The Cost Of Obama’s Beer Fest Failure Is More Tasered Moms

I wrote a series of posts about the incident surrounding Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. First, it was an illegal and unconstitutional arrest because of the abuse of police power and discretion. Second, irrespective of whether it was a racially motivated moment, it was one from which serious discussion could, and should, ensue. Third, that it was a teaching moment being given short shrift by the clumsy way Barack Obama inserted himself into it and then tried to extricate himself through the bogus "beer summit".

The thing that got me up in arms, from the start, is the undeniable fact that Gates’ arrest was illegal and an abuse of police power. As I described, take Gates’ conduct at its worst as described by the Cambridge police report, and the conduct simply does not meet the elements of disorderly conduct as arrested and charged on under the Massachusetts statute. There was no probable cause or legal basis for the arrest; it was simply a case of contempt of cop, and Sergeant Crowley decided to use the time honored police way of dealing with citizens in such situations, he abused his authority and badge by arresting the citizen.

The only thing unique about the Gates case is that it ended without serious harm to the citizen and it pierced the national conscience. The same base conduct plays out every minute of every day somewhere in the US. But the Gates/Crowley moment appears to have been lost without any intelligent discussion of the rampant abuse of police power and authority. Save for the opinions of Jonathan Turley and Jeff Toobin, which were minimized by MSNBC and CNN television coverage, there was precious little recognition by major media outlets of the root point of police power abuse.

Well, the scene in the video attached hereto is what happens in a society that refuses to address overreaching authoritarianism and unrestrained police projection. Moms with kids in minivans get Tasered and roughed up. In front of their children. Why? Because the cops can with relative impunity. The "Blue Line" circles the wagons around their fellow officers, prosecutors need their cooperation for prosecution and trials in actual major cases, and politicians are too cravenly worried about their next election to care. As Digby says:

If this is what they do when they have a video camera rolling in their own car, what do you suppose happens when one isn’t?

I guess the taser saved the officer the physical effort of hitting her over the head with his baton or shooting her to gain compliance, so that’s good.

No kidding. By the way, Digby writes relentlessly on the misuse and abuse of Taser devices by police around the country and every post is chilling and worth reading.

Jeffe Kaye gave a wonderful quote in the last post that touches on the broader phenomenon:

I think it’s something worse, a continuing creeping totalitarianism. One one side it’s state-sponsored, in the sense of violations of civil liberties, the solidification of the surveillance state, further intrusiveness into private lives and behaviors. On this score, one can find common ground with right-wing libertarians. On the other side, it’s a failure by the civil establishment, who have sided with fear: fear to speak out, fear of the truth, fear of loss of comfort, fear of what will happen to our children, fear of isolation, fear that life will end too soon and we will have missed out, fear of living fully and fear of dying.

And this is the greater discussion we were kept from having by Obama’s personal insertion and extrication of himself in the Gates incident. Abuse of police power and authority is a huge problem in this country and we need to have that discussion. Craven Republicans croon the fraudulent meme about pulling the plug on Grandma; what about the real electrical plugs being fired into Mom?

image_print
211 replies
  1. AirportCat says:

    Hi bmaz. What is the current status of this case of a mom being tased in front of her kids? The video is appalling.

    • bmaz says:

      Harmon was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and going 50 in a 45 mph zone. The district attorney’s office dismissed the charges a month later after watching the videotape; she has just filed a civil suit.

      • AirportCat says:

        50 in a 45? what a joke. If that was the basis for the stop, I dare say the taxpayers on Onondaga County are going to be out some serious cash, because she is absolutely going to beat the piss out of these people in court. That officer needs to be fired. The resisting arrest and disorderly conduct charges are obvious BS, anyone who looks at this tape can see that … that officer is nothing but a disgusting bully. I know and frequently work with a lot of police officers, and most of the ones I know are good people doing their best at a tough job, but there is no excuse for what is on this video.

        • sunshine says:

          Last year we were informed here in Mi that the police were told to pull people over driving only 5 miles over the speed limit. They probably need the money.

      • newspaperbrat says:

        Phew, am awfully glad she has filed a civil suit and will hope and trust she may actually prevail. She and her youngsters deserve no less. The cop ought to be canned.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        50mph in a 45mph zone? You gotta be kidding me. In Houston, I think you’d get a ticket for impeding traffic (if you were in the left lane) sooner than speeding ticket for that. I’m not even joking. The cops tell you to keep it under the speed limit + 10mph and they won’t bother you (or so I’ve been told; I’ve never gotten a speeding ticket in 25 years of driving here and I only drive the speed limit in school zones).

        • PJEvans says:

          Posted-limit-plus-5mph doesn’t get you noticed in LA. Five under probably will, although not by the police.

          (OTOH, I’d like the posted limits dropped at least 5mph – 40 to 45 in residential areas, even on 4-lane streets, is way too high.)

      • Mary says:

        The problem is that the most the DA does is dismiss the old charges. After watching that, there should be charges. Against the violent perp.

        Add this in with the tasering
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Com08ILgQ

        The home invasion by a swat team, throwing a grandmother to the ground, cuffing her, cuffing the young mayor of the town, in his boxers for hours without even letting him put on his pants. But the nifty kicker is that they were kept there, cuffed, next to the dead bodies of their family pets, two labbies, who were killed by the police, the young one chased down through the home as it was running away, terrified, after they shot the older dog who had been snoozing at the front door.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..8080103916

        But when you watch the video, the nifty nifty thing is the smirking guy who says that it’s just too bad when “civilians” get caught in the crossfire, but that’s just how it is, bc after all the drugdealers are the ones who put the civilians at risk.

        Golly, where the hell have I heard that kind of justification before, not just for chasing a terrified dog down through the house to kill it, but for doing the same with terrified children huddled in their mothers arms.

  2. Kathryn in MA says:

    …creeping authoritarianism…

    what, a fish rots from the head down? This is still Bush’s administration at work.

    • WTFOver says:

      “This is still Bush’s administration at work.”

      actually it is the result of Supreme Court head honcho William Rehnquist’s handiwork and incredibly horrible rulings.

      that guy gave the po – lice EVERYTHING they wanted.

      and we see the result in the video.

  3. plunger says:

    It’s the government’s agenda to indoctrinate the public to the use of torture against the non-compliant.

    They want you to see this, to be afraid, and to expect this if you fail to obey.

    Conditioning the public for Martial Law.

    Get used to it.

  4. randiego says:

    Peel away the veneer, and we live in a violent, authoritarian, selfish, hypocritical society. It’s a new mix of corporate-sponsored fascism, where citizens are not citizens, but mere consumers to be fattened, bled, but most of all – kept in line.

    Digby’s stuff on tasers has been top notch. Reading her stuff was what made me aware of the issue – how bad it had gotten. I imagine that everyone (police, local govt’s, manufacturers, etc) has factored enough liability insurance coverage into the margin that they’re not really afraid of egregious cases like this one.

    I don’t see this stuff getting better anytime soon. Combine the uninformed fox-news rabble with the willfully ignorant authoritarians, and we haven’t got a chance, even with joining forces with true libertarians.

    • dakine01 says:

      Pam Spaulding has also done a lot of good work on taser use and abuse, both at her home place, Pam’s House Blend and at Pandagon.

    • bmaz says:

      Jeebus, you are sadly dead on the money. This is exactly why I went so apeshit over the whole way Obama interjected himself into the Gates deal. I am absolutely convinced that Gates, left to his own devices without Obama’s bit, was going to make a stink and sue the living hell out of them to make a point. And he had the public visibility, media juice, and first class lawyer friends that would have carried the ball forward in a profound fashion. It all seems lost.

  5. freepatriot says:

    the people who claim the government can never do anything right are the same ones who say that crowley acted appropriately and Gates should have been arrested

    so there’s that

    on top of the fact that holding police officers accountable for criminal actions is rare in this country

    I don’t know about other countries, but every police organization I have ever had business with in America is essentially a criminal gang

    and they don’t like people messing with their turf

    they uphold the law an stuff, when it’s other people breaking the law

    but if a cop breaks the law …

    and the court system is even worse

    they’re insular, they protect their own, and getting them to admit being wrong is like pulling teeth

    I’ve seen this, up close and personal, in several different locations

    the only difference between the cops the robbers and the lawyers is the badges, the degrees, and the bars

    other than that, they all the same

    present company excepted, of course

    (wink)

  6. WTFOver says:

    California Man Tasered While Sitting on His Porch

    Black man tazed on his front porch, showing no signs of aggression. The cops just walk up and taze him.

    http://informationclearinghous…..e23266.htm

    don’t know which is more disturbing the video or the audio of the people laughing as this crime is commited.

    and look at the NUMBER of po – licemen it takes to subdue and arrest this individual.

    they must have emptied a couple of doughnut shops to get this many po – lice occifers in one place at one time.

  7. Mason says:

    Has anyone else noticed there isn’t any audio on the video? There’s supposed to be. Cops are supposed to wear a wireless mic clipped to the front of their uniform that picks up their conversation with a suspect. The mic is attached by a wire to a transmitter hooked to their belt.

    Probably the most obvious reason why those conversations should be recorded is to determine if a suspect consented to a search of his vehicle shortly after a routine traffic stop and the search resulted in the discovery of drugs triggering the suspect’s arrest. In a routine traffic stop case, the cops don’t have probable cause to arrest, so they have no authority to search the vehicle unless the suspect consents voluntarily. Cop says “Yes;” suspect, now a defendant, says “No.”

    Guess who wins the swearing contest?

    In a DUI case, the cop testifies the defendant’s speech was slurred. Defendant denies it.

    Woman in the video says “I told him he was mistaken about me talking on a cell phone while I was driving.” What if he testifies in the civil case that she admitted to talking on a cell phone? What if he also claims that he pulled her out of her car and tasered her because she told him she was going to grab a gun out of her purse and shoot him?

    The fact is that police all over the country deliberately turn off the mikes because they know they will almost always win the swearing contests. Courts should treat missing audio as intentional destruction of evidence and presume the cops are lying, but they don’t, of course.

    I think we’d see significantly fewer Fourth Amendment violations and taser incidents, if the damn courts would promulgate such a court rule.

    Yeah, I know. Fat chance, right?

    • SomeGuy says:

      I heard natural background sounds in the begining of the clip but, when the two started to talk the sound was edited out or talked over with the play by play description of what we were seeing in the video. I think it is odd that the sound would drop out right then, right when it might record something they don’t want you to hear. I hope her lawyer checks into that in the civil case.

  8. wavpeac says:

    We all know that the abuser who has a history of public violence…in front of others, is the most dangerous abuser.

    Obama is culpable here like the parent who fails to protect the children from the abuser. He’s not applying the rule of law to protect the citizens of this country. And do you know why? Because he is still a victim…somewhere deep inside. There is a fine line between the consequences of being a victim and being a perpetrator. A very fine line.

    • Fern says:

      Obama is culpable here like the parent who fails to protect the children from the abuser. He’s not applying the rule of law to protect the citizens of this country.

      This is utter nonsense – what exactly would you have Obama do? Local policing isn’t even part of the federal mandate – the responsibility here lies with state and local authorities. Is Obama personally responsible for every miscarriage of justice and every abuse of police power in the nation?

      • bmaz says:

        No, I am simply saying he appears to be responsible for destroying a precious and rare opportunity to put this type of situation in front of the nation as a whole and play it out. These incidents happen every minute of every day but never have the potential for exposure and discussion that this one did. Obama fucked it up royally and ended up supporting the fucking abusive cop as much or more than his friend. If you don’t think Obama inalienably altered the dynamic, you are sadly mistaken.

        • greenwarrior says:

          agreed. obama’s the one with bully pulpit of the president right now. it’s way more than unfortunate he hasn’t used it.

          also, while it’s horrible this cop did this in front of the woman’s children, the whole idea that a cop can just stop anyone for nothing and start tasering them for more of nothing is really hideous regardless of children present or not.

          just the other day, we saw that elderly woman in ohio slammed to the ground with her head bleeding and requiring stitches.

          this is really about police abuse.

          i grew up in new york and lived in new york city as a young adult. i was just living a regular middle class life, but it was clear back in the 60’s that the police were not my friends.

          a little bit later i was living in israel and it was a huge adjustment to understand that the police were there to help me whenever i needed help. (their behavior was unrelated to government policy with israel’s neighbors)

      • Starbuck says:

        What would I expect Obama to do? Get out of the way and let the two protagonists deal with it in the proper channels. I dare say Gates was in an excellent position to see to that from his perspective. The Prez took it away, the way a minority parent might do when an offspring is confronted by hostility from an overwhelming authority.

        The laughter over a beer is no more than gallows laughter.

        The video is more than sick, it is depravity.

  9. Stephen says:

    From the article I read the cop hauled her off jail and left the kids unattended. If so, that will be the clincher.

  10. Fern says:

    And this is the greater discussion we were kept from having by Obama’s personal insertion and extrication of himself in the Gates incident.

    I do not see the logical connection here – what would be the difference in terms of national discourse on police behaviour A) if Obama had not responded to the question at the presser about Gates B) if he had not walked back his comments or C) if he had not had the beer summit. My guess is zero difference. This is not a discussion that the country wants to have, and the response to the Gates incident was overwhelmingly about race, not about the abuse of police powers.

    • bmaz says:

      Because Gates would have plowed ahead unimpeded by the Obama malarky and would have undoubtedly been announcing his lawsuit for false arrest (which it was) by now. The shock waves from that scenario juxtaposed to the mush amorphous nowhere we are now is night and day. That is what.

      • Fern says:

        Because Gates would have plowed ahead unimpeded by the Obama malarky and would have undoubtedly been announcing his lawsuit for false arrest (which it was) by now

        Pure speculation on your part regarding what Gates would or would not have done, as well as about what he may still do.

        And a single lawsuit would have changed long-entrenched patterns in how the police do business and how their performance is managed? I’m not convinced.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, there is some speculation on my part. But marginally informed speculation from over twenty years of practice in civil rights litigation, and I am here to tell you that cases with the potential dynamic this one had for exposure to, and education of, the public come along very, very rarely. And, yes, one perfect storm case, and this one had all the earmarks of that, can make a substantial, albeit not total, difference.

          • Fern says:

            It’s not my experience that actual policing changes that easily. We had a perfect-storm case in my province when an Aboriginal man was shot by a police officer for no good reason. There was a very lengthy, well-conducted, and high-profile public inquiry into all aspects of the justice system as it applies to Aboriginal people. Certainly awareness was raised, and some pretty significant policy changes were made. But you know what? Aboriginals still get shot by police officers, by far the majority of people in jail are Aboriginal, and I really cannot say that I have seen significant changes in police culture or behaviour.

    • Evelyn says:

      I tend to agree with Bmaz at least as far as the beer summit part. The whole lets kiss and have a beer thing might make it less likely that Gates will file the necessary lawsuits against Crowley and the CPD that he ought to file — on behalf of all of us — challenging blatantly illegal police behavior.

  11. Twain says:

    Incidents like this make me angry but mostly they make me sad. What kind of person, not just a police officer, would do this to a mother in front of her children? I keep saying that we are barbarians.

  12. behindthefall says:

    The snow and evergreens make it seem so nice and wholesome. Then … that. That cop is seriously sick in the head, to the point where he is useless in any position of authority except maybe over the flea circus in his padded cell.

  13. klynn says:

    Absolutely mortifying. Absolutely irresponsible action by the cop.

    She. Has. To. Win. BIG.

    For the sake of justice and a strong sounding of the alarm on police brutality.

    The children should file their own suit.

  14. meadows says:

    I have a young friend who was the victim of tasering. It was also COC “Contempt of Cop.”

    There are two concurrent themes. The Taser is a dangerous weapon in the hands of the thuggish, period, and should be illegal. The larger theme is the creeping acceptance of authoritarianism in all it’s forms.

    The authoritarianism is evident in militarization of every aspect of police and pseudo-police forces. Even Park Rangers are strapped now.

    This militarization is made easier through fear-mongering.

    I’ve often wondered why so much cultural fear? It may lie in the anti-social mindset of the corporate brain. Fear sells stuff. Corporate advertisers have known this for a very long time. There is a deep level of fear in our culture. This awful anxiety is culturally induced through government, which unfortunately, is run by corporate lackeys.

  15. Twain says:

    Angry Black Bitch went to Town Hall in St. Louis. Was standing outside making a phone call – wearing a Planned Parenthood t-shirt. This woman walked up told her that “we’re tired of all you N****** and you’re a baby killer”.
    A very polite police officer led the woman away. This is racism in its most raw form and the police are no better. There are so many officers who are AA now that I can’t understand this, but it’s surely there.

  16. demi says:

    You go Fern. We are all the time told here to stand up to what we question. And, you did.
    Even if they come back with acquiesense. I know I spelled that wrong.
    Just, isn’t it nice to be the finger pointer?

    • bmaz says:

      What exactly did she “point the finger” at that you are celebrating? Maintenance of the status quo of abuse of police power and authority? You think that is admirable?

  17. demi says:

    People here think that their expectations have some relevance in realty. Not so much. This is Just a Blog. Know it. Or, not.

  18. Fern says:

    I do not for one minute support the status quo of abuse of police power and authority. I just do not agree that Obama is responsible for future acts of abusive behaviour by police because of how he may or may not have mishandled the Gates matter.

  19. Blub says:

    it’s also important to point out that Democratic congressional-challenger Francine Busby’s fundraiser incident in Encinitas CA is still unresolved and probably in the process of being swept under the carpet – where two women were pepper sprayed, roughed up and arrested at a Democratic meeting at a private residence in a blatantly illegal police raid (in response to an alleged noise complaint of all things, which for all intents and purposes was geometrically impossible given the alleged location of the complainers relative to the site and which specifically cited the political affiliation of the complainees)… sorry for the long run-on. In this case, the event had been heckled Town Hall style by homophobic rethug bigots before the incident and the sheriff, who is a partisan for the incumbent used a helicopter, in their raid and had a swat team standing by. Which, all told, amounted to not only an abuse of police power but of political intimidation as well.

  20. wavpeac says:

    It’s not a single lawsuit there are several where the Obama administration stands in the way. He needs to stand up to abuse..torture and otherwise and make it clear that we are not a nation that behaves this way. HE is setting the standard. The standard he is setting is that we should look the other way (forward) and not look back. I think we should instead enforce the laws and constitution…and that he should get his administration out of the way so that accountability will occur. The rules should speak not Obama…Obama needs to learn not to accept unacceptable behavior.

  21. kimmy says:

    As a Canadian watching our own constabulary using excessive force, I find that the events of 9/11 and the fear mongering afterwards are contributing to this zealous abuse of power. Calling the constabulary our heroes has swollen their egos. Now they feel invincible. They can do no wrong.
    The sad part is, is that a few can do this in front of a video camera and think that they can get away with it.

    • prostratedragon says:

      For city residents, overwhelmingly black or dark-skinned ones in particular, police demeanor has been same as it ever was since the attacks (suppose they’d been the 9-4 or 9-13 attacks?). But I think it’s an execellent point that thereafter all sorts of police powers have been newly celebrated in a way that has boosted their egos and claim to importance, and made it seem legitimate to some of them to extend their bullying and intrusiveness into new domains.

      As a life-long black citydweller I take not one single bit of pleasure, nor even schadenfreude from that; it’s backward movement where progress was needed. And regarding the president and his beers, there are times when the gentleman seems like the brother from another planet. This was one, you may be sure.

  22. demi says:

    It’s all fine and dandy to be pedantic and correct, but what venue do you serve? Really, I’m just questioning the potential for arrogance here.

  23. puppethead says:

    Police and thieves in the streets Oh yeah!
    Scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition
    Police and thieves in the street Oh yeah!
    Fighting the nation with their guns and ammunition

    -The Clash, Police And Thieves

    Nowadays I’m much more fearful of police than thieves, since the police are becoming a militarized gang of thugs who are more inclined to enforce their power than to uphold any laws.

  24. wavpeac says:

    It’s the flip side of the perpetrator but the victim assumes control by being charming…and nice. Buts it’s still a desire to control the outcome. Healthy people apply the rules…they refuse to negotiate the system. They let natural consequences do the teaching instead of assuming that they must provide the answers and the outcomes. Example…Obama saying that underlings who were following orders in regard to torture should not be prosecuted. This is typical “rescuing” behavior. It’s not his job…the law should decide what happens here. He is assuming control in the guise of “people pleasing” and it can make life just as unmanageable as alcoholic or perpetrator side of things. Eventually it all spins out of control because people due to unhealed psychological issues believe they can control things that they cannot and do not know how to deal with or recognize the things they cannot or should not control

    Obama needs to let our constitution, the laws and natural consequence (otherwise known as good orderly direction) take control instead of trying so hard to force outcomes that “he” thinks are best.

    The rules and constitution exist to prevent this kind of mess.

    • greenwarrior says:

      thanks for the link. that’s the incident i was referring to in my 34 above. i wrote to the police department about it and also to the whitehall, ohio mayor and city council members. my notes to them and the links for writing to them are in the comments for that post.

      • john in sacramento says:

        Sorry I missed your comment … came late to the thread

        Honestly, how dangerous can that woman be? She’s got a cane and you can tell within seconds on the video that she’s confused

        Thanks for the reminder to write to the PD

        • greenwarrior says:

          aint that the truth? in the comments in that thread i said something like she’s shuffling with a cane. thanks for taking action.

  25. wavpeac says:

    if he believes the things he says than he should say them and mean them and then let the legal system do it’s job instead of obstructing and hiding the secrets. (all part of controlling the outcomes).

  26. demi says:

    How the hell are we supposed to talk to each other? How can we talk to the right wingers and make a point, when we can’t talk to each other, here?

  27. bonkers says:

    (I’m not venting and offer this in the spirit of constructive criticism)

    Headlines like this, and much of the incessant and often unfair criticism of Obama that dominates here, are marginalizing this site and therefore much of the Liberal wing of the DemocratIC Party. Is there any issue that many here will not somehow twist into sneering condescension toward Obama? Wasn’t he asked about this in a live press conference, and even on the spot answered correctly within the framing you set out about how this cop acted “stupidly?”

    What’s been frustrating for me about this consistent dynamic is that the overwhelming majority of the time I agree with the dominant opinions here on the issues, but I disagree often in what to do about them.

    I read only two places regularly, and that’s FDL and Al Giordano’s blog at Narconews. There’s some animosity between the two sites, which has been instructive for me, but I used to not understand Al’s vehemence toward FDL and some of the other leading Liberals blogs, when even though he’s a radical Liberal on most every issue, he would say things to the effect of, “They are not part of any ‘movement’ I belong to, and we are NOT on the same team!” He will talk at great length at how he feels these places and mentalities actually hurt real reform. I would often argue that both viewpoints and approaches have merit, but Al would never have any of it.

    I’m starting to understand his point, and this post is a clear example for me.

    • bmaz says:

      I’ve got nothing against Obama (am hoping to go see him on Monday here). He is spending the night tonight and tomorrow night about a mile from my house. I voted for him and would again. But I am a stickler for the rule of law; for me that is what it is about, not unreasonable adulation of a mere man.

      • bonkers says:

        I also am a “stickler about the rule of law,” and in no way ever propose or practice “unadulterated adulation of a mere man.” In fact, I’ve been getting quite impatient and pissed at Obama about many things, but have been very happy with many others, but again, that doesn’t really matter.

        I do know if we’re able to organize public support in large enough numbers to support these various causes that you and I agree on, we would be seeing substantial reforms. We’d be unstoppable.

        This is what I’m interested in doing, and I fear some of what I’ve seen develop around FDL and other places in the last year or two is actually counter-productive to that goal. It turns people off and demoralizes many who are already here. I’ve felt this myself and have been told this by many I know who I’ve tried to become regular readers here.

        • bmaz says:

          I fully understand what you are saying, and I ponder that question often. As I have the privilege of writing here, I feel it my responsibility to have those thoughts, and I thank you for the honest discussion. For what it is worth, I did not really intend for the “adulation of a mere man” part of that comment to be directed at you specifically; it was hastily constructed as I was running out the door to ride my bicycle up to the corner to catch Obama’s motorcade coming by (how’s that for irony).

          To give a smidgen of explanation as to why I write and express the thoughts I do here regularly, it boils down to this: I, along with many others, and rightfully so, howled at the opprobriums of the Bush Administration; it was really the only way I knew to, as a citizen, make my voice count. I wanted something completely different; I wanted change. But the areas I commonly wrote about and knew, and do know, from my education and career are primarily in the area of law and civil rights. There has been damn little change in those areas; quite frankly, for the most part, Obama has only brought a better and more focused effort to protecting and continuing the same abuses and with a smoother public persona. If I were to change my tune simply because it is a Democrat with an engaging and disarming affable manner, then that would be completely lame. So I try to call em as I see em and not hold back.

          • Fern says:

            So if you want to howl at this administration like you did at the last, how about howling about something that is not based heavily on speculation and wishful thinking?

            A Gates suit would likely have created a stir and addressed specific wrongs, but I still question whether it would have created systemic changes that would prevent future injustices, which is the claim you make in your headline and post.

            • bmaz says:

              Systemic changes have to start somewhere, why should it not have been here? Tell me, just how exactly do you think it all occurs? With the screwed up political process that exists on both the national and state level, and the craven creatures that masquerade as our elected officials, the change these days on the civil liberties and civil rights fronts are all occurring in the courts and justice system. So tell me, what is your plan since you cannot tolerate this one; how are we going to get there from here? You have demanded a lot of answers, and I have tried to comply. Time for you to ante up; what you got?

              • Fern says:

                My main objection all along has been you laid responsibility for future police violence on Obama’s doorstep. That is all. I particularly disliked your headline, which has a bit of a Fox News air to it.

                And I based my view on the speculative nature of your argument – that Gates would have sued if Obama had not had the beer summit, that Gates will not sue at some time in the future, and that if Gates had sued, this would have resulted in fewer instances of police using tazers on innocent citizens.

                Would a suit by Gates be a good thing? I think it likely would be. Is Obama responsible for every future tazer incident in the country? Hardly.

                • Fern says:

                  Oh, and disagreeing with you does not obligate me to come up with a plan for reforming the American criminal justice system.

                • bmaz says:

                  Well the thought that Gates would sue was not totally speculative, people that know him intimately said as much right after the incident became public and before Obama became inexplicably intertwined; so it is not just me, but I can only speak of my own opinion. And if you think that a successful lawsuit by Gates, played out on the national stage, with all the notoriety and media exposure he could bring, would not be a great start in explaining to the public the ills of police abuse of authority in contempt of cop situations, you are nuts. When it plays out on TV and in the print media, people and institutions notice. And I make no apologies for the title to the post; it was meant to stimulate discussion on an important topic and it has done just that. Equating this to Fox News is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I did not say Obama would be “responsible for every future taser incident in the country”, and it is baloney for you to say I did; what I said is his conduct will be responsible for the blunting of a discussion that could have changed the public discourse on the subject of abuse of police power.

                  So, if you want to have the conversation, fine, but do not engage in the exact crass hyperbole that you falsely accuse me of.

              • Blub says:

                I think you’re right. But it’s important to bear in mind that our dreams for “systematic change” are, in all likelihood, being acted upon, by the other side… the Christianists slowly maneauvering thousands of authoritarians into positions of power at all levels, the increasingly organized attacks on progressives and our political events, the terroristic threats against civil society and the ever-increasing and ever-more pervasive extension of (most Republican) authoritarianism into our homes and our lives. What’s been practiced for years on the poor, brown and unsung – the violent attacks on their freedom to publicly associate, the at-will intrusion into their living and bedrooms, and the ever-present fear and intimidation are getting mainstreamed, so that, in the end, nobody will be safe. I don’t mean to sound paranoid, but I do have a sinking feeling that things are changing, that trends that seem unconnected actually are – that somebody has a plan – and that all this will not be to our liking.

          • bonkers says:

            Ha! The O-man’s in the hood? That is ironic, and not in a Alanis Morissette sorta way…

            I appreciate the constructive conversation as well. I understand that your background, and many others here, might not be in Organizing masses of people, and that you’re doing what you’re good at in your work here. Now that this site has become somewhat influential, I’m simply suggesting that various leaders examine what roles they can play in a broader context, and it sounds as if you’re doing that.

            It’s really a question of balance I think. Yin-yang. I’ll still submit that the balance is off around here and much of the Liberal blogosphere, and the positives of Obama are mostly overlooked. My background is more on the community organizing side of things, and keeping morale up is key to any social movement, so that is why I keep harping on this around here (after saying this, please re-visit your headline on this post).

            I’m glad to hear you think about this, and hope you and others continue that process of honest introspection. You really have a lot of power in your keyboard. Thanks again, and after reading you for a while, know that if I ever need representation in a civil case, I’ll be calling you!

            • bmaz says:

              Yeah, he is staying at the Phoenician (a Charlie Keating built posh edifice by the way), which is about a mile or so due east of my house. Last time he came here he was at the Monteluccia, which is about half a mile north of here. Bush always stayed right here in the area too. The motorcades are impressive to watch, but they move pretty fast actually. I missed it today, they went in the back way, but it was worth a try. I hope to be able to get in to cover his speech to the national VFW convention in downtown on Monday.

            • sporkovat says:

              I’ll still submit that the balance is off around here and much of the Liberal blogosphere, and the positives of Obama are mostly overlooked.

              one of these days, it’d be nice if you could post a few of these positives for us to marvel at. Should be no problem, if they are as numerous as you seem to believe.

              • bonkers says:

                I have many, many times. I’ve spent hours upon hours doing just that. I have a few links saved at my office that give multi-screen lists of the positive things that have happened since Obama has been in office. I’m not at my office.

                Have you ever tried the White House Web site? Obviously, there’s some spinning happening there, but there’s also a lot of very specific lists of legislation and Presidential activity that doesn’t even show up in “the newz” and Liberal blogs for the most part. Some really cool stuff in my opinion.

                • sporkovat says:

                  ok. some weekday then.

                  greenwarrior was upthread, mentioning some history with the environmental movement.

                  here is an early indication that not much has changed on that front with President Hope-n-Change©:

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..35311.html

                  This week, the Obama administration approved the sale of timber in a roadless national forest in Alaska. The Tongass National Forest is a 17 million acre temperate rain forest in southeast Alaska, which is home to both endangered species and native Alaskan tribes. It is the largest temperate rain forest in the United States.

                  old growth like that is tragic to lose, forever. Best of all, it’s done at a huge loss to the taxpayer:

                  According to The Wilderness Society:

                  American taxpayers have not only watched as the Tongass has been picked apart by road building and logging, they’ve paid for the privilege. The tab extends beyond $750 million over 20 years. In a single year alone, the Forest Service spent $36 million on the Tongass timber program and got back in revenues only $1 million. Subsidies for logging roads account for nearly half of timber program costs annually.

                  • bonkers says:

                    I’m so with ya on the frustration on that sort of thing. Obama has also clearly stated he doesn’t want to micromanage things. For instance, there’s been a lot of conflicting messages coming from Obama and Hillary Clinton’s State Dept (in respect to Honduras, Al Giordano at Narconews has been covering this extensively).

                    I actively campaigned against Bill Clinton in 1992 in the Dem primaries as a local campaign manager for Jerry Brown. Yet, once Clinton became Prez, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for approx 2 years, before my worst suspicions were realized. And it got worse from there.

                    Obama is light years ahead of where Clinton was by this point, and continues to say he wants to go so much farther. Obama is trying to keep people engaged and organized as much as he can. Clinton never did any of these things. Never.

                    Is any of this worthy of any benefit of the doubt from you?

                    • sporkovat says:

                      and, respect is due for your fondness for narconews, there are not many like Al, he’s great.

                      good old Jerry Brown, what a cat.

                      also good to remember how disillusioning Clintontime was – some here are too young, but many who were around then learned some hard lessons about what happens if one trusts the Democrats too much.

                      ok, well met.

                    • bonkers says:

                      Well, I’ll check out those links and thanks for those. And glad you like Giordano. Perhaps you read this one from Al?

                      http://narcosphere.narconews.c…..g-anywhere

                      Pretty good summation of how I feel.

                      What do you say about Nouriel Roubini and Paul Krugman, others who were “right all along,” saying that the Obama Admin seems to have stopped the bleeding as well, and both even saying the Bernanke should stay on?

                      Look, it quite possible a year or two from now, I’ll be saying, “damn, you were so right!” but so far things are moving in a very positive direction on many fronts. We can build upon this momentum and really bring it home if we stay together.

                    • sporkovat says:

                      Giordano is an incredible combination of:

                      I don’t believe in Capitalism. It’s a terrible and inhumane system, and history will judge it harshly. If I thought for a moment that the American people were informed, organized and ready enough to ring in a Democratic Socialism that would be decentralized enough to protect individual liberties, I too would say, “hooray, the moment has arrived, let’s bring about the entire collapse of the system.” The end of capitalism is a worthwhile goal (and may indeed be coming sooner to some other lands, particularly in this hemisphere, where the public is more organized and ready and desirous of it).

                      and counseling of of moderation, hailing obama’s savviness, calls to replace Geithner are reckless, etc.

                      some of his dismissals of economic doomers strike me as straw man argumentation, but hey, if you are checking out denninger and the folks at theautomaticearth, then I gotta read deeper in Giordano’s domestic USA perspectives. (I mostly read him on central and s americas.)

                    • bonkers says:

                      Truly, I will check those out. Like Al, I’m all about thinking ahead to practical results of each action, and how to respond to the most likely scenarios. Human behaviour is quite predictable after all.

                      We gotta get more John Q. Nascar’s to realize that they’re voting against their own self-interests. This is the immediate goal to me.

                      Anyway, outta here fer shure this time…

              • bonkers says:

                Obama has said all along that first, he wants to stop the bleeding in the Economy and prevent a massive collapse that’ll make the Great Depression seem like the good ‘ol days. Seems wise to me.

                6-7 months in, he’s done that, no?

                Then, he’s always said Step 2, start altering the system to prevent this from happening again. He’s directly mentioned things like Glass-Steagall and how we need that sort of regulation again. Okay, just read an article yesterday that said a Liberal blog hero, Sheila Bair at the FDIC, was concerned that some of Obama’s proposed regulations on the financial industry were going too far and couldn’t pass in the Senate.

                It wasn’t just the Economy anyway. There was unbelievable “bleeding” in almost every department of the Federal government. Do you agree with this? This was by design, since Repubs are well known to want to “drown” the government “in the bathtub.” Obama has tackled many of these.

                I completely agree…so much more needs to be done, but at the same time I understand the magnitude of the problems. Do you understand this, or do you think all he has to do is use the “bully pulpit” and bypass the pesky “checks and balances” thing?

                • sporkovat says:

                  my friend, I have been following the economic debacle very closely for a while, and Obama has done nothing to address the systemic issues, and has appointed a bevy of Goldman Sachs cronies who are highly culpable in creating the mess.

                  systemic: the USA is awash in debt at all levels, consumer, corporate, govt. The great depression to which you allude has not been averted – numerous huge banks are dead on their feet, and the FDIC does not have the reserves to cover depositors – they would have to hit up the Treasury, who would have to print up more money.

                  this notion that the crisis has been averted – we’ll see before the year is out how wrong that is. unemployment record highs, consumer spending down what, 15% to 30%, foreclosures in the millions, argh, it goes on and on.

                  Colonial, Alabama’s second-largest bank, is being closed by regulators today, the person said, becoming the largest U.S. bank failure of 2009 after an expansion into Florida saddled the lender with more than $1.7 billion in soured real-estate loans.

                  The FDIC usually waits until the close of business Friday; they must have had a slight problem with withdrawals……

                  Left unsaid is what’s going to happen to the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund on this one – my guess is that it will be ugly, as these guys were up to their necks in Florida on development projects that went bad. The “value” of that paper may be very close to zero; if the FDIC avoids doing one of their 40% loss deals I will be quite surprised.

                  A 40% loss on this one would, if my math is right, kill the rest of their insurance fund plus quite a bit and put the FDIC in the position of immediately needing to go hit up Treasury for more money.

                  That ought to be good for confidence, right?

                  Oh, there are two more on the “you’re dead” list that I’ve been talking about for a while: CORUS and Guaranty, both of which have said they (as of last filing) have a negative Tier Capital Ratio, meaning that they are formally underwater and IMHO should have been seized months ago.

                  But don’t worry, Treasury has an infinite credit card to keep funding the FDIC with, right?

                  “Heh Mr. Chinaman, can you spare an extra trillion – or three?”

                  from one of the guys who has been right all along:

                  http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

                  here’s another one:

                  http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/

                  try reading these occasionally and take their perspectives into account.

                  ugh, until next time.

          • njr83 says:

            We’ve been wounded as a nation

            But the areas I commonly wrote about and knew, and do know, from my education and career are primarily in the area of law and civil rights. There has been damn little change in those areas…

            and we’re not healing yet.

    • greenwarrior says:

      my activism started in the environmental movement. there are lots of different environmental organizations with philosophies that range from absolute anarchism to radical action to working within the system and many more variations. my philosophy has always been that we need all the voices. the point gets made many different ways. different people feel comfortable being activists in different ways. some people are willing to be out on the front lines and risk and go to jail. some people are willing to go to law school, often on their own dime, and work for justice, some people are the fundraisers. some make the peace between the different groups.

      and the people who are seeing the activism also respond to different kinds of activities. for me, we’re broadening the base when we speak with different voices.

      • bonkers says:

        If we’re interested in creating large scale social movements to correct substantial wrongs in society right now, please explain how the above headline helps in any way?

        Would you not say some of those varying approaches actually work AGAINST the supposed similar goals of all of them? I too have been a life-long environmentalist and would cringe when some of the groups (sometimes people I knew) would engage in vandalism and other “anarchist” type of behavior. I know for a fact in some of these cases they weakened support we had been gaining, through countless hours of public meetings and door-to-door work, among the public and politicians. They would erase that incredible work we did in mere seconds with actions that over time, I started realizing was more about satisfying themselves more than creating any sort of social change.

        Obviously the specifics are different to what I was discussing up above, but I’m starting to think the end result is the same.

        • greenwarrior says:

          i’m going over to narconews and see if i can see what the conversation is. i’ve never been there before. do you have a link to something in particular?

          and, yes, i’ve experienced that some people’s way of speaking or actions or dress has not been helpful or been unhelpful. overall though, i’ve felt like the more voices the better.

        • Evelyn says:

          I am confused by your emphasis, Bonkers. You say you are interested in community organizing, in creating mass social movements, and yet your emphasis is on Obama, on what we should think or say about Obama, suggesting that criticizing the President is demoralizing and counter-productive to organizing. But social movements are about people empowering themselves around issues — not about worshipping a leader.

          Here is a revealing article about Obama’s base — the people who worked so hard to get him elected. They can’t be bothered to organize for any actual issues — universal health care, for example. Of course, Obama’s vague, sell-out, useless “health insurance reform” is not worth organizing for and should be resisted. But these people are just happy to have gotten Obama elected President. They’ve done their duty, gotten all excited like they do every four years. And now they’ve gone home to the soothing routine of their lives and won’t be heard from again until the next presidential cycle wakes them up again.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08…..lobal-home

  28. wavpeac says:

    we are talking. It’s okay to disagree…it’s okay to have opposing points of view. We don’t all have to see it the same way…and yet we should all be in agreement about teh constitution and enforcing the laws. If we don’t like a law we change the law if we can. But right now the deepest,darkest problem in our country is that Obama is not willing to let the law and truth speak by way of investigation and then prosecution if necessary. His administration is preventing light…and is not allowing sunshine on the dark secrets of this country regarding torture, and fisa.

    His behavior in regard to Gates was to try to make it “no big deal”. This is not what was called for. It assumes no wrong doing, no violation of law. But as Bmaz has laid out..the cop may well have violated laws in regard to his behavior. Obama should not have stepped in to try to make nice. He should have asked for a proper investigation and waited to give his opinion until the investigation was finished. By “making nice” he actually accepted the unacceptable behavior and basically condoned it.

    no wonder america is in trouble. Parents make this mistake…teachers make this mistake…enforce the rules and love with all your heart and don’t confuse the two.

  29. demi says:

    I’m going to go barbeque dinner. You all talk to you own selves.
    I’ve given it my best shot for now.

  30. Blub says:

    I don’t think these incidents are primarily about race, class, gender, or political affiliation, although all of these things can be triggers. For me, they’re about a significant deterioration of American civic culture that started a good while ago, became monstrous under shrub, and hasn’t really improved. This deterioration involves both an increased tolerance for authoritarian behavior on the part of government and acceptance of thuggish behavior from those citizens who support authoritarianism. In the Gates incident it’s about the former, the Town Hall terrorists are about the latter, the Busby raid was about both. In general, there is a sense (depending on your perspective) that either this country is becoming inured to thuggish, authoritarian behavior or rather it is just becoming ungovernable and this in need of authoritarianism and thuggish vigilantiism – bad in either event.

    • prostratedragon says:

      [Hours later, she gets the difference between the “Preview” and “Submit Comment” buttons …]

      I quite agree with this as the broadest and most important viewpoint on the problem, even though I do think that many incidents, and the insistence on a bullying and coercive police presence generally, often do have a racial subtext or pretext.

      The Ohio video, heartbreaking to watch, is a good case in point. Although the woman victimized by the cops is black, I don’t think that is necessarily the reason for what happened.

      Part of what we see there is actions taken be people who have either been selected for their lack of normal engagement with other people, or been trained away from it; note that passersby seem (I watched without sound) immediately to respond to the old woman as the victim, and not as a person to be feared. Had the officers reacted properly to her in the first place there would have been no crowd control problem. Look how at sea the policewoman appears, perhaps as it dawns on her that she has just arm-locked a harmless old woman into a pool of blood. These are people trained to become a s.w.a.t. team at a moment’s notice, and it would seem to do little else, in utter disregard of the fact that, even in the biggest cities, hardly ever is that kind of interaction with people necessary.

      • skdadl says:

        These are people trained to become a s.w.a.t. team at a moment’s notice, and it would seem to do little else, in utter disregard of the fact that, even in the biggest cities, hardly ever is that kind of interaction with people necessary.

        I think this is a huge problem, not unlike what happens when people trained as disciplined criminal investigators are suddenly told that they get to do sexy intel work. The more basic discipline breaks down; people make leaps of logic; they overreact absurdly; and they make disastrous mistakes.

        The paranoia desperately needs to be dialled back, but a lot of people seem to get an ego kick out of pretending that we live in constant crisis and they are needed to play superhero.

  31. newtonusr says:

    Someday one of these miscreants is going to taze-to-death the mother or sister or wife of one of his fellow troopers. Now that’s a civil suit I would both love and hate to see.

    • Blub says:

      actually, if you read Amnesty Intl reports like I do, there has come to be a steady stream of people getting tazed, beaten, four-point-restraint-racked or otherwise tortured to death in American homes, precincts and jails. Unfortunately, most of the victims are poor, brown and unreported. We hear of only the flotsam off the tip of this iceberg.

  32. aggywaggy says:

    This is what happened at a Francine Busby fundraiser in San Diego’s 50th District. As you know, this is a very Republican town and she is running against Bilbray.

    http://www.calitics.com/diary/…..fundraiser

    A total abuse of police power. Sadly, most people in San Diego, from what I have read and thankfully have no experience, expect this sort of behavior from the Sheriff’s Dept.

    The more I am learning about the politics of my County, the more startled I am.

    • Blub says:

      see my #36 above. I have to admit to some frustration borne from experience – sometimes the rest of the country treats this county like another country when it comes to this type of thing. Police pepper spray a political rally, shoot a motorist in a stopped car assassination-style at point blank range at the border, haul brown people en masse off city buses for illegal searches and roughing up on the baseless suspicion that they might be illegals, stand by and do nothing while armed militia types stage a shooting war against Mexican-Americans in the hills of east county, rig a few elections, etc, etc, etc and nary a peep out of the national media. Some cop wrongly arrests a professor in Cambridge, and the president of the United States and the national punditocracy both get all involved and angry… I know some people and places are more important than others, but still… ;-P

      • bmaz says:

        I agree wholeheartedly with that. But it is those “other people” that I have spent a couple of decades representing; and, as I was a private attorney as opposed to public defender, even most of those had at least some money. Those people will never have their cases make a mark, even if they stumble into the ability and the right attorneys to prosecute it; but Gates was uniquely positioned and pissed that I am convinced he was going to make a stir. Is it wrong that everyone cannot be similarly situated and have the wrongs addressed and make a dent? Absolutely. But it is a fact, so you have to look for the vehicles that can get you there, and there are damn few of them that come along. This was, formerly, one.

  33. AngelsAwake says:

    Was the cop ever in trouble for this shit? I mean, seriously, this is the behavior that, at MINIMUM, should get an officer kicked off the force, disgraced, and done away with.

    • bmaz says:

      Which cop? The one in Gates, Sergeant Crowley, will literally soon be promoted to Captain as a result of all the feel good malarky if you ask me (no I am not kidding). The cop in the video attached hereto is reassigned pending resolution of the lawsuit:

      Andrews, 37, a deputy for four years, was taken off road patrol after the arrest and will remain in a new assignment until an internal affairs investigation is finished, Sheriff Kevin Walsh said

  34. bobschacht says:

    The comments on this thread form a weave with a common pattern, implanted by Reagan and organized and perfected by the Bush administration. And that is the fabric of fear and mistrust.

    Reagan taught us to fear Blacks and mistrust Welfare Moms. And of course, to fear and mistrust (cloaked in “Trust but verify”) Communists, who must of course be confronted and challenged.

    BushCo carried this further. They used 9/11 to whip up fear of brown-skinned people who were “terrorists,” and sneeringly derided as “killers.” The whole immigrant debate was strange, because Bush actually went against his party’s xenophobia on that front, IIRC.

    This fear and mistrust has pervaded the body politic, and now that we have a “Black” president, the fear and mistrust of people of color is being turned against the President, so that thousands of people concede his eloquence, but don’t trust him.

    This then gets wrapped up in a security blanket, to the effect that people are now more concerned about security than they are about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Who was it who said that those who prefer security to freedom will wind up with neither?

    It is an odd choice, anyway. America, with its “Frontier” mentality, has always been about taking risks. But it has also been quick to “call in the Calvary”.

    George Orwell’s insights loom larger and more prescient with every passing year.

    Bob in HI

      • bobschacht says:

        Thanks! Got it.

        `Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’

        Bob in HI

    • bonkers says:

      Good analysis. Liberalism and the various disadvantaged groups are naturally teammates, so I think they stoke all those flames for their umbrella strategy of “dividing and conquering” Liberalism, and skin color is such an easy target for them.

      That’s why, as Obama says (yes, I see all the eye-rolling) I feel we should focus all that we agree on instead of the differences. We’re fighting truly evil, evil people (that includes “centrist Dems”), and for those patriots who came before and those yet to come, we must stop these killers. The stakes are high.

      • bobschacht says:

        We’re fighting truly evil, evil people (that includes “centrist Dems”)

        Well, in fact this is the kind of absolutist, divisive speech that I was arguing against, whether from the Right or from the Left. Slobodon Milosevich is one of those people of whom I am inclined to think of as “truly evil, evil people.” But one of the geniuses of Jimmy Carter as an international negotiator (and he has a Nobel Prize to show for it) is that he chose to deal with the worst tyrants by addressing their better side (e.g., devoted father or husband) rather than only confronting their worst side. Dick Cheney, despite the monstrous evils we associate with him, is apparently a devoted and supportive father, even to his lesbian daughter.

        The first step towards genocide is to regard one’s opponents as subhuman.

        Bob in HI

  35. texasaggie says:

    From what I understand the ocifer in charge has been reassigned to desk work pending an investigation. If there is to be a valid investigation, we need to keep the pressure on.

    P.S. Does anyone know the results of the guy from Boston who was fired for his disgusting emails? I heard that he had a counter suit for violating his constitutional rights.

  36. Julia says:

    It’s worth pointing out that the ubiquity of tasers is a legacy of the right’s short-lived and ill-fated love affair with Bernie Kerik (so many of their love affairs seem to go bad lately)

  37. sunshine says:

    Here’s a very good video on your constitutional rights. Not to be used for legal advise.

    “Most people give up their rights (Bill of Rights) with out even knowing it”.

    BUSTED: The Citizen’s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..eature=fvw

    flexyourrights.org

  38. bobschacht says:

    It’s not good form to reply to one’s own e-mail, but I wanted to add a post-script: We, too, have contributed to the atmosphere of fear and mistrust, because that has been our attitude towards the Bush Administration. Yeah, I know, OUR fear and mistrust are JUSTIFIED. That’s what some of those fearful people at the town hall meetings are saying about us, too.

    How can we get beyond this?

    Bob in HI

    • Blub says:

      given what they’ve done and are doing, some amount of mistrust and fear is justified wouldn’t you say? Not everything can be overcome by feel-good dialogue or even by beers on the south lawn. Illegal surveillance, organized disruption of political events and town halls, violent threats, and a creeping Christianist coup aren’t things that can defeated by exortations of “can’t we all just get along.” ;-P

  39. BooRadley says:

    Thanks bmaz.

    IMHO, this whole issue is tailor-made for Biden. He’s plateaued at Veep and in terms of “identity politics,” it’s a helluva lot easier for him to do the “heavy lifting.”

  40. PJEvans says:

    bmaz, what the heck is Sheriff Joe up to? Reading about him seizing a computer system and changing the passwords, then not giving them to the proper users ….

    • bmaz says:

      Arpaio and his little right wingnut buddy, County Attorney Andrew Thomas, are in a war with the only slightly more sane Maricopa County Supervisors who are trying to reel them in a bit. Arpaio just gives the finger to everybody, including the courts who ordered the password released. Simply amazing.

  41. SparklestheIguana says:

    We clearly need to have a “discussion” about police authority and abuse of power, but the Gates case was not the right case to instigate that discussion. (Gates wasn’t harmed, wasn’t injured, except for his pride. He came across as a whiny entitled member of a privileged class.)

    These tasering cases are the cases that should get the discussion going.

    • bmaz says:

      Yeah, I dunno about that. Getting falsely arrested, without probable cause, handcuffed and dragged from your own home, taken to the jail, booked, fingerprinted, mugshotted, entered into the NCIC, and your arrest and mugshot made public sounds like damage to me. The point is his case could have gotten the visibility that the others you describe never can. That is the whole point.

      • bonkers says:

        I was working in the same building where Gates has an office a few years back. When coming out of the elevator and turning to my right I literally bumped lightly in him, and we had a laugh and mutual “excuse me’s.” We were both in a hurry it seemed.

        I recognized him from some PBS shows over the years. He had a cane and was fairly small in stature. I still can’t imagine a scene where that cop felt it was necessary to arrest him in his own gaddamn home.

        I can only imagine what Obama really would like to say about this incident, but thankfully keeps it at “stupid.”

        • bmaz says:

          You know the silly thing, I was cheering what Obama was saying right up to the second he said the cops “acted stupidly”. I knew the second he said it that he had stepped in the shit because the cops were going to screech and create a scene politicos fear. I said so in my first post on the Gates/Obama deal, which was within 3 or 4 hours of the press conference where Obama made the comment. My complaint is that he made that gaffe, and it was a huge one if you know how cops react, and then got cowed into backtracking and running. He should not have said “stupid” (even though blatantly true), but once he did, he should have stood up for the truth of the statement instead of cowering.

          • bonkers says:

            My memory of that timeline is that Obama did not back down from his initial statement, and this despite a swift and massive BigMedia outcry that he apologize (which is EXACTLY what Lynn Sweet wanted when asking that question in the first place). The “Beer Summit” only happened once the BigMedia mavens decided to turn it into the Next Rev. Wright fiasco, and in hindsight, given what they were planning with this healthcare fight, the “Summit” was wise in order to put this issue to bed. This is what happened, correct?

            Yes, I suspect Obama would’ve phrased it differently if he had time to prepare, but I feel it’s fair to assume that Obama wasn’t expecting to be asked about this. 95% of America HAD no idea who Henry Louis Gates was, and Obama was likely not expecting this to come up. So, when Lynn Sweet launched her hit job, Obama answers with a “blatantly true” answer and even tried to turn it into a teaching moment. Not to mention, Obama has an emotional connection with Gates personally, and with the issue of racial profiling. While not 100% perfect, this was a fairly adept response given the magnitude of the live and unscripted nature of the event.

            Even though he can walk on water and part the Red Sea (wink), Obama isn’t perfect. Obama isn’t this problem in the situation.

            • newtonusr says:

              An essential rule in any combat is: Do not ever jump into the hole your opponents are digging for themselves.
              Obama was peeved, or tired, or caught flat-footed, or whatever.
              He screwed this up and drew Presidential attention and an increased racial perspective (not because he is Black, but because those who control the media levers said it should be so) to it.

              I never wanted to know what beer each party liked, and ordinarily I would not be entitled to know. But Obama elevated the Gates arrest into an extraordinary event, instead of just your garden-variety civil suit.

              IMHO

              • bonkers says:

                I would not be entitled to know. But Obama elevated the Gates arrest into an extraordinary event, instead of just your garden-variety civil suit.

                I just simply disagree with this. Aided by Lynn Sweet, BigMedia made this into an issue. Just like Rev. Wright. Just like Bill Ayers, and countless others. All Obama can do, is do his best to defuse each one, which he’s done quite well almost every time.

                • newtonusr says:

                  I just simply disagree with this.

                  Good. Otherwise we’d be Republicans.

                  That said, if he passes on the question, saying something like “Local issues are just that, and commenting from this podium is both presumptuous of the facts and premature at best.” would have kept the matter in Massachusetts.

            • bmaz says:

              Within 36 hours of the gaffe at the news conference, Obama took to the podium in the White House Briefing Room to do this:

              In an attempt to tamp down the escalating controversy over his comments on the arrest last week of Henry Louis Gates Jr. by the Cambridge, Mass., Police Department, President Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room and placed calls to both Gates and Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley, who arrested the Harvard professor.

              Taking the briefing-room podium just hours after Cambridge police union officials called on Obama to apologize for saying the officers involved in the incident with Gates behaved “stupidly,” Obama conceded that he erred in his “choice of words.”

              Obama said he spoke to James Crowley, the sergeant who arrested Gates, “and I have to tell you that, as I said yesterday, my impression of him is that he was an outstanding police officer…and that was confirmed in the phone conversation.”

              Obama is not the problem in the situation, but he almost certainly the reason that little legally useful will come from the event where it could have but for him.

              • bonkers says:

                He admits he erred in his words. Exactly. When put on the spot, and again, I do not think one can assume he should’ve been more ready for this question given how minor of a news story it was before that night, he gave a “blatantly true” answer, even though he stepped into the trap slightly. This is hardly worthy of all the talk about it since then.

                As you also said, it’s not just a shiny object distraction from police abuses, the larger context here was the full court press the Obama Admin was gearing up for healthcare at that time. I mean, that’s why they had that press conference in the first place!

                I feel it was wise to defuse this right away, which they did with the “Summit” (Bud Light…that was his biggest mistake in all this!). Certainly, Obama was not happy about having to do this, but don’t you think it was effective in getting this story off the frontpages, and the focus back on healthcare?

                This seems to be the only place I see it mentioned anymore.

            • sporkovat says:

              isn’t it kind of a humiliating climbdown and loss of face for the President of the United States to invite the ’stupid’ cop who arrested his friend in his own house for no reason over to the White House for some forced cordiality?

              especially when, as bmaz is pointing out, far worse sh*t is happening at the hands of brutal, unaccountable police all the time?

              the nitwits who made Gates-gate into such a circus have seen that they can make Obama dance to their tune, and it won’t be the last time.

              • bmaz says:

                See, that is what is wrong here. We are arguing back and forth over Obama. But Obama was not involved in the incident we should be discussing, and that is the illegal, unconstitutional arrest of Gates in an abuse of police power.

      • SparklestheIguana says:

        My point is that he’s not that sympathetic a litigant, so I’m not sure the visibility would have helped anything. It could have hurt more than it helped.

        • bmaz says:

          I strongly disagree with that, I think he would make a very sympathetic litigant. You seem to hold the police report version that he was particularly belligerent as true, but the facts as adduced to date have shown the police report to be be fabricated in critical areas, there is no reason to assume that is not one of the fabricated areas too. Listen to the com tape off of Sgt. Crowley’s mike, there is no bad conduct by Gates.

          • pdaly says:

            Thanks for the post, bmaz.

            I think Gates would make a sympathetic litigant, too, but only after more people came to understand the details of his arrest.

            I was in a bar about 2 weeks ago and sitting next to a black woman, a physician from Chicago attending a medical conference in Boston. The Beer Summit newsfeed then began on the TV overhead. Her first comment was cynical and something to the effect both men (Gates and Crowley) will write their books and make their millions. When I mentioned the facts show it was a false arrest and that the policeman had abused his power, she responded, “it happens all the time in Chicago.” I was surprised that she saw Gates’ actions as somehow mere showboating for personal gain.

            Another physician from Italy who practices medicine in the United States said he heard from the Italian press that Gates was arrested for refusing to show ID. He felt the Italian news sometimes provides information our US press would prefer not to. He went on to say the Italian press was angry with President Obama for interfering in a police matter.

            I corrected the record for the Italian physician, but I assume he was repeating back accurately what the press was spinning in Italy. I wondered if it was misinformation? or deliberate disinformation on the part of the Italian press? For what end?

      • freepatriot says:

        Getting falsely arrested, without probable cause, handcuffed and dragged from your own home, taken to the jail, booked, fingerprinted, mugshotted, entered into the NCIC, and your arrest and mugshot made public sounds like damage to me

        if thats all that happens, it’s not so bad

        except for the “dragged from your own home” part, you could be describing my travel photo scrape book

        this is from when I was arrested in Colorado. This is Oklahoma, here’s Louisiana, and Florida …

        legally, what happened to Gates don’t even count as being arrested

        but in this strange and fucked up reality, counter intuition works. So I have to agree with bmaz about the probability of Gates’ ability to create a national conversation about abuse of power by police officers, where countless other failed in the same capacity and situation

        Gates has the advantage of being alive after his encounter with a cop out of control

    • Mary says:

      I think he would have been a pretty good litigant. He never got physical, he was in his own home, not doing anything wrong, and the policeman seemed bound and determined to not leave his home even though there was no warrant. Then it seemed very much as if not just this policeman, but perhaps widely practiced throughout the department, there was an understood ploy of taking someone who was doing nothing wrong, and was in their own home, and luring them out of their house for the sole purpose of being able to pull off a trumped up arrest, and all with hordes of police descending on the house.

      I think that, away from the right wing, he said she said, press and in a court room, this one would be pretty clear for the claimant.

      • Boston1775 says:

        but perhaps widely practiced throughout the department, there was an understood ploy of taking someone who was doing nothing wrong, and was in their own home, and luring them out of their house for the sole purpose of being able to pull off a trumped up arrest, and all with hordes of police descending on the house.

        ————————————–

        Mary, there are so many stories to be told.

      • bmaz says:

        Precisely. What most people pondering this issue fail to realize is how the absolute bullshit from the media and carping pundits is pared down in a trial courtroom. There are already demonstrated blatant fabrications in the police report, that Crowley and his department are pretty much tethered with. That is already present. I am just about certain that Gates could, and rightfully so, convince a jury that much of the bluster he is accuse of, including the “yo mama” bit, are all another blatant fabrication. As a lawyer thinking about what my theory of the case would be, I can see this one clear as day.

          • bmaz says:

            Those that can’t do teach? I dunno; there is a huge disconnect here because I will tell you he is the most Constitutionally obtuse “Constitutional scholar” I have ever seen in my life. And his best bud Cass Sunstein is only a quarter step behind.

            • Boston1775 says:

              Ya, well, he’s been fairly busy doin’…
              Same for the teaching.

              We would do well to reason our way through each disconnect – look back through his education –
              Who sponsored him at key moments?

              As with the Intelligence Community Scholarship Program,
              young people with brains are targeted – early, while they are suggestible – and brought on board.

        • Petrocelli says:

          Man, this thread brought out a lot more opinions that the usual Trash Talk Thread, eh ?

          If you see Obama around town, ask him to reply to Mary’s & my comments, wouldja ?

          • bmaz says:

            My wife just drove by the Phoenician on the way back from yoga (you gotta love that) and reports there is no activity. Did report a passel of motorcycle cops huddled up on the perimeter (I’ll look for the Krispy Kreme box later).

            • Petrocelli says:

              I applaud her practice of Yoga … it really gives you a unique perspective of the World and would do wonders to change Obama’s ingrained perceptions, as wavpeac outlined so brilliantly.

              • bmaz says:

                Heh, she loves it; but for me, “downward dog” is my facial position after a night at the bars on Mill Avenue after a Sun Devil football game.

                • Petrocelli says:

                  LOL … worshipping the Porcelain God, Ralph was my strongest religious experience for years.

                  The thing with Yoga is, you can build strength and endurance without punishing your body with aerobics or weights (my fave). And the dexterity results in lower risk of injury. Most if not all, Athletes do Yoga regularly, including Linemen in Pro Foosball and the increase in their endurance has been amazing.

  42. orionATL says:

    fern @17 and @24

    “…I do not see the logical connection here…”

    how could you? from your comments, logic is clearly not your strong suit.

    loyalty, however, clearly IS your strong suit.

    you could decode your comments by saying simply, “i really like prez obama a lot; i do not like criticism of him.”?

    skip the blathering about logic.

  43. bonkers says:

    Not sure if this was getting attention here, but just saw this:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..-from-work

    And the police dispatcher looks like such a “nice” and “normal” Soccer Mom! Ha!

    Just the simple fact of having Obama as President will greatly and rapidly improve skin pigmentation relations, we still have so, so far to go, especially in the police ranks.

  44. SparklestheIguana says:

    And: I’m sure Obama said to his friend Skip Gates, “You’re distracting from my attempts to have America focus on healthcare reform. What’s more important, you, or healthcare reform? Sit down and have a beer with the officer.” And Skip saw the logic of that, and indeed it was quite sensible logic. And no doubt it helped that it was coming from a black man.

    • bonkers says:

      Seems this always gets lost in conversations about Gatesgate, but the woman who started it by asking the question in a nationally televised press conference about healthcare, Lynn Sweet, has been gunning for Obama for quite some time. She had her chance, and she pounced.

      She actually admitted this in a column a few days later, after she responded to Reich Wing criticism that her question was a plant. She actually said she wanted to ask it to put Obama in a difficult position, knowing that anything having to do with a Black man/White cop will get people riled up. (don’t have time/desire to find the link…it’s out there!).

      Obama did not start this, and I still like his response. It’s not his fault it became all this. In so many situations, because of his melanin level, he’s literally damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. He obviously knows this very well, and handles it well pretty much every time. I’ve learned a lot watching him operate.

      • SparklestheIguana says:

        There’s no love lost between me and Lynn Sweet. You could tell from the question that she was trying to make a name for herself. I cringed when she asked it.

  45. Neil says:

    bmaz, I’ve wondered about the effect of hiring Iraq and Afghanistan veterans on police forces’ techniques that are not sufficiently restrained to uphold our civil rights.

    We have had a number of incidents in Boston of students being taken down face first with force for not complying with police orders when the police were out in force to control potentially unruly crowds, for example the most recent Celtics championship.

    David Woodmen, who had been at a bar and was carrying, by all appearances, an open beer in a plastic cup, was taken down face first for saying something smart, cuffed, and left faced down until one of the officers noticed he was not breathing. Another student was taken down that same night, slammed down face firs, and arrested for not obeying a police officer. They had wanted him to walk around four corners of the block to get to his car and he asked if he could pass and walk 40 feet to it, then leave.

    Back to the first incident, they tried CPR on David Woodman and called for a bus but they could not resuscitate him on the scene. The incident left him in a coma in a hospital. All nine officers on the scene went off duty due to stress. None of them filled out an incident report. That was filed by a supervisor who was at the station at the time of the incident. When David regained consciousness in the hospital (about 10 days later), he had brain damage. He died a few days later. The DA, citing the coroner’s report, determined that David died as a result of his heart condition, which in fact he did have but which he had lived with successfully for 21 years, even with sports in his life – he had played basketball that day.

    Former USA Donald Stern was hired by the Commissioner to determine if police procedure was appropriate and protected the rights of suspects. There has been no public announcement of that report. Maybe I’ll ask for it.

    • bmaz says:

      Neil, that is both sad and all to common. And the Blue Line, including prosecutors, forms to protect the malefactors. It is sickening. Exactly why I harp on this. Cops have long been prone to this behavior. I had a family come to me and my partner once whose son was pulled over for driving a Cadillac at night while black in the wrong part of town. He demanded to know why he was pulled over and had the audacity to question the stop, so they pulled him from his car, removed his two artificial legs tossed them on the roof of his Caddy, and put him on the ground in such a compromised position that he choked to death while they were standing around accusing him of faking it. It is just sickening, and this crap goes on every minute. That was a huge and horrible case, but it never got the publicity that Gates would have.

  46. fatster says:

    O/T. Nothing to see here–just move along.

    12:40 August 13th, 2009
    Who is funding the Afghan Taliban? You don’t want to know

    “Up until quite recently, most experts thought that drug money accounted for the bulk of Taliban funding. But even here opinion was divided on actual amounts. Some reports gauged the total annual income at about $100 million, while others placed the figure as high as $300 million — still a small fraction of the $4 billion poppy industry.
    . . .
    “Anecdotal evidence is mounting that the Taliban are taking a hefty portion of assistance money coming into Afghanistan from the outside.
    . . .
    “A shadowy office in Kabul houses the Taliban contracts officer, who examines proposals and negotiates with organizational hierarchies for a percentage. He will not speak to, or even meet with, a journalist, but sources who have spoken with him and who have seen documents say that the process is quite professional.
    . . .
    “It all adds up, of course. But all things are relative: if the Taliban are able to raise and spend say $1 billion per year — the outside limit of what anyone has been able to predict — that accounts for what the United States is now spending on 10 days of the war to defeat them.”

    More.

  47. SparklestheIguana says:

    But the Gates/Crowley moment appears to have been lost without any intelligent discussion of the rampant abuse of police power and authority.

    It’s not that big a loss. Really. It’s the equivalent of saying that your insurance company’s unwillingness to cover the cost of a cut on your toe is the perfect catalyst to have a discussion about the evils of insurance companies. No – their unwillingness to cover the cost of your terminal cancer would be a better case.

  48. orionATL says:

    fern @89

    fern saith:

    “My main objection all along has been you laid responsibility for future police violence on Obama’s doorstep. That is all. I particularly disliked your headline, which has a bit of a Fox News air to it.”

    i got news for you, fern old darling,

    obama IS responsible for some incremental increase in police violence.

    had he not ducked to avoid this issue, there may well have been a suit filed that would have done a great service to very ordinary people who are harassed by the local police, border police, transportation safety police, immigration police, fbi police.

    by the way fern,

    could you clarify whether or not you have any personal connection to policing of one sort or another?

    that would be most helpful in understanding whether your position is merely

    obama idolatry

    or is a position using obama to “protect” police from criticism of the sort that unfolded from sgt crawley’s misbehavior in the “cambridge affair”?

    • Fern says:

      It is not Obama idolatry – I consider him to be a moderately competent president.

      My only personal contact with police was when I conducted some PD/training sessions for with a group of police trainers and I had a very interesting introduction to an organizational culture that I did not like at all. I think Crowley is pretty typical of what I encountered there and I think he should be made accountable for his actions.

  49. orionATL says:

    bonkers @107

    “yawn”

    would be the trivial response one would expect from a triviality who self-identifies as “bonkers”.

  50. orionATL says:

    fern @121

    “My main objection all along has been you laid responsibility for future police violence on Obama’s doorstep. That is all. I particularly disliked your headline, which has a bit of a Fox News air to it.”

    and then

    “It is not Obama idolatry – I consider him to be a moderately competent president. “

    obama idolatry seems the most reasonable explanation for your comments.

    how can you defend a president who intervened once, correctly, in a police affair involving a citizen as a police victim, correctly describing sgt crowley’s behavior as “stupidity”.

    and then – ducking and dodging and sliding, in true obama fashion – intervened again saying “let’s all have a beer at the white house and forget about it.”?

    forget about it indeed. who did that benefit?

    obama and sgt crawley for sure.

    but who was hurt? not the above two for sure.

    what you are really failing to acknowledge, fern, is two part:

    – that police misconduct is commonplace in this society these days

    and

    – that obama steered the gates crowley confrontation away from a path that might have made a great difference in how non-famous, non-gates victims of police abuse are treated.

    bmaz is absolutely correct. obama’s suborning of this issue encourages further police improper misbehavior against citizens who have done nothing merit police “sanctions”.

  51. bonkers says:

    Gotta head out and will check back in the next day or two, but appreciate the debate…seriously. I do hope the focus stays on the real enemies, namely the DLC/Blew Dog Dems as evidenced by the healthcare nonsense, and a little more slack cut for those who, I think anyway, are obviously trying to move more in the directions most of us here would prefer, namely Obama. Peace.

  52. JamesJoyce says:

    http://www.ongov.net/Sheriff/contact.html

    Abused Persons Unit……………. 315 435-3092

    I would suggest a call to the abused person’s unit, about an abused person, “by police,” might send a message as to what is de facto abuse of power and overkill buy a “fucking shithead” in uniform…….

    To serve and protect? What?

  53. wavpeac says:

    When people follow laws and structure paranoia IS dialed back. Right now no one in this country trusts the legal structure of our nation. Laws are being applied willy nilly. This has been going on a long time but we trusted that a majority of the time we had a constitution to protect citizens…we believed that we at least had a chance at justice.

    We all trusted that Obama was going to come in and put this structure at the fore front. At least I hoped he would fundamentally change the current law breaking, the broken structure beneath the worst elements of our country. He says good things, does some good things…is probably a decent and good human being but he is demonstrating a huge character defect. He doesn’t trust the law or the structure either and has decided instead to “act on his own” to make decisions about what will be prosecuted and what won’t be prosecuted. He is using his bully pulpit to force outcomes instead of role modeling a trust in the system. This only contributes to a further break down of the system and to more paranoia. Same thing occurs with a very loving parent that doesn’t enforce the house rules for fear of upsetting things. House rules need to be just and then they need to be enforced…without emotion, anger, or power and control.

    The key to healing America is not in Obama’s wonderful intelligence or personality…it should be in his ability to enforce and create a structure that American can trust. He must put the rule of law, our constitution back in the position of higher power. The first leader able to do this will be exhibiting true leadership. The thing that should bring all american’s together…the thing that Martin Luther King Jr did was that he make our constitution the higher power. I believe that God exists in our constitution. (this is debatable…but bottom line is that it’s the constitution that made this country stand above the rest).

    Obama is behaving like a codependent…like an adult child of an alcoholic…(just like Clinton did). This country is sick with this dynamic and until we can “see” the problem, we cannot fix it. He’s over compensating and we are enabling it when we act as if the he is so “special”. Great leaders don’t have to be “special” in a system that trusts it’s laws.

    We are a nation of addicts…drugs, sex, alcohol, food, money.

    This dynamic is a symptom of our sickness and of course it is present in who we choose to lead us in representational government. We cannot change what we don’t accept.

    • JamesJoyce says:

      ” …bottom line is that it’s the constitution that made this country stand above the rest.”

      The video of a mother being tazed after a traffic stop by Sean Andrews is such a violation of constitutional law, under the color of law. Checks and balances…. if you survive the assault and battery because you questioned the “”legitimacy”" of the traffic stop? After searching for a cell phone and none is found? Is the abuse of power exhibited here, the type of abuses which the founder’s sought to curb, when creating the constitution? Abuse of power by authorities to protect the abuser’s cop’s self interest, is more disgusting. At least with a King, abusive behavior is the norm! Manipulation and deviation from the rule of law enables tyrants! The purpose and intent of the constitution was to protect “individuals” and the governed from Tyrants!

      “We are a nation of addicts…drugs, sex, alcohol, food, money.”

      All instilled by corporate design, brainwashed listless conditioned minds?

      Obama, like a codependent? Seems he is more the thinking recovering alcoholic dealing with the deleterious effects of decades of of denial, opposed to perpetuating a dysfunctional system which rape Americans of life and liberty, as corporations and lobbyist get rich off the misfortunes, brainwashing of the listless and brain dead.

      Bottom line failure to follow the law has lessened our status. The biggest threat to our liberty are corporations and control of government by corporations, in the lust for endless profit who ignore and manipulate law unchallenged and guys like Sean Andrews……

  54. wavpeac says:

    No recovering alcoholics follow rules…He is not allowing the system to work. There is apart of him that he exhibits…as good as he may be that says he thinks he knows better than the law. This is a problem.

    • JamesJoyce says:

      “No recovering alcoholics follow rules….”

      Any “takers” on this assertion? Speaking from some experience, an alcoholic never recovers. The addiction is only arrested made dormant by abstinence. The genetics of addiction? For a drug abuser, the “pain” of abuse/trauma/ptsd anesthetized by the use of drugs is then overcome by the addictive nature of many drugs, and kills them. All instilled by corporate design! The failure to follow “rules” during detoxification from drug dependency, will perpetuate the addiction thwarting real freedom, resulting usually, in premature termination of life. Your quoted statement is without merit!

  55. wavpeac says:

    if they are truly in recovery they learn to put aside the idea that they know it all, they surrender to the reality of the disease and instead develop a structure of life that does not depend on their perception alone. (because due to the disease and denial they can no longer trust their own perceptions). Recovery is about surrendering to the laws of nature (which include the disease of alcoholism) Some might call this higher power or God. But at any rate, recovery means developing the humility to recognize that we are not “special” enough to overcome the disease without help.

    The flip side or coda side to this…the alanon side might suggest that the alanon has the same perceptual distortion but the coda believes that they can control the outcomes of others. They see the disease and think they can control it in others. They think that through love and kindness and then eventually power and control they can make another human being “live right”. They have the same distortion which includes denial about the nature of the disease. It is my opinion that Obama is operating out of this distortion. It’s a theory and not a fact, of course. My perception of obama is that he thinks he knows “better” than the law can provide. He has inserted himself through his administration and put himself above the law in regard to torture, fisa and this small incident. I think it’s becoming part of a pattern. He’s making the decision that it’s best to move forward instead of enforcing the laws.

    Recovery on both the coda and alcoholic side has nothing to do with abstinence and everything to do with accepting reality. It has to do with a set of beliefs and perceptions about the way the world is AND a chemical reaction. On the coda side its all about perception.

    It is part of recovery that alcoholics learn to surrender to the rules..that they learn that there is a higher authority than themselves. (whether that be god or the laws of nature or the nature of the disease).

  56. Boston1775 says:

    9/11 officially jettisoned the validity of the Constitution.
    Homeland Security is ALL.
    Spend time in any town with a mosque: we have become the surveilled, the harrassed…the enemy.
    Why?
    We live in a town with a mosque. Our children are friends with people who go to a mosque. Our friends speak Arabic.

    And who bought the equipment for the armed forces in our small towns to follow our teen agers with such pinpoint accuracy?

    The Department of Homeland Security.

    We became the hunted when WTC Buildings 1,2 and 7 were demolished.

    • bobschacht says:

      9/11 officially jettisoned the validity of the Constitution.
      Homeland Security is ALL.

      No, it didn’t. It was not 9/11 that did it, it was an administration composed of one part panic-driven mediocre public officials, and one part neocons in search of an excuse to wage war on Iraq and other places, who used fear to demonize the defenders of the Constitution as “weak”.

      The antidote is a public campaign freeing us to be Americans again, calling on our better selves rather than appealing to the worst in us. As Ben Franklin said,

      `Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’

      Bob in HI

  57. wavpeac says:

    My only point is that I see Obama’s failure to enforce the constitution and let the legal system work, as part of a pattern developing that leads me to question his whole method of leadership. It doesn’t matter why so much as matters that we see it and refuse to walk over the ledge with him. The rule of law is a higher authority than the pres. His job is to enforce the constitution not be a great “king”.

  58. Boston1775 says:

    And now, to really get the young people involved in Homeland Security, we have the Intelligence Community Scholarship Program:

    http://www.fas.org/irp/congres……html#1016

    Scroll down to Sec 1043: Intelligence Community Scholarship Program
    This amendment of the 1947 National Security Act gives high schoolers full tuition, fees and other authorized expenses as determined by the Director of National Intelligence.

    In one of these programs, The Stokes Program, these lucky kids not only get all of the above, they get PAID salaries and full time benefits.

    ————————————

    Currently, CIA, DIA, and NSA participate in the Undergraduate Training Program, also known as the Stokes Program. This program targets high potential high school seniors and high performing college sophomores majoring in areas critical to the needs of the participating agencies. If selected for the program, students receive a government salary and full benefits as well as tuition and other educational expenses.The service obligation for this program is one and one-half times the length of the funded educational program.

    http://www.intelligence.gov/3-…..ties.shtml

    ————————————–

    And what do our kids have to do in repayment for all of this?
    Work for the agency for twice as long (Stokes, one and a half) as they received the tuition.
    That’s all.

    So they get paid to go to college. Tuition-free. Fee-free. Plus anything else the Director of Intelligence deems worthy of our tax dollars. They get full benefits including “other expenses.”

    And for families like mine, who are committed to higher education in a FREE country, we now have to pay for our kids to be policed in class.

    I mean, what are those salaries and benefits for?

  59. ezdidit says:

    The million dollar legal settlement will be paid by – tada! – taxpayers.

    It won’t change until the officer is in jail for disorderly abuse of power and fined by percentage pay reduction.

  60. Argonaut says:

    [the now departed] bonkers wrote: “Look, it quite possible a year or two from now, I’ll be saying, “damn, you were so right!” but so far things are moving in a very positive direction (the economy) on many fronts. We can build upon this momentum and really bring it home if we stay together.”

    The idea that you can whistle a happy tune to make the banking crisis go away is a fine example of Kumbaya, if not outright denial. Perhaps that explains why bonkers is so sensitive to “unfair criticism of Obama” on this site.

    Kudos to wavepac at 155 – my feelings exactly. I got a call from Obama’s people last summer, asking for money. I said I would vote for him, but no money. Why not, asked the fundraiser? Because his vote on FISA was simply horrible, I said. And his subsequent performance in the legal/constitutional area has been even worse. He’s paving the road to hell, folks.

  61. rincewind says:

    How ’bout the recent incident of an iconic American “detained” (at least briefly) by police for the crime of not carrying ID while WALKING DOWN THE STREET?

    “He was acting very suspicious,” Buble said. “Not delusional, just suspicious. You know, it was pouring rain and everything.”

    The police officer didn’t believe he was who he said he was:

    “OK Bob, why don’t you get in the car and we’ll drive to the hotel and go verify this?’ ” she said she told him. “I put him in the back of the car. To be honest with you, I didn’t really believe this was Bob Dylan. It never crossed my mind that this could really be him.”

    I put him in the back of the car“; what would have happened if he had questioned her authority to put him in the back of the car and drive him away? Would she have tazed him? For walking in the rain at 5:00 in the afternoon without being able to PROVE that you’re one of the most famous people in the world?

  62. Boston1775 says:

    Fatster answered Jeff Kaye with this:

    Music was an intrinsic part of The Movement. We were united in opposing the war, the draft, oppression everywhere, and our musicians were right there with us. Our lives consisted of going to school or work, turning out for the latest demonstration or march, going home for food and to watch ourselves on tee vee, then going to a concert and blasting our minds with the music. Always the music, which reflected both our outrage and our hope to somehow achieve a peaceful future.

    —————————–
    Fatster’s right, there’s just no music for what we are experiencing.
    And harmonics work.
    So, we need music, we really do.

    And we need music companies that are not owned by the corporate oligarchs.
    Ya, I know.

    • fatster says:

      Thanks so much, Boston1775, for your confirmation. I did omit one essential thing in that list of activities- -showering to get rid of the grit and grime and, particularly, the damned tear gas after a hard day on the streets. Hoo boy!

      • Boston1775 says:

        The more I think about it, the righter you are…

        Music was intimately intertwined with the experience of losing JFK, his brother, Martin, the War, the bodies, the horrors. Music was in the background keeping us attuned, aware of the losses, the outrage.

        Our hearts were together when our music was playing.

  63. Mary says:

    Completely OT
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..QF6wkDW7oF

    Basically a story that Obamaco is ok with dropping the public option as a compromise to get a bill done.

    I don’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of what is going on, since the House bill is 1000 pages and I’m not a healthcare guru anyway. But basically the “feel” I am getting about where we are going is really bad and hopefully someone here or elsewhere in the blogosphere will dissect things and show me how wrong my feelings are.

    Then general take I get is that the main thing that people DO agree about on health care reform, that people should be able to buy into the public/gov insurance program by paying premiums (but not having to worry about not being a part of a company for negotiating power and not having to worry about pre-existing conditions) – anyway, that one aspect that most people do support is going bye bye.

    Along with this, there is a WH committment to not hard hit Big Pharma on pricing bc Big Pharma (which is going to be making out like a bandit with more madated coverage) will run ads in favor of of “reform” (that will let them make out like bandits) and will voluntarily cut a few prices some. So things people do not support in large (giving up negotiating power with pharmaceutical companies) are done deals, while the main thing they do want is now coming off the table.

    So what is it that they are going to get with reform? Is anyone on top enough of the 1000 page bill and the 11 dimensional chess to know what there is in any of this that is something worthwhile for people? With no public option and no tough bargaining by a big public option market maker, what is it in the “reform” bill that is all that great?

    • Petrocelli says:

      My $0.02 is that this story (AP) was put out to divide the left. If the final Bill does not include a strong public option, the Dem Party is toast for 16 – 20 years and they know it.

      The left should ( and Jane, nyceve, slinkerwink, et al are doing so ) use this to unify Progressives. This is the only way to end up with real change on all our issues, by 2016.

    • bmaz says:

      Mary, I saw that earlier and we have been discussing it backstage. I forwarded your question as a suggestion for a post by someone that knows the ins and outs of the healthcare debate a hell of a lot better than I do. I will post a note here if something is produced, but check FDL front page. In simplistic terms however, my understanding is that there are several very good things in the “reform bill” separate and apart from the public option. For instance “community rating”, which basically means that all people are in the same rating pool, so you are not excised for pre-existing conditions. Also prohibition of health insurers from the practice of “recission” where they void policies of people that suddenly have substantial claims. And a provision for subsidies to low income people. All together these are very valuable; BUT the effectiveness of all depends on reigning in the escalating cost of care and the only real weapon for doing that was the availability of the public option to keep insurers honest and competitive. Without that, the rest arguably just mandates a captive customer base for the private health insurers to rape and pillage. So if there is no public option, it is truly fucked.

    • fatster says:

      Some are now saying it’s been a bait-and-switch all along. If 11-dimensional chess is being played, then it’s not being played very well. Of course the insurance companies are fighting the public option tooth and nail and they are doing so since a public option (Medicare is an excellent model) would have the public flocking to it in droves. And, then, *poof* go the insurance companies.

      Instead of putting the people’s money into an economical health care system that will directly benefit the people, we have to be cowed (including being insulted, badgered and beaten by Rahm “Fucking Stupid” E.) and relent and, instead, pay far more of the people’s money directly to the insurance companies. They will have to try and regulate the insurance companies, which are going to fight each and every attempt to do so.

      Somehow I missed why they didn’t just take Medicare as the model and run with it. Seniors are quite pleased with it–which, may be part of the problem from the insurance companies’ perspective–and it could be expanded to include the younger aged, non-disabled populations without much fuss. Expanding Medicare has already been done–In 1972 with passage of the SSDI program which opened Medicare to the younger-aged disabled. I remember a discussion I had with claims reviewers at the time. They reported no problem with adjusting to the expansion, only occasional bemusement with, say, pregnancy-related services which, of course, they had never seen with the 65-plus Medicare enrollees.

      But, you know, let’s keep it complicated and confused. Our insurance companies are next in line for a huge infusion of US taxpayers’ dollars.

    • fatster says:

      Now, who in the world would want to give up all this waste for a government-run public option?

      “Health insurers in America allocate about $100 billion annually to administrative costs and profits, said Dr. James G. Kahn, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco who researches administrative costs. Doctors’ offices and hospitals spend roughly three times that much, $250 billion to $300 billion, on interaction with insurers – from filling out forms to doing appeals.

      ‘”In this county we are spending nearly $400 billion a year basically to move money around,” said Kahn, who also heads the California Physicians Alliance, which advocates for national health insurance. “Every single individual in the Untied States is spending an average of $1,000 per person per year to move money around in the health care system.”‘

      More.

  64. Evelyn says:

    Here is an excellent film by Boiling Frogs on police out of control called “The Largest Street Gang in America.” Most of the beginning stuff people have seen but watch the second half for the reactions of the police when an undercover reporter tries to ask how to file a complaint.

    http://vids.myspace.com/index……d=54162036

    The British writer Richard Seymour posted this at his great blog, Lenin’s Tomb:
    http://leninology.blogspot.com/

    • Boston1775 says:

      Evelyn,
      This is a must see. Thank you.

      http://vids.myspace.com/index&…..d=54162036

      And as to the question of music: I’m talking about the music industry and the changes in what is promoted. Our hearts were in protest together when music played back then. The kind of protest music that is needed to do that again – SEE VIDEO ABOVE – is asking to be written, performed, produced, and marketed.

      We need to promote artists with brains, souls and juicy righteous charisma. Do you know how many kids have said, just like in the video when police are attacking them: “That’s f*cked up. That’s f*cked up.”
      9/11 – That’s …
      War in Iraq – That’s …
      An Afghanistan pipeline? – That’s …
      Three shots into Tillman – That’s …

      With all due respect to the robotic, managed and handled singers who can pack a stadium and put on the same show time after time,
      it’s time for something about what’s truly happened to America.

      And that’s not going to come from me or anybody else keeping quiet,
      though I’m sure it’s time for me to shut up:)

  65. lduvall says:

    I would hope that this abused lady’s/mother’s case doesn’t stop here. It would be worthwhile having a “jury of her peers” decide if the cop’s actions were NOT abusive and do NOT warrant holding the cop and the police department, and the local administration criminally liable – if not financially so.

    The sheeple asked for it – I just hope amerika can be stopped and the USA brought back to what it was, not too long ago.

Comments are closed.