43.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Saturday, November 21st, 2009Latimer on Law
Ideas, not ideology, in service of our shared ideals and the common good.Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
All Gift Baskets and More
Award-winning gift baskets since 1990 ideally suited for any professional or personal occasion. All baskets come in a variety of sizes and prices to fit any budget. Same day nationwide shipping. Register on our site for a drawing. Toll Free (877)880-3395
Award-winning gift baskets since 1990 ideally suited for any professional or personal occasion. All baskets come in a variety of sizes and prices to fit any budget. Same day nationwide shipping. Register on our site for a drawing. Toll Free (877)880-3395
Lifeline Cape Cod
Trusted by more hospitals, doctors and caregivers Lifeline can not only protect a life... it enables seniors to live confidently in the comfort of their own homes. Call today for our special rates! (Serving all of Cape Cod) (Dennis)
Trusted by more hospitals, doctors and caregivers Lifeline can not only protect a life... it enables seniors to live confidently in the comfort of their own homes. Call today for our special rates! (Serving all of Cape Cod) (Dennis)
Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
07/26/09 · 10:13 pm :: posted by Richard
Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
President Obama made an intelligent and accurate observation recently about the Cambridge Police Sergeant who arrested Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. Sergeant Crowley did indeed act "stupidly" as Obama observed, entering Gates' house without probable cause and then inviting him outside in order to arrest him for "disorderly conduct."
You can't be found guilty of that in your own home, and Crowley had no basis for arresting Gates on anything other than that trumped up charge. Crowley saw no crime being committed, and there was no evidence at the scene that a crime had been committed. There was no physical evidence of a fresh break-in. It's rumored there may have been weathered tool marks around the door from an attempted break-in over a month earlier, but there were no "burglarious" tools in view. Gates himself, though casually attired, was neatly dressed and did not look like a gangbanger -no tattoos, no bling et cetera. He is an elderly middle class black man, and he looks the part.
Gates' behavior did not evidence "consciousness of guilt" to support the 911 report of a break-in. To the contrary, Gates expressed righteous indignation to the point of being obstreperous and verbally abusive. Real perps don't act like that and Crowley certainly knew it, which is why he arrested Gates on a bogus charge of disorderly conduct.
It doesn't appear that Crowley is a racist in any personal sense, but this was a case of racial profiling beginning with the 911 caller who referred to Gates and his driver as two blacks breaking into a house in an upscale neighborhood. If they had been white the caller probably would have seen it for what it was, a homeowner pushing on a jammed door, and not have reported it. Certainly, if Gates and his driver had been white, the passerby would not have described them as "two white males" breaking into a house.
Sgt. Crowley then responded and was expecting to find two black men committing a burglary because that's the profile. It's not that Crowley is a racist himself, but he is part of the systematic racism of profiling, which is what got Gates so upset in the first place. When Crowley saw only the very angry Professor Gates in the house, he wouldn't accept Gates' remonstration that it was his own home and didn't have to show any identification, as he surely would for an equally upset, elderly white homeowner.
If Crowley really believed there had been a burglary and Gates was involved, the correct procedure would be to leave his partner standing by outside the house and go to court for a search warrant. He'd have to tell the judge everything he saw to support a belief that a crime was committed or there would be evidence of the crime inside Gates' house. Based on that presentation, which would be everything Crowley saw and heard up to the point he decided to arrest Gates, the judge would then say something like "warrant denied."
That's why the Middlesex D.A. decided so quickly not to prosecute Gates. It wasn't simply the highly charged political or racial ramifications of the case, but the arrest and charge itself were baseless to the point of frivolity and were motivated solely by Crowley's stupid reaction to Gates' own pompous hostility. D.A.s don't like to take cases they know they'll lose, especially ones that they can never win politically. The most intelligent comment on the behavior of both Crowley and Gates was made by the Globe's Joan Vennochi who described it as a case of excess machismo by both of them.
Getting back to Obama, like Ms. Vennochi, he made an intelligent and accurate assessment of Crowley's conduct but, unlike her, he displayed a rare lapse of judgment bordering on stupidity equal to Crowley's just for discussing the situation. It's Vennochi's job to comment on "newsy" events like Gates' arrest, but Obama has far more important things on his plate. Sure, racial profiling by the police is a serious and troubling reality, but that's not Obama's fight right now, and he should simply have said "no comment at this time" when asked about the incident. He should have ducked the whole thing as quickly as possible, just like the Middlesex D.A. did.
As Presidential gaffes go, however, Obama's remark about Crowley was only politically dumb and that only because he made the remark at all, not because it was an unintelligent or inaccurate comment in itself. It served to tick off a lot of policemen and gave fuel to the GOP obstructionists who want Obama to fail on the important national issues he has to deal with, like health care, economic recovery, energy policy and resolving two overseas wars.
The comment about Crowley wasn't inherently stupid like Reagan's airhead on-air joke that he had ordered a nuclear attack on Russia which, if it had been taken seriously over there, could have had far more serious repercussions than a dip in approval ratings or fueling right wing rant radio for a week or so. And it wasn't as dumb as Reagan's Freudian slip that "Facts are stupid things." He intended to quote John Adams' observation that facts are stubborn things, but he blew his lines and said what he really believed because facts always got in the way of his infallible right-wing ideology.
Obama's comment wasn't as dumb as Nixon's faux pas while attending DeGaulle's funeral and saying what a "great day" it was for France. It wasn't as stupid as Clinton's concession that he smoked pot but "didn't inhale," or his lame parsing of the word "sex" when questioned about Monica Lewinsky. It wasn't as flat out dumb as Gerry Ford claiming there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, or anywhere near as dumb as several hundred things George W. Bush said during his interminable eight year presidency.
My all-time favorite Bush comment was that "border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." But wait, there was the time he gave up golf as a gesture in support of the troops fighting in Iraq -and then he didn't even live up to that trivial sacrifice. Then there was . . . . You get the picture.
Just about every president in recent memory has committed one or more verbal gaffes, but Obama's comment about Crowley is unusual because it was in itself both intelligent and accurate. For that very reason, however, it was especially impolitic and therefore stupid. The best that can be said now is that Obama isn't Reagan, Clinton or Bush, and therefore it's not likely to happen again.
48 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.
Richard [Member] writes:
No apology needed FTB because whether or not she mentioned two black males, the only reason she called 911 was because they were two black males and she therefore assumed they were breaking into the house, i.e. profiling.
Don't try to pretent that if were an elderly white man, with a younger white companion pushing on a stuck door on a humid day she would have thought there was a crime being committed. And don't try to pretend that Crowley, based on the report he received, wasn't expecting to find one or two black perps.
Don't try to pretent that if were an elderly white man, with a younger white companion pushing on a stuck door on a humid day she would have thought there was a crime being committed. And don't try to pretend that Crowley, based on the report he received, wasn't expecting to find one or two black perps.
snoopy [Member] writes:
Richard, amazing!
You should go on the road. The mindreading scam is big entertainment today.
You should go on the road. The mindreading scam is big entertainment today.
petercohen [Member] writes:
Lucia Whalen and the Cambridge police both say that she did not mention race *during her 911 call.*
However, Crowley's police report says, "She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of [redacted] Ware Street."
These two narratives are mutually exclusive. Whalen talking to Sgt. Crowley at the scene is *not* the same as Whalen speaking to the 911 dispatcher.
Stick to the facts, Richard. As an attorney, you should know damn well what a hairball it is to testify to state of mind.
However, Crowley's police report says, "She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of [redacted] Ware Street."
These two narratives are mutually exclusive. Whalen talking to Sgt. Crowley at the scene is *not* the same as Whalen speaking to the 911 dispatcher.
Stick to the facts, Richard. As an attorney, you should know damn well what a hairball it is to testify to state of mind.
awayfromthebay [Member] writes:
Wow Richard...even in the Globe article it states in the second paragragph of the article that she called 911, and I quote, "because she was aware of recent break-ins in the area" not because of two black men like you contend.
Further, when questioned by the 911 dispatcher she stated that, "she could only guess about the race of the two men. “She speculated . . . that one might be Hispanic.’’
Any reference to the two being black happened after the police got to the scene according to Ms. Whalen and the Cambridge police.
Further, when questioned by the 911 dispatcher she stated that, "she could only guess about the race of the two men. “She speculated . . . that one might be Hispanic.’’
Any reference to the two being black happened after the police got to the scene according to Ms. Whalen and the Cambridge police.
Buzz [Member] writes:
The 911 tapes clearly state that she said "two men" breaking into the house. The caller, was making the call for an elderly neighbor who was concerned a break-in might be occurring. When asked by the dispatcher of a discription... "white, black or hispanic" the caller said... "possibly hispanic...not sure".
Are the police NOT suppose to ask for a description
when a possible crime is being committed? How would that play out in court counselor? Defense atty: "did you ask for a description of the perpetrator"? Witness: "no sir, I did not want to offend anyone".
Are the police NOT suppose to ask for a description
when a possible crime is being committed? How would that play out in court counselor? Defense atty: "did you ask for a description of the perpetrator"? Witness: "no sir, I did not want to offend anyone".
Richard [Member] writes:
So, Peter, as you say, Whalen's account of her 911 call and Crowley's account of her statement to him are mutually inconsistent. So somebody's lying here.
Whalen has said she couldn't even tell the race of the two men who were "breaking in" to the house, yet Crowley says she told them they were two black men with backpacks. How did her perception improve over the few minutes it took Crowley to get there?
It's possible she waited around and therefore would have seen the big black driver get into the car and drive off. And then she might have assumed that the other "perp" was also black. But, if so, why didn't she tell Crowley that the other black guy left?
That way Crowley would have known that the only one inside the house was the frail elderly owner, Mr. Gates. But Crowley said he was experiencing "fear" because there was another suspect inside the house.
You don't have to be a mindreader, Snoopy, to read between the lines. At least one of these people is lying about what transpired after the 911 call, if not both of them, and I stand by my statement about profiling.
Whalen has said she couldn't even tell the race of the two men who were "breaking in" to the house, yet Crowley says she told them they were two black men with backpacks. How did her perception improve over the few minutes it took Crowley to get there?
It's possible she waited around and therefore would have seen the big black driver get into the car and drive off. And then she might have assumed that the other "perp" was also black. But, if so, why didn't she tell Crowley that the other black guy left?
That way Crowley would have known that the only one inside the house was the frail elderly owner, Mr. Gates. But Crowley said he was experiencing "fear" because there was another suspect inside the house.
You don't have to be a mindreader, Snoopy, to read between the lines. At least one of these people is lying about what transpired after the 911 call, if not both of them, and I stand by my statement about profiling.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, Buzz
What you're not supposed to do is enter someone's house without a warrant like Crowley did. And if Gates were a frail, elderly white man backtalking him, Crowley would have acted more cautiously because he wouldn't have felt the alleged "fear" about the second black man Whalen told him about, the one she saw after she couldn't tell the race of the people on the porch breaking in. Possibly Hispanic, as if they aren't profiled by the cops too.
I will have more to say in a future post about the issue of profiling. The main point of this one, as the heading indicates, is Obama's lapse of judgment in even commenting on the incident, and comparing that with goofs by other presidents.
I'm not surprised that you chose to limit your comment to the underlying framework of the Gates incident, as opposed to the main thrust of my comment by coming to Ronald Reagan's defense, or Bush's defense. That's because my main point was correct. Those two "leaders" made repeated idiotic statements, while Obama made a single sensible statement when he should have kept his mouth shut.
What you're not supposed to do is enter someone's house without a warrant like Crowley did. And if Gates were a frail, elderly white man backtalking him, Crowley would have acted more cautiously because he wouldn't have felt the alleged "fear" about the second black man Whalen told him about, the one she saw after she couldn't tell the race of the people on the porch breaking in. Possibly Hispanic, as if they aren't profiled by the cops too.
I will have more to say in a future post about the issue of profiling. The main point of this one, as the heading indicates, is Obama's lapse of judgment in even commenting on the incident, and comparing that with goofs by other presidents.
I'm not surprised that you chose to limit your comment to the underlying framework of the Gates incident, as opposed to the main thrust of my comment by coming to Ronald Reagan's defense, or Bush's defense. That's because my main point was correct. Those two "leaders" made repeated idiotic statements, while Obama made a single sensible statement when he should have kept his mouth shut.
Peter Walker [Member] writes:
I knew you were hopelessly partisan, and a race-baiter, I didn't realize you were ignorant of the law.
When the Sergeant responded he had the power to enter the dwelling without a warrant because he had probable cause to believe a crime is in progress.
When the Sergeant responded he had the power to enter the dwelling without a warrant because he had probable cause to believe a crime is in progress.
awayfromthebay [Member] writes:
Richard,
Would your comments about Ms. Whalen change knowing that she is, as described by press reports, an "olive skinned woman of Portugese ancestry"?.
And your argument of what if Gates were "a frail, elderly white man backtalking him" instead of the middle aged not so frail man that he is doesn't really make any kind of sense.
I have had the Bourne police stop by my house right after I bought it under similar circumstances, (neighbor not knowing who I was, a recent spate of break ins in the neighborhood, etc). When questioned by the police, who did in fact come through my door, I immediatly identified myself as the homeowner and showed the police the paperwork I had for the house. I didn't act out and didn't get abusive with the police and lo and behold I did NOT get arrested. I am thankful that my neighbors are vigilant as they are.
Would your comments about Ms. Whalen change knowing that she is, as described by press reports, an "olive skinned woman of Portugese ancestry"?.
And your argument of what if Gates were "a frail, elderly white man backtalking him" instead of the middle aged not so frail man that he is doesn't really make any kind of sense.
I have had the Bourne police stop by my house right after I bought it under similar circumstances, (neighbor not knowing who I was, a recent spate of break ins in the neighborhood, etc). When questioned by the police, who did in fact come through my door, I immediatly identified myself as the homeowner and showed the police the paperwork I had for the house. I didn't act out and didn't get abusive with the police and lo and behold I did NOT get arrested. I am thankful that my neighbors are vigilant as they are.
Buzz [Member] writes:
Richard writes: "I'm not surprised that you chose to limit your comment to the underlying framework of the Gates incident"
Sorry Richard, at least I didn't get up and storm out of the room. I'll try and be more specific in the future. I guess it's difficult to address the "main thrust" of your comment when the facts in your story need to be corrected.
Sorry Richard, at least I didn't get up and storm out of the room. I'll try and be more specific in the future. I guess it's difficult to address the "main thrust" of your comment when the facts in your story need to be corrected.
capeconservative [Member] writes:
There have been many occasions over the years when someone accidentally sets off the alarm at my home or office. If the police are summoned before we have a chance to call the alarm company, they are obligated to show up.
If the officer on the scene does not know one of us personally, he has always asked for ID. A couple of times I have even received a phone call to the effect of, "Does so-and-so belong in your house?"
We have never acted out with the police and (just like awayfromthebay) did not get arrested, either. True that Cape Cod is not Cambridge, but this sounded like a perfectly ordinary police call that went wrong when Prof. Gates started acting out.
If the officer on the scene does not know one of us personally, he has always asked for ID. A couple of times I have even received a phone call to the effect of, "Does so-and-so belong in your house?"
We have never acted out with the police and (just like awayfromthebay) did not get arrested, either. True that Cape Cod is not Cambridge, but this sounded like a perfectly ordinary police call that went wrong when Prof. Gates started acting out.
Ana Paulina [Member] writes:
The finger pointing, to do well criticism, alienates a valuable factor here.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, capecon
There's a difference between an alarm that the property owner deliberately installs as an invitation for the police to investigate, and seeing the police show up based on nothing more than an ambiguous report like the one Ms. Whalen gave.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the doubt to Whalen.
There's a difference between an alarm that the property owner deliberately installs as an invitation for the police to investigate, and seeing the police show up based on nothing more than an ambiguous report like the one Ms. Whalen gave.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the doubt to Whalen.
Richard [Member] writes:
Peter
Tell me where an unconfirmed 911 call creates probable cause to enter -especially where the 911 caller expressly said she couldn't tell if the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Tell me where an unconfirmed 911 call creates probable cause to enter -especially where the 911 caller expressly said she couldn't tell if the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi Buzz
Fact. Whalen described the two men she saw as "Hispanic."
Fact. Crowley understood before he entered Gates house that it was "two black men with backpacks" attempting to break into the house.
Fact. Crowley says he got that information about the "suspects" race from Whalen.
Fact. Whalen denies she told Crowley about the two men's race.
Fact. Whalen expessly told the dispatcher she could not tell whether the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Fact. The only way Whalen could have known the "suspects" were black is if she waited around and saw the driver leave.
Fact. Crowley doesn't say that Whalen saw one of the "suspects" leave.
Fact. If she told Crowley she saw the driver leave, he wouldn't have claimed to have "fear" when he saw only one "suspect" in the house.
There's only one thing certain here, and it is racial profiling by the Cambridge police, if not Whalen too.
Fact. Whalen described the two men she saw as "Hispanic."
Fact. Crowley understood before he entered Gates house that it was "two black men with backpacks" attempting to break into the house.
Fact. Crowley says he got that information about the "suspects" race from Whalen.
Fact. Whalen denies she told Crowley about the two men's race.
Fact. Whalen expessly told the dispatcher she could not tell whether the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Fact. The only way Whalen could have known the "suspects" were black is if she waited around and saw the driver leave.
Fact. Crowley doesn't say that Whalen saw one of the "suspects" leave.
Fact. If she told Crowley she saw the driver leave, he wouldn't have claimed to have "fear" when he saw only one "suspect" in the house.
There's only one thing certain here, and it is racial profiling by the Cambridge police, if not Whalen too.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, awayfromthebay
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. she saw them as not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing, and she gave them the benefit of the doubt. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report, however. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the benefit of doubt to Whalen, but there's still some doubt on the issue.
It's possible Crowley saw the driver leave which is how he knew he was black and his report is just one big CYA job.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. she saw them as not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing, and she gave them the benefit of the doubt. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report, however. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the benefit of doubt to Whalen, but there's still some doubt on the issue.
It's possible Crowley saw the driver leave which is how he knew he was black and his report is just one big CYA job.
Peter Walker [Member] writes:
Let' see,
Possible B&E, one unidentified person in dwelling.
She claimed that of the two people, one might be Hispanic.
Where is the Hispanic Richard? Riffling through the bedroom or was it a home invasion and he's behind a door.
Crowley was called there to help (didn't go on his own), not to listen to some Ivy league educated pompous a$$ed race-baiter give him a hard time.
Why do socialists hate cops?
Possible B&E, one unidentified person in dwelling.
She claimed that of the two people, one might be Hispanic.
Where is the Hispanic Richard? Riffling through the bedroom or was it a home invasion and he's behind a door.
Crowley was called there to help (didn't go on his own), not to listen to some Ivy league educated pompous a$$ed race-baiter give him a hard time.
Why do socialists hate cops?
petercohen [Member] writes:
"Why do socialists hate cops?"
Peter:
Allow me to turn the question around. Why do people seem so intent on tossing away their civil liberties?
This case isn't about race, as much as the niggling over details in the forum here would like to make it out to be. It's what Gates' constitutional rights are in his own home.
No less an authority than Andrew Napolitano -- a former federal circuit judge who now works as a legal analyst for Fox News -- says that this is a plain and simple case of improper arrest; that Crowley overstepped his authority by cuffing Gates and taking him away on his own property.
You can watch for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYo6dR0tf_I
Napolitano makes the case that Gates' civil rights were violated in plain language that even the most wild-eyed and rabid of us should be able to understand.
Peter:
Allow me to turn the question around. Why do people seem so intent on tossing away their civil liberties?
This case isn't about race, as much as the niggling over details in the forum here would like to make it out to be. It's what Gates' constitutional rights are in his own home.
No less an authority than Andrew Napolitano -- a former federal circuit judge who now works as a legal analyst for Fox News -- says that this is a plain and simple case of improper arrest; that Crowley overstepped his authority by cuffing Gates and taking him away on his own property.
You can watch for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYo6dR0tf_I
Napolitano makes the case that Gates' civil rights were violated in plain language that even the most wild-eyed and rabid of us should be able to understand.
Peter Walker [Member] writes:
petercohen
Allow me to pose this question, when did I defend the or even mention the arrest?
As far as Judge Napolitano goes I saw the show.
And you didn't answer my question,
Why do socialists hate cops?
Allow me to pose this question, when did I defend the or even mention the arrest?
As far as Judge Napolitano goes I saw the show.
And you didn't answer my question,
Why do socialists hate cops?
voiceofreason22 [Member] writes:
This entire post is bogus.
You weren't there, you don't know the facts. You couldn't even begin to put yourself in Crowley or Gates shoes.
You are just slinging crap at the wall and seeing what gets a rise out of the followers of this site.
Enough with the Reagan bashing already.....it's obvious you abhore the man......let him rest in peace.
You weren't there, you don't know the facts. You couldn't even begin to put yourself in Crowley or Gates shoes.
You are just slinging crap at the wall and seeing what gets a rise out of the followers of this site.
Enough with the Reagan bashing already.....it's obvious you abhore the man......let him rest in peace.
awayfromthebay [Member] writes:
Yes Richard...when pressed by the 911 dispatcher the woman (Ms Whalen) said one of the men looked "Hispanic". Also the US DOT states that those of Portugese heritage are classified as.....Hispanic. I guess you are saying that she profiled one of her own race.
By that rational my white neighbor that called on me when I first bought my present house was profiling me.
The problem is Richard you wrote this article without all the facts and now you are just trying to cover your a$$. You were wrong and I pointed it out in the first post here and you wanted to argue. If you don't believe me read my first post and your reply.
Try getting your facts right next time and quit trying to make everyone out as a racist.
By that rational my white neighbor that called on me when I first bought my present house was profiling me.
The problem is Richard you wrote this article without all the facts and now you are just trying to cover your a$$. You were wrong and I pointed it out in the first post here and you wanted to argue. If you don't believe me read my first post and your reply.
Try getting your facts right next time and quit trying to make everyone out as a racist.
Peter Walker [Member] writes:
Richard [Member] writes:
The best that can be said now is that Obama isn't Reagan, Clinton or Bush, and therefore it's not likely to happen again.
Except:
Said he’d been to 57 states and he thought he still had one more to go.
Stated Hillary had an advantage because he thought Arkansas was closer to Kentucky than Illinois.
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965.
Didn’t know about the Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup but voted on a bill in regards to it.
Said Iran doesn’t pose a serious threat to us.
On his bowling skills, "It's like -- it was like Special Olympics or something,"
Austrian is a language.
DVD’s and an Ipod ? 'nuff said.
Not to mention bowing before King Abdullah, breaking his promise on a shelter dog, the 2009 World Apology Tour and earning the nickname "TelePrompter-In-Chief."
Yeah he's pretty smooth alright.
The best that can be said now is that Obama isn't Reagan, Clinton or Bush, and therefore it's not likely to happen again.
Except:
Said he’d been to 57 states and he thought he still had one more to go.
Stated Hillary had an advantage because he thought Arkansas was closer to Kentucky than Illinois.
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965.
Didn’t know about the Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup but voted on a bill in regards to it.
Said Iran doesn’t pose a serious threat to us.
On his bowling skills, "It's like -- it was like Special Olympics or something,"
Austrian is a language.
DVD’s and an Ipod ? 'nuff said.
Not to mention bowing before King Abdullah, breaking his promise on a shelter dog, the 2009 World Apology Tour and earning the nickname "TelePrompter-In-Chief."
Yeah he's pretty smooth alright.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi,awtb
What's your point? I said I backtracked on my comment as to Ms. Whalen after I listened to the 911 tape. I was wrong about her and I said so, which is something all the right-wing ideologues who comment here are incapable of doing, either intellectually or morally.
Where the profiling occurred is when the dispatcher took that "Hispanic" reference, sent a report out, and somehow it was translated by Sgt. Crowley as "two black men." Now, despite what intelligent people like you know about the DOT, to many Americans, including the Cambridge PD dispatcher, "Hispanic" means black or the equivalent. How else did Crowley get that idea? Ms. Whalen denies she told him, and I said I give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. As you say, AFTB, "try getting your facts right next time" and open your eyes and your mind so you will recognize reality in all its forms, including racial profiling, when it's staring you in the face.
The main point of this post was not Whalen. It was Obama's absolutely correct statement that the cops were stupid -and so was he for discussing it.
What's your point? I said I backtracked on my comment as to Ms. Whalen after I listened to the 911 tape. I was wrong about her and I said so, which is something all the right-wing ideologues who comment here are incapable of doing, either intellectually or morally.
Where the profiling occurred is when the dispatcher took that "Hispanic" reference, sent a report out, and somehow it was translated by Sgt. Crowley as "two black men." Now, despite what intelligent people like you know about the DOT, to many Americans, including the Cambridge PD dispatcher, "Hispanic" means black or the equivalent. How else did Crowley get that idea? Ms. Whalen denies she told him, and I said I give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. As you say, AFTB, "try getting your facts right next time" and open your eyes and your mind so you will recognize reality in all its forms, including racial profiling, when it's staring you in the face.
The main point of this post was not Whalen. It was Obama's absolutely correct statement that the cops were stupid -and so was he for discussing it.
Peter Walker [Member] writes:
..."to many Americans, including the Cambridge PD dispatcher, "Hispanic" means black or the equivalent..."
Nice work Richard, profiling at its finest.
Nice work Richard, profiling at its finest.
crusader [Member] writes:
Richard,
Rumor around town and campus is that the woman who called the Cambridge police is in charge of Harvard Magazine. What I don't understand is why the campus police didn't show up pronto which would have avoided this entire fiasco.
My opinion: Both professor and officer acted inappropriately. If I had to choose which is more at fault, it would have to be the professor. We all know we are not suppose to argue with the police, unless there is just cause. He was only doing his job. There is a rumor circulating that he insulted the officer's mother. He should have just gone along quietly which would have diffused the entire situation. It's not often I side with the police, but in this instance I do.
Egos get in the way of reason. I just hope they don't sue. We have enough problems with municipal budgets.
How dumb does that caller feel, I wonder? Doesn't she know the faculty by now?
Obama getting on the platform about this is way out of line. He has more important issues to be concerned with he should focus on.
They should just drop the entire matter and move on.
Rumor around town and campus is that the woman who called the Cambridge police is in charge of Harvard Magazine. What I don't understand is why the campus police didn't show up pronto which would have avoided this entire fiasco.
My opinion: Both professor and officer acted inappropriately. If I had to choose which is more at fault, it would have to be the professor. We all know we are not suppose to argue with the police, unless there is just cause. He was only doing his job. There is a rumor circulating that he insulted the officer's mother. He should have just gone along quietly which would have diffused the entire situation. It's not often I side with the police, but in this instance I do.
Egos get in the way of reason. I just hope they don't sue. We have enough problems with municipal budgets.
How dumb does that caller feel, I wonder? Doesn't she know the faculty by now?
Obama getting on the platform about this is way out of line. He has more important issues to be concerned with he should focus on.
They should just drop the entire matter and move on.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, Peter
I guess critical thinking wasn't on the curriculum up there in Hanover. How do you get profiling from my statement that "many Americans" equate Hispanic with black when:
(a) I did not say that all white Americans equate Hispanic with black;
(b) Despite the DOT, the majority of people who are descibed as Hispanic in the US are not European Spanish but are from Mexico or South America where they are racially mixed and therefore non-white; and
(c) As a matter of fact, not opinion, Whalen's description of two Hispanic men who only might have been breaking in, or were maybe just pushing on a sticky door, was equated within the Cambridge PD with "two black males" breaking in, as stated on Crowley's written report.
C'mon Peter, get a few brain cells working together for a change, plus some intellectual honesty for once, and admit you can't explain how "Hispanic" got translated as "two black males" without racial profiling somewhere along the line, specifically within the Cambridge PD, as it appears from the 911 tape it did not come from Whalen.
I guess critical thinking wasn't on the curriculum up there in Hanover. How do you get profiling from my statement that "many Americans" equate Hispanic with black when:
(a) I did not say that all white Americans equate Hispanic with black;
(b) Despite the DOT, the majority of people who are descibed as Hispanic in the US are not European Spanish but are from Mexico or South America where they are racially mixed and therefore non-white; and
(c) As a matter of fact, not opinion, Whalen's description of two Hispanic men who only might have been breaking in, or were maybe just pushing on a sticky door, was equated within the Cambridge PD with "two black males" breaking in, as stated on Crowley's written report.
C'mon Peter, get a few brain cells working together for a change, plus some intellectual honesty for once, and admit you can't explain how "Hispanic" got translated as "two black males" without racial profiling somewhere along the line, specifically within the Cambridge PD, as it appears from the 911 tape it did not come from Whalen.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, Crusader
I agree with you, except I won't put most of the blame on Gates -just an equal share with Crowley. Both men acted stupidly, as Obama correctly but stupidly opined.
Gates and Crowley acted out of Macho stupidity, as Joan Vennochi commented. Obama acted upon political stupidity.
But let's have some sympathy for Gates here. After all, this whole thing in the press will blow over soon, but his wife has been on his case about why he didn't fix the damned door when she told him to before he went on the trip, and she's not gonna let up on him anytime soon.
I agree with you, except I won't put most of the blame on Gates -just an equal share with Crowley. Both men acted stupidly, as Obama correctly but stupidly opined.
Gates and Crowley acted out of Macho stupidity, as Joan Vennochi commented. Obama acted upon political stupidity.
But let's have some sympathy for Gates here. After all, this whole thing in the press will blow over soon, but his wife has been on his case about why he didn't fix the damned door when she told him to before he went on the trip, and she's not gonna let up on him anytime soon.
Richard [Member] writes:
So, awayfromthebay
I realize that my comment about Whalen's profiling was wrong, based on prejudgment, and I admit it. That doesn't alter the validity of my larger point about racial profiling within the Cambridge PD, however, and it in fact serves as proof as you must agree.
Whalen, to her credit didn't offer anything about race, didn't say black but only Hispanic and didn't say that the men she saw were in fact breaking in, only that they might have been doing so but they could have just been pushing on a sticky door. That's what the 911 tape says.
So how did Crowley get "two black males" breaking in on his police report, if it wasn't racial profiling somewhere within the Cambridge PD, either by the dispatcher or by himself, or both? Whalen denies telling him that.
Please explain.
While you're at it, try explaining why Crowley arresting Gates for anything wasn't very stupid after he knew that Gates lived in the house. Sure, Gates was being obstreperous, but that's not a crime, and the charges were in fact so stupid the D.A. had them voluntarily dismissed.
I realize that my comment about Whalen's profiling was wrong, based on prejudgment, and I admit it. That doesn't alter the validity of my larger point about racial profiling within the Cambridge PD, however, and it in fact serves as proof as you must agree.
Whalen, to her credit didn't offer anything about race, didn't say black but only Hispanic and didn't say that the men she saw were in fact breaking in, only that they might have been doing so but they could have just been pushing on a sticky door. That's what the 911 tape says.
So how did Crowley get "two black males" breaking in on his police report, if it wasn't racial profiling somewhere within the Cambridge PD, either by the dispatcher or by himself, or both? Whalen denies telling him that.
Please explain.
While you're at it, try explaining why Crowley arresting Gates for anything wasn't very stupid after he knew that Gates lived in the house. Sure, Gates was being obstreperous, but that's not a crime, and the charges were in fact so stupid the D.A. had them voluntarily dismissed.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, Buzz
The issue in the Gates incident really isn't whether the police properly asked for a description, but how the police got from Whalen's description of one "possibly Hispanic male" who might have been breaking in but also might just have been pushing on a sticky door, all the way to "two black males" who were seen breaking in?
Now, I'm not talking over you to prevent you from getting your question out like "Cindy" did to me a few weeks ago, so don't go storming out on me. Just answer the question, directly please, how do you get from a "Hispanic" who wasn't definitely breaking in to two black males who were breaking in, as Crowley says was reported to him, without racial profiling?
This isn't subjective on my part, because I'm white. It's entirely objective, as well as both logical and intellectually honest.
I wrongly prejudged Ms. Whalen as part of the profiling chain, but the 911 tapes show that the profiling actually began within the Cambridge PD. How else do you explain it?
The issue in the Gates incident really isn't whether the police properly asked for a description, but how the police got from Whalen's description of one "possibly Hispanic male" who might have been breaking in but also might just have been pushing on a sticky door, all the way to "two black males" who were seen breaking in?
Now, I'm not talking over you to prevent you from getting your question out like "Cindy" did to me a few weeks ago, so don't go storming out on me. Just answer the question, directly please, how do you get from a "Hispanic" who wasn't definitely breaking in to two black males who were breaking in, as Crowley says was reported to him, without racial profiling?
This isn't subjective on my part, because I'm white. It's entirely objective, as well as both logical and intellectually honest.
I wrongly prejudged Ms. Whalen as part of the profiling chain, but the 911 tapes show that the profiling actually began within the Cambridge PD. How else do you explain it?
possee [Member] writes:
Quite a discussion of legalese and racism by a bunch of white folks wrangling with their guilt by race and self inflicted doubt..
The law is the the law and my particular friends of many colors laugh at this repeated attempt to feel justified by the people of caucasian descent arguing over this incident..
Racism exists by All folks by All colors..it is the human condition..
get over it and accept people by what they are..
People from all nationalities are prejudice towards their own and those not of their race or creed..
be they police, business owners,politicians, any profession..
Too bad some cry the "race' card and get noticed when it is not the case!
Had it been 2 white professors breaking in to a house they owned, and were subsequently arrested by 2 officers of color..would the same arguments remain?
possee
The law is the the law and my particular friends of many colors laugh at this repeated attempt to feel justified by the people of caucasian descent arguing over this incident..
Racism exists by All folks by All colors..it is the human condition..
get over it and accept people by what they are..
People from all nationalities are prejudice towards their own and those not of their race or creed..
be they police, business owners,politicians, any profession..
Too bad some cry the "race' card and get noticed when it is not the case!
Had it been 2 white professors breaking in to a house they owned, and were subsequently arrested by 2 officers of color..would the same arguments remain?
possee
Peter Walker [Member] writes:
Richard, I have to admit the line about the door is genuinely funny ;-)
Jonathan [Member] writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZiXizBUFgU
Buzz [Member] writes:
Richard,
What do you mean that "the 911 tapes show the profiling began with the Cambridge PD"?
I've listened to the tapes and I don't see it.
What do you mean that "the 911 tapes show the profiling began with the Cambridge PD"?
I've listened to the tapes and I don't see it.
crusader [Member] writes:
Richard,
I have to disagree with you on this round. I have seen and heard enough of both worlds--professors and police.
I've worked for the most pompous, elitist, insulated wind bags you would ever NOT want to know. Spending even 10 minutes with some of these high maintenance, overly educated, clueless egomaniacs could make even the most tolerant person go nuts! However, there are many professors who are very nice people who do not look down on the working class and have sincere concern for all, and they appreciate the easier lifestyle they have--sure they work for it, but do not make others feel less, and they don't like to work with them, either. I have a few stories that would make your skin crawl. If parents only knew what their tuition pays.
I also know that there is racism among many and why should law enforcement be exempt? But in this case, I believe that Gates was exercising his pompous rights as a Harvard Professor and the officer didn't tolerate his alleged outbursts and slanderous remarks. Why should he? It wasn't like Gates was hurt in the altercation. cont.
I have to disagree with you on this round. I have seen and heard enough of both worlds--professors and police.
I've worked for the most pompous, elitist, insulated wind bags you would ever NOT want to know. Spending even 10 minutes with some of these high maintenance, overly educated, clueless egomaniacs could make even the most tolerant person go nuts! However, there are many professors who are very nice people who do not look down on the working class and have sincere concern for all, and they appreciate the easier lifestyle they have--sure they work for it, but do not make others feel less, and they don't like to work with them, either. I have a few stories that would make your skin crawl. If parents only knew what their tuition pays.
I also know that there is racism among many and why should law enforcement be exempt? But in this case, I believe that Gates was exercising his pompous rights as a Harvard Professor and the officer didn't tolerate his alleged outbursts and slanderous remarks. Why should he? It wasn't like Gates was hurt in the altercation. cont.
crusader [Member] writes:
After their callous display of layoffs (over 2000+) of support staff, I don't have much respect for some of these institutions of higher ed. But some of us have to work, we would all like to be well educated and have the best benefits. But with all that comes sacrifice, at times of ones own dignity.
I have less sympathy for a professor who wants to find a podium to profess his own agenda. If he cares about racism so much, he should go into the jails and help the wrongly incarcerated minorities. But, he's too busy calling Obama to cry about his 15 minute scuffle with Cambridge PD. There are two sides to every story, Richard.
The policeman who told me about the campus brats is one of your own. He moved to Harwich some time ago and said he hated being a campus police officer because the rich and snotty students could never be held accountable for their crimes of drunken disorderly, destruction of property and worse crimes. Mommy and daddy keep pulling out the checkbooks and everyone looks the other way.
I know there is racism within law enforcement, but not in this case.
I have less sympathy for a professor who wants to find a podium to profess his own agenda. If he cares about racism so much, he should go into the jails and help the wrongly incarcerated minorities. But, he's too busy calling Obama to cry about his 15 minute scuffle with Cambridge PD. There are two sides to every story, Richard.
The policeman who told me about the campus brats is one of your own. He moved to Harwich some time ago and said he hated being a campus police officer because the rich and snotty students could never be held accountable for their crimes of drunken disorderly, destruction of property and worse crimes. Mommy and daddy keep pulling out the checkbooks and everyone looks the other way.
I know there is racism within law enforcement, but not in this case.
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, Possee
I confess. I'm guilty of speaking while white about race relations. What are you gonna do -arrest me for disorderly comment?
I confess. I'm guilty of speaking while white about race relations. What are you gonna do -arrest me for disorderly comment?
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, Buzz
As I asked crusader, please explain how Whalen's "possibly" Hispanic male with another man of uncertain race, who only may have been breaking into a house but could as likely have been pushing on a stuck door, became transformed, as written on Crowley's official report, into "two black males with backpacks" breaking into the house.
Please explain how that happened without someone, either the dispatcher or Crowley himself, making the assumption that Whalen's ambiguous and tentative report as to both race and what was happening actually meant that two black men were breaking into the house. That assumption, as clearly documented on Crowley's report and contrary to what Whalen said,was racial profiling.
How else do you explain it, both in light of logic and the fact that racial profiling is a common enough phenomenon that Crowley himself instructs rookie cops on the subject?
Give Crowley a break? O.k, then it was the dispatcher who profiled. Still, Crowley acted stupidly to arrest Gates as he did, as both Obama and the Middlesex D.A. clearly recognized.
As I asked crusader, please explain how Whalen's "possibly" Hispanic male with another man of uncertain race, who only may have been breaking into a house but could as likely have been pushing on a stuck door, became transformed, as written on Crowley's official report, into "two black males with backpacks" breaking into the house.
Please explain how that happened without someone, either the dispatcher or Crowley himself, making the assumption that Whalen's ambiguous and tentative report as to both race and what was happening actually meant that two black men were breaking into the house. That assumption, as clearly documented on Crowley's report and contrary to what Whalen said,was racial profiling.
How else do you explain it, both in light of logic and the fact that racial profiling is a common enough phenomenon that Crowley himself instructs rookie cops on the subject?
Give Crowley a break? O.k, then it was the dispatcher who profiled. Still, Crowley acted stupidly to arrest Gates as he did, as both Obama and the Middlesex D.A. clearly recognized.
possee [Member] writes:
and I thought caucasians were guilty as charged for "being white"..
I confess, also..
possee
I confess, also..
possee
crusader [Member] writes:
Richard,
As much as they profess to do such wonderful things for the City of Cambridge & surrounding towns, I find them to be a nuisance at times due to their elitist attitudes. I once rented to a corp. lawyer graduate who was a raving lunatic. When she wasn't smashing dishes that my neighbors could hear across the street and berating her trust fund boyfriend, she was calling me for frivolous demands. She bought a house when her lease was up, insisted on ext. lease because her house wasn't ready, I said no, she retaliated by leaving the place dirty and left at the last hour of her lease. Boyfriend held lease to the door, saying she was a stickler, her orders to stay. A realtor classified her as "one of the many Harvard brats". It become one hell of a cat fight. I told her will never get a referral from me. Another incident was while working for chairman of surgery at MAH. Someone from the credentialing office called from HMedSchool. They anncounced, "this is the MedSchool calling", I asked "which?" (Tufts does exist) response, "IS THERE ANOTHER?". I said, "YES, TUFTS".
As much as they profess to do such wonderful things for the City of Cambridge & surrounding towns, I find them to be a nuisance at times due to their elitist attitudes. I once rented to a corp. lawyer graduate who was a raving lunatic. When she wasn't smashing dishes that my neighbors could hear across the street and berating her trust fund boyfriend, she was calling me for frivolous demands. She bought a house when her lease was up, insisted on ext. lease because her house wasn't ready, I said no, she retaliated by leaving the place dirty and left at the last hour of her lease. Boyfriend held lease to the door, saying she was a stickler, her orders to stay. A realtor classified her as "one of the many Harvard brats". It become one hell of a cat fight. I told her will never get a referral from me. Another incident was while working for chairman of surgery at MAH. Someone from the credentialing office called from HMedSchool. They anncounced, "this is the MedSchool calling", I asked "which?" (Tufts does exist) response, "IS THERE ANOTHER?". I said, "YES, TUFTS".
crusader [Member] writes:
Richard,
By illustrating my experiences with members of Harvard, I'm attempting to make a point about how Harvard does produce some BULLIES. I don't know if you read the links I posted weeks ago about how members of Harvard Business School are directly responsible for the Wallstreet meltdown, all while they continue to work in their lucrative jobs. Their layoff of 2000+ workers was not report accurately in the Globe. It read only 274, but they have been finding creative ways of forcing people out by retirement, etc. I know many will say this is irrelevant to the case at hand with Professor Gates. But is it? When someone goes around boasting who they are and where they work does that mean they too are above the law? Can make statements like "you don't know who the F you're messing with?". Would you say that as an attorney confronted by an officer who is just doing his job?
Hispanic vs. black suspects on the porch--how far was Ms. Whelan from the house? Maybe she couldn't tell. Shades of skin do not always identify specific ethnicity. His house is not that far from campus.
By illustrating my experiences with members of Harvard, I'm attempting to make a point about how Harvard does produce some BULLIES. I don't know if you read the links I posted weeks ago about how members of Harvard Business School are directly responsible for the Wallstreet meltdown, all while they continue to work in their lucrative jobs. Their layoff of 2000+ workers was not report accurately in the Globe. It read only 274, but they have been finding creative ways of forcing people out by retirement, etc. I know many will say this is irrelevant to the case at hand with Professor Gates. But is it? When someone goes around boasting who they are and where they work does that mean they too are above the law? Can make statements like "you don't know who the F you're messing with?". Would you say that as an attorney confronted by an officer who is just doing his job?
Hispanic vs. black suspects on the porch--how far was Ms. Whelan from the house? Maybe she couldn't tell. Shades of skin do not always identify specific ethnicity. His house is not that far from campus.
crusader [Member] writes:
possee,
You really do come up with the best lines....LOL.
You really do come up with the best lines....LOL.
crusader [Member] writes:
Just a few comments about Professor Gates's Harvard:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=527831
"Harvard and all the universities in the Boston area have massive amounts of money in their endowments and are charging students 50K + per year. Seems to me to be a "money making for profit" institution. This being the case I think it's time that Boston and Cambridge should be allowed to tax them like any other business".
"Someone who makes $775,000 a year in salary (and surely more in book contract money and perks); oversees a $3.5 billion operating budget and a $25 billion endowment; and has unparallel connections to extremely wealthy friends and associates, yet cannot think of a way to save 275 jobs, is thoroughly incompetent". (Boston.com comments)
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=527831
"Harvard and all the universities in the Boston area have massive amounts of money in their endowments and are charging students 50K + per year. Seems to me to be a "money making for profit" institution. This being the case I think it's time that Boston and Cambridge should be allowed to tax them like any other business".
"Someone who makes $775,000 a year in salary (and surely more in book contract money and perks); oversees a $3.5 billion operating budget and a $25 billion endowment; and has unparallel connections to extremely wealthy friends and associates, yet cannot think of a way to save 275 jobs, is thoroughly incompetent". (Boston.com comments)
crusader [Member] writes:
My favorite:
"In the same week that Goldman-Sachs pays back the 10 billion in stimulus funds so that it can avoid executive compensation limits and give record bonuses to its own, Harvard adds its little contribution to an unemployment level that is nationally 9.4 % and is expected to reach 10% within the next quarter. We should cheer Goldman-Sachs' concern for the taxpayer, except that a good chunk of their recent earnings were directly made off the executions of the stimulus plan and it was their own executives who played a role in the decline of Harvard's endowment and the near collapse of the financial system. It's good for them that their competition is thinned out (Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brothers)..continued...
"In the same week that Goldman-Sachs pays back the 10 billion in stimulus funds so that it can avoid executive compensation limits and give record bonuses to its own, Harvard adds its little contribution to an unemployment level that is nationally 9.4 % and is expected to reach 10% within the next quarter. We should cheer Goldman-Sachs' concern for the taxpayer, except that a good chunk of their recent earnings were directly made off the executions of the stimulus plan and it was their own executives who played a role in the decline of Harvard's endowment and the near collapse of the financial system. It's good for them that their competition is thinned out (Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brothers)..continued...
crusader [Member] writes:
What I don't understand, however, is Harvard's pitiful faith in the ability of the national economy to recover--that the loss of endowment and endowment income cannot absorb enough to cover the salaries of 275 employees over the next few years. Their position as the richest educational institution is hardly jeopardized. But it's easy to sacrifice those whose salaries pale in the grand scheme of Harvard finances to the fantasy numbers of an endowment which represents, even with the loss of a third of its highest value, an embarrassment of riches which no other university comes close. Then again its Harvard MBAs who dominate Goldman-Sachs and helped engineer the financial disaster and Harvard MBAs who figured out rather quickly how to profit from it. And its Harvard MBAs who are absolutely clueless to the plights of the people who really work to keep the universities and America going, but always get the shaft when things go bad. The idiotic viewpoint of people like SATNAVSYS whose hero is the corporate criminal Chainsaw Jack Welch is exactly the mentality that Harvard produces.
6/24/2009 6:22 AM EDT
6/24/2009 6:22 AM EDT
crusader [Member] writes:
(Boston.com comments...above)
Somehow, Richard, it seems to put it all in perspective for me. Until you get to work up close with some of Harvard's finest, you really don't know, just as we don't know officer's behind a badge.
I would just like people to look at the whole picture for once. It's not like me to condone harassment by the police, but I also don't accept arrogance and lack of good judgment on the part of the professor. That's just my opinion. Guess I'm more biased against the arrogance at Harvard than I am for being willing to condemn the police. They do their share, no doubt, but this has turned into a witch hunt that I hope gets diffused. It will do no good to continue to beat the drums of unfounded racism in this case. As I said before, when I see Al, Jessie and Mr. Gates standing up for the poor black men who do get discriminated upon, then maybe I will listen. As I see it, they all have their own agendas.
Somehow, Richard, it seems to put it all in perspective for me. Until you get to work up close with some of Harvard's finest, you really don't know, just as we don't know officer's behind a badge.
I would just like people to look at the whole picture for once. It's not like me to condone harassment by the police, but I also don't accept arrogance and lack of good judgment on the part of the professor. That's just my opinion. Guess I'm more biased against the arrogance at Harvard than I am for being willing to condemn the police. They do their share, no doubt, but this has turned into a witch hunt that I hope gets diffused. It will do no good to continue to beat the drums of unfounded racism in this case. As I said before, when I see Al, Jessie and Mr. Gates standing up for the poor black men who do get discriminated upon, then maybe I will listen. As I see it, they all have their own agendas.
crusader [Member] writes:
Sorry Richard, one more than I'm off to dreamland...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article5821706.ece
Guys, look at the Dec.20 2008 article of the Globe: 6 Harvard Endowment Managers earn $26.9 million". After reading it wants to make you vomit. I mean how much greedy can these people be?????? Fire your Money Managers Harvard, bring back these 275 wage earners and if you truly are a Harvardite give them a darn raise with an apology.!!!!!!!!!!!
6/24/2009 3:11 PM EDT
Guys...let us not forget that the Harvard Business School has produced in the last 20 years, the MBA-hitmen who INVENTED globalization, layoffs, arbitrage, sub-prime mortgages, and a host of financial wrong-doings associated with improving the bottom line while DESTROYING the fabric of American (and world) economics.
I'll say it again...Harvard is EVIL!!!
(Boston.com comments)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article5821706.ece
Guys, look at the Dec.20 2008 article of the Globe: 6 Harvard Endowment Managers earn $26.9 million". After reading it wants to make you vomit. I mean how much greedy can these people be?????? Fire your Money Managers Harvard, bring back these 275 wage earners and if you truly are a Harvardite give them a darn raise with an apology.!!!!!!!!!!!
6/24/2009 3:11 PM EDT
Guys...let us not forget that the Harvard Business School has produced in the last 20 years, the MBA-hitmen who INVENTED globalization, layoffs, arbitrage, sub-prime mortgages, and a host of financial wrong-doings associated with improving the bottom line while DESTROYING the fabric of American (and world) economics.
I'll say it again...Harvard is EVIL!!!
(Boston.com comments)
Richard [Member] writes:
Hi, Crusader
I appreciate your disdain for academic arrogance and hubris. But I have my own direct experiences with how racial profiling by the police works on the streets, as well as awareness of several high-profile cases involving profiling.
See the following post on profiling as based on probable cause for suspicion of breathing while black.
I appreciate your disdain for academic arrogance and hubris. But I have my own direct experiences with how racial profiling by the police works on the streets, as well as awareness of several high-profile cases involving profiling.
See the following post on profiling as based on probable cause for suspicion of breathing while black.
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Whalen Restoration Services, Inc.
Help when you need us most! Complete Fire, smoke, soot, water and mold remediation. Services - cleaning, deodorization and reconstruction. Immediate 24 hour emergency service response. (Dennis)
Help when you need us most! Complete Fire, smoke, soot, water and mold remediation. Services - cleaning, deodorization and reconstruction. Immediate 24 hour emergency service response. (Dennis)
Starr & Chapman, Inc.
A full-service educational consulting company with over 15 yrs experience successfully placing over 1,000 students at competitive boarding schools and colleges across the United States.
A full-service educational consulting company with over 15 yrs experience successfully placing over 1,000 students at competitive boarding schools and colleges across the United States.
IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR COMMENTORS & BLOGGERS: CapeCodToday now requires a one-time validation of your
account email. When logging in or registering for the first time, you will be emailed a link to click that will validate your
email and complete your login. The link in the email must be clicked in the same session when you are logged into the site for security purposes
(i.e. retrieve the email right away and do not close your web browser).
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
Please Login or Register to leave a comment. There are 3,365 registered commenters!
CapeCodToday requires readers register an account with us in order to post comments. Become a trusted commenter and receive the benefits of posting instantly throughout the site. It's quick and easy!
Please note: If you are a CapeCodToday registered blogger, you can use your blogger login. Your login for the blogs is separate from your CapeCodToday main site login (if you have one).
About This Blog
Richard Latimer is a practicing attorney in Falmouth, MA, doing business as Richard K. Latimer, Attorney at Law, 222 Main Street, Falmouth, MA. His practice centers on litigation with a focus on personal injury and disability law, in addition to contracts, construction disputes and other insurance litigation as well. Telephone (508) 548-7006 and e-mail rklaw@cape.com.
He is a 1972 graduate of U.Mass, Amherst and a 1975 graduate of the Columbia University School of Law and a member of the Massachusetts Bar since 1975.
He and his wife of 39 years, Adrienne, and we have a 21 year old son Brian, a 2006 graduate of Falmouth High School, who is presently enrolled at Cape Cod Community and who plans to transfer to U.Mass next fall. Richard has been active in local Falmouth politics, presently as a Town Meeting member and member of the Planning Board.
Recent Comments
- "If you're so hot on liberals not avoiding questions, why
1 min ago - Suggestion for you Mav,
If you don't like reading comments that
8 mins ago - "Doesn't it make you stop and think what kind of
9 mins ago - Last year, they put Snoopy up, and the goddamned thing
22 mins ago - The Great What?...that's the question.
Funn I can't talk about Bush
33 mins ago
- site sponsors -
CCT Blog List
Blogs with posts in the past 60 days are listed here in order of newest posts. For a list of all blogs, visit Blogs A to Z
- Newest Blog Posts
- Newest Comments
- Entering Bourne
- Rog's Gallery
- Police and Fire News
- Bismore Park
- Cape & Islands News
- EXTRA...
- Cape Cod History
- Entering Falmouth
- Long Bridge Runner
- Bill Snowden's Blog
- Latimer on Law
- Cape Yoga
- Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary
- The Ballyard
- The Poet's Perspective
- Cape Cod Rock Hopper
- Editorial
- Media Watch
- Mr. Mom I am not
- Politicalendar
- Cheap Eats
- Rep. Jeff Perry in His Own Words
- The Belly Check
- Conservative's Conscience
- Mahler's Music Notes
- Historic Harwich
- Off-the-Shelf
- Ned Sonntag
- Literary Pop
- Boston Bureau
- Frugal Internet Marketing
- Cape Native
- Sea Street
- State of Cape Cod
- Town Notes
- Solon Economou
- Cape Cod Barrister
- Cape Eyes
- CapeCodToday Arts Calendar
- One Day at a Time
- Cape Cod Tracker
- DIY Marketing
- Trail Hound
- Letters to the Editor
- Project I.E.P.
- Op-Ed
- Through a Washashore's Eyes
- Travel Tales
- CapeCodToday Featured Event
- Off Cape
- My day
- The Natural
- Buckley's Blog
- Eastham Windmill
- Washington Window
- Seufert's Scenes
- Massachusetts Paranormal Institute
- Cape Cod Pets
- Reflections on a Quarter-life Crisis
- Myrbie & Dax
Archives
- November 2009 (3)
- October 2009 (5)
- September 2009 (4)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (4)
- June 2009 (7)
- May 2009 (6)
- April 2009 (8)
- March 2009 (15)
- February 2009 (10)
- January 2009 (1)
Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!
Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?
If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.
Blog Newsfeed
CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.
Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "Latimer on Law" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.
According to the Globe (and others) the original 911 call did NOT mention the two men were black. Do you think you owe Ms. Whalen an appology?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/27/gates_caller_didnt_cite_race_police_say/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32169213/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534902,00.html