From his hotel in China to his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Henry Gates probably traveled for a minimum of seventeen hours—to the international airport in China, waiting at the airport, one or more flights home, and then traffic on the way to his house. He arrived home only to find he couldn’t get in, and had to have help breaking into his own house.
And then the cop showed up.
I don’t know what transpired between Henry Gates and Sergeant Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department, but if Doctor Gates had an utter, complete meltdown I wouldn’t blame him. That kind of high-stress, demanding day would push any of us to the brink. I suspect that, if we assume an overreaction on his part, it was an uncharacteristic lapse in someone who appears to be an intelligent, well-spoken, gentle man.
I don’t want to judge Sergeant James Crowley, either. The photograph showing Doctor Gates in handcuffs in front of his house also shows Sergeant Crowley looking not so much angry as baffled. I would be willing to bet that neither man can figure out exactly what happened or how the situation went so terribly wrong.
This situation has brought up strong feelings on both sides of the racial divide, and we do need to deal with the issues that this has unearthed. But we need to deal with it on a societal level, in our own lives, and in our interactions with others. If Henry Gates, James Crowley, and Barack Obama are indeed going to get together over a beer, they need to do it in private.
Maybe we all watch too much TV, but we seem to be wishing for a Hollywood ending. What we need to do is to leave these two men alone, let them get back to their private and professional lives, and allow them to put this very bad day behind them.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Republicans shouldn’t oppose empathy too soon
Now that the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor have started, the word “empathy” is rearing its head again. The party of “no” has come out strongly opposed to choosing a new Supreme Court justice based partly on President Obama’s stated quality of empathy, and now the attack dogs are circling, claiming that Obama’s use of the word “empathy” is code for “judicial activism.”
The Republicans shouldn’t be too fast to reject empathy. The most notorious Supreme Court decision of the past decade, Kelo vs. New London, could have done with a little empathy on the part of the Supremes. The city of New London, Connecticut, as part of an economic redevelopment plan designed to boost a sagging economy, decided to take by eminent domain an entire residential neighborhood to build a complex of for-profit, privately owned enterprises that included upscale housing, a high-end hotel, office space, and even a day spa. The 2005 Supreme Court decision, which affirmed a municipality’s right to take property by eminent domain for private enterprises as long as it could be judged to be for the higher good (possible translation: for higher property taxes than a residential owner could pay), put every homeowner in the country at risk at the hands of politicians and corporations. Empathy might have gotten the justices down out of their ivory tower long enough to anticipate the horrible consequences to ordinary citizens of this ruling; empathy might have allowed the justices to put aside their naïve, idealistic view of the world long enough for them to recognize not just the possibility, but the probability that corruption would taint the process.
The plaintiff, Suzanne Kelo, and her neighbors watched their neighborhood razed to the ground; homes were destroyed, but more than that, a complex, supportive social structure was torn apart as neighbors who had known each other for decades were uprooted and had to say good-bye. Four years after the Supreme Court decision, the former neighborhood is an empty lot, the private development company having abandoned the project. Litigation and damages have cost the city of New London millions of dollars. Supposedly trustworthy public officials charged with making the decisions involved with the redevelopment plan landed in the slammer for unrelated corruption charges; notably, then-Governor John Rowland, an early supporter of the redevelopment plan, ended up spending several months in prison for misusing his public office—not a sterling recommendation for his judgment on the New London redevelopment plan. Meanwhile, the entire New London debacle has apparently benefited no one.
Judges, including Supreme Court justices, need to be impartial, so that plaintiffs and defendants can have a fair hearing before the courts. But judges cannot be so cut off from the real world that their decisions are merely intellectual arguments devoid of any understanding of the consequences of their rulings. The law is created so that human beings have some kind of legally enforceable parameters about how to function in a complex society, and stripping the law of an understanding of its effect on humanity renders it useless or, infinitely more serious, dangerous.
The Republicans shouldn’t be too fast to reject empathy. The most notorious Supreme Court decision of the past decade, Kelo vs. New London, could have done with a little empathy on the part of the Supremes. The city of New London, Connecticut, as part of an economic redevelopment plan designed to boost a sagging economy, decided to take by eminent domain an entire residential neighborhood to build a complex of for-profit, privately owned enterprises that included upscale housing, a high-end hotel, office space, and even a day spa. The 2005 Supreme Court decision, which affirmed a municipality’s right to take property by eminent domain for private enterprises as long as it could be judged to be for the higher good (possible translation: for higher property taxes than a residential owner could pay), put every homeowner in the country at risk at the hands of politicians and corporations. Empathy might have gotten the justices down out of their ivory tower long enough to anticipate the horrible consequences to ordinary citizens of this ruling; empathy might have allowed the justices to put aside their naïve, idealistic view of the world long enough for them to recognize not just the possibility, but the probability that corruption would taint the process.
The plaintiff, Suzanne Kelo, and her neighbors watched their neighborhood razed to the ground; homes were destroyed, but more than that, a complex, supportive social structure was torn apart as neighbors who had known each other for decades were uprooted and had to say good-bye. Four years after the Supreme Court decision, the former neighborhood is an empty lot, the private development company having abandoned the project. Litigation and damages have cost the city of New London millions of dollars. Supposedly trustworthy public officials charged with making the decisions involved with the redevelopment plan landed in the slammer for unrelated corruption charges; notably, then-Governor John Rowland, an early supporter of the redevelopment plan, ended up spending several months in prison for misusing his public office—not a sterling recommendation for his judgment on the New London redevelopment plan. Meanwhile, the entire New London debacle has apparently benefited no one.
Judges, including Supreme Court justices, need to be impartial, so that plaintiffs and defendants can have a fair hearing before the courts. But judges cannot be so cut off from the real world that their decisions are merely intellectual arguments devoid of any understanding of the consequences of their rulings. The law is created so that human beings have some kind of legally enforceable parameters about how to function in a complex society, and stripping the law of an understanding of its effect on humanity renders it useless or, infinitely more serious, dangerous.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Swear the Guy In!
The Democrats in the Senate are playing politics with the appointment of Illinois pol Roland Burris to the Senate, and it seems to be not because his appointment is illegal, but because they think he can't win the seat in 2010.
That's irrelevant! The governor of Illinois hasn't resigned, he hasn't been impeached, and as long as Burris and his advocates haven't shown up on the FBI wiretaps that started this whole mess, Roland Burris should be considered a legitimate appointee to the U.S. Senate.
Let the guy in!
That's irrelevant! The governor of Illinois hasn't resigned, he hasn't been impeached, and as long as Burris and his advocates haven't shown up on the FBI wiretaps that started this whole mess, Roland Burris should be considered a legitimate appointee to the U.S. Senate.
Let the guy in!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Bush: No Clue
Bush: No Clue
The fact that an Iraqi journalist threw not one, but both of his shoes at President Bush hasn't made a dent in the man; he has no clue of the path of devastation he's left in his wake in the past eight years. It doesn't occur to Bush that the thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, the millions of refugees living in other countries, and the still very real threat of death every time someone visits a Bagdhad marketplace can all be placed right at his doorstep.
He's leaving soon, and soon his ability to actively harm Iraqis, the economy, the environment, and so on will be at an end. And the Obama administration may well have the skill and the will to untangle the mess Bush has left us. But the willingness of so many people to jump on the Sarah Palin bandwagon and support yet another stubborn, ignorant idealogue shows us that the threat to society is not over.
Let's hope the Obama administration does such a spectacular job fixing the mess we're in that any desire to throw an amiable "Know-Nothing" into the mix fades.
We can't survive another "Aw-Gee-Shucks" George Bush type, in pants or in a skirt.
The fact that an Iraqi journalist threw not one, but both of his shoes at President Bush hasn't made a dent in the man; he has no clue of the path of devastation he's left in his wake in the past eight years. It doesn't occur to Bush that the thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, the millions of refugees living in other countries, and the still very real threat of death every time someone visits a Bagdhad marketplace can all be placed right at his doorstep.
He's leaving soon, and soon his ability to actively harm Iraqis, the economy, the environment, and so on will be at an end. And the Obama administration may well have the skill and the will to untangle the mess Bush has left us. But the willingness of so many people to jump on the Sarah Palin bandwagon and support yet another stubborn, ignorant idealogue shows us that the threat to society is not over.
Let's hope the Obama administration does such a spectacular job fixing the mess we're in that any desire to throw an amiable "Know-Nothing" into the mix fades.
We can't survive another "Aw-Gee-Shucks" George Bush type, in pants or in a skirt.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
I'm Ready for a Smart President
Pundits keep asking whether the American public is ready for a black president. I just don't think of Barack Obama in those terms. Yes, I realize he is black; yes, I realize that he self-identifies as black and relates to black culture; and it would definitely be a benefit that little black kids all over the country would grow about two inches the moment he becomes president. But that isn't why I'm supporting him.
Obama is about as intelligent as anyone who has ever run for the office. A graduate of Harvard, the editor of the Law Review, a college professor versed in Constitutional law, and a successful civil rights lawyer, he has used his intelligence and his inherent wisdom about human nature not to enrich himself, but to advocate for the rights of the poor and the dispossessed of all races and ethnic backgrounds.
His policies may not seem to differ greatly from Hillary Clinton's, but the differences that do exist show him to be a thoughtful and compassionate man. When he looks at Hillary Clinton's mandate that everyone purchase health care insurance, he asks, how is this going to affect people who still can't afford health care? When he advocates for easing payroll taxes, he is looking at people at the low end of the economic scale and recognizing that payroll taxes and self-employment taxes, which are assessed on the first penny people earn and are not lowered by Clinton's proposed tax credits, are an enormous burden on the poor. In other words, when he ponders economic issues and possible solutions, he asks himself, "How is this action going to affect the little guy?"
Obama's calm demeanor in the face of persistent and sometimes bizarre attacks from the Clinton campaign, at times from Clinton herself, give me confidence that Obama's steady hand on the ship of state can steer us, peacefully and rationally, through some very difficult times ahead. Not so Clinton, who has proved herself to be erratic, manipulative, and underhanded.
Black? I don't care whether Obama is black, blue, or a kangaroo. I care that he is intelligent, wise, and kind.
I'm ready for a smart president.
Obama is about as intelligent as anyone who has ever run for the office. A graduate of Harvard, the editor of the Law Review, a college professor versed in Constitutional law, and a successful civil rights lawyer, he has used his intelligence and his inherent wisdom about human nature not to enrich himself, but to advocate for the rights of the poor and the dispossessed of all races and ethnic backgrounds.
His policies may not seem to differ greatly from Hillary Clinton's, but the differences that do exist show him to be a thoughtful and compassionate man. When he looks at Hillary Clinton's mandate that everyone purchase health care insurance, he asks, how is this going to affect people who still can't afford health care? When he advocates for easing payroll taxes, he is looking at people at the low end of the economic scale and recognizing that payroll taxes and self-employment taxes, which are assessed on the first penny people earn and are not lowered by Clinton's proposed tax credits, are an enormous burden on the poor. In other words, when he ponders economic issues and possible solutions, he asks himself, "How is this action going to affect the little guy?"
Obama's calm demeanor in the face of persistent and sometimes bizarre attacks from the Clinton campaign, at times from Clinton herself, give me confidence that Obama's steady hand on the ship of state can steer us, peacefully and rationally, through some very difficult times ahead. Not so Clinton, who has proved herself to be erratic, manipulative, and underhanded.
Black? I don't care whether Obama is black, blue, or a kangaroo. I care that he is intelligent, wise, and kind.
I'm ready for a smart president.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Bush Administration Complicit in Israel’s Attack on Lebanon?
While the world is expressing its dismay at Israel’s attack on Lebanon in retaliation for the militant Hezbollah’s kidnappings and missile strikes, the Bush administration is strangely silent about the issue.
Maybe the reason is that the Bush administration is in on the whole deal. This “overreaction” by the Israelis may not be what it appears to be, but in reality could be action calculated to goad Iran and Syria into a response that will give Israel and the U.S. a pretext for major strikes on those two countries.
Unfortunately, innocent civilians in Lebanon are being terrorized, and in many instances are ending up dead or maimed. Roads, bridges, and buildings are being destroyed, which will seriously, negatively impact the economy of that tiny country.
Nobody questions that Israel has a right and an obligation to protect its citizens from factions that would harm them. But to attack an entire country and its people for the actions of a relative few is reprehensible.
There have to be ways to neutralize terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and others without the massive destruction currently going on in Lebanon and Iraq. The same country that tracked down Adolf Eichmann in the sixties in South America and spirited him off to Israel, to be tried, convicted, and executed, should be able to send special units into the south of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip to quietly snag the perpetrators and imprison them without killing innocent bystanders. As it is, the current aggressive actions, far from defeating terrorism, will recruit more angry young men into the ranks of extremist organizations and make everyone less safe.
A Gesture of Peace Lost in the Violence
Israel’s attacks on Gaza and Lebanon came on the heels of an announcement that the Fatah and Hamas parties of Palestine had come to an agreement to recognize Israel and enter into negotiations. That announcement ended up not even being a blip on the screen of world politics, due to Israel’s aggressive actions, first into Gaza and then into Lebanon. The fact that Israel ignored the announcement in favor of a major military offensive is suspect in itself. While it is impossible to know if this announcement was a serious gesture on the part of the Palestinians, a more measured response to the most recent series of attacks on Israel might have set the Israelis on the road to peace, and one has to wonder why they would choose not to explore the possibility.
There is something not being said in this whole debacle; there’s a hidden agenda here. This situation has the same feel as the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and I suspect that George W. Bush and his corrupt administration have their sticky little fingers all over this mess.
Maybe the reason is that the Bush administration is in on the whole deal. This “overreaction” by the Israelis may not be what it appears to be, but in reality could be action calculated to goad Iran and Syria into a response that will give Israel and the U.S. a pretext for major strikes on those two countries.
Unfortunately, innocent civilians in Lebanon are being terrorized, and in many instances are ending up dead or maimed. Roads, bridges, and buildings are being destroyed, which will seriously, negatively impact the economy of that tiny country.
Nobody questions that Israel has a right and an obligation to protect its citizens from factions that would harm them. But to attack an entire country and its people for the actions of a relative few is reprehensible.
There have to be ways to neutralize terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and others without the massive destruction currently going on in Lebanon and Iraq. The same country that tracked down Adolf Eichmann in the sixties in South America and spirited him off to Israel, to be tried, convicted, and executed, should be able to send special units into the south of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip to quietly snag the perpetrators and imprison them without killing innocent bystanders. As it is, the current aggressive actions, far from defeating terrorism, will recruit more angry young men into the ranks of extremist organizations and make everyone less safe.
A Gesture of Peace Lost in the Violence
Israel’s attacks on Gaza and Lebanon came on the heels of an announcement that the Fatah and Hamas parties of Palestine had come to an agreement to recognize Israel and enter into negotiations. That announcement ended up not even being a blip on the screen of world politics, due to Israel’s aggressive actions, first into Gaza and then into Lebanon. The fact that Israel ignored the announcement in favor of a major military offensive is suspect in itself. While it is impossible to know if this announcement was a serious gesture on the part of the Palestinians, a more measured response to the most recent series of attacks on Israel might have set the Israelis on the road to peace, and one has to wonder why they would choose not to explore the possibility.
There is something not being said in this whole debacle; there’s a hidden agenda here. This situation has the same feel as the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and I suspect that George W. Bush and his corrupt administration have their sticky little fingers all over this mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
