White House's brew: Bud Light -- report

“My Mother Hated White People” and Other Revelations about Professor Skippy Gates

It’s said that the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree, meaning the obvious that lots of walnuts and pecans end up on the ground, and sometimes meaning the less obvious about people.

In a 1994 interview about his book, Colored People, Professor Henry Louis Gates freely conceded that “My mother hated white people.”

That’s not to suggest, necessarily, that she passed down those feelings to her sons. Then, again, he was devoted to his mom, who also was a big fan of Black supremicist/White-hater, Malcolm X: http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1220.

Gates also mentions in that interview that his nickname was Skip, that he and his family just loved the old Amos and Andy television series despite its Black stereotypes, and that his first wife was a white girl, Sharon Lynn Adams, which relationship all but brought about WWIII in the Gates’ household.

Now, what conclusions can we reasonably draw from those tidbits about Prof. Gates as they relate to his contretemps 15 years later with Sgt. James Crowley?

We can draw absolutely no conclusions, or we can conclude quite a number of things depending on our capacity for tidbit interpretation.

If Prof. Gates has learned anything in his nearly 59 years, from his mammy or from reality, it has been to keep his mouth shut when to open it would display his true, bigoted racial attitudes. Some have termed such attitudes, “blackitude,” referring to the ‘tude shown when blacks are feeling most repressed.

Prof. Gates vividly demonstrated his blackitude when a protective but white, Cambridge cop tried to do his duty after a report of possible burglary at Gates’ home. His charges of racism and racial profiling were both unfounded and reactionary, very possibly a reaction based on his mom’s detestation of all things white.

None of this is new news among dedicated and professionally “repressed” minorities in America.

What those professionals will think of the now-confirmed Obama scheme to turn down the volume of the racial uproar he pumped up with his infamous “stupidly” remark by staging a White House Obama-Gates-Crowley beer detente is unknown.

Another unknown is their reaction to the most recent revelation that Crowley and Gates are “cousins.”

Yep, it’s true, according to Gates. He discovered his personal Kunta Kinte of Roots fame in, of all places, the wee country, the Olde Sod, Ireland: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8195564&page=1.

If true, since he doesn’t look very Irish, it’s apropos that the erudite, nutty professor found his roots in the Land of Saints and Scholars. Now he and Sgt. Crowley, who does look Irish, will have something to gab about over that beer with their fellow part-Irishman, Barack Obama.

Gates’ late mom must be rolling over in her grave . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Can't they just offer "a selection of domestic beers"? Nothing says "the White House supports big corporations and lobbyists" like an Anheuser-Busch product.

hiw about a beer from anamerican owned co

Last I ckecked Bud is owned by a begium-S. American conglomorate

Maybe a beer from one of this small , family owned breweries- you know those small businessess Barry cares so much about?

this is huge free advertising for a company that doesn't need it

Symbolically for a patriotic drink with two Cambridge guys, I'm thinking Samuel Adams.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/a-teachable-moment-and-a-beer/

Now that Anheuser-Busch is foreign owned, Samuel Adams of Boston Brewing would have been a much better choice. Maybe because Bud Light is recycled, or at least tastes like it is, it's considered more politically correct.

Why not serve a selection of Capitol City Brewing Co. beers? Brewed right in Washington. Keep the local beer economy going.

why didn't they pick a domestic beer like Coor or Miller Lite?

Why not a real working mans beer ... like High Life, PBR or Old Style? Or better yet, why not a nice Chicago product like a Goose Island brand (Honker's Ale, Summertime, 312, etc ...).

Or, since both of these guys were from the Boston area, a Sam Adams would have been a great choice.

Bud Light ... jeez.

Capital City Brewing Company, right in Washington DC, produces some delicious locally brewed craft beers. Talk about wasting a prime opportunity to give a nice boost to the "little guy", the local guy, and the American guy all at the same time! The President clearly acted stupidly in choosing the Belgian-owned InBev product!!

I agree on the "no" to Bud Light. Sam Adams is a great choice. Or is there any small, locally owned breweries in DC? I'm sure there are. Or Goose Island from Chicago. Plenty of better choices than a huge corporation not even owned by a U.S. firm.

I avoid Bud Products because they taste bad. Micro-Brew, or Old Style.

"Mammy"? Wow this shows how far race relations have gone.

Bud Light will support one of Jesse Jackson's son's who own's one of the largest Bud distributorships in the country. That was a payoff for Jesse to call of the boycott of Bud back in the 80's. BO probably drank Yusef Jackson's Bud when he was in Hyde park

For what it's worth, I worked for Skip Gates for about a year, didn't know him really well, but he was unfailingly kind, and he paid quite well too. He is a serious scholar, but also a real showboat and he has always had issues about being "authentically" black.

I suspect he genuinely regrets the furore this has caused and the black eye Obama got out of his part in it.

That said, the words "teachable moment" in connection with this theater of the absurd fable are like fingernails on the chalkboard of the national psyche. Did he REALLY say that? Yes, he did. This cost him the good will of millions. Sad. And I didn't even vote for the guy.

Bud Light also cost him points (but a microbrew would have the tongues wagging too--I'd have gone with a Three Floyds or Rogue ale myself.

This must be a non-meeting because they are serving a non-beer. I wouldn’t serve Bud Light to an enemy.
.
Bud Light is made from non-traditional ingredients - including rice extract, un-malted and un-fermentable grains and additives, and with fewer hops than most traditional lagers. In addition, the secondary fermentation lasts only 19 days instead of several months like its European counterparts. That’s not enough time for the fermentation process to complete or to allow the yeast to convert acetaldehyde into ethanol. (Lager yeast is notoriously slow.) That’s not even enough time for secondary fermentation for ale (which is made with much faster yeast). That’s one of the reasons why “Bud” products have that funky, off taste and have to be served almost frozen cold to be palatable. The unfermented solids, including a lot of healthful proteins, are then removed to make it "lite." The stuff is barely drinkable when served frozen. It’s intolerable if allowed to warm up to anything approaching room temperature. A “real” beer wouldn’t have to be served so cold to be drinkable.

Terry,

Why didn't you mention Mrs. McCain? You're not biased, are you? Oh no....

John W,

You seem a bit obsessed. Is that all you thought about in the Betty Ford Center?

* * * * *
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | July 29, 2009 7:27 PM
.
I guess you never saw the movie Bambi. If you had, you would have learned the lesson Thumper's father told him: "If you can't say anything good about someone, then don't say anything."
.
I am not, and never have been, a druggie or an alcoholic. However, not only do I like good beer once in a while, I make it myself. And I'm quite good at it. My beer has won top prize at a local county fair. It's fairly easy to make a good beer if one doesn't cut corners, which is why it is a sin for Anhauser Bush to put out the garbage that it does.

Why is Obama boosting a foreign owned brewery. why not an American owned brewery?

went to a banquet for the boys and girls club of chicago , that beer that i drank was the best tasteing to me that iv ever had . it was a budweiser. i could drink them bottles like water. bozzers aint losers. have a nice day

KB,

I forgot about her - honest mistake. Although, I'll bet most of those Buds that BO drank in Hyde Park came thru Jackson's distributorship.

Many of the aforementioned comments focus on what beer the president and Professor Gates will drink, as well as the news story feature on the 7pm broadcast. I am personally appalled that the focus is on beer instead of the underlying issue: the profiling of minorities by law enforcement officials. A substantial number of individuals has experienced this irrespective of profession or notability, including Attorney General Holder and probably President Obama. It shows the singlemindedness of certain members of society, and this shortsided view is what allows for citizens to be treated differently or unfairly based on their ethnicity. Shameful.

Since the "pres" didn’t really apologize I would have declined that beer!!! This is just all for looks.

Terry,

No problem. We all forgot about McCain. Now if we can forget about Palin....

John W,

We agree on the quality of A-B brews. As for your homebrew, once again you've pinned a ribbon on yourself -- figuatively if not literally. I can't think of an appropriate cartoon about humility, but you should watch it in an IMAX theater. Have a brew and think about it.

how much did the beer company pay for this pr

So the president who wants to nationalize health care is promoting drinking alcohol during the day!

Great (sarcasm, here.)

KB,

Palin would be forgotten if a certain Swamp writer didn't have a crush on her.

Oh great, they chose a great American beer for this summit. Oh wait Bud Light is how a German beer.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | July 29, 2009 8:50 PM
.
I wrote my reply rapidly and without thinking about it as much as I normally do. I can assure you however, that my purpose wasn’t to pin a ribbon on myself. My purpose was mostly to explain anecdotally that my apparent “obsession” with beer comes from being a fanatic home-brewer rather than from being an alcoholic (as you had clearly suggested). I’ll even admit that I didn’t connect those dots very well and that my wording was inept to convey only that meaning. I’ll apologize for what reads like pinning a ribbon on myself when you apologize for the despicable personal attack that prompted it. Think about that.

* * * * *
Posted by: S. Jones | July 29, 2009 8:33 PM
.
1. The beer talk is relevant because that’s what the article is about. There are three or four other articles elsewhere in the Swamp concerning the content of the discussion if that’s what you want to talk about.
.
2. If you knew the facts of the case (as would be the case had read the on-line copy of the police report), you would know that Professor Gates wasn’t the victim of “racial profiling.” "Racial Profiling" refers to the police practice of targeting individuals for investigation of crime solely or primarily on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. An example of racial profiling is the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for traffic violations on the assumption that people of certain races are more likely to be engaged in criminal activity. Another example is the way the federal government has been stopping Arabs and/or Muslims from air travel without any information that the individuals stopped had anything to do with terrorism. It is not racial profiling, however, for police to pursue a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other factors.
.
The latter is what occurred in Mr. Gates’ case. Police responded to a report of someone breaking into Gates’ home. Once the first officer arrived, he supposedly spoke to the reporting party. This reporting party told the officer that she had seen two black men with backpacks on the porch of the residence. She further stated that “her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.” It was on the basis of that report that the officer approached the front door, observed Gates, and “asked if he would step out onto the porch to speak with” him. That’s when the yelling started. The facts known to the police were suspicious enough to warrant an investigation entirely apart from the ethnic background of anyone mentioned. That, by itself, makes it something other than a case of racial profiling. (See http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html for an online copy of the police report.) Since it wasn’t a case of “racial profiling,” it offers no occasion to talk about the subject of racial profiling now. Let’s talk about beer instead.

We can draw absolutely no conclusions, or we can conclude quite a number of things depending on our capacity for tidbit interpretation.

If Prof. Gates has learned anything in his nearly 59 years, from his mammy or from reality,
Posted by: Berlet98 | July 29, 2009 1:07 PM

Here's a tidbit.......do you refer to your "mother" as mammy?

John W,

The thrust was on your obsessiveness (with an undercurrent about the tone of your posts), not your addiction. If an apology is due, those with drinking problems get it. In the meantime, use a bigger pin.

Kind of surprising this hasn't been tried before (like when Jimmy Carter was president. They could have used Billy Beer). Just get the two parties a little drunk and they'll work out their differences. Right!!!!!! Can this apply to international diplomacy too? Just sit down with radical terrorists over a beer and talk out their hostilities with impared judgment and lowered inhibitions? Better check for bombs at the door!

"It is not racial profiling, however, for police to pursue a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other factors."

We now know that to the extent that race was used in the specific description of the suspects, that description was in error, and never mentioned that the suspects were black. Sgt. Crowley's statement to the contrary in the police report has been shown to be untrue by the 911 call tape, and the testimony of the original 911 caller.

So, now we have a case where the 911 caller says one guy might be Hispanic, and she has no idea about the other guy. She further says that when Sgt. Crowley arrives at the scene, that she provided no further description of the men she saw. Sgt. Crowley's police report however, say that he was looking for the two black men reported. The notion that the suspects were black seems to have originated in the mind of Sgt. Crowley. Does that change your perception that this case has nothing to do with racial profiling?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/

It seems to me that choosing which beer to serve at the White House is a no brainer. Choose the American Brewery that's been around the longest, and that remains not only American made, but also family owned. Head towards Pottsville, PA folks...then, with gusto, get the Yuengling.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | July 30, 2009 9:06 AM
.
And you can use a bigger cork.

If everything happened the way the reporting party now said it did, it did not turn the case into one of racial profiling. Remember that “racial profiling” refers to the practice of police targeting individuals for investigation of crime solely or primarily on the basis of their race, ethnicity and so on. It’s pretty clear that Gates’ home was the target of an investigation because of a reported break-in, and not because the suspect in the break in was a black man. That fact is undisputable based on the contents of the 911 call and the ECC dispatch to Crowley - which contain no reference to the suspect’s race or ethnicity. In turn, Crowley approached the house and made inquiries consistent with an investigation into a break-in. He sought to identify the occupants and determine whether they were properly on the premises. Gates’ own account of the encounter, as provided by his attorney (see http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/07/21/henry-louis-gates-statement-on-his-arrest-by-cambridge-pd/ ), corroborates all of this. Had he arrested Gates on sight, when he first approached, one might have a good case for racial profiling. But that isn’t the way it happened. So where is the profiling?
.
The issue of “racial profiling” is really deflecting attention away from the more important issue in this case, and that is whether Crowley had a good reason to arrest Gates for shouting at him. The answer appears to be “No.” A person has a First Amendment right to express his verbal disagreement with police behavior as long as he doesn’t use fighting words or otherwise threaten an imminent violent response. It doesn’t appear from even the police report that such was the case. It appears, instead, that Crowley arrested Gates for “contempt of cop.” That happens to a lot of people regardless of race or ethnicity. If anything, it will be the lawfulness of the arrest, rather than “racial profiling,” that becomes the issue in any subsequent lawsuit.

Yuengling.

Posted by: Jcbw | July 30, 2009 12:01 PM

Hey it's perfect...Black and Tan!!!!

John W, are you really saying that it's unimportant that Crowley falsified his police report to claim that a racial identification was made that never was? Doesn't that ring any alarm bells with you? Doesn't that raise any questions, any concerns? Imagine you are a black man in america today, and you see that discrepancy, is that really not going to disturb you? It's clear, Crowley heard the word intruder, and in his mind that translated to "black man" which is what he wrote in his report. That's racial profiling.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kent | July 30, 2009 9:55 AM
.
1. Did you read the police report? I gave a link to it in my post. In his report, Sergeant Crowley makes no mention of the race of any suspect in the radio dispatch that prompted the police to respond to the scene. In which case, there is no discrepancy between what Crowley put in his police report and the 911 tape.
.
2. Crowley wrote in his report that he met the reporting party at the scene. It was at the scene that he claims to have been given a description of the suspects. The so-called reporting party now says she never spoke to police and never gave such a description. This is now a he-said she-said situation, with some good reason to question the reporting party’s veracity. In the first place, the reporting party agreed with the 911 dispatcher that she would wait for the police at the scene. You can hear her at the end of the 911 dispatch tape saying, “Okay. All right, I guess I’ll wait,” after the dispatcher told her, “The police are on the way, you can meet them when they get there.”
.
If, for instance, she never spoke to Crowley at the scene, how did he get her name? How, also, is it that Crowley’s report accurately depicts the way that Gates and his driver attempted to force open the front door if he didn’t learn these facts from her? Gates’ version of the event, as provided by his lawyer, corroborates these details. (See http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/07/21/henry-louis-gates-statement-on-his-arrest-by-cambridge-pd/ ) Where else, then, could Crowley have gotten this correct information? How is it also the case that a second officer on the scene, Officer Figueroa, reported receiving the same information from the same named reporting party? In addition, it seems as thought the reporting party has come under some rather intense public scorn for being a “racist” for calling in the report. That is a good reason to want to change one’s tune now. In fact, the vehemence of the reporting party’s denials (and those of her attorney) makes one wonder if she would deny being the reporting party (or even existing) at all if she had the chance.
.
If everything happened the way the reporting party now said it did, it did not turn the case into one of racial profiling. Remember that “racial profiling” refers to the practice of police targeting individuals for investigation of crime solely or primarily on the basis of their race, ethnicity and so on. It’s pretty clear that Gates’ home was the target of an investigation because of a reported break-in, and not because the suspect in the break in was a black man. That fact is undisputable based on the contents of the 911 call and the ECC dispatch to Crowley - which contain no reference to the suspect’s race or ethnicity. In turn, Crowley approached the house and made inquiries consistent with an investigation into a break-in. He sought to identify the occupants and determine whether they were properly on the premises. Gates’ own account of the encounter, as provided by his attorney (see http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/07/21/henry-louis-gates-statement-on-his-arrest-by-cambridge-pd/ ), corroborates all of this. Had he arrested Gates on sight, when he first approached, one might have a good case for racial profiling. But that isn’t the way it happened. So where is the profiling?
.
The issue of “racial profiling” is really deflecting attention away from the more important issue in this case, and that is whether Crowley had a good reason to arrest Gates for shouting at him. The answer appears to be “No.” A person has a First Amendment right to express his verbal disagreement with police behavior as long as he doesn’t use fighting words or otherwise threaten an imminent violent response. It doesn’t appear from even the police report that such was the case. It appears, instead, that Crowley arrested Gates for “contempt of cop.” That happens to a lot of people regardless of race or ethnicity. If anything, it will be the lawfulness of the arrest, rather than “racial profiling,” that becomes the issue in any subsequent lawsuit.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 30, 2009 5:22 PM
.
Scot,
.
1. It is debatable whether capital punishment is either unchristian or barbaric. It was sanctioned in the ancient Jewish law for a variety of crimes, and nothing in the New Testament specifically enjoins the use of it.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kent | July 30, 2009 10:01 PM
.
1. To me, it is far from clear to me that Sergeant Crowley “falsified” anything in his report with regard to racial identification.
.
2. There is no mention in Sergeant Crowley’s report that he was informed by the dispatcher of the race of the suspect. Crowley merely omitted from his report that he was told that one of the suspects may have been Hispanic. In which case, there is no genuine contradiction between what Crowley put in his police report and the tape of the 911 call - as you seemed to indicate in your previous post.
.
3. Crowley wrote in his report that he met the reporting party at the scene. His report also reflects that the reporting party gave him a description of the suspects and their activity at the scene. The so-called reporting party now says she never spoke to police at the scene and never gave such a description. This has simply turned into a he-said she-said situation, with some good reason to doubt the reporting party’s veracity on this issue.
.
4. Contrary to her version, there is every reason to believe she waited for the police and spoke to them. At the very end of the 911 tape the dispatcher told her, “The police are on the way, you can meet them when they get there.” In response she said, “Okay. All right, I guess I’ll wait.” Furthermore, Crowley’s account of having met and taken a statement from her is both consistent with her expressed intent to wait for the police as well as the circumstances under which Crowley found her. He said she initiated the contact with him while holding a cell phone (which is what she used to make the 911 call). The second officer on the scene, Officer Figueroa, also reported receiving the same information from the same named reporting party. Not only that, but the report that Crowley and Figueroa took from her concerning two black men forcing their way into the front door is remarkably identical to the version of events that Professor Gates released to the public through his attorney (see http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/07/21/henry-louis-gates-statement-on-his-arrest-by-cambridge-pd/ ) In addition, it seems as thought the reporting party has come under some rather intense public scorn for being a “racist” for calling in the report. That is a plausible motive to change one’s tune. In fact, the vehemence of the reporting party’s denials (and those of her attorney) makes one wonder if she would deny being the reporting party (or even existing) if she had the chance. In short, the reporting party’s denials suffer from unresolved factual discrepancies. You can go ahead and believe that Crowley lied on the basis of a mere surface contradiction between Crowley’s report and the reporting party. I will harbor my doubts.
.
5. It is simply not true, as you state, that Crowley engaged in racial profiling. As I mentioned in a previous post, racial profiling occurs when police use race or ethnicity as the sole PREDICTOR of criminal behavior and, thus, use this factor to stop, search or arrest someone. One of the more typical examples of racial profiling is where the police have no independent basis to believe criminal activity is afoot, yet detain a vehicle full of black men on the assumption that they are more likely than not to be involved in drug dealing or gang activity. In contrast (and pay careful attention here), it is NOT racial profiling to investigate the report of a possible crime based on a citizen’s report of a crime (or sufficiently suspicious activity) even if one believes the perpetrator might be of a particular ethnic group or a citizen reports that a suspect is of a particular ethnic group. It is not racial profiling in the latter case because race is not being used as the sole or predominant predictor of criminal activity. The predictor of criminal activity is the report of the activity itself.
.
6. Crowley responded to a residence in response to a police dispatch of a possible break-in with the suspects still on site. When provided with this information, a police officer is going to know that whoever is inside a home are either legitimately on the premises or not regardless of their race. So what did Crowley do? He went to the house, informed Professor Gates he was there to investigate a possible break in and asked Gates to identify himself to determine whether he was properly in the house. The circumstances necessitated this inquiry regardless of the ethnicity of the person he contacted. And how did he describe Gates? In the radio traffic, he described Gates as “a gentleman” who was “uncooperative.” He took no further action with regard to the report of “suspects” in the house after he learned that Gates was the proper resident of the home. In short, Crowley did not use race as a predictor of criminal behavior or to initiate an intrusion that was otherwise unwarranted. That is enough to conclude that it wasn’t a case of racial profiling.

John W. I'm starting to see a pattern here of you being untruthful about what happened in this incident. That's really rather odd. The woman who made the 911 call did NOT say that she never talked to Crowley at the scene. She acknowledges that she did, but say that race never came up.
----------------------------------------
"In her first public comments, Whalen today contradicted a police report by the arresting officer, saying she had never told Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley that the men were black. She said she barely talked to Crowley.

“The only words I exchanged were [that] I was the 911 caller, and he pointed to me and said, ‘Stay right there,’” she said during a press conference at Danehy Park in Cambridge. “Nothing more than that.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/911_caller_in_g.html
=----------------------------------------
You lie, and then you imply that the woman is lying? Nice. Really nice. So what lie are you going to come up in your next wall of word post to make race no part of this issue? Does discussions of race and racism make you uncomfortable? Does the notion that there might be a racial element to this disturb you so much that you must repeatedly lie about what actually happened, and to baselessly accuse others of lying?

* * * * *
Posted by: Kent | July 31, 2009 9:41 AM
.
Kent:
.
This is what I got from CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ ) :
.
"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."
.
This was a statement made by Wendy Murphy, the attorney who represents the reporting party. In other news articles, both the reporting party and her lawyer change this a little bit to say that she never spoke with Crowley other than to indicate that she was present. This is evidence that she denied having a conversation with Crowley. In which case, I am not lying. I am representing the facts the best I know how. If this reporting party and her lawyer weren’t all over the map with regard to what she did and didn’t do, I might have had a better opportunity to be more accurate.
.
And you say you perceive “a pattern here of [me] being untruthful about what happened in this incident”? A “pattern” of being untruthful implies that one is being untruthful more than once. Friend, you have yet to show that I have been untruthful even ONCE.
.
Between the two of us, Kent, you are the one being less than objective. I gave other reasons to believe she may have been less than candid. There is at least one other reason that I failed to mention. Go back and re-read my previous post. And, on top of it all, you entirely fail to address the issue of what is and isn’t racial profiling. I’ve told you twice now, and it all slides off of you. I personally don’t think you are interested in the truth at all. You are simply interested in calling Crowley a racist. If that is what you want to do, then do it and be done with it. But don’t involve me in YOUR problem.

Posted by: John W. | July 31, 2009 12:22 PM
.
PS My apologies for my post at July 31, 2009 4:00 AM. I only intended to post the last six paragraphs or so. The problem is that I copied more from the page on which I was composing posts. I did not intend for the rest to see the light of day.

John W, perhaps you should give the 911 caller the same benefit of the doubt that you demand for yourself when it comes to truthfulness. You might also want to consider whether that the exchange between the caller and Sgt Crowley as the caller describes it falls under any rational definition of "conversation". You might also consider whether the representations of an attorney are to be considered as better evidence than the direct statements of the involved party. However you are much to committed to deny race had any part of this incident to consider any of those things, aren't you? If it takes calling the 911 caller a liar in order to shield Sgt. Crowley, I'm sure you will stay committed to that position, no matter what facts and evidence appear.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kent | July 31, 2009 1:22 PM
.
I have no doubts at all about my truthfulness. In which case, I have no need to give myself the benefit of any doubt. The reporting party’s version given by her attorney’s is the only one version of the events that I had read until today. That’s something I’m sure you didn’t consider before falsely accusing me of lying.
.
And, no, I don’t consider the reporting party’s newest version of the events as having described a “conversation.” A conversation is an exchange of ideas, sentiments, opinions, or observations. Saying, “Hi, I’m the caller,” followed by an order from the officer to “Stay right there,” is not an exchange. If that’s what happened, they were talking past each other. Furthermore, it was her lawyer who said there was no conversation. One can safely assume that her lawyer spoke to her and that she told her lawyer what had happened before the lawyer made her statement. A lawyer isn’t worth very much if he or she can’t keep the facts straight. The fact that the reporting party even got a lawyer is a fact that gives me reason to doubt her motives. Is she in trouble? Is she going to sue someone? Why get a hired gun?
.
I might add that you are the one who is linguistically challenged. I have never really resolved the veracity issue between the caller and the officer. I said there are reasons to doubt her veracity, and that I harbor those doubts. She very well may be telling the truth, but I doubt it. For me to resolve these doubts in her favor, she has to explain the discrepancies a little better; and/or maybe the officer has to be tripped up a little more. In which case, I haven’t exactly called her a liar, as you have stated (although I’m leaning that way). I even told you that you were free to believe her if you wanted.
.
And, no, I’m not trying not to see racism in all of this. As I have already explained more than once, however: whatever exchange took place between Crowley and Gates during the investigation doesn’t appear to be the consequence of racism. Even racists do an awful lot of non-racist things every day. Is it racism for a racist milkman to deliver milk on Monday? Is it racism for a racist postal worker to properly deliver your daily mail? If not, then how is it racism when a police officer conducts an investigation based upon a report of suspicious circumstances from a citizen (even if he is a racist)? Racial profiling, as I have said a number of times already, is the use of race as a predictor of criminal behavior. Crowley didn’t use race to predict any behavior at the house. He responded to Professor Gates’ home based on a police dispatch detailing suspicious circumstances. He then proceeded to resolve the question of whether the occupants were properly there. Where is the racism in that?

So now having a lawyer means your lying? Are you kidding me? Wow, you really are out of touch with reality, aren't you? Guess what John. Sgt Crowley has a lawyer too. Does that prove he's lying?

You doubt the caller's veracity because she had the nerve to hire a lawyer. You brush off, that we actually have her description of the suspects on tape, saying one might be hispanic, and she didn't see the other one well enough. You actually have her lying twice, don't you John? So she lied in the initial call, or when she told Crowley they were black, and then lied again saying she never said that, No, you choose to ignore the actual tape, and implausibly decide she has lied multiple times because she has an attorney.

Yet in a case where two indpendent individuals, who have never met, both claim that Sgt. Crowley was not telling the truth in his police report, you chose to believe him completely. Amazing. It never ceases to shock me how blind some people can be, and how willing they are to believe what ever "authority" tells them. He's a cop, so he must be telling the truth, right John, not like that shady lady who, gasp, has a lawyer, or that man who was wrongly arrested in his own home.

The racism is showed in the fact that Sgt Crowley responded to a crime scene, where there had been NO claim that blacks were involved. By the time he writes his report, the criminals are described as black. He then assumes the first person he sees is the criminal, even though he doesn't fit the description given, rather than as the home owner. All along , Sgt. Crowley assumed the intruder was black, based on nothing more than his own prejudices and stereotypes. He predicted that the crinminal was black, not from a description, and treated Gates accordingly. He also seems to have been rather upset that a black man was not as meek and subservient as he would like, so he handcuffed the man with a cane, and dragged him off to the station. He sure taught Gates not to be uppity, didn't he? No, no chance of racism in that. But then, Gates hasc a lawyer, so he's probably lying. It's all a big conspiracy to smear Crowley right John? Those lawyers, always conspiring, always lying, always protecting the bad people against the perfect, honest, saintly cops. What a laugh. Completely absurd.