Will be out most of the day but wanted to leave a few quick links for you
Via Brutally Honest:
American Digest: Resigning from the Revolution
Not-About-Me-Gates: It’s not about you. It’s about “my PBS Special” you have repeatedly shilled while lecturing the nation and otherwise. Almost makes one wonder…Am curious to hear the tapes and discover who the cowards are
Pelosi: Doesn’t care if she’s unpopular. Boy, she hated President Bush when he said things like that.
Be troubled by this sort of thuggery. And by this astonishing number the press ignores. It, and the firing of Inspectors General who dare to look too closely at things, and of course ACORN’s shady way should concern us a lot. Thank God a few people in government are still doing their jobs.
Yes, you can: Dems, who have ample majorities in both houses to pass whatever they choose, say can’t do it without GOP covering their backs.
His virginity is interesting, but the smallest part of who he is in some ways. But in our culture, it’s SHOOOOOCKING!
UPDATE: Home for just 25 minutes, so here are a few more interesting stories and links, scattershot:
Muslims in “Democracy School.” Very Interesting
Perpetual Adoration: Making a comeback in Boston after 40 years. Adoration is where I’ll be at this afternoon for a few hours. It bears tremendous
good fruit.
Christian Martyrdom: It’s not just for history books; it happens today.
I wonder if she is Obama’s “Mother figure”: Michelle Malkin on the NY Times Magazine glamfeature on Valerie Jarrett.
Bookworm has a different focus on that same article:
“…aside from hearing effusive praise for Valerie Jarrett, the President’s consigliere, you also learn so much about Obama. Just on the first page, you learn that he’s whiny, bad-tempered, lazy, ill-informed, stubborn, a loose cannon, and, when it comes to strong women, submissive. (Oh, gee, just the qualities I want in my president.) “
Irony: Ted Kennedy, from his own sick bed, fights for Obamacare, under which policy he would likely be counseled to be a good citizen and die…were he not in Congress.
Obama likes to say “the Republicans would have us do nothing,” but the truth is, he just doesn’t want to hear other ideas.
Meanwhile, in the UK the Swine Flu Minister (is that like an Obamian czar?) is being blamed for chaos. The CBO is trying to tell us that Obamacare is a fantasy that will bankrupt us and Bookie ponders what we mean when we say, “if I’m ever dying…”
Nurse says she was Forced to perform an abortion. Obama’s “Science Czar” would say “so? What’s the problem?”. That’s part of the plan.
Or, to put it another way: “Useless Eaters” should not be allowed to affect the bottom line and should die.
And You should not be allowed to make sense of a thing.
Pursuing Holiness rightly notes that Catholic Hospitals will be spending a lot on lawyers, soon.
Five Reasons why: GatesGate Matters. It seems the big narrative, that the lady who called in what she thought was an attempted break in, did not bring up race until asked for a description, and then it sounds to me like she says “Hispanic.” Is it just me, or does the dispatcher sound a bit grumpy? As I said before – I think all three men involved, Gates, Crowley and the president could have handled themselves better. Victor Davis Hanson has related thoughts
Clarice Feldman asks: Just how smart is Obama, really? Hmmm…Can he fly a plane? Fred Barnes says Obama seems seriously lacking a sufficient background in economics. I should think common sense would be adequate. When you’re in a recession, you don’t raise taxes. Even Schwartzenegger and Angela Merkel have figured that out.
Opposite: Everything coming out of DC is the opposite of what they say.
Rep. Conyers: (paraphrased) What good is reading the bill? It’s a thousand pages long! Just vote for it!. Or, as the rest of the Dems say: JUST TRUST US. They used to jeeringly suggest that Bush was saying that, too. Hmmm…
The Great Climate Change Hoax continues, assisted by those who would rather you put your dreams away and not aspire to live as they do.
Oh, and…other not-so settled science.
A story About Bob Hope, convert (H/T Reader Jill)
Wish I could say I enjoyed the National Debt Road Trip, unfortunately I’m too busy hanging on for dear life while my cheeks flap around my cheekbones at 170 mph. And I was carsick on the 63 mph road trip. Love 1000 Penny’s work though.
That last line of the piece on Gates is a hoot! I think Professor Gates just lived the reality of “equal justice before the law”. See – it doesn’t matter if you’re a Harvard professor friend of the president. If you disrespect law enforcement, you’re going to be arrested! There’s a lesson for us all in there somewhere, if only the grievance mongers could find it.
Think of the position Sgt. Crowley has been put in by the president’s invitation. If he doesn’t accept – he’s clearly a racist. If he accepts, “without preconditions”, he’ll be used in a photo-op to support Gate’s/Obama’s position. Neither Obama nor Gates have apologized and Obama only regrets not having chosen his words more carefully. That is NOT an admission of guilt or regret for the slander Crowley has experienced. The president’s condescension and casual defamation of average Joes (the plumbers, the doctors, the police, and let’s not forget the faithful and the gun owners) is chilling. No, he does not have the heart of a servant – public or otherwise.
Norra bad link about “democracy school”.
I hope this won’t surprise you, I hope this in fact totally obvious, but I’m completely against the proposals for any kind of official recognition of sharia. I talk so often about how I’m an atheist & a liberal- well, I follow that through & am critical of Islam.
I think, though, that it has more to do with our links between church & state & failure to promote secularist policies of the sort followed in France, or for that matter in America where Muslims are very well integrated from what I can gather.
I know a lot of Muslims (do you?) The majority of them don’t actually seem to care too much for religion.
A family live next door to me who never attend a mosque & whom I can’t imagine going anywhere near one. In fact, the main problem I’ve got with those known to me is that they don’t drink & are uniformly social cons. You’d be surprised at how many British Muslims vote Conservative, which I find a heinous thing, but which I suppose you’d be keen on!
Yes, I think there is a problem when there comes to be a large number of them concentrated- they only make up 3-4% of this city, & I gather there are worse problems with patriarchy etc. in areas where they predominate. This, I believe, is because reactionary, authoritarian men are enabled to prey on the women, children, gays, doubters etc.
Because there are state-funded Anglican & Catholic schools, they say there should be Muslim schools, which this secularist views as horrifying. I think it’s best to have a secular state, yes. We should be making clear to these women that we’re on their side. I actually do think this is a task the left can accomplish better than the right if the left is true to itself. They are values that you don’t share, though!
If these women assert themselves, as in Iran, they can break the strangehold of the patriarchy & superstition. Daniel Pipes is right, it happened to us that our culture changed (for the better if you want my opinion) & it could happen to them.
They need to become more prosperous, to learn English, to get the women out at work & to leave their enclaves (which they are concentrated in partly out of choice but also because so many people in this country live in public housing so the state gets to shove people where it wants them, which if you really want to know my view I’m against).
Look at how brave, & for that matter beautiful, those Iranian girls were. Do you think some deranged mullah, who is terrified of women, can stand up to them for much longer? Not if we offer them support, now.
I quite regularly attack people on the left for failure to appreciate whose side they’re on. But nothing is impossible in this regard, seriously.
If you thought Islam was incompatible with democracy, why support these Iranian protestors in the first place? Yes, by all means let them break with their religious observance. I hope they do. But we needn’t dismiss people out of hand for being Muslims because minds change surprisingly easily if conditions are right, as has happened in the west. I wouldn’t listen to paleocons on the matter.
[I dont' know "a lot" of Muslims, but I know a few, and the ones I know are lovely people who just want to live their lives and raise their kids. They're not extremists who want to blow people up. When I write about THOSE sorts, I call them "terrorists" or "Islamofascists" not Muslims. -admin]
I’m trying to understand the last commenter’s statements. You think the government should close down private religious schools? That’s your idea of a “secular” state?
In that scenario, the state itself is the biggest threat to the ideals of liberal (small “l”) democracy.
Christian Martyrdom: It’s not just for history books; it happens today.
The Names of Pastoral Workers, Priests, Men and Women Religious and Lay Catholics Killed During 2008 — click on the “dossier of catholics killed while on mission”
The dossier includes a “Table of Pastoral Workers killed on mission between 1980 and 2008,” which states:
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – According to the information we have, in the decade 1980-1989, 115 missionaries died a violent death. However the number is certainly higher since it refers only to cases reported and confirmed.
In the period 1990-2000, according to our information, a total number of 604 missionaries were killed. The number is considerably higher than in the previous decade due to the following factors: the Rwandan genocide (1994) in which at least 248 members of church personnel were killed;, improved communications and quicker information from even remote parts of the world; the number includes besides missionaries ad gentes in the strict sense, pastoral workers who despite serious risk remained at their post to care for the people entrusted to them.
Between 2001-2008 a total number of 193 pastoral workers were killed.
In addition — To this provisional list made by Fides News Service, must be added the long list of many “’unknown soldiers’ as it were of God’s great cause” – as Pope John Paul II said. We look to them with gratitude and veneration. These are the unknown faces that without which the Church and the world would be greatly impoverished.
“To live in the belief in Jesus Christ, to live in truth and love implies daily sacrifice, implies suffering. Christianity is not the easy road, it is, rather, a difficult climb, but one illuminated by the light of Christ and by the great hope that is born of him.” (Benedict XVI, General Audience, 5 November 2008) (SL) (Agenzia Fides 30/12/2008)
Quite right, Anchoress. I’m glad you’ve realised that, basically, observant Muslims are actually closer to you than to me, from an outsiders’ POV. I’m quite uncomfortable with the stance they take on just about every social issue.
I’d rather they were more liberal, obviously. But I am registering that I like & agree with that article you linked to, & I hope you’re the same, which is what you appear to be anyway.
I think it’s fair to say that aspects of the Koran & of Islam can be criticised, just like the Bible & Christianity. One of the things I find objectionable is the way that religous ideas seem to be priviliged in debate & it’s seen as wrong to question them, yet we must because they are put forward as truth claims & influence policy decisions.
I find that belief in any set of ideas is rarely a private matter, especially for politicians.
Gina, I didn’t say what you attribute to me. I am talking to the British religious schools which are funded by the government. I think they shouldn’t receive government funding. If religions want to set up their own schools, it’s hardly my idea of a night out but I wouldn’t try to stop them.
I’m talking about things like this. This is also what the sharia courts thing was on about. We, in Britain, have set ourselves up for this & we shouldn’t have. (The key phrase in my post being “state-funded”).
As so often, we are getting tangled up in cultural differences. I think I’m reasonably well up on the US scene but I suppose no one in America has any reason to be bothered what happens on these islands
A secular state is one that doesn’t defend or attack religion, it is one that offers protection against oppression & violence & lets people forge their own lives in piece & belong to whatever organisations they want to join so long as they do no harm to others.
The French have a very good secular state in this regard.
Also, poor people expressing their views on environmental matters. But not in a way that the right will be too keen on.
We ourselves are witnessing utter shite such as the expansion of airports onto greenfield sites, even though this means blighting the lives of rural people who live in the flight path (& who vote Conservative without fail) which has attracted opposition from the right.
The Gates affair is being made into a racial imbroglio–courtesy of a President who stupidly spoke on an event he admitted he did not have the facts about.
However, to many of us living right near Cambridge, Gates’ comments sound more like typical Harvard elitist, arrogant, bullcrap.
And now the twisted liberal media seems to be taking the attitude that the cop did something wrong and that he and the whole Cambridge police force somehow need “enlightenment” on racial issues.
But it was the president and Gates who were racially profiling a white cop doing his job taking for granted he was a rogue or “cowboy” or redneck cop.
It is Obama and Gates who have shamed themselves, but you would never know it from the biased news coverage. It is they who need a course in race relations.
Just because people are Black doesn’t mean they can’t be racist (to think that they can’t be is a form of racism.) I taught in a mixed inner city public high school for almost 40 years. And when you let Black students sound off without fear of retribution, some quickly reveal how deep down, viciously racist they can be– easily matching whites in that departrment.
Another failure to provide a link- this might work.
Actually, race aside, the arrest of Gates was illegal. The police do NOT, in fact, have the right to arrest you for Contempt of Cop – they just do it all the time. I don’t believe race was a factor in this incident, but I’m really disturbed that people find it acceptable that being loud and “disrespectful” to ANYONE in this country will get you arrested.
You seem to speak with authority, Elizabeth Anne, on the legality of Gates’ arrest. Are you a member of the bar? I admit, though I have no legal training, I’m skeptical about your assertion as disallowing disrespect of the rule of law, of which police are the first responders, seems to have precedent (contempt of court). I admit I am disturbed that people can’t make distinctions between being loud and “disrespectful” to, say, a neighbor (which I think is also foolish), and a “cop”. Is there really no reason you see for making “contempt of cop” illegal, if it isn’t already? Just wondering.
I am not, but several people who are have outlined the several ways in which the officer’s behavior was illegal. As to your second question, the first amendment applies at all times. Where does making disrepect illegal stop, exactly? Calling an officer a bad name? Insulting him? Writing a letter to the editor complaining about his behavior? What about the people who make, rather than enforce the laws? To insist that subservience is required of citizens is the single most unAmerican thing I can think of.
Gates was a jerk, but his behavior was not illegal. Nor should it be.
Or to quote a federal judge (thanks to Andrew Sullivan):
“The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…
Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.”
Deacon John M. Bresnahan, of course blacks can be racist too. But I can’t blame a tired black man for initially presuming he’s being profiled and getting mad about it.
Gates may in fact have lost his cool, although the tapes released so far don’t show that. But as Elizabeth Anne says, that’s hardly a crime. And as for Obama having shamed himself, I can’t blame a black man for presuming racism when another black man is arrested in his own home for nothing more than getting mad at a cop. Obama is now trying to make peace all around. Shameful, eh? Or maybe it’s your lack of empathy after 40 years that’s shameful.
This is good. Now we’re getting some clarity. Your argument appears to be not about the legality of Gates’ arrest, but the constitutionality of the “disorderly conduct” charges leveled against him.
Here’s the police report to verify the charge:
The law enforcement personnel who were there and/or know Crowley would passionately disagree with you as seen on this CNN video:
Note that Kelly King says they would never support an officer doing something wrong (illegal).
You and Sullivan and the judge have a First Amendment absolutism not borne out by reality. There are situations and manners in which it is illegal to speak. It is illegal to yell “fire” in a theater. I guarantee, you’ll have a date with law enforcement if you fantasize out loud about taking the life of government officials or if you speak menacingly of terrorists activities. And when you get in the face of an officer investigating a potential crime, you’ll be arrested for disorderly conduct. Context matters.
We would agree, I think, that the First Amendment is fundamentally about the freedom to speak against the government, thus your concern about letters to the editor and opposing lawmakers is, I believe, unwarranted. But the rule of law – and the protections of it which sometimes require limits on speech – is foundational to American civil society (this is clearly spelled out by McCullough’s book, “John Adams”, and the HBO series based on it).
I love this Adams line from the movie: “A mob, even if it’s for you, is still a mob.” Something, perhaps, President Obama should keep in mind.
[Edited to insert links. When you post open links in a comment, it will automatically be thrown into the spam filter, because, well...it thinks the comment is spam. Here is a helpful tutorial on how to make links. -admin]
Western Chauvinist, it’s clear that Crowley was technically within his rights as an officer to arrest Gates. The challenge for you and the other Gates and Obama bashers here (including our sneering hostess) is to explain what good it did anyone for Gates to be arrested. He was creating a disturbance? What, he was keeping people awake in the middle of the day?
Crowley seems to be a very decent and good man. But he, like Gates, no doubt has an ego. His friends says he demands respect when he’s in uniform. Well love sometimes demands we lay down our own desires for the sake of others. Any cop, and especially a cop who teaches classes in racial profiling, should have had enough sense and enough feeling to defuse that situation by simply walking away.
Well Ken, I thought I made my case for the rule of law and the requisite limitations on free speech to protect it. That is the good which was done by Gates’ arrest. If you read Crowley’s notes in the police report, he seems aware that the arrest became necessary as a result of the audience witnessing the disorderly conduct of Gates toward police authority. He does not seem motivated by personal offense.
So, here’s a challenge for you. Why do you defend Gates’ bad behavior? He’s tired and presuming racism is excuse-making. If you had to break into your own house and were confronted by police checking out a possible crime, would you not be grateful for your alert neighbors and a responsive police force concerned for the safety of your property? Not if you are steeped in the victim culture of Gates and the American Left apparently. This is the bad done by victimhood. It excuses and justifies bad behavior, thereby leading to more. And it leads to an unseemly ingratitude for the mostly decent people and country with which we are blessed.
Anchoress, I do not get the “sneering” charge at all. Discourse is diminished by such attacks, Ken. Must you attribute maliciousness to those with whom you disagree?
Apologies for my link-challengedness, Anchoress. I’ve bookmarked the tutorial and promise to do better. Thanks for fixing.
One last point for Ken. Gates hopes this is an opportunity for “equal justice before the law to be a lived reality.” {my quote may not be exact word for word, but I’m too tired to look it up}. How about you, Ken? Or does being a tired, black, Harvard professor and friend of the president somehow make one more equal than others?
/no sneer intended
Bachmann blocks resolution declaring Hawaii to be Obama’s birthplace
Always a good laugh seeing birthers at work- also hilarious to read people like “neo-neocon” & see them fail to contain the monster they created in the comment threads.
Long sojourn in the wilderness for Republicans- even if Obama’s popularity is actually dented, I can’t imagine the “alternative” gaining traction.
Oh, goody. I get to try my hand at linking.
Yes – the right has a problem with birthers, dv. Not unlike your man Sullivan and his investigation into the parentage of Trig Palin. Or the Left’s (and some Right’s) problem with the 9/11 truther conspiracy. Or Halliburton, etc. It didn’t impede the Left from a takeover in America, so I think your predictions about Republicans might be overconfident. National Review discusses here.
You’re correct, though. Conservatives should not be focused on Obama’s birthplace as much as his apparent dislike of Americanism – something we’ve not experienced before in a president. He seems a big fan of Europeanism, which explains why you and Sullivan are comfortable with him. Actually… no, I won’t go there about Sullivan.
Has this thread been officially hijacked? Sorry, A.
[Hey, as long as you guys are having a healthy, civil debate, I'm not worried!
admin]
For a sick, tired old man, home from a long journey, Gates certainly had a lot of vigor to launch an attack on the policeman. I’ll tell you, if my house had been broken into within the last two weeks, I would appreciate the interest of my neighbors and the police force in securing my safety and the safety of my house. Obama and gates, on record, are notorious racists and race baiters, this was just act two in their play.
WC – I think we’re just going to agree to disagree on this one, as I passionately disagree that there’s ANY similarity between Gates’ actions and yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater. One puts other people in danger. Gates just called the guy a racist jerk. Moreover, there is a considerable body of case law that disagrees with you. I cited one example, but there are multiple cases, all of which claim criticism of the police, even loud and rude criticism, as protected speech provided that it does not become threatening. This is particularly true in Massachusetts, where the standard for disorderly conduct is very high, and was nowhere NEAR met in this case. So yes, I do object to Crowley’s arrest of Gates, not on the grounds of the consitutionality of disorderly conduct charges (because actions that DO meet the standard of disorderly conduct DO merit a police response) but because his actions did not meet the standard of the crime.
I’m quite certain the other officers there didn’t see anything wrong with Crowley’s actions: consistently the police believe they have considerably more leeway on these kinds of charges than they legally do. That doesn’t change the fact that it was, in fact, an illegal arrest.
Regrettably your link doesn’t work. I would look at it though. You see, as someone who remembers the tail-end of 18 years of Conservative government & has groaned under 12 years of government, I do in fact want the Republicans to return, under a small-government conservative banner, a limited foreign policy, & a focus on delivering more efficiently than the left.
I know what one-party states of the left & right are lke, very nasty. For what it’s worth, given that my leftism is far more to do with social liberalism than the economic side, I am also sure that Obama will start going way too far. You think he does so now, I don’t, but I agree that governments of the left always overreach themselves.
I did however vote for Obama (not literally, obviously, but you know) & can’t imagine not supporting his re-election.
I wouldn’t support a Republican revival until 2014, by which time they’d have hopefully found time to change. They’ll be back, but the likes of Bachmann will no longer enjoy prominence.
In my view, if Obama gets a second term, which I find likely, he will follow very social liberal policies such as legalising marijuana. In my daydreams, I imagine Republicans will accept this whilst challenging his overspending & statism, so they will be more free-market & almost libertarian.
I actually did vote Conservative in the last election I took part in because I am sick of this Labour government’s intrusions into our liberties. Yes, I’ll oppose them & move left once they’re in but the need for a change factor, & the fact that I’m not a hardcore partisan, means I can occasionally break ranks if circumstances demand.
Suffice to say that by 2014, if Republicans are socially liberal enough, I might find myself supporting them. Yes, I’m statist compared to you but I always look for small-state solutions if possible.
As for Sullivan I decided he was really going over the top in his attacks on Palin when he assaulted her over her interview with a running magazine, which any reasonable person would view as totally harmless.
I do, however, oppose her because I think she is ill-informed & doesn’t care about that fact. This was stated by the Hitch. He voted for Obama because he was satisfied that Obama’s policy matches his exacting requirements. You know about him. Although I am ambivalent about the original decision to invade Iraq (Saddam Hussein was fairly vile, but I don’t think he had anything to do with Islamism or terrorism & he was actually fairly secular) I don’t support withdrawal from there or Afghanistan until they can take care of themselves & won’t be living in fear.
Also this from one of my favourite journalists about the Afghan feminists. I know whose side I am on in this conflict.
Not bad- if only I could drop the sarcasm & silliness maybe all exchanges would be like this. But I don’t think I’m capable of being serious & weighty all the time.
“12 years of government”- 12 years of Labour government, I mean, from a party which has won 3 elections. The third, in particular, stemmed from the weakness of the opposition as opposed to any strengths the government might have had.
As for hijacking, surely the joy of a link thread is that it sort of goes all over the place. Focused discussions have their place, but not all the time.
Elizabeth Anne –
If you would like the opinion of this lawyer — who has 15 years experience in criminal defense, as well as a great deal of experience in Constitutional Law — the conduct by Gates clearly rose to the level of “disorderly conduct.” The only question is whether, when he engaged in such behavior, it was in public, since he was on his porch at the time. Now, when he was in his house acting like an obnoxious jerk, he clearly was not in public. The question is, when he continued being a jerk outside the house, on the porch, did that constitute being disorderly “in public” since it was observable by the passers-by who were “in public” on the public sidewalk?
Arguments can be made either way with respect to whether or not Gates was in public at the time. But no serious or reasonable argument can be made that he was not “disorderly,” for purposes of the disorderly conduct statute, at least as his behavior was described in the police report.
And let’s be clear about that behavior. Gates did NOT “just call the guy a racist jerk.” His conduct went far beyond mere speech, and it went far beyond one or two insulting words. In addition to his insulting hate speech — which is absolutely constitutionally protected (notwithstanding speech codes at universities like Harvard) — Gates engaged in conduct which constituted unlawfully interfering with the proper duties of the officer. That is, he impeded the officer in the officer’s duties of trying to determine whether a break-in had been committed, whether this obnoxious person in front of him was who he claimed to be, and whether there were any bad guys in the house who might be endangering both the officer and Gates.
When the officer left the house, and Gates continued this conduct on the porch, it continued to impede the police in their duties and created the risk of observers on the sidewalk becoming unruly themselves. As such, not only were the other officers having to deal with Gates, but they now had to turn their attention to the crowd to make sure they did not start becoming violent. It is not that rare of a case where a riot has broken out when someone is arrested.
By his conduct, which went far beyond mere protected speech, Gates was creating the risk of further unrest. Inciting a riot, or engaging in conduct that created a risk of inciting a riot, is not protected speech.
Hitchens links didn’t work.
On about Palin
Supporting Obama (“not a capitulationist”, a claim borne out by his actions, a fact which some hate but which I agree with).
Bender, Again, the appeals court and the high court have disagreed with that assessment in other cases. Being angry and insulting to the police in public (much less on one’s own property) does not constitude disorderly conduct. And if gates’ behavior constitutes “inciting a riot” then Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olberman should both be in prison for considerably more public and inciitng statements. (The crowd, by the way, consisted of “six or seven people” rubbernecking from the sidewalk.)
Being angry and insulting to the police in public (much less on one’s own property) does not constitude disorderly conduct.
Gates’ conduct went far beyond that, as I said. Unfortunately, in criminal law, we don’t get to pick our own facts. We don’t get to ignore inconvenient facts and then declare that they do not rise to the level of the offense. We have to deal with the evidence that is presented. And that evidence, at least as stated in the police report, is that Gates went far beyond merely being angry and insulting.
Very cute video.
However, to be fair, GW Bush had a Republican Majority in both Bodies in Congress for 4 years, between 2002 and 2004. Spending after 9-11, even without defense funding in the GWOT, was required.
Also, Democrats controlled spending for the last two years of his Presidency, after the Bush Administration had responsibly lowered discretionary spending.
One of the big problems, that President Bush repeatedly stated, was the increases in Mandatory Entitlement spending, that his Administration had no control over. Thus, why he spent so much time trying to reform Health Care.
It isn’t a big deal to make these notes I suppose, yet it is amazing how many believe the Republicans were in charge of Congress for 8 straight years. That is part of the problem, having a lack of basis.
It is clear the Bush Administration was working to keep many very moderate – liberal leaning Senators with big egos supporting the essential need to fight the GWOT.
Western Chauvinist, I think you have it backwards. The law is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. Again, what harm did it do for an audience to witness Gates’ anger, ,and what did arresting him accomplish that just walking away wouldn’t have? The cops are supposed to apply the law wisely, with discretion.
and I don’t excuse Gates’ behavior, I just think the guy’s only human, and as a black man had reason to presume racism — intially that is. If Crowley is telling the truth — and of course Gates disputes that — Gates lost his cool and acted badly. But again, I can empathize, and he committed no crime.
And I try not to attribute poor motives to those with whom I disagree, but the following from Anchoress sounds like a sneer to me: “Not-About-Me-Gates: It’s not about you. It’s about “my PBS Special” you have repeatedly shilled while lecturing the nation and otherwise. Almost makes one wonder…Am curious to hear the tapes and discover who the cowards are.”
Western Chauvinist,I do have some hope that good will come out of this. Of course a lot of people will just be hardened in their belief that cops profile all the time or African-Americans play the victim card all the time. But if the “beer summit” is a success, that could provide a powerful image of two guys who still disagree on who’s at fault, but are willing to forgive and respect each other. After speaking too bluntly at first, Obama has now spoken well of them both.
Bender, you have your facts wrong. Crowley himself says that Gates only stepped outside in at Crowley’s request, because Crowley couldn”t hear his radio with Gates yelling. And if you have the slightest evidence that the looked like it could get violent, please post it.
Our Lady of Hope…I love it! I did not know that about Bob Hope.
Hey dv,
I just got around to reading your Hitchens link. Well – skimming really as more than one “sick joke” about Palin is enough for me. I am a Hitchens admirer – at least of his intellect, although I think he is badly mistaken in his indictment of religion. He falls into the trap of many on the Left of believing that because something is not perfect (most practitioners aren’t), it is not good.
Anyway, I’m fascinated that you went back to October 2008 to cite an article in which Hitchens claims that Obama/Biden are not “capitulationist”. Really? You don’t believe Obama is a capitulationist? I thought that pretty much defined his foreign policy. ‘If we ease up and give-in to our “opponents”, they’ll like us better and cooperate.’
After talks with Russia, where the Russians gave up nothing, after not antagonizing the Iranians with words (just words!) of support to the freedom fighters, after supporting the mini-Chavez in Honduras, etc. you believe that? It’s like we’re from different planets sometimes! Or maybe “capitulationist” means something else to you.
I’m not saying his policy won’t work (I don’t think it will, but I still pray for a good outcome) – it’s just that after the events since Hitchens article, capitulationist is exactly the term I’d use.
Here’s something for you to answer. The Obama administration has ordered the news-ticker running in downtown Havana, Cuba, turned off as it annoys the Cuban dictatorship. How is that not capitulation?
Apart from Obama’s persistent & quite right presence in Afghanistan, I take the view that in fact, any “support” for the Iranian opposition would have been counterproductive. Ahmedinejad would love a chance to talk about how the opposition were western puppets, & Obama shouldn’t have given him a chance. I actually think his approach was more effective than some gung-ho declaration.
I have found Larison helpful on this matter. He speaks here for example.
He further delivers a rebuke to this meme about an apology tour.
We are indeed of very opposing points of view. I did not by Michelle Obama’s remarks about how “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” as anything outrageous because I got from them an affirmation of what America is & an indication of why some very peculiar people indeed, me included, regard it as a great country…
Obama knows, or should know, that nowhere in Europe would he stand a chance of being where he is now. It is one of the regards in which I admire America that it extends opportunities to people & he actually does strike me as someone who values that, odd as it may seem to you.
You’re right about the Hitch being a member of the “decent left”- so am I, & I knew he was never really a neocon, he was always on the left & he made his stands for left-wing reasons. You shouldn’t be surprised if, therefore, he disagrees with your views, & he has yet to turn against Obama.
The Hitch wouldn’t hesitate to express disappointment, but he thinks Obama hasn’t done anything majorly disappointing. I really do think he is doing better than any imaginable Republican would have faced with these challenges.
These people who talk about Obama being Bush II- they do this because he has kept a lot of stuff, which was in fact worthwhile & supportable. But he has made alterations, certainly.
Of further interest is that there’s another Hitchens, Peter Hitchens, a paleocon who is Christopher’s brother & a good mate to people like Patrick Buchanan. Just imagine the arguments they have at family get-togethers
Not sure what to make of Cuba- I wasn’t actually aware of anything specific Obama had done in that regard actually. I am always looking for some new shite to get my head around.
Crowley himself says that Gates only stepped outside in at Crowley’s request
So Gates WAS outside. Like I said. But they are not “my” facts at all. They are what they are.
So, Bender, it’s your position that after ascertaining that Gates lived in the home, Crowley was right to require him to step outside, then arrest him? That makes no sense whatsover. Cops are supposed to protect citiziens, not take advantage of them.
The true empathy for the treatment of any group is wanting to see them treated equally and not be given a “pass” because of misplaced sympathy. That is the “empathy” I learned teaching (very successfully, I might add) in a public high school with a large Black population. And in my years there the worst racists I came across were not Black or White
kids or White Conservatives-but White Liberals (most of whom fled the school within a few terms) And you know what?? The Black kids could virtually smell the racism on the White Liberals.
And it is interesting that the lawyer of the woman who phoned in the 911 (and who clearly comes across as not a racist on the tape) has said that her client opined that Gates was clearly disorderly out in public and deserved to be arrested.
And as for the media coming up with the insulting term “birthers” for those who merely want to see the original documents of Obama’s birth. This is another example of the media’s soft Liberal racism. There is a whole long list of documents all other candidates of the past (White, of course) the media has gone bezerk when they didn’t get them (and finally got them). This president is probably the most documentally immaculate president ever–Yet the corrupt liberal media ridicules people who just want to see original documents–not the third hand claims of people who very likely could be media or political hacks. Where’s the cynicism and serious digging the media used on Bush–and others (even Kerry).
He asked to speak to Gates outside. The officer left the residence. Gates stepped outside. The officer did not “require” him to step outside. Gates stepped out voluntarily. Once outside, he engaged in conduct that was provocative, hostile, noisy, agitated, turbulent, and combative. There was a crowd nearby. Gates’ conduct in disturbing the prior peace of the neighborhood created the risk of leading others to become agitated.
Instead of being able to merely get the necessary information from Gates peacefully and painlessly, and then leave, Gates made the whole episode much more than it needed to be by his conduct because now the police had to consider the effect that his conduct might have on the gathering crowd. It is not speculative — riots have broken out over less. Instead of being able to leave, the police now had to turn their attention to making sure that the crowd remained peaceful. All because of Gates’ behavior.
The officer warned Gates to calm down, that he was creating a disturbance. Gates ignored him and continued. At that point, assuming for the sake of the argument that being outside the house but still on the property consituted a public area, police had probable cause to believe that Gates was disturbing the peace and engaging in disorderly conduct in violation of Mass. G.L. c. 272 § 53.
Having probable cause to believe that Gates was in violation of that law, they had lawful grounds to arrest him.
Cops are supposed to protect citiziens, not take advantage of them.
Hence the reason that the officer didn’t simply take his word for it, but wanted to make certain that this obnoxious person in front of him was the actual resident, and not some bad guy claiming to be the resident, but actually had the resident and his family tied up in some back room.
The riot angle is pure, wild speculation. I asked you for evidence, you have none. Even Crowley hasn’t said he was worried about the crowd getting violent. And it’s also pure, wild speculation that Crowley was merely requesting and not requiring him to step outside. When cops ask you to do something, they’re telling you to do something. They’re speaking in their official capacity, and Gates could have been arrested for non-cooperation if he hadn’t complied.
I have asked here and elsewhere what Crowley accomplished by arresting Gates that he couldn’t have accomplished by walking away. No one has an answer. Gates and Crowley both acted from ego instead of from common sense, and both paid the price.
Bender, by the time Crowley asked Gates to step outside he’d seen his I.D. and contacted the Harvard police. It’s also a little unlikely a short, skinny guy in his late 50′s who walks with a cane had tied anyone up.
As for the offense, Mass. Model Jury Instruction Criminal No. 14-1, which pertains to disorderly conduct under Mass. G.L. c. 272 § 53, provides –
The Commonwealth must prove the following elements in order to convict the defendant:
(1) he had as a purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof; or
(2) engaged in fighting or threatening or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
(3) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act, which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
”Public” means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access: among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.
Tumultuous behavior is conduct which may be characterized as involving riotous commotion and excessively unreasonable noise so as to constitute a public nuisance.
These instructions are derived from Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287 (1967).
So, looking at the facts as applied to this case law and these jury instructions, a very good case can be made out showing that, by his overall conduct, Gates recklessly created a risk of causing public inconvenience.
A case can also be made out showing that, by his overall conduct, Gates engaged in threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior.
A case can also be made out showing that, by his overall conduct, Gates created a hazardous condition which served no legitimate purpose, namely the risk of the crowd becoming unruly.
So, in three separate ways, Gates could be shown to be guilty.
Would Gates have been found guilty if the case were to go to trial? I don’t know. But the question is irrelevant.
The relevant question is whether there was probable cause to believe that Gates was in violation of the law? There was. Consequently, there was lawful authority to arrest him and charge him. That the charge was later dropped is likewise irrelevant to whether or not probable cause to arrest existed.
The answer to the question of whether Gates’ behavior rose to the level of tumultuous subjective. The answer to the question of what Crowley accomplished by arresting Gates that he couldn’t have accomplished by walking away is objective, and I can only assume that’s why no one will answer it. You’re applying the law on a technicality against common sense and common decency. Cops are supposed to use discretion, and Crowley didn’t.
You’re applying the law on a technicality against common sense and common decency. Cops are supposed to use discretion, and Crowley didn’t.
Yes, I’m applying the law to a legal situation.
And Crowley did use his discretion – he used his discretion to arrest someone whom he had probable cause to arrest.