Moreover, for black people, this is the kind of issue that tends to cut across lines of class and politics. I would say that this is the sort of thing that angers upper middle-class black people even more than it angers anyone else, because they tend to be individuals who, by society's lights, are very accomplished. They deeply resent being lumped in with the mass. And more than anyone they resent the whole "when you're black, you talk to the police like this" routine. Obama has lived as a member of that class for a large portion of his adult life, or he's had some concentrated exposure to it--the black strivers roll deep on the South Side. It's not shocking that he was pissed.
One other thing. I'm already seeing stories where reporters are shocked--shocked!--that a guy who thinks that fathers matter, and that kids should be told "no excuses" by their parents, actually would be disturbed by the Gates' arrest. It's the stupidity of dichotomy. Two ideas can't occupy the same brother's brain at the same time. It's against the laws of press coverage.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I'm sure most people have already seen this because it was on Sullivan's blog, but I think McWhorter definitely makes that point about this cutting across class lines and politics:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/mcwhorter/archive/2009/07/22/gates-is-right-and-we-re-not-post-racial-until-he-isn-t.aspx
Looks to me that McWhorter can get his thoughts together. This piece seemed rambling--it also rehashes an attack on Cornel West that is unnecessary and crude. (No need to get into West's move to Princeton; little to say here, though, that tenured professors often don't write anything at all. Summers' insistence on "academic" work was absurd, racialized, and short-sighted. Professors do more than write scholarly books. West is a great teacher, brings cache to a school, and was the most-sighted academic in his field at the time of his firing.)
Anyway, McWhorter's recent move to the left has been intriguing to watch. It is almost as if his nose has been opened to the realities of the real world.
Yeah, I don't agree with a lot of what Cornel says, but how is he a racebaiter? Has that term come to mean any progressive who talks a lot about race? For whatever it's worth, I never thought of Cornel as insincere.
Cornel abused his tenure but he is not a racebaiter. I have followed him closely for many years and just saw him a few months ago at a black church talking to a crowd of 99% black people and his only really angry words were about the gospel of prosperity which is replacing the old civil rights/social gospel style theology in many black churches. He is always careful to speak about the importance of white "brothers/sisters" as he calls them both in his own life and in his struggles to raise up all people.
And he's been that way his entire career. In the early 90s, when I was at Howard, and Afrocentricity was the rage, Cornel was the one critiquing black nationalism. He is a lefty, no doubt. He does believe that race plays a crucial role in this country, and he says it constantly. I don't agree with his Obama critique. But Cornel has always brought a multiracial critique to bear, to the point of nausea. I don't get that slam at all.
I wouldn't say Gates abused his tenure. He did what many high-end professors do: moved toward writing popular work aimed at a broader audience. By that standard, most of the top professors at Harvard are abusing their tenure. And Harvard, like all universities, generally welcomes it when their stars seek a wider audience. Who objects to their faculty getting more famous?
What Larry Summers was urging West to do, basically, was to write more insider work, more incomprehensible-to-outsiders academese. That's not a demand he was making of the other 19 University Professors (the absolute top of the Harvard food chain), and most importantly Summers didn't do it diplomatically.
@Ta-Nehisi Coates. Academics invented beef! Another college story: one of my many jobs was waiting at a popular faculty restaurant. The conversations I overheard was like Dallas + Falcoln Crest x All My Children. This person was on the review board that rejected my paper. This person talked some mess about my thesis at a conference 10 years ago. This person stole one of my grad students. This person block me from getting tenure. So and so is always on sabbatical but never publishes. I looooved it!
Oh, and I think they're talking about West's terrible rap albums.
Terribe those rap albums may be. But have you heard Helen Vendler, of the Harvard English department, reading Shakespeare's sonnets on CD? Another great mind, producing something that isn't really about her performance skills per se.
*cant get his thoughts together....
dmf: How did West abuse his tenure? I mean please tell me how he abused his tenure. First off, at Harvard he actually advised students for their dissertations. A lot of professors there and other elite institutions don't even do that. Moreover, he taught undergraduate classes, and large lectures at that.
It is wholly unfair to say he "abused his tenure." He can do things in his private life such as public speak and record CD's. Many tenured professor don't publish ANYTHING after they get it. West has a slew of academic works.
Moreover, why are we calling this man by his first name? Do you know him? AND WHY ARE PEOPLE CALLING Professor Gates "Skip"? They don't know him and some who do, still don't call him that. I mean do people call Chomsky "Noam"? Or Zizek "Slavoj"?
Let's take this up in open-thread. We're moving off topic, here.
Just to clarify, I'm not a huge fan of McWhorter and I certainly don't agree with his politics. I just found the jaywalking incident interesting, and I thought it definitely got at TNC's point.
As I noted at the other link, this is a great line coming from McWhorter:
"When I first started writing for the media on race, despite my initial reputation as a hidebound "black conservative" I made sure to point up how important this problem between blacks and police forces was, such as in this now ancient editorial. It was the first time I got a raft of hate mail from white people--they only wanted me to write about things black people were doing wrong."
No shit, John ? McWhorter's been coming around in the last year or so. Used to drive me nuts, but I'm starting to like him. On Bloggingheads with Glenn Loury, McWhorter was the Obama guy and Loury was rather sadly for Hillary. One of McWhorter's points was that it would be good for the country - black folk and white folk - to just see (and hear) a black guy running things and to have a black family in the White House. The acute lovliness of Michelle and the girls and Baracks relationship with them aside, the President's response to this question at the press conference was another vindication of McWhorter's hopes. Obama was measured, but he was obviously eager to consider the question in full.
More generally, I love the way Barack deals with the press - there's very little of the bullshit dance, given his position of course, and he's kind of switched the game from the old one of canned answers to exposing just how canned the questions tend to be.
PRESIDENT OBAMA CO-SIGNS. Sorta.
Now I know President Obama co-signed for Professor Gates in last night’s prime-time Press Conference. He has since had his spokesperson Robert Gibbs walk that support back a bit. I feel the President, Gates is his friend. He admitted he was biased before he answered the question and we all give immunity and have blind spots for our friends and family. My dear, lovely, wife has a cousin in jail for drug dealing who she swears is wrongfully convicted. But when push comes to shove she wouldn’t let him keep his things at our house for little while. By the same token, I bet your bottom dollar there are two places the President, nor the rest of us, would take Professor Gates. 1. To a fight and 2. To talk to the police.
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/nation/the-jailhouse-conversion-of-henry-louis-skip-gates-jr/
PRESIDENT OBAMA CO-SIGNS. Sorta.
Now I know President Obama co-signed for Professor Gates in last night’s prime-time Press Conference. He has since had his spokesperson Robert Gibbs walk that support back a bit. I feel the President, Gates is his friend. He admitted he was biased before he answered the question and we all give immunity and have blind spots for our friends and family. My dear, lovely, wife has a cousin in jail for drug dealing who she swears is wrongfully convicted. But when push comes to shove she wouldn’t let him keep his things at our house for little while. By the same token, I bet your bottom dollar there are two places the President, nor the rest of us, would take Professor Gates. 1. To a fight and 2. To talk to the police.
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/nation/the-jailhouse-conversion-of-henry-louis-skip-gates-jr/
In watching Obama's response I wondered is the phrase "to jimmy the lock" or to "jimmy something open" a racial reference? Like paddy wagon refers to rounding up drunk Irish dudes.
I thought the transcript read 'jigger.'
He said jigger and jimmy. Sidenote: any fan of "Party Down" knows you should be careful when you say jigger.
I'm smiling here, because I think it's actually sign of the fact that he was mostly raised by old people! He also uses "gin" as a verb a lot ("they've ginned up opposition..."), too, and that seems to me to be of a piece with both "jimmy" and "jigger." I wound up living with my rather fuddy-duddy mother and virtually-living with my undeniably grandmotherly grandmother by myself for a good few years (sibs in colleges, etc), and I say a lot of things that people of my generation just don't say! "Six of one, half a dozen of the other," comes to mind, as does "X has more Y than Carter's has pills!" (Ask your grandparents, kids).
Or, alternate theory: It's a Hawaiian thing. Note that the man calls flip-flop "slippers." (Or I think he does. Maybe I just read something about that somewhere else? I'm old now, too).
Another long-gone construction in English: saying "have you got...?" instead of "do you have...?" which is what most people say now.
I do the same thing with using old expressions and words like middling, plumb and journeyman. It came from my father who liked them as much as I do, and my mother whos favorite expression describing a lazy person was, "As usless as tits on a boar." They also made sure that I understand units of measure like peck, bushel, rick, cord, boardfoot and gross.
Dad grew up on farms that still used draft animals and lacked plumbing. He liked to say that he had, "seen man go from the outhouse to the moon."
I don't even use the g in middling. Fair t' middlin' (apparently I'm not big on o either)
@DeMiurge
That is the way I pronounce it as well. I like 'Middlin' good' as a competence discriptor as much as 'fair to midlin'' for describing quality.
Numb as a hake?
Wow. Now that one, I can't even begin to fathom how/why/under what circumstances that would come up!
I'm thinking that no matter how each new generation tries to change and influence the language by by creating it's own way of speaking it with jargon and slang, we all end up using some of the previous generations colloquialisms just because they're so good. You really don't have to be brought up by older folks. As you get older you just become more articulate and just pick up usages that float around in the culture. Oprah and Jon Stewart are masters of picking up and using old phrases and putting them in verbal italics. Nice to hear.
I always thought his grandparents were the source of his famous "arugula" reference. When I first heard that, I thought it sounded old-timey more than anything, not elitist.
It's not just the Chicago striver angle
Obama was at Harvard Law just around the time of the LA riots. Almost inevitably, he spent a lot of time discussing the (same damn) issues (perhaps in Gates' living room -- not sure when Harvard hired Gates).
I was thinking something very similar - there's a very good chance that Obama personally knows Gates, so is also coming at it from that perspective.
Plus, Obama was himself a black university professor living in a community with police not always known for their racial sensitivity. I know a lot of black students at the University of Chicago have gotten hassled by the University Police because they thought the students were people from the neighborhood who wandered in (while white and Asian students never get similarly hassled). And that's not even counting the CPD... So, in a lot of ways, this was something that could easily have happened to Obama four or five years ago, when he was a professor and state senator.
It's a good point, but I'm pretty sure Obama had gone back to Chicago by then. He graduated law school in 1991, and the LA riots were definitely in 1992. (I remember where I was during that, and when it was.)
Gates also moved to Harvard in 1991, so Gates and Obama may not have met there.
It's no so much the Obama-was-a-student-eating-pizza-with-Gates but more that these two guys have an institutional connection and lots of mutual friends who eagerly introduced them long ago. Charles Ogletree, for a start. Obama and Gates share a bunch of goals, both politically and in terms of their Cambridge network.
(And some cop did arrest a man whom the President calls "Skip." Yeesh.)
You're right about that... he was at Sidley Austin... I guess in Chicago, in 1992.
Was trying to figure out where he wrote Dreams (in a last attempt to make history make more sense than it does).
;-)
(I'm morbidly curious about the date on his notorious Cambridge parking ticket).
Pretty likely Gates was involved with some of Obama's earliest fundraisers.
The best part is when he points out that Gates showed his ID as proof of being in his own home and was arrested anyway. Reminded me of Obama publishing his birth certificate on his website but still hearing from the press (some of the people sitting in that room) about folks questioning his citizenship.
Ding, ding, ding. Oh how I wished our President would have pulled out his "super sonic jedi mind trick words" and said this exact same thing- so this birther nonsense would be put to rest.
I find it hard to defend a guy like Gates, because I think he's an ass under regular circumstances and so I am sure he was an extra special ass that particular night. TNC has referenced this before but growing up in the hood you learn to just do the flies and honey thing with cops and its just easier that way.
That being said, Obama saying any of us would be irate in the same situation and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly was the understatement of the night.
So what? Being an ass is not an invitation to arrest nor an excuse for you not to defend him. There is no sub-clause in the fourth amendment: it doesn't say 'except if you are an ass...'
Neither Obama nor Gates has spent all that much time in the 'hood, so why is this relevant? At all?
A recent encounter with the Chicago police was an important reminder to me. With many police officers, escalation can be both very easy and very fast. 10pm on a Friday night, quiet bar, and Chicago's finest enter and close the place down. Now, I don't know the place, I just know that we had just ordered our pints and we were ordered to leave immediately. I said, very consciously moderating my tone, that we were not going to loiter but we would like just a few minutes to finish our beer. Very quickly we were told to shut our pie hole and get moving. I know at that moment if I had answered in anyway sharply, we probably would have been in a world of hurt. It was hard to just swallow our pride and beer and be off. Police often perceive any push back that they get to be a direct and immediate challenge that they need to answer with overwhelming authority and force.
Now, imagine the police showing up at your house, behaving something less than the pinnacle of politeness, and I can easily see how this could escalate without the person in question being an ass.
I didn't say being an ass was an invitation for an arrest. Completly without qualification I said Skip Gates is an Ivy League, over privledged, thinks he is better than the common man because of that, asshole and it pains me to defend him which I did because it was his own home and the cop was an idiot.
As for flies with honey, its common sense which you perhaps find irrelevant. When it comes to police these days don't trouble trouble unless trouble troubles you. I get stopped for speeding a lot but 9 out of 10 times I walk without a ticket. I turn off the car, open all the windows before the cop gets out of his car, show my hands on the top of the steering wheel, use my best yes sir, no sir, im sorry sir. Be an ass in that situation, get a ticket, maybe two. Period.
Again, this dosen't excuse the idiot cop for arresting a man in his own home.
Miranda was a dirtbag - rapist, kidnapper, armed robber; ultimately died in a bar brawl. But he forced the supreme court to codify rights we now consider inalienable.
Gates was in the right; he was a jerk, but so what? He used his power and fame to show how the Cambridge police violated the law and his rights. It is precisely because he is privileged that he can assert his rights and hopefully make some positive changes for the rest of us.
Telling everyone - even those who have the power to effect change - to just suck it up smacks of apathy and fear.
TNC, insightful comments.
I was initially a little concerned that Obama's answer would be too divisive, too much painting the Cambridge cops as villains. Now I'm coming around to the view that it's great to have a president who is honest about where he stands on this. It shouldn't always just be the activists and commentators who get angry. I'm curious to watch the fall out. And after reading Gates' interview at The Root, I'm hopeful that he, as indignant as he is, can do something powerful with this.
As Paul Butler says on the Times' page: "The real tragedy is this: Professor Gates and I, with our excellent lawyers and middle-class privilege, will be just fine. That’s not true with many of our young brothers." http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/the-gates-case-and-racial-profiling/ I hope Gates can shift the focus from him to the bigger issue.
I'm wondering, having not watched much of the coverage: will this issue distract from what the press conference was supposed to be about? Did Obama make any progress on health care last night?
The thing about this entire thing is that, although folks of Gates' ilk talk about racism and racial disparities, it is usually something academic or rhetorical. Gates' rage is not that he was a black man, but that he was THIS particular black man. I watched him on the CNN special last night and it was clear that he was leaving out information--e.g. what he was saying to the police, his behavior. Indeed, the officers overstepped, but so too did Gates.
A little over a decade ago, Ellis Cose published a book called RAGE OF A PRIVILEGED CLASS. It was about the Afrostracracy and how they face racism and racial barriers in their personal and professional lives. What happens in that text is that, although many of them are from the block, they seemed to be shocked that once they reach CFO at a company, for instance, they are still targets of profiling. I don't know why. These kinds of happenings bring them back to the real world, albeit momentarily.
The hoi polloi of negroes do not have Lawrence Bobo to sit at the police station with; they do not have Professor Ogletree to defend them. Let's hope this case leads to substantive, collective changes for the mass of people.
Honestly, I find this case to be much ado about very little. That this might eclipse the health care debate is sickening and wrong.
This morning on Washington Journal a white lady from the South called and complained that cops were a problem ACROSS RACES. I believe this is the case, too. She provided anecdotes about how in North Carolina and South Carolina policemen treat all people like shit. They feel themselves to be above reproach.
I have a huge class chip on my shoulder. At college (I was young), I specifically did not associate with the AA children of doctors and lawyers and professors on issues like this, thinking, "What are you complaining about? Go throw yourself on your 400 thread count sheets and cry while you hold your Cornell West posters." Though I'm still largely prejudiced against the born-wealthy, I've softened enough to be able to see a bit more clearly. When you say, "Indeed, the officers overstepped, but so too did Gates," that may be true. At worst, Gates overstepped the bounds of civility, maybe common sense. The officer overstepped the constitution. It should be a big deal every time that happens.
Also, as I think about it, it may actually be worse when it happens to bougie strivers, even if they can afford to talk themselves out of it. It's a moving of the goalposts, like the Birther nonsense. These people are doing everything society has told them to do to earn respect and security. This involves not only excelling at whatever you do but also the stress of code switching, and it's not enough?
You make a good point, here. I don't think it is worse for Gates et. al--remember, injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere (sorry for that but it fit).
I also take the point that I might have been too hasty to make an equivalence between Gates and the officer. While I am not sure that the officer did, indeed, break a constitutional imperative, there is a certain power imbalance in these situations.
janinedm: Did you see CNN's (woeful) Black in America last night? They did a segment on the very people who you did not associate with last night and it was such a glossing of the fraught dynamics between people like you and them. It was really interesting and problematic.
You referring to Malaak Compton?
Oh god Soledad O'brien is the devil. Also, off topic but somewhat related - would someone explain to me why there was a commercial for "Good Hair" movie during this special? Really CNN? Really!??!
I had figured the arrest had made it a 4th Amendment issue.
I missed the CNN special. I usually like that sort of doc when it's on a completely alien subject, like Mormons or something...
This is very true and something I raised yesterday. However, not all folks of Gate's educational pedigree behave this way. As I said before, Gates is part of the "Our kind of people" crowd and they are a whole other entity of black folks separated from even the regular upper middle class folks like my parents and the Obamas. My question is will Gates use this opportunity to address the very real problem of racial profiling that is going on everyday. My guess unfortunately is no.
Yes, it does seem like this issue of racial profiling by police was not at the top of Gates' mind before police profiling happened to "someone like him." I used to work in the service class in Cambridge and waited on a lot of Harvard professors and students. Their sense of privilege and superiority made them not easy to like. That said, even if Gates' motives are selfishly arrived at, the end result of bringing more attention to the problem could be good.
Gates didn't overstep. He's allowed to hoot and holler all he wants. This isn't Iran.
One point that isn't being made enough is how the cops have just universally become more aggressive across the board with everyone. Some of these cops are undereducated clowns on a power trip. You top that with the fact they have been hyped up on this war-on-drugs, war-on-poverty, war-on-crime, zero tolerance, tough-on-crime bullshit for the past 20 years and you have a serious problem. You give these guys a gun and badge, and they think its a license to kick ass and take names. They see themselves as urban warriors instead of peace officers, and it shows.
And everyone suffers. Whites had no problem with cops getting more vicious, more aggressive to fight crime when they were fighting the Negroes. But that violent attitude and zero tolerance spirit ends up hurting their children too---it's not as if cops can just turn off the switch when its a white kid. As so often, racism has a way of harming the perpatrators just as much as the targets.
It's still worse for minorities, statiscally and anecodotally. As a black man, I've seen it in my own life. But aside from focusing on the obvious race angle of this story, I think it would also pay to have a discussion about how out-of-control the police have gotten just in general over the past 20 years, and how police tactics and strategy should to be modified to make them officers of peace. This de-escalation can only benefit all citizens.
It's interesting to speculate that this increasing aggressiveness and corruption reflects decreasing social mobility.... certainly the first glance at BBC's comparison between nations' social mobility scores seems to track the respective ability of police to make headlines for themselves.
I don't disagree about the militarization of the police. But, as I keep telling my suburban friends and rural family, I live in a neighborhood where 80% of the young men have been picked up by the police. In most cases no charges are ever filed. There's just no way you can convince me that would be tolerated in a white suburb or small town.
In Philly I think of former mayor Frank Rizzo and his baseball bat - I hear some whites who grew up here, to this day, talk about how Rizzo really was the best mayor because he fought back. It's sickening.
You're right, but it's WAY worse for minorities. In the wealthy, very white suburb in CA I lived in for part of high school, the cops were constantly harassing us kids. But they never beat anyone or actually took them in. There's a big difference.
A couple of things about this. First of all, everytime I think I've gotten used to how stupid and clueless and insulated the press is, they manage to push through the floor.
Secondly, I happened to be on well known liberal web site last night. Any cherished notions I had about liberals and race should have been crushed by the primaries, but I gotta say, it was still tough for me to see so many so called progressives upset with the President for not giving some mealy mouthed answer on the Gates question. They wanted him to punt on the question so as to appease the right wing and not take the focus off health care. It was kind of nauseating (yeah,like I said, I'm still naive).
It is unfortunate that they don't think harder about the historical roots of Progressivism -- a lot of the political power behind the progressive movement came out of calls to reform a political class and civil service that had gotten particularly corrupt during the gilded age.
The parallels are striking.
You might at least agree that it was unfortunate timing for that particular question? That it did steal some thunder from the intended subject matter?
Not saying it wasn't an appropriate question to ask the President, nor am I disagreeing with your point on the progressive lament.
He knows the turf... really well. Republicans _think_ they know the turf.
Lynn Sweet knew he knows the turf.
Wow, you're saying he knew he would get the Gates question? Every day, I feel more and more naive.
Certainly it contrasts with Sanford's last presser. Nothing to report, just that if you like to watch deer caught in headlights, that's the video du jour.
Speculating... just speculating. But Lynn Sweet has been covering Obama for the Chicago Sun-Times for a long time.
It was also interesting that he almost fumbled the call -- some weirdness in the transcript about which journalist he was supposed to call on. I don't think I'd have noticed Sweet's name if it hadn't been for that blip.
Nb. Obama and Sweet don't have an entirely cozy relationship -- she's been a good journalist and pretty hard-hitting. As such, it's very doubtful that the question was planted. But he could likely predict her interests, and she knew very well that she'd get interesting copy on the question.
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure he wanted the question. Of course everyone expects that this is a losing issue. Which is why this may be sliding toward a cheesy political horror movie for the Republicans: "you KNOW you shouldn't open that door."
What strikes me most on reflection about this incident is not the incident itself, which really is a rather minor injustice in a world filled with horrors on a daily basis, but how it strikes a chord with history that reverberates and amplifies it as a signifier.
And then there's the perturbation--geez, do we have to deal with this kind of thing--again? Everything else in the world going on, health care for so many thousands who unlike Gates do not have a University provided health care policy, and this stuff--someone I know--geez, this gets old.
I do like that Obama also spoke to this being an issue for Latinos as well, and the history goes back just as long. Anyone who wants to read a great bit of history should check out With His Pistol in His Hands by Americo Paredes, about Gregorio Cortez, the incident in which he was involved during the first years of the 20th century, its context going back to the days of Santa Ana and the Alamo, and the subsequent reaction both in the press and the Texas Rangers, how Mexican Americans were treated by academic historians well into the 20th century, and the Corrido that rose up about the incident in South Texas and all through Mexico.
As I said the other day I'm all for police reform but the idea that "One point that isn't being made enough is how the cops have just universally become more aggressive across the board with everyone." is just wrong. I'll leave it to the historians here to fill in the long haul from mercenary sheriffs to a more professional class of cops but overall this is a literal manifestation of the long arc of justice. Do we think that a white president would have been asked about Gates at a press conference on healthcare? Is this a good/bad thing that it came up?
They are getting in to Gates/profiling right now on Diane Rehm/NPR.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The wheel of justice turns back at times. Civil services get reformed and begin to rot again.
"Do we think that a white president would have been asked about Gates at a press conference on healthcare? Is this a good/bad thing that it came up?"
As we say on the internet: This.
Also: the long haul from mercenary sheriffs to a more professional class of cops - this, too.
the idea that "One point that isn't being made enough is how the cops have just universally become more aggressive across the board with everyone." is just wrong.
Without any links or stats to back me up, I still completely disagree with you. I've got to ask, where have you lived the last 20 years? Because, it doesn't seem like it's been the United States of America. Re: the long arc of justice, I see it as three steps forward, two steps back. See Carrington + ellaesther.
Ok, I'll grant that in my reply to dmf I wasn't very clear (this is the problem with "this" as a form of communication), but I was agreeing that the policing of our communities is better than it once was (I mean this in the long-term sense, not necessarily comparing this decade to the last, or this year to last year, etc. I of course can't speak for dmf), and also agreeing with what I understood to be the point of dmf's rhetorical questions, to wit: It's hard to see if it's a good or bad thing that the Gates thing came up, because (to my mind), as annoying as it might have been last night and today, in the long haul, having a Black president discuss racial profiling as it affects a highly respected intellectual figure who happens to be Black -- is a good, ultimately.
So, all that, to say this: Always happy to be agreed with, but I'm not sure what you're referring to here ("See Carrington + ellaesther")! Please elucidate...! I'm a bit slow today!
ee, that was how I took your reply, and I agree with you on the Prez. As for perm &carr's replies this is part of what stumps me about our exchanges here. Ignoring folks seems rude but when the replies are either too simplistic to advance the conversation or bordering on willful ignorance and or just hostile I don't really know what else to do. Would appreciate any suggestions from the communal wisdom, thanks.
Sorry all, I'll try to do better in the future. I'm at work, and today I don't have the option to take as long as I need to really comment gracefully.
I'll bite my tongue (fingers) unless I actually have the time to go beyond personal anecdotes and impressions. I'll try and do better.
Again, my apologies. Terse is no way to comment, and I'm sorry I spoke when I couldn't speak completely.
With regard to my reference to your and Carrington's respective comments:
ellaesther = three steps forward
Carrington = two steps back
When it comes to our police municipalities and their procedures.
In the spirit of our good host maybe you could check some history/facts and get back to me. Having some other people agree with you doesn't always make you right.
I'm afraid that I am too e-illiterate to get the "this" in ee's reply.
Oh, but I explained when I went on and on in my reply to permazorch! Mainly, I agree with what I think you were saying. But given all my lack of clarity today, I think I'd better go get coffee before getting into anything else!
Just made a huge, linktastic response, but I'm not sure it will post. This has happened before, where I worked at it and was rewarded with static.
dmf, I will try to do better. You're right. Our host and the rest of you deserve better. I'm sorry to have been a pain, and please bear with me.
pz, no worries i was just wasn't sure where all of the venom/attitude was coming from. live and learn for all of us
I didn't watch last night. I think these monthly primetime press conferences, while somewhat refreshing in the context of what we had for eight years, are becoming a bit much. I still haven't watched the video, but I read the transcript, and see nothing divisive in the text. People who are going to react poorly are already among the divided.
As to the whole Gates thing, what I've believed all along is that a lot of this depends on how quick he was to identify himself. I don't begrudge him his right to be pissed that he was in the situation he was in, but I assume that the situation could have been largely avoided if he were to prove identity when the cops first arrived. That's not to be read as a defense of the cops right to arrest some dude simply on the basis of him not respecting the badge in his own house.
Geez, I really couldn't disagree more about the pressers. I think this sets a great precedent for both future Presidents, and for his claims of transparency and accessibility. The right-wing meme is that Obama's a question dodger, and it's going to be flung at him in 2012. When it's demonstrated that he's answered on the order of 3000% more questions than the previous administration, that meme will fall flat. It's dangerous, in that he has a larger chance to gaffe, but I still do believe that he wants to show that he's accountable to the people.
In terms of whether they have to stop everything on every network, that's another question. I think the networks are annoyed cos the traditional deference to the President amounted to (asstimation) 5-6 hours total, say, for a Bush term, and we're on track for 48 hours for an Obama term. The four 'major' networks should set up a gentleman's agreement that only one or two cover each presser. Cable news has got this covered.
In terms of whether it's too much for our citizens, I find that incredibly jaded. If they don't wanna watch, that's fine. I rarely watch the weekly YouTube-side chats. Doesn't mean I think they're 'too much'.
Mind you, I don’t think the president does a poor job. I just don’t know how effective these events are anymore. They don’t get widely reported on, and the ratings drop with each successive press conference, so the idea that Obama is effectively taking his message to the people is less and less true as times goes on. What does get reported on at any of these news conferences tends to be procedural issues (i.e. Did the White House and Nico conspire on what question was going to be asked on Iran?), what’s not asked (i.e. No questions on Iraq or Afghanistan), or the odd question which has nothing to do with primary topic of the event (i.e. Obama’s smoking or, in this case, Gates). When I say that they’re too much, I mean that they happen so often that they stop feeling important, stop feeling like they’re about anything. And the way they’re reported on the next day only seems to confirm that impression.
I hear you. I have to admit, after I wrote my comment, I reflected "Is more really more?" and so I agree that in reality, "probably not."
I'm just apt to feel that 'diminishing returns' equals 'pearls before swine'. I honestly believe that O wants to foster greater citizenry participation in government - not against government, or about government, literally 'in' government - and that more pressers fosters this goal. When I hear -yawn-, I get indignant.
I was interested to see Howard Fineman buy in last night to "he was boring" meme. What rot. First, changing the health care system in this country is HUGE. I want to hear from the POTUS about this. I am not interested in "shining city on a hill" rhetoric but I am interested in hearing, as Obama said last night "what's in it for me." I thought he was pitch perfect, in that his focus was on making the status quo scarier than the change. Usually its the other way around, or that's what his political opponents would have you believe.
Obama is also his admin.' best salesman for their policies. Who would you rather see, Biden, Sebelius? I don't think so. Not communicating with the American people, using all the tools at your disposal, is the quickest way to kill health care reform, especially when the opposition is screaming its head off (the newest line is Obama reform will quite literally kill you, especially seniors) and pouring millions into paid media and congressional coffers.
Generally speaking, for the White House, POTUS pressers are not about making news but sending the message. Reporters of course want to make news hence the Sweet/Gates "ripped from the headlines" question was certainly expected by the WH press office. My fave part was "I'd be shot." So deadpan, so funny.
While they are not so much about making news, they are about making THE news. And it's true, the press conference was talked about on every news and newsy show yesterday. The lede? In the last minute of the press conference, the black president called the white cop stupid! Stop the Presses!
How convenient that, just as the GOP is completing it's minority death spiral on Sotomayor, Obama gives them a new target with which to prove that they don't have a clue about the lives of minorities. They can continue their outrage and horror over the victimization of the white majority.
Mind you, I think Obama was perfectly sincere, but IMO the decision to express himself fully on this issue was a political decision.
The 'coup de grace'... Bravo. I hadn't considered that... especially in the context of Sotomayor. If true, my estimation of Obama, already fairly high, just got raised a few notches.
If I follow, political in that he's trying to bait the GOP? That would be a jedi-mind trick...
I'm guessing we will see some "Joe the Cop" interviews on Fox.
You called it:
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/cop_who_arrested_gates_not_sorry_072209
Totally didn't think about it this way. Maybe Obama has made the calculation that every day the GOP/FoxNews/TalkRadio axis spends talking about race and how the white man is under attack, is a good day for his political prospects.
And he's probably right.
Well it probably helps that this is one of his areas of Legislative 'core competence.' He knows the political angles on this in his sleep.
I'd be surprised if he wasn't able to pull in a couple favors (and poker chits) from the Chicago and Illinois police who worked with him while at the state legislature.
No... the Republicans are going to have very hard time resisting their impulses.
"Mr. Mouse, may I introduce you to Mr. Cheese?" said the mousetrap.
I tentatively agree with your point. Notice how he kind of snapped out of what looked like boredom when this question was asked. I wouldn't be surprised if he, Axelrod and Jarrett game-planned for this, sensing that this would be a chance to divide and distract the right as it would further expose racist attitudes and soak up some of the time they had planned to spend on trashing health care reform. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but Obama did seem ready and eager to talk about the situation.
Remember his legislative biography. He was 'gaming' this one in the mid-90s. I'd doubt that they even called this play... just started on the motions.
I guess I'm not giving him enough credit, then! Barack Obama, the Peyton Manning of presidents.
I think that we give Obama short shrift when we say his honest answers to questions are motivated by political tactics. I think he thinks his opinions are reasonable. That belief in his own reasonableness, and our ability to see it, is all the motivation he needs to speak his mind.
I also think that his message to the police is the same as his mesage to fathers, "Do what is right and act responsibly."
Whether that's true or not. I can't see how it's going to be good for Healthcare reform (the purpose of the press conference) if the media is focused for the next few days on this story.
That assumes that maximum media focus on the healthcare struggle is beneficial to chances of passage.
That I kind of doubt.
A fair point. But I think the maximum coverage of what is actually said with regard to healthcare is beneficial to passage. Right now, the socialism nonsense is really gaining traction (there's a poll on Facebook that asks whether you want a Government run healthcare system). I think the more people focus on what the proposal actually is, the more support it has.
Seconded. Media coverage has mostly been negative, despite all the unprecedented progress. Media Matters puts this in numbers:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907220012
Certainly the quality of coverage could use a boost... but the quantity?
I think they're getting it wrong enough already.
Which was supposed to be the point of the press conference. To take the message directly to the people. Instead, the people are going to be inundated with coverage of the black president calling the white cop stupid (even though that's not what happened).
Inundated? Very few networks are going to give this equal billing with healthcare by time, not even close.
..and the whit backlash angle is a political plus for Democrats.
I don't think a single White House staffer is the least bit worried.
Um...a day has passed, and...I told you so.
It's Friday they're just glad to have something new to say and it's still not on equal billing with healthcare... wish it was....
I was pleasantly surprised that it's being discussed widely but it can't last and it certainly can't hurt healthcare.
Look, I'm on Professor Gates' side here all the way. And Obama was right to use the word "stupid" to describe the behavior of the police in this incident.
That said, there's a very real danger that this single word -- "stupid" -- will overshadow everything the President said about the need for real health insurance reform, right now. The President gave a forceful message that the status quo of health insurance in America is harming people. That's the message we need to be hearing about today, to keep the pressure on the health insurance lobby. Hearing the President's message on this is the only way those of us (over 70% of Americans) who want health insurance reform will win this battle.
But my guess is that the next 24 to 48 hours on CNN we won't be hearing about the details of health insurance reform. Instead, all the heat will be on Obama's use of the word "stupid."
As important an issue as racial profiling is, health care is at least as important, right?
That may well be true, but this is the kind of situation that ends up so blown out of proportion that viewers, unless they actively harbor resentments, will probably tune out of the media overkill. You can basically concede the Fox News audience to this, but they aren't reachable anyway, by and large. Meanwhile, Obama and Rahm can apply the pressure in Congress as the media is distracted by the Gates comments. Obama made his case for reform, calmed a lot of fears, and tore down the opposition in his opening comments at the presser last night, which is probably all that most viewers tuned in for before they got bored with the media's inane questions and Obama's long answers.
As any political consultant will tell you, what is said at a presser is nowhere near as important as what is said about the presser the morning after.
The fact that the media will treat the "stupid" quote as the #1 issue, instead of health insurance reform, is a huge huge win for the insurance lobby. The lobby was looking for ways to get heat off of the reform packages moving through Congress (hence the GOP saying "slow down" over and over again). Gatesgate has done the work of the lobby for them.
To try to recapture the discussion, Obama will undoubtedly issue a statement any minute now clarifying his use of the word "stupid." That clarification will be bracketed with statements repeating the need for health insurance reform. It won't help -- the media will stay right on "stupid."
The headlines, in order, on CNN.com right now:
1) Sarah Palin
2) Gatesgate: Obama says police were "stupid"
3) Mayors, rabbis arrested for corruption
4) Obama says health care change is necessary
My answer to this is just look at No. 1. The nets were probably going to fade away from health care coverage anyway. And, on top of that, the coverage of health reform, until Obama's presser, has been heavily distorted toward the negative side of things. Obama himself will keep it in or near the forefront simply because he's the president, and he'll be out there speaking about the benefits of reform.
I can't exactly say "I told you so," because I predicted the clarification statement would happen "any minute now," but it took Obama about 36 hours. Anyway, here you go.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/obama-expresses-his-regrets-on-gates-incident/
Let's hope that Gatesgate turns into a productive moment.
And I really hope that the media does its real job by talking seriously about health care, the biggest legislative issue since the Iraq War resolution.
Sergeant Crowley airs his views. It's interesting, but does nothing to dispel the general impression that Gates behaved poorly, but that Crowley had no more substantive reason for arresting him than "contempt of cop" - that the arrest was intended to teach Gates a lesson.
Mouse, meet cheese.
It occurred to me that this might be a head fake, but more because it looked like the healthcare reform movement was coming apart at the seams and the Dems need a moment to regroup/retool. While the press and the far right/freeper contingent talk about the "race card" for a few days, Obama and the Dems can get their act together.
It's already been reported that the press coverage of healthcare has been overwhelmingly negative - maybe Obama's tossing them a squeaky chew toy to occupy them for a bit.
I've learned to never take this guy's moves at face value. The kingpin just castled with his rook and lost a pawn...
We want our black heroes to be non-threatening and innocuous. When the President rightly expressed his disgust with the Gates' incident he became the person that many people fear. The angry black man. Mr Obama is our President and he has not even been given the courtesy of addressing injustice without the media going into hyper-drive. If this is happening to him, how is it supposed to be any better for the rest of black America?
Interesting... your comment actually makes me think that 'stupid' was a great word to pick... as opposed to racist. It's a strong word, for sure, but it's one that most Americans use every day in some context or another. It's a short-hair down from 'damn', in that it expresses disgust without a whole lot of anger. Sure you're right that some people will react to O as 'angry black man' for the comment, but maybe 'perturbed' will be the mass perception. And that's a good thing.
As people have pointed out, his words were very carefully chosen, probably even his colloquialisms.
He was very, very, careful to distinguish the issue of "stupid" -- arresting a 58+ year old man with a cane on his front porch -- from the issue of race.
Guessing from his work in Illinois, he's going to push hard down the old progressive line -- excellence, police reform, professionalism, and leave the particular issue of race 75% unsaid.
Oh, absolutely. "Stupid" is the most neutral word of disapproval possible.
Also, people understand "stupid" as describing actions as well as people. People who aren't generally stupid can do stupid things, can be stupid on a particular morning, or whatever. And the most generous reading of Sgt. Crowley's behavior is that he made a boneheaded move.
Saying someone did something racist is generally taken as a claim that the person is racist, across the board. Maybe that's not an accurate description of how racism works, and I certainly don't believe it, but that's how the term is popularly understood.
Actually, because racism is above all, really stupid, it was the perfect word.
Actually, because racism is above all, really stupid, it was the perfect word.
The President is nothing, but prudent and "stupid" was a good word. But I am watching the "news" at this moment and most of what I am hearing is criticism of his wording. The President still is not being allowed the courtesy of speaking as a person of conscience and of color. Let's face it, we are mostly preaching to choir when we comment here.
The inability of people to hold two things in their minds -- or rather, the expectation that people will be unable to hold two things in their minds -- is sadly not limited to the press corps. The zero-sum mentality informs us every step of the way, and we have to beat it back at the door come morning.
I think it was Obama at his best - smooth, sincere, funny - and forcing America (gently) to face the facts of what life is like for too many people.
I know I have to stop at some point being amazed at the difference between him and his predecessor, and start holding him to the highest standards, but I spend some portion of every one of his press conferences in amazement at his brains, savvy, coolness and wit. I realize I had given up on my country - 8 years of Bush and I thought we would never have a smart president ever again.
You know, there's another point worth making here, though it may seem like a strange moment to bring it up. It’s going to look, to some of you, as if I'm trying to blame Gates for what happened, so let me just say the outset that I'm not. I blame the cop.
That said, in the cop’s original report he writes that Gates immediately called him ‘racist’. Let’s assume that’s true, not because I think it is true, but because it leads us somewhere interesting. I think it's worth at least reflecting on the fact that there are few charges in the world more inflammatory than that of racism, even if you’re pretty thick-skinned. Of course, no one likes to be accused of being oppressive, or a bully in any way, but… -- Look, I'm used to being accused of misogyny on a pretty regular basis, and of course this may say more about me than it does about anything else, but I suspect that most guys get accused of it, and most of us are pretty used to it. Sometimes it's true, and I have to deal with that; sometimes it isn't, and I just shrug it off. But I'm rarely, as it were, counter-offended -- that is, upset by the accusation. I just think of it as part of the ongoing conversation between men and women.
Racism is different. For one thing, it's an accusation that gets thrown around much less frequently, at least in my circles, and when I do, personally, get accused of it, it's almost always by other white people. Make of that what you will. More relevantly: when the charge is true, I have to deal with that as well. When, after reflection, I decide that it isn't, I get absolutely furious. I get furious and I feel, as perhaps the cop in Boston felt, like it’s a charge that can’t go unanswered, that can’t be shrugged off, though it’s not always clear how to answer it (“No, I’m not either” doesn’t seem to do it). If feels, not so much like playing the race card as exercising the nuclear option: there’s no going back, and the response is equally destructive.
Again, this is not to suggest that the charge of racism, in the context that Gates is making it and in many others, is unjustified or shouldn’t be made, loud and clear, still less that the appropriate answer to it was to arrest him. I just wonder if the whole thing would have played out differently if Gates had called the cop a fool, or a pig, or an asshole, instead of a racist. Because when someone calls me racist, and I think they’re wrong, I just want to go for their throat (I don’t, but I want to). Ironically enough, it’s just about the worst thing you can call me.
I don't quite know what to make of this fact, -- of my different reaction to different, lets say, politically charged descriptions of my own behavior. Maybe I'm unique in this regard. Maybe I'm being an asshole (it wouldn't be the first time), either by under-reacting to some things or over-reacting to some others. So I want to start by asking you guys if you feel the same thing. Those of you who are guys, anyway. Those of you who are women, especially women of color, I would ask whether you feel like the charge of racism is a heavier one than the charge of misogyny, one you make less frequently, or with more force.
I think the worst that can be said about Gates' behaviour is that he might have been hyper-sensitive to the issue of profiling and called out the cop earlier than would be seemly. Seems possible, likely even... But the worst he did (if he did, and I really have my doubts...) still doesn't rise to the level of arrest. I tend to think that coming home, after a long flight (from China) to find your front door is unworkable would put you in a downright nasty mood to begin with, after which you're confronted by a cop who's investigating reports that you're breaking into your own home.
On the other hand, the best that can be said about the officer is that he bungled a routine call and failed to properly deal with an irate citizen. At best he was really really insensitive to the situation. The question of whether or not he said or did anything to raise Prof Gates' ire is left unanswered... but I suspect he did. How and under what circumstances he entered the house, and how long he was there, are likewise unanswered and are probably central to how and why Gates went ballistic.
It also seems likely, given the world we live in, that this cop, or indeed any cop, most likely has faced this situation before: belligerent charges of racial animus in the course of duty... I would think it is something prevalant enough that they receive training and or guidance on how to deal with it...
Bottom line, it's not the job Henry Louis Gates Jr to keep the peace. It is the job of the cop to keep the peace.
I agree with all of this. And who knows what look or body language might have passed between them, on top of all this. Again, I'm not suggesting that Gates baited the guy, still less that he's responsible for his own arrest. I also, just by the way, don't want to suggest that being accused of racism is in any way the equivalent, morally, socially, or practically, of being the victim of it. Let's get that one out of the way, too.
I just wanted to use the occasion to bring up a more abstract or general question, which this whole incident touches on:
How do *you* feel when you're accused of racism and you're convinced it isn't true?
The answer is, that if, after deep, honest reflection, the accusation is not true then I have no reason to be angry. Particularly if I am a public servant and my job is to maintain public peace and safety, and engage the public with a certain level of professionalism regardless of their deficiencies.
People think all sorts of things about others that may or may not be rooted in reality. I understand that people are humans but that doesn't mean that people should not be held to the standards that their positions in society demand.
All anyone can do is let their actions speak for themselves. If one is doing everything they can to treat other human beings in a dignified way, then that's all anyone can do. People fall short all the time, no doubt.
I understand where you're coming from, though, everyone has their particular things that just get under their craw more than others, for reasons unique to their experiences in life.
For me, this whole incident is one of those things that gets to me...the racial angle, which *maybe* can't be *proven* but...and more importantly, the whole issue of public servants, police in particular, just not being accountable for any of their actions, ever. On the scale of offenses against black men, this is certainly on the low grade end, but still. Every indignity hurts because of all of the ones that went before and are sure to come after.
I would say the first step would be to un-convince yourself that it's not true.
If someone has accused me of racism, then obviously I have done or said something to give them that impression. I would carefully examine (by myself and/or with a trusted friend) what I did or said, what beliefs I have that led me to say or do that thing, and then figure out how I could change.
Jennifer D:
Really? Even if it's coming from another white guy? -- Which, as I said, in my experience is usually the source. You don't think there's a chance that they might be (a) mistaken, or more likely (b) playing some kind of holier-than-thou game?
I just want to know what it is you do to make other White people call you a racist. Seriously.
@Anna,
Maybe he hates mayonnaise and isn't afraid to talk about it.
Anna, I'd tell you, if you weren't so eager to know...
Obviously, racism had nothing to do with it.
"Crowley was a campus police officer at Brandeis University in July 1993 when he administered CPR trying to save the life of former Boston Celtics player Reggie Lewis. Lewis, who was black, collapsed and died during an off-season workout."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/23/national/main5182185.shtml
I saw this mentioned somewhere else. I don't quite get it ... is there some belief that Crowley let Reggie Lewis die?
I don't think so... I think the fact that Crowley gave CPR to a black man is supposed to be evidence he is not a racist.
To respond also to Rob W, I think it is evidence that he doesn't HATE black people or want them to die as a group, as a white supremacist might. But it really has nothing do with a more subtle form of racism that comes through in profiling, and the way you treat blacks versus whites during, say, a disturbance at a residence.
Also, if Crowley would have acted exactly the same way with a white professor as he did with Gates, it doesn't make it any better. The police are supposed to enforce the law to protect the public. There is no law against breaking into your own house. ID was established. How does it protect the public to arrest a man angry with you, the cop, in his own house? What law was being enforced?
Wow. That connection is so lame, it did not even occur to me! Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I don't think that trying to save a black man from dying while doing your job as a policeman proves that you are not a racist.
Completely agree. I was 13 year old Celtic nut in Boston when Reggie died, one of the last times I remember crying. Just thought it was amusing that CBS threw in the "who was black" line as if that adds something to the story. I assume they thought this somehow supported the theory that he isn't a racist.
I'm sure its been discussed here and know that Ta-Nehisi has raised it elsewhere, but I think that at least half of the story here is that some members of the Boston Police Department think that a failure to show "respect" is breaking the law. I remember being a young college student, walking by police breaking up a crowd outside a bar in Boston and yelling something derogatory at the cops from across the street. To my surprise, a cop left what he was doing, ran across the street, began screaming at me, grabbed me and threw me up against a wall, and proceed to inform me (in more explicit language) that he could arrest me or do whatever the hell he wanted because he was a cop. I was finally allowed to remove my face from the wall when another cop intervened.
Don't get me wrong, I deserved a smack from someone and I've always regretted my absolutely stupid statement, but I don't think I really broke a law (perhaps verbal abuse, or deratory statements regarding cops is a crime, I'm not sure). And a cop, acting in his official capacity, ought to be able to look the other way. But I think in some cases, definitely with Gates, "disrespectful" is conflated with "unlawful" with results that harm the individual, but also lessen their respect for the police force as an institution.
Whether this officer was more inclined to perceive Gates as "disrespectful" because of the color of his skin, is another question. I'm guessing it was a combo of the two.
To clarify, I'm white, the cop was white.
Finally, I never post here, but just wanted to say, this is an awesome comment section you all have going here, really appreciate the insights, I read this blog 50% for the discussion each post sparks below. Keep up the good work.
This supposed evidence of Crowley's lack of racism is reminiscent of a lot of the reaction to the end of the film Crash when Matt Dillon's character was exonerated of his racism and sexism after he saved Thandie Newton's character from the car fire. Surely it takes more than not letting a person of color die to not be a racist?
No, it's his "proof" that he isn't racist because he was willing to give another black man CPR.
WTF? Isn't that his effing JOB? Dude needs to come up with better.
-- Wait -- the Celtics had black players? That's the real shocker. If I hadn'a heard from CBS, I wouldn'a believed it.
the comedian, Jeff Foxworthy's most famous (ok, only famous) routine was "You may be a redneck if you.... And it was usually hilarious (you may be a redneck if you go to family reunions looking for dates.) The routine is akin to Chris Rock's "I love Black people, but I hate Niggers!"
How about fill in this blank: You may be a racist if.......
He didn't sound pissed off at all to me. He sounded like he was choosing his words extremely carefully so that Republicans couldn't accuse him of playing the "race card" or some such nonsense.
The "well, I guess this is my house now," bit was funny, though.
And when he said, "Well, Skip Gates is a friend of mine," I could just imagine the cops who arrested Gates going "Oh ****."
I'm guessing that at least a couple of the cops who showed up at the scene showed up to watch the train-wreck in progress.
No, my memory of the Cambridge police, at least in the more affluent and well-patrolled areas, tend to cluster with large amounts of backup.
I remember more than once walking through Harvard Square and seeing four or more police officers interviewing some suspect, often a homeless person. One officer talking to the person, three or more standing around. And I remember thinking "Man, those guys bring a lot of backup. They are more careful than careful." It reaches the point where you wonder about cost effectiveness.
The half dozen cops on Gates's porch, on Ware Street, strikes me as the usual drill, especially once you've called in the Harvard cops, too.
This, to me, is the most mystifying thing about the Cambridge police. Between Harvard and MIT Cambridge abounds with VIPs, some of whom are black... and among these VIPs, Gates is elite. He's on TV alot. He's written books. Who doesn't know about Skip Gates? He's practically Oprahs' booty call... I'd like to know who he made is one phone call to... my money is that he either called Eric Holder or Deval Patrick. I'm willing to bet that ten minutes after the story broke nationally, Michelle Obama was on the phone to Gates offering to head north and flex her biceps. It's just mystifying why the cop didn't say to himself "I'm going to open a shitstorm of epic proportions if I lose my cool with this guy..."
I can just imagine nearly every other CPD cop cringing when they heard, saying "which dumbass arrested Skip Gates...?"
I think that in addition to the obvious racism at work here, there is the class resentment against the Harvard fiefdom from working people in Cambridge. I'm guessing some of that was at work in this particular instance. The whole "don't you know who I am?" thing and "I'm gonna call your boss" thing could have pissed the cop off. Not that I think the cop was justified at all. Just adding a little local perspective from personal experience.
No question.
The problem being that "I'm going to call your boss" elicits something around 3 parts fear and 1 part anger in most other professions.
One of the dangers of paramilitary organizations: often they lack the courts martial or the real hierarchy.
No doubt. I think a legit point here is that the preeminent scholar on race, race relations, African-American literature and African-American history does get to ask "are you profiling me? Don't you know who I am?" While it does glisten with comic irony, it's still a valid question. Kinda like when you get into a heated discussion on economics with somebody who turns out to be Paul Krugman... or when Republicans try to lecture some nobody named Steven Chu about science.
Myself, I've got the popcorn waiting for when I tune in to see what Stewart and Colbert have to say about this. There's so much irony here they probablly gave the writers the night off and just gonna read it straight.
Hmmm ... given that there is no recording of what actually happened, this one can accept, "possible", even "probable", racism ... "obvious" is a reality leap, IMHO, for a rational person with no preconceptions or agenda.
BTW, I grew up in, and still live in, A'hlington, so I guess I am adding my local perspective : )
It probably felt good (at the time) for that "lowly" white blue collar guy to take down that "uppity" Hahvard type---who was a colored guy. Bad enough he feels that he has to take it from the white ones, but not this guy.
[Mind you that Gates is on PBS, now do you think Crowley watches PBS?]
This view might hold true in someplace other than 'The Peoples Republic of Cambridge'... At the very least the Cambridge PD has to deal with a sea of 'uppity haah-vahd' types, as well as the supremely unself-consciously arrogant engineers from MIT. If this guy has a problem with 'uppity' he's in the wrongest place he can be...
Now that's uppity!! How dare you limit Gates' scope... He's often on C-Span too, ya-know... =-)
Hm. This isn't mentioned enough, either. Everything is strained through the filter of race, and not enough about personal relationships. If this happened to a friend of yours, wouldn't you feel the same way? And isn't the President allowed to comment honestly about something that's as questionable as this when it affects him personally?
It just struck me that perhaps this incident might lead to a new civil service test in Cambridge for police force promotion in which applicants for said promotion would be asked to explain any paragraph in Professor Gates' explication of principles embedded in African American literature, Signifyin' Monkey.
Ricci THAT!!
the idea that obama intentionally opened this discussion in order to gain political points is laughable.
he can only lose anytime the discussion turns to race, and he is fully aware of that fact. which is why he tiptoes around issues of race and only really addresses the issue when he feels like lecturing black folks about the kinds of things they should be doing.
(ok, that is an exaggeration, but only a slight exaggeration.)
he reacted in a plainly honest fashion. something that is refreshing, frankly, coming from someone who is typically so calculating.
what so many folks are not mentioning is this: i'd be willing to bet that obama himself has had a very similar incident in his past, and that fact, was also a factor in his reaction.
just about any black male of a certain age has almost certainly had a similar incident happen to them. perhaps the matter de-escalated before the cuffs came out; maybe it kept going until they were in exactly the same position that gates found himself in. but the probablility that a black man around the age of 50 has encountered exactly the same circumstance is extremely high.
but, like a sexual assault victiom, the victims of this type of police abuse often try to avoid dealing with the abuse in an open fashionn and typically attempt to hide it. unless forced to publically acknowledge the incident, for whatever reason.
and, ironically, black males like gates - and obama - are probably more likely to suffer this type of police abuse.
why?
because they've spent their adult lives living in white communities - places like cambridge and ann arbor and madison and berkley and new haven - and they often stick out like sore thumbs and despite the fact that they may be known in their small academic community - as students or instructors - outside of their insular little circle, they're just another negro on the street. especially to some cop with an associates' degree in criminal justice from the local community college who couldn't identify w.e.b. dubois is if his life depended on it.
the question that no one has even thought to pose is the most interesting one:
has obama ever been similarly treated by police and if so, what happened?
i've lived in lots of those places i noted. i know that i've had similar run-ins with police. EVERY other african-american male that i knew, as a student, especially, had similar run-ins with police.
i defended plenty of kids and adults who were charged with "disorderly conduct" while no underlying charge had been even alleged, and the incidents all had the same kinds of facts: no initial crime, rude cop, smart-a@@ bro, and then the cuffs come out.
i hope someone asks obama whether he had a bit of empathy for gates because he'd suffered a similar indignity. the answer to that question could open up an interesting and fruitful discussion.
"He can only lose anytime the discussion turns to race, and he is fully aware of that fact. which is why he tiptoes around issues of race and only really addresses the issue when he feels like lecturing black folks about the kinds of things they should be doing."
I shouldn't reduce this to political gamesmanship... you're right, it is likely that Obama himself some personal 'skin in the game.' But he is also a consummate politician. And that cheese is smelling awful good to the Republicans right now -- they're trying to get something to stick to the teflon, and, like most, they expect he can only lose on race.
And you are right, it is a gamble to leave that cheese in the mousetrap.
Obama played the odds successfully on the issue by sponsoring police reform in Illinois -- no question the issue was close to his heart, but you have to give him credit for knowing the terrain.
Luck is the conjunction between preparation and opportunity. And Obama et. al. have already been uncannily good at controlling the news cycle.
And, nb., his statement was crafted to allow him an out. "When did I say the Gates arrest was racially motivated?"
the idea that obama intentionally opened this discussion in order to gain political points is laughable.
he can only lose anytime the discussion turns to race, and he is fully aware of that fact. which is why he tiptoes around issues of race and only really addresses the issue when he feels like lecturing black folks about the kinds of things they should be doing.
(ok, that is an exaggeration, but only a slight exaggeration.)
Could you explain what you mean by "he can only lose anytime the discussion turns to race"? I don't think I understand. Lose what? Face? Political capital? Approval-rating points? What does he have to lose?
And "tiptoes around issues of race"? What about that massive speech on race in Philadelphia, during his campaign?
I'm not following your reasoning at all here, and would love clarification!
karen,
while obama's philly speech was outstanding, historic in nature, there is no question that he was forced to make such a speech because of the reverend wright controversy. i don't think that it is a stretch to say that he would have preferred to have avoided any such speech, and that he addressed the issues that he addressed solely out of necessity.
his campaign was in serious trouble and he pulled his behind out of a tight spot with that brilliant effort.
but the fact that he did it of necessity does nothing to diminish the quality of his speech. it only goes to his motivation.
regarding what he could lose by turning discussions to race, i also think that it is fair to say that successful african-american politicians - those like senators and governors, and now this president, politicians who have to depend on the support of white voters - go out of their way to de-emphasize their blackness, to emphasize just how much like their white constituents they are. anytime they get into discussions of the specific - and peculiar - historic experience of black folks, that tends to alienate a certain element of the white voting population.
so, it is somewhat understandable that politicians like obama make the calculation that it is not in their best interests to talk about race, and obama holds to that, as best he can.
but it is also the reason that he tends to only discuss race with black audiences in a way i consider to be lecturing and somewhat condescending.
white voters like that approach.
on a somewhat tangential note, i would take his admonitions about "personal responsibility" a lot more seriously if he would talk about those same issues and apply the same criteria to the wealthy and the powerful, folks like the ones who run goldman sachs and all those nice big hedge funds and dick cheney and rumsfeld and bush.
its easy to lecture powerless folks; it's a lot tougher to stand up and tell powerful folks that they will be held personally responsible for their own bad and irresponsible behavior.
so far, he's shown precious little stomach for taking on the real tough guys.
No disrespect, but it seems like you are kind of cheery picking Obama's words, like the NYT did after the NAACP speech. Both contemporaneous and more recent (see this weeks NYTimes Jarret cover story) reports more than indicate that the overwhelming majority of Obama's top campaign advisors did not want him to make the Penn. speech, so he in fact chose to do so. Did he need to do it? Well, in hindsight because it turned out so well, yeah. But it could have gone either way.
I have also heard Obama hector investors, bankers, military industrial complex (F22), doctors (last night's presser), health insurance companies and the Iranian and Honduran govt.s. Obama never demonizes anyone or anything, that's not his style, both for strategic and I suspect personal reasons.
anna perez,
i probably read and listen to just about everything obama says, publically.
yes, occasionally, he will say things that sound somewhat "tough" when he talks about health insurance and bankers but that tough talk rings stunningly hollow when compared to his actions in dealing with those entities.
he basically sold out the american taxpayers to the bankers, has actually increased a disgracefully bloated military budget, and he refuses to impose any regulations that have any real teeth on investors.
talking tough to the iranian regime is one of the cheapest and easiest shots any american politician can ever take, and exactly how has he taken on the honduran coup?
in obama i see an extraordinarily cautious, almost timid, politician who is never going to be a real leader, unfortunately.
regarding the penn speech, anyone can say anything they wish about who decided to do what. the cold hard fact is that the speech was given in response to the turmoil caused by reverend wright. it was not something he spontaneously decided to do because he felt so strongly about those issues.
facts are facts and spin is what paid political advisors attempt to insert into the public record.
I think you nailed this. It explains so much of what is wrong with our public discourse. Either something is one thing or it's something else. Apparently the possibility that a thing might be both one thing and another is impossible.
Anybody ever read "Fuzzy Thinking" by Bart Kosko? He's very articulate on the "This NOT that, "This AND that" dichotomy.
forgive me if this has been covered. haven't had a chance to read all the comments but Brian leherer just had an interesting segment with NY senetor ( and I think former police officer)Eric Adam's. Was anybody listening. If interested here is a link. I imagine you could listen to it later today. Senetor Adams was making all kinds of sense. "it's not a crime to get annoyed". "Authority can't be used as pay back"
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/07/23/segments/137199
Now this is sad. A Fox News reporter who happens to be black is on the air, barely containing her jubilation, is reporting how Fox has "obtained" the police report from the Gates incident and treating it as if it's gospel and the complete truth!
You'll note, we scooped them. One thing that is, unfortunately, not going to show up in the Fox Police report: one of the "DUMB" things about the incident is that CPD failed to redact the name of the witness who called the cops in the first place.
An instance of entirely non-racialized incompetence... look for a lawsuit.
If that comment was a little cryptic, a commenter two-three posts back linked to the original police report, in which the witness's name was not redacted (blacked out). Further down the thread, there are comments that the link was broken... Then another link to a police report, in which the name WAS redacted.
As it should have been... Doubtless Gates had some idea who had called the cops, but why should the CPD have told the rest of the world.
For reals? People are upset about THAT statement? My god, there must be an ocean between me and what other Americans see in the world. That was such a level-headed and middle of the road response.
Ditto. I feel this way all the time.
The gulf between the 80% of Americans with some abilities to use reason and Real Americans™ is growing by the day and the population of Real America™ might actually be shrinking slightly, as a few here and there regain their senses and say, "I can't go there."
I didn't watch the press conference for one reason only: it was a press conference and the press never (rarely?) ask important and substantive questions. Nor did I read the mainstream press this morning and realize that President Obama's response to the Gates question had become a big deal. It once again reminds me why I didn't watch the press conference -- the news media in this country is worse than ineffective; it is dangerous to the health of our democracy.
I'm just really confused by all this. Obama's answer seems obvious and truthful to me, a privileged white woman. Was racism the only factor in the Gates arrest? Probably not. Was racism a factor in the Gates arrest? Very likely.
And I'm saddened by the public discourse (egged on by the media) that doesn't allow for a thoughtful conversation about how many of our underlying preconceptions and prejudices about race (once again, egged on by the media) often affect the way we interact with people on a subconcious level.
I don't need the cop out there proving he isn't a racist because he once tried to save a black man nor do I think calling the cop a racist propels us forward and helps us toward any understanding. This is where I think about Coates' great post a few days ago where he writes about what we mean when we use the term racism. If we continue to think of racism as only the provenance of the KKK, then we completely miss the more insidious ways that racism on both an institutional and personal level still pervade our way of life.
And can I just say, why aren't we talking about health care today? Oh yea, it's the stupid media. A very close friend of my coworker died on Monday of this week because he did not have health insurance. Forty-two years old. Lost his job when he became to sick to work and then lost his insurance. Had a simple infection that went untreated because he didn't have any money to go to the doctor. Instead, he ended up hospitalized for close to a week when the infection entered his blood. He died and we spent more money in the end. This cannot continue to happen.
I didn't watch the press conference for one reason only: it was a press conference and the press never (rarely?) ask important and substantive questions. Nor did I read the mainstream press this morning and realize that President Obama's response to the Gates question had become a big deal. It once again reminds me why I didn't watch the press conference -- the news media in this country is worse than ineffective; it is dangerous to the health of our democracy.
I'm just really confused by all this. Obama's answer seems obvious and truthful to me, a privileged white woman. Was racism the only factor in the Gates arrest? Probably not. Was racism a factor in the Gates arrest? Very likely.
And I'm saddened by the public discourse (egged on by the media) that doesn't allow for a thoughtful conversation about how many of our underlying preconceptions and prejudices about race (once again, egged on by the media) often affect the way we interact with people on a subconcious level.
I don't need the cop out there proving he isn't a racist because he once tried to save a black man nor do I think calling the cop a racist propels us forward and helps us toward any understanding. This is where I think about Coates' great post a few days ago where he writes about what we mean when we use the term racism. If we continue to think of racism as only the provenance of the KKK, then we completely miss the more insidious ways that racism on both an institutional and personal level still pervade our way of life.
And can I just say, why aren't we talking about health care today? Oh yea, it's the stupid media. A very close friend of my coworker died on Monday of this week because he did not have health insurance. Forty-two years old. Lost his job when he became to sick to work and then lost his insurance. Had a simple infection that went untreated because he didn't have any money to go to the doctor. Instead, he ended up hospitalized for close to a week when the infection entered his blood. He died and we spent more money in the end. This cannot continue to happen.
Ouch. It has been hitting me just how much of a travesty the health care issue is... and I've been getting worried that monied interest is winning out.
Not least, with a single-payer system, it'd be easier for bad cops to find a more suitable profession.
President Obama talked about that principle during his press conference. He mentioned something about spending more money on things that are needed, instead we should be spending money on preventative healthcare. I am of course paraphrasing. But what is MSM talking about today, a 3 minute answer out of an hour long press conference.
It's crazy and disingenuous.
I noticed the President positioning the issue: the police officer came into the man's HOUSE and stayed there when he had NO reason to do so. He put the weight on the violation that anyone should understand, and that conservatives who are especially concerned about gun rights and carry on about protecting private property should understand with extra ferocity. For a conservative white audience--the center of the Kentucky electorate, for example-- that was perfect.
Given the conflicting accounts and general circumstances leading up to Gates and the police officer interacting, I find myself rather disturbed by both extremes of the coverage and commentary regarding this incident. It appears that all sides are leveraging this to support their ideology or agenda.
On the surface, it appears that a home-owner had to force entry into his house owing to a malfunctioning door, was falsely identified as a suspected burglar by someone who called the police, when the police arrived words were exchanged and the home-owner was arrested [not for burglary, but for disturbing the peace]. Comparative fault for the resulting arrest may never be determined … in the end, nothing I have read regarding this incident leads me to any certitude regarding whether racism played a role [the fact that the arresting officer had worked at Brandies and administered CPR to Reggie Lewis when he collapsed and ultimately died is an interesting data point but not conclusive].
That said, I have been arrested once in my life … for “disorderly conduct”. I was 19 working as a bicycle courier in DC the summer of ‘85; I made a habit of riding around downtown after midnight on Fri and Sat nights. Typically doing the route around the Wash Monument and Capital on Independence and Constitution avenues. Coming down the hill, I could get up over 40 mph. One night, a beat up old Volare pulled up next to me and a guy in some type of uniform ordered me to pull over … turns out he was a Federal Park Ranger … he did not like how fast I was riding or that I was running red lights [if you know the mall area, there are huge sight lines at every intersection and on any weekend night, no traffic at all] … I mouthed off … he arrested me. I am white, he was black … I was an a-hole … I got arrested. No racism. Granted, it was not in my home … just saying … one does not mouth off to some police officers. It’s not right, it just is [and IMHO, it is stupid behavior on the part of the police]. Since this incident, I have been consistently; “yes sir; no sir; or, thank you sir” the 20 or so times I have been pulled over for traffic violations … I have gotten about 8 tickets. Lesson learned.
Anybody else think that President Obama should have not commented on the Gates arrest, particularly when the truth is not entirely known?
I think he stepped in it. Big time. The White House has already "clarified" his statement saying he wasn't calling the police officer stupid.
I heard what Obama said and think he should not have said what he said ... not because it was wrong, but because it created too much of an opening for the crud his opponents could go all "Orwellian" on.
Assuming that the WH has "clarified" [and I would not be surprised if they have given the reaction from the Right], saying anyone did something stupid is not the same thing as saying that some one is stupid. Personally, I would have called the arrest a mistake and the police performance not in keeping with their role in society.
Obama's tag lines at the end regarding racial profiling, IMHO, were an attempt to recognize the outpouring of [IMHO, false] rhetoric regarding this being a racial motivated incident. Appending this rhetoric to his commentary was most probably a mistake in both the short and long term.
I don't think Obama said the right thing at all. Here's Prof. Ann Althouse's break down of Obama's comments.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/07/look-over-there-its-skip-gates.html
I think Obama made a huge mistake. Now he's going to have to comment on it some more. Maybe broker a peace treaty between cops and black folk. I jest, I jest. The Onion will come up with something good for sure. :)
I believe this may be a semantic issue.
I believe it is debatable that anything Obama said was false or incorrect regarding the facts [a black man was arrested by a white cop on his own property during the investigation of a reported burglary; those with an agenda are trying to leverage this incident in the media to advance their own goals].
I do believe that much of what Obama said was probably wrong "politically" in that he appears to have obliquely sided with those who see this as a racist incident.
He said the act of arresting Gates was stupid. He was asked the question and he gave the right answer. He didn't say it was racist. He said it was stupid.
In fact, he was too kind. It was racist and calculating, not stupid.
The cop lured Gates outside so that he could arrest him for disorderly. He couldn't do that inside and he knew it because under MA G.L. it requires more than just Gates yelling at the cop in private.
I can't agree with the racist thing ... granted, possible [without a recording of what was said, there cannot be certainty, it is all hearsay ... IMHO, those that think racism played a part in this incident either have preconceptions or an agenda].
"Calculating", probable. In my experience, whether one is white, brown, black or purple; one does not mouth off to certain cops.
@Faivel
Faivel, this is way off topic, so I'll just reply this once and then we should probably stop, as this is more related to the long "35%-40% post from earlier this week. I would just say that I would think about why being called a racist "even if it's coming from another white guy" makes you want to "go for the throat" as you say in your original post. I think we would have a much better change of progress if people could be okay with admitting that they are occasionally racist or have racist thoughts, instead of racism being equated with the KKK. With my background, it would be almost impossible for me not to have racist beliefs. I have had to work on them and scrub them out. They still pop up on occasion. So, if someone accuses me of racism, I take it seriously. I look at what caused the perception and what I can do about it if anything. But I don't think it's the end of the world to be accused of it. That's my two cents (or five) on the subject.
I don't know whether it's off-topic or not. I do know that this would be a much more fruitful exchange if you took the time to actually read what I wrote, rather than replying to something you wish I had said so that you could make such a reply.
Hmmm ... sorry you're offended. It was not written in anger. I was just explaining my perspective.
I was laughing pretty hard at The President's answer. As one of those Black 'Strivers', who has gotten nothing more than a parking ticket her entire life, yeah, this police harrassment cuts deep.
Skip Gates doesn't know Pookey. Neither does Barack Obama. But, Skip Gates and Barack Obama probably know Earl Graves, Jr.[Black Enterprise Magazine], who was profiled in Grand Central a few years back.
I've said it before; the problem isn't the police doing their jobs and arresting Pookey and Ray Ray when they're doing crimes;
It is the incidents of DWB, SWB, BWB, of ordinary law-abiding Black Citizens that erodes the trust.
I thought Obama was on point.
Agreed ... I think the Dee Brown incident was a much more poignant example of racial profiling in the Boston area ... they had him face down on the pavement at gun point for a while before letting him go ... and he was a Celtic player [much more recognizable then any Harvard professor].
The president's sales pitch to the American people on health-care reform was, I think, rather successful. Based on the case he made, the citizenry could thus have expected the media to carry out a thoughtful, well-meaning discussion on the various health-care models that would best assist the middle-class in reclaiming the kind of purchasing power they had in the 1950's, while distributing health insurance to millions of Americans who cannot now afford it.
Then came the comment on the controversial arrest. I cringed when the president, who admitted he did not know all the facts, essentially called the Cambridge police "stupid." He should have known better, given his virtuosic understanding of politics and the media. Wasn't he aware that, at last night's press conference, he was speaking from a pulpit so powerful into a loudspeaker so amplified that whatever he said would be wrongly sensationalized?
Now the media are generally avoiding discussion on the crucial issue of health-care reform. The major policy issue of the day has been supplanted by cries, merited or not, of racism or victimization. The president's comments on the arrest could have waited another day.
Now Obama, having rushed to judgment, might have to continue appeasing his old friend Skip Gates in the midst of apologizing to the decidedly well-meaning arresting officer, who says he voted for Obama in the last election and may not do so again.
To be clear, I'm not white. In fact, I've been a victim of racial profiling. But any discussion on the Cambridge incident could have waited.
I absolutely agree with the President's position, I just didn't think he used the best language. "Stupidity" wasn't a term I'd expect from the usually thoughtful Obama. This is simply a case of an experienced public official, doing his "duty" of law enforcement as written, fearing no consequence of misapplication .
The real issue is the lack of "spirit" of the law, which requires a "benefit of doubt" posture at times. This spirit of justice is commonly over-looked during traffic stops that turn into containment and search sessions in which entire families are made to freeze on the hoods of their cars. When the description of a "suspect" as black turns police department into search "parties", hellbent on turning over every stone, kicking in every door. Or when the search for one man, turns "tactical" police units in their zeal to fight crime, to use erroneous tactics that exposes them to harm, resulting in a sickening volley of of more than three dozen bullets at an unarmed man.
The fix to all of these "events" require no Affirmative Action programs to displace the deserving SATers or qualified applicants, nor does it require the lowering of job qualifications or setting a grade curve. Like most Americans, we simply don't want to be treated this way. I'm at a lost as to why many are surprised by this.
@Marcos El Malo
"Maybe he hates mayonnaise and isn't afraid to talk about it."
Guffaw!
PRESIDENT OBAMA CO-SIGNS. Sorta.
Now I know President Obama co-signed for Professor Gates in last night’s prime-time Press Conference. He has since had his spokesperson Robert Gibbs walk that support back a bit. I feel the President, Gates is his friend. He admitted he was biased before he answered the question and we all give immunity and have blind spots for our friends and family. My dear, lovely, wife has a cousin in jail for drug dealing who she swears is wrongfully convicted. But when push comes to shove she wouldn’t let him keep his things at our house for little while. By the same token, I bet your bottom dollar there are two places the President, nor the rest of us, would take Professor Gates. 1. To a fight and 2. To talk to the police.
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/nation/the-jailhouse-conversion-of-henry-louis-skip-gates-jr/
Marlon Brando has often been accused of bad timing. He had been active since the 1950s regarding how minority groups are portrait by Hollywood but also in other media.
He refused his Oscar in 1973 for the Godfather - because 20 years after he had started his campaign - the situation was still unacceptable from a human, non-white, point of view. Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QUacU0I4yU
Here - in a rare Interview - Brando describes what he actually had in mind. Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNd9FhfBFcY
Clint Eastwood - who later presented the Oscar for best film - was angry at the bad timing. This was Hollywoods day of celebration and not critique. He belittled Brando and his cause by dedicating the next Oscar to the poor cowboys who have been killed by Native Americans. I am glad to see that Clint has grown up - it took him longer than most - but he truly is the guy in Grand Torino - a Kowalski like in A Streetcar Named Desire. He was 50 years late in understanding Brando's message, Clint could have been a CR contender, yet the point is that he got it in the end. (but an Osacar, please.. not?)
Clint Eastwood and others further ridiculed Brando for just having found a social cause to ride on - now that he was famous and successful. What a lot of projection - Brando had been at it since the 50s, more than 20 years, and given that everybody was crazy about Brando, the actor, at the time - it was and is surprising how little people knew about him.
Must watch - forward to 07:45... following Malcolm's advice - if possible he tries not to speak for others himself. Pity that I cannot find the whole documentary and full interview.
And here.. Obama does Brando.
Folks - I have a question for those who consider the 3 minute statement as bad timing. Why? Obama talks for hours every day about health care and has spend ca 180 seconds on racism. When I clean my ears I do not make a case for not brushing my teeth? And when my ears are dirty today - I will not wait a week only to brush my teeth today.
I just don't see any connection between his couple of seconds on a racial incident today and the months and daily hours Obama has and still is spending on health care. Please explain. How can two mutually exclusive things bother each other? Really? Only because you had breakfast you will skip lunch and dinner? Only because you played with one of your children you will no play with the others?
Please, genuinely, enlighten me. It's not like we are distracted from our two wars because the president choked and almost died of a pretzel while watching football, is it?
Consider this counterfactual scenario. If the president had focused only on the topic of the evening (i.e., health-care reform), the media would have escalated their coverage of the health-care debate. More important: the public would have learned more about why Obama is pushing such an agenda.
Instead, newspaper journalists and television broadcasters the next day were focusing on the Cambridge incident, generating more page clicks and purchases of newspapers by virtue of the controversy. The incentive and opportunity to inform the public about health-care reform, in a word, disappeared.
There is no recording of what verbiage [or tone] was exchanged in this case between Gates and Crowley, but, IMHO, the circumstantial evidence seems to weigh in favor of an irate, jet-lagged Gates going off on a cop trying to investigate a call to the police regarding a potential burglary in progress. Gates appears to be a home-owner that denied at least one request for identification and may have responded to this one request with hostility.
Some telling data points:
“Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class about racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming.”
"I have nothing but the highest respect for him as a police officer. He is very professional and he is a good role model for the young recruits in the police academy," Fleming told The Associated Press on Thursday. The course, called "Racial Profiling," teaches about different cultures that officers could encounter in their community "and how you don't want to single people out because of their ethnic background or the culture they come from," Fleming said. The academy trains cadets for cities across the region.
Fellow officers, black and white, say Crowley is well-liked and respected on the force. Crowley was a campus police officer at Brandeis University in July 1993 when he administered CPR trying to save the life of former Boston Celtics player Reggie Lewis. Lewis, who was black, collapsed and died during an off-season workout.
There may be other shoes to drop. But, at this point, if I had to bet the house, I'd bet that Gates is primarily at fault here ... I think he flipped out and got arrested for it.