The Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail in which he compared Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. to a "banana-eating jungle monkey" has apologized, saying he's not a racist.
Hey, some of his best friends are "banana-eating jungle monkey[s]."
And just because he cried when he offered his non-apology apology i.e. "I am not a racist. I did not intend any racial bigotry, harm or prejudice in my words. I sincerely apologize that these words have been received as such."
That's no reason to think he's a racist! After all, it's all the "banana-eating jungle monkey"[s] who are practicing reverse-racism that have caused this problem.
He cried because he might lose his job, health insurance and retirement. Dude, man up! You said what you think, own the words. That's what free speech is all about.
But free speech also means that citizens don't have to pay your bigoted, racist, stupid, stupid, (did I mention stupid), salary, or your retirement, or your health care.
Gosh, if Congress enacts health care reform you and your family will still have health care.
And then you can holler your bigoted screed from whatever street corner you want to.
And you and your family will still have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Does anyone need it explained to them why it is so dangerous and destructive to have our political debates controlled by GE executives, sitting in their offices censoring the journalism of our leading media outlets in the name of "civility," code for: you will respect those who can harm us? Our entire political culture is already designed to ensure corporate control of our political institutions. Their lobbyists literally write the laws enacted by Congress and control their implementation. The reason the journalism industry insisted for so long on the ludicrous fiction that corporate parents never violated the sanctity of journalistic independence is precisely because everyone understood why that would be so dangerous. Apparently, they no longer feel a need to maintain that fiction.
It's not that we didn't see it coming. Absorption of an inconveniently independent media as a means of controlling the message is a strategy as old as the hills, irrespective of the ideology espoused.
Right-wing eradication (including such acts performed under the Clinton administrations) of laws covering media ownership and a contrasted balance of viewpoints merely hastened an inevitable process in America...The shaping of public perceptions into a form congruent with corporate dictates, the replacement of objective truth with subjective nuance, and the marginalization of contrary information.
Quick note to Congresspersons, Senators, and pundits who breathlessly announce that they, too, are unsure of Barack Obama's birth bona fides:
The dude has a passport. To get a passport you have to do this:
When applying for a U.S. passport in person, evidence of U.S. citizenship must be submitted with Form DS-11. All documentation submitted as citizenship evidence will be returned to you. These documents will be delivered with your newly issued U.S. passport or in a separate mailing.
Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship(One of the following):
*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.
He moved to Indonesia in 1967. He visited Europe and Africa in 1988. He did this with his, you know, passport.
But here's the thing: It doesn't matter where he was born. Not one bit. Why?
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
So according to the law, since mom was a citizen, he could have been born on the moon and still be a citizen.
Seriously, you may be playing to your deluded base, but they're pretty sad examples of critical thinking. Compared to the 'Birthers', Archie Bunker looks enlightened. You're helping wash the Republican brand down the drain.
On 2nd thought, keep it up. Thanks.
And if you think this would be happening if Obama was white? Well, you haven't been paying attention.
Updated to add the title I forgot to put on last night. Sometimes things get lost in the crush of cross-posting and the rush of life.
Yesterday was great weather, great wind, so I played hooky and headed out to the lake. On the way I stopped at a chain liquor store for a 6 pack and ice. I was waiting in line behind a black couple at the cash register when I noticed the clerk give a hard time to the folks in front of me.
The clerk was just plain rude from the get-go, hassled him about his ID, made him produce 3 ID's, and then questioned his significant other about hers. The clerk eventually, grudgingly, accepted their cash.
Me, I'm thinking the clerk was just having a hard day or was habitually rude, except when I got to the counter she was all sunshine and happiness and accepted my credit card with no problem and no request for my DL or anything that would prove it was my CC.
It was obvious, blatant racism on the clerk's part.
There is nothing I could say to the clerk. There's nothing I could say to the couple.
But I know the mangers of this chain and I said something to them. It was probably an exercise in futility, (ya just can't fix stupid), but she's going to be out of a job, and probably will blame black people even more.
I really hate this crap. There's no win/win in racism, it's all just lose/lose.
Here's some brain bleach from the same band from the title of this post.
I haven't visited Rick Moran lately, but i just discovered he's still capable of shooting his rhetoric in the foot, as always, with no hint of awareness.
The facts of the case are a fascinating example of how race divides America. Police, as authority figures, have a notorious history in African American communities — sometimes deserved, sometimes not. It appears from unimpeachable eyewitness accounts that in this case, despite Sgt. Crowley being an expert in how to avoid racial profiling and diversity training, the perception on the part of Professor Gates was that he was being singled out for being black.
Of course, Gates had no idea that Officer Crowley had such a stellar reputation or possessed such tolerant credentials. All he knew was his experience as a black man in America and his assumption that if he had been white, the police would not have asked for his ID.
We’ll never know if that assumption was correct. Just as we’ll never know if the anonymous woman who called the police after seeing Gates try to break into his own home would have done so if she had glimpsed a white man trying to do the same thing. We can assume the best or the worst from all involved and, within the context of our flawed understanding of each other, assure ourselves that we are correct.
The point being, all the actors in this little drama have their perception of the incident colored by what divides us. The actions of everyone were programmed by the rules under which we currently interact as white and black Americans. Gates felt his dignity attacked — an anathema to whites who can’t understand how he could fail to appreciate the police looking after his property. For his part, one might wonder how much more patient Crowley could have or should have been with Gates before arresting him.
Wow. Reasonable. But just as Tourettes' Syndrome will result in a nice person unable to control their speech and mannerisms, Moran just has to revert to his own programming with absolutely no self-awareness:
No doubt he acted professionally. But even with someone as evenhanded as Crowley apparently is, the nagging suspicion that if Gates had been white he would have somehow been treated differently is hard for many to shake. That is the trap that history has set for us and is one from which we refuse to release ourselves.
"No doubt he acted professionally . . . evenhanded . . . " yep. Because as a white guy who has experienced reading words about racisim, he believes that the white cop (on of 'his' people) is de facto evenhanded and professional. As a guy who can pay lip service to the idea that racism may have actually occurred, to fall victim to his own programming and bias is sadly amazing to behold.
And predictable.
The toss-off line about property deserves further unpacking:
Gates felt his dignity attacked — an anathema to whites who can’t understand how he could fail to appreciate the police looking after his property.
Here's a translation: . . . an African-American could fail to appreciate the police looking after his property.
Dude, many African-Americans remember clearly when the police made sure they (African-Americans) were property. And I'm sure most black folks, when pulled over for DWB (driving while black) are thankful the cops are looking after city streets, which are their (as citizens) property.
And a sadly large number of whites still appreciate police hassling black folks, because 'they' are always up to something, like trying to steal jobs through affirmative action, or complaining that their ancestors were slaves while modern white folks had nothing to do with that so they just dont' want to hear about it.
Post-racial my ass. But in the end, Moran does speak truth:
the nagging suspicion that if Gates had been white he would have somehow been treated differently is hard for many to shake. That is the trap that history has set for us and is one from which we refuse to release ourselves.
Indeed. I just wish you really got it as someting other than an intellectual exercise.
Gates is 5′7″. He walks with a cane. He is 59 years old. He was dressed in business casual attire. It was broad daylight. He had no weapon. He was carrying no burglar tools. No getaway car was parked outside. No one was inside the house crying for help.
Veteran cops develop an instinct for this. Crowley did not believe Gates was a criminal. Not unless Crowley is an imbecile.
Since when did conservatives start believing that the police have unlimited powers to arrest any and all who vocally disapprove of them?
If Gates had been white and holding a hunting rifle every conservative in the country would support him. But he was black. So conservatives pull a 180 and support unrestrained police power.
A large portion of the conservative community still rants and raves over FBI attempts to enter David Koresh’s compound — a compound where there were stockpiles of guns and allegations of child abuse. And don’t tell me it’s just because of the fire, the FBI didn’t start the fire, the FBI and ATF were trying to enforce legal search warrants.
This is racism in action. Pure and simple. Crazy white people with guns? They’ve got a right not to be hassled by cops. Black scholars in their own homes? Not so much.
In 1984 (!) at the height of the last act of the Cold War and Reagan Worship Syndrome, a movie called Red Dawn was released. It quickly became porn to a subset of the far right in this country, both the desktop warriors who worship violence, and the actual wing-nuts who fetishize gun ownership, and believe that any moment someone, probably a Democrat, is going to swoop down in a black helicopter, take their guns, and force them to go to socialized medical clinics. Just like they did to the patriots at Ruby Ridge and David Koresh's Waco compound.
These folks, both the passive chickenhawks, and the gun-toting militia-loving survivalists, have one thing in common: the enemy is the Left. It may be Libtard bloggers in the US, liberal elites who actually went to, you know, school, or Commies from Cuba, Russia, or Nicaragua. Ask Michelle Malkin, high priestess of the people, and she'll likely tell you it's all 3, and more.
Here's the problem. The only person who wants to have military action in the US, to circumvent the Constitution and detain U.S. citizens, is that stalwart of the far-right, Richard Bruce 'Dick' Cheney.
This new report today from The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston reveals an entirely unsurprising though still important event: in 2002, Dick Cheney and David Addington urged that U.S. military troops be used to arrest and detain American citizens, inside the U.S., who were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda. That was done pursuant to a previously released DOJ memo (.pdf) authored by John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, addressed to Alberto Gonzales, dated October 23, 2001, and chillingly entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the U.S." That Memo had concluded that the President had authority to deploy the U.S. military against American citizens on U.S. soil. Far worse, it asserted that in exercising that power, the President could not be bound either by Congressional statutes prohibiting such use (such as the Posse Comitatus Act) or even by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which -- the Memo concluded -- was "inapplicable" to what it called "domestic military operations."
Though it received very little press attention, it is not hyperbole to observe that this October 23 Memo was one of the most significant events in American politics in the last several decades, because it explicitly declared the U.S. Constitution -- the Bill of Rights -- inoperative inside the U.S., as applied to U.S. citizens. Just read what it said in arguing that neither the Fourth Amendment -- nor even the First Amendment -- can constrain what the President can do when overseeing "domestic military operations" (I wrote about that Memo when it was released last March and excerpted the most revealing and tyrannical portions: here). Here's just a small sample to convey the rancid taste of that Memo (click on images to enlarge):
. . .. . .
Today's NYT report is the first which reveals that high-level Bush officials actively considered and even advocated that the power to use the military to arrest American citizens on U.S. soil be used.
So, proud 2nd Amendment loving conservatarians, lovers of freedom, believers in limited central government, fans of States' Rights, reconcile this. Your party, your guy, wanted to bypass the beloved constitution (I know, only the 2nd Amendment counts, the rest is liberal posturing) and use the Army to arrest citizens on U.S. soil.
Where's the outrage? C'mon, Wolverines, spring into action.
Bastards.
For another song called Red Sky at Night, here's David Gilmour:
(I worked a gig as guitar tech for Berlin, opening for The Police at Hollywood Park in '83. The Fixx were one of the opening acts. I didn't talk with any band members, but their crew were fine folks, and they played a heckuva set.)
The passing of Walter Cronkite last week marked the end of an era in broadcast journalism. Cronkite was the epitome of the TV news anchor, and millions of Americans relied on him every evening to keep them abreast of events in his straightforward yet reassuring manner. It comes as no surprise that the last week has been filled with remembrances of Cronkite by a generation that grew up with his voice and image coming from their parents' TV sets night after night. I can offer few firsthand memories of Cronkite, as my father preferred to get his news from Chet Huntley and David Brinkley.
It seems today that my dad was the only man in America watching Huntley and Brinkley. Hard as it is to believe today, NBC's Huntley-Brinkley Report was actually the most-watched evening news broadcast for most of the period between 1956 and 1966, with CBS and Cronkite not taking the ratings lead until 1968, maintaining it until Cronkite's retirement in 1981. Cronkite earned his position as TV's most-trusted journalist.
Huntley and Brinkley's newscast launched in the fall of 1956, replacing the venerable John Cameron Swayze. Swayze had been slipping in the ratings, and NBC executives hoped that a change in personalities would bolster viewership. NBC executives Ben Park and Bill McAndrew suggested teaming up Huntley and Brinkley, who had earned praise for their work at the 1956 political conventions. The network came up with the unique arrangement of basing Huntley in New York and Brinkley in Washington. Neither man cared much for this approach at first, as both were hoping to host their own program. Their producer, Reuven Frank, was also skeptical, but on the broadcast's first night he wrote the closing lines - "Goodnight, Chet." "Goodnight, David. And good night for NBC News." Huntley and Brinkley didn't care for this at first, either, but it became one of the era's most enduring catchphrases.
The rugged Westerner Huntley possessed an authoritative voice considered among the best in TV, and the witty, erudite Brinkley was an excellent foil. The Huntley-Brinkley Report got off to a slow start - ratings remained low at first, and President Eisenhower complained to NBC brass about the new pairing. Although the duo seldom saw each other in person, their chemistry was unmistakable, and by the end of 1958 theirs was the highest-rated news program on TV.
The Huntley-Brinkley Report also had the coolest theme music of any network news program:
In the early 60's Huntley and Brinkley were TV's most prominent journalists. As it often happens, their enhanced reputations led to accusations of editorializing the news, and their egos had become bigger than the stories they presented. Huntley was even once accused of editorializing by moving his eyebrows. Yet by this point they had gained a nightly audience of over 20 million viewers, and Frank Sinatra even sang a ditty about them. Ratings at rival CBS declined accordingly, and by 1962 the network deemed it necessary to replace their anchor Douglas Edwards, himself a legend of early broadcasting.
Walter Cronkite was a product of St. Joseph, Missouri, growing up in a Midwestern small-town environment where the neighbors sat on the front porch to discuss the day's events while the kids chased fireflies in the yard. While Huntley and Brinkley were the dedicated pros, Cronkite came across as the neighbor who kept up with everything in town, letting you in on the day's events. Despite his folksy demeanor, Cronkite had already compiled an impressive resume by the time he came to the anchor's desk. He began as a print reporter in 1935, and took his first broadcasting job with WKY in Oklahoma City the next year. He distinguished himself with his work in covering World War II for United Press, and joined the fledgling CBS TV news division in 1950. Over the next decade he stood out as one of the network's top political reporters, and also made a name for himself hosting the popular historical program You Are There. On April 16, 1962, he succeeded Edwards as host of The CBS Evening News.
The next year, Cronkite was praised for his respectful, dignified coverage of President Kennedy's assassination. Yet, as with Huntley and Brinkley, Cronkite was slow to gain an audience at first. Disappointed with his low ratings, CBS replaced Cronkite with Roger Mudd for their coverage of the 1964 conventions. In return, CBS received over 11,000 letters of protest from viewers asking that Cronkite be reinstated. Cronkite returned to convention coverage in 1968; more importantly, CBS discovered that their anchor had struck a deep chord with the American public.
Cronkite's popularity continued to build, and by the mid-60's CBS was in a position to overtake NBC as the nation's top news network. Several factors led to CBS and Cronkite's ultimate preeminence. One key was the decision by RCA, NBC's parent corporation, to cut funding to its news division, leaving the better-funded CBS with the resources to produce higher-quality stories. America's fascination with space exploration in the 60's also contributed to CBS' rise. Cronkite had a keen interest in science and technology, and often approached the space missions with a boyish enthusiasm. Huntley and Brinkley, on the other hand, were little interested in the exploits of the astronauts. An AFTRA strike in 1967 also hurt the duo's reputation. Brinkley honored the pickets, but Huntley continued to work - he considered himself "a reporter, not a performer".
By the end of the decade, CBS was firmly established as the nation's #1 news network, and Walter Cronkite was well on his way to becoming a legend. More than any other news reporter ever had, Cronkite earned the trust of America with his genial, knowledgeable demeanor, and he became known for a catch-phrase of his own- "And that's the way it is." His voice was so respected that he could make world leaders sit up and take notice. Nowhere was this more apparent than in his coverage of the Vietnam War. His disapproving editorial following the Tet Offensive carried so much weight that it was a factor in Lyndon Johnson declining to seek re-election in 1968.
Huntley and Brinkley said goodnight one last time on February 16, 1970. Chet Huntley returned to his Montana ranch, and died of cancer in 1974. His early passing has made Huntley something of a forgotten man among the early TV journalism greats. David Brinkley is better remembered today, mostly for moving on to ABC in the early 80's and hosting This Week With David Brinkley, an opinion show that along with the rise of Peter Jennings, Sam Donaldson, and Ted Koppel finally put ABC News on a par with the other two networks. Walter Cronkite continued as CBS' main anchor until he retired in 1981, and he would continue to contribute to news specials for many years afterward, specializing in his passions of politics, science, and technology. Yet for all the major stories that Cronkite witnessed in his long, distinguished career, the one he wanted to be most remembered for was his role in bringing The Beatles to America. Sharon Cobb tells the story of Cronkite's role in this part of pop cultural history.
Times were different then. News reporters had the money to do their jobs properly. Coverage had yet to emphasize feelings over facts. News was not yet considered to be merely another form of entertainment. We may never see the likes of these men again. Chet Huntley and David Brinkley were masters of their craft. Walter Cronkite was the granddaddy of them all - more than just defining the role of the TV news anchor, he became for many, the voice of America. And that's the way it is.
Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
