About Me

Name: Tidford Tatt
Email: tidfordtatt@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Our New Lords - The Roman Polanski Saga

Posted by Tidford Tatt on Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:31:36 PM

Our New Lords

The Roman Polanski Saga

 

Prima Nocte - Droit de Seigneur - The Lord's Right - Jus Primae Noctis - Droit de Cuissage - Droit de Jambage

It goes by many names, this medieval "Lords Right" 

But all those names boil down to the same thing - the legal "right" of the Lord of a medieval estate to take the virginity, to rape, the little girls on his estate. 

Well, we have all heard of the "New Royalty" - the "Hollywood Royalty." They take themselves very seriously, they take their “new royalty” status very seriously. Now we can all see just how seriously they take their rights – and you can bet they are not going to let any of their "rights" be taken away or challenged. 

That is why they are on a rampage, these “New Royals.” They are furious, they are – in their own gentle but depraved words “dismayed.” They describe the arrest as “inadmissible”, whatever that may mean. They defiantly denounce the arrest of child molester/rapist/sodomizer Roman Polanski because his arrest “breaks tradition.” The "rights" of one of the most prominent of the New Royalty has been violated: He may be held accountable for his actions. “Inadmissible!” they bleat. 

Although he plead guilty to drugging (with Quaaludes), then raping and sodomizing a thirteen year old girl, Polanski deemed himself above the plebian American laws and skedaddled off to the country that once proudly guillotined people with his attitude. 

And now much of the rest of the New Royalty demands their “rights”. Make no mistake, this is not about Polanski, these are the royalty of the “me generation”, and their heirs. They couldn’t give a rat’s behind about Polanski per se. They, the most profoundly narcissistic class of a profoundly narcissistic era, care only for themselves. But they are not stupid; they understand that they must stand united against the common rabble if they are to preserve their own perverse royal rights. 

So they make their demand that the child sodomizer be set free. 

And look! There are woman who signed this petition. Amazing??? No. Look at the history of class warfare. Do you really think that there were females of the medieval aristocracy that stood for the rights of peasant women before the rights of the men of the aristocracy. Not in a billion years! 

Or look at it in another way. We have all heard of the casting couch. How does the ambitious bimbo scratch her way into the royal world? Rumor has it that it is called the casting couch. Rumor also has it that it can be helpful to bring the king dainty young treats. 

Makes it kind of hard to look at yourself in the mirror if you have to admit such behavior is despicable and depraved.
 

Makes you wonder about how some of these “ladies” became royalty doesn’t it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gatesgate and the Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Act

Posted by Tidford Tatt on Friday, July 24, 2009 4:33:23 PM
Gatesgate and the Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Act

What interesting times these are and what fascinating dilemmas presidents face! President Obama currently faces a nasty petty dilemma if anyone in the press has the stones to confront him.

Unsurprisingly, the president is quite the fan of hate crimes legislation. The current federal hate crime law, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), defines a hate crime as "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person" (24 USC 280003 (a)). The law requires judges to "provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels" for hate crimes. (24USC 280003 (b)).

In addition to the Federal hate crime laws, at least 45 states (and DC) have their own hate crimes legislation. And, yes, Massachusetts does have its own hate crimes statute.

As of July 21, 2009, the Mathew Shepard Act has passed both houses of Congress and is only awaiting the signature of President Obama. This act would do several things to greatly expand the coverage of federal hate crime laws including (a) add crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability to the definition of crimes covered; (b) give federal jurisdiction to crimes which were previously under state jurisdiction; and (c) vastly increase the range of crimes subject to hate crime prosecution.

Now President Obama must decide whether he should sign the Mathew Shepard Act. It seems a foregone conclusion that he will do so. But mighten this be a bit embarrassing at the moment?

The reason for this potential embarrassment is that President Obama is currently in the middle of his first foot-in-mouth debacle, already dubbed "Gatesgate." Poor President Obama seems profoundly flummoxed by the entire situation, for once he isn't getting a completely free ride from the press. For those unfamiliar with Gatesgate, here's the skinny:

President Obama's good friend Professor Henry "Skip" Gates was recently arrested by the Cambridge police. Gates is a distinguished scholar and author, recipient of the Mellon Foundation Fellowship and numerous honorary degrees. He currently holds the Fletcher Chair at Harvard and is the Director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute. He also happens to be African American. When asked about the arrest of his friend, President Obama responded "the Cambridge police acted stupidly."  This comment has been met with very bitter resentment from numerous police organizations and others. It has also invoked the first negative, in Obama's words, "media frenzy" this president has had to deal with.

Professor Gates had been out of town in Hawaii. On July 16, 2009, the police were called to his home by a neighbor who saw two men apparently trying to break through his front door. As it happens, the two men were Professor Gates and his driver. Professor Gates had just arrived home from his Hawaii trip. He and his driver were trying to force his front door open because it was badly damaged, apparently from a previous break in attempt. According to the police report, upon arriving, the officer, Sgt Crowley, identified himself and indicated that he was responding to a 911 call concerning a possible break in. Again according to the police report, Professor Gates, rather than cooperating, launched into an armada of racial invective and became so unruly that Sgt. Gates arrested him for disorderly conduct. The entire police report can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17512830/Gates-Police-Report or at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html.

Unsurprisingly Professor Gates has an entirely different outlook on this matter. I won't pretend to know how much of the truth each side is telling. However, looking at the current posturing of both sides it appears that the Sgt. Crowley and numerous deeply offend police organizations across the nation feel strongly that independent evidence will support Sgt. Crowley's version. Time will tell on that.

But just for fun, as an intellectual exercise, let's assume that the police report is accurate and maybe a bit understated. Additionally, let's assume that the Mathew Shepard Act has been signed and is fully effective. Given this, should Professor Gates be additionally charged with a hate crime? His alleged behavior appears to carry him squarely under the pending hate crimes legislation. If the answer is "no" because the crime was just too petty, suppose we add just a little, suppose Professor Gates had thrown a punch? Would that be enough? Suppose instead of a prominent black northern bigot screeching racial epithets going up a white officer it were a prominent white southern bigot screeching racial epithets going up against black cop?

Back to reality: If Professor Gates were to be prosecuted and found guilty, should a judge give Professor Gates a lenient sentence or should the judge look at the Mathew Shepard Act and find that the passing of that Act indicates that society now finds such behavior so abhorant that it demands the judge give Professor Gates a sentence towards the harsher end of currently available sentences? 

Frankly this whole idea of politicizing crime gives me the willies. Unfortunately that is the road Congress has chosen.

So, who out there in the media is going to ask President Obama what his opinion is?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Gates Affair - Racism in America

Posted by Tidford Tatt on Friday, July 24, 2009 12:52:29 PM
The Gates Affair - Racism in America

There has been much controversy concerning both the arrest last week of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.  by Cambridge officer Sgt. James Crowley, and the subsequent remarks by President Obama concerning that arrest.
Professor Gates, who happens to be black, is a distinguished scholar and author, recipient of the Mellon Foundation Fellowship and numerous honorary degrees. He is currently holds the Fletcher Chair at Harvard and is the Director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute. He is also a personal friend of President Obama.

Sgt Crowley, who happens to be white, is a well respected and seasoned officer. He is also a police academy trainer and expert on racial profiling. He also won kudos 16 years ago for a valiant attempt to save the life of black Celtics star Reggie Lewis after Lewis collapsed during practice.
Like any controversy, there are going to be different versions of what happened. Apparently there were numerous eye witnesses so we will likely hear many conflicting versions. Some of Professor Gate’s side has been told in the media and by his attorney. Much of Sgt. Crowley’s side has been presented in the official arrest report.

For the moment I would like to step through the incident, primarily using police reports and a statement by Charles Ogletree, attorney for Professor Gates.

According to attorney Ogletree, Professor Gates was driven home from Logan Airport to his Cambridge home on Thursday July 16 after returning from a trip to China. The driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage to the front door. Professor Gates was unable to enter the front door because it was damaged. He went around to the back door and entered that way. He and the driver then, working together, were able to force the front door open. Shortly thereafter Gates saw a uniformed police officer on his front porch. The officer requested Professor Gates step outside. Gates, remaining inside, asked the officer what was happening. The officer replied that he was responding to a 911 call concerning an in-progress break and entry. Professor Gates responded that he lived in the house and was a professor at Harvard. The officer requested proof and Professor Gates presented satisfactory picture identification.
 
According to the police report, on Thursday July 16th, shortly after noon, one of Professor Gates’ neighbors, Lucia Whalen, phoned in a report of suspicious behavior.  According to news reports she reported seeing two suspicious black men with backpacks. Sgt. Crowley, patrolling in the area, responded and met Ms. Whalen outside Professor Gates’ house. According to the police report:  “She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he were trying to force entry.”

The police report continues as follows:

“I could see an older black male standing in the foyer…. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied “no I will not”. He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “why, because I’m a black man in America?” I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen’s call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so. I radioed on channel 1 that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to “get the chief” and what’s the chief’s name?”. Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was “messing” with and that I had not heard the last of it…. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.

According to attorney Ogletree, Professor Gates made numerous requests for the officer’s name and badge number with no results. At this point the officer stepped outside without indicating that there were any charges against Professor Gates. Professor Gates followed the officer onto the porch only to be surprised that there were numerous other officers present. Professor Gates thereupon asked these other officers for the original officer’s name and badge. At this point the original officer thanked Professor Gates for his cooperation and arrested him.

Again picking up the police report:

With the Harvard University identification in hand, I radioed my findings to ECC on channel two and prepared to leave. Gates again asked me for my name which I began to provide. Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn't someone to mess with. At some point during this exchange, I became aware that Off. Carlos Figueroa was standing behind me. When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence.

As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units. His reply was “ya, I’ll speak to your mama outside”.
…
As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention both of the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’ outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest.

A second police report was filed by Officer Carlos Figueroa. It contains the following statement:

As I stepped in, I heard Sgt. Crowley ask for the gentleman’s information which he stated “NO I WILL NOT!” The gentleman was shouting out to the Sgt. that the Sgt. was a racist and yelled that “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN America!” As the Sgt. was trying to calm the gentleman, the gentleman shouted “You don’t know who your messing with!”

I stepped out to the gather the information from the reporting person, WHALEN, LUCIA. Ms. Whalen stated to me that she saw a man wedging his shoulder into the front door as to pry the door open. As I returned to the residence, a group of onlookers were now on scene. The Sgt., along with the gentleman, were now on the porch of __ Ware Street and again he was shouting, now to the onlookers (about seven), “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!” The gentleman refused to listen to as to why the Cambridge Police were there. While on the porch, the gentleman refused to be cooperative and continued shouting that the Sgt. is racist police officer.

This furor is all about racism, so let’s examine it
.
First item: Was Ms. Whalen’s initial call evidence of racism? Frankly, I’m not willing to go there or speculate. Who among us is enough of a mind reader to know what specifically was going through Ms. Whalen’s mind? The better question is, was Ms. Whalen’s call appropriate? Suppose your neighbor saw two men with backpacks attempting to push the door to your home open, would you appreciate her call to the police? Barring evidence of drugs or some other criminal activity inside our home, most of us would appreciate that call.
But what of the race issue? Should Ms Whalen have said to herself “Gee, that looks like suspicious behavior, but since the folks doing it are black I shouldn’t call because that would be racist?” Apparently some people think so. To others, that double standard is proof of a profoundly racist attitude.

Now, back to the question of whether making the call was racist. Should we assume that the following thought went through Ms. Whalen’s mind: “Gee, that looks like suspicious behavior. If those guys were white I wouldn’t call because all my racist neighbors wouldn’t care a hoot if their house is ransacked by a white person, but dear, dear, dear, how horrid to have your house ransacked by a black person. Better call the cops.”  Just how much of a hate filled racist does one have to be to make such an assumption?

Should Ms. Whalen have never made the 911 call? If she should not have made the call, should she have refrained from calling solely because the suspicious folks were black, or should none of us look out for our neighbors, black, brown or white? Is that the price we must pay to lessen the unending din of “racist” accusations? And suppose she hadn’t called and the two men actually were thieves. Would she properly be labeled a racist because she failed to protect her black neighbor as she would have protected a white neighbor?
Whether or not the original 911 call should be deemed a capital offense, it was made. Having been made, should Sgt. Crowley have responded or should he have said “Gee, this call is about suspicious black men, can’t be racist, guess I’ll get a donut instead.”

However, Sgt. Crowley did respond. He spoke to an apparently sober and competent Ms. Whalen who indicated she had seen two men apparently forcing their way into a home. Should he have presumed Ms. Whalen a racist and now gone for a donut? Or should he have waited until he could confirm for himself that the men of interest were black before he went for a donut? The question really is: At just what point should Sgt. Crowley have come to the obvious conclusion that his only non-racist option was to go for a donut?

Assume you are out of town and a neighbor has called 911 to your home because someone appeared to be breaking into your home. What do you want the cops to do? The person claims to be the owner but refuses to come out and identify himself. Should the cop tuck tale between legs and slink off, or should he only tuck tale and slink off if he is accused of being a racist? Will you be satisfied with the service provided by your local PD if they say to you “Well, yes, it did seem suspicious, but he was black and he did say he was the owner?  If he had been white we would have asked to see some ID to support that, but he was black and we didn’t want to seem racist. Sorry you lost everything you own, next time hope to be robbed by a white guy.”

Reading attorney Ogletree’s statement on behalf of Professor Gates there is only slight indication of non-cooperation. However there is no substantial indication of active cooperation or any indication whatsoever of appreciation for the cops checking out a threat to his home. Frankly, Ogletree’s statement seems profoundly flaccid; devoid of substance or denial of Sgt. Crowley’s police report. Might not be a good idea to say too much until hearing from the numerous citizen witnesses and the transcript of whatever was caught on the tape of Sgt. Crowley’s radio transmissions.

Assuming there was minimal belligerence on the part of Professor Gates and that Sgt. Crowley arrested Professor Gates simply because he is an “uppity” black man, what should be done? Termination, at minimum, is an easy answer. Prosecution if sufficient proof available.

But suppose the police report is accurate and Professor Gates did flip out as described? How much abuse must an officer take? What is the level of black scholarship and reasoning if someone at the very pinnacle of black scholarship becomes unhinged when an officer comes to his house to protect his possessions?

More troubling is President Obama’s response. After stating he did not know all the facts or to what extent race played a part, Obama said:

“I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

Let’s look at what these three statements say about our president:

1 – Any of us would be pretty angry. No Mr. President – I wouldn’t be angry and I wasn’t angry when I was mistakenly called out of my house, in my underwear, at gunpoint by the cops. I was bemused, but after listening to their explanation I was glad that they were watching over my neighbor so well. Afterwards I liked to brag about how great the local cops were about looking out for the welfare of the local residents. It made me feel safe!
Yes the cops where checking him out, but they were checking him out based on an entirely rational 911 call and they were protecting his property and potentially his life and the lives of his loved ones. Perhaps he is so perfect that he has never made an honest mistake (more likely his ego demands he think so) but it is totally and completely irrational to flip out without knowing the facts. I find it particularly frightening that the President seems unable to understand this. Just what would it take to flip out this particular president?

2 – The police were stupid for arresting him. Lots of police get killed in the line of duty. Most of those deaths come from citizens unable or unwilling to control themselves. The most effective method of preventing this, other than hiding, is to discourage abusive behavior that can easily turn to violence. There are many cops across the nation tonight who feel a big new target painted between their eyes. And their spouses are even more terrified and even angrier at such a stupid statement from their president.

3 – African Americans and Latinos are stopped disproportionally. Perhaps true. But they are also involved, both as victim and culprit, disproportionately. In this case the police were coming to the home of an African American to protect its contents, both human and property. Is President Obama suggesting a quota? Should the police stop protecting the home of African Americans when they have made their quota of calls to those African American homes?
 
However this sorts itself out, this tale will tell much about racism in America.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »