Gates arrest: its not about racism, its about a lack of the use of judgment

I intentionally waited to see how the situation between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge police department shook out before commenting on it, when mid of last week, Barack Obama decided to wade in head first without looking. During a speech last week on Health Care reform, our ‘esteemed’ Dict….er, President called out the Cambridge police department saying they were “ignorant” in their actions…

It’s not often that you will find me taking the side of Liberals and our President on an issue, but this time I have to say that I agree with what Obama had to say on this issue and, even more so, how exactly he said it.

For too long now, police departments nationwide (particularly here in Southern Florida) have ‘shot first and asked questions’ later. I understand that those who undertake the difficult job of becoming a police officer deal with things on a daily basis that you and I couldn’t possibly dream of, but it is becoming more and more apparent that those who take up these difficult jobs, lack any common sense themselves, and are perpetually doomed to failure in situations when the use of their better judgment is required.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Gates, a black man, in no way fits the stereotype that one would associate with someone who is burglarizing a home-particularly in Cambridge, MA. For one, the man was wearing some pretty expensive clothing at the time of his arrest; for two, he was obviously educated and well spoken. These 2 facts alone should have tipped the officer off enough to at least allow the man to prove who he claimed he said he was at the time-that is, the owner of the home he was being accused of 'breaking in' to.

This in turn leads me to the claims by both men which resulted in the eventual arrest of Mr. Gates. For Sergeant James Crowley, the arresting officer, he claims that Mr. Gates was belligerent and aggressive, leading to his making the arrest for disorderly conduct, a charge which has since been dropped. For Mr. Gates’ part, he claims the officer was being rude and aggressive himself, insinuating things with his general tone and demeanor which he found insulting and in turn, obviously felt obligated to defend himself vociferously.

Personally, I am torn on this issue.

Firstly, I hate that this has become an issue of “racism”-a false term in my opinion, and a discussion that I will maybe get into at another time.

On the flip side, I am happy that this is raising some serious questions about how our police officers conduct themselves in situations where their lack of judgment, especially when facing obvious evidence to the contrary, puts them into embarrassing situations with potentially drastic consequences-for both the arresting officer and the accused. As someone who has, unfortunately, been on the ‘wrong side of the law’, it has been obvious to me for some time that most (not all) police officers fail to use any judgment whatsoever in every situation they find themselves in. This behavior is what creates the feelings of distrust and abuse on the part of communities as a whole, relative to their policing agencies, whose job it is to maintain law and order and whose further duties it is to serve and protect the public. Sergeant Crowley showed such poor judgment in his actions that he has again made it all too easy for a large portion of the American public to look down upon our nation’s law enforcement agencies as nothing more than bullies looking for an outlet for their inability to deal with their own personal issues.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gates immediately took the ‘racist’ side of this argument, making it all too easy for many people to look past the obvious mistakes by Sergeant Crowley, thereby giving Crowley some community wide support because such arguments are as socially polarizing as the abortion debate. This in turn takes away from what I see as the real issue: that of the lack of the use of judgment are the part of our “LEO’s”.

So long Sarah (Palin)

She leaves the national political scene the same way she came into it: suddenly and controversially. Sarah Palin, the attractive former Governor from Alaska, shocked the political world in the summer of 2008 when she was chosen by John McCain as his Vice Presidential nominee. With her striking good looks, well spoken manner and tough, ‘pit bull’ political style, the admittedly Conservative Republican captured the attention of everyone last year and continued to do so in defeat, but then just 3 weeks ago she decided to step down as Alaska’s Governor with 18 months left in her term, leaving us all to ask why?

Question’s and theories abound as to why Palin decided to leave her office prematurely: there are ethics probes and mounting legal bills, all pointing to something sinister in her political background. And then there are the countless rumors of her courtship by Hollywood to host a TV show (perhaps a more republican version of The View?), rumors of book deals and a potential run up to the Republican nomination to run for president in 2012. No matter what her reasons, one thing I think we can all say with certainty is that she isn’t going to go quietly into the night. For better or for worse, we have far from seen the last of Sarah Palin.

Whether this is a good thing, I know not. I was never a huge fan of the McCain/Palin ‘ticket’ last year, but I did like that Sarah Palin spoke well, spoke her mind without remorse, took no bullshit from the establishment and would go as far as necessary to expose corruption where it prevailed-even within the confines of her own party. Her hard conservative beliefs turned me off, but I don’t believe she would have ever tried to force them down anyone’s throats. Personally, I always thought she would lead by example as those things were concerned, which was something I could respect.

Regardless, for now we must say goodbye to Sarah Palin and turn a questioning eye as too why? Why now and what for? Is there some seriousness to some questionable ethics practices on her part in Alaska? Probably, but I have my reasons to doubt that it could be anything worse than we see out of politicians on a daily basis in this country. Whatever her motives may be for her sudden departure from the Alaskan Governorship, we will be questioning why for some time to come, but there are 2 things we can say for certain about it: she leaves the national political scene-most likely temporarily-the same way she came into it-with more questions than answers; and, as a red blooded American male, it’s not a bad thing to watch her walk away…

Cash for Clunkers: another attack on Capitalism by the Fed

As part of a near $trillion stimulus package our Federal Government-specifically Barack Obama-has stuck in a little bill called “cash for clunkers”. This bill grants up to $3500 in trade in value, towards a new car, for cars that are no more than 25 years old and get 18 mpg or less.

For proper implementation this program is being spearheaded with car dealerships nationwide, which brings me to a serious problem and points out the dangers of our Federal Government getting involved in any direct way with our economy: How is this going to affect the real world values of our cars?

Under this bill all cars which fit the criteria are valued the same. That early 1990’s clunker of a Buick, with 150k and sitting on blocks, is potentially worth the same as your 2001 Hummer that you paid $40K for.

Even worse, the newer your car, the less its value becomes.

Going back to the Hummer-an easy vehicle to pick on in this case-what about all those which are 5-8 years old? They are still blue booked in the area of $10-20k and now dealerships will be giving no more than $3500 for them because there is no incentive to do so. This same logic applies to any and all SUV’s which fit the criteria of a “cash for clunker” because there is NO demand for any of these vehicles currently due to the price of gasoline and economic restraints.

An even worse part of this bill is that all of these cars which are traded in under the “cash for clunkers” bill is that they must be scraped-meaning they can’t be resold as is which makes them all worthless. This, in effect undermines Capitalism at its most basic of levels, making the “cash for clunkers” idea not only a bad one, but just another prime example of why the Federal Government has no clue what being “productive” means and why it needs to be no more than a regulating body for only specific sectors of economy. Needless to say the cash for clunkers bill is a bad one, and we won’t be seeing the ramifications of this “feel good” legislation for years to come. My only hope is that the automotive industry survives it. The Big 3 already have enough issues to deal with, but with the Fed resetting the value of used cars, it will only be harder for the American automotive industry to survive as a private enterprise.

But then, seeing as how the Fed already owns nearly 2/3 of GM and Chrysler, perhaps that is exactly what they want to happen so as to take control of the entire industry themselves.

Of course, the only saving grace of the cash for clunkers program is that it is temporary, but however long it lasts is relevant if the damage to the value of cars becomes permanent.