and so" always loved.

    No matter which neighbor finally calls some authority, they won't tell who called, so everyone gets to be suspect.


    Yes, see comments above (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    re we found an old friend that we think can get inside, as no neighbors have been able to do after trying tips you suggest and more.  And yes, I can see that you have had such situations, as we try to act as a group in this neighborhood with problems, so that no one will be singled out for retribution.

    But re the lack of professionalism I noted above that we endured from authorities, we know now that they do tell who called.  (Of course, they are not supposed to do so, and it says right on the city website that they won't do so, but so it goes.)  It can get very ugly.  That's another reason why we are cautious now.


    Sounds like your neighborhood is doing (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:03:52 PM EST
    all the right things....figuring out every possible method short of bringing in authorities.

    Do you have a fellow professor who teaches classes in something that would help come up with options/ideas?


    Btw, by saying it can get ugly (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:55:18 PM EST
    and it can worsen the situation to call our city's unprofessional social services:  What happened before is that when an elderly neighbor was told who made the call, that made her even more reluctant to let anyone in her house, to take calls, to talk at all to anyone of us.  And so we had even less ability to intercede when needed.  And so we don't want to lose that ability again.

    You can always do (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    what was done to me.  My elderly neighbor, Miss G, didn't let anyone in her house except for a few people.  She was very friendly and sweet.  A lady who picked her up for shopping suspected that Miss G had plumbing problems in her house, but Miss G insisted everything was fine.

    Not wanting to be the responsible party, she asked me to call and even gave me the number and correct governmental agency.  I agreed.  I thought she was a coward, but I called.  Upon the official's visit, Miss G was whisked away and the house declared unfit for habitation.  She had to stay in state custody until her only son came from Wash,D.C. to get her.  I felt worse that I hadn't realized what shape her house was than about being the person who made the call.

    Not sure you can find a shill, unless you can talk someone like the postal carrier into it.  It's not uncommon for carriers to report suspicious circumstances.


    Exactly. Any of us who have (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    been burned by social workers and other authorities in custody battles will know that we need to work carefully here, lest we make it worse.  In this case, we do know that the house is in good shape -- it's the people that worry us.  

    They are getting some home care, we know (yes, from the postal carrier, who is a big part of our neighborhood, as well as from some of those contacts I can't cite).  And their children have been called and say that that's why they sent the grandson there.  Etc. . . .


    How old is the grandson? Did phone calls (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    to his parents reveal any history of mental illness and/or aggressive behaviour?

    And what shape (none / 0) (#129)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    are the elders in?

    It's possible that they may not be in good shape mentally or physically.  If they are in constant pain or have dementia, they may well be verbally abusive.  

    I remember my cousin, who would have been about 13 at the time, coming upstairs in tears because our grandfather tore into her for putting too much butter on his toast.  He was dying of cancer at the time, in my aunt's house.  (Long before hospice care.)  I remembered him being stern, but never furiously angry.  Constant pain can mess with anyone's mind.


    Speaking of disorderly conduct... (none / 0) (#198)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:48:11 PM EST
    A couple of years ago I was in Fort Lauderdale. One night I heard a loud argument between two guys, in the apartment adjacent to mine. I looked out the window and saw a guy in shorts, and a polo shirt, standing on the lawn, casually pointing a type of AK-47 assault rifle at my neighbor who was standing in his doorway.

    I called 911 and they sent a squad car with a couple of cops who got out with assault rifles. As it turned out, the original guy with the gun was also a cop. Here's the kicker, he hadn't called it in so when the other cops got to the scene they didn't know that the armed man was one of their own.

    Nobody got shot and nobody was arrested. I got loaded.


    Lucky (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:58:50 PM EST
    It's Over (none / 0) (#28)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    Gates has said he is not going to sue. Nor is he going to try to profit from his unappreciative verbal explosion he launched at the cops who were there to protect his home by making a documentary of the episode as he publicly said he would do.

    Nope he will now not do either of those things. Why? Well it's not because he became level headed all of a sudden. It's because Obama 'leaned' on him and 'discouraged' that he go forward with those things so as not to fuel the flames any further.

    And anyone who thinks Obama will actually have Gates and Crowley come to the WH is delusional imo. Ain't going to happen.


    Who Cares If They Ever Meet? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by daring grace on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    No, really.

    Who cares?

    Were you going to wait outside the WH with your cell phone lifted eagerly, hoping to catch a glimpse of the three of them lifting a brew together?

    If they do end up meeting, then some people can complain Obama should be working on health care instead of wasting his time doing that.

    And if they don't, as you predict, then some people (like you) can smirk about that.

    But really, who cares?

    I don't. Not at all.

    (But I bet they will!)


    I do (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    As a teacher, I think seeing conflict resolution in action over things like racism, perceived racism, prejudging, misjudging, stereotyping (on both sides) is a good thing.

    In middle school, we deal with this all the time....the misjudging, namecalling and stereotyping.  Adolescents (especially the males but some females too) have short fuses, speaking before they think and are sometimes pushed into situations by overactive hormones.  As teachers, one of the hardest things to do is get kids to "see the other side"; to try to understand how to de-escalate; to be able to overcome macho and apologize.

    To be clear, from what I know, the actual arrest was not the right thing.  However, I sense that two egos got in the way of two men who normally, from what others who know them say, are calm thinkers, doing the smart thing.  

    I really think this is a teachable moment.  Teaching young people to say "Hmm, in retrospect I could have handled this better," is not an assault on one's pride might be a good thing.  It's hard to be sure.  I think most people, myself included, can sometimes dig in, lose sight of the real issue, and say things we should not have.  Admitting that we are all human and fallible occasionally won't be harmful thing.


    Well if they do meet (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:56:06 AM EST
    Obama is a bigger fool that I thought he was.

    I think Gates was discouraged (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    by the fact that the Cambridge police have "tapes" of the event....Because Gates himself was ultimately going to look bad, if he himself, pushed the issue.

    In addition, I think any cop who would go have a beer with a guy who profiled him immediately as a racist bad copy, and with a guy who called him "stupid" without knowing the facts is not exercising good judgment.  These two individuals are clearly bigots.

    The beer idea is really ludicrous.  


    It's a PR thing. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    If done well, everyone gets together, negotiates public statements, puts on big smiles, says it's all over, we've reconciled, no further actions will taken, let's all go home.

    Or we get more rumors, innuendo and gossip until the next scandal breaks.


    Kent Conrad insists that there aren't the votes (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:42:03 AM EST
    for a Dem only plan in the Senate. Doesn't name names.

    Jim DeMint seems quite stupid. (This Week)

    And he pitches for his co-op (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:44:28 AM EST
    I think it's pretty clear that if we're going to get a good bill, it's going to have to be through reconciliation.

    Krugman is doing much better on the panel (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:54:24 AM EST
    these days.

    I think Jim DeMint seems pretty (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    stupid every week, lol.

    Will the mandate force kids into foster care? (none / 0) (#6)
    by lambertstrether on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    Good question.

    All this work to bail out the health insurance companies by guaranteeing them a market (AP). Seems incongruous.

    This should be interesting (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 10:03:37 AM EST
    White House embracing a tax on "gold-plated, Cadillac" health insurance plans.

    White House officials are embracing a plan to tax "gold-plated, Cadillac" insurance policies, giving momentum to an idea that is receiving bipartisan consideration on Capitol Hill.

    "A premium charge on top of the most expensive packages is one of the ways to ensure that there's a lid on health-care costs," a top administration official told POLITICO. "The president believes this is an intriguing idea."

    Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said Friday on Bloomberg TV that he is "taking an intense look at it."

    And top House leadership official told POLITICO that the plan is "something we can live with."

    But here's the interesting part (from an industry official, but if true, could have political implications):

    A top industry official responded that the plan is a tax on employee benefits in an indirect guise.

    "It's the same tax they're trying to avoid," the official said. "This would be like having a luxury-car tax where you charge BMW rather than the individual. The individual ultimately will be responsible for the payment. It's a tax on fringe benefits."

    The official said the tax could be unfair to employees in states with high-cost insurance, including New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois and Michigan.

    What a dumb idea (none / 0) (#67)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:07:57 PM EST
    Here we want the best health care I the world and we are considering taxing health insurance that provide that.

    Nothing like playing into the hands of the GOP. The Democrats are the worst tacticians in the world.


    Tour (none / 0) (#34)
    by Todd on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    Fantastic sprint to the end.
    And to comment on a comment from BTD yesterday, With an intense year of prep, LA may be able to up his game. Contador and Schleck are the best no doubt, but I'm not going to count LA out. I'm looking forward to 2010.

    Good luck to Lance (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    If he can do that, then we'll have one hell of a Tour next year.

    Must I pay MLB.com to watch and hear (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    Rickey give his speech?  Not good for baseball to restrict this event.

    That's MLB for you (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    Shooting themselves in the foot for years now.

    Despite Judge Sotomayor's best (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:48:45 AM EST

    I'm actually getting something so (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    maybe they will make it available? Online says the interview is live from Cooperstown and it's also on the TV . . . If they want subscribers, honey (freebies) could work. . . .

    Help me out here. What are you watching/ (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:08:15 PM EST
    listening to?  Thanks.

    Try here (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    MLB.com and the network (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    I put both on to check. They did just speck with Dave Stewart outside, so it looks like the real deal for free.

    Live induction is coming up


    That really p!ssed me off. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    I was so looking forward to watching it.

    Rickey is wearing a white suit. (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 12:34:06 PM EST

    That video piece (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    put such a smile on my face. What a fantastic, fun ball player.

    CBS (none / 0) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:15:01 PM EST
    is doing a very nice Tour wrap up with highlights from the entire race.

    Sarah Palin Resigns (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    I am sure that Alaska will make the first Sunday after July 26 a state holiday: Sara Palin Day. lol

    CSM headline seems about right to me:

    Three reasons Palin's move might be about money

    The sportswriter who was just inducted into (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    the HOF spent some military duty time in Alaska, and he sd. on a clear day he could see Russia.  Big laugh.

    Well At Least It Was A Joke (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    And not a remark defending foreign policy experience, made by someone who might have wound up as President.

    Investigate the Federal Reserve (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:04:38 PM EST
    Eliot Spitzer is on the case:

    "You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.


    Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

    At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

    Greg Palast writes about "prosecutorial discretion" and Spitzer:

    Funny thing, this `discretion.' For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.
    Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer - rarely done in these cases - was made at the `discretion' of Bush's Justice Department.


    For The PUMAS (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:23:43 PM EST
    Via digby
    Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) will introduce a House resolution on Monday demanding Obama retract and apologize for remarks he has made about Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley this past week.

    Whereas President Obama proceeded to state Sergeant Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Professor Gates on charges of disorderly conduct;

    Whereas, as a former Constitutional Law Professor, President Obama well understands that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and their actions should not be prejudged prior to being fully and fairly judged by an appropriate and objective authority after due process;

    Whereas, President Obama's nationally televised remarks may likely detrimentally influence the full and fair judgment by an appropriate and objective authority after due process regarding this local police response incident and, thereby, impair Sergeant Crowley's legal and professional standing in relation to said incident; and....

    Could have been written by several of our very own commenters here.

    Isn't PUMA supposed to mean Party (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:30:14 PM EST
    Unity my Ass, in relation to the 2008 election? How does that have anything to do with this?

    Ridiculous resolution though.


    Hey (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:35:15 PM EST
    PUMA seems appropriate, and for lack of a better term. In any case several commenters here could have written the GOP resolution.

    Let's put it this way, when supposed Democrats, who many of are now Independents wind up mouthing the same crap as wingnuts do against Obama, using the term PUMA seem quite apt.

    Hey, I did not coin the term.


    You believe in partisanship, eh? (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    With us or against us?  

    Tell you what.  How about Obama shows us what he stands for and I'll tell you if I'm with him or against him.  It's awfully hard to tell sometimes.


    Yes (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:05:55 PM EST
    When the choices are McCain or another GOP stooge, v Obama or Hillary.

    No brainer about being partisan. But I never would adore either one of them. Both of them lie on a regular basis, that is their job. Our job is to call them on it.

    The laughable thing is that some here left the party or whatever and tout non-partisanship pretending to be sick of partisanship because Hillary lost. That is hilarious, hypocritical and dishonest.

    And even more hilarious is that both Hillary and Obama represent mainstream democratic views, and there is not a dimes worth of difference between them.


    Squeaky's mission here is to (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:35:59 PM EST
    call out PUMAS regardless of relevance.

    And to randomly try and stir up (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    sh!t. Fishing for an argument it seems . . .

    I think I have some worms around here somewhere . . .



    Stir Up Sh*t (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:42:00 PM EST
    Funny you should say that, weren't you one of the ones staunchly defending poor Sgt Crowley?

    Nope. (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:00:57 PM EST
    I was not defending him, just calling out Gates' supposed behavior. There were two involved. I never once said the arrest was justified and did say that I wasn't sure of the exact laws/boundaries when it came to giving cops sh!t. My personal rule has always been don't give cops sh!t or you could land your a** in jail. I don't know what happened between the Sgt verifying Gates Id and the arrest, but I find it odd that it would be all on Crowley with a crowd watching etc. Also interesting, no cell phone video or bystander reports (that I've seen). When the white chick here escalated to an arrest, both existed. I hope they enjoy their beer though, because that's the feeling it should have ended with originally, imo. I just hope it doesn't turn into a well orchastrated soppy "Obama Moment" {gag}

    Oh, and I would never refer to him as "poor Sgt Crowley".

    I'm not willing to do a big generalization on cops/authority/profiling etc. But I will say that FISA sucks. Kinda easier to "generalize" about that, imo. I've had a variety of experiences with cops. From guns in the face to them turning in strays at the shelter. I actually live with at least one NYPD find (not sure who found my youngest).


    OK (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:26:58 PM EST
    just calling out Gates' supposed behavior.
    IOW, you agree with Crowley's report. To me that sounds exactly like you are siding with Crowley.

    I did read his report (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 07:03:53 PM EST
    the long and short versions along with the other officers (BTW, no mention of 2 Ids)
    I take it you saw absolutely NOTHING wrong with Gates behavior . . . if you read the report that is, the long version  ;)

    So if 2 men are forcing open (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 04:38:08 PM EST
    your front door, you would not want the cops to check it out? Cool! Got any good stuff and what's your address?!

    and this:

    Interesting, Crowley gets angered by some guy acting like an a-hole to him for doing his job, which happens to be protecting that citizen and his property . . .

    Well if you were not defending Crowley, you sure were arguing against everyone who was horrified that Gates got arrested.  


    {applause} (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:41:16 PM EST
    I was wondering how many of my remarks you were going to pull up :)

    I didn't say I agreed with Crowley's report, but don't have a heck of a lot more. The tape release seems to have gone away?

    Interesting choices you picked.

    First: mention of report was a retort to a direct comment about reading reports

    Second: Sorry, I'm not a fan of cops ignoring 911 B&E calls, especially when I call because one burglar is on my fire escape.

    Third: Assuming anger led Crowley to arrest gates base on Crowley's account of Gates. (and that looks good for Crowley?)

    I was not arguing against Gates supporters, I was saying Gates may be an a**hole too. My view of life doesn't seem to be as cut and dried as yours . .  must be the Libra in me ;)


    Deep Bows and Kisses to My Applauding Fan (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:00:53 PM EST
    I didn't say I agreed with Crowley's report, but don't have a heck of a lot more. The tape release seems to have gone away?

    Gates version of the event is common knowledge.  

    Second: Sorry, I'm not a fan of cops ignoring 911 B&E calls, especially when I call because one burglar is on my fire escape.
    Changing the subject? No one here, nor Gates, ever said anything was wrong with Crowley coming to investigate the 911 call. In fact Gates explicitly states that Crowley acted properly by checking to see if there was a B&E in progress.

    Not sure of what you mean in your third point. This is a civil rights issue. All your arguments against Gates, based on your personal experience of never mouthing off to a cop (if indeed that did happen) is an argument to give Police greater freedom to arrest law abiding citizens.

    Your support of Gates arrest is offensive, and albeit milder than some of your friends here, still offensive to me and wildly ignorant of the law, civil rights and the history of racism in this country.


    Show me where I supported Gates arrest (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:19:37 PM EST
    in written word.

    Got a really good link to Gates version (that you base your opinion on)? When I go back and search, I get the usual massive amounts of stuff to filter through and I have no way of knowing which you are referring to.

    No, I was not trying to change the subject, just adding context to the quote you pulled out of context.

    My third point, was about Crowley's possible/"assumed" reason for arresting Gates. never said it was right or wrong, but in your mind, you should have taken it as a support for Gates  ;)

    Go ahead, be offended! I'll be the first to admit that I, along with many not so superior as you Americans, know that getting into it with the cops can lead to arrest. Call us "wildly ignorant" all you want on the subject of law!! Our rear ends have not landed in jail (or if they did and we've learned). As white folks, it really doesn't say what we know about racism, since we think the same thing can happen to us . . . and does.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:31:47 PM EST
    Got a really good link to Gates version (that you base your opinion on)?

    I base my opinion on Crowley's report, the law, my knowledge of civil rights, my knowledge of police overstepping their bounds and the wingnuts and supposed liberals not screaming their heads off about it.

    Gates version is supplemental reading, imo. Crowley had no business arresting Gates and should be relieved of his badge, imo.

    Abuse of power comes as no surprise to me.  What does come as a surprise are so called liberals making comments that range to "so what, big deal, everyone knows not to mouth off to cops" to supporting Crowley 100% as if he is protecting us from bad guys like Gates, who needs to learn a lesson about being uppity.


    Nice dodge (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:48:12 PM EST
    Gates version of the event is common knowledge.  

    So your assumption is that Crowley's report is 100% false? And can you supply backup to the rest of your "knowledge"? Or perhaps a link that draws a direct contrast to the police report. Hey! Maybe you have access to some witness accounts?

    I'm willing to admit I don't know where the line is state to state as to what you can do around a cop and not get arrested. And I'm not willing to challenge it to the determent of myself in many situations. I never said "so what's the big deal?" or that I thought Gates was a "bad guy" we needed "protecting against". You can be an a-hole without being "uppity", BTW. Abuse of power wouldn't surprise me in the least, jumping to guilty without the facts* on the part of bloggers . . .  well . . .

    * certain blogger facts make the police report null and void when siding with Gates. So need Gates "facts" here . . .

    Anyway, temp has dropped, time for the kitchen and making up some eggplant/mushroom meatballs :)


    Medical literature (no links) supports (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:55:11 PM EST
    the theory stress causes cardiovascular disease. So--good decision.

    Dodge? (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:58:58 PM EST
    I base my opinion on Crowley's report

    No, I do not believe that Crowley's report is 100% false. In fact there is enough information, from the horses mouth, so to speak, for anyone with knowledge of the law to conclude that it was a false arrest. The prosecutor office evidentially agreed, (charges dropped) even with the Union breathing down their neck..

    If you are truly interested in learning about why Crowley abused his privilege to carry a gun and a badge, here is a link.


    Was the arrest report ever forwarded (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    to the prosecutor's office, with or w/o a recommendation?

    Answer: yes, but the Cambridge PD (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:14:11 PM EST
    asked the prosecutor's office not to issue a complaint:  

    Cambridge PD


    lol (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:25:52 PM EST
    Considering the garbage PO report, attempt to change it so Crowley looked less bad, seems to me that the Cambridge Police were covering their a$$ by calling off the prosecutor.

    I am not sure how the chain works, but I would assume that at one point the Cambridge police or Crowley himself, presented the PO report to the prosecutor.

    My guess is that the prosecutor said that it was no good, and the Cambridge Police spun it as them asking the prosecutor not to press charges. Considering how bad the police looked, it would seem that a little face saving was in order.


    Don't assume. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:33:37 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:56:57 PM EST
    Silly me, what was I thinking. It is completely plausible that a prosecutor would take on a stupid case, and that a prosecutor may in fact be at best stupid.. at worst ambitious at the expense of upholding law or doing the right thing.

    Evidentially (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    (CNN) -- A prosecutor is dropping a charge against prominent Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. after Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the city's police department recommended that the matter not be pursued.

    I prefer links to MA law (none / 0) (#180)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:31:42 PM EST
    and your interpretation vs a blog . . . 'crossing the line' to an arrest seems to be a judgment call, to me, beyond the arresting officer. It's what's written and not written. Where our civil right's play in is a different discussion (I know that sounds off!) But from an authority perspective . . . . perhaps the challenge wasn't done in the right situation? I don't know, but if you do go by the police report . . . .  this B&E should have just been a friendly check in, imo. Do you see where I'm at on this? Is it that hard and I'm that poor at explaining?

    And I guess I should have said 50% false vs 100.

    In short:

    • police called to my home because someone thought they saw a break in

    • we quickly clear up/verify ID

    • I'm happy because my home was protected and it {assuming here} fell under routine procedure

    • cops happy, easy call for them.

    What caused it to escalate, I don't know, but it shouldn't have. And a black person should not hold the burden of profiling, nor should a cop on a routine call. imo.

    MA Law from the Blog Link (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:41:53 PM EST
    The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, § 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of "disorderly" contained in § 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.

    Good that you had a pleasant experience. Crowley should have left Gates house within a minute or two as it was clear that he was the resident of the house. Especially someone who boasts being a racial profiling and sensitivity training instructor.

    If there was any doubt about Gates, and in Gates version he gave Crowley both his Harvard ID and his MA DL,  he should have exited the house, waited in his car until the Harvard Police satisfied any doubts Crowley may have had.

    If Crowley's report is accurate this is to me this is like someone in a hospital bed who gets cranky to a nurse and the nurse takes away their pain meds, or adjusts their bandages in order to cause pain or acts in another unprofessional way to get back at a cranky patient.


    The non blog one I read was (none / 0) (#189)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:02:41 PM EST
    much longer. It was the actual (official) state law pdf.

    And that wasn't my personal experience (as I'm sure you know) that was a general "me".

    You still haven't supplied a link to your Gates version. Or any other facts that support your claims, including links to my remarks . . . (at this point, links are mute, just pointing it out)


    Gates Version (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:22:41 PM EST
    Here is a great comment. Whalen should also be fired.. lol
    It seems like the original call to police came from Lucia Whalen. She is the fundraiser for Harvard Magazine and she did not recognize Gates. Wow!
    Harvard Magazine may want to find someone who can recognize their star faculty when they make up their fundraising team.

    Harvard Crimson

    Oh and Gates version here.


    Silly. Tell me true: had you ever (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:33:46 PM EST
    heard of Prof. Gates prior to this incident?

    Harvard faculty


    Absolutely (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:53:27 PM EST
    For quite some time since at least  graduate studies in the '80s. He was in the mainstream news in 2001 because Larry Summers said something stupid to Cornel West. Both were going to pack their bags and move to Princeton. Summers apologized. West left anyway, Gates stayed.

    In 2000, economist and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers became president of Harvard. In a private meeting with West, Summers allegedly rebuked West for missing too many classes, contributing to grade inflation, neglecting serious scholarship, and spending too much time on his economically profitable projects.[6]


    "Cornel West's recruitment to Harvard was crucial in establishing the department's place of leadership in the field of Afro-American studies," Gates said in a statement released this afternoon. "He will be sorely missed and my colleagues and I wish him well in his new position."

    Harvard Crimson

    Ending a year of uncertainty over the future of Harvard's Afro-American studies department, DuBois Professor of the Humanities Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. announced yesterday that he will permanently remain at the University.


    "I thought it was best, given the departures of my dear friends Anthony Appiah and Cornel West, that I remain behind to maintain stability as the department attempts to rebuild," he said in an interview. "Part of my legacy as an academic will be this department, and I want it not only to survive but to thrive."

    Harvard Crimson


    LInteresting that Gates's statement via (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 09:38:49 PM EST
    his attorney does not deny the statements Crowley and Figueroa attribute to Gates in their reports.  

    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    My mission? lol.

    I treat comments that are absurd, hypocritical, stupid, imo, equally, regardless if they were made by PUMAS, wingnuts, or liberals.

    But since the PUMAS demographically supplanted our regular wingnuts here I could see how you think that calling out PUMAS is my mission.


    But the name ... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:10:53 PM EST
    Thaddeus McCotter is funny.  Like a Congressman from a cartoon.

    Presume innocent until proven guilty (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    of stupidity.  That's a new one.  Judicial activism.

    Good News (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:13:20 PM EST
    Large parts of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program -- which sent terrorist suspects to countries and prisons where they would be tortured -- could soon become public, thanks to a lawsuit in Britain on behalf of a person who claims he was a victim of the agency's program.

    Lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, who spent some seven years in US custody, five of them at Guantanamo, say that Jeppesen UK, a subsidiary of Boeing, has agreed to the presentation of evidence about the "ghost flights" it allegedly operated for the CIA -- off-the-grid private jets that transferred terrorist suspects to sites where they would be tortured.  


    Jeppesen is also the target of a lawsuit in the United States, launched by the ACLU [TL coverage] in order to -- as the ACLU put it -- stop corporations from profiting from the CIA's rendition program.

    raw story

    Zelaya in DC Tues? (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:08:05 PM EST
     He [Zelaya] also called on U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take a firm stand on the crisis that has both Zelaya and his rival, Roberto Micheletti, claiming to be the sole leader of the nation of 7.8 million. ``I want to know what the United States' real position [is] on this coup,'' he said. The U.S. State Department is expecting Zelaya in Washington, D.C., Tuesday to continue searching for a negotiated solution to the crisis.

    On Sunday, however, Zelaya said he had never received a formal invitation and was not sure if he would travel [to US Tues]. The State Department is also under attack from Republican lawmakers. On Saturday, U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, a Florida Republican, met with officials in Honduras and said in a statement that ``the Honduran people were right to confront Zelaya as he usurped the law and gutted their constitution.''


    Oh well, me thinks that this is the beginning of the end. To this date the US has not called this a coup. SOS Clinton's top advisor Lanny Davis is working for Micheletti. I think that this is over. Even Zelaya's supporters are getting tired of waiting. Michelleti will get his way, imo:

    Micheletti has said the only person he will hand power over to is the winner of regularly scheduled elections set for Nov. 29.

    My feeling is that since the Obama administration, (none / 0) (#176)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:23:06 PM EST
    and Hillary as Scty of State is a part of that alas), could not bring itself to call a coup a coup it was over when the coupsters kidnapped Zelaya and took him out of the country.

    It's just playing out slowly enough that the US can pretend it did not have any role to play in letting the coup stand.

    It will give other right wing players in countries which have elected more leftish leaders a clear message as well: If you take out someone on the left of the political spectrum, the US will not make much noise about duly elected governments, etc. Not their sort of leaders. Just don't count, you know.

    Hope I'm wrong.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:30:58 PM EST
    It is called "Smart Power". It is working in Iran as well. They are so used to a fightin' spittin' cowboy to make them [Iran] look good that Ahmadinejad was truly disarmed, imo,  by Obama's still wanting to use diplomacy even after all the election bluster.

    Close, but no cigar (none / 0) (#203)
    by Idearc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 08:36:37 AM EST
    in reply to the above comment on FDR and Gardner:  Ford replaced Rockefeller with Ford.  

    That said, it is rare.