home

Just Four Guys Sharing a Beer

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:34:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm not sure why CBS put this up since there is no sound (except for Joe Biden's laugh) but you can tell only Biden and Obama were enjoying themselves at today's Happy Hour on the White House lawn.

Apparently, there was no kiss and makeup between Crowley and Gates, as Crowley said afterwards, "he and Gates had a "cordial and productive discussion" in which they "agreed to disagree.."

< Why The Big Dog Has No Role To Play In The Health Care Debate | Late Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Just Four Guys Sharing a Beer | 198 comments (198 topical)
    Oh goodie (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:44:57 PM EST
    Maybe this will keep the story in the news for the next several weeks to drown out trivial issues like the economy and health care.

    More stories about Michael Jackson and Sarah Palin too please. :)

    Digby's Advice (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:49:08 PM EST
    Judging from the manlove all the usual suspects are exhibiting toward Crowley because, among other things, said:

    with a steely look and a stern "hold on, let me finish"

    Which made them gush even more. Her advise to Obama is:

    I think it's pretty clear that if Obama wants to get the press back on his side he needs to start pushing them around. These boys just love a man who hurts so good.

    digby

    Seems like the gas bags have something in common with several commenters here... a crush on Crowley...

    lol

    Digby's losing me ... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:53:16 PM EST
    of late.

    She's becoming a mini-MoDo.

    Parent

    ome now Robot (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:17:08 PM EST
    Certainly not on the link Squeaky provides.

    I did not watch any of this but the description rings true to me.

    You watched it I take it? Was Digby wrong about how Tweety and Co. acted?

    Parent

    Yeah, it was accurate ... (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:47:52 PM EST
    but using the gay subtext as a way of demeaning them was beneath her I thought.  Especially here:

    *This isn't Crowley's fault, by the way. He was fine. He can't help if if the village people love themselves a man in a uniform --- even (especially) when he's not wearing it.

    This is the kind of thing MoDo does.

    Parent

    Gay Subtext? (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:53:20 PM EST
    The only thing wrong with manlove is when it is gushingly demonstrated by homophobic bigots, most often wingnuts, who obviously loose any credibility because they are swallowing whole, a mother load of BS, but can't see it because they are in love.

    Kinda like what cultists do.

    Perfect use of the term, imo.

    Parent

    I have to disagree here (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:54:33 PM EST
    I think Robot has a point.

    Parent
    And to come clean (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:55:54 PM EST
    I have done it myself in posts both here and previously at daily kos.

    I talked about Tweety's gay tendencies.

    I was wrong to do it.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:05:38 PM EST
    It is not about Tweety's gay tendencies, it is about his obvious loss of perspective, or falling off the job, because he has gone gaga.

    Parent
    But I used it (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:09:36 PM EST
    as did Digby, as a pejorative.

    That is wrong of both of us.


    Parent

    Let me ask this (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:13:49 PM EST
    Is it substantively different from mocking Rich Lowry for drooling over Palin?

    Parent
    Yes, the current President (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16:41 PM EST
    There is not an entire right wing industry devoted to promulgating the idea (and running related ballot campaigns) that it's wrong for a man to "drool over" a woman.

    Parent
    Edit, strike "the current President" (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:17:08 PM EST
    Stupid autofill!

    Parent
    But I think (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:22:23 PM EST
    that, at least arguably, the point is that a member of the media is drooling over a political figure.  The same commentary would be offered if Christine Matthews were going on about Bush's flight suit.

    I do understand where you're coming from.  Maybe there's not a loaded way to comment on this particular phenomenon.

    Parent

    I think the difference is ... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:42:01 PM EST
    Digby's goal was to demean.

    And it backs up the notion that a suggestion that someone is gay is an appropriate form of ridicule.

    To criticize someone for too obvious heterosexual attraction is different.  It's not attacking someone for being heterosexual.  Or attaching a demeaning connotation to being heterosexual.

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#94)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:43:46 PM EST
    I think it's part a valid point and part what we choose to read into it IMO.

    Parent
    I'm a little more worried (none / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:45:49 PM EST
    about what people who aren't "we" take from it.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:53:58 PM EST
    Is it the term manlove or would gobsmacked in this case also be offensive?

    Or it problematic to point out that a man is losing his perspective and miserably failing at his job (Matthews) only when it is over a woman, and if it is over a man then it is not PC, or somehow contributing to bigotry?

    Parent

    Even though it's Matthews (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:56:19 PM EST
    it keeps in currency the idea that men who attracted to other men are unable to control themselves; that there's some kind of mental problem.

    But I think we're far digressing from the topic.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:00:12 PM EST
    Oh I get it, no gay man in their right mind wants to be associated with Matthews because it makes being gay= Matthews= having mental problems.

    lol..  just kidding.. done...

    Parent

    Edit (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:56:22 PM EST
    Is only problematic to point it out when it is two men and ok to point it out when it is a man losing perspective in the presence of a woman.

    Parent
    I think there probably isn't (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:26:05 PM EST
    It depends a great deal on who's saying it, and why, IMO.

    Parent
    Interesting question (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:17:43 PM EST
    I'll mull it.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:15:14 PM EST
    I usually brush that sort of thing off, but it does hurt a little bit.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:31:13 PM EST
    It is a pejorative only because the term is caught up in a double hypocrisy. One that Mattews et al are supposed to be doing a job, not losing it over some guy, and that Matthews et al are serial homopopbes and blatant sexists.

    Manlove is neutral and descriptive. If I saw a gay male friend, or a gay woman friend gazing dreamily at a man while he is talking about something I could easily find myself saying: 'wow looks like you have got some serious manlove going on.'

    Is it that some bigots also use the term to make fun of, let's say two guys hugging?  'Manlove, they must be gay'

    Seems to me that many gay men also use the term respectfully, as showing a type of affection that only men can have for one another.

    It is that the term gets tainted when such a pig as Matthews displays it? Is that why it is offensive.

    Well I could see that, but it is more like a eeuwwwe yuk sort of thing rather than bigotry.

    Parent

    Under the circumstances, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:34:46 PM EST
    even a little bit of "eeuwwwe yuk" can be a problem.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    Not eeuwwwee yuk having anything to do with gay sex, but having to do with Mathews. Just as if someone told you that they had a crush on someone you found disgusting.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    I do not see it. Do you think that it was also problematic when Matthews was called out for drooling over McCain.

    Seems to me that apart from the hypocrisy of homophobics like Matthews, pointing out that acting like lovestruck teen, despite any sexual preference, in such an obvious way, while purporting to be an objective observer reporting the news is worthwhile pointing out.

    I know that because of the sexism inherent in our culture, this is not a likely scenario, but would it be problematic if Matthews went all gaga while interviewing Palin, and was called out for having a crush?

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:53:11 PM EST
    I can accept that as a fair criticism.

    Parent
    Says More About You (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:56:05 PM EST
    Than digby,  imo.  AFAIC she is as right on the money as ever.

    Parent
    i've admitted to feeling sympathetic (none / 0) (#14)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:15:21 PM EST
    i'd have to determine if you were talking about me specifically before i take offense at the characterization you provide above.


    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:17:52 PM EST


    Parent
    hmm (none / 0) (#18)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    ok.


    Parent
    Yawn (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:56:30 PM EST
    I'm sure it was a fascinating discussion.  Perhaps it is now possible for our nation to MoveOn.org.

    For whatever reason, it really doesn't seem like many people have enhanced their ability to see the other fellow's point of view as a result of this debacle.  Call it an unteachable moment.

    So, I guess Obama's not so good (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:59:13 PM EST
    at teaching, either:

    Apparently, there was no kiss and makeup between Crowley and Gates, as Crowley said afterwards, "he and Gates had a "cordial and productive discussion" in which they "agreed to disagree.."

    Maybe if the beer had been better...

    This is actually incomplete (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:38:50 PM EST
    From what I heard of Crowley's press conference, he said that he and Gates were going to continue to meet and talk without public attention, and it sounded to me as if there's going to be some sort of exploration at least of a collaboration between the two on some project.

    Crowley also said he had taken his family on a tour of the White House before the meet-up, and that Gates also had some members of his family there, and  Gates approached Crowley and suggested the two families take the tour together, which they did.

    Here's a CBS News report on Crowley's press conference.


    Parent

    Nice (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:44:42 PM EST
    Both have something to learn from each other, and imo, Crowley is in an exceptionally lucky position getting to hang with Gates several times to continue the discussion.

    Parent
    It does appear Sgt. Crowley was (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37:40 PM EST
    enjoying Prof. Gates instruction.

    Parent
    I'm glad to hear this. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:45 PM EST
    I didn't think I could stand to watch any of the coverage, so thank you for doing it for me!

    Parent
    Crowley's press conference (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:34:20 PM EST
    was actually pretty impressive and classy.  He praised Gates, called him a "gentleman," and said something to the effect that he hoped to learn more from Gates's expertise.

    So was the written statement Gates issued, at least the part of it I heard quoted, which for the first time in anything he's said that I've heard, at least, sincerely acknowledged the difficulty of the role of the police.

    What it sounds very much like to me is an actual living example of Obama's refrain about "disagreeing without being disagreeable."  Both men stood their ground, but both men have acknowledged increased understanding of why the other feels justified in their positions and an apparent commitment to continue to explore each other's perspective.

    When asked about what Obama had contributed, Crowley said to laughter from the press in attendance, "He bought the beer."  Which sounds to me like Obama was wise enough to just stay out of it and provide a sort of safe haven for the two men to talk to each other.  Probably his community organizing training and experience.

    Parent

    FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    what I found incredibly offensive about the reaction of Matthews et al was their astonishment that a lower-class Irish cop could be so well-spoken, so quietly in command, and so classy in the way he handled this.

    If one has actually watched Matthews's coverage of this whole incident, rather than just reading a few well-chosen snippets, he's been quite firmly on the side of Gates in this matter and done his fair share, along with his guests, of sneering and snickering at the stupid cop.

    They were utterly taken aback by the press conference, almost as if a dog had suddenly started walking on its hind legs.

    Race is obviously an important part of this story, but class snobbery is, IMO, an even bigger part of the way it played out and the way it's been discussed since then.

    Parent

    Sort of ironic (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:19:11 AM EST
    given how hard Matthews tries to pretend like he's a man of the people, good old Irish salt of the earth, blah blah blah.

    Parent
    Crowley still has not (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:14:11 PM EST
    explained the errors in his police report.

    I sure would like to hear an explanation for his attribution to Lucia Whalen statements that she did not make.

    There were 2 women involved, as (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    I read the transcript of the 911 call: one was Whalen, who made the call, and the other was the neighbor, who asked Whalen to make the call.  It was the neighbor who saw more of what was going on, so unless Crowley has said he only spoke with Whalen at the scene, I think it is possible that comments made by the neighbor were erroneously attributed to Whalen.

    And I'm still trying to figure out what would have been racist about anyone describing the two men at the front door as black.  
     

    Parent

    This is sheer speculation on your part (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:25:00 PM EST
    Why doesn't Crowley explain it himself?

    Parent
    Everyone is speculating, BTD. (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:44:10 PM EST
    I mean it's almost getting to the point of the old SNL skit, "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?"

    And because there has been so much speculating, and so many people crafting their own versions of what happened, when "the truth" finally comes out - if it does - I suspect a lot of people will not be able to let go of these stories, and won't believe anything that doesn't fit.

    But, there I go, speculating again.

    My point in mentioning the 911 transcript and that there were 2 women witnesses to some or all of what happened before the call to 911 was placed, is that there is a failure to mention that fact when the bright lights go on, fists pound the table and people demand to know why Crowley lied.

    Bringing race into it?  Sigh.  Whatever.

    Parent

    I am not speculating (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:46:29 PM EST
    Lucia Whelan said categorically she never said anything like that to Crowley. Indeed, she said she did not have any substantive conversation with Crowley.

    His police report says the exact opposite - attributing to her a description of two black men with backpacks.

    Excuse me, it is only you who is speculating.

    I am asking for an explanation.

    Parent

    And you indeed did (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:48:39 PM EST
    mention race in your comment when I did not.

    Of course, my position is race is always in it. As I recall, you are someone who is offended by that position.

    You might try to be consistent on that point.

    Parent

    Your recollection is incorrect. (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:08:13 PM EST
    I was not offended by your position that race is always in it - I was disappointed with the tone and the snark that invoked Gates in the Boston cop racist e-mail situation and struck me as an unnecessary sideways swipe at Crowley.  

    And so what if I mentioned race in my comment and you did not?  You say that as if I had denied mentioning it, which I certainly didn't.  I am getting an uncomfortable feeling that I am about to be branded a racist for not getting with the program.  Thanks.

    It's a shame that this brouhaha over Whalen is going to make a lot of people (1) think twice before getting involved and reporting suspected criminal activity, and (2), if they do, reluctant to provide information about race lest they be accused of being racist.


    Parent

    More speculation on your part (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:11:37 PM EST
    You do not know what effect this situation will have on whether people will get involved.

    Nor do you know if police might tread more gingerly in the practice of arresting people for contempt of cop.

    Parent

    Not speculation on her part (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:51:49 PM EST
    as I and others here have said that it sure was a teachable moment about what to say if, big if, we call the cops.

    As for whether the cops are more careful, I would not speculate on that, as I am not sanguine on it at all.  I know some whom I trust.  Not many.  The rest . . . well, I will play my cards darned close to the vest from now on.  Race cards or otherwise.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:54:38 PM EST
    it was mostly the liberal blogs that hinted, insinuated, or accused Whalen of being racist. Here I believe it was only wished that her life be a living hell.

    Lots of people stepped in it on this topic, and I agree with you Anne, they continue to do so because they all know EXACTLY what happened. There are few here that have commented on the Gates topic that would ever be worth a damn on a jury.

    Parent

    Of course, ER could and did fly. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:49:25 PM EST
    As ever, the need first is to define terms.:-)

    Parent
    apparently because no one has asked him (none / 0) (#34)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:41:42 PM EST
    still a couple laps behind i guess.

    Parent
    Very much behind (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:46:55 PM EST


    Parent
    What should he explain. Unless you (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:45:10 PM EST
    believe he only investigated the possible breaking and entry because he saw a black man inside the house.  

    Parent
    Why doesn't Crowley explain it himself? (none / 0) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:14:54 PM EST
    Fair question.

    Parent
    So is the assertion (none / 0) (#194)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:51:34 PM EST
    that Crowley lied, BTD.

    Parent
    As for your last graf (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:26:11 PM EST

    That sounds like you bringing race into it.

    My question is simple - why did Crowley make such a glaring error in his report? And not an insignificant one.

    Parent

    Anne didn't bring race into it (none / 0) (#62)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    Race is always in it. right?

    you know. just to cut to the chase.

    it would be inappropriate of me to assume one way or another because if you said something either way, i missed it, but do you think it was appropriate for people to call whalen a racist simply because they thought she gave a more thorough description of gates?  and for no other reason?

    if the answer is "race is always in it" then i don't know how to conclude that you think it was inappropriate for peope to accuse whalen of being a racist.  that on some level you are ok with the accusations made of whalen when people thought she gave a more thorough description of gates.

    speaking for myself, i think it was inappropriate, and i remain confident anne would not have mentioned race above if they had not done so.

    that's what i think.


    Parent

    Finally conivnced you I see (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:13:03 PM EST


    Parent
    it was easy for you to do that (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:27:10 PM EST
    because once i undertood you were talking about systemic racism, and not the accusation of someone being a racist, then i knew we agreed.

    but i still do not know what you think about accusing people of being racist based only on the fact that we do live in a racist society.

    Parent

    If this is true it would be a very simple (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:02:53 PM EST
    thing to make clear.....and then Ms. Whalen would not have to be attributed with saying something that she did not say.  She also would not have to defend herself by holding press conferences to clarify that she did not say the things that the officer states in his report that she said.  Why would a law enforcement officer just sit mute on such clarity and obviously let some innocent subject of his errors twist in the winds?

    Parent
    Now, there it is. (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:45:53 PM EST
    Unlike BTD and others here, I think it is possible that Crowley is not a liar.  However, I am not as forgiving of his silence on this.  If he made a mistake, he should say so and file a corrected report on this point.  

    Parent
    What am I to do? (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:55:10 PM EST
    I would like to MoveOn but how can I when such obvious questions are hanging blatantly in my face, and a man was arrested, but charges will not be pursued?  I'm a pain in the _ _ _ about things like this, can't help it.  It is who I am :)

    Parent
    Obama can move on (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:56:53 PM EST
    The rest of us can wait for further elucidation on this point.

    Parent
    Me too ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    but I doubt we will.

    Not "teachable" enough ... or something.

    Parent

    Oh not at this silliness (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:18:31 PM EST
    But the Boston papers have not let it go and I am not sure they will.

    Especially since Ms. Whelan had a press conference today.

    Parent

    Her turn for 15 minutes? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:21:48 PM EST
    Actually, I think she has a legitimate grievance. What unspeakable (and unspoken) privilege that this cop gets some much deference.

    Parent
    The deference is from Obama (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    and he is privileging his friend, not the cop.  And the cop is not the one who got her called a racist.

    I agree with you that she has a grievance, and she is the one most unfairly getting the most grief.  

    Parent

    The cop is the one (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    who falsely attributed a statement to her that she did not make.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:06:56 PM EST
    That is not the same as calling her a racist.

    Those who extrapolated it from it that she is a racist -- indeed, that racism was the motivation of anyone other than Gates, also from incomplete evidence -- are the problem.

    Parent

    The police report (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:08:36 PM EST
    is not of concern to you I see.

    Parent
    Of course it is. It is evidence (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    so it needs analysis.

    It is possible that he erred, combining the reports of the two women, rather than that he lied.  I extend to him the same allowance for error that, for example, I extend to you when you make a mistake.  I do not think that it means that you lie, because I do not impute motivation I do not know.

    Parent

    A week has passed (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:44:09 PM EST
    and no explanation has been forthcoming.

    Parent
    See my comment below on that (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    because on that point, I disapprove of Crowley's inaction.  If he made a mistake, he ought to say so.  But then, I think others made mistakes and ought to say so.  In Obama's favor, he has said so.

    Parent
    In sum, incompetence (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:43:48 PM EST
    is something I see all too often, and often from authorities whom I pay with my taxes.  As it happens, I have had to read a lot of police reports in my past careers, and I read a lot of them now as part of my neighborhood watch.  On the whole, though, they exhibit about the same level of incompetence that I see in my elected officials.  

    At least your mistakes don't cost me anything.  But then, they don't get you invited to the White House, either.

    Parent

    Agreed. The other issue (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    is I have no doubt Mr. Crowley answered more than one call that day.  The exact detail of which of the women he talked to and which racial or ethnic origin they did or didn't refer to in this particular case may have seemed irrelevant to the outcome of the case at the time he wrote the report.

    I saw 2 polls today talking about the Gates/Crowley/Obama issue.  A percentage of people said that either of Gates/Crowley or both were at fault.  However 35% or so said "I don't know who is at fault".  They and Somerby are the smartest people in the room.

    If Crowley is clearly a bad cop and a racist, Gates has a duty to the community he claims to be a part of, to skip the beer and file a suit against Cambridge.  Since he didn't do that, I assume that Gates agreed with the 35%

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but would you really turn down (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    a personal invitation from the President? Really?

    If you would, then you are made of much stronger stuff than most.

    Parent

    I would have turned down (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:15:56 PM EST
    an invitation from Bush. I was told that then Miami Dolphins coach Nick Saban was stupid for turning down a dinner invitation with Bush. It made perfect sense to me as I would have done the same thing.

    Parent
    I probably would have gone to see even Bush (none / 0) (#134)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:18:58 PM EST
    And I would have had the chutzpa to give him a piece of my mind.

    Parent
    You're better than I (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:24:14 PM EST
    I would only have the chutzpa to say no thanks. I learned long ago after getting a ticket for going 85mph in a 40, when I was only going in the high 40's, to never mouth off at people that have backup a radio call away.

    Parent
    This comment (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    sums up so much so well.  Last paragraph may border on brilliant for pointing out the problems inherent in all of the assumptions made about the incident.

    Parent
    Btw, BTD, do you not (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    cast any discredit -- being a lawyer and all -- on the courts for releasing Whalen's identity?  The cop did not do that.

    I have so many questions about so much that seems to have been handled so incompetently in this case.  That is why I do not jump to claiming that I know the answers, especially about motivations.  There seems to be all sorts of agendas in play -- including on this blog.

    It is so reminiscent of Bonfire of the Vanities that the book now seems like a blueprint.  I'm pondering putting it and all this into a syllabus for a course -- not on race, and not on legal evidence, but on historical evidence.  Ye olde "eye of the beholder" bias phenomenon.

    Parent

    Provided we ever (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by JamesTX on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:15:59 PM EST
    emerge from this conservative nightmare and begin to pursue the ideals underlying our Constitution again (which is a big if), this picture will be one for the history books.

    Here we have a scholar at the top of his field, a sitting president, and a VP all "deferring" to some guy who's achievements pale in comparison, and who's only displayed personality quality is the standard white male police officer's adamant insistence that they are never...never...never wrong -- by definition.

    As a country, as the world, we all sit here today, forced to "defer" and "agree to disagree" to this inexplicable silent nobody who commands more power than the best of our best -- this secret brotherhood authority that still runs our country, and is not obliged to explain itself to anyone or to admit its faults.

    Can anyone else see the problem? There is something very, very wrong with our country, and Obama's little show displays and communicates it with such brilliant irony. This was a good idea.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:37:15 PM EST
    I see it.

    Parent
    I don't see it. Biden was added to (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:43:27 PM EST
    the scene, so we have VP Biden, Pres. Obama, Sgt. Crowley, Prof. Gates. Kind of like boy girl boy girl at a dinner party.  We see Prof. Gates gesturing.  Then we see the Pres. and VP smiling.  I do not see anyone pandering or deferring to Sgt. Crowley.

    Parent
    Yes, no doubt, a "nobody" (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:49:02 PM EST
    How dare he stick up for himself against such obviously superior people? For shame! A working man daring to disagree with powerful elite-educated pooh-bahs!  What on earth has the world come to?  Why, you'd think those DFH leftists had been whispering in his ear! Oh, wait!  The DFHs are on the side of the elite here.  Sorry.  My mistake.

    Parent
    I see it too. Too bad others can't also. (none / 0) (#198)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:00:18 AM EST
    Betcha if we'd have been talking about sexism, it would've been easier for more to "see" your point.

    Parent
    did you see who her lawyer is? (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:56:31 PM EST
    Martin Lewis at HuffPo has an interesting take on it.

    Parent
    Do you know her? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:16:27 PM EST
    I thought she was a prosecutor, and it seems to me she was appearing regularly on Geraldo during the Nanny trial.

    Parent
    Former prosecutor, now victims (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:15:21 PM EST
    lawyer. We were MSNBC analysts for 2 years together (and on Geraldo many more than that) and they loved it because we fought like cats and dogs.  Her positions make Nancy Grace look reasonable. She was at her most offensive during the Nanny Trial and JonBenet. (In those years, they flew us into NY constantly so we'd be in the same studio live, and after shrieking at each other on the air, we'd hang out in the lunchroom and try and find neutral stuff to talk about (our kids, etc.)) So it's not that I dislike her personally, but it's like she's landed from outer space with her crime views. And her major arguments consisted of repeatedly calling the other person's views and the defense evidence in any case "nonsense" and "garbage."

    Parent
    Glad to hear your perpective, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#193)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:50:55 PM EST
    She's always made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

    Parent
    Wasn't her press conference ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:39:03 PM EST
    yesterday?

    Parent
    I defer to you (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:42:12 PM EST


    Parent
    what kind of explanation would be satisfactory (none / 0) (#23)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:26:00 PM EST
    if the explanation was "i made a mistake and just assumed that the witness gave a more thorough description," then what?

    Parent
    Why don't we listen to the (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:27:35 PM EST
    explanation and then I can react to it.

    I like to wait for the facts before I react to a situation.

    The fact we have in hand is that Crowley has a glaring error in his police report.

    It seems to me that if he has time to talk to the press, which he has done plenty, he can answer that question.

    Parent

    well it seems the guilty party then (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:30:34 PM EST
    is not the person who hasn't provided an answer but the people who have failed to ask that question.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    I said that already. Nice of you to catch up.

    Parent
    A commendable statement. (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:38:22 PM EST
    I like to wait for the facts before I react to a situation.

    That is what a lot of us have been saying here, for days, only to be told that we must be fools (or racists, but those attacks say more about those who say them).  

    No, we do not have all of the facts yet.  We have suppositions, speculations, etc., and those are okay at this point -- but they ought not be stated as facts.

    Parent

    A more thorough description? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:05:19 PM EST
    When you are entering into a situation that could be potentially dangerous and where you know none of the factors, do you imagine more thorough descriptions having been given to you than what you actually received?

    Parent
    ok (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:18:48 PM EST
    if i'm a cop and i'm investigating a crime and it turns out, that even though the witness didn't say it was a green ford, i end up confronted with a suspect driving a green ford.

    so it turns out that i'm writing the police report later that day and i, by then got it into my head the witness said something about a green ford, so i write "the witness said the suspect was driving a green ford."

    it's a mistake.  it's a discrepancy.  it needs to be cleared up.

    it does not indicate malicious intent on my part.


    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:24:09 PM EST
    so at some point in the week after the incident, you probably would have said "oops, I made a mistake," as opposed to insisting that every word of your police report is accurate?

    Parent
    if someone asked me (none / 0) (#88)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:34:48 PM EST
    in your report you say the suspect started threatening you with a gun is your report accurate? i wouldn't look at my mistake with respect to the witness and start telling people my report was inaccurate.


    Parent
    Are you in law enforcement? (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:41:27 PM EST
    Are you a public servant?  Are such people in authority not accountable for the damage they do?

    Parent
    in this case (none / 0) (#104)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:48:39 PM EST
    the only reason why this error in the police report causes any damage is cause we've accepted a society where someone can be called a racist simply for delivering a more thorough description of a suspect.

    the damage he caused by making an improper arrest, i believe he is responsible for that.


    Parent

    Nonresponsive (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:45:27 PM EST


    Parent
    more to the point then (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:46:45 PM EST
    the errors in one part of the report do not discredit the entire report.


    Parent
    Whatever (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    Don't know what that has to do with the price of rice in China or a law enforcement officer who you feel free to allow to slander innocent people at will without any need for accountability.

    Parent
    the error is only slander (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    if we accept that thorough descriptions of suspects makes you a racist.

    Parent
    No it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:09:57 PM EST
    And I'm sorry you are hung up on the racist thing....but a lying police officer is a police officer who lies.  Why is this one lying?  We suspect it has to do with race because he is the one who brought it up when he was defending himself after his actions were questioned.  I really don't know why he's lying and trying to make a neighbor appear to have given descriptions that better justify him wrongfully arresting a man, do you?

    Parent
    That's just it (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:14:15 PM EST
    The descriptions, if they were given, would add any justification to the wrongful arrest.  

    I too can't figure out what he would have to gain by lying.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#131)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:15:34 PM EST
    .... Would not add any justification...

    Parent
    As you know, Sgt. Crowley did not (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:36:44 PM EST
    arrest Prof. Gates for breaking and entering.  He arrested him for disorderly conduct.  The description of the breaking and entering suspects is irrelevant (IMO of course).  He clearly arrested the person he though was violating the disorderly conduct statute.  This is not a case of racial profiling as to the breaking and entering investigation and there is no mistaken identity involved.

    Parent
    Well no, I sort of forgot that (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:46:26 PM EST
    But Crowley still seems to be fibbing.  All this makes me think I need to wire my house with recording devices if for no other reason so that police officers can't lie about things that happen around here :)

    Parent
    Sorry to see you are adopting the company (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:47:22 PM EST
    line here.

    Parent
    It's my line (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:05:28 AM EST
    You know me.  I don't need to adopt anybody else's line.  I have miles and miles of my own :)

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:03:09 PM EST
    So if there's an error, and the author refuses to own up to it, instead insisting that every word is accurate - that doesn't call the balance of the report into question at all?  He's still assumed to be a perfectly accurate witness, with the exception of the single solitary error that for some reason he won't admit to?

    That's a funny sort of logic you've got going on there.

    Parent

    So, I guess Prof. Gates should go ahead (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:53:03 PM EST
    and file his government claim and subsequent civil lawsuit so his attorney can ask Sgt. Crowley under oath:  Sgt., weren't you trained in writing reports?  Yes, sir.  And Sgt., wasn't part of that training that you should make your report as complete and accurate as possible?  Yes, sir.  And isn't true Sgt. you stated in your report Ms. Whalen told you there were two black subjects with back packs on the porch?  No further questions.

    Parent
    There sure would be a further question (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:09:24 PM EST
    oculus.  This is what I want to know:

    Sgt., were you trained in a process to correct inaccurate reports?

    Sgt., did you correct this report?

    And then I would want to know if he did so -- and then, if so, I would want to know why we haven't seen it.  Isn't it possible, just possible, that it has been corrected, and that we don't know it?  I say that because I often have found, in years of reading police reports, that corrections are made -- but that we, whether journalists or other citizens involved in incidents, were not told so.  Really, you might be surprised at how often that has happened.  And I learned that a good journalist, or a good lawyer, learns to go back and check the reports right before trial, if only so as to not be surprised. . . .

    (Btw, this practice by my local media, correcting erroneous reporting online without ever having admitted to mistakes, happens to be blowing up on my local blogs right now -- an egregious case against my lieutenant governor that could be cause for a libel suit, if you ask me.  And I'd love to be the one to ask the media outlet if they really want to claim that correcting the report later and not clearly saying so is a practice they want to try to defend.)

    Parent

    The original reports should never have (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:13:00 PM EST
    been released except by Prof. Gates or with his written consent.  As to correcting any errors in those reports--probably won't happen as there will not be a criminal prosecution.  Maybe if Prof. Gates files a government claim.  

    Parent
    I am surprised that a correction (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:48:54 PM EST
    apparently has not been requested by Whalen's lawyer -- although I admittedly do not know whether a witness has a basis to request that.  Maybe you, as a lawyer, do know?  But then, it may be a criminal law question, and I also don't know if that's your area.  But there ought to be some here who could contribute legal expertise, as you have, rather than more guesswork.  Thanks for what you have attempted to do.  I would hire you. :-)

    Parent
    Whalen could go to Cambridge PD (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:52:29 PM EST
    and request to add her written statement to the reports.  Who knows if she has done so?  Doubt it, as, although Sgt. Crowley arrested Prof. Gates, no charges were filed by the prosecutor's office.  

    Parent
    Crowley affirmatively said (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:22:28 PM EST
    that he stands by every word in the report.

    Unless he changes his mind publicly I don't think a hypothetical secret correction is particularly relevant.

    Parent

    Probably not, I agree (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:39:32 PM EST
    but I try not to write with certainty unless I can do so.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:54:36 PM EST


    Parent
    It is only my personal judgement (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:24:40 PM EST
    But it is mine and I will have it. By avoiding clearing this up he is demonstrating that the truth, and the damage that the lack of clarity of truth can inflict on innocent bystanders, means very little to him as a law enforcement officer.  He deeply calls his own credibility into question by being this negligent as a public servant.

    Parent
    Yes, but that is not the same (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:41:35 PM EST
    as lying.  Incompetence, stupidity, perhaps -- we don't know why the report has not been corrected (or, to be very careful: we don't know if the report has been corrected, and if not, why not).

    But we also do not know that it was a lie.  At least, some of us who know that a lie requires intent know that.  What I also don't know is how you and others, therefore, do know the intent and thus know it was a lie.

    Parent

    Or look at it this way: (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:48:55 PM EST
    I am grading tests -- and giving myself breaks by checking in here, or I would tear out my hair at some of what I am reading.  Why?  Because I am reading reports that are replete with errors.

    But I do not think that my students are lying to me.

    Nor are their reports entirely inaccurate.  So it is my task to figure out which parts are correct, and given them points for that.

    Now, I expect them to correct their inaccuracies.  I also expected Crowley to do so . . . but frankly, this whole thing has been handled so badly, with release of information that ought not have been released -- Whalen's identity, released by the courts and not the cops -- that I could not state with a certainty that Crowley has not corrected it!  Can you?

    Parent

    Agree with you (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:00:48 PM EST
    Being a law enforcement officer is not the same as being a student though.  I don't know what is expected of police officers but because their reports are part and portion of the justice system I doubt the standards they are held to are that much different than the standards my husband is held to.  When an incident occurs and reports are filed that have falsehoods in them that are not remedied the first moment that the military officer making that report knows it needs correcting.......lots of yelling starts.....things can get really bad after that for someone who isn't accountable.  It is a position of very special authority over others, and the standard of accountability is different.

    Parent
    Agreed with you, too (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:19:48 PM EST
    and again, we don't know but that there may have been a lot of that sort of yelling in the Cambridge P.D., right?  And maybe a corrected report?  And if not, it would be interesting to know whether it was Crowley that will not correct it, or perhaps a higher-up?  Or does that never happen in the military?  (A hypothetical question, as we certainly have much historical evidence of good soldiers trying to correct records and being stopped from it.)

    Parent
    If a higher up has to correct your report (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:36:07 PM EST
    of a "serious" incident in the military, you are probably in deep doo doo.  Expect to see it reflected in your next officer evaluation and affect your next promotion or lack of it.  If an offense occurs that is proven to involve intentional falsifications you have broken laws and could be court martialed or be punished by losing rank along with pay and/or jail time.One of my husband's students was caught cheating on the test in my husband's class and he was kicked out of flight school.  He can become something lesser than a pilot now I suppose.  This isn't to say that lying doesn't occur, but you had better not get caught.  Incompetence didn't used to get promoted until we became so short handed in skilled active duty soldiers.  More of it seems to be overlooked right now.

    Parent
    Oh, My Lai tells us (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:41:56 PM EST
    that a lot has been overlooked in past, too.  And that it need not mean demotion.  See: Colin Powell.

    Parent
    In combat zones (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:57:13 PM EST
    certainly things get overlooked under certain leadership.  It is all in the leadership and enforcing the regulations.  Before the press was asking hard questions and stuck in shock and awe, many many things in Iraq were overlooked as well.  This I can tell you though, when you have senior officers in place (even one of them) who are unwilling to play by "different" rules when they sense that nobody is looking or that nobody really cares......you don't have instances of things being overlooked.  After you graduate from Officer Candidate School there isn't anything unclear about what is expected of you and what you can be brought up on charges for.  Powell got away with smoothing things over because of how damaged our nation was by the whole of Vietnam.  Our military structure and integrity had literally been destroyed by Vietnam and had to be completely rebuilt again from the ground up.  Many old soldiers have been very upset watching so much of their hard work put under the knife in Bush's made up war in Iraq.

    Parent
    I was replying to your comment (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:15:39 AM EST
    that "Incompetence didn't used to get promoted until we became so short handed in skilled active duty soldiers," i.e., recently.  From what I have read, we have rewarded incompetence often in our history, sadly.  See also: the Civil War, pre-Grant.  As you say, and understandably, it most often happens in combat -- but then, that is what we train military to handle, so it is the test of the training.  And unfortunately, as I know from being married to an OCS grad who served in Vietnam, Powell was not alone in "smoothing over" matters that, in doing so, did more damage to the military.  Fortunately, as your comments here have attested, we always have good officers who put our military back together again.

    But what I don't see is understanding that, for Cambridge cop -- Cambridge, not Boston -- the scene there might also have been something like a "combat zone."  It certainly sounds chaotic.  As I've said elsewhere, I consider the cop most responsible for attempting to reduce chaos, and it does not seem to have been handled well.  But I also don't blame everyone in the military today for not reducing the chaos in Iraq, etc. (nor would I say that they all, or even this cop, "acted stupidly" if I did not know it was so).

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:58:19 PM EST
    Honestly I just don't get how anyone who wasn't there can be so sure of anything.  

    I am a retired teachers.  Many of my years I spent in middle school, a tough one...one that was featured on one of those "shock" shows with Diane Sawyer as being a "dangerous" school.  While our school did have some gang wannabbees, the report was so exaggerated and edited to make it look worse...but that's another topic.  

    But during my time, I was involved in breaking up a few fights involving students.  Often, after the students were all safe, in their classrooms, office, wherever they needed to be, teachers were asked to write a report....describing what happened.  I guarantee you, our reports probably had inaccuracies.  Sometimes we (teachers) compared our reports and contradicted each other.  In the midst of high emotion, lots of action, the adrenalin pumping to stop any physical fights, to clear kids away, to keep everyone safe, we did not all see and hear the same things, the same way.  We're human.  It's not easy to write a report after the fact.  Witnesses have been proven over and over to be inaccurate.  

    I don't know Crowley or anything about him so why should I assume he is intentionally lying?  I don't know Gates or anything about him so why should I assume he is intentionally lying?  
    Why can't I assume that two decent men lost their cool, interpreted things differently, and remember things differently?  I do believe Crowley's decision to arrest was probably not his best decision but I don't have to believe it was decision made with malice, with racist intent....because how could I possibly know?

    Parent

    No, thank you. (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17:05 PM EST
    And it's interesting that we, as teachers, have seen so many instances of good people writing bad reports -- or perhaps acting badly in the heat of the moment, as you say.  And as a historian, I also have seen some very bad reporting by some people held to be among our most "decent" in our history.

    The scene at Gates' home sounds as chaotic as some of the hallway scenes we have seen (and for that, I hold the cop more responsible, as the one more trained to lower the level of chaos, but I also understand from experience how hard that can be . . . but that also doesn't make the cop a liar).

    Even in far less chaotic settings, the results can be teaching moments.  Just reading the minutes of my departmental meetings, even when we have carefully and courteously followed parliamentary procedure and made motions and seconded them and all that -- well, we also start every meeting correcting the minutes.

    Parent

    Speculation (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:21:41 PM EST


    Parent
    is speculation bad? (none / 0) (#86)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:32:47 PM EST
    no.  is ALL speculation bad?

    Parent
    I was pretty sure (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    you were part of the group condemning speculation this past week.

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:45:45 PM EST
    i was condemning accusations.

    but i don't mind condemning speculation too if all speculation is condemned equally.  if speculation that supported one side was encouraged and speculation that supported the other side was discouraged, then that would indicate something to me.


    Parent

    I wonder how that war in Afghanistan is (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:27:44 PM EST
    going?

    Anything going on in African these days, or is it all peaches and cream over there?

    Is anybody (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:28:50 PM EST
    else really not that interested in this story? Does it seem blown out of proportion?

    Well a Distraction, Yes (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    But pretty big stuff for a US President to do, all throughout the affair.

    Unprecedented, imo.

    Parent

    I am totally uninterested in it (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:05:33 PM EST
    And haven't followed it. But since readers here are filling up the comments threads about it, I put up this one. Also, it bothers me that this is only a big story because Gates and Obama are friends. It's not exactly news or shocking that police lie on arrest reports, and it happens in so many cases more important than this one.

    Parent
    I am personally surprised that it is apparently (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:08:28 PM EST
    so frequent. I'll bet it's news to many people.

    Parent
    Please reserve judgment until you (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01:30 PM EST
    deal with such reports, those who write them, and those who were present but disagree with something in the reports.

    Parent
    Me! Me! (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by otherlisa on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:45 PM EST
    I am soooo sick of the bandwidth given to this. Any possibility of a "teachable moment" has been lost in the noise. Meanwhile we are about to end up with a health care bill that is essentially a bailout to the insurance industry, designed to foreclose any meaningful reform for decades.

    I'm disgusted.

    Parent

    I am tired of it. (none / 0) (#54)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:56:22 PM EST
    Sadly, the press loves this kind of story, so they'll go on and on about it. And when Obama stepped in (to) it, it made the story irresistible for them.

    The ABC news coverage was ridiculous: they played armchair psychologist trying to figure out who was in what mood. Etc. All from 10 seconds of footage from 50 feet away.


    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:57:46 PM EST
    But I think it was good politics for Obama to clean up the mess he made.

    Parent
    The political mess I mean (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:58:22 PM EST
    Nothing substantive.

    Parent
    In your view, has he "cleaned it up"? (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:55:06 PM EST


    Parent
    I think he did (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:04:37 PM EST
    No sound of course...that would have led to nothing being cleared up :)  But there they were together.  Nobody was yelling, there was some hand talking....the President applied his remedy to the feelings of misunderstanding.  Now Crowley is free to drive himself over a cliff of baloney and lawsuits and it is of no concern to the President :)

    Parent
    Whole scene looked very artificial to me. (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:08:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#64)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:07:09 PM EST
    Obama did the right thing after he went off script.


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:12:15 PM EST
    We agree.

    Parent
    I'd love it if Gates and Crowley came out (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:37:59 PM EST
    and said that they had worked out a peace between each other, but were now mad at the President for serving terrible beer.

    And were sartorially offended (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:42:07 PM EST
    as well, because they wore suits and ties, and Biden wore . . . am I seeing white socks?!

    Parent
    I think the socks are black, but he has (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    some silver thing on his shoe.

    If I were Biden, I'd slowly start dressing like Colonel Sanders.

    Parent

    Reflection of the sun. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    Sign of a quality shoe shine.

    Parent
    The teaching moment... (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:59 PM EST
    ...was more a lesson for Obama, it seems, much as the lesson he needs to learn about trying to bring all those republicans into the unity fold.  the lesson is this: reality is a cold, hard, difficult beast, no matter how much you believe it can be tamed otherwise.

    Did Biden show up late (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:29:57 PM EST
    or order another beer? Love the waiter walking all the way out there with one beer on a tray. Biden in general cracks me up. I'm sure he was there to provide the comic relief, and to enjoy 3 people who put their feet in their mouths worse than he did.

    Apart from that, this kind of kabuki is just irritating.

    The other three had pre-ordered (none / 0) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:03:54 PM EST
    Joe wasn't on the original guest list so perhps his order needed further chilling. I'm sure the obvious question has been asked but I havent seen the answer. Looking darker in the mug than Obama's Bud Light, and lighter in the mug than Gates' Red Stripe, what brand did Joe quaff?

    Parent
    The Internet is a beautiful thing (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    Joe went with a Buckler, a near beer made by Heineken.

    For the connoisseurs of beer here, an online reviewer of Buckler says, "the thin malt and processed hop flavour don't do much other than leave things bland. Don't bother beer".

    Parent

    He got his kids a German Shepherd (none / 0) (#172)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:20:33 PM EST
    that wasn't even out of American lines.  Yet we can't even say that all his taste is in his mouth :)  He has a great shoe shine though.

    Parent
    CC (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:08:04 PM EST
    Figured this needed an entirely separate comment rather than just replying to one of your comments above. As it doesn't happen often, I find it necessary to mention that on this topic we are in near complete agreement. When it comes to the facts of this case, I believe we concur that both of us (along with everyone else, though few they have the ability to admit it) know little or nothing.

    It was just a matter of time. All good things come to he who waits ;)

    CG, I noticed (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:11 PM EST
    but it's nice of you to go this next step.  Yes, this has been a very interesting exercise here in assessing, frankly, who I would hire as a lawyer -- or even as a reporter.  But I sure see a lot of candidates for writing opinion pieces. :-)

    Parent
    How long before ... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:12:01 PM EST
    Crowley is a Fox News analyst and has a book out from Regnery?

    just like (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:29:27 PM EST
    Mark Fuhrman.

    Parent
    A stretch. Disorderly conduct arrest is (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:44:27 PM EST
    hardly double homicide investigation, is it?

    Parent
    It wasn't just a disorderly conduct ... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:03:56 AM EST
    charge.  It also became a national news event which involved the President of the United States.

    Which I think some might see as a bigger deal than a celebrity murder trial.

    Parent

    Actually, six guys (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:36:47 PM EST
    according to what my spouse saw reported?  That Crowley's union rep and someone else came along?

    And what with the menu (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:40:51 PM EST
    of beer, beer, beer (and a non-alcoholic beer for Biden, apparently the designated driver) -- may we say that the wording of the linked story is especially unfortunate?  I.e.:
    At the end of an otherwise sober press conference largely focused on health care last Wednesday, the president suggested the Cambridge police department had acted "stupidly" in arresting Gates in his home.

    "Otherwise sober"?!  So . . . is this imputing that Obama had a few too many before the presser, and that's why he lost the focus on health care?  Huh?

    Parent
    I note that union rep, in part (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:21:37 PM EST
    because I know that can be the cause for complicating so much of this, from what I have seen with my local police.

    Parent
    It's b-roll ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:40:48 PM EST
    some news sites have taken to putting up b-roll from time to time.

    They probably do it at the time they feed it to affiliates.

    WH was smart to put Biden there (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:47:36 PM EST
    This is really his only use. He is a prop. And that's fine so long as he can't talk.

    Oh, Biden talked (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:50:03 PM EST
    but the press was kept a full forty feet away.

    The White House finally figured it out.  Treat him like the proverbial tree in the forest.  Let him fall -- on his face -- but just be sure no one can hear it.  Then he will not have made a sound!

    Parent

    They look like they're ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:48:55 PM EST
    rehearsing a Chekhov play.

    The camera work reminds me of the (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:24:53 PM EST
    trailer for Blair Witch Project.

    Parent
    You have every right to be upset (none / 0) (#115)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:58:31 PM EST
    But what damage does crowly's error, in this case, cause whalen?

    We have his conversation with dispatch (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:04:32 PM EST
    where it is clear that Whalen did not give any description of the situation that equals the one he has in his report.  The two realities are so far from even being closely associated to each other I come away with how obvious a liar he is.  He is lying and now he knows he's been caught at it and he won't clear this up if it was a "different" woman he spoke to.  If this were a fact he would have done it by now.  It is not okay.  Whalen hopes that her neighbors understand.  I commend her for standing up for herself even if she risks ticking off some scummy police officer.  She does that alone and still he said/she said is invited to hang over her head because of lying law enforcement....but what do you care until you have it happen to you someday?

    Parent
    if it was me (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:09:26 PM EST
    and in this case, i would be more concerned about the people who called me a racist.  because i would also consider "jesus, what if i actually did give a more thorough description, would that make me a racist?"


    Parent
    But it isn't you (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:19:10 PM EST
    It is Ms. Whalen and lies have been obviously told about her, placed in a legal document, and have been dispersed concerning a situation that has gone nationwide and she's upset about it.  I would be upset about my neighbor thinking I said things that I did not say as well but perhaps she isn't.  She is being lied about though and if Crowley is going to ignore what his "mistake" has wrought he hasn't just made a mistake in my book. He's obviously a liar and it isn't okay for police officers to lie.  She may have a lawsuit here.  If she does I hope she pursues it.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:28:42 PM EST
    If crowly said she used a racial slur in a description I'd be right there with you.

    Parent
    MT (5.00 / 10) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:29:10 PM EST
    I think you like many others are missing the point here.

    First, no one here knows what is true and what isn't. Second, anyone that would suggest Whalen was a racist, even if she said she saw two black males, has serious issues. The police report wasn't the problem for Whalen, the "progresive" flame throwers were her problem.

    Parent

    I haven't really involved myself in any of (3.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:36:05 PM EST
    this debate until today.  Though I've read and observed.  We can speculate all day about the issue of race in all this and unless you sit next to a man's soul I don't know how racist or not racist anyone is.  This guy is lying though.  I'm not speculating on why he's lying.  He's just obviously lying and may have created a lawsuit in doing so that his department will have to pay for.

    Parent
    You would think that because of that factor (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:40:47 PM EST
    alone, if there was a "different" woman that he had spoken to and who was the woman in his report, this discrepancy would have been cleared up very very quickly.

    Parent
    Yes, you would think so. (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    But the other point is this:  Say that Whalen had been closer and could see the two men better and had given a more accurate description.  Would that be racist of her?

    After all, she incorrectly said that one of the men, Gates or the cabdriver, looked Hispanic.  Was that racist of her?  And does it make her a liar?

    Parent

    The Cambridge PD should have (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:42:23 PM EST
    required each person present be identified in a report and, given the disorderly conduct charge, have interviewed everyone present and included those interviews with the arrest reports.  

    Parent
    I love this little story you are writing. (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:26:59 PM EST
    There were two women who saw some part or all of the event prior to the phone call and the cops arriving.  I don't see any mention of that other woman in your screed against the scummy police officer.  Why is that, exactly?

    So, you know he's lying because he hasn't made a public announcement that he was mistaken in who said what at the scene?

    Was it the scummy police officer who accused Whalen of being a racist?  No?  Was it Gates?  No?  So who was it that turned a Good Samaritan into a racist?  And why haven't there been any calls for that person or persons who held Whalen up as a racist to apologize?

    Lying law enforcement.  Of course, because we all know that all cops are racist liars.  That's just beautiful.

    This is why I have, for the most part, stayed out of this clusterfu*k, because people who weren't there have decided what is true and what is not, and feel entitled to slander whoever they believe to be in the wrong.

    It is, to me, as ugly, if not uglier than, whatever racism actually existed in this whole situation.  If any.

    If Crowley made a mistake in attributing remarks to Whalen that she did not make, it would be better for him to just say so.

    Not that that will satisfy those who seem to want to believe the stories they have written for themselves about events they weren't present for and people they don't know in a city they don't live in.

    Love that mob mentality - it is so helpful to the situation.

    Parent

    Thank you, Anne! (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:03:00 AM EST


    Parent
    Anne, I think this has all the earmarks (3.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:38:38 PM EST
    of a serious legal issue for his department.  I'm no lawyer though.  I'll tell you what I find most troubling around here at the moment.  That a false police report made by an arresting officer doesn't seem to bother anyone.

    Parent
    i don't think it's a good thing (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11:43 PM EST
    I just... I think that i really can't figure what he would have to gain by lying, by that i mean the upside is so non-existent and the downside is significant, so why?  why lie?  now. if it was to get someone else called a racist instead of him, that seems to be fairly convoluted answer but i'll entertain it, and still point out that that, in and of itself, wouldn't stop anyone from calling him a racist too.

    so.  why?  you yourself can't figure out why.

    so even if it was a lie, whatever he intended, any malicious intent remains a complete mystery to us, and, to me it's such a mystery that it becomes nonsensical.   it simply isn't there until well... it's there.  and whatever he was trying to hide by making that error/lying is equally mystifying.  that is also not there.

    so there was nothing to gain by lying and a lot to lose.

    no motive.

    also.  what bearing does it have on the rest of the report?  are we saying that it shows the rest of the report to be untrue.  and yet, gates himself has not come forward to say "no.  i did not call him a racist.  i don't believe he is a racist."

    i guess what i'm trying to say is that while the error should be investigated, it is not significant to any other part of the incident. it causes concern but it appears inocuous to me. and i still believe it is only a liability for whalen because people think it's racist to describe an african americans as, well, an african american.  NOT because crowley wanted to slander her.

    what does he gain by slandering her?  again. nothing.

    you ask why do people think it's ok when cops lie?  they don't.  they don't know if he lied.  it's been well documented that people who are involved in the same situation often give vastly different accounts of that situation.

    now do i think it's good that a cop made an error?  no i don't think that's good.

    i also think it was wrong for him to arrest gates.

    Parent

    sorry the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:59:22 PM EST
    was deleted for language. Please don't curse here.

    Parent
    Fuhrman has also had ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:23:26 PM EST
    several books published by Regnery.

    comment you are replying to (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:32:22 PM EST
    that called Furhman a name has been deleted. Please let's avoid potentially libelous accusations. He was convicted of perjury and in your opinion he might be that but you can't state it as a fact here.

    Parent
    Obama should've never had this meeting (none / 0) (#203)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:15:41 AM EST
    He's gonna have to be even more of a kiss-a$$ now that he's done it.  People are losing their minds over the irrational fears resulting from the merest hint of a possibility that heretofore commonly accepted perspectives may no longer be vogue.  This staged event isn't going to assuage those fears.

    And what happens when this happens (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:22:23 AM EST
    -- as it will -- when it isn't one of his friends, isn't a Harvard professor?  I hope that Gibbs has ready the obvious reply to the conservative blogs that will go all-out about that.  But then, again, that will keep them occupied and distracted, we can hope, from other matters afoot.

    Parent
    Just Four Guys Sharing a Beer | 198 comments (198 topical)