Capenews.net - The Enterprise online
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
I’ve been covering the Cape Cod Wind Farm project since day one, almost very literally: my first story ran on August 10, 2001, two days after I first spoke to Jim Gordon — the man who, depending on your standards, is the savior of us all, for he wields the mighty power of the wind like Fujin the Japanese wind god; or a greedy capitalist demon whose pitchfork spins in a light breeze and generates enough power to fire up a standard 75-watt lightbulb for the low low cost of $20 per minute.
(I’d have worked in a crack about how his pitchfork is also lethal to any seafaring birds within a one-mile radius, but I already had one hell of a run-on sentence going.) (more…)
Friday, January 8th, 2010
Happy New Year, everyone!
Normally I would only now be welcoming everyone to the triumphant return of my weekly political column, but thanks to the US Senate special election this puppy has been rolling for a few months now. Yet, in about two and a half weeks that election will be over and, hopefully, the state and local races will start to pick up.
And this year stands to be fairly active as all our constitutional officers – governor and lieutenant governor, secretary of the Commonwealth, attorney general, treasurer, and auditor – are up for re-election along with all state legislators. More locally, the positions of Barnstable County sheriff and Cape & Islands district attorney are up for grabs, along with one seat on the Barnstable County Board of County Commissioners. (more…)
Friday, December 11th, 2009
I’ve gone into detail elsewhere in this section, but in case you’re the type who jumps right to this column so you can groove to my wit and wisdom, Attorney General Martha Coakley and State Senator Scott P. Brown (R – Wrentham) won Tuesday’s primary race and will now face off in the January 19 special election for the seat previous held by the late US Senator Edward W. Kennedy.
As a wise parrot once said, I could have a heart attack and die from not surprise over the results.
Now, to address pieces of business old and new. The old business: after last week’s issue I heard from a few people who wondered why Stephen G. Pagliuca and Alan A. Khazei got the full interview treatment while everyone else got mini-profiles.
It’s very simple: if they bothered to return my phone calls and made time for me, they got interviewed; if they blew me off, they didn’t.
The exception to this rule is Sen. Brown. By mutual agreement we’d planned to get together after the primary election since, at the time, he was the only Republican running — then Jack E. Robinson popped up at the 11th hour. After speaking with him about this, he said he was cool following our original game plan and we will be getting together soon.
Presumptuous, you say? In principle, yes, but it’s hard to hold it against him in light of his opponent; Robinson simply was not a viable candidate, especially when he appears in the race at the 11th hour and apparently goes out of his way not to make himself especially visible.
Or maybe Sen. Brown has a low-grade precognitive ability and predicted Robinson’s defeat, along with AG Coakley’s win; the day before the election, Sen. Brown issued a press release challenging the Democratic candidate to “tell the special interests to stay out of the Massachusetts special election.”
Sen. Brown was referring specifically to a $214,000 radio ad campaign funded by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in support of AG Coakley.
“It reinforces the perception that she is the candidate of the status quo who will protect big government spending programs at the expense of taxpayers,” Sen. Brown said in a press release. “Martha Coakley needs to tell the big government unions to stop trying to buy this election. This election can’t be bought and we should let the people decide without any outside interference. We should be looking out for the people’s interests and not the special interests.”
Uh, Sen. Brown? Question over here. The SEIU represents (as per their website): “nurses, LPNs, doctors, lab technicians, nursing home workers, home care workers…local and state government workers, public school employees, bus drivers, and child care providers…workers who protect and clean commercial and residential office buildings, and…private security officers and public safety personnel.”
Are you saying the SEIU is a big government union – slash – special interest and not looking out for “people’s interests”? They seem pretty people-interest-oriented to me. Just sayin’.
Follow-up question: will you be returning the $1,000 donation from the United Services Automobile Association Employee PAC, which represents employees of the USAA, which provides insurance and financial services to military personnel? Or the $4,500 from Mitt Romney’s “Free and Strong America PAC,” which supports candidates who conform to an arch-conservative platform? Or are those not big government unions and/or special interests?
And what about the PAC money you received in your 2008 state senatorial campaign? Will you be returning any donations from the PACs representing Bank of America, the Mass. Credit Union League, the FMR LLC (Fidelity), MA Correction Officers Federated Union, the MBTA Police Association, the Association of Builders and Contractors, the Fraternal Order of Police, Insurance Agents and Brokers of Massachusetts, the Mass. Association of Realtors, the Mass. Hospital Association…
Again: just sayin’.
(FYI: the above lists provided courtesy of, respectively, the Federal Election Commission and the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.)
Now, I’m not trying to insinuate that AG Coakey’s campaign is free of PAC influence because it sure ain’t – 27 PAC donations and counting! – but if Sen. Brown is going to play the “refuse special interests money” card, he should play by the same rules.
Political news and announcements may be sent to Michael Bailey, Region editor and senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009
Below is the full text of a letter I e-mailed this morning to my legislative officials, State Rep. James Fagan and Senator Marc Pacheco. I doubt they’ll respond and even more doubtful they’ll act as I hope, but hey, it made me feel better to vent. I recommend it.
Gentlemen,
I am writing, simply, to request that you both reject the proposal heading to the State House floor to amend the state’s US Senate succession law.
Senator Kennedy himself once said to Congress that you do not change the rules in the middle of the game, and ironically, that is precisely what the late senator in his July letter asked Governor Patrick, House Speaker DeLeo, and Senate President Murray to do: change the rules mid-game — this after, in 2004, Mr. Kennedy himself advocated for the law as it currently stands.
While I understand Senator Kennedy wanted to ensure the state’s full representation in the event a health care reform bill came up for a vote — a proposal I generally support, I add — I do not believe that the Legislature should change the law, essentially, to support a single initiative.
Nor do I believe it should support a change that seems to me to be as much about maintaining a Democratic super-majority as serving the public. I always believed the true motivation behind the 2004 changes was to keep Governor Romney — who I did not and still do not care for, to put it mildly — from naming a Republican successor in the event Senator Kerry won the Presidential election. That the Democrats are now embracing a concept the Republicans (unsuccessfully) pitched as an amendment to the 2004 law — giving the governor the authority to appoint an interim Senator — only reinforces this opinion in my mind. As does the latest news I’ve read: that the proposal you may be voting on as early as tomorrow would mandate that any appointees would be of the same party as his or her predecessor.
This is standard in other states, I realize, and is meant to de-politicize such appointments, but in this instance I believe it very much politicizes the process. Mr. Kennedy requested that any appointee offer a personal guarantee that he or she would not run in the special election, specifically to avoid giving that individual an edge in the election. I understand the Legislature does not plan to formally support that request (a good thing as it is, by my understanding, unconstitutional anyway). I wish I could say I could not imagine Governor Patrick appointing, for example, Martha Coakley, as the interim Senator and would instead choose someone with no interest in running for the post, but frankly, my faith in my elected officials’ capacity to conduct business in an above-board manner has been greatly diminished over the past few years.
The argument I’ve heard from proposal supporters is that Massachusetts needs continuous representation in Congress. I cannot support that theory in light of the numerous votes Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kerry missed because of, respectively, their health issues and Presidential campaign. According to data posted on Govtrack.us, Mr. Kennedy made only nine out of the 270 votes held in 2009 up until his passing. Mr. Kerry missed all but 40 out of 285 votes taken in the 12 months before the election, and missed all 42 votes in the three months immediately preceding the election.
To summarize, I do not believe there is a crucial need to fill Mr. Kennedy’s seat by gubernatorial appointment, nor do I believe that the current effort is geared toward serving the voters. Rather, I see it as making, for the second time in five years, amendments to a law based on current circumstances and a desire to maintain single-party rule. I urge you to fight to keep the law as it is and perhaps revisit the issue when there are no extenuating circumstances that, in perception or in reality, contaminate the noble intentions so many are trying to claim apply to the situation at hand.
Sincerely,
Michael Bailey – unenrolled
Saturday, August 29th, 2009
I went on a drug bust Tuesday. I got ride along with local police as they stormed a suspected drug house and executed a search warrant. It was pretty cool, and the neighbors were digging it. It meant a lot to those residents who lived near the house and wanted it gone, and that the police were cracking down aggressively on this sort of activity I think is a positive message to send.
I was the only reporter there. Another media outlet, who shall go unnamed, was also invited, but they couldn’t spare anyone. Why? Because so many of their people were on the Vineyard covering Obama’s vacation.
Seriously.
This is why community newspapers (especially those not owned by a corporation) are holding their own while large papers and the corporate products are suffering: community newspapers aren’t wasting their resources on stories that, to state it bluntly, don’t matter. Honestly, what would you rather read about: an effort to clean up a suspected drug house — that, for all you know may be the house right next door — or what Obama is reading and who he’s playing golf with?
***
As we say farewell to US Senator Ted Kennedy, let’s have a very brief second of mourning for all those people who will no longer be able to argue against anything the man said or did by dredging up the memories of Chappaquiddick.
KENNEDY: I want to reform the health care system.
PUTZ: You know who would have liked health care? Mary Jo Kopechne!
KENNEDY: I want to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.
PUTZ: You haven’t had very good luck with bridges in your life, Ted!
KENNEDY: I support Barack Obama for President.
PUTZ: How about you, um, support…uh…err…CHAPPAQUIDDICK!
So pity these poor wags who will no longer be able to efficiently and completely devalue someone’s thoughts, feelings, and achievements by invoking a person’s worst mistake. They may have to put some actual thought into their rebuttals from now on.
***
On another Kennedy-related note: I’m still not convinced that we need to grant the governor the authority to appoint an interim senator until we can hold a special election in January. Kennedy said Massachusetts needed a continuity of representation (particularly since a vote on health care reform could come up before January), but we’ve had two recent periods when we were effectively absent one Senator: during the past six months or so, when Kennedy missed almost all the Senate votes because of his health issues; and during US Senator John Kerry’s Presidential campaign.
We changed the rules on how to fill a Senate vacancy once before — during Kerry’s Presidential run — to accommodate the situation at hand. Now our Legislature is asking us to do it again. It needs to stop. Kennedy himself once said that you don’t change the rules halfway through the game.
***
Speaking of health care: one of the most well-stated (in somewhat over-simplified) arguments for single-payer health care I’ve ever heard is right here.
By the way, everyone who is railing against the health care proposal currently being so violently opposed by some voters: go to Factcheck.org to see how many of those claims are complete crap (hint: 10 out of 26 claims come up as at least partly true, and all that stuff about “death panels”? Complete lies. What a shock).
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
I’m not really the biggest Barney Frank fan in the world, but the Congressman scored a lot of points with me at last night’s town hall meeting in Dartmouth to discuss health care.
The debates to date have not exactly been heady intellectual fare, but it hit what I’d consider a low point when Rachel Brown took to the microphone — clutching a picture of President Obama onto which she had drawn a Hitler mustache — and asked Frank how he could support a “Nazi” policy — perhaps referring to the greatest lie about health care reform: that it advocates “death panels” to decide whether to yank an elderly American’s health insurance and start talking about planned suicide.
Frank’s — dare I say it? — frank response: “On what planet do you spend most of your time?” Followed by: “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.”
He added, for good measure: “This notion that something in this bill would require people who are elderly or sick to be denied medical care or be killed is the single stupidest argument I have ever heard.”
Thank you!
It’s often been said that the first one to invoke the Nazis or Hitler in a debate automatically loses, and rightfully so. Unless someone can draw a very firm parallel between providing all American citizens with health insurance to the actions of a cowardly paranoiac rounding up “undesirables” for mass extermination, kindly shut the hell up.
Thursday, August 13th, 2009
You may have seen the footage of 11-year-old Julia Hall of Malden asking President Obama a question at his recent health care reform forum in New Hampshire. But have you heard the outcry from conservative pundits who claim the girl was planted by Obama’s people?
They’re looking at the girl’s mother, who is active in politics, and then casting their suspicious eye on the daughter, who asked a simple question: “How do kids know what is true, and why do people want a new system that can…help more of us?” — which is, considering the tenor of the health care town hall meeting series thus far, is one of the most thoughtful questions anyone has posed.
If she was a plant, then why are the Fox News goons getting their collective knickers in such a knot? Ol’ Dubya had plants in his town hall meetings all the time, asking softball questions that had been prepared or approved by Bush’s people or throwing out feel-good I Wuv My Pwesident THIIIIIIIIIIS Much platitudes. What’s good for the goose, people…
Actually, I don’t agree with the practice under any circumstances or for any administration, but for the right-wing talking heads to condemn the practice Bush so often used further exposes their hypocrisy; conservatives under Obama are engaging in the exact same behavior liberals did under Bush — holding major protests, questioning the President’s motives, accusing the President of steering us toward fascism — except now it’s all acceptable, even patriotic behavior.
***
On a related note: anyone who criticizes Obama for wanting to “redistribute the wealth” to fund health care needs to realize we already do that.
When we pay our taxes, we are participating in a system that redistributes wealth; we are taking money from one person and giving it to another in some way, shape, or form. Look on your paycheck stub and you’ll see a deduction for Medicare (which, I must point out, is a single-payer health care system). I’m not using Medicare now, am I? Nope. And I could die tomorrow and never see one thin dime of all the money I’ve paid to Medicare over my lifetime returned to me in the form of medical benefits.
The rest of my taxes go toward various social support programs like food stamps and assisted housing. They support free lunch programs in the schools for low-income kids. My money, which I work very hard to make and keep, is going to support people that have little to no money, maybe even to people who consciously choose to do nothing with their lives and simply live like a parasite on my earnings.
Our society was built on several idealistic concepts, one of which is that we’re all in this together, and when one of us falls the rest of us are there to pick our fellow man up, dust him off, and if need be carry him until he can carry himself once again, because one day it might be you who’s fallen and needs a hand.
So, those who would so casually dismiss the notion of your tax money going toward a single-payer health care system: there but for the grace of God go you.
***
Last week I wrote about an incident at a local grocery store, in which the white male store manager stopped an African-American woman on suspicion of shoplifting. She was proven innocent, but since that encounter allegations of racial profiling have arisen.
My nosing around failed to reveal that the manager had done anything overtly racist (i.e., uttering a racial slur) or has a documented history of hassling minority customers. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t acting out of bias, but as our judicial system likes to tell us, innocent until proven guilty — and in the absence of any evidence, you’d think people would give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
Not so, and a few words of condemnation aimed at the manager came from what I’d call a surprising and disappointing source: a gentlemen who leads one of the Cape’s “No Place For Hate” groups. We discussed the matter at length, and at one point I pointed out the lack of evidence to support allegations of racial bias and asked, I thought reasonably, “Why is it racial profiling rather than a dumb mistake?”
His response: If the African-American woman had been a white man, the manager wouldn’t have stopped her.
Yes, you’re reading that right: the No Place For Hate guy made a knee-jerk assumption about a person’s behavior based on nothing more than the individual’s skin color. You know, the same thing the manager is accused of doing.
***
On a more frivolous note, I would like to humbly request that Hollywood place a 10-year moratorium on making the following movies:
***
A very rare sports-related opinion: Kevin Youkillis deserves his suspension. He gets hit twice within a handful of days — the first time by a totally different pitcher than the one who nailed him Tuesday — and decides that’s the back-breaking straw? Good thing “Youk” doesn’t play football.
Thursday, July 30th, 2009
Every once in a while, you read something that makes your jaw go slack and you gasp, “Holy ****, is this for real?”
Such is the case with the now infamous (and growing more infamouser by the minute) e-mail written by Officer Justin Barrett of the Boston PD to several reporters and media pundits in response to the Gates brouhaha (that term used deliberately, in honor of today’s symbolic mea culpathon at the White House…get it? “Brou” haha? Beers at the White House? C’mon, that’s gold).
Officer Barrett, who is currently suspended from his job (one would hope by the elastic of his underwear from atop a tall tall flagpole), chided Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham for what he deemed “sub standard and strictly one sided” reporting in a column she wrote in the wake of the Gates arrest. Barrett did this by first extolling his many virtues — English teacher, writer, veteran, police officer, father, husband, social butterfly, raconteur, collector of rare and delicate treasures — so he could better belittle the writer so privileged with the receipt of his sage words.
“Your written messages and material is so 4th grade level,” the writer and former English teacher wrote. “Are you still in the 5th grade, Catholic School?” the writer and former English teacher wrote, in an e-mail in which he said he wanted to “ax” a question of the Abraham.
Did I mention that he’s a writer and former English teacher?
Oh, and a chivalrous defender of womankind as well, as evidenced by his jab at Abraham, who he called “a hot little bird with minimal experiences in a harsh field…you are a fool. An infidel…you should serve me coffee and donuts on Sunday morning.”
Yeah, Yvonne! You heard him! Get in the kitchen and make him a damned sammich!
Ah, but you’ve seen but the scummy surface of Officer Barrett’s noisome pool of misplaced righteous wrath. He hits rock-bottom with the line that shall be quoted ad infinitum in the media for days to come: “If I was the officer [Gates] verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (Oleoresin Capsicum, aka pepper spray) deserving of his belligerent non-compliance.”
The phrase “jungle monkey” crops up a total of three times, not including the thrilling title of this missive — which strays into some bizarre tangents — “JUNGLE MONKEY – BACK TO ONE’S ROOTS.”
Say it with me: “Holy ****, is this for real?”
The punchline to this: he boldly proclaims that he is not a racist. He not only states this in his e-mail, but in an interview with WCVB-TV he revealed the breadth and depth of his self-delusion when he called the use of his phrase “jungle monkey” “a poor choice of words” and said he “did not mean to offend anyone. The words were being used to characterize behavior, not describe anyone . . . I didn’t mean it in a racist way. I treat everyone with dignity and respect.”
Except, oh, Professor Gates, Yvonne Abraham, reporters, women…
A lot of people have criticized Professor Gates for his behavior, I among them, and I stand by my words. I don’t know if Sergeant Crowley is totally blameless in this — there’s evidence he could have handled the situation better — but there’s as much evidence Gates grossly overreacted and took the wrong tack in protesting the sergeant’s presence by throwing out the dreaded so-called race card.
It’s a touchy subject, yet even some of Gates’ harshest critics have managed to express their dissent without ever coming close to spewing racist bile. Barrett? Nope. He let his freak flag fly, and it bore a striking resemblance to a Confederate Flag hoisted high atop a burning cross.
Tom Menino mumbled his outrage over Barrett’s behavior, stating that Barrett “has no place in this department, and we have to take his badge away. That stuff doesn’t belong in our city, and we’re not going to tolerate it…He’s gone, g-o-n-e. I don’t care, it’s like cancer, you don’t keep those cancers around.”
Barack Obama made a mistake in wading into the Gates/Crowley mess and opining that the Cambridge police acted “stupidly.” He should have saved it for Justin Barrett; if ever there was a fine upstanding example of someone behaving stupidly, it’s Barrett — who, in his arrogant and self-righteous zeal to set the record straight, may have given citizens of color an even better reason to fear and distrust the police than Sergeant Crowley ever did. The Gates situation may or may not have been couched in racism, but there is no doubt when it comes to Barrett’s vile rant.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009
Is Henry Louis Gates Jr. a racist?
I’ll give you a second to digest that admittedly incendiary question, and hopefully you will read the rest of this post before any of you start flaming me.
Racism is most broadly defined as one person treating another differently (usually poorly) based on nothing more than skin color or ethnic origin. That’s the “easy” racism, the kind anyone can spot and identify and quickly condemn as unacceptable in an intelligent, educated, and cultured society.
Yet there is a more insidious version, one that many practice without ever consciously realizing it: it’s jumping to a conclusion about an individual or group of individuals based on nothing more than their ethnicity.
That is the standard Professor Gates is using in his complaint against Cambridge police sergeant James Crowley, the man who arrested Gates on the porch of his own home; he claims Sgt. Crowley engaged in racial profiling and should be called to the carpet for it — and in doing so, Gates himself is engaging in racial profiling, but no one seems interested in pointing this out.
Consider the situation: a neighbor saw Gates — who had just returned home from a trip abroad — and his driver at the front door of Gates’ home, trying to physically force the door open (Gates later said the door was jammed). The witness did, in my estimation (and as you’ll see, in Gates’ estimation) the right thing, regardless of the race of the individuals involved: she called the police to report what she thought might have been a break-in attempt.
Here is where the stories diverge and the specter of racism of very similar persuasions — yet drawing much different levels of scrutiny — enters the picture. Gates claimed that he showed Sgt. Crowley proof of his identity and status as owner of the home, which the officer flagrantly ignored, along with Gates’ requests for the officer’s name and badge number. Sgt. Crowley claimed he told Gates upon arrival that he was investigating a break-in report, to which Gates replied, “Why? Because I’m a black man in America?” The officer also said he asked for identification, which Gates initially refused to provide.
(If true, then one point against Gates; if a cop asks you for ID and you refuse, you’re giving him absolutely no reason to believe you’re on the up-and-up. Just saying.)
Sgt. Crowley claimed that Gates became unruly and belligerent, telling the officer “You don’t know who you’re messing with,” and started tossing out accusations of racism on the officer’s part.
(Again, if true, another misstep on Gates’ part; suspects with any modicum of authority or standing, real or imagined, who use their status as a “get out of jail free” card are flushing any goodwill he might otherwise engender right down the toilet.)
The police report stated that Gates refused multiple requests (or orders) to calm down, and that his behavior was causing a disturbance. Arrest was threatened and then executed, prompting the professor to exclaim as he was being taken away, “This is what happens to black men in America.”
During an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, Gates made several comments in that vein, including:
(After asking for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number) “He wouldn’t say anything. He was just very upset. He was trying to figure out who I was. He was looking at the ID. He didn’t say anything. And I said, why are you not responding to me? Are you not responding to me because you’re a white police officer and I’m a black man?”
(In response to a question about his arrest) “What it made me realize was how vulnerable all black men are, how vulnerable all people of color are and all poor people to capricious forces like a rogue policeman. And this man clearly was a rogue policeman.”
(Referring to the report to the police): “Two black men with backpacks were breaking and entering into my home. And when he sees me, he just presumed that one of them was me.”
(Responding to a question as to whether he harbored a grudge against the neighbor who called the police): “It wasn’t her fault. It was the fault of the policeman who couldn’t understand a black man standing up for his rights right in his space. And that’s what I did.”
Could his response have blinded Gates to some more objective realities of the situation? A cop has responded to a report of a break-in, and has no information to go on other than the location and a vague description of the suspects, provided by the witness. He arrives to find someone matching that description standing in the house.
Ask yourself: What is the next logical step in the thought process?
There’s a saying: when you hear hoofbeats, you do not immediately think “zebra,” you think “horse.” A cop is told a black man is apparently breaking into the house and arrives to see a black man in the house…why would his first thought be “homeowner” and not “suspect”? If a cop arrives at a possible crime scene and sees an individual matching the description provided, even passingly, he’ll approach the situation appropriately. That’s how they’re trained, and that’s the kind of training that keeps them from getting killed in the line of duty.
(An aside: If Sgt. Crowley made a definite misstep, and even this is subject to debate, it’s in threatening arrest on a charge of disorderly conduct. When faced with a rowdy individual, police can either attempt to “de-escalate” the situation so that both citizen and officer can go their separate ways satisfied with the outcome, or the cop can take the route Sgt. Crowley followed. Having worked alongside cops for 11 years now, I’ve heard differing opinions, and it all comes down to the invididual officer, the suspect, the situation — there is no universal formula for successfully dealing with someone who is flying off the handle.)
A review of Gates’ remarks during and following the incident suggest that he was looking for racism where it perhaps did not exist. By his own admission he immediately assumed the white cop was there to give him grief simply because of his race: “Are you not responding to me because you’re a white police officer and I’m a black man?”…”[Crowley] couldn’t understand a black man standing up for his rights right in his space.”
If it is proven Sgt. Crowley was letting prejudicial feelings toward an African-American man indeed guide his actions, he should absolutely be held accountable. He should be held up as an example of all that is wrong in society in general and law enforcement in particular, and Gates should be lauded for having the courage to confront this issue head-on.
The sticking point is that, in lieu of an overtly racist action or statement by Sgt. Crowley — and Gates has not indicated that there was — we’re being asked to look inside a man’s heart and gauge his motivations based on nothing more than first-hand accounts by just the two people involved. And I cannot help but feel that in lieu of convincing evidence one way or the other, the suspicion will by default fall on Sgt. Crowley because he’s white.
(Recent revelations that he was johhny-on-the-spot in 1993 when he administered CPR to Celtics star Reggie Lewis following his collapse I suspect will do little to mitigate this. I’m waiting to see if the complexion of this case changes once words spreads that Sgt. Crowley has, according to the Boston Globe, “taught a class about racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black.”)
Despite the fact we have an African-American man in the White House, the pendulum of racism is still hanging very much in favor of Americans of color and it’s going to stay that way for many, many more years; Caucasians as a whole have a lot of contrition ahead of us.
There are people reading this now who were alive to see a time when whites and blacks couldn’t ride the same parts of a bus, attend the same schools, or drink from the same fountains, and that kind of ignorance does not repair itself quickly or cleanly. Gates’ statements do not contribute to healing the rift. He said on CNN, when asked if he had spoken to Sgt. Crowley since the incident: “I haven’t heard from Sergeant Crowley. I would be prepared to listen to him. If I were convinced that — if he would tell the truth about what he did, about the distortions that he fabricated in the police report, I would be prepared as a human being to forgive him.”
So: Sgt. Crowley can either be a suspected racist or a confirmed racist, even if that’s not truly how he feels. Not exactly win-win.
Now, in case you hadn’t twigged to this based on the photo topping this blog, I am very much of the Caucasian persuasion — a white dude, a cracker, a “Honkey American” if you will. I’ve never been on the receiving end of racism as it is typically perpetrated in our society. I do not at all have the same points of reference as any person of color who has been unjustly harrassed, discriminated against, threatened, or attacked. I have seen obvious and explicit displays of racism, but I’m certain I have many times missed the more subtle and pervasive versions, either because I was not there to witness them or, if I was there, I did not recognize them for what they were.
That said…
The reason I would ask if Gates is a racist is because, as said at the beginning of this post, he is making knee-jerk assumptions about Sgt. Crowley based on nothing but his skin color. Strip away the details and that much is plain, and I don’t see why it cannot be called racism if it meets the same metrics as “conventional” racism; that the traditional positions have been reversed should not matter. Intolerance is intolerance, ignorance is ignorance. Why should we as a society tolerate that from anyone?
Sgt. Crowley has thus far steadfastly refused to apologize. That places the ball firmly in Professor Gates’ court, which gives him the opportunity to turn this issue around far more effectively. His anger may prove to be fully justified, but if he could rise above it and forgive Sgt. Crowley — regardless of his guilt or innocense, regardless of his true feelings — he would provide a powerful example to all by showing that the way to confront racism is with an open hand, not a closed fist.
“We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.” – The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Advertisement
