After all the ballots were counted, the mainstream media talking heads and political pundits were involved in a mystery, trying to explain how and why Hillary Clinton was able to defeat Barack Obama by two percentage points when every poll conducted prior to the New Hampshire primary predicted an Obama victory by an average eight points. Furthermore, exit polls indicated the young Senator from Illinois would defeat the battle tested Senator from New York by five to twelve percentage points.
Even Senator Clinton’s staff expected defeat, and was headed for the life rafts and life preservers. Clinton staffers were in danger of losing their jobs. The campaign itself would have to be restructured.
If you look closely, the pollsters were half right. The Fox News/Opinion Dynamic, New York Times/CBS, Rasmussen, WNBC/Marist College polls predicted Barack Obama would capture 32% to 37% of the vote.[i] Obama’s actual percentage of the vote was 37%.
The polls were correct about Obama, but were wrong about Clinton. She was polling in the 25% to 30% range. Instead, the former Inevitable Candidate lives to fight another day after the late surge of support in New Hampshire.
What happened? Why were so many polls wrong? And where did Hillary Clinton’s 10% increase come from? There are three theories.
The Rick Lazio Effect, named after the New York Republican candidate for the United States Senate and Hillary Clinton’s campaign opponent in 2000. During a debate, Mr. Lazio pulled out a folded sheet of paper, walked over to Ms Clinton, and demanded she sign a pledge not to accept “soft money.” Mr. Lazio was rather belligerent.
After the debate, a woman in the audience approached the moderator Tim Russert, and said she liked the Republican candidate until he decided to stalk the former First Lady. “At that moment, she confided, the Long Island congressman suddenly conjured up the image of her husband, waving a credit card receipt in her face, yelling at her that she had overcharged, his eyes bulging, his veins popping, screaming at her to return everything to the store.”[ii]
Prior to the New Hampshire primary, her male opponents roughed up Senator Clinton in a debate, and she became emotional during a question and answer session the day before the primary. The perception of unfairness towards a female candidate may have been enough to convince the legion of women over the age of 45 to support Clinton against her male bullies. Over 55% of the women in New Hampshire voted for Ms Clinton, a 25% increase in support she received in Iowa. Obama captured 34% of votes cast by women besting Clinton who was supported by 30%.
Second, The Richard Roma Effect. In the movie Glengarry Glenross, Richard Roma, as portrayed by the great actor Al Pacino, walks up a bar and orders an alcoholic beverage on a very hot and humid day. “They say you should not drink alcohol when it’s hot.” Another bar patron asks, “Who says that?” Roma answers, “Something I read. For they say it dehydrates you. They say you should drink water, but I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. If everyone thinks one thing, then I say bet the other way.”[iii]
The second theory could easily be called the New Hampshire Effect, but I wanted to make it sound cooler by interjecting a pop culture reference, thus named The Richard Roma Effect.
New Hampshire prides itself on its au contraire spirit during the election process, and has had a history of turning the presidential election process upside down. The political pundits and the talking heads celebrated New Hampshire’s defiant spirit after Senator Obama was defeated, claiming it was too soon to anoint the young charismatic Senator from Illinois as the inevitable Democratic nominee.
This theory implies a sophisticated level of Groupthink in which the citizens of New Hampshire collectively agreed to halt the momentum of Barack Obama by voting for Hillary Clinton, thus extending the political contest further instead of holding a coronation ceremony for the Senator from Illinois on January 8, 2008 on their turf.
New Hampshire’s contrarian spirit may explain the sudden jump in support for Senator Clinton, but it does not explain why exit polls indicated Senator Obama was going to win the New Hampshire primary by 5% to 10% points. “According to exit polls the 17 percent of voters who said they made their decision on Election Day chose Mrs. Clinton a little more than those who decided in the past two or three weeks. But the margin was very small — 39 percent of the late deciders went for Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent went for Mr. Obama. This gap is obviously too narrow to explain the wide lead for Mr. Obama that kept showing up in pre-election polls.”[iv] In fact, both theories do not account for the discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual result. But one theory does.
The Bradley Effect is named after former Los Angles Mayor Tom Bradley. In 1982, Mayor Bradley was the Democratic candidate for governor. Prior to Election Day, Bradley was ahead of the Republican candidate George Deukmejian by 7%. Unfortunately, Mayor Bradley lost the election by 1%.[v]
This is a statistical “phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate. Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.”[vi]
Mayor Bradley was not the only black candidate whose poll numbers mysteriously decreased. In 1989, David Dinkins was leading the Republican candidate Rudolph Giuliani by 14 points, but won by a narrow margin. In Virginia, Douglas Wilder was leading the Republican candidate by 11 points, but also won by a narrow margin. Harvey Gantt was running against the racist Senator from North Carolina - Jesse Helms. He also had a big lead in the polls, but lost. Barack Obama joins the list of black candidates who lost after seemingly having a lead in the polls.
It is important that New Hampshire is not labeled a racist state simply because a percentage of the population lied regarding their exit polls. However, it would be foolish to pretend the race factor does not exist.
Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and former pollster for Mayor David Dinkins, acknowledges the “longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.”[vii]
Kohut argues “poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.”[viii]
A counterargument against Kohut’s theory regarding the New Hampshire primary is someone who is predisposed to vote strictly on race may also be predisposed to vote against gender. In other words, the racist is not a feminist.
The counterargument to the Bradley Effect is Iowa. Senator Obama won a predominately white state. Why wasn’t race a factor in Iowa?
There are two possible explanations. First, Senator Obama received overwhelming support from voters under the age of 30, and voters who were participating in their first caucus. Young people are less likely to judge someone according to race. Also, first time voters are less jaded by the political process.
Second, Iowa was a caucus. A caucus is different from a primary in which an individual enters a private area, and casts a secret ballot.
Caucuses are not secret ballots. They are public events. Residents gather in schools, public libraries, and private homes. Supporters divide themselves into groups. This could lead to a form of peer pressure. Groupthink can assert itself. Imagine an individual who supports Hillary Clinton, but finds out the majority of his friends and neighbors are supporting Obama. Even if the Clinton supporter walks over to Clinton group, this individual can be subjected to peer pressure in order to change his vote. We are social beings who crave acceptance. It is only natural for someone to bend to the will of a larger group for the sake of acceptance. In the case of Obama, the pressure is greater because you want to appear enlightened and cool to your neighbors.
The Bradley Effect is the only theory that explains the discrepancy between the exit polls and the results of the New Hampshire primary. Racism does not have to manifest itself in large numbers to impact an election. Five percent of the electorate can decide an election.
The race factor explains why presidential candidate John Edwards desperately wants to be the last white candidate standing against Barack Obama. Even on a subconscious level, Edwards understands the importance of the last white candidate running against the black candidate. At some point, the Bradley Effect will assert itself, and Edwards wants to benefit from it, although he will never admit it in public.
Furthermore, the Bradley Effect does not have to based solely on racism. And it does not have to be malicious in nature. It could be based on white guilt. A white individual who meets a black pollster conducting an exit poll may simple lie to the pollster out of guilt.
The only way to find out how much of an impact the Bradley Effect may have on the election is to observe, study polls before the primary, then compare them with exit polls and the actual results. If the Bradley Effect exists, then it will manifest itself again.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 9, 2008.
[ii] Maureen Dowd, “Liberties; Her Brute Strength,” New York Times, September 17, 2000.
[iii] Glenngarry Glenross, 1992.
[iv] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[v] Michael Fauntroy, “Don’t Overplay The Bradley Effect,” The Huffington Post, January 9, 2008.
[vi] Andrew Sullivan, “The Daily Dish,” The Atlantic Monthly, January 8, 2008.
[vii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Politics of Words
Labeling is a uniquely American phenomenon. It is our way to simplify something we would otherwise do not understand, or are too lazy to fully investigate, or comprehend. During the current presidential campaign, an ugly word is being tossed around, with complete disregard, to describe a threat to the American way of life: Islamofascism.
After 9/11, we needed a label to identify the enemy. “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists” and “Islamists” replaced the old enemy from the past – the Soviet Union. Except that “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists”, and “Islamists” are not frightening enough. The names are a little too exotic.
Calling the enemy by its actual name (Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is insufficient because it narrows the enemy to one individual and an organization. Designating Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations as enemies in conjunction with Al Qaeda leads to confusion – too many names to remember. The new label must represent a threat of global proportions and should be able to incorporate a large swath of people.
Islamofascism conveys a perceived threat of an external force determined to impose its way of life against the will of free people all over the world. The theoretical threat of Islamofascism is manifested in The Caliphate who imposes Shariah law, and creates a world government above all others. Therefore Islamofascism is a threat to America.
The word Islamofascism suggests an image. Fascism reminds you of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. Hitler had facial hair – a funny mustache. The Nazi’s wanted to take over the world. Hitler wanted to eradicate the Jews from the face of earth.
If you accept the premise that Islam equals fascism, then Osama Bin Laden is the leader of militant Islamists/jihadists. Bin Laden has facial hair – a beard. The militant Islamists/jihadists want to take over the world. Bin Laden wants to become The Caliphate, rule the world, and kill anyone who does not convert to Islam.
Islamofascism is a curious combination of two words. Like “jumbo shrimp,” Islam and Fascism is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron that is being said by actual morons.
Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”[i]
Islam means peace, is derived from the word salaam, and is defined as complete submission and obedience to the will of God.
Most (if not all) of the people who shout “Islamofascism” do not know anything about Islam. It is clearly stated in the Quran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), therefore it would be highly unlikely that Islam, which believes in religious freedom, would encourage a worldwide movement against religious freedom.
Second, fascism by its very nature is a racist doctrine. Islam is a universal religion open to all nationalities and ethnic groups. It is contrary to Islamic faith for one Muslim to believe he has a higher status or is better than another Muslim. To God, all Muslims are equal.
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues the English language is being corrupted. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”[ii]
Corruption of language is due to laziness. Regarding Islam and Muslims, the corruption is worse because Arabic words are incorrectly translated, and in most cases given new, sinister definitions. In this context, “Islamofascism,” the religion of Islam becomes a threat to national security.
Orwell argues “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”[iii]
In addition, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”[iv]
There are other examples involving incorrect use of language. During the current presidential campaign, several news organizations have reported that Barack Obama attended a “madrassa” in Indonesia. By implication, Obama is labeled a closet Muslim. He should not be trusted, and we should make sure he does not become the next president.
“Madrassa” is the Arabic word for school. Barack Obama lived in a predominatly Muslim country as a child, therefore he attended a school or “madrassa.”
Would we become suspicious if someone reported that Governor Bill Richardson attended an “escuela” as a child? Would we refuse to support Mayor Rudolph Giuliani if we discovered he attended a “scuola cattolica riservata?” Would we deport Governor Arnold Schwarznegger if it was disclosed he attended a “schule?”
The reason for the apprehension over the word “madrassa” is because of a perceived link to terrorism. The media has reported that Saudi Arabia funds religious schools or “madrassas” throughout the Islamic world. In addition, the Saudi Royal family follows a particular form of Islam know as Wahhabism – which has been labeled as a militant/radical anti-American form of Islam. Muslims are learning Wahhabi Islam in madrassas, therefore Muslims are learning anti-American propaganda in their schools.
Wahhabism is a movement named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. In modern terms, Mr. Wahhab was a fundamentalist preacher who travelled throughtout Saudi Arabia warning Muslims not to deviate from Islam as originally taught by Muhammad. He also preached the belief in the oneness of God.
At the time, Arabs were incorporating other beliefs into Islam which is forbidden. Muhammad Wahhab’s preaching was rejected by several tribes until he met Muhammad bin Saud. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism is associated with terrorism and anti-Americanism which is curious because Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792 – four years after the United States Constitution was ratified. How can someone (Wahab) be considered against something (the United States) that did not exist.
Jihad is another word that has been incorrectly translated. Jihad literally means “to strive,” as in strive to become a better Muslim, a better human being. It does not mean holy war. Parenthetically, the term “holy war” does not appear in the Quran.
Fatwa is another Arabic word that has experienced an alteration. Unfortunately, the word is associated with Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence of British author Salman Rushdie for blaspheming the Prophet Mohammad in his novel “The Satanic Verses.” In addition, Osama bin Laden issued an infamous fatwa in the 1990’s instructing his followers to kill Americans.
A fatwa is a legal/religious ruling issued by an Islamic cleric. Currently, a fatwa is considered a death sentence because of the actions of Khomeini and bin Laden.
Allah is an Arabic word that is treated with disrespect. It is as if Allah is the equivalent of Zeus, a figure of another religion that is only culturally important to Arabs just as Zeus would be to the Romans.
Allah is a unique Arabic word. In Arabic, there is only one thing that can be called Allah and that is The God. In the English language, there is God with a capital “G”, and god with the lower case “g,” and we differentiate The God from Apollo the sun god by the use of the letter “G.”
In Arabic, there are no capital and lower case letters, and there is only The God – Allah, and there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. For example, in the sixties there were signs proclaiming, “Clapton is God.” In English, we understand that Eric Clapton is a guitar god, but you will never see an Arabic sign proclaiming, “Clapton is Allah.”
In his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote, “Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”[v]
It is important that we understand that words hurt. Words harm. Words cause damage. When we weaken Arab words, we are diminishing Muslims, and the religion of Islam. We are not treating Muslims with respect. With disrespect comes alienation.
It is a constant question, “Why do they hate us?” In the battle for their (Muslims) hearts and minds, equating Islam with Fascism will not change any minds. Islam and fascism do not belong in the same sentence, much less in the same word. Politicians should stop insulting Islam.
[i] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
[ii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iv] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[v] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
After 9/11, we needed a label to identify the enemy. “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists” and “Islamists” replaced the old enemy from the past – the Soviet Union. Except that “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists”, and “Islamists” are not frightening enough. The names are a little too exotic.
Calling the enemy by its actual name (Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is insufficient because it narrows the enemy to one individual and an organization. Designating Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations as enemies in conjunction with Al Qaeda leads to confusion – too many names to remember. The new label must represent a threat of global proportions and should be able to incorporate a large swath of people.
Islamofascism conveys a perceived threat of an external force determined to impose its way of life against the will of free people all over the world. The theoretical threat of Islamofascism is manifested in The Caliphate who imposes Shariah law, and creates a world government above all others. Therefore Islamofascism is a threat to America.
The word Islamofascism suggests an image. Fascism reminds you of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. Hitler had facial hair – a funny mustache. The Nazi’s wanted to take over the world. Hitler wanted to eradicate the Jews from the face of earth.
If you accept the premise that Islam equals fascism, then Osama Bin Laden is the leader of militant Islamists/jihadists. Bin Laden has facial hair – a beard. The militant Islamists/jihadists want to take over the world. Bin Laden wants to become The Caliphate, rule the world, and kill anyone who does not convert to Islam.
Islamofascism is a curious combination of two words. Like “jumbo shrimp,” Islam and Fascism is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron that is being said by actual morons.
Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”[i]
Islam means peace, is derived from the word salaam, and is defined as complete submission and obedience to the will of God.
Most (if not all) of the people who shout “Islamofascism” do not know anything about Islam. It is clearly stated in the Quran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), therefore it would be highly unlikely that Islam, which believes in religious freedom, would encourage a worldwide movement against religious freedom.
Second, fascism by its very nature is a racist doctrine. Islam is a universal religion open to all nationalities and ethnic groups. It is contrary to Islamic faith for one Muslim to believe he has a higher status or is better than another Muslim. To God, all Muslims are equal.
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues the English language is being corrupted. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”[ii]
Corruption of language is due to laziness. Regarding Islam and Muslims, the corruption is worse because Arabic words are incorrectly translated, and in most cases given new, sinister definitions. In this context, “Islamofascism,” the religion of Islam becomes a threat to national security.
Orwell argues “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”[iii]
In addition, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”[iv]
There are other examples involving incorrect use of language. During the current presidential campaign, several news organizations have reported that Barack Obama attended a “madrassa” in Indonesia. By implication, Obama is labeled a closet Muslim. He should not be trusted, and we should make sure he does not become the next president.
“Madrassa” is the Arabic word for school. Barack Obama lived in a predominatly Muslim country as a child, therefore he attended a school or “madrassa.”
Would we become suspicious if someone reported that Governor Bill Richardson attended an “escuela” as a child? Would we refuse to support Mayor Rudolph Giuliani if we discovered he attended a “scuola cattolica riservata?” Would we deport Governor Arnold Schwarznegger if it was disclosed he attended a “schule?”
The reason for the apprehension over the word “madrassa” is because of a perceived link to terrorism. The media has reported that Saudi Arabia funds religious schools or “madrassas” throughout the Islamic world. In addition, the Saudi Royal family follows a particular form of Islam know as Wahhabism – which has been labeled as a militant/radical anti-American form of Islam. Muslims are learning Wahhabi Islam in madrassas, therefore Muslims are learning anti-American propaganda in their schools.
Wahhabism is a movement named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. In modern terms, Mr. Wahhab was a fundamentalist preacher who travelled throughtout Saudi Arabia warning Muslims not to deviate from Islam as originally taught by Muhammad. He also preached the belief in the oneness of God.
At the time, Arabs were incorporating other beliefs into Islam which is forbidden. Muhammad Wahhab’s preaching was rejected by several tribes until he met Muhammad bin Saud. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism is associated with terrorism and anti-Americanism which is curious because Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792 – four years after the United States Constitution was ratified. How can someone (Wahab) be considered against something (the United States) that did not exist.
Jihad is another word that has been incorrectly translated. Jihad literally means “to strive,” as in strive to become a better Muslim, a better human being. It does not mean holy war. Parenthetically, the term “holy war” does not appear in the Quran.
Fatwa is another Arabic word that has experienced an alteration. Unfortunately, the word is associated with Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence of British author Salman Rushdie for blaspheming the Prophet Mohammad in his novel “The Satanic Verses.” In addition, Osama bin Laden issued an infamous fatwa in the 1990’s instructing his followers to kill Americans.
A fatwa is a legal/religious ruling issued by an Islamic cleric. Currently, a fatwa is considered a death sentence because of the actions of Khomeini and bin Laden.
Allah is an Arabic word that is treated with disrespect. It is as if Allah is the equivalent of Zeus, a figure of another religion that is only culturally important to Arabs just as Zeus would be to the Romans.
Allah is a unique Arabic word. In Arabic, there is only one thing that can be called Allah and that is The God. In the English language, there is God with a capital “G”, and god with the lower case “g,” and we differentiate The God from Apollo the sun god by the use of the letter “G.”
In Arabic, there are no capital and lower case letters, and there is only The God – Allah, and there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. For example, in the sixties there were signs proclaiming, “Clapton is God.” In English, we understand that Eric Clapton is a guitar god, but you will never see an Arabic sign proclaiming, “Clapton is Allah.”
In his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote, “Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”[v]
It is important that we understand that words hurt. Words harm. Words cause damage. When we weaken Arab words, we are diminishing Muslims, and the religion of Islam. We are not treating Muslims with respect. With disrespect comes alienation.
It is a constant question, “Why do they hate us?” In the battle for their (Muslims) hearts and minds, equating Islam with Fascism will not change any minds. Islam and fascism do not belong in the same sentence, much less in the same word. Politicians should stop insulting Islam.
[i] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
[ii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iv] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[v] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Regarding Divine Intervention
Recently, the archaic news program 60 Minutes broadcast a story about Christians who are being persecuted in Iraq. At the end of the report, the lathered 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asked Reverend Canon Andrew White, “Some of your parishioners must ask you, ‘Why is God allowing this to happen to us?”1
It is a question that I have heard before in the context of the Holocaust. How can a just and caring God allow the Holocaust to happen?
Maybe it was the implication - God is allowing Muslims to massacre Christians in Iraq - that angered me.
Had I been asked that question, I would have answered by asking the reporter the following question: Can you give me an example in the last 2,000 years in which God intervened on behalf of a people who were threatened with extinction?
This isn’t a God hating atheist arguing that God does not exist. I believe in God, but I perceive the relationship between God and humanity from the perspective of a deist. God is the creator of the Universe who after setting it in motion, withdrew from the creation, relinquished control over life, and exerts no influence on natural phenomena.
My favorite God metaphor is that of The Watchmaker. “If you found something like a watch in the desert, you would of course suppose it was an artifact of an intelligent watchmaker. Here we find ourselves in an intricate world that we think of as an elaborate mechanism, so there must be an intelligent worldmaker.”2
However, contrary to deist philosophy I do believe in revelation. Revelation is God’s way of restraining “the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings.”3
And I also believe God created man with free will. We are not automatons and we are not predestined to live out our lives according to a divine plan. It is not to say that God cannot or is incapable of exerting influence over his creation. God created the universe to be a self-sustaining, self-controlling mechanism. On Earth, man is the x factor, capable of changing this biosphere in numerous ways through his action and inaction.
The reason God does not intervene in our petty affairs is because we were created with the capacity for choosing between right and wrong. It would be ludicrous for me to blame God every time I committed a sin. Frankly, it’s cheap to blame God for the excessive violence of mankind.
“In 1939, both Cuba and the United States refused to admit 937 Jewish refugees who had sailed from Hamburg, Germany, on the transatlantic liner St Louis. The ship was forced to return to Europe where, ultimately, many of the passengers perished in concentration camps or killing centers.”4
It would be easy to blame God for allowing many of the Jewish refugees from the St Louis to die in concentration camps because if God had willed, they would have been saved.
However, the lesson from the Holocaust is not that God did not care, but man’s indifference or hatred towards man doomed the passengers on the St Louis. The Holocaust happened because we, as a species, let it happened. During the 1930's, a group of people was in mortal danger, yet we could not let go of our petty hatred for a moment to save them. Our unproductive political leaders at the time were more concerned about Jews exceeding subjective and arbitrary immigration quotas.
Somehow in our minds, genocide is equated with natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes. People die in natural disasters and we take comfort in their deaths by saying it was God’s will. However, genocide is not a natural disaster. It is a preventable catastrophe.
In the United Nations charter is a stipulation that in the event of genocide, the UN would intervene. Since the inception of the overestimated United Nations, there were at least three major incidents that could be classified as genocide - Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia. We did not act to prevent these massacres, but someway this is God’s fault because God let it happen.
The only sign of man’s progress is the amazing ability to euphemize the English language, watering down the word genocide to the popular term “ethnic cleansing,” as if the Tutsis were expunged from Rwanda like a regrettable bowel movement after eating a bad meal at a fast food restaurant.
I also believe we are accountable for our actions. I wonder if on the day of our ultimate judgment, when our morally inept political leaders will have to account for their abominable behavior, they will attempt to rationalize so many massacres. They will look straight onto God and dare say, “Don’t look at me, it was Your fault. You let it happen.”
1 “Vicar: Dire Times for Iraq’s Christians,” 60 Minutes, CBS News (December 2, 2007)
2 Ian Hacking, “Root and Branch,” The Nation (October 8, 2007), p30.
3 David Brooks, “Faith vs. The Faithless,” New York Times (December 7, 2007).
4 “Voyage of the St Louis,” The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
It is a question that I have heard before in the context of the Holocaust. How can a just and caring God allow the Holocaust to happen?
Maybe it was the implication - God is allowing Muslims to massacre Christians in Iraq - that angered me.
Had I been asked that question, I would have answered by asking the reporter the following question: Can you give me an example in the last 2,000 years in which God intervened on behalf of a people who were threatened with extinction?
This isn’t a God hating atheist arguing that God does not exist. I believe in God, but I perceive the relationship between God and humanity from the perspective of a deist. God is the creator of the Universe who after setting it in motion, withdrew from the creation, relinquished control over life, and exerts no influence on natural phenomena.
My favorite God metaphor is that of The Watchmaker. “If you found something like a watch in the desert, you would of course suppose it was an artifact of an intelligent watchmaker. Here we find ourselves in an intricate world that we think of as an elaborate mechanism, so there must be an intelligent worldmaker.”2
However, contrary to deist philosophy I do believe in revelation. Revelation is God’s way of restraining “the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings.”3
And I also believe God created man with free will. We are not automatons and we are not predestined to live out our lives according to a divine plan. It is not to say that God cannot or is incapable of exerting influence over his creation. God created the universe to be a self-sustaining, self-controlling mechanism. On Earth, man is the x factor, capable of changing this biosphere in numerous ways through his action and inaction.
The reason God does not intervene in our petty affairs is because we were created with the capacity for choosing between right and wrong. It would be ludicrous for me to blame God every time I committed a sin. Frankly, it’s cheap to blame God for the excessive violence of mankind.
“In 1939, both Cuba and the United States refused to admit 937 Jewish refugees who had sailed from Hamburg, Germany, on the transatlantic liner St Louis. The ship was forced to return to Europe where, ultimately, many of the passengers perished in concentration camps or killing centers.”4
It would be easy to blame God for allowing many of the Jewish refugees from the St Louis to die in concentration camps because if God had willed, they would have been saved.
However, the lesson from the Holocaust is not that God did not care, but man’s indifference or hatred towards man doomed the passengers on the St Louis. The Holocaust happened because we, as a species, let it happened. During the 1930's, a group of people was in mortal danger, yet we could not let go of our petty hatred for a moment to save them. Our unproductive political leaders at the time were more concerned about Jews exceeding subjective and arbitrary immigration quotas.
Somehow in our minds, genocide is equated with natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes. People die in natural disasters and we take comfort in their deaths by saying it was God’s will. However, genocide is not a natural disaster. It is a preventable catastrophe.
In the United Nations charter is a stipulation that in the event of genocide, the UN would intervene. Since the inception of the overestimated United Nations, there were at least three major incidents that could be classified as genocide - Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia. We did not act to prevent these massacres, but someway this is God’s fault because God let it happen.
The only sign of man’s progress is the amazing ability to euphemize the English language, watering down the word genocide to the popular term “ethnic cleansing,” as if the Tutsis were expunged from Rwanda like a regrettable bowel movement after eating a bad meal at a fast food restaurant.
I also believe we are accountable for our actions. I wonder if on the day of our ultimate judgment, when our morally inept political leaders will have to account for their abominable behavior, they will attempt to rationalize so many massacres. They will look straight onto God and dare say, “Don’t look at me, it was Your fault. You let it happen.”
1 “Vicar: Dire Times for Iraq’s Christians,” 60 Minutes, CBS News (December 2, 2007)
2 Ian Hacking, “Root and Branch,” The Nation (October 8, 2007), p30.
3 David Brooks, “Faith vs. The Faithless,” New York Times (December 7, 2007).
4 “Voyage of the St Louis,” The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Gaffe in the Eye of the Beholder
Gaffes are the entertainment portion of political campaigns. A candidate makes an unfortunate statement or a mistake, and then has to spend the next week trying to clean up the mess as the media and late night comedians regurgitate the gaffe in a continuous loop.
At best, the gaffes will make the politician look human. At worst, it can cost an election, for example, President Ford, in a nationally televised debate said, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford Administration.”
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was double teamed by the media and his Democratic rivals over comments he has made during interviews, televised debates and campaign stops. The media labeled his comments as “gaffes.” His rivals, namely Senator Hillary Clinton from New York, argued that the Senator from Illinois is naïve and inexperienced.
The first so-called gaffe from the Senator from Illinois was in May 2007 when the young Senator stated, “In case you missed it, this week there was a tragedy in Kansas.” He mistakenly said 10,000 people had died in Kansas as a result of a tornado. In reality, only 12 people died. Senator Obama “blamed tiredness for the gaffe… A spokesman later said Mr. Obama meant to say at least 10 instead of 10,000.” Later on in the speech, Mr. Obama acknowledged, “there are going to be times when I get tired… There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”[i] The junior Senator from Illinois underestimated the level of attention his mistakes would attract.
On July 17th, the Senator gave a speech at Planned Parenthood. Senator Obama was talking about a prior campaign smear against him in 2004 by his opponent Alan Keyes. The Republican candidate suggested Mr. Obama favored sex education for children in kindergarten.
The Senator stated he supported “age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.” The Obama campaign used a prior newspaper report from The Daily Herald on October 6, 2004 to clarify his position. Senator Obama “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.” Furthermore, “the sex education legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate… envisioned teaching kindergarteners about ‘inappropriate touching.’”[ii]
In fairness, Senator Obama could have said something worse, for example, “Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?” (George W. Bush, Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000).
However, the media focused on “sex education” and “kindergarten” – words that would question the judgment of anyone running for public office who thought sex education for young children would be appropriate.
During the You Tube debate in South Carolina, Senator Obama stated that he would consider meeting with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to discuss US relations with North Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Cuba face to face.[iii]
Hillary Clinton immediately jumped on him, saying he was naïve and inexperienced. Media pundits also attached the inexperience label on the Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois. But at least he was able to spontaneously name foreign leaders.
In a foreign policy statement, Senator Obama said “he would order strikes on Al Qaeda targets and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid if the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, did not blunt a resurging Taliban presence in the country’s tribal areas…
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said, “we will.”[iv]
The media completely misrepresented Senator Obama’s statement, instead reporting that Mr. Obama would invade Pakistan. ABC News, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper – who often finds the need to state the Senator’s full name: Barack Hussein Obama – said “Obama will make extraordinary remarks about what he would do to combat terrorism, going so far as to invade Pakistan.”[v]
Incidentally, during the January 16 2007 edition of Nightline, ABC’s Jake Tapper said, “If three years ago, in January 2004, someone had told you that this man, then an Illinois state legislator named Barack Hussein Obama, was thinking about running for president, you might have thought he was, well, unhinged…. But beyond the excitement among Democrats and some in the media, it's not tough to discern a certain sense of confusion up here on Capitol Hill, fueled, in part, by jealousy and resentment, sure, but the question you hear bears answering: Just who the hell is Barack Obama? And why, in these dangerous times, should he be entrusted with the most powerful job on Earth?”[vi]
ABC's World News Sunday, ABC News correspondent John Berman reported Senator Obama would “be willing to invade Pakistan to fight terrorism.”[vii]
CBS Evening News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported, “that during Obama’s speech, he said he would ‘possibly even invade the U.S. ally Pakistan.’”[viii]
An August 2 article about Obama’s speech in the Los Angeles Times “reported” that Senator from Illinois said “the United States should reserve the right to invade the territory of its Pakistani allies and withdraw U.S. financial aid if it believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was failing to do enough to stop terrorists.”[ix]
The factually challenged newspaper The New York Post, invented a quote in its August 2 edition claiming Senator Obama “warned yesterday that he would use American forces to invade U.S. ally Pakistan if its leaders weren’t doing enough to catch terrorists on their soil.”[x]
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney jumped into the fray saying, “It’s wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say ‘we’re going to go into your country unilaterally.’ Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don’t go out and say: ‘Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out.’ We don’t say those things. We keep our options quiet.”[xi]
In the case of the Bush Administration, first you wait for disaster to strike, then you express your option to unilaterally invade - Iraq.
During another interview with the Associated Press, Senator Obama talked about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At first, he ruled out using nuclear weapons because he was concerned over civilian casualties.
Sensing he made a mistake in discussing the use of nuclear weapons, Senator Obama said, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”[xii]
Again, his rivals pounced and “questioned his foreign policy experience.” Senator Clinton declined to comment on the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons, but the Senator from New York said, “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”[xiii]
Under-whelming second tier Democratic contender Senator Christopher Dodd from Connecticut issued a statement to draw attention to his faltering campaign and slammed Senator Obama. “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”[xiv]
Senator Obama is learning the hard way that statements, no matter how well thought out, no matter how eloquent will somehow or someway will be twisted to look like something else. To counter his critics, he should say, “I think anybody who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.” (George W. Bush, U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000).
But Americans can be forgiving when it comes to mistakes or gaffes on the campaign trail. It helps when the media under reports or ignores the gaffes.
Campaigning in Davenport, Iowa, former New York City Mayor, 9/11 hero and current Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani praised the United States heath care system, arguing that it is better than Europe’s and Canada’s because “it’s private, competitive, and for profit.”[xv]
That statement is almost as entertaining as “People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room” (George Bush Cleveland, Ohio, July 11, 2007).
Furthermore, America’s Mayor compared the health care industry with purchasing plasma TVs. Mr. Giuliani argued that “if the federal government required all Americans to own a plasma TV and paid for those who could not afford it, lower quality televisions would cost upwards of $15,000 today.” However, thanks to the invisible hand of the free competitive market, “higher quality [TVs are] now available for only $2,000.”[xvi] Sometimes I wonder if the media has a sense of humor.
Mayor Giuliani focuses his presidential campaign on the leadership he provided to New York City in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. However, America’s Mayor is not immune to hyping his own biography. Recently he boasted, “I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers,” Mr. Giuliani said last week in Cincinnati. “I was there working with them. I was there guiding things. I was there bringing people there. But I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.”[xvii]
Giuliani realized he made a mistake, and attempted to explain the statement. He meant to say that he felt their (the workers) pain, and his thoughts were with them everyday.
Unfortunately for the 9/11 hero, with great power comes greater scrutiny and Mayor Giuliani’s public record contradicts his statements. “A complete record of Mr. Giuliani’s exposure to the site is not available for the chaotic six days after the attack, when he was a frequent visitor. But an exhaustively detailed account from his mayoral archive, revised after the events to account for last-minute changes on scheduled stops, does exist for the period of Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001. It shows he was there for a total of 29 hours in those three months, often for short periods or to visit locations adjacent to the rubble. In that same period, many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.”[xviii]
And how did America’s Mayor spend those 29 hours. “The 29 hours Mr. Giuliani spent at ground zero involved 41 appearances, mostly to give tours to other officials and foreign dignitaries. Many entries include meetings away from the site before the tour. For instance, the schedule included 30 minutes on Nov. 15, 2001, for President Vladimir Putin of Russia, but Mr. Putin’s tour of ground zero was widely reported to have lasted 13 minutes.”[xix] In other words, he was having his picture taken at Ground Zero with famous people.
America’s Mayor Giuliani is not the only presidential candidate who said or did something stupid that was ignored by the media.
Former Governor – of a Northeastern State he is too ashamed to mention (Massachusetts) – Mitt Romney employed great wisdom in having his picture taken with someone who was holding an “Obama is Osama” sign. Later on that same day, a questioner at a town hall meeting jumped on the ex Governor, informed Mr. Romney that comparing a wanted fugitive and mass murder with the Senator from Illinois was wrong. Flustered, Mr. Romney responded by saying we should all lighten up.
In the spirit of jocularity, the former Governor from Massachusetts won’t mind if you call him Mitt Romney Bin Al Shibh.
At a June Republican Presidential debate, the moderator asked Governor Romney if it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq. “Well, the question is kind of a non sequitur, if you will,”[xx] answered Mr. Romney. First, he misused the term “non sequitur.” This should disqualify him outright for the presidency.
But I digress. The Governor said, “If you’re saying, lets turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction – had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions – we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in. But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.”[xxi] Mr. Romney echoed the Bush Administration argument that Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors in the country.
In fact, Saddam Hussein had allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq, and as of March 17, 2003 found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. The only reason weapons inspectors were forced to leave was over concerns for their safety because the Bush Administration was about to invade Iraq.[xxii]
The media gave Governor Romney a pass on his gaffe, instead focusing a more “egregious” gaffe from Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said “Today’s the birthday of Ronald Reagan. We all would believe that Ronald Reagan is the one who ended the Cold War and Ronald Reagan is the one who helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.”[xxiii] By the way, the reported gaffe was Huckabee not knowing Reagan’s birthday. Reagan’s triumphant victory over the Evil Empire, aka the Soviet Union, is supposed to be a fact.
At a campaign stop in Iowa, Mitt Romney – a big supporter of the “WAR ON TERROR” – spoke about the military and his fives sons and their devotion to America. “The good news is that we have a volunteer army and that’s the way we are going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”[xxiv] Comedians at gunpoint could not write funnier material.
The difference between Mr. Obama’s so called gaffes, and the Republicans is that in the case of the former, his Democratic rivals and the media hammer the Senator from Illinois whenever he makes a “mistake” reinforcing the notion that he is inexperienced. In contrast, the Republicans do not beat on each other during the debates, and the media under report and ignore their gaffes.
But we should not use gaffes made during a presidential campaign against the candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties. We should judge them on the standard set by our current president who has elevated gaffes into an art form.
“This is what I’m good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them.” (George W. Bush, outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000). You would almost expect Mr. Bush to also say, “You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.”
“I don’t think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs.” (George W. Bush, Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000). Subliminal: adjective, inadequate to produce a sensation or perception; existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness. President Bush was correct. He is inadequate to produce a sensation or perception, and he exists and functions below the threshold of consciousness.
“A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness.” (George W. Bush, The Edge With Paula Zahn, Sept. 18, 2000). I’m sorry, the word you are looking for is antidote – noun, a remedy to counteract the effects of poison, such as your presidency.
“It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.” (George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000). Import: verb, to bring from a foreign or external source – like an idea.
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” (George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000). Thank God, or else we would have to fight them over there so that we would not have to fight them over here.
“I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.” (George W. Bush, second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000). This is the sad result when two thoughts collide – racial profiling and education.
“It’s important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It’s not only life of babies, but it’s life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.” (George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000). Does the president know the Internet is not an actual place?
“They said, ‘You know, this issue doesn’t seem to resignate with the people.’ And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn’t matter to me, because I stand for doing what’s the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work.” (George W. Bush, Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000). The word you’re looking for is resonate, as in your lack of command of the English language resonates throughout the land.
“They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.” (George W. Bush, Nov. 2, 2000). Social Security is a federal program, duh!!!
“If you don’t stand for anything, you don’t stand for anything! If you don’t stand for something, you don’t stand for anything!” (George W. Bush, Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000). President Bush never heard the axiom, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Furthermore, during a Republican debate in 2000, when asked who was his most influential political philosopher, Governor Bush answered, “Jesus.” By the way, J.C.’s critique of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” is inspiring. Also worth reading is Jesus’ article about Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations.”
In 1999, during a television interview, Governor Bush was asked who were the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. The best he could come up with was “Lee” for Taiwan.
And don’t forget some of his gaffes as President of the United States. “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003). Probably?!!!
“See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” (George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003). Excuse me Mr. President, we have weapons of mass destruction.
Also, Iraq is an imminent threat, and has weapons of mass destruction, or his GI Joe Mission Accomplished photo op in which President Bush said, “my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”, or “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007).
If we did not hold George Bush accountable for the countless gaffes he has entertained us with from the moment he announced his candidacy for president, then why should we start now.
News has become entertainment. It stands to follow we should not be surprised if we elect clowns for political office.
[i] BBC News, “Tired Obama Makes Tornado Gaffe,” (May 9, 2007).
[ii] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Carlson Claimed Obama’s Sex Ed Policy Provides Powerful Fodder to Deride Him,” (July 20, 2007).
[iii] Alexander Cockburn, “How the Democrats Blew It in Only 8 Months,” The Nation, (August 27/September 3, 2007), page 10.
[iv] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times (August 2, 2007).
[v] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed He Didn’t See Anyone Reporting That Obama Wanted to Invade Pakistan, (August 8,2007).
[vi] Media Matters for America, “Tapper’s profile of “Barack Hussein Obama” asked: “Just who the hell is Barack Obama?,” (January 17, 2007).
[vii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[viii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[ix] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[x] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[xi] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Reid aired “Strangelove” attack, but didn’t note Romney’s agreement with Obama on substance,” (August 7, 2007).
[xii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiv] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xv] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvi] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xviii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xix] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xx] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s Iraq Falsehood, Wash Post Called Huckabee’s Reagan Remark the Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxi] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiv] Media Matters for America, “The Media Misses Mitt Romney’s You Tube Moment,” (August 13, 2007).
At best, the gaffes will make the politician look human. At worst, it can cost an election, for example, President Ford, in a nationally televised debate said, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford Administration.”
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was double teamed by the media and his Democratic rivals over comments he has made during interviews, televised debates and campaign stops. The media labeled his comments as “gaffes.” His rivals, namely Senator Hillary Clinton from New York, argued that the Senator from Illinois is naïve and inexperienced.
The first so-called gaffe from the Senator from Illinois was in May 2007 when the young Senator stated, “In case you missed it, this week there was a tragedy in Kansas.” He mistakenly said 10,000 people had died in Kansas as a result of a tornado. In reality, only 12 people died. Senator Obama “blamed tiredness for the gaffe… A spokesman later said Mr. Obama meant to say at least 10 instead of 10,000.” Later on in the speech, Mr. Obama acknowledged, “there are going to be times when I get tired… There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”[i] The junior Senator from Illinois underestimated the level of attention his mistakes would attract.
On July 17th, the Senator gave a speech at Planned Parenthood. Senator Obama was talking about a prior campaign smear against him in 2004 by his opponent Alan Keyes. The Republican candidate suggested Mr. Obama favored sex education for children in kindergarten.
The Senator stated he supported “age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.” The Obama campaign used a prior newspaper report from The Daily Herald on October 6, 2004 to clarify his position. Senator Obama “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.” Furthermore, “the sex education legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate… envisioned teaching kindergarteners about ‘inappropriate touching.’”[ii]
In fairness, Senator Obama could have said something worse, for example, “Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?” (George W. Bush, Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000).
However, the media focused on “sex education” and “kindergarten” – words that would question the judgment of anyone running for public office who thought sex education for young children would be appropriate.
During the You Tube debate in South Carolina, Senator Obama stated that he would consider meeting with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to discuss US relations with North Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Cuba face to face.[iii]
Hillary Clinton immediately jumped on him, saying he was naïve and inexperienced. Media pundits also attached the inexperience label on the Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois. But at least he was able to spontaneously name foreign leaders.
In a foreign policy statement, Senator Obama said “he would order strikes on Al Qaeda targets and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid if the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, did not blunt a resurging Taliban presence in the country’s tribal areas…
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said, “we will.”[iv]
The media completely misrepresented Senator Obama’s statement, instead reporting that Mr. Obama would invade Pakistan. ABC News, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper – who often finds the need to state the Senator’s full name: Barack Hussein Obama – said “Obama will make extraordinary remarks about what he would do to combat terrorism, going so far as to invade Pakistan.”[v]
Incidentally, during the January 16 2007 edition of Nightline, ABC’s Jake Tapper said, “If three years ago, in January 2004, someone had told you that this man, then an Illinois state legislator named Barack Hussein Obama, was thinking about running for president, you might have thought he was, well, unhinged…. But beyond the excitement among Democrats and some in the media, it's not tough to discern a certain sense of confusion up here on Capitol Hill, fueled, in part, by jealousy and resentment, sure, but the question you hear bears answering: Just who the hell is Barack Obama? And why, in these dangerous times, should he be entrusted with the most powerful job on Earth?”[vi]
ABC's World News Sunday, ABC News correspondent John Berman reported Senator Obama would “be willing to invade Pakistan to fight terrorism.”[vii]
CBS Evening News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported, “that during Obama’s speech, he said he would ‘possibly even invade the U.S. ally Pakistan.’”[viii]
An August 2 article about Obama’s speech in the Los Angeles Times “reported” that Senator from Illinois said “the United States should reserve the right to invade the territory of its Pakistani allies and withdraw U.S. financial aid if it believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was failing to do enough to stop terrorists.”[ix]
The factually challenged newspaper The New York Post, invented a quote in its August 2 edition claiming Senator Obama “warned yesterday that he would use American forces to invade U.S. ally Pakistan if its leaders weren’t doing enough to catch terrorists on their soil.”[x]
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney jumped into the fray saying, “It’s wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say ‘we’re going to go into your country unilaterally.’ Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don’t go out and say: ‘Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out.’ We don’t say those things. We keep our options quiet.”[xi]
In the case of the Bush Administration, first you wait for disaster to strike, then you express your option to unilaterally invade - Iraq.
During another interview with the Associated Press, Senator Obama talked about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At first, he ruled out using nuclear weapons because he was concerned over civilian casualties.
Sensing he made a mistake in discussing the use of nuclear weapons, Senator Obama said, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”[xii]
Again, his rivals pounced and “questioned his foreign policy experience.” Senator Clinton declined to comment on the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons, but the Senator from New York said, “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”[xiii]
Under-whelming second tier Democratic contender Senator Christopher Dodd from Connecticut issued a statement to draw attention to his faltering campaign and slammed Senator Obama. “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”[xiv]
Senator Obama is learning the hard way that statements, no matter how well thought out, no matter how eloquent will somehow or someway will be twisted to look like something else. To counter his critics, he should say, “I think anybody who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.” (George W. Bush, U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000).
But Americans can be forgiving when it comes to mistakes or gaffes on the campaign trail. It helps when the media under reports or ignores the gaffes.
Campaigning in Davenport, Iowa, former New York City Mayor, 9/11 hero and current Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani praised the United States heath care system, arguing that it is better than Europe’s and Canada’s because “it’s private, competitive, and for profit.”[xv]
That statement is almost as entertaining as “People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room” (George Bush Cleveland, Ohio, July 11, 2007).
Furthermore, America’s Mayor compared the health care industry with purchasing plasma TVs. Mr. Giuliani argued that “if the federal government required all Americans to own a plasma TV and paid for those who could not afford it, lower quality televisions would cost upwards of $15,000 today.” However, thanks to the invisible hand of the free competitive market, “higher quality [TVs are] now available for only $2,000.”[xvi] Sometimes I wonder if the media has a sense of humor.
Mayor Giuliani focuses his presidential campaign on the leadership he provided to New York City in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. However, America’s Mayor is not immune to hyping his own biography. Recently he boasted, “I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers,” Mr. Giuliani said last week in Cincinnati. “I was there working with them. I was there guiding things. I was there bringing people there. But I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.”[xvii]
Giuliani realized he made a mistake, and attempted to explain the statement. He meant to say that he felt their (the workers) pain, and his thoughts were with them everyday.
Unfortunately for the 9/11 hero, with great power comes greater scrutiny and Mayor Giuliani’s public record contradicts his statements. “A complete record of Mr. Giuliani’s exposure to the site is not available for the chaotic six days after the attack, when he was a frequent visitor. But an exhaustively detailed account from his mayoral archive, revised after the events to account for last-minute changes on scheduled stops, does exist for the period of Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001. It shows he was there for a total of 29 hours in those three months, often for short periods or to visit locations adjacent to the rubble. In that same period, many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.”[xviii]
And how did America’s Mayor spend those 29 hours. “The 29 hours Mr. Giuliani spent at ground zero involved 41 appearances, mostly to give tours to other officials and foreign dignitaries. Many entries include meetings away from the site before the tour. For instance, the schedule included 30 minutes on Nov. 15, 2001, for President Vladimir Putin of Russia, but Mr. Putin’s tour of ground zero was widely reported to have lasted 13 minutes.”[xix] In other words, he was having his picture taken at Ground Zero with famous people.
America’s Mayor Giuliani is not the only presidential candidate who said or did something stupid that was ignored by the media.
Former Governor – of a Northeastern State he is too ashamed to mention (Massachusetts) – Mitt Romney employed great wisdom in having his picture taken with someone who was holding an “Obama is Osama” sign. Later on that same day, a questioner at a town hall meeting jumped on the ex Governor, informed Mr. Romney that comparing a wanted fugitive and mass murder with the Senator from Illinois was wrong. Flustered, Mr. Romney responded by saying we should all lighten up.
In the spirit of jocularity, the former Governor from Massachusetts won’t mind if you call him Mitt Romney Bin Al Shibh.
At a June Republican Presidential debate, the moderator asked Governor Romney if it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq. “Well, the question is kind of a non sequitur, if you will,”[xx] answered Mr. Romney. First, he misused the term “non sequitur.” This should disqualify him outright for the presidency.
But I digress. The Governor said, “If you’re saying, lets turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction – had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions – we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in. But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.”[xxi] Mr. Romney echoed the Bush Administration argument that Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors in the country.
In fact, Saddam Hussein had allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq, and as of March 17, 2003 found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. The only reason weapons inspectors were forced to leave was over concerns for their safety because the Bush Administration was about to invade Iraq.[xxii]
The media gave Governor Romney a pass on his gaffe, instead focusing a more “egregious” gaffe from Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said “Today’s the birthday of Ronald Reagan. We all would believe that Ronald Reagan is the one who ended the Cold War and Ronald Reagan is the one who helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.”[xxiii] By the way, the reported gaffe was Huckabee not knowing Reagan’s birthday. Reagan’s triumphant victory over the Evil Empire, aka the Soviet Union, is supposed to be a fact.
At a campaign stop in Iowa, Mitt Romney – a big supporter of the “WAR ON TERROR” – spoke about the military and his fives sons and their devotion to America. “The good news is that we have a volunteer army and that’s the way we are going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”[xxiv] Comedians at gunpoint could not write funnier material.
The difference between Mr. Obama’s so called gaffes, and the Republicans is that in the case of the former, his Democratic rivals and the media hammer the Senator from Illinois whenever he makes a “mistake” reinforcing the notion that he is inexperienced. In contrast, the Republicans do not beat on each other during the debates, and the media under report and ignore their gaffes.
But we should not use gaffes made during a presidential campaign against the candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties. We should judge them on the standard set by our current president who has elevated gaffes into an art form.
“This is what I’m good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them.” (George W. Bush, outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000). You would almost expect Mr. Bush to also say, “You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.”
“I don’t think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs.” (George W. Bush, Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000). Subliminal: adjective, inadequate to produce a sensation or perception; existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness. President Bush was correct. He is inadequate to produce a sensation or perception, and he exists and functions below the threshold of consciousness.
“A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness.” (George W. Bush, The Edge With Paula Zahn, Sept. 18, 2000). I’m sorry, the word you are looking for is antidote – noun, a remedy to counteract the effects of poison, such as your presidency.
“It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.” (George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000). Import: verb, to bring from a foreign or external source – like an idea.
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” (George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000). Thank God, or else we would have to fight them over there so that we would not have to fight them over here.
“I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.” (George W. Bush, second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000). This is the sad result when two thoughts collide – racial profiling and education.
“It’s important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It’s not only life of babies, but it’s life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.” (George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000). Does the president know the Internet is not an actual place?
“They said, ‘You know, this issue doesn’t seem to resignate with the people.’ And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn’t matter to me, because I stand for doing what’s the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work.” (George W. Bush, Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000). The word you’re looking for is resonate, as in your lack of command of the English language resonates throughout the land.
“They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.” (George W. Bush, Nov. 2, 2000). Social Security is a federal program, duh!!!
“If you don’t stand for anything, you don’t stand for anything! If you don’t stand for something, you don’t stand for anything!” (George W. Bush, Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000). President Bush never heard the axiom, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Furthermore, during a Republican debate in 2000, when asked who was his most influential political philosopher, Governor Bush answered, “Jesus.” By the way, J.C.’s critique of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” is inspiring. Also worth reading is Jesus’ article about Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations.”
In 1999, during a television interview, Governor Bush was asked who were the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. The best he could come up with was “Lee” for Taiwan.
And don’t forget some of his gaffes as President of the United States. “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003). Probably?!!!
“See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” (George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003). Excuse me Mr. President, we have weapons of mass destruction.
Also, Iraq is an imminent threat, and has weapons of mass destruction, or his GI Joe Mission Accomplished photo op in which President Bush said, “my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”, or “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007).
If we did not hold George Bush accountable for the countless gaffes he has entertained us with from the moment he announced his candidacy for president, then why should we start now.
News has become entertainment. It stands to follow we should not be surprised if we elect clowns for political office.
[i] BBC News, “Tired Obama Makes Tornado Gaffe,” (May 9, 2007).
[ii] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Carlson Claimed Obama’s Sex Ed Policy Provides Powerful Fodder to Deride Him,” (July 20, 2007).
[iii] Alexander Cockburn, “How the Democrats Blew It in Only 8 Months,” The Nation, (August 27/September 3, 2007), page 10.
[iv] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times (August 2, 2007).
[v] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed He Didn’t See Anyone Reporting That Obama Wanted to Invade Pakistan, (August 8,2007).
[vi] Media Matters for America, “Tapper’s profile of “Barack Hussein Obama” asked: “Just who the hell is Barack Obama?,” (January 17, 2007).
[vii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[viii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[ix] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[x] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[xi] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Reid aired “Strangelove” attack, but didn’t note Romney’s agreement with Obama on substance,” (August 7, 2007).
[xii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiv] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xv] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvi] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xviii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xix] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xx] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s Iraq Falsehood, Wash Post Called Huckabee’s Reagan Remark the Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxi] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiv] Media Matters for America, “The Media Misses Mitt Romney’s You Tube Moment,” (August 13, 2007).
Saturday, May 13, 2006
The Usual Suspects
REPRINTED FROM APRIL 1997.
Quality of life criminals are stored in the New York Police Department database. If a major crime takes place, then Mayor Giuliani will place his left hand behind Police Commissioner Howard Safir’s back as the Commissioner commands the police - in his best Captain Louis Renault impersonation - to round up the usual suspects. The mayor will smile for the cameras, will be careful not to move his lips while the Commissioner is speaking, and if Giuliani is feeling particularly bold, he might drink a glass of water while Safir is barking orders to the police.
Combating quality of life crimes is a fascinating strategy. The police concentrated on reducing crime by targeting quality of life crimes “on the belief that those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones” such as a person pissing in a doorway, jumping a turnstile, or panhandling. The NYPD augments their vast database with more fingerprints of actual or potential criminals. Either the police solve an old crime, or have a potential suspect for a future crime. In addition, the NYPD will hold the careless ruffian in custody long enough to establish a connection to another crime.
It is not enough to arrest people for pissing in doorways, jumping turnstiles, or panhandling. More quality of life irritations should be criminalized. The police will have a larger database of suspects. Remember, “Those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.”
For example, Chris G. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for an overactive photographer. He was photographing the Crown Heights riots, was charged with assaulting the police, resisting arrest and obstruction after the police officers on the scene beat him. The charges were later dropped.
Oliver J. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a loud mouth who likes to stand on street corners. He “was standing outside his Bronx apartment [building] among a crowd of onlookers whom the police tried to move after arresting another man.” Somebody shouted, “Police brutality!” Oliver J. was charged with “stealing a police radio and resisting arrest” after the police on the scene beat him. The charges were later dropped.
Ron N. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for someone who does not mind his own business. Mr. N. thought he was witnessing a racist attack, but it turned out to be eight undercover narcotics cops beating up a drug suspect. Ron N. asked the men to stop, but instead was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and obstruction. The charges were eventually dropped.
Keith P. is another suspect if the police are looking for someone who is not minding his own business. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Keith P. was appalled when an officer threw his “female companion about 10 feet in the air. Several officers set upon him, wrestling him to the ground, kicking and beating him with their nightsticks” after he told the police “You can’t do that! This is our neighborhood.” The charges were later dropped.
Yet another person not minding her own business - Judith R. was “pulled from a cab by her hair, handcuffed, and arrested after she criticized an officer for berating her cab driver over a faulty tail light.”
Marcos M. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic armed robber. Marcos M. was working in a supermarket when two men entered to rob the store. “When the police arrived, one of the suspects fled, and the other - who was holding” Marcos M. hostage in the basement - “was shot in the face and wounded.” Marcos M. walked out of the basement with his hands up, “and told the officers that he worked in the store.” The police officers “handcuffed him behind his back, threw him on the floor, and repeatedly hit him on the back of the head with their pistols and nightsticks, and kicked him in the back, chest and legs.” Furthermore, “while handcuffed on the floor, an officer put a gun into his mouth, used an ethnic slur, and threatened to blow his head off.
Greg M. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a homosexual who was hit with a bottle, and complained about it. Greg M. “was harassed in Times Square by a group of teenagers who threw a bottle at him because he was gay. When he sought assistance from a police officer, he was allegedly hit, handcuffed, dragged across the ground and verbally abused by the officer who accused Greg M. of being a fag basher himself.”
Ann H. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a 71-year-old diabetic drug dealer. She was driving her car when she felt dizzy. She stopped her car, and “was eating peanuts when the car was surrounded by three plain clothes police officers. Ann H. did not know the identities of the three men. She was too intimidated to open the door. Suddenly, the undercover officers “smashed the car window, forced the door open, and [dragged] her out of the car. She was taken to a hospital... and forced to have her stomach pumped.” The police officers thought she was swallowing evidence. “No drugs were found, but she was charged with assault and reckless endangerment.” The charges were later dropped.
Unfortunately, some New Yorkers will no longer be perpetual suspects. The police will spare them the indignity of continual harassment because they died in police custody - died because they committed minor irritations that some might consider quality of life crimes.
Ernest Sayon died in police custody, and will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for someone who disrupts police work with firecrackers. On April 29, 1994, the police were searching for drugs in a Staten Island neighborhood, “were in the process of arresting another man when a firecracker exploded, approached Ernest Sayon, and arrested him.” Mr. Sayon “suffocated because of pressure on his back, chest and neck while he lay face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind him. A private autopsy... found evidence of suffocation or asphyxiation, with lacerations also to the top of his head, bruises and contusions to his face and back.” It was “reported that Sayon” ran from the scene and resisted arrest - “a version contradicted by” several eyewitnesses.
Jacques Camille will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Haitian taxicab driver who doesn’t carefully screen his fares. On April 9, 1992, two men robbed an individual. The robbers hailed a cab, and tried to escape, but the victim memorized the cab’s number. The police were able to track the robbers down. Camille’s cab was stopped. “Several witnesses said that Mr. Camille’s hands were raised when the officer fired a single shot which destroyed a kidney and part of his liver.” The cabby was in his first week of employment when he “unwittingly taken the robbers on board.”
Anibal Carasquillo will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for someone who likes to peak into the windows of parked cars. On January 22, 1995, police officers witnessed Mr. Carasquillo “peering into parked car windows.” The police report stated he “was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a ‘gun stance.’ However, the New York City Medical examiner reported that the autopsy had shown he was shot in the back.” Remarkably, a grand jury panel failed to indict the police officer involved in the death of Anibal.
Ironically, Anibal Carasquillo’s relatives were arrested and charged with “obstructing governmental administration” while protesting the failure of the district attorney’s office failure to indict the police officer involved in the case.
Lydia Ferraro will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a white woman who thinks she is driving in the Daytona 500. On April 27, 1988, Ms Ferraro made an “improper turn against traffic lights.” Remember, “Those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.” The police thought she was in East Harlem to buy drugs because that is the only reason for a white woman to be in that area. “Ms Ferraro’s was eventually cut off and stopped.” A police officer opened the car door, but she tried to get away. The police officer fired a shot at her. Suddenly, four police officers opened fire on Ms Ferraro. After the smoke cleared, sixteen shots were fired, and Ms Ferraro was a victim of multiple gun shot wounds.
Yong Xin Huang will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy who likes to play cops and robbers with his friends. On March 25, 1995 Huang and two other boys were playing with a pellet gun. A local resident with an overactive imagination called the police. The 911call described “Asian males” ranging in the ages of 14 - 16 playing with something that might be a real gun. Unfortunately, the young boy died of a gunshot wound “at close range behind his left ear.” The police officer claimed the that the gun went off accidentally while struggling with a sixteen year old boy, but the officer could not account for the “blunt impact wounds to the top of Huang’s head, face and forehead.” Maybe Huang sustained those injuries when the police officer slammed his face “into a glass door at the side of the house which was shattered during the incident.” Predictably, “no criminal charges” were filed against the police officer involved in Huang’s death.
Douglas Orfaly will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic man sitting in a parked car. On March 3, 1992, a police officer was looking for a burglar. The amazingly perceptive officer thought Orfaly matched the description of the burglar because all Hispanics look alike. As the astonishingly alert police officer approached the car, he noticed Douglas made a sudden movement. Displaying amazing accuracy, the officer shot Mr. Orfaly “once through the head through the car window.” This police officer made New York City history when he was the first member of the NYPD “to be convicted of an on duty homicide since 1977.” He “was sentenced to one to four years’ in prison.” That is the price a police officer pays for murdering someone who was sitting in a parked car. It is interesting to note that a jury convicted the officer of “criminally negligent homicide.”
Anthony Baez will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic man with a wild throwing arm. On December 22, 1994, Anthony Baez was throwing a football around with his brothers outside his family’s Bronx home at 1:30 a.m.
A squad car was parked when a second car parked next to it. An errant pass hit Police Officer Francis Livotti’s squad car. Livotti, fearing for the safety of the car’s roof lights, ordered the brothers to go home. The brothers were walking away when a second errant pass hit Livotti’s car. Instantly, the officer got out of the car, and in authoritative voice said: “Look, I thought I made it clear, I was asking you, now I’m telling you. Get the fuck home!” Officer Livotti was upset because “they weren’t doing what I told them to do. It always bothers me a little when people don’t do what I tell them.”
David Baez refused to leave. Officer Livotti arrested David, “then told Anthony Baez he was under arrest when he shoved him the chest. Baez refused to be cuffed and walked away.” Livotti dashed after Baez, tried to handcuff him, but Baez “locked his arms in front of his torso.”
Livotti asked Baez to “put your hands behind your back. Let’s not make a big deal about it.” But Baez refused. The police officer “grabbed him, placed him a choke hold; he and other officers present then allegedly knelt on his back while handcuffing him behind his back as he lay face down on the ground.” The police officers ignored Anthony Baez’s family appeal for restraint.
Anthony Baez died in police custody of an “asthma attack.” The Medical Examiner’s office contradicted the police, “concluded that Baez’s death was caused by asphyxia due to compression of the neck and chest as well as acute asthma, and classified the death as a homicide. A pathologist hired by the family found bruises on the scalp, wrists, hands and neck, and evidence of internal bleeding around the eyes (another sign of asphyxia).” Anthony Baez died because Police Officer Livotti was afraid an errant pass was going to “damage the cruiser’s roof lights.”
Bronx Supreme Court Justice Gerald Sheindlin acquitted Francis Livotti of criminally negligent homicide in a nonjury trial.
New York City is safer today thanks to Mayor Giuliani’s aggressive police tactics. A few New Yorkers lost their lives, but that is the price the mayor is willing to pay to make us feel safe.
To combat the notion that cops are ruthless, the NYPD is promoting CPR (Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect), a public relations gimmick designed “to overcome minority communities’ distrust of police.” Unfortunately, “the NYPD leaves a trail of law enforcement tactics that African Americans charge are abusive.”
Rudolph Giuliani is not responsible for the havoc created by the vaunted NYPD. Some of these incidents occurred before he took office. But the mayor enjoys taking credit for all of their success, therefore he should be held responsible for all their failures as police officers and as human beings during his term. Mayor Giuliani should not have it any other way.
Andy Warhol once said that in a more perfect world everyone would be allowed to be famous for 15 minutes. Presumably, this would end envy, and we would all be happier. In Mayor Giuliani’s perfect world, or at least a more perfect New York City, every citizen would be fingerprinted, and register an address at the local precinct.
God bless you if you agree with the mayor’s approach to fighting quality of life crimes. Just don’t complain or curse the mayor’s ancestry when a cop gives you a ticket because your big butt took up too much space in the subway.
Quality of life criminals are stored in the New York Police Department database. If a major crime takes place, then Mayor Giuliani will place his left hand behind Police Commissioner Howard Safir’s back as the Commissioner commands the police - in his best Captain Louis Renault impersonation - to round up the usual suspects. The mayor will smile for the cameras, will be careful not to move his lips while the Commissioner is speaking, and if Giuliani is feeling particularly bold, he might drink a glass of water while Safir is barking orders to the police.
Combating quality of life crimes is a fascinating strategy. The police concentrated on reducing crime by targeting quality of life crimes “on the belief that those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones” such as a person pissing in a doorway, jumping a turnstile, or panhandling. The NYPD augments their vast database with more fingerprints of actual or potential criminals. Either the police solve an old crime, or have a potential suspect for a future crime. In addition, the NYPD will hold the careless ruffian in custody long enough to establish a connection to another crime.
It is not enough to arrest people for pissing in doorways, jumping turnstiles, or panhandling. More quality of life irritations should be criminalized. The police will have a larger database of suspects. Remember, “Those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.”
For example, Chris G. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for an overactive photographer. He was photographing the Crown Heights riots, was charged with assaulting the police, resisting arrest and obstruction after the police officers on the scene beat him. The charges were later dropped.
Oliver J. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a loud mouth who likes to stand on street corners. He “was standing outside his Bronx apartment [building] among a crowd of onlookers whom the police tried to move after arresting another man.” Somebody shouted, “Police brutality!” Oliver J. was charged with “stealing a police radio and resisting arrest” after the police on the scene beat him. The charges were later dropped.
Ron N. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for someone who does not mind his own business. Mr. N. thought he was witnessing a racist attack, but it turned out to be eight undercover narcotics cops beating up a drug suspect. Ron N. asked the men to stop, but instead was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and obstruction. The charges were eventually dropped.
Keith P. is another suspect if the police are looking for someone who is not minding his own business. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Keith P. was appalled when an officer threw his “female companion about 10 feet in the air. Several officers set upon him, wrestling him to the ground, kicking and beating him with their nightsticks” after he told the police “You can’t do that! This is our neighborhood.” The charges were later dropped.
Yet another person not minding her own business - Judith R. was “pulled from a cab by her hair, handcuffed, and arrested after she criticized an officer for berating her cab driver over a faulty tail light.”
Marcos M. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic armed robber. Marcos M. was working in a supermarket when two men entered to rob the store. “When the police arrived, one of the suspects fled, and the other - who was holding” Marcos M. hostage in the basement - “was shot in the face and wounded.” Marcos M. walked out of the basement with his hands up, “and told the officers that he worked in the store.” The police officers “handcuffed him behind his back, threw him on the floor, and repeatedly hit him on the back of the head with their pistols and nightsticks, and kicked him in the back, chest and legs.” Furthermore, “while handcuffed on the floor, an officer put a gun into his mouth, used an ethnic slur, and threatened to blow his head off.
Greg M. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a homosexual who was hit with a bottle, and complained about it. Greg M. “was harassed in Times Square by a group of teenagers who threw a bottle at him because he was gay. When he sought assistance from a police officer, he was allegedly hit, handcuffed, dragged across the ground and verbally abused by the officer who accused Greg M. of being a fag basher himself.”
Ann H. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a 71-year-old diabetic drug dealer. She was driving her car when she felt dizzy. She stopped her car, and “was eating peanuts when the car was surrounded by three plain clothes police officers. Ann H. did not know the identities of the three men. She was too intimidated to open the door. Suddenly, the undercover officers “smashed the car window, forced the door open, and [dragged] her out of the car. She was taken to a hospital... and forced to have her stomach pumped.” The police officers thought she was swallowing evidence. “No drugs were found, but she was charged with assault and reckless endangerment.” The charges were later dropped.
Unfortunately, some New Yorkers will no longer be perpetual suspects. The police will spare them the indignity of continual harassment because they died in police custody - died because they committed minor irritations that some might consider quality of life crimes.
Ernest Sayon died in police custody, and will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for someone who disrupts police work with firecrackers. On April 29, 1994, the police were searching for drugs in a Staten Island neighborhood, “were in the process of arresting another man when a firecracker exploded, approached Ernest Sayon, and arrested him.” Mr. Sayon “suffocated because of pressure on his back, chest and neck while he lay face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind him. A private autopsy... found evidence of suffocation or asphyxiation, with lacerations also to the top of his head, bruises and contusions to his face and back.” It was “reported that Sayon” ran from the scene and resisted arrest - “a version contradicted by” several eyewitnesses.
Jacques Camille will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Haitian taxicab driver who doesn’t carefully screen his fares. On April 9, 1992, two men robbed an individual. The robbers hailed a cab, and tried to escape, but the victim memorized the cab’s number. The police were able to track the robbers down. Camille’s cab was stopped. “Several witnesses said that Mr. Camille’s hands were raised when the officer fired a single shot which destroyed a kidney and part of his liver.” The cabby was in his first week of employment when he “unwittingly taken the robbers on board.”
Anibal Carasquillo will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for someone who likes to peak into the windows of parked cars. On January 22, 1995, police officers witnessed Mr. Carasquillo “peering into parked car windows.” The police report stated he “was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a ‘gun stance.’ However, the New York City Medical examiner reported that the autopsy had shown he was shot in the back.” Remarkably, a grand jury panel failed to indict the police officer involved in the death of Anibal.
Ironically, Anibal Carasquillo’s relatives were arrested and charged with “obstructing governmental administration” while protesting the failure of the district attorney’s office failure to indict the police officer involved in the case.
Lydia Ferraro will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a white woman who thinks she is driving in the Daytona 500. On April 27, 1988, Ms Ferraro made an “improper turn against traffic lights.” Remember, “Those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.” The police thought she was in East Harlem to buy drugs because that is the only reason for a white woman to be in that area. “Ms Ferraro’s was eventually cut off and stopped.” A police officer opened the car door, but she tried to get away. The police officer fired a shot at her. Suddenly, four police officers opened fire on Ms Ferraro. After the smoke cleared, sixteen shots were fired, and Ms Ferraro was a victim of multiple gun shot wounds.
Yong Xin Huang will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy who likes to play cops and robbers with his friends. On March 25, 1995 Huang and two other boys were playing with a pellet gun. A local resident with an overactive imagination called the police. The 911call described “Asian males” ranging in the ages of 14 - 16 playing with something that might be a real gun. Unfortunately, the young boy died of a gunshot wound “at close range behind his left ear.” The police officer claimed the that the gun went off accidentally while struggling with a sixteen year old boy, but the officer could not account for the “blunt impact wounds to the top of Huang’s head, face and forehead.” Maybe Huang sustained those injuries when the police officer slammed his face “into a glass door at the side of the house which was shattered during the incident.” Predictably, “no criminal charges” were filed against the police officer involved in Huang’s death.
Douglas Orfaly will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic man sitting in a parked car. On March 3, 1992, a police officer was looking for a burglar. The amazingly perceptive officer thought Orfaly matched the description of the burglar because all Hispanics look alike. As the astonishingly alert police officer approached the car, he noticed Douglas made a sudden movement. Displaying amazing accuracy, the officer shot Mr. Orfaly “once through the head through the car window.” This police officer made New York City history when he was the first member of the NYPD “to be convicted of an on duty homicide since 1977.” He “was sentenced to one to four years’ in prison.” That is the price a police officer pays for murdering someone who was sitting in a parked car. It is interesting to note that a jury convicted the officer of “criminally negligent homicide.”
Anthony Baez will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic man with a wild throwing arm. On December 22, 1994, Anthony Baez was throwing a football around with his brothers outside his family’s Bronx home at 1:30 a.m.
A squad car was parked when a second car parked next to it. An errant pass hit Police Officer Francis Livotti’s squad car. Livotti, fearing for the safety of the car’s roof lights, ordered the brothers to go home. The brothers were walking away when a second errant pass hit Livotti’s car. Instantly, the officer got out of the car, and in authoritative voice said: “Look, I thought I made it clear, I was asking you, now I’m telling you. Get the fuck home!” Officer Livotti was upset because “they weren’t doing what I told them to do. It always bothers me a little when people don’t do what I tell them.”
David Baez refused to leave. Officer Livotti arrested David, “then told Anthony Baez he was under arrest when he shoved him the chest. Baez refused to be cuffed and walked away.” Livotti dashed after Baez, tried to handcuff him, but Baez “locked his arms in front of his torso.”
Livotti asked Baez to “put your hands behind your back. Let’s not make a big deal about it.” But Baez refused. The police officer “grabbed him, placed him a choke hold; he and other officers present then allegedly knelt on his back while handcuffing him behind his back as he lay face down on the ground.” The police officers ignored Anthony Baez’s family appeal for restraint.
Anthony Baez died in police custody of an “asthma attack.” The Medical Examiner’s office contradicted the police, “concluded that Baez’s death was caused by asphyxia due to compression of the neck and chest as well as acute asthma, and classified the death as a homicide. A pathologist hired by the family found bruises on the scalp, wrists, hands and neck, and evidence of internal bleeding around the eyes (another sign of asphyxia).” Anthony Baez died because Police Officer Livotti was afraid an errant pass was going to “damage the cruiser’s roof lights.”
Bronx Supreme Court Justice Gerald Sheindlin acquitted Francis Livotti of criminally negligent homicide in a nonjury trial.
New York City is safer today thanks to Mayor Giuliani’s aggressive police tactics. A few New Yorkers lost their lives, but that is the price the mayor is willing to pay to make us feel safe.
To combat the notion that cops are ruthless, the NYPD is promoting CPR (Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect), a public relations gimmick designed “to overcome minority communities’ distrust of police.” Unfortunately, “the NYPD leaves a trail of law enforcement tactics that African Americans charge are abusive.”
Rudolph Giuliani is not responsible for the havoc created by the vaunted NYPD. Some of these incidents occurred before he took office. But the mayor enjoys taking credit for all of their success, therefore he should be held responsible for all their failures as police officers and as human beings during his term. Mayor Giuliani should not have it any other way.
Andy Warhol once said that in a more perfect world everyone would be allowed to be famous for 15 minutes. Presumably, this would end envy, and we would all be happier. In Mayor Giuliani’s perfect world, or at least a more perfect New York City, every citizen would be fingerprinted, and register an address at the local precinct.
God bless you if you agree with the mayor’s approach to fighting quality of life crimes. Just don’t complain or curse the mayor’s ancestry when a cop gives you a ticket because your big butt took up too much space in the subway.
Crime Fighting in the Giuliani Era
REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997.
1996 was the year law and order was finally restored in New York City. Statistics reflected a decline in the seven major crime categories. Murders decreased 16.6%, rapes 4.4%, robberies 17.8%, assaults 14%, burglaries 18.2%, grand larcenies 10.5%, and auto thefts 17.3% from the previous year.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was giddy enough to proclaim “New York is now at a stage where we have never been safer at any time in the 1990’s, 1980’s, 1970’s. You have to go back to the 1960’s to find a comparable period of time.”
The murder rate fell to 983 - the lowest figure since 1968. This unofficial figure is from the police department. Sometime after Election Day, the medical examiner’s office and the Department of Health will release the official total to the public.
Mayor Giuliani was obsessed with keeping the number of murders under 1,000. He ordered extra patrols during the last days of 1996 to keep the homicide rate at its lowest in almost 30 years. Giuliani believes any number under 1,000 is historically significant, and he doesn’t want some statistician ruining his reelection campaign.
It is likely the number of homicides will exceed 1,000 because the police do not count people who died while in police custody, and people who died in traffic accidents. Some accidents are later ruled homicides after the district attorney’s office has gathered enough evidence for an indictment.
Predictably, the mayor is taking full credit, and will use the reduction in crime as a centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Giuliani ran as a law and order candidate four years ago. The city’s homicide rate peaked at 2,245 in 1990. New Yorkers were appalled. Children were murdered in their own homes as a result of random crossfire. Newspapers were tracking this deadly urban phenomenon with bold headlines.
Presently, the mayor can exclusively claim to have delivered a safer city (Safe in fact if not in perception). Once again, children are more likely to be murdered by a relative, or a by someone they know (Like “Delores Walker, a 10-month-old baby who died of a fractured skull and child abuse” during the final days of 1996.), instead of a stray bullet.
Former Police Commissioner William Bratton was the other person responsible for implementing successful crime fighting strategies, but unfortunately the commissioner resigned. Bratton could not work with an anal retentive, ego maniacal, control freak of a mayor.
The police concentrated on reducing crime by targeting quality of life crimes “on the belief that those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.” For example, a person pissing in a doorway, jumping a turnstile, or panhandling is more likely to rob an armored car full of money than a person who has mastered the art of using a toilet, who pays his fare, or works for his money.
This strategy stopped a one-man crime wave last June. A young pianist was nearly beaten to death. Another woman - a Park Avenue dry cleaner - was murdered, and two other women were savagely assaulted. The police solved the crimes through a partial fingerprint at the site of the Park Avenue murder. It was matched with a fingerprint of a turnstile jumper - John Royster. Royster confessed to the crimes while in custody.
Another turnstile hurdler was apprehended. After running “David Livingstone’s name and fingerprints through a computer,” it was discovered he was wanted for the murder of Vernon Jolliff, a Manhattan bartender from Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. The deceased picked up the eventual turnstile hurdler “at a now defunct midtown gay bar called Gents.” Livingstone stabbed Jolliff in the latter’s New Jersey apartment.
Good old-fashioned police work led to the arrest of a crack smoking reverend. A miscreant made a deal with police that would have made President Clinton blush. He fingered Reverend Chester LaRue in exchange for a reduced charge. Reverend LaRue was arrested in the rectory with a crack pipe in hand while he was composing the Sunday sermon.
Another crime fighting strategy was targeting “drugs, guns and gangs as the main causes of violence.” Police concentrated in heavy drug and gang areas driving gangsters indoors, consequently eliminating outdoor shootouts.
The police developed a new approach known as COMPSTAT. “COMPSTAT’s twice weekly crime strategy meetings provide a venue in which strategies are developed and accountability for precinct and borough decision-making is insured. It furnishes an arena for testing the mettle of field commanders.” Statistics on crime locations, and time of occurrence are integrated with police deployment. “The specific needs of a precinct are addressed in terms of available resources, priorities, shared information, and the coordination of different police units. For the precincts, decentralized decision - making means more flexibility, improved anticipation and a faster response to community - specific problems.”
Criminologists have different theories on the reduction of crime. John Laub, a professor of criminology at Northwestern University, argues, “Fighting crime is like combating an epidemic... Acts of violence lead to further acts of violence, creating a contagion effect and a sudden jump in the crime rates that is hard to explain. This may be what happened when the advent of crack cocaine in the mid-1980’s produced a sudden, huge increase in violence.”
Professor James Q. Wilson of UCLA argues, “the adult homicide rate has been declining since 1981, and that the only reason the homicide rate rose in the late 1980’s was that juvenile violence tripled with the advent of crack. This form of cocaine brought youths into the drug trade and created a demand for automatic handguns. Many teenagers suddenly wanted a gun for safety or prestige. Unlike adult crime, teenage crime follows a fad-like pattern, where the changes come quickly. Just as teenagers’ taste in clothing are driven by trends, so was their jump into crack culture.” Children with guns act like cowboys and will fire their weapons at the slightest provocation.
Professors Laub and Wilson argue younger children are not lured into the drug culture “when they [see] the cost in death, hospitalization and prison time.”
Geoffrey Canada, the president of the Rheelen Centers for Children and Families in Harlem, detected the change in attitudes among teenagers. “The toll of death in their families, tougher police tactics and stepped-up efforts by neighborhood groups to combat violence have combined to reduce involvement in the drug trade... The drug market is still there, but it is more stable now, back in the hands of older people who treat it like a business.”
Drug habits have an impact on the murder rate. Marijuana and heroin use are rising, especially among young people. “While the use of those drugs is obviously troubling, it is rightly seen as less associated with a reckless, gun-toting lifestyle than crack.”
Medical technology also reduced the homicide rate. “The development of hospital trauma centers has saved more gunshot victims from death.”
Immigration patterns also have an impact on the reduction of crime in the city. “The new immigrants are mainly family-oriented, ambitious people with a disciplined approach to family life and work that stabilizes communities.”
Mayor Giuliani will insist police work reduced the crime rate, and the crackdown on quality of life crimes is the catalyst towards a relatively crime free society. Maintaining law and order will be the theme of the 1997 mayoral campaign.
A courageous opponent could claim that the mayor’s impact on crime reduction is negligible at best. “The number of killings and felonies actually began decreasing in 1991 and 1989 although at a much lesser rate.” In fact, “the largest drop in the murder rate occurred in 1994, and the administration’s new COMPSTAT strategies did not even begin until halfway through the first year.”
In addition, police response time to 911 calls increased from 7.7 minutes to 9.1 minutes during the Giuliani administration.
Moreover, currently 21% of the total police force is on foot patrol - a decrease from 25% before the mayor took office. Giuliani brags about hiring more police officers, but there are fewer cops on the streets than the previous administration.
Giuliani will respond in his usual understated manner. He will call his opponent an idiot, but will insist that New York is safer thanks to his inspired leadership.
REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997
1996 was the year law and order was finally restored in New York City. Statistics reflected a decline in the seven major crime categories. Murders decreased 16.6%, rapes 4.4%, robberies 17.8%, assaults 14%, burglaries 18.2%, grand larcenies 10.5%, and auto thefts 17.3% from the previous year.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was giddy enough to proclaim “New York is now at a stage where we have never been safer at any time in the 1990’s, 1980’s, 1970’s. You have to go back to the 1960’s to find a comparable period of time.”
The murder rate fell to 983 - the lowest figure since 1968. This unofficial figure is from the police department. Sometime after Election Day, the medical examiner’s office and the Department of Health will release the official total to the public.
Mayor Giuliani was obsessed with keeping the number of murders under 1,000. He ordered extra patrols during the last days of 1996 to keep the homicide rate at its lowest in almost 30 years. Giuliani believes any number under 1,000 is historically significant, and he doesn’t want some statistician ruining his reelection campaign.
It is likely the number of homicides will exceed 1,000 because the police do not count people who died while in police custody, and people who died in traffic accidents. Some accidents are later ruled homicides after the district attorney’s office has gathered enough evidence for an indictment.
Predictably, the mayor is taking full credit, and will use the reduction in crime as a centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Giuliani ran as a law and order candidate four years ago. The city’s homicide rate peaked at 2,245 in 1990. New Yorkers were appalled. Children were murdered in their own homes as a result of random crossfire. Newspapers were tracking this deadly urban phenomenon with bold headlines.
Presently, the mayor can exclusively claim to have delivered a safer city (Safe in fact if not in perception). Once again, children are more likely to be murdered by a relative, or a by someone they know (Like “Delores Walker, a 10-month-old baby who died of a fractured skull and child abuse” during the final days of 1996.), instead of a stray bullet.
Former Police Commissioner William Bratton was the other person responsible for implementing successful crime fighting strategies, but unfortunately the commissioner resigned. Bratton could not work with an anal retentive, ego maniacal, control freak of a mayor.
The police concentrated on reducing crime by targeting quality of life crimes “on the belief that those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.” For example, a person pissing in a doorway, jumping a turnstile, or panhandling is more likely to rob an armored car full of money than a person who has mastered the art of using a toilet, who pays his fare, or works for his money.
This strategy stopped a one-man crime wave last June. A young pianist was nearly beaten to death. Another woman - a Park Avenue dry cleaner - was murdered, and two other women were savagely assaulted. The police solved the crimes through a partial fingerprint at the site of the Park Avenue murder. It was matched with a fingerprint of a turnstile jumper - John Royster. Royster confessed to the crimes while in custody.
Another turnstile hurdler was apprehended. After running “David Livingstone’s name and fingerprints through a computer,” it was discovered he was wanted for the murder of Vernon Jolliff, a Manhattan bartender from Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. The deceased picked up the eventual turnstile hurdler “at a now defunct midtown gay bar called Gents.” Livingstone stabbed Jolliff in the latter’s New Jersey apartment.
Good old-fashioned police work led to the arrest of a crack smoking reverend. A miscreant made a deal with police that would have made President Clinton blush. He fingered Reverend Chester LaRue in exchange for a reduced charge. Reverend LaRue was arrested in the rectory with a crack pipe in hand while he was composing the Sunday sermon.
Another crime fighting strategy was targeting “drugs, guns and gangs as the main causes of violence.” Police concentrated in heavy drug and gang areas driving gangsters indoors, consequently eliminating outdoor shootouts.
The police developed a new approach known as COMPSTAT. “COMPSTAT’s twice weekly crime strategy meetings provide a venue in which strategies are developed and accountability for precinct and borough decision-making is insured. It furnishes an arena for testing the mettle of field commanders.” Statistics on crime locations, and time of occurrence are integrated with police deployment. “The specific needs of a precinct are addressed in terms of available resources, priorities, shared information, and the coordination of different police units. For the precincts, decentralized decision - making means more flexibility, improved anticipation and a faster response to community - specific problems.”
Criminologists have different theories on the reduction of crime. John Laub, a professor of criminology at Northwestern University, argues, “Fighting crime is like combating an epidemic... Acts of violence lead to further acts of violence, creating a contagion effect and a sudden jump in the crime rates that is hard to explain. This may be what happened when the advent of crack cocaine in the mid-1980’s produced a sudden, huge increase in violence.”
Professor James Q. Wilson of UCLA argues, “the adult homicide rate has been declining since 1981, and that the only reason the homicide rate rose in the late 1980’s was that juvenile violence tripled with the advent of crack. This form of cocaine brought youths into the drug trade and created a demand for automatic handguns. Many teenagers suddenly wanted a gun for safety or prestige. Unlike adult crime, teenage crime follows a fad-like pattern, where the changes come quickly. Just as teenagers’ taste in clothing are driven by trends, so was their jump into crack culture.” Children with guns act like cowboys and will fire their weapons at the slightest provocation.
Professors Laub and Wilson argue younger children are not lured into the drug culture “when they [see] the cost in death, hospitalization and prison time.”
Geoffrey Canada, the president of the Rheelen Centers for Children and Families in Harlem, detected the change in attitudes among teenagers. “The toll of death in their families, tougher police tactics and stepped-up efforts by neighborhood groups to combat violence have combined to reduce involvement in the drug trade... The drug market is still there, but it is more stable now, back in the hands of older people who treat it like a business.”
Drug habits have an impact on the murder rate. Marijuana and heroin use are rising, especially among young people. “While the use of those drugs is obviously troubling, it is rightly seen as less associated with a reckless, gun-toting lifestyle than crack.”
Medical technology also reduced the homicide rate. “The development of hospital trauma centers has saved more gunshot victims from death.”
Immigration patterns also have an impact on the reduction of crime in the city. “The new immigrants are mainly family-oriented, ambitious people with a disciplined approach to family life and work that stabilizes communities.”
Mayor Giuliani will insist police work reduced the crime rate, and the crackdown on quality of life crimes is the catalyst towards a relatively crime free society. Maintaining law and order will be the theme of the 1997 mayoral campaign.
A courageous opponent could claim that the mayor’s impact on crime reduction is negligible at best. “The number of killings and felonies actually began decreasing in 1991 and 1989 although at a much lesser rate.” In fact, “the largest drop in the murder rate occurred in 1994, and the administration’s new COMPSTAT strategies did not even begin until halfway through the first year.”
In addition, police response time to 911 calls increased from 7.7 minutes to 9.1 minutes during the Giuliani administration.
Moreover, currently 21% of the total police force is on foot patrol - a decrease from 25% before the mayor took office. Giuliani brags about hiring more police officers, but there are fewer cops on the streets than the previous administration.
Giuliani will respond in his usual understated manner. He will call his opponent an idiot, but will insist that New York is safer thanks to his inspired leadership.
REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997
Justice Denied
REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997.
White America breathed a collective sigh of relief after a jury of twelve unanimously concluded that O.J. Simpson was liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. A murderer, who was unanimously acquitted by a mostly black jury (some would say incompetent jury) in a criminal trial, was judged responsible for the deaths of two individuals in a civil trial – a less punitive forum. The verdict restored the concept of justice.
Simpson is guilty. The evidence gathered at the scene of the crime proves it. Forensic science can’t be wrong because science is neutral. The facts are irrefutable. Justice was restored.
Experts said throughout both Simpson trials that individuals in countless other cases were convicted and executed with less evidence. Bear in mind, there was a mountain of evidence proving Simpson was the murderer.
The murder scene pointed to Simpson. Christopher Darden described the night in his book In Contempt. Her killer stalked Nicole that night. The murderer wore a black ski cap, black clothes, gloves, and those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli rubber soled shoes. He stood outside her home, glared at her through a window as she lit some candles, and was incensed that she was getting ready for a romantic evening.
The stalker rang the bell, and waited for Nicole to come outside. He knew she had to come out because the killer knew the intercom was broken. Nicole looked out the window first. The killer saw her with a kitchen knife in hand. A small dog, an Akita, “came over and sniffed” the stalker. It had to be Simpson because the dog recognized him. A stranger would have caused a different reaction from the Akita.
Nicole answered “the door barefooted, in the skimpy black dress she’d worn to the recital.” The revealing dress was enough to set off a jealous maniac like Simpson.
The stalker punched Nicole in the face, then struck the back of her head with the knife handle. He held “her by the arm and drove the knife deep into her neck four times.”
Suddenly, someone opened the gate. The stalker turned around, and saw a shocked Ron Goldman standing at the gate. The murderer ran to him, “pulled him inside the gate, and lifted him to the left, where he was cornered by the fence and by the shrubs.” Ron put up a valiant struggle, but he was no match for a jealous maniac like Simpson.
After the stalker finished off Ron Goldman, he directed his attention back to Nicole. She was on the ground helpless. Her black dress was pulled up to her thighs. He “grabbed her by the hair, pulled her head back, put the knife to her throat, and drew it back with even more force, cutting all the way to her spine, damned near cutting her head off.”
Only a jealous ex-husband could have committed this crime. It was too obvious. Any reasonable person must conclude Simpson was the murderer.
Granted, the police had a mountain of evidence against Simpson, but this murder case was far from an airtight case. The police never found the murder weapon, the bloody clothes worn by the killer, or those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli shoes that left a trail of footprints at the murder scene. As Jaye Davidson said in the movie The Crying Game, “Details, baby, details.”
Who cares if Mark Fuhrman bragged about planting evidence on suspects in other cases? Who cares that he a history of framing minorities? Fuhrman said he didn’t plant the bloody glove at Simpson’s estate, therefore he didn’t do it. Regardless, there was enough evidence for a conviction.
White America is confident forensic science can determine the identity of a killer, and the exact manner a person was killed. That confidence is reserved for extraordinary cases only.
Presently, murderers are roaming free and unpunished because evidence is ignored. Perhaps it is because society has accepted these murderers as a necessary evil needed to maintain order in our lives. Maybe it is because the dead are unworthy of justice.
Anibal Carrasquillo died of a gunshot fired by a police officer on January 22, 1992. The Police Department “initially stated that Carrasquillo was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a gun stance.” But the New York City Medical Examiner contradicted the NYPD’s statement. Carrasquillo was shot in the back. Amazingly, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s failed to indict the police officer. Furthermore, the prosecutor failed to charge the police officer with perjury.
On January 11, 1994, Shu’aib Abdul Latif died of gun shot wounds fired by police officers. Police raided an apartment building searching for illegal drugs. Latif, a seventeen-year-old black male, was hiding in the basement. He came out of hiding when he heard the voice of a neighbor. A police officer, who noticed Latif rising from a stooped position, shouted, “There he goes.” After the smoke cleared, five shots were fired. Latif was hit twice, and a police officer was hit once.
A grand jury was convened. On March 1995, the grand jury “concluded that no criminal charges should be brought against any officers involved in the incident.” Subsequently, the Brooklyn District Attorney defended the grand jury by arguing it had reached the conclusion “after a full review of all the evidence and careful deliberations.”
Furthermore, the Brooklyn District Attorney “gave a brief summary of the facts and circumstances of the shooting. Latif was shot after rising up suddenly and grabbing [a police officer’s] arm, that [the officer’s] gun went off accidentally as they fell during the struggle.” Afterwards, two more shots were fired; Latif got up, and tried to run away, but was shot twice. This became the official story.
However, some information was missing. The Medical Examiner’s report did not mention whether gunshot residue was found on Latif’s clothes - a critical forensic detail needed to verify the police department’s claim of a struggle. Also, the police failed to “test-fire the weapons to see at what range the gunshot residue would have disappeared” because the Medical Examiner’s report concluded the clothes had no residue.
It is interesting to note that Latif was struck with nyclad bullets. These bullets are encased with a “protective plastic coating to prevent lead contamination.” Latif was killed with an untraceable bullet. It was impossible to identify which officer killed the young man.
On March 24, 1995, Yong Xin Huang died of a gunshot wound fired by a police officer. The officer was answering a 911 call. A year later, a grand jury did not indict the police officer in the death of Huang, a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy. “The Brooklyn District Attorney issued a public statement immediately afterwards summarizing the facts of the case. The statement repeated the officer’s account of the incident which, the DA said, was consistent with the forensic evidence on both sides.”
The official story is that a police officer answered a 911 call describing “Asian males” ranging in the ages of 14 - 16 playing with something that looked like a gun. Huang died after he struggled with the officer. Unfortunately, the nine-millimeter Glock semi automatic weapon went off accidentally.
Huang’s autopsy report contradicts the official story. He died of a gunshot wound at close range behind his left ear. In other words, the entrance wound was located in the back of his head. The gun was pointed behind his left ear. In addition, Huang was beaten on the top of his head, face and forehead. Eyewitnesses claim the police officer slammed “Huang’s face into a glass door at the side of the house.” Conceivably, he was beaten before the cop shot him. Otherwise, beating a dead boy was a case of overkill on the part of the officer.
Police officers are allowed to use a “minimum amount of force” to “effect an arrest or prevent the commission of an offense.” Force is used when all other options are exhausted such as “verbal persuasion.” Police officers are allowed to use “unarmed physical force” to apprehend a suspect; “force using non-lethal weapons” such as pepper spray and mace; “force using impact weapons” such as police batons; and “deadly force only when an officer or another person’s life is in direct danger.”
Police officers are not allowed to use flashlights, radios, and handguns as impact weapons. If a police officer arrives on the scene, and other officers are using excessive force, then the arriving officer is supposed to intervene on behalf of the suspect. Failure to do so is against the law.
In addition, police officers are not allowed to use deadly force “to subdue a fleeing felon who presents no threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to themselves or another person.” Cops are not allowed to fire warning shoots, use a gun in defense of property, to fire a moving vehicle “unless the occupants are using deadly force other than the vehicle itself,” that a “verbal warning should be given before firearms are discharged,” and that police officers are not allowed to hold a weapon “with the trigger raised in readiness for firing under any circumstances.” Keep in mind that “the primary duty of all police officers is to preserve human life.”
People have died in police custody, yet no one is punished. Perhaps it is because prosecutors are unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are countless cases of individuals injured or killed in police custody, but there is only one case since 1977 of a police officer convicted in the death of a citizen. The NYPD has a history of settling cases out of civil court where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but instead relies on a preponderance of guilt. Settling cases in civil court avoids scrutiny. Moreover, civil penalties do not include jail time.
Cops involved in the deaths of individuals are usually charged with criminally negligent homicide. Usually, it is a hard charge to prove because the district attorney must prove recklessness on the part of the officer. The police officer understood his actions were negligent, and that it could cause death, however continued to act in that manner with disregard for the safety of an individual. A prosecutor has to convince a judge that the officer knew he was acting with negligence, but didn’t care.
Judges acquit police officers because district attorneys can’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cops don’t have to face a jury trial. It is their privilege to allow a judge to render a decision on their case presumably because the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is lesser with a judge than a jury.
A deep voice introduces each episode of the police drama “Law and Order” asserting that “in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.” Judges are not included in the equation, but they are equally important and significant component of the criminal justice system.
Prosecutors are either incompetent, or unwilling to indict and convict police officers. It’s been said that a district attorney can indict a ham sandwich. The failure to indict, or convict police officers in these deaths are not due to incompetence.
Judges are reluctant to convict police officers. As in the case of Anthony Baez, evidence and eyewitness testimony is ignored. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Gerald Sheindlin acknowledged police officer Francis Livotti was a bad cop, and Livotti’s actions may have led to the death of Baez. However, the judge ignored the testimony of one police officer, and the medical evidence when he acquitted Livotti of criminally negligent homicide.
District attorneys, municipal judges and the police department are involved in an ugly partnership.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines collusion as a “secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose.” To collude is to conspire, to plot.
Furthermore, a conflict of interest is “a real or seeming incompatibility between one’s private interests and one’s public or fiduciary duties.”
Prosecutors are partners with the police department in the criminal justice system. They depend on each other to maintain law and order; therefore any potential criminal matter involving a police office is a conflict of interest.
Police officers have a powerful role. They are the foundation of the criminal justice system. A criminal case against a suspect falls apart if the police work is weak. Prosecutors cannot indict suspects with weak evidence. Judges will not be able to sentence criminals to prison terms.
The NYPD is a brotherhood. Police officers are reluctant to testify against their fellow officers, and have a history of not cooperating with investigators involving criminal matters. The presence of peer pressure from within the police department cannot be ignored. Prosecutors and judges are extended members of this brotherhood.
In New York City, politics interferes with the judicial process. District attorneys and judges are elected officials therefore it is conceivable that unpopular decisions against the police department could impact future elections. This three-headed entity is incapable of policing itself.
The New York Police Department, the District Attorney’s of the five boroughs of New York City, and judges acted in concert after the fact in the deaths of Anibal Carrasquillo, Shu’aib Abdul Latif, Yong Xin Huang, et al.
The NYPD, the District Attorney’s office and municipal judges are in collusion. Prosecutors are implicated because they purposely ignored evidence during grand jury proceedings, and deliberately failed to convict police officers of criminally negligent homicide. Judges are involved because they ignore evidence, and acquit police officers of criminally negligent homicide. The NYPD deliberately obstructs investigations of criminal activity from within. The police department is incapable of investigating itself.
Victims of deadly police force are denied justice. Furthermore, their families do not have a forum to seek the truth.
To ensure justice, a new impartial system must be created. If an individual dies in police custody, then it becomes a federal matter. The Justice Department investigates the case; an attorney from the Justice Department argues the case in front of a grand jury; litigates the case, and a Federal Judge presides over the case. Politic, friendship, peer pressure and local loyalties are removed from the equation.
Otherwise, a second option is available. Eliminate the pretense. Have someone with authority come out and say that any death in police custody will not result in punishment. If you are apprehended by the police, and at some point die between arrest and arraignment, then the death will not be investigated. The police commissioner will just shrug in front of the cameras. “It was just one of those things,” he will remark, “like being struck by lightning.” The families of the deceased will have closure knowing there will not be a cover-up.
Death in police custody will be considered an inevitably like death and taxes. The Surgeon General’s office can create a warning label to be placed in plain view, on the bumper of every police car in the country affirming that, “entering this vehicle will be hazardous to your health, and may result in death. People of color will be more susceptible to death.”
Police department’s can create a new automated warning for fleeing suspects: “We are the police. Drop your weapons, and raise your hands. We have examined your intentions and have determined you will not get away with it. We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us. If you defend yourselves, you will be punished. Your fingerprints and likeness will be added to our vast database. Resistance is futile.”
In the absence of justice, the people will have to settle for resignation. People will continue to die in police custody. There will be no answers, no explanation, no justice.
Reprinted from April, 1997
White America breathed a collective sigh of relief after a jury of twelve unanimously concluded that O.J. Simpson was liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. A murderer, who was unanimously acquitted by a mostly black jury (some would say incompetent jury) in a criminal trial, was judged responsible for the deaths of two individuals in a civil trial – a less punitive forum. The verdict restored the concept of justice.
Simpson is guilty. The evidence gathered at the scene of the crime proves it. Forensic science can’t be wrong because science is neutral. The facts are irrefutable. Justice was restored.
Experts said throughout both Simpson trials that individuals in countless other cases were convicted and executed with less evidence. Bear in mind, there was a mountain of evidence proving Simpson was the murderer.
The murder scene pointed to Simpson. Christopher Darden described the night in his book In Contempt. Her killer stalked Nicole that night. The murderer wore a black ski cap, black clothes, gloves, and those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli rubber soled shoes. He stood outside her home, glared at her through a window as she lit some candles, and was incensed that she was getting ready for a romantic evening.
The stalker rang the bell, and waited for Nicole to come outside. He knew she had to come out because the killer knew the intercom was broken. Nicole looked out the window first. The killer saw her with a kitchen knife in hand. A small dog, an Akita, “came over and sniffed” the stalker. It had to be Simpson because the dog recognized him. A stranger would have caused a different reaction from the Akita.
Nicole answered “the door barefooted, in the skimpy black dress she’d worn to the recital.” The revealing dress was enough to set off a jealous maniac like Simpson.
The stalker punched Nicole in the face, then struck the back of her head with the knife handle. He held “her by the arm and drove the knife deep into her neck four times.”
Suddenly, someone opened the gate. The stalker turned around, and saw a shocked Ron Goldman standing at the gate. The murderer ran to him, “pulled him inside the gate, and lifted him to the left, where he was cornered by the fence and by the shrubs.” Ron put up a valiant struggle, but he was no match for a jealous maniac like Simpson.
After the stalker finished off Ron Goldman, he directed his attention back to Nicole. She was on the ground helpless. Her black dress was pulled up to her thighs. He “grabbed her by the hair, pulled her head back, put the knife to her throat, and drew it back with even more force, cutting all the way to her spine, damned near cutting her head off.”
Only a jealous ex-husband could have committed this crime. It was too obvious. Any reasonable person must conclude Simpson was the murderer.
Granted, the police had a mountain of evidence against Simpson, but this murder case was far from an airtight case. The police never found the murder weapon, the bloody clothes worn by the killer, or those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli shoes that left a trail of footprints at the murder scene. As Jaye Davidson said in the movie The Crying Game, “Details, baby, details.”
Who cares if Mark Fuhrman bragged about planting evidence on suspects in other cases? Who cares that he a history of framing minorities? Fuhrman said he didn’t plant the bloody glove at Simpson’s estate, therefore he didn’t do it. Regardless, there was enough evidence for a conviction.
White America is confident forensic science can determine the identity of a killer, and the exact manner a person was killed. That confidence is reserved for extraordinary cases only.
Presently, murderers are roaming free and unpunished because evidence is ignored. Perhaps it is because society has accepted these murderers as a necessary evil needed to maintain order in our lives. Maybe it is because the dead are unworthy of justice.
Anibal Carrasquillo died of a gunshot fired by a police officer on January 22, 1992. The Police Department “initially stated that Carrasquillo was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a gun stance.” But the New York City Medical Examiner contradicted the NYPD’s statement. Carrasquillo was shot in the back. Amazingly, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s failed to indict the police officer. Furthermore, the prosecutor failed to charge the police officer with perjury.
On January 11, 1994, Shu’aib Abdul Latif died of gun shot wounds fired by police officers. Police raided an apartment building searching for illegal drugs. Latif, a seventeen-year-old black male, was hiding in the basement. He came out of hiding when he heard the voice of a neighbor. A police officer, who noticed Latif rising from a stooped position, shouted, “There he goes.” After the smoke cleared, five shots were fired. Latif was hit twice, and a police officer was hit once.
A grand jury was convened. On March 1995, the grand jury “concluded that no criminal charges should be brought against any officers involved in the incident.” Subsequently, the Brooklyn District Attorney defended the grand jury by arguing it had reached the conclusion “after a full review of all the evidence and careful deliberations.”
Furthermore, the Brooklyn District Attorney “gave a brief summary of the facts and circumstances of the shooting. Latif was shot after rising up suddenly and grabbing [a police officer’s] arm, that [the officer’s] gun went off accidentally as they fell during the struggle.” Afterwards, two more shots were fired; Latif got up, and tried to run away, but was shot twice. This became the official story.
However, some information was missing. The Medical Examiner’s report did not mention whether gunshot residue was found on Latif’s clothes - a critical forensic detail needed to verify the police department’s claim of a struggle. Also, the police failed to “test-fire the weapons to see at what range the gunshot residue would have disappeared” because the Medical Examiner’s report concluded the clothes had no residue.
It is interesting to note that Latif was struck with nyclad bullets. These bullets are encased with a “protective plastic coating to prevent lead contamination.” Latif was killed with an untraceable bullet. It was impossible to identify which officer killed the young man.
On March 24, 1995, Yong Xin Huang died of a gunshot wound fired by a police officer. The officer was answering a 911 call. A year later, a grand jury did not indict the police officer in the death of Huang, a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy. “The Brooklyn District Attorney issued a public statement immediately afterwards summarizing the facts of the case. The statement repeated the officer’s account of the incident which, the DA said, was consistent with the forensic evidence on both sides.”
The official story is that a police officer answered a 911 call describing “Asian males” ranging in the ages of 14 - 16 playing with something that looked like a gun. Huang died after he struggled with the officer. Unfortunately, the nine-millimeter Glock semi automatic weapon went off accidentally.
Huang’s autopsy report contradicts the official story. He died of a gunshot wound at close range behind his left ear. In other words, the entrance wound was located in the back of his head. The gun was pointed behind his left ear. In addition, Huang was beaten on the top of his head, face and forehead. Eyewitnesses claim the police officer slammed “Huang’s face into a glass door at the side of the house.” Conceivably, he was beaten before the cop shot him. Otherwise, beating a dead boy was a case of overkill on the part of the officer.
Police officers are allowed to use a “minimum amount of force” to “effect an arrest or prevent the commission of an offense.” Force is used when all other options are exhausted such as “verbal persuasion.” Police officers are allowed to use “unarmed physical force” to apprehend a suspect; “force using non-lethal weapons” such as pepper spray and mace; “force using impact weapons” such as police batons; and “deadly force only when an officer or another person’s life is in direct danger.”
Police officers are not allowed to use flashlights, radios, and handguns as impact weapons. If a police officer arrives on the scene, and other officers are using excessive force, then the arriving officer is supposed to intervene on behalf of the suspect. Failure to do so is against the law.
In addition, police officers are not allowed to use deadly force “to subdue a fleeing felon who presents no threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to themselves or another person.” Cops are not allowed to fire warning shoots, use a gun in defense of property, to fire a moving vehicle “unless the occupants are using deadly force other than the vehicle itself,” that a “verbal warning should be given before firearms are discharged,” and that police officers are not allowed to hold a weapon “with the trigger raised in readiness for firing under any circumstances.” Keep in mind that “the primary duty of all police officers is to preserve human life.”
People have died in police custody, yet no one is punished. Perhaps it is because prosecutors are unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are countless cases of individuals injured or killed in police custody, but there is only one case since 1977 of a police officer convicted in the death of a citizen. The NYPD has a history of settling cases out of civil court where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but instead relies on a preponderance of guilt. Settling cases in civil court avoids scrutiny. Moreover, civil penalties do not include jail time.
Cops involved in the deaths of individuals are usually charged with criminally negligent homicide. Usually, it is a hard charge to prove because the district attorney must prove recklessness on the part of the officer. The police officer understood his actions were negligent, and that it could cause death, however continued to act in that manner with disregard for the safety of an individual. A prosecutor has to convince a judge that the officer knew he was acting with negligence, but didn’t care.
Judges acquit police officers because district attorneys can’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cops don’t have to face a jury trial. It is their privilege to allow a judge to render a decision on their case presumably because the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is lesser with a judge than a jury.
A deep voice introduces each episode of the police drama “Law and Order” asserting that “in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.” Judges are not included in the equation, but they are equally important and significant component of the criminal justice system.
Prosecutors are either incompetent, or unwilling to indict and convict police officers. It’s been said that a district attorney can indict a ham sandwich. The failure to indict, or convict police officers in these deaths are not due to incompetence.
Judges are reluctant to convict police officers. As in the case of Anthony Baez, evidence and eyewitness testimony is ignored. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Gerald Sheindlin acknowledged police officer Francis Livotti was a bad cop, and Livotti’s actions may have led to the death of Baez. However, the judge ignored the testimony of one police officer, and the medical evidence when he acquitted Livotti of criminally negligent homicide.
District attorneys, municipal judges and the police department are involved in an ugly partnership.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines collusion as a “secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose.” To collude is to conspire, to plot.
Furthermore, a conflict of interest is “a real or seeming incompatibility between one’s private interests and one’s public or fiduciary duties.”
Prosecutors are partners with the police department in the criminal justice system. They depend on each other to maintain law and order; therefore any potential criminal matter involving a police office is a conflict of interest.
Police officers have a powerful role. They are the foundation of the criminal justice system. A criminal case against a suspect falls apart if the police work is weak. Prosecutors cannot indict suspects with weak evidence. Judges will not be able to sentence criminals to prison terms.
The NYPD is a brotherhood. Police officers are reluctant to testify against their fellow officers, and have a history of not cooperating with investigators involving criminal matters. The presence of peer pressure from within the police department cannot be ignored. Prosecutors and judges are extended members of this brotherhood.
In New York City, politics interferes with the judicial process. District attorneys and judges are elected officials therefore it is conceivable that unpopular decisions against the police department could impact future elections. This three-headed entity is incapable of policing itself.
The New York Police Department, the District Attorney’s of the five boroughs of New York City, and judges acted in concert after the fact in the deaths of Anibal Carrasquillo, Shu’aib Abdul Latif, Yong Xin Huang, et al.
The NYPD, the District Attorney’s office and municipal judges are in collusion. Prosecutors are implicated because they purposely ignored evidence during grand jury proceedings, and deliberately failed to convict police officers of criminally negligent homicide. Judges are involved because they ignore evidence, and acquit police officers of criminally negligent homicide. The NYPD deliberately obstructs investigations of criminal activity from within. The police department is incapable of investigating itself.
Victims of deadly police force are denied justice. Furthermore, their families do not have a forum to seek the truth.
To ensure justice, a new impartial system must be created. If an individual dies in police custody, then it becomes a federal matter. The Justice Department investigates the case; an attorney from the Justice Department argues the case in front of a grand jury; litigates the case, and a Federal Judge presides over the case. Politic, friendship, peer pressure and local loyalties are removed from the equation.
Otherwise, a second option is available. Eliminate the pretense. Have someone with authority come out and say that any death in police custody will not result in punishment. If you are apprehended by the police, and at some point die between arrest and arraignment, then the death will not be investigated. The police commissioner will just shrug in front of the cameras. “It was just one of those things,” he will remark, “like being struck by lightning.” The families of the deceased will have closure knowing there will not be a cover-up.
Death in police custody will be considered an inevitably like death and taxes. The Surgeon General’s office can create a warning label to be placed in plain view, on the bumper of every police car in the country affirming that, “entering this vehicle will be hazardous to your health, and may result in death. People of color will be more susceptible to death.”
Police department’s can create a new automated warning for fleeing suspects: “We are the police. Drop your weapons, and raise your hands. We have examined your intentions and have determined you will not get away with it. We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us. If you defend yourselves, you will be punished. Your fingerprints and likeness will be added to our vast database. Resistance is futile.”
In the absence of justice, the people will have to settle for resignation. People will continue to die in police custody. There will be no answers, no explanation, no justice.
Reprinted from April, 1997
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Suicide by Execution Post Script
On May 3rd 2006, the jury of nine men and three women was unable to unanimously impose the death penalty on Zacarias Moussaoui, therefore the only man brought to trial involving the terrorist attacks on the United States will spend the rest of his life in jail – without the possibility of parole.
After seven days of deliberations, three jurors believed Zacarias Moussaoui had limited knowledge of the plot to crash four airplanes into landmarks located in the United States. In addition, three jurors believed Zacarias Moussaoui’s involvement in the plot was minor.
Zacarias Moussaoui refused to stand and sat slouched in his chair as the verdict was announced in the courtroom. However, Moussaoui shouted, “America, you lost… I won,” as he was escorted from the courtroom.
After seven days of deliberations, three jurors believed Zacarias Moussaoui had limited knowledge of the plot to crash four airplanes into landmarks located in the United States. In addition, three jurors believed Zacarias Moussaoui’s involvement in the plot was minor.
Zacarias Moussaoui refused to stand and sat slouched in his chair as the verdict was announced in the courtroom. However, Moussaoui shouted, “America, you lost… I won,” as he was escorted from the courtroom.
Suicide by Execution
The trial of the alleged “twentieth hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui is in the penalty phase, and the jury of nine men and three women are currently deliberating his fate. To be executed, the jury of twelve must vote unanimously. Otherwise, Judge Leonie M. Brinkma must, by law, impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
On April 22, 2005, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six conspiracy charges in connection with the tragic and horrible events on September 11th. The charges listed in the indictment are: Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, Conspiracy to destroy aircraft, Conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, Conspiracy to murder United States employees, and Conspiracy to destroy property.
The twelve jurors voted unanimously that Zacarias Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty because they believed Zacarias Moussaoui “willfully concealed his knowledge of Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes” into pre-selected targets in the United States, thus “allowing the plot to go forward” on September 11th.
Raised a Catholic; belief in the sanctity of life from conception to unassisted and natural death is a core value – even for criminals despicable enough to plan and murder innocent individuals on a grand scale. Moreover, I find state sponsored executions appalling.
However, arguing for a life sentence for Zacarias Moussaoui is a daunting task. Jurors may feel pressured into imposing the death penalty on Zacarias Moussaoui. Gerald Zerkin acknowledged that fact when he “told the jurors they would have to show courage.”
September 11th is the most traumatic event in the recent history of the United States. Naturally, a jury of twelve would want to hold someone responsible for the tragic loss of life on that infamous day. It is probably impossible to sentence anyone connected with the September 11th attacks to a life sentence – even without the possibility of parole. As Americans, we may feel entitled to our pound of flesh.
Jurors considering the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui must consider a “series of complicated factors” such as did Zacarias Moussaoui intend to cause “a grave risk of death to more than one person.”
Zacarias Moussaoui’s federal public defender Gerald T. Zerkin argued in favor of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Zerkin used the usual “sentence the defendant to life in prison instead of the death penalty” arguments such as the lousy childhood defense (Zacarias Moussaoui “unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family resulted in [Zacarias Moussaoui] being placed in orphanages”), race (Zacarias Moussaoui, the disadvantaged minority living in France), and the defendant’s mental condition (Zacarias Moussaoui is crazy). Zacarias Moussaoui’s antics during the trial will certainly be a factor in any future appeals. However, another defense strategy was introduced during the penalty phase: the religion of Islam.
Before continuing, it is important to make the following suppositions: Zacarias Moussaoui is what he says he is, the twentieth hijacker who conspired with nineteen others to crash four planes into landmarks in the United States. Secondly and more importantly, Zacarias Moussaoui is of sound mind.
Mr. Zerkin argued that Zacarias Moussaoui wants to become a martyr, and the death penalty will achieve that goal. He told the jury, “he came to America to die, and you are his last chance.”
There are two reasons that should be considered in sentencing Zacarias Moussaoui to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
First, martyrdom is a powerful concept in the religion of Islam, as is fighting in the cause of God. Such is stated in the Holy Quran, “Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain, - verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; - A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards.”(3:195)
In addition, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (9:111)
Over 1400 years ago, Muhammad tried to convert the pagan Arabs to monotheism. However, the pagans rejected Muhammad’s call to Islam, and the Arab prophet was forced to flee from Mecca to Medina. Moreover, the pagan Arabs continued to perceive Islam as a threat to their way of life, and engaged the Muslim minority in battle. The above revelations served as an exhortation to fight in the cause of God, and any Muslim who died in battle was comforted in the knowledge that he died fighting in the cause of God, and God would reward the deceased with paradise.
Regarding martyrdom, Mohammad was quoted as saying “who asks martyrdom with sincerity will be ranked by [God] among the martyrs even if he dies on his bed.
Once, a man approached Mohammad, and declared, “I testify that there is no true god except Allah, and you are his slave and messenger.” Later on the man went into battle and died. Mohammad said, “He has done little, but shall be given a great reward.”
Zacarias Moussaoui believes he is fighting for a good cause, fighting for God. The fact he was caught before finalizing his mission does not change how he perceives himself. In his mind, the only way to achieve martyrdom is to be executed by the “enemies of God.”
If sentenced to death, it is important to imagine the state of mind of Zacarias Moussaoui as he is about to be executed for his crimes. Do you believe he will be anxious, will feel remorse, will feel regret, will confess his sins, pray for forgiveness, and find comfort through his confession? Or will Zacarias Moussaoui find comfort in the fact that God’s enemies will execute him?
In his mind, Zacarias Moussaoui is not being punished for a crime, but rewarded for fighting in a greater cause – for God. His attitude probably will not be any different than the American patriot Nathan Hale’s who famously said before his execution, “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
Zacarias Moussaoui will have peace of mind, not because he acknowledged his role in the horrific crime of September 11th and has repented and is at peace because of his repentance. He will die at peace with himself because he was a loyal soldier in God’s army who wanted to engage “The Great Satan” in battle. Before his death, he will probably utter “La Ilaha Illallah” – There is no deity except Allah – a statement Muslims are instructed to say before their death. Moussaoui will be comforted with these words.
As a country, will we find closure executing someone will look forward to his execution, and will be at peace with himself and with God when he dies? The answer is no.
The second reason for not executing Zacarias Moussaoui will be drawn from personal experiences. From my early teens until my late thirties, I have contemplated committing suicide. It must be baffling and contradictory for someone to believe in the absolute sanctity of life and suicide at the same time. Truthfully, the decision to end my own life was always agonizing.
As previously mentioned, suicide became an option during my early teens, after encountering a near death experience. For the sake of brevity, I will not detail the events leading to the experience, but instead will describe the experience briefly.
I was unconscious, after falling face down on a pavement. While unconscious, I had a “dream” in which I was walking down a dark, damp tunnel towards a bright light. I recall the moisture on the walls of the tunnel. As I got closer, the light became brighter and brighter. Suddenly, I heard a voice commanding me not to continue. “Its not your time yet,” said the voice. While I was in this state of unconsciousness, I felt completely at peace. It is a feeling I have yet to experience in my life. Eventually, I regained consciousness, with a rather large bump on the right side of my head.
During periods of turmoil, stress, rage, desperation and anxiety I longed for that feeling of peace, and I thought the only way of achieving that sense of peace was through death. Life is complicated. Life is not neatly arranged or orderly. Death was an end to the struggle, and an escape from the daily grind, the never-ending challenges faced in a lifetime, the sense that life was never going to get better, and will only get worse. This is a perspective on death most people could not comprehend, but dare say people who have contemplated suicide do understand.
Not only will Zacarias Moussaoui escape this life upon his execution, but he will be entering the next life with peace of mind. According to our Christian religious belief system, he will be punished in the afterlife for the “crimes” he committed. However, it is his state of mind we should be considering – not our Christian belief system.
Death is not a punishment for Zacarias Moussaoui. It is an escape from this life. Executing Zacarias Moussaoui will spare him the suffering of the daily grind that will be prison life.
We must consider the deprivation, the waste, the agony, and the harshness a long prison sentence imposes on an individual’s mind. A life sentence without the possibility of parole will be agonizing. A long life in a small prison cell is a far greater punishment than a needle delivering poison into the right arm of Zacarias Moussaoui.
In conclusion, Zacarias Moussaoui is no different than the distraught man who is afraid to commit suicide, yet waves a gun at a police officer hoping the latter will put the former out of his misery.
On April 22, 2005, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six conspiracy charges in connection with the tragic and horrible events on September 11th. The charges listed in the indictment are: Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, Conspiracy to destroy aircraft, Conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, Conspiracy to murder United States employees, and Conspiracy to destroy property.
The twelve jurors voted unanimously that Zacarias Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty because they believed Zacarias Moussaoui “willfully concealed his knowledge of Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes” into pre-selected targets in the United States, thus “allowing the plot to go forward” on September 11th.
Raised a Catholic; belief in the sanctity of life from conception to unassisted and natural death is a core value – even for criminals despicable enough to plan and murder innocent individuals on a grand scale. Moreover, I find state sponsored executions appalling.
However, arguing for a life sentence for Zacarias Moussaoui is a daunting task. Jurors may feel pressured into imposing the death penalty on Zacarias Moussaoui. Gerald Zerkin acknowledged that fact when he “told the jurors they would have to show courage.”
September 11th is the most traumatic event in the recent history of the United States. Naturally, a jury of twelve would want to hold someone responsible for the tragic loss of life on that infamous day. It is probably impossible to sentence anyone connected with the September 11th attacks to a life sentence – even without the possibility of parole. As Americans, we may feel entitled to our pound of flesh.
Jurors considering the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui must consider a “series of complicated factors” such as did Zacarias Moussaoui intend to cause “a grave risk of death to more than one person.”
Zacarias Moussaoui’s federal public defender Gerald T. Zerkin argued in favor of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Zerkin used the usual “sentence the defendant to life in prison instead of the death penalty” arguments such as the lousy childhood defense (Zacarias Moussaoui “unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family resulted in [Zacarias Moussaoui] being placed in orphanages”), race (Zacarias Moussaoui, the disadvantaged minority living in France), and the defendant’s mental condition (Zacarias Moussaoui is crazy). Zacarias Moussaoui’s antics during the trial will certainly be a factor in any future appeals. However, another defense strategy was introduced during the penalty phase: the religion of Islam.
Before continuing, it is important to make the following suppositions: Zacarias Moussaoui is what he says he is, the twentieth hijacker who conspired with nineteen others to crash four planes into landmarks in the United States. Secondly and more importantly, Zacarias Moussaoui is of sound mind.
Mr. Zerkin argued that Zacarias Moussaoui wants to become a martyr, and the death penalty will achieve that goal. He told the jury, “he came to America to die, and you are his last chance.”
There are two reasons that should be considered in sentencing Zacarias Moussaoui to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
First, martyrdom is a powerful concept in the religion of Islam, as is fighting in the cause of God. Such is stated in the Holy Quran, “Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain, - verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; - A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards.”(3:195)
In addition, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (9:111)
Over 1400 years ago, Muhammad tried to convert the pagan Arabs to monotheism. However, the pagans rejected Muhammad’s call to Islam, and the Arab prophet was forced to flee from Mecca to Medina. Moreover, the pagan Arabs continued to perceive Islam as a threat to their way of life, and engaged the Muslim minority in battle. The above revelations served as an exhortation to fight in the cause of God, and any Muslim who died in battle was comforted in the knowledge that he died fighting in the cause of God, and God would reward the deceased with paradise.
Regarding martyrdom, Mohammad was quoted as saying “who asks martyrdom with sincerity will be ranked by [God] among the martyrs even if he dies on his bed.
Once, a man approached Mohammad, and declared, “I testify that there is no true god except Allah, and you are his slave and messenger.” Later on the man went into battle and died. Mohammad said, “He has done little, but shall be given a great reward.”
Zacarias Moussaoui believes he is fighting for a good cause, fighting for God. The fact he was caught before finalizing his mission does not change how he perceives himself. In his mind, the only way to achieve martyrdom is to be executed by the “enemies of God.”
If sentenced to death, it is important to imagine the state of mind of Zacarias Moussaoui as he is about to be executed for his crimes. Do you believe he will be anxious, will feel remorse, will feel regret, will confess his sins, pray for forgiveness, and find comfort through his confession? Or will Zacarias Moussaoui find comfort in the fact that God’s enemies will execute him?
In his mind, Zacarias Moussaoui is not being punished for a crime, but rewarded for fighting in a greater cause – for God. His attitude probably will not be any different than the American patriot Nathan Hale’s who famously said before his execution, “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
Zacarias Moussaoui will have peace of mind, not because he acknowledged his role in the horrific crime of September 11th and has repented and is at peace because of his repentance. He will die at peace with himself because he was a loyal soldier in God’s army who wanted to engage “The Great Satan” in battle. Before his death, he will probably utter “La Ilaha Illallah” – There is no deity except Allah – a statement Muslims are instructed to say before their death. Moussaoui will be comforted with these words.
As a country, will we find closure executing someone will look forward to his execution, and will be at peace with himself and with God when he dies? The answer is no.
The second reason for not executing Zacarias Moussaoui will be drawn from personal experiences. From my early teens until my late thirties, I have contemplated committing suicide. It must be baffling and contradictory for someone to believe in the absolute sanctity of life and suicide at the same time. Truthfully, the decision to end my own life was always agonizing.
As previously mentioned, suicide became an option during my early teens, after encountering a near death experience. For the sake of brevity, I will not detail the events leading to the experience, but instead will describe the experience briefly.
I was unconscious, after falling face down on a pavement. While unconscious, I had a “dream” in which I was walking down a dark, damp tunnel towards a bright light. I recall the moisture on the walls of the tunnel. As I got closer, the light became brighter and brighter. Suddenly, I heard a voice commanding me not to continue. “Its not your time yet,” said the voice. While I was in this state of unconsciousness, I felt completely at peace. It is a feeling I have yet to experience in my life. Eventually, I regained consciousness, with a rather large bump on the right side of my head.
During periods of turmoil, stress, rage, desperation and anxiety I longed for that feeling of peace, and I thought the only way of achieving that sense of peace was through death. Life is complicated. Life is not neatly arranged or orderly. Death was an end to the struggle, and an escape from the daily grind, the never-ending challenges faced in a lifetime, the sense that life was never going to get better, and will only get worse. This is a perspective on death most people could not comprehend, but dare say people who have contemplated suicide do understand.
Not only will Zacarias Moussaoui escape this life upon his execution, but he will be entering the next life with peace of mind. According to our Christian religious belief system, he will be punished in the afterlife for the “crimes” he committed. However, it is his state of mind we should be considering – not our Christian belief system.
Death is not a punishment for Zacarias Moussaoui. It is an escape from this life. Executing Zacarias Moussaoui will spare him the suffering of the daily grind that will be prison life.
We must consider the deprivation, the waste, the agony, and the harshness a long prison sentence imposes on an individual’s mind. A life sentence without the possibility of parole will be agonizing. A long life in a small prison cell is a far greater punishment than a needle delivering poison into the right arm of Zacarias Moussaoui.
In conclusion, Zacarias Moussaoui is no different than the distraught man who is afraid to commit suicide, yet waves a gun at a police officer hoping the latter will put the former out of his misery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
