2005
OPD 940
Once OPD
Always OPD
Always OPD
2005 OPD 940 |
|
Once OPD Always OPD |
|
|
[June 5, 2005 ** Who is Harry Harris] HarryHarris Who is this Harry Harris? As your OPD940 Secretary-Treasurer it is my responsibility to know who is coming. I don't know Harry Harris and he is coming. But then, I don't know many of the newer guys that have been around the Department lately. So I asked around. Seems he was a kid just starting his Police Beat for the Oakland Tribune when I left in 1975. Heck, I was working for the Oakland Tribune way before Harry. I've got about 20 years seniority. In 1955, 50 years ago, I had Tribune paper routes OT9, OT10, and OT11. We were only allowed to have one paper route but I got two older kids who were retiring to stay on as "straw-men" for me because I could handle it and I needed/wanted the money. Sunday mornings were the only hassle because it meant getting up at 05:00, collating the various sections and rubber banding the large bundles. The Truck dropped the Tribunes at Broadway Terrace and Golden Gate , banded with a heavy solid wire. Early morning dark was ok under the street light, and I was covered for the rains with an arrangement where deaf Old Man Chase gave me a key to his side hinge garage door. While the other kids grumbled I whistled. My first ethics issue was what to do after witnessing some kids drop the inserts into a storm drain to lighten their loads. I had to ignore it or be discovered about having multiple routes. Besides, they were little rich brats. The dailies I could handle with my canvas front and rear pouch bags but the Sundays needed more effort. I had made a rolling rig out of discarded lumber, metal roller skates, and an American Flyer wagon. It went through much iteration. My best moments were sitting in this contraption leaning back against some plywood, butt easily fitting on a two by six and hands clutching the center-pinned two by four crossbar that I steered with a looped length of clothesline. The wagon handle was shortened and attached behind me in articulated fashion. It took both mine and my brother's metal roller skates in eight halves fastened at just the right spots to make it work. Up-hills were a strained effort at dragging the thing, and down-hills were often spilled disasters. I had to have a rope in the back to restrain the mounting inertia walking and holding from behind on much of the down-hills. Each route required going back to the drop off point and beginning over. The Tribune taught me ingenuity, effort, financial management, salesmanship, timeliness, complaint handling, social intelligence, and most of all a hard work ethic that meant we were responsible for our own successes and failures (how trite). I got to receiving regular tips and found other ways to increase my earnings. I expanded my operation to include washing cars, cleaning yards, watering flowers, feeding dogs, baby sitting, and just about anything that could earn me more money. I charged a basic 25 cents an hour but learned that flat fee bidding was the smart way to go. I remember one big job washing and waxing a Cadillac for a lawyer for three dollars! Not bad considering as I recall a whole month's Tribune cost $3.25. When I first saw Harry Harris' photo I thought I was looking at Arizona 's John McCain, and thus the identification was a warm one. I found an article with a Harris Interview so I might as well reprint it here and drop the all-about-me. Crime reporting Q: What can reporters do to get beyond the typical police response, "It's all in the press release"? Harry Harris: You have to remember that police officers don't always know what reporters are looking for. Rarely will they put in a press release personal information about a victim, such as his profession, family background or criminal history. (In fact, in some areas, volunteering such information might be against the law.) They don't put in a motive, especially for murders. That is the kind of stuff we need to make our stories better. Q: What's the best way to get that information, given that reporters most likely are on deadline? A: Some of it can be found by the reporter on his own, but that sometimes takes time we don't always have, especially as deadline draws closer. What I try to do is explain to the officer why we need the additional information, which -- if they have done a thorough job -- they should have. I have even told police investigators that asking some personal questions (family background, if the victim was an outstanding athlete, school leader or the like) might break the ice and make their interviews with suspects, family members and other witnesses easier. Q: Any other tricks for getting more information? A: One of the things I say to police is: "If we present a victim as more than just a number, show their human side, then maybe someone who knows about the killing might have a twinge of conscience and call investigators with information that leads to an arrest." Another thing to stress to the officers is that providing information about a victim and a motive will prevent panic in the area where the crime took place. People generally are worried about random crimes. If it can be shown that the victim was the intended target that makes people feel easier. Q. Do you have tips on getting information about other crimes? A: As to other crimes, like robberies and rapes, stress to investigators that it is important to let people know if the crimes are part of a series or just an individual act. Tell them that printing more details, at least those that won't jeopardize the case, might get them the lead they need. Will they be releasing surveillance pictures? Sketches of suspects? That kind of thing.There are times when police do trap a suspect by not releasing every detail to the press. That way, when a suspect comes in and knows some detail that only the suspect would know, but claims to have read it in the newspaper, the investigators can trip him up. And don't be afraid to let investigators or officers know you will get their name in the newspaper. Everyone has an ego, even cops. Q: What is the best way to get people in the department to talk to you? A: Get to know the players. If there is time -- and you should try to make time -- chat a little with each person each time you see him, even if it has nothing to do with police stuff. And, whenever possible, go see these people in person. That way, they can put a face to the voice. Also, don't ignore the civilians. Get to know the secretaries or those who work in the different units. Knowing the support people should get you through first to the people you need, instead of the so-called hotshot out-of-town reporters who swarm in on big stories. Q: What's the best approach to take at the scene of a crime A: At a crime scene, talk to the sergeant in charge or the watch commander. I have found that patrol officers, once they see that the sergeant or lieutenant is talking to you, might feel more comfortable talking with you. Q: Why can police officers be so uncooperative? A: Police are there to solve crimes and help convict criminals. They don't want to release anything they feel might jeopardize that. They get upset when reporters find out such things on their own. That is one reason they can be uncooperative.Police have been burned in the past. I can think of one incident: A man had a fatal heart attack in his garage, and while falling to the pavement, struck his head on the fender of his car, causing a huge bloody gash. Well, the investigators knew what had happened and told the man's relatives. But the reporter - who probably talked to an officer who wasn't even there - wrote that the guy was shot to death during a robbery. As you can imagine, this caused some problems with the family. Another thing is that police do a very difficult job often in extremely stressful situations. Many think that the press is too quick to criticize them, especially without knowing all the facts, and is reluctant to praise them -- like when a beat officer makes a key arrest or rescues someone. The press is sometimes too quick to print allegations made by so-called victims or witnesses, who might have a grudge against an officer, without trying to check them out. What really upsets them is if they are misquoted or something gets into print out of context. Police are like anyone else. They don't like to be embarrassed, and they don't like to be wrongly accused. Police realize that they are sometimes going to be involved in something controversial and they accept that. I probably have written more police misconduct stories than anyone, and have found is that if you present an accurate, balanced story, you should not have problems. Reporters should make an effort to convince a police officer to judge them on their merits and not make a blanket indictment of all reporters. A reporter should stress to the officer that he does not think all cops are bad. If you respect the work police do, tell them that. And don't be afraid to ask them for clarification if there is something about a case or new technology you don't understand. I don't think it is wrong to even go over specific quotes with them. Reporters can be humble. It shows the police officer you are human. But if you do not like police, don't try and make them think you do. They deal with liars and cheats all the time and can tell by your eyes, body movements and other signs if you are telling a lie. And if they believe that about you, then your usefulness to your newspaper in covering cops is nil. Q: Is covering police and crime something you can learn? Or, do you have to have a nose for it? A: It is a little bit of both. In some cases, like mine, it can be hereditary. My dad was a photographer for The Oakland Tribune in the 1930s. After World War II, he started his own photography business and stayed in close contact with The Trib and other reporters and photographers. I remember him taking me to the old pressroom at city hall, which was right out of the movie "The Front Page." I crawled on the floor while he drank and played cards with reporters from different papers. Plus, growing up across the street from the emergency room at Highland Hospital and running after ambulances and seeing all the blood and gore didn't hurt.I think crime reporting allows reporters to show their skills -- from gathering information for the story to showing what kind of writer they are. You can take some chances &endash; be colorful, compassionate, take an occasional stance, even. Q: Why is it so difficult for some young reporters to cover police? A: The truth is that some people don't like covering police. They don't like police; they don't like gore and the tragedy involved. To me, crime reporting is the most exciting job on the paper. You can honestly say you don't know what might be happening in the next few minutes. Like anything else, you get better with experience. When I was a young reporter many, many years ago, I covered a grisly Berkeley murder where there was dismemberment and burial of the body under a home. I struggled to write eight inches on my typewriter. The assistant city editor edited it with a big black pencil and moved stuff all around. He told me later that I had all the stuff there; it just had to be moved around a bit. Now I could write 30 inches easy about the same story with little editing needed. I guess it's a case of the more experience you have, the better you do your job -- and in my case, the more I love my job. Harry Harris can be reached at Hharris@angnewspapers.com . ***Back to top [June 5, 2005 ** Plummer/Brown/Tucker Troika] All of you who know the real story behind Chief Tucker's appointment must be chuckling at those of us who don't. ps. Now this will make this post a little long, but it is interesting. Apparently Brown sent a letter out soliciting support and contributions to his campaign. No problem. Actually I've known of Brown since he was Pat's boy and I like him. He's fiscally conservative and a thinker. In fact that's his problem, probably, in that he is very abstract ("...what does interim mean?" - "Aren't we all interim?") than pragmatic (completely in charge of what?) in my observations. So I checked for bloggers on the Internet and find this response: Today I received a letter in the mail, a form letter solicitation from his campaign, asking for a contribution to his election fund. The fundraising letter ended with the sentence "Feel free to contact me directly..." and offered an email address, so I sent the following:
***Back to top [May 30, 2005 ** Federalist/Republican] If anyone thinks modern politics, including dragging kicking and screaming the Supreme Court into the pig pen of partisan politics, is anything new I've got interesting news for you. Bypassing similar major divisions, chasms, of idealism, thought and partisanship during the first Protestant landings on our shores, the Articles of Confederation, the Revolutionary war, The Declaration of Independence and our very Constitution of the United States , it seems that our form of government has been at most times in normal status with deeply committed opposing sides. Today, if one is a Democrat or Republican, set with gnarled teeth each at the other, it is merely an exact replay of the Federalists and Republicans barely at the formation of our United States . The Federalists, led at the end of the 1700's by President John Adams and his hand picked Chief Justice John Marshall had half the various leadership on their side in a bared tooth face off against the Republicans like two time President and author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson with James Monroe and Aaron Burr as likewise partisans. The opposing sides were engaged in an arena of acrimony that routinely grew from insults to fist fights and worse. Imagine an election for President of the United States as typically described in Virginia (the home of Washington DC ) in 1796 or 1800. Any white male known to own property could approach one of two long tables set up outside. Around the tables were shade trees with political sponsors offering free whiskey and beer to entice voters to their candidates. As a voter approached one of the two partisan tables, the person seeking (re)election could beckon the potential voter with loud voice and compelling argument. The voter could go from one table to the other until he verbally announced his choice for all to hear. There would be hollers of praise from one table and surrounding spectators and hoots from the other. The division of political thought was simple but confusing. For example, everyone knew that a Republican was strongly in favor of the sovereignty of States Rights and Individual Liberties, versus the Federalists who made no compromise in their efforts to make the Federal Government absolutely "supreme" and for the states to be subordinate in every way to it. The Federalists were frequently branded as monarchists, and that seemed consistent with their efforts to make the first National Federalist "King George Washington." During these tumultuous years the Federalists, strikingly parallel with today, were represented by the New England States and the Republicans were strong in the Southern States. The divisions between these two factions were so great that discussions in newspapers, pamphlets and speeches referred commonly to secession of Virginia , North Carolina and other Southern States based on politics well before the issue of slavery became important in itself. I mentioned earlier how John Adams made the political move to place Federalist John Marshall on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of 1796 had only six Justices and they were packed with Federalists. During this time period the Federalists pulled a coup on the Republicans. They passed along party lines the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it unlawful in essence to criticize the government which was coincidentally Federalist (it had a sunset of 1800 just in case the Republicans won the next election). Although the Act sounded generic, the prosecutions were all focused on Republicans and the trials were a raucous circus. Supreme Court Justices often made roundhouse anti-Republican speeches from the bench. Fortunate for Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and others outspoken during our founding, they only had to be concerned about offending the British King separated by an ocean. The Supreme Court Justices at the time were no more than Circuit Judges who sat with extreme partiality directing their Federalist wishes on the jury. The records show edicts and speeches that Justice Chase and others hurled at the Republican defendants who had given "seditious" speeches or written such articles in pamphlets or newspapers as being as inflammatory and one-sided as one can imagine. The Supreme Court Justices could be as pompous as they liked, even with the relegated minor roles they were afforded, and were known to wear powdered wigs, regal ermine robes, and specially tailored outfits. In all fairness it was Marshall who brought the practice of plain black robes later. President Adams lost his reelection campaign to Thomas Jefferson who swept in with overturning majorities in both houses of Congress. Times were going to change in favor of the Republicans. Or were they? The courts were packed with Federalists and Marshall would pave their highway. As a footnote, it was the Anti-Federalists, those interested in Republican ways who successfully insisted on the Bill of Rights over considerable Federalist objections. The Republicans expected that the Bill of Rights would protect the States and their citizens from the ambitions of the Federalists and their notion of a strong Federal Government. Nevertheless Marshall sowed the seeds, and although the plant of Federal excess would grow very slowly over the next two centuries it would nevertheless flower into more than the Federalists would even hope for. It is a paradox and ironic that this same Bill of Rights intended as a Republican protection would become in the second half of the twentieth century the very toolbox for substantial Federal intervention and justification for regulations and social constructions into all facets of our lives. Many now note that each of the Bill of Rights Amendments is being slowly but effectively "reinterpreted" and re-Judiciously/Legislated by current Supreme Courts to reflect original Federalist notions, international considerations, minority positions, big city polls, and liberal idealism. ronoz ***Back to top [May 24, 2005 ** Can We Talk?] Subject: [openline] Can we talk? Date: After all day meetings, and worn out from discussions with give and take, and take and give. I still had to go the Office Depot to pick up some things. Oh yeah, I already went earlier to the San Leandro Office Depot and Costo in lieu of lunch for committee supplies. I was tired, hot and impatient. Am I setting up excuses? Anyway, I pulled into Office Depot in Emeryville about 18:30, took one look around, and thought to myself with a quick glance at the help. "Oh no, should I go out to Walnut Creek where the service is likely to be a higher caliber?" Was I really saying. "Oh no, Blacks and Asians." Looking back, I don't think it had anything to do with race or ethnicity, directly. but indirectly? I know I'm guilty of. dare I say it. oh, yes, we're all friends and you know what I really mean. occasionally just not having the patience to deal with affirmative action employees with one foot out of ghetto life. It seems from my experience that sometimes some Blacks working in stores in certain parts of certain towns can act just so dumb and not understand what I want. Also, it often seems that some Asians (think Chinese) often require almost sign language to get something across. There. that must have been racist! But I'm not a racist. Am I? I went back to the Business Services counter which was (wo)manned by one person (Black). About 7 Black people approached the counter a split second before me. Oh no. Was I going to be white-boy'd to wait a half hour? I barely had time to take a long sigh when the employee beamed a big smile and said loudly that because there were so many people at her counter that she would call someone in to help. A Filipino showed up. More Blacks showed up at the counter for service. They began talking as if their turn was ahead of mine and I was just a Cigar Store Cowboy. I stood quietly lest I appear pushy. Monique, as I came to know her later, the Black employee, said very politely to the others at the counter that I (you know, the only white boy in the store.) had been waiting patiently but that everyone would be helped quickly. She asked me to step to the side counter and flashed me the most friendly welcome smile I'd seen all day. maybe all week. It really "felt" friendly. I'll say one thing about Black women smiles. They can be so warm, so pretty, and so disarming. Mexican smiles are nice too. Actually, come to think of it all smiles from all people turn me on. Responding to her polite, quick and to the point question I was equally quick to tell her what I wanted. thinking to myself the complicated part of the desk embossing machine I wanted with specific 20, 12, and 10 points type-face and Times New Roman bold strike fonts in a vertical 2inch diameter with ya da da da.. I just knew that would set her back a bit. but I was condident that there must be a college-boy manager around to interpret. Was that racist? Now mind you I am awed with respect for the Condoleeza Rice's, the Colen Powell's and the Clarence Thomas' of this world, but I haven't seen too many of their caliber in Oakland or Emeryville stores. But that is a pretty high bar. To the point, this woman (you know, as in "these" people) was sharp and way ahead of me. She whipped out the right form, turned to the correct pages in the catalog, and without breaking a smile almost patronized me. but not quite. After all, I knew exactly what I wanted. After changing my mind a half dozen times and watching her without the slightest hesitation begin the order form over again, and again, she came up with a great idea. Why not photocopy the part of the triplicate form I kept screwing up and let me make all the mistakes I wanted (she didn't call them that) on these scratch sheets. She went back and forth to help other people, juggling them with obvious proficiency, all the while watching me as I crumpled up page after page. Finally I got it right and she filled out the formal form. She educated me that for my purpose Helvetica would be a better font, and then I listened raptly while she rattled off the merits and demerits of my design, the point sizes and the placement of the characters, until we got it just right. The operative word is We.... but it was all Her. I told her I had to know her name and discovered it was Monique. Then I demanded to see the manager. A call on the loudspeaker brought Mark. Of course it was Mark Wong. Half my size and a third of my weight I thought I would give him a bad time. I said in a stern voice, "I bet you get lots of comments about the service around here!" He cringed, but in a way that seemed to indicate he could still let it wash of his Peking duck's back. Then I told him that "Monique has to be given some shares in this company because she turned around my whole day." I was effusive and loud enough for Monique to hear me tell him that I know a thing or two about employees and she was top notch. So, if I wasn't a racist, and I could pass a polygraph on that one, I sure acted like one. or did I? Do we have the right to look around and think that by and perceiving apparent "low-lifes" (isn't everything about perceptions?) in a store that we would be better off going somewhere else? How do we get those stereotypes? I know. We get them because we only occasionally get a Monique and we regard her as a complete exception, a pleasant one. After all we all know exceptions are not expectations. I'm going to do some more thinking about racism and try to articulate this gray area to discuss. I never heard, in all my early years on OPD, anyone call a "Willie" or "Leroy" by the "N" word. I've also seen in many everyday civilian situations where Black strangers are involved that white people are soooooo nice to Black people. almost like acting with a "nice doggie" and hoping they don't get bit. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to let many Black people, with their overt anti-white rhetoric and overly exclusionary Black-is-where-its-at attitude off the hook. Talk about racism.. Ronoz ***Back to top [May 23, 2005 ** The Oakland Jungle] From: "Ron Oz" RONOZAWAY@HOTMAIL.COM Oh my goodness... 775 complaints going back 2 1/2 years... that's what, less than half a complaint for each cop per year. How does this compare with complaints about other City employees, or Wall Mart employees? And what of the type of complaint? Rudeness? And what of the veracity of the complaint? All come from nuns and priests? Oh, how unfair to receive a citation... I think I'll complain. Whadayathink? Is this a job for muckraking Upton Sinclair's The Oakland Jungle or Lewis Carroll's Adventures in Oakland , or even George Orwell's Oakland Animal Farm? Can one imagine a hierarchy of imbeciles who feel that Oakland can be made safer by lowering the complaint rate while ignoring the crime rate? Can anyone blame an OPD for avoiding contact lest he offend someone? If each OPD issued one complaint each year about how they are treated by the administration of Oakland would the full force of Judicial Review be cursed upon them? If each OPD issued a complaint about each person who spit on them, hit them, abused them, disrespected them, lied to them, perjured their testimony in court, conspired against them, made false accusations and presented false evidence, and even tried to kill them.... then how would those complaints be handled??? Or would the lesson be that with police work complaints go with the territory. That's fair, so try telling that to the malcontents who take advantage of the weenee wimps who invite their malapropisms. ronoz ***Back to top Disclaimer: This is merely an opinion expressed with full confidence in The First Amendment. It is not intended to defame or disrepute any person alive or fictional, and any such inference is purely coincidental. From: R Souza Oakland police have many watchdogs There have been 2,783 burglaries, 2,712 car thefts and 28 homicides so far this year in Oakland -- but when it comes to investigations, it turns out the biggest unit in the embattled Police Department is the one investigating the cops themselves. "It's ironic, isn't it?" said acting Chief Wayne Tucker. Indeed it is. There are 700 cops in the city. The homicide unit has 10 officers, burglary has 11, robbery 13 and sex crimes 22. And internal affairs? Twenty-three full-time investigators and brass. By comparison, San Francisco , with nearly triple the number of cops -- 2,152 -- has an internal affairs unit of only eight officers. San Jose , with 1,369 officers, has an internal affairs unit of 10. The reason behind Oakland 's big number can be summed up in one word -- "Riders." They're the four cops who were accused of falsifying police reports, planting evidence and beating suspects in West Oakland . So far the case has resulted in two mistrials after juries either acquitted the cops involved or couldn't come to a verdict. But there also was a civil suit filed against the city by 119 people who said they had been victimized by the Riders. As part of the settlement of that case, the city entered into a court- approved agreement to crack down on police misconduct -- and use all the police staffing it took to do it. As a result, Oakland 's internal affairs unit swelled from six investigators to the current 23. And every investigator investigating cop complaints means one less investigating robberies, burglaries and the like. The city is also paying outside monitors $2 million a year to make sure that complaints against the cops are handled in a thorough and timely manner. And while progress has been made, problems continue. Last week, the outside monitor team reported at least 775 complaints of police misconduct had gone uninvestigated -- some of which dated as far back as January 2003. So, even with the beef-up, "they're not doing a very good job," fumed City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente. "I've already given the chief a piece of my mind on this. Hopefully, something will be done." With this many cops on the case -- one can only hope. ***Back to top [May 22, 2005 ** American way is winning.] Souza posted an article about the impending Democrat filibuster, and I bring it up only to make some more general points. In politics, today, yesterday, and through all time in all places, it is never about who's right, but rather who can win. It's kind of like the advocacy process for our Justice System. The facts aren't necessarily interpreted differently, although that certainly happens, but rather facts are harvested by people who already have their belief systems in place (bigots?). It's very simple really, offer a fact, or a portion of a fact, that bolsters your position and ignore the rest. If you can't find a fact then put in an anecdote that favors your position. If you can't find a fact or an anecdote then find a rumor and repeat it enough so it becomes an apparent fact. Oh yes, and present statistics in any form you want. Scare tactics help also. Probably the best tool in politics, because it is resorted to so often, is to forget any argument whatsoever and attack the opposition personally. So what are the true facts about the Senate's role in Advice and Consent for Presidential appointments? The Constitution is very specific as to the President and the Senate. "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law." So you see, it takes two thirds of the Senate to "concur" for Treaties, but there is no mention of concurrence for the appointment of Judges. No, Judges for the Supreme Court are lumped in no more importantly than Ambassadors or even the lowest appointment under "all other officers." But obviously if a simple majority of the Senate cannot consent, then the Senate by definition has not consented and the President's appointment cannot stand. So the simple answer is that the Senate need only have a simple 51 vote majority to confirm the President's appointments. All other arguments are pure politics. It would seem that when reading the Constitution that if Congress only can declare war, and it may do so with only a simple majority, that the issue of Presidential appointments to the Courts would likely not require any more weight. One more item, and that is that all the elected leaders of our great country may be elected, appointed by the people, by only a simple majority of only one single vote. It is likely that our Founders thought of this when they sought to fix no more than a simple majority for the appointment of Judges as well. But then again, this is politics, and being right only means winning. To prove my words, and should you have time for more casual reading. Read carefully the following statement by my great Senator from Nevada , Harry Reid. You are very likely to enjoy his words or rebuke them as fans in opposite bleachers of American Politics and not on the real facts. ronoz ....The filibuster is not a gimmick. It has been part of our nation's history for two centuries. It is one of the vital checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers. It is not a gimmick. Also, Republicans have not been accurate in describing the use of the filibuster. They say the defeat of a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees is unprecedented. In fact, hundreds of judicial nominees in American history have been rejected by the Senate, many by filibuster. Most notably, the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States was successfully filibustered in 1968. And during the Clinton Administration, over 60 judicial nominees were bottled up in the Judiciary Committee and never received floor votes. In addition, Republicans engaged in explicit filibusters on the floor against a number of Clinton judges, and defeated a number of President Clinton's executive branch nominees by filibuster. It's the same Advice and Consent Clause - why was a Republican filibuster of Surgeon General nominee Henry Foster constitutional, but a Democratic filibuster of Fifth Circuit nominee Priscilla Owen unconstitutional? The Republican argument doesn't add up. And now, the President of the United States has joined the fray and become the latest to rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality. Speaking to fellow Republicans on Tuesday night, he said that the Senate "has a duty to promptly consider each.nominee on the Senate floor, discuss and debate their qualifications, and then give them the up or down vote they deserve." Duty to whom? The radical right wing of the Republican Party who see within their reach the destruction of America 's mainstream values? It's certainly not duty to the tenets of our Constitution or to the American people who are waiting for progress and promise, not partisanship and petty debates. The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States . Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees "an up or down vote." It says appointments shall be made with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote. This fact was even acknowledged by the Majority Leader on this floor last week. Senator Byrd asked the Majority leader if the Constitution accorded "to each nominee an up or down vote on the Senate floor?" Senator Frist's answer? "No, the language is not there." Senator Frist is correct. And the President should read the same copy of the Constitution that Senator Frist was referring to. It is clear that the President misunderstands the meaning of the Advice and Consent Clause. The word "Advice" means "Advice." President Clinton, consulted extensively with then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch. Senator Hatch boasts in his autobiography that he personally convinced President Clinton to nominate Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court instead of more controversial choices. In contrast, this President has never ever sought or heeded the advice of the Senate. But now he demands our consent. That's not how America works. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the Executive branch. Rather, we're the one institution where the Minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the Majority. Today, in the face of President Bush's power grab, that's more important than ever. Republicans want one-party rule. The Senate is the last place where the President and his Republican colleagues can't have it all. And, now President Bush wants to destroy our checks and balances to ensure that he does get it all. That check on his power is the right to extended debate. Every Senator can stand up on behalf of the people who have sent them here and say their piece. In the Senate's 200 plus years of history, this has been done hundreds and hundreds of times.to stand up to popular presidents arrogant with power.to block legislation harmful to America's workers.and yes - even to reject the President's judicial nominations. Who are the nominees now before the Senate? Priscilla Owen is a Texas Supreme Court Justice nominated to the Fifth Circuit. Justice Owen sides with big business and corporate interests against workers and consumers in case after case, regardless of the law. Her colleagues on the conservative Texas court have written that she legislates from the bench. Her own colleagues have called her opinions "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric," her interpretation of the law to be "misconceptions," and even rebuked her for second guessing the legislature on vital pieces of legislation. If she wanted to legislate, she should run for Congress. If she wants to interpret and uphold the law, she should be a judge. She can't do both. In case after case, Justice Owen's record marks her as a judge willing to make law from the bench rather than follow the language and intent of the legislature or judicial precedent. She has demonstrated this tendency most clearly in a series of dissents involving a Texas law providing for a judicial bypass of parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions. She sought to erect barriers that did not exist in law, such as requiring religious counseling for minors facing a tough choice. Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court justice nominated to the D.C. Circuit, is using her seat on the bench to wage an ideological war against America 's social safety net. She wants to take America back to the 19th Century and undo the New Deal, which includes Social Security and vital protections for working Americans like the minimum wage. Every Senator in this body should tell the more than 10 million working Americans already living in poverty on minimum wage why someone who wants to make their life harder and destroy their hopes and dreams should be elevated to a lifetime to one of the most powerful courts in the country. Justice Brown has been nominated to the court that oversees the actions of federal agencies responsible for worker protections, environmental laws, and civil rights and consumer protections. She has made no secret of her disdain for government. According to Justice Brown, government destroys families, takes property, is the cause of a "debased, debauched culture," and threatens civilization. Moreover, Justice Brown received a "not qualified" rating from the California Judicial Commission when she was nominated for the California Supreme Court in 1996 because of her "tendency to interject her political and philosophical views into her opinions" and complaints that she was insensitive to established legal precedent. Speaking recently at a church on "Justice Sunday," Brown proclaimed a "war" between religious people and the rest of America . Is this someone we want protecting the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state, or freedom for all Americans to practice religion? She has expanded the rights of corporations at the expense of individuals -- arguing to give corporations more leeway against attempts to prevent consumer fraud, to stop the sale of cigarettes to minors, and to prevent discrimination against women and individuals. Janice Rogers Brown may be the daughter of a sharecropper, but she's never looked back to ensure the legal rights of millions of Americans still fighting to build better lives for their children and children's children. These are the nominees over which the Republican leadership is waging this fight. And they are prepared to destroy the Senate that has existed for over 200 years to do it. The Senate is a body of moderation. While the White House is the voice of a single man, and the House of Representatives is the voice of the Majority, the Senate is a forum of the states. It is the saucer that cools the coffee. It is the world's greatest deliberative body. How will we call this the world's greatest deliberative body after the majority breaks the rules to silence the minority? This vision of our government - the vision of our Founding Fathers - no longer suits President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate. They don't want consensus or compromise. They don't want advice and consent. They want absolute power. And to get it, the President and the Majority Leader will do all they can to silence the Minority in the Senate and remove the last check on Republican power in Washington. The White House is trying to grab power over two separate branches of government - Congress and the Judiciary - and they're enlisting the help of the Republican Senate leadership to do it. Republicans are demanding a power no president has ever had, and they're willing to break the rules to do it. And make no mistake Mr. President. This is about more than breaking the rules of the Senate or the future of seven radical judges. At the end of the day, this about the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans. The attempt to do away with the filibuster is nothing short of clearing the trees for the confirmation of an unacceptable nominee on the Supreme Court. If the Majority gets its way, George Bush and the far right will have the sole power to put whoever they want on the Supreme Court -- from Pat Robertson to Phylis Schlafley. They don't want someone who represents the values of all Americans, someone who can win bipartisan consensus. They want someone who can skate through with only a bare partisan majority, someone whose beliefs lay in the fringes of our society. Nobody will be able to stop them from placing these people on the highest court in the land - extremist judges who won't protect our rights and who hold values far outside the mainstream of America . Here's what's really at stake here: The civil rights of millions of Americans. The voting rights of millions of Americans. The right to clean water to drink and safe air to breathe for millions of Americans. The right to free speech and religious beliefs. The right to equality, opportunity and justice. And, nothing less than the individual rights and liberties of all Americans. It is up to us in this Chamber to say no to this abuse of power. To stand up for the Constitution and let George Bush and the Republican Party know that the Supreme Court is not theirs to claim. This debate all comes down to this: will we let George Bush turn the Senate into a rubber stamp to fill the Supreme Court with people from the extreme right's wish list? Or will we uphold the Constitution and use of advice and consent powers to force the President to look to the mainstream? Mr. President, I hope it's the latter. I know that is what my fellow Democrats and I will fight for, and I hope the responsible Republicans we've heard from will have the courage to join us. ***Back to top [May 21, 2005 ** Passionate JC] As passionate as JC is about these topics [see following post] he is a guy to be applauded for his first six words. 1. I think Jim's right in that it seems we're doing it all wrong in Iraq . I wrote before that the entry into the region was right for geopolitical reasons but to leave our guys as targets and to starve the taxpayers is wrong. We suffered few losses going in, but then we should have taken over the easily defended miles and miles of oil fields (no towns) and set up huge military bases. The entire Middle East would then know that we wouldn't tolerate threatening military buildups by tin can dictators or religious despots. We would then stabilize world prices for oil. We would of course pay back our taxpayers in a formula that would also release oil money to Iraq if they behaved. Then without a doubt if I was President we would give each soldier permanently handicapped 100 times more than he would get with standard military benefits, and the family of each soldier who died would get 5 times more than the victims of the World Trade Centers. 2. With the world economy stabilized and our assurance that there would be no more American Embassy hostages or easy US military targets, then the Dow and all foreign markets would stabilize. By the way, anyone notice that Iraq now has a stock market again and in 11 months it's gone up 50 times? 3. The national debt is not yet going up by trillions, but it will if we don't quit spending money needlessly. All of Congress uses taxpayer dollars for re-election projects across the country. Look at the acknowledged 3 billion dollars for a shipyard not to build new ships. 4. Social Security is not in deep poo as long as everyone recognizes that they have to take care of their retirement by investing outside the system. Every Congressman is. 5. Some soldiers are not returning because they insist on re-upping to rejoin their squads. Just as cops, there is a job to do and they join the effort voluntarily. Unlike other conflicts, there are no draftees in the Middle East ... not yet. 6. Of course major airlines are not failing for any reason in Iraq . Can't blame it on higher oil prices because many airlines are very profitable. No, it's just a simple and natural economic phenomenon. Dinosaurs get in line for extinction. 7. Gas and oil prices are the subject of cartels, fraud, environmentalists, and not Iraq . 8. If it was the rule to wait for a threat to pass into an action then why not post all cops at headquarters and hospitals to take reports from the victims? 9. There is considerable validity to the hypothesis that the terrorists and suicide (homicide) bombers that are flocking to Iraq from other countries are thankfully preoccupied from coming to the US . 10. Of course there are phony threats coming out of paranoid FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD and the rest of the spy alphabet soup. But then look at the phony threats coming out of the ACLU, the Liberals, the Environmentalists, the televangelists, the Victim class in the US, and every other group that holds up signs for causes and opens bank accounts and pockets simultaneously. 11. Yes, the rest of the world harbors bad feelings for us. But they still flock here to live and enjoy life. None of this argues against JC or the Danville Thinker. It just presents another opinion. An opinion is always right to the one expressing it. From: Jim Coleman <mztgringo@yahoo.com> Dave,et al, I understand he has an opinion, but just watch the layman's newscasts and ask urself is the Iraqi thing all worth it, i.e. KIA, injured, Hundreds of BILLIONS (and askin' for more) of $ spent, no real plan in place yet(except just send more troops &$), the recent pix scam, civil & religious unrest, "rest of world " condemnations, daily loss of innocent civilians in the hundreds, and for what, again ??? I never heard of an attack (as in Kuwait ) or perceived a real threat ('less u read the proved phony CIA/FBI threat analysis rpts). Reeks of the Korean conflict & Viet Nam wars to ME. How long are we gonna get buffaloed into sleeping thru this ? Trust me, our guys are needed HERE (USA), as fathers, family, workers & friends, a lot more than in that hell hole or dead,. But the MAN said lets (NOT Roll) go & U gotta obey DAD, i was taught), so here we are still locked up and w/at least 5 yrs more commitment yrs for some type of aid. This, while gas (oil) prices soar, the DOW is shrinking weekly, national debt growing by trillions, SS in deep poo, major airlines failing & world perception of the greatest nation on the planet is at an all time low. How do we fix it; send the wifeee on a shore up the confidence campaign. Really gonna make some Palestine or Iraqi suicide bomber or terrorist twice. Ask any returning soldier (who's been discharged) his opinion or someone that cant afford 100USD of critical meds if a million dollar tank and 3 GI's is worth it. Just MY humble thoughts, jim c ***Back to top [May 21, 2005 ** Oakland has one half.] No, I didn't write the following Letter to the Editor or I would have added much more. This poor soul thinks we need twice the number of police officers and then the crime rate will drop. My own opinion is that as long as we have the Race-Baiters and PC Provocateurs that want little blue-suited automatons without heart, soul or personal values that our citizens better think of taking care of their own safety needs. When, as has been reported, we have 25 Internal Affairs Investigators, and more drawn for such assignments from our normal Investigative staff, to chase Red Herrings, and our officers having to fill out questionnaires intended to tabulate racial quotas, and an entire Police Department ordered to pay homage to and serve a Judge and not the People then how possibly can the Citizens of Oakland feel that no matter how many officers they get the anarchy of crime, disrespect for the Law and the rights of our good Citizens will continue to deteriorate quality of life in Oakland. Every request for the police should get an immediate response. Every incident, crime or accident should get investigative follow up as required, not as available after resources are aborted, neutered, and diverted to the windmills turning on the breezes of the mis(mal)content. It has been said that there is only one Burglary Investigator, no Auto Theft Investigators, no investigations of ordinary auto accidents, and severely limited positions to investigate anything else effectively... except for the expansion of investigators investigating the Police. This is certainly not to say that any cop not able to do his job effectively and with compassion for all shouldn't be identified and retrained or fired. Of course not. But remember, the focus the 400,000 citizens of Oakland want is on the operative word "effectively," and not on political correctness or expediency. Doing the job the right way means doing it correctly, efficiently and with all the principles of protection under our Constitution for all our citizens. But as with Doctors, Judges, Teachers, and other professionals the job must be done by Officers with adequate leeway for judgment and discretion. This means they will all make mistakes, exercise or set aside personal biases, rely on their sense of fair play and fair treatment for all concerned, and most of all place their lives on the line to show that freedom is not free. Of all the professions, who could possibly do their job with bloodshot eyes of scrutiny and the sword of punishment, methods common to Inquisitions, constantly poised and magnified on their every action? ronoz LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Lake Merritt area needs full police force It is too bad that Oakland has one-half of a Police Department. In light of the rash of armed robberies and assaults that have traumatized Lake Merritt area residents, it would be nice to have a reliable and well-staffed police force to call on when needed. Unfortunately that is not the case as Oaklanders are still living with a police department that is one-half the size of the force other cities of similar size can rely on. And in spite of Measure Y passing, it appears that very, very little is going to change for quite some time. I am not surprised nor will I be surprised when the various social programs also funded by Measure Y achieve far less than advertised and waste far more money than we can afford. Oakland is overrun by thugs and social parasites and the programs offered will do nothing to change their pathologies. In addition, I bet fewer than 10 percent of the people who need attention will bother to show up. As recited in the old adage; "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink." All the programs funded by Measure Y will lead to nothing much because the vast majority of people will not take personal responsibility for their lives and prefer to live in denial and a perpetual state of victimization. In the meantime, Oakland is a "free crime zone" as thugs can prey on citizens with very, very little likelihood of apprehension and arrest. Another failure by local government that can be added to the long litany of boondoggles, miscalculations and abject buffoonery of the recent past. Jonathan C. Breault ***Back to top [May 21, 2005 ** Race Counting.] Just as OPD is required to keep racial statistics today, our Census takers were likewise concerned back in 1790. A very good friend, whether he regards me as such is irrelevant, wrote to me that the 1790 Census showed that only 3% of the country was Christian. Curiosity aroused I researched a bit and noted that the only question about religion was how many Hebrews there were and perhaps that was the 3% he was referring to. It is evident that in 1790 it was naturally assumed that there could only be minor exceptions that probably didn't merit counting to the presumption that almost all at the time were Christians. So, dropping the religious issue it is very interesting to note what was really considered important by the US Marshals who took the county by county Census. You may visit the following site and see the numbers for yourself. http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php The first Federal Census was ordered by Washington and covered Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia. The British destroyed much of the documentation when they sacked Congress in 1812. One question very important was how many males there were over 16 so that they could be conscripted into the military. Another was the size of households because our country desperately needed expanding numbers to deal with and displace the "untaxed Indians" in the pursuit of more territory. But the most elaborate and extensive questioning was centered on slaves probably for teh purpose to make sure they weren't counted in the representations of our government. This was seriously considered from before our Articles of Incorporation through the Constitutional Convention and for another 100 years past the Civil War. Note the questions of the 1790 Census and form your own impressions... WHITE MALES 16 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER TOTAL FAMILIES PERSONS OF ALL NATIONALITIES SLAVES ***Back to top [May 21, 2005 ** Justice Janice Brown] I Hope everyone interested in the concept that Justice is Blind, and that we are a Nation of Laws will read the following AP article on Janice Rogers Brown that was posted by Souza. Of course we are a Nation of Laws, and as the Right has known in the past and the Left knows so well now, those laws are interpreted by Judges. There is nothing Constitutional about this so-called Judicial Review that has spawned from a harmless and very limited notion about 200 years ago (Marbury v Madison) over a civil service appointment and grown into a Religion of Judiciary Supremacy over other branches of government today. What was conceived to be almost an afterthought and necessarily incident to good government by our Founding Fathers and the brilliant Constitution they promulgated, the Judiciary, has become a political body with all the trappings of Knights on Crusades. They joust while we jest. Machiavelli knew a thing or two about politics: "Men in general judge more by the sense of sight than by the sense of touch, because everyone can see, but only a few can test by feeling. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few know what you really are, and those few do not dare take a stand against the general opinion." Niccolo Machiavelli And this is what the Judiciary sadly has become, a political body with cheerleaders of the Left and the Right vying for judicial appointment, position and rank so they may take a hand at making laws and forcing their social agenda on others. Those who hold the ACLU founder, leader, and instigator in such high esteem for her rigteous ideals now as a seated Justice of the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) will gladly prostitute their ideals about Black indignities and label Janice Rogers Brown (as they do Clarence Thomas) as unfit enough to justify grinding the very wheels of government to a filibustered halt in order to deny her appointment. "We are more casual about qualifying the people we allow to act as advocates in the courtroom than we are about licensing electricians." Warren E. Berger "There's no need to hang about waiting for the last judgment. It takes place every day." Albert Camus "Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong." Dandemis "When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself." Wayne Dyer "The judges of normality are present everywhere. We are in the society of the teacher-judge, the doctor-judge, the educator-judge, the social worker-judge." Michel Foucault "A judge is not supposed to know anything about the facts of life until they have been presented in evidence and explained to him at least three times." Lord Chief Justice Parker "People see themselves as the center of the universe and judge everything as it relates to them." Peace Pilgrim ronoz From: R Souza <Nodui@earthlink.net> Republicans see Calif. jurist as model for filibuster fight - By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer Thursday, May 19, 2005 (05-19) 00:02 PDT San Francisco (AP) -- Janice Rogers Brown, a sharecropper's daughter who became the first black and most conservative justice on California 's Supreme Court, is a model jurist for U.S. Senate Republicans fighting judicial filibusters. So while another of President Bush's judicial nominees, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, is likely to be the flashpoint for a showdown over whether Democrats should be able to stop appointments to the nation's highest courts, Brown is being debated just as much on the Senate floor this week. In many ways, Brown's court rulings and speeches mirror the thinking of Bush and conservatives coast to coast. An outspoken Christian conservative from the segregated South, she supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely upholds the death penalty and opposes affirmative action. "A lot of judges get to the point they think they were anointed and not appointed," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday during floor debate. "I don't think anyone can contend she has performed other than admirably on the bench. She has written beautifully and thoughtfully." Brown's views are also why Democrats have used a filibuster since 2003 to block her confirmation for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate's 55 Republicans have a clear majority to confirm but not the 60 votes need to break the filibuster. "She has criticized the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws. She's questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "No one with these views should be confirmed to a federal court and certainly not to the federal court most responsible for cases affecting government action." Brown, 56, caught the attention of conservatives with her majority opinion in 2000 striking down a San Jose city ordinance requiring government contractors to solicit bids from companies owned by women and minorities. Her opinion traced the legal history of race in America , portraying it as ebbing and flowing on whether government should treat all races equally. Her 40-page conclusion boiled down to this: People should be treated equally, regardless of race. Even if an ordinance assists minorities, Brown wrote, "benign motivation cannot sanction a requirement that conflicts with the proscription against discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race and sex." California 's chief justice, Ronald M. George, concurred with Brown's opinion but attacked her portrayal of affirmative action as "entitlement based on group representation," calling it a "serious distortion of history." Brown's position, however, meshes well with the philosophy of the Bush administration, which two years ago told the U.S. Supreme Court that it opposed the University of Michigan 's race-based admissions policies. In February, she kept up her affirmative action attacks, deciding against safeguards protecting black women from being removed from juries by biased prosecutors. Her father moved his family from rural Alabama to Sacramento after joining the Air Force. Brown graduated in 1977 from the University of California , Los Angeles School of Law, then worked in state government and for several Republican governors. Close friend Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine School of Law professor, said Brown became a lawyer after her grandmother espoused the virtues of civil rights attorney Fred Gray, who defended Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. When Kmiec introduced Brown to the graduating law students at Catholic University in 2003, he said she formulates opinions "in prayer and quiet study of the Bible." Brown then took the podium and criticized philosophers and scientists for trying to mold society "as if God did not exist." The law, she said, is the "terrain on which Americans are struggling to decide what kind of people they are." She defended her faith-based approach to the law again last month, telling a gathering of Roman Catholic legal professionals in Darien, Conn., that "these are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud." Brown worked 12 years as a state government lawyer before joining a lobbying and legislative law firm led by former Republican Gov. George Deukmejian's chief of staff, Steve Merksamer. Then she became legal affairs secretary to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, who nominated her to a state appellate court in 1994. Two years later, Wilson nominated her to the California Supreme Court. She was confirmed in 1996 over the concerns of the state's judicial vetting committee, which rated her "not qualified" because of her limited judicial experience. Brown has two children and lives in Sacramento with her husband, jazz musician Dewey Parker. "She's a brilliant African American woman who is able to articulate a conservative judicial philosophy, and the Democrats can't stand it," Merksamer said. "I think it upsets the orthodoxy of the left to have someone who is brilliant and articulate who also happens to be black and female." Opponents don't see it that way. "They're hoping that people will feel uncomfortable opposing an African American woman whose father was a sharecropper," said Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society, a liberal think tank that opposes Brown's nomination. Regardless, Brown's rulings have shown sympathy at times to the plight of minorities. In 2002, the California justices upheld the drug conviction of a black man stopped for riding his bicycle the wrong way on a one-way street. Police searched the man, found methamphetamine, and he was convicted and sentenced to nearly three years. The majority, in upholding the conviction, left it to the "judgment of the arresting officer" on whether to make an arrest under the circumstances. In her lone dissent, Brown said the decision left open the door to racial profiling. Brown showed less mercy when it comes to the death penalty, writing that "murderers do not deserve a fate better than that inflicted on their victims." On abortion, Brown wrote a scathing dissent in 1997 to a ruling which struck down a parental consent law, calling her colleagues "philosopher kings." ***Back to top [May 21, 2005 ** Some won't like this.] The Oakland Police Department has gathered a lot of different people together over the past fifty years -- different in the sense that they all grew up as kids under various circumstances, all the while developing values that would be in their baggage the rest of their lives. As young adults, our people were involved in many activities in many locations until they answered the call at OPD. again for contradistinct motives. It was especially at OPD that we learned each of us was exceptional, unique and significantly different. Sure, the uniform and badge tied us together and gave us a sense of unity to ourselves and the people we served. We were told we had that "Color of Authority." We each learned the same laws and Departmental edicts but we applied them differently. One of my best friends on OPD went out of his way to cite taxi drivers, buses and big rig haulers. I went out of my way never to write any of them. He felt they were essential to the public safety and therefore deserved citations. I felt they were essential to the public safety and deserved warnings and reminders. A lot of our job was about attitudes. If a subject of our attention had "the wrong attitude" he would get special attention. The right attitude from a suspect got his some slack... but we were by nature more suspicious of a right attitude. Here again, what might be perceived as an attitude one way by my partner might get the opposite reaction from me. Oh, don't be so surprised Judges. we've seen this played out in your courtrooms countless times. Judges, in the estimation of many, are overly sensitive as to their own Color of Authority and should not be used as role models by police. Then there was the public reaction to our uniform. Some of us felt that it alone deserved respect from the public, and others felt that wearing our badge got us in the door but we still had to earn the respect of the public. But each of us couldn't help but notice that even though we wore the same uniform we were treated so differently not only in different parts the City but also from house to house, room to room, family member to family member, in the same parts of town. None of us could possibly do our jobs or even survive with an inflexible, intolerant, common-culture attitude. Anyone attempting to inculcate, brainwash, inseminate and regiment a particular ethos into OPD will only be able to attempt the rape. Since each of us traveled the OPD trip as a creature of our upbringing, and if our childhood, education and youthful life's experiences were so varied, not only as to location but also as to time period, then certainly as an organization we were/are a polyglot of sub cultural languages, ideals, values, priorities and motives. Any of us working OPD has seen this, knows it, and it couldn't be more obvious. So what is my point? Actually it's about Bigotry, and its application in the overly political process called Justice. Unfortunately it isn't blind, it's sometimes very myopic. Gathering just one recognized definition of a Bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." It appears evident that for someone to mistakenly or purposefully believe that OPD is a common culture of redneck cowboys intent on trodding civil liberties, has continued to be a such culture over 50 years, and would be a monolithic tyrannical culture in the future... and if one is self-righteously, self-aggrandizing, even earning profits while posing intolerance of that constructed paper mache pinata culture then one might likely be a Bigot. So what about tolerance? "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." Since the beliefs and practices of members of OPD are so different, unique and individual, then for a Bigot to attribute a culture (to OPD) for which he and others who "believe" similarly and will grant No Tolerance, then there must be Dogmatic Reasoning as the basis for such beliefs or some other serving motive (?). Ok, so we get to Dogma: "characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles." Those who "feel" OPD has a tyrannical and contemptible culture are exhibiting the very poster of dogmatic thinking. If it cannot be proven that even four members of OPD fit the strained definition imposed by the finger-pointers, then what possible excuse could there be to herd another 700 innocent officers into pens for slaughter? Thank goodness there is no such OPD culture-in-fact that innocents under their protection might (have) receive(d) the same labeling into stereotypical ethnology to be subjugated, humiliated, and mistreated as those who would so treat OPD. If synonyms for "Arrogant" include autocratic, bossy, disdainful, ego trip, imperious, lordly, puffed-up, hubristic, overly-presumptuous, etc... then let the glove fit the hand that wears it. So what's the bottom line? I'm of course talking about OPD and the so-called Riders. Over 700 OPD today, and over 3,000 going back 50 years, have been found guilty, branded, tarred and feathered, and lynched because of a very few well placed bigots exercising their own color of authority, tyrannically, dogmatically, and some might even say contemptibly. While only four officers were accused, an entire OPD must suffer the worst form of Inquisition upon its good reputation. The Robes of PC Anointment have visited OPD. It is ironic, painful as it is, that there was never a consideration of Reasonable Doubt, certainly no body of Clear and Convincing Evidence, not the slightest Presumption of Innocence, an absence of any sense of fair play, certainly not a normal and usual prosecution, but rather an incendiary accusation that the City of Oakland immediately capitulated and threw everything OPD stood for and accomplished into the licking flames that couldn't be satisfied. So now, where the OPD culture was a blending of so many good people, contributing their efforts so differently, and applying their sense of values as society has dealt them, it appears OPD has been captured into the Dark Side where they must be retrained and programmed to enact their roles with bared teeth but neutered bowels and bionic hearts. Bigotry, Intolerance, and Dogma has won out temporarily. Those crying, whining, squealing, know-nothing, do-nothing, so-called righteous only for their dogmatic and intolerant beliefs (you know them as "Zero Tolerance"), weak willed, limp-wrists have taken over OPD only temporarily. but the wounds are deep and will take long to heal. [Temporary: "Lasting (every day hurts), used (as in feeling used), serving (we must serve well as we are served disdain), or enjoyed (yes, some will be smug) for a limited time (with pride)."] Disclaimer: The author is solely responsible for what is here written. It is an opinion exercised under the First Amendment. There is no intention, direct or indirect, to single out any individual or group as being necessarily Bigoted, Intolerant or Dogmatic. Anyone assuming such must look into their own souls to meet their accuser. Anyone feeling inclined to apologize for these words to anyone else in particular risks the possibility of themselves labeling others as Bigots, etc. Anyone "feeling" this author is a 5150 should also feel free to purge their stultification. ***Back to top [May 19, 2005 ** Ten Commandments.] God knows I'm not a "Born-again" as I haven't found Jesus the first time, other than study and understand him from everything I've read, and I've read much more about him than most. I can't understand Jesus or God from what others have told me because they are fully involved beyond the threshold of Belief that I can't seem to tread. If there is a God she has not shunned me for I feel very fortunate, if there is no God then I'm fine with that too and perhaps take a little more credit for my own well-being. Nevertheless, I do not fear God's Ten Commandments. They seem reasonable enough to me to be a welcome set of conditions for citizens to aspire. I see nothing harmful, especially in a country such as ours that was so Christian or Godly in its Founding and in it's obvious respect for the relevance of The Ten Commandments, regardless of what so-called Atheists may say. Regardless of what some say, including the ACLU and the Supreme Court, I can find no evidence of a "separation of church and state" anywhere in our Constitution, earlier writings by involved notables, or in the Founding documents. The closest thing, and relied probably unfairly by the Supreme Court and others, is an unofficial private letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in response to their earlier query to him. As I read both letters, the Church wanted to engage in Bible studies and the State of Connecticut had told them their rights to do so were "privileges" granted by the state. Jefferson merely meant to set them at ease that there was indeed a separation, a wall, guaranteed by the First Amendment, that would NOT allow the government to limit anyone's right to engage in the free practice of his religion. Without boring you endlessly any of you can do the research and enlighten me if you find differently. If Jefferson 's closing words are any help... "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." Yes, of course Atheists should be respected every bit as much as they respect Christians, probably more so. And, had they founded this Nation they would certainly have been within their rights to try to get a Separation of Church and State in our Constitution. But, they didn't and it isn't. As for the Ten Commandments, why is it just now, interestingly enough when we are seemingly in the process of convoluting all our previous ideals, values, morals and ethics are we just discovering that the Constitution means something different than it has for over 200 years? I believe it was Andy Rooney who mentioned the following: DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments! DID YOU KNOW? As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. DID YOU KNOW? As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments! DID YOU KNOW? There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington , D.C. DID YOU KNOW? James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement: "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and All of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." DID YOU KNOW? Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ". DID YOU KNOW? Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777. DID YOU KNOW? Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies. DID YOU KNOW? Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law . anoligarchy the rule of few over many. DID YOU KNOW? The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional? ***Back to top There is surely and understandably too much inhibition on the part of many to comment either too gleefully or too sadly at the outcome of the Rider's case. Of one thing we can take solace, there was not even apparently enough of a jury consensus to find wrongdoing in the more liberal civil jury ratio. It seems unlikely that the Feds or the DA would have the stomach or gall to continue this case into the future. This was not for want of trying to hang them with everything conceivable and every talent possible. They took their best shot and missed. The Jury was simply too evenly split and racism is missing. Mike Martin makes a slight point about the old war stories that we've all told and heard. Of course, when I and those before me came on there was no Miranda and the lines of good and bad were more evenly drawn. But don't think for a minute that racism, brutality, corruption, false evidence or testimony was condoned or ignored on the part of our administration or practiced by our membership. Quite the contrary, while Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver, Angela Davis and many others were wallowing in anti-white racism and shooting at us, I never saw a case of overt racism by our cops. And, I should admit that some of my best friends are white. Yes, bad guys got thumped, white or Black, and by white or Black. What difference did color make? Searches were much more spontaneous and often without permission. Confessions were obtained without attorneys present and using trickery. But those were different times. I was pushed, slapped and kicked in the butt by Oakland cops at different times, as were my friends while I was growing up. I was also beaten with a canoe paddle at Claremont Jr. High. My dignity and self esteem were my problem, not society's. They didn't seem to notice I was white. I wouldn't have complained to Internal Affairs, sought a lawyer to sue the Department, or even told my parents for good and obvious reasons. But also cops then wrote tickets to make a difference in the accident rate, not as a means of taxation. Cops took my teenage body home drunk after parking my car safely and then chewed out my parents for not watching their brat closely enough. When I was active OPD I also took some drunks home instead of booking them. I let kids off who were just being kids instead of booking them for Burglary or even joy riding auto theft. I helped parents chew out their kids for not doing homework, being up to No Good, or just Duin-Nuttin. Without ever using the N-word I often called a Spade a Spade. As many of my fellows, I judged the situation and especially the attitudes, in deciding how I would handle things. I had high energy, high activity, and never had an Internal Affairs complaint. I handled lots of complaints against my guys by resolving them, not by covering them up. But the times were different than today, as they were different from the days before. Some of my friends as a kid came to school with welts on their bodies from the whippings they got by their dads. Our teachers let us wild ones have it. Cops were respected as guardians of the public safety and neighborhood peace. Isn't it coincidental that as the respect for cops has been eroded by those targeting the police with continually expanding political correctness and narrowing standards of acceptable conduct, and disintegrating delegation of judgment and discretion for cops to do their job, that our streets and parks have become unsafe for anyone to enjoy. Let me say something else that hasn't changed. In all the stories by the old timers, tongues loosened and wagged by liquor, I never heard a single mention of planted evidence, false testifying, or singling anyone out because of his color. If that happened in my day we would have had the same trial. Believe it. To say OPD has a contemptible culture where such practices are commonplace is ludicrous. For the City of Oakland to give up its carrots and run into a rabbit hole is what is disappointing. What sense does it make to change our whole Department by its methods and practices to conform to accusations that two juries taking over three years and a hundred days of deliberations couldn't determine that three out of over 700 even committed? The Oakland Police Department wasn't on trial and it certainly was not convicted. but it was accused and that seems to be good enough for a few in power to place every cop on the Oakland Police Department into disrepute. No, we should say and demonstrate to everyone that we will CONTINUE to do whatever we can to making our Department better. no the best. Our enforcement practices will change with the times as they always have. But we will never concede what isn't true. that we are racist, crooked, corrupt, brutal, ignorant, or uncaring. Why does it seem like no one is standing up for this? ***Back to top [May 19, 2005 ** Stirring Things Up.] Believe it or not, to those on the outside peering in, the opinions of many on OPD about the Riders are varied much as each member on OPD is an individual. It is highly unlikely that OPD vote monolithically 92% for any one Party as a bloc. There is no OPD culture in the sense that it is anything but a camaraderie of men and women who lay their lives on the line in one of the toughest and most thankless jobs around. John Larsen and a very few have posted their opinions about the Riders outcome and I have posted mine. Some post bulletins, without opinions, gathered from other sources, and that is helpful. Private emails find some politically against and others for the so-called Riders. But many guard their opinions with careful secrecy so as not to "stir things up." Well, let me tell you something. If Chief Tucker wants to get anything done he will have to stir things up. If each Sergeant on the street wants to get things done he/she will have to stir things up. The best way to stir things up is to get things out in the open. Teddy Roosevelt was a man of action, a man who stired things up, and his quotes are still appropriate. -People ask the difference between a leader and a boss ... The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads, and the boss drives. -The best executive is one who has sense enough to pick good people to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it. -Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month. No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expedience. The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly. There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent. Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else. To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. ***Back to top [May 19, 2005 ** Contemptible culture.] [Whew, I just read latest Souza's latest post about the so-called Riders and Judge Henderson's comments regarding OPD. Not to disappoint he who might wish to label me 5150 or those with fingers ready at the general apology key, I just can't sit still and take attacks on the OPD I knew so well without commenting. Yes, I wrote longer than many of you can survive with your glaucoma, myopia and patience, but it is important... Souza's article follows... ronoz] With all due respect to Judge Henderson I would like to offer the following personal opinion:
JUDGE PLEASED BY PROGRESS IN 'RIDERS' CASE BUT SAYS MORE WORK REMAINS 05/18/05 3:20 PDT OAKLAND (BCN) A federal judge said today that he's "delighted" and "heartened" by the progress the Oakland Police Department has made in complying with the terms of the settlement of the "Riders" police misconduct civil case. But U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson, who is overseeing the case, which Oakland officials settled in February 2003 by agreeing to pay $11 million in damages to 119 plaintiffs, said "we shouldn't still be here two years after the settlement" and said many terms haven't been complied with yet. The plaintiffs alleged that they were victims of evidence planting and beatings by four officers known as the "Riders" in the summer of 2000. Henderson said, "I'm pleased we seem to have turned a corner in this case" and praised new Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker, who was appointed by Mayor Jerry Brown on Feb. 1, for his "commitment" in attempting to get the department to comply with the terms of the settlement. But Henderson said, "One of two person alone can't change the culture at the Oakland Police Department," saying the department has a 50-year-old departure that's resistant to change. "Chief Tucker's subordinates need to show the same level of commitment in complying with the settlement," Henderson said. The judge also said he's prepared to hold contempt of court proceedings and impose monetary sanctions if the department doesn't fully comply with the settlement in the near future. Tucker told Henderson that problem areas identified by an independent monitoring team in a recent report "are not acceptable" and pledged to fix them as soon as possible. Tucker said the department is "fully committed" to being in substantial compliance with all of the terms of the settlement by the end of the year. Henderson set a hearing for Aug. 31 for another progress report in the case. In the meantime, jurors are continuing to deliberate in the re-trial of three of the Riders officers who face criminal charges that they beat and framed suspected drug dealers in West Oakland in the summer of 2000. A fourth officer is a fugitive. The three officers are standing trial a second time, as their first trial ended on Sept. 30, 2003, with jurors acquitting them on some charges and deadlocking on other charges. Jurors in the second trial have been deliberating since April 5. Jurors sent a note to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner just before lunch today asking if they can consider evidence from time periods outside the time frame of the alleged conspiracy in the criminal case. After a lunch break and a power outage that delayed deliberations briefly, Horner responded that jurors can indeed consider evidence from other time periods. Jurors then resumed their deliberations. ***Back to top [May 17, 2005 ** To Stultify.] Vocabulary can be fun... Occasionally a judge or lawyer might resort to "stultifying" an outspoken person: To cause him/her to appear stupid, inconsistent, or ridiculous. In law. To allege or prove insane. The term is derived from the Latin Stultificare (to make foolish) or Stultus. A stultus is a slow-witted, stupid, foolish or unintelligent person. Rarely would a non-lawyer use this "in" term when declaring someone foolish or insane. To stultify someone is a demeaning tactic "meant to render futile and ineffective, especially by degrading or frustrating means." For example, for a lawyer to designate someone a 5150 merely for saying disagreeable things and to color the vindictive with other derogatory diatribe (A bitter, abusive denunciation) would be an attempt to "stultify" that person. It is considered an unworthy and dishonorable tactic. Of course someone adept with the English language might turn the tables on the legal scholar and charge him with stultiloquence (foolish talk or babble, twaddle, bosh). He might say that the lawyer's stultitious blather was a bothersome but harmless tactic. Stultiloquy is to have a conversation with a really dumb person... ***Back to top [May 17, 2005 ** Oakland Revival.] Yesterday I took a four hour drive and walk around the West Oakland Area and also the Estuary. I was prompted to do so because I've seen Emeryville and Alameda do terrific things with their former blighted areas. I've watched Oakland build pre-blight projects and engage in other short sighted planning with circle execution. Also, it seems the best solutions to many of our social inadequacies are precisely the opposite of the politically correct and narrow views of many in charge. Actually, I read in another Souza post an article that the SP Station at 16th and Wood would be turned into a place for McClymonds kids to congregate. Then he posted another article about wanting to resurrect the history of 7th Street (what happened to John Singer's?). Yes, Oakland now has a Billion Dollar budget and it's difficult to see any progress in urban stature. San Francisco has a 5 billion dollar budget for a city not twice the size. I think Oakland 's future can best be served with simple themes. 1. Think Big. Get people involved who think Big. Give short shrift to people who think small or only for small segments of our population. 2. Invite thoughts for an international landmark. Everyone in SF and the Berkeley hills should unavoidably see our landmark. They should point and say "It Is There!" Gertrude Stein, you will recall, came back to her Oakland home in the thirties and said, "There is no there there!" We can surely do something 10 times bigger than the Campanile and lots more attractive than Sutro's Towers. 3. Redraw the City map to take advantage of prime view (bay, lake, SF,bridge and hills) properties that abound in Oakland . 4. Think long term for Oakland Army Base, Government Island , Port of Oakland property, Southern Pacific property, all the little old Italian homes, run down warehouses and weed filled parking lots, and so on. Drop the pin head ego that artificializes an architectural heritage that doesn't exist. 5. Emphasize high rise class A condo structures and discourage low height row condo projects. 6. De-emphasize public building construction and low income housing beyond a fair balance. Take into account all of Oakland's demographics and realize at other cities are counting on Oakland to take their poor, tired, and huddled masses while they increase their own worth and esteem. Besides, the best way to raise standards for the more unfortunate is to offer pride that low income housing ignores. The crime rate gets a break also. 7. Think Big. Get people involved who think Big. [article] The Oakland City Council is expected to vote on a proposal to build 1,600 homes in West Oakland and renovate a shuttered train station. The plan is thought to be largest involving new housing in the area in nearly 40 years. The dwellings would consist mostly of market-rate condominiums, lofts and apartments, along with 90 apartments for low-income residents and about 110 condominiums for moderate-income buyers. Under the plan, the Southern Pacific passenger train station at 16th and Wood streets would be renovated, with new shops, offices, a community center and museum on the Pullman porters. ***Back to top [May 17, 2005 ** Craig Stewart's Village.] "The African proverb that says it takes an entire village to raise its children is abundantly evident in Rohnert Park ." This is taken directly from the City Of Rohnert Park website for Recreation Activities. Hilary Clinton, who pushed The Village concept in her book and all of Europe's so called Social Democracies have followed this illusion and the experiences of mob action have flourished in the anonymity of such thinking. (Almost) Half of this country lives in urban villages where they are coddled, taken care of and as overgrown chicks in a nest where they clamor only for more government largess and direction. The other half represent the remaining cowboy mentality of individualism and self-sufficiency that Villages simply don't understand. Our Founders and their brilliant documents dedicated their efforts at Independence and Freedom from the oppression of the English Village they left behind. They wrote a Constitution that spoke so eloquently about Individual Freedoms and Rights, and deliberately restricted to a bare minimum the involvement of the Federal Village in the lives and affairs of our citizens. It is replete in human nature, from Wildings in Central Park to National Riots of Genocide. to organize in well meaning Villages and then turn its citizens into occasionally frenzied flies led to mindless violence and destruction by their power crazed Lords. Cops know what is right and wrong, good and evil, and what they should do about it. whether their recruit academies are 6 week or 52 weeks long. But when they are taken by the Pigs and regimented into Village thinking they emerge as Orwell's Dobermans and seek justice for the leaders at the expense of the people. Obviously, for those of you who read this I take Literary License to make a point. This is the beauty and our wealth, in that we still have a society where a few can say what they feel by selecting words that may be disagreeable to some but meaningful to others. As with much I write, some of you will seek to stultify while others will take notice. Sonoma County DA to Decide on Charges in Rugby Brawl Source: kcbs Publication date: 2005-05-17 (KCBS/AP) - The Sonoma County District Attorney's office is considering whether to file assault charges in connection with the weekend brawl at a high school girls' rugby match. KCBS reporter Holly Quan says Northern California rugby officials are already preparing to take action against those involved in Saturday's melee. Police have identified the Rohnert Park girls' rugby coach and his brother as the two top suspects in the incident, but up to eight other people are being sought in connection with the fight. Those two men and several others are accused of beating up Alameda 's head coach after a confrontation with an irate parent. Joe Leisek, spokesman for the Northern California Rugby Football Union, said the North Bay club has been suspended. "This is not part of the culture of the game. This is not something that happens," he told CBS-5. Alameda Riptide Coach Craig Stewart was knocked unconscious when he was kicked in the head. He told KCBS he worries for his team and for the future of the sport. "I want my girls to put it in perspective and realize this is not the norm, and this is not the way the sport is played," he said. "If you coach this type of behavior, this type of attitude, use profanity and other things, that's what you're going to get." Rohnert Park police say the trouble began when a referee ordered a spectator who had been video taping the game off the field. Instead the spectator punched the referee in the face, knocking him to the ground. Stewart intervened, holding the attacker on the ground until police arrived. But Rohnert Park detectives said that's when the coach of the Rohnert Park team and as many as eight dads then attacked Stewart. "The Rohnert Park team coach and up to seven other adult spectators from the Rohnert Park sidelines ran across the field in an attempt to free a brother from the grasp of the other team coach," said Sgt. Art Sweeney. "Police were in fact en route and when they heard the sirens they left, but not before the Rohnert Park team's coach struck the victim in the face several times and kicked him in the head." Stewart said he wound up with three stitches in his chin, four in his nose, a chipped tooth, and a minor concussion. The assistant coach of the Alameda team suffered three cracked ribs as he tried to protect Stewart. The Rohnert Park coach has not returned KCBS calls for comment. ***Back to top [May 16, 2005 ** African-Americans.] "Yo. Brother!" will have special meaning if the latest DNA studies will mean anything. We may all likely be African-Americans. Short version: DNA studies are showing that all the world's humans have come in the last 50,000 years from Africa . Long version: Notwithstanding the Bible's Genesis (pick one of several versions), there are many scientists who have postulated in the past that Man (from Woman) evolved as separate races in separate parts of the world. My own most acceptable classification learned was that there are three: Straight hair, curly hair and wooly hair. The Paleoantrhopological community, with its study of fossils and other hard evidence, defends the Multiregional Hypothesis that Neanderthal Man originated up to 200,000 years ago in several diverse locations around the world. Discussing Homo Sapiens and specifically Homo Erectus they note with observational support the anatomical geographical differences among modern humans. But even here the Eve Theory agrees that all modern man came "Out Of Africa." All humans, according to this theory left Africa about a million years ago. A Cambridge University study presents their theory that up to 5 million years ago hominids were on Earth with from 12 to 14 species. They feel that the first Homo (their word) appeared about 2 million years ago. But then come along the spoilers, the Hot Dogs who always spoil a good status quo party. These new guys use DNA to trace lineage. While the human genome (the entire set of genes) has been mapped and can be traced with much more effort, they are using a shortcu(l)t with mitochondrial DNA. The mitochondria are cellular organelles that convert food into a form of energy that that rest of the cell can use. Unlike the Nucleus DNA of the entire genome with its many bundles of fibers (protein coated double helixes), the mitochondial DNA consists only of small two strand strings. Nuclear DNA encodes about 100,000 genes, whereas mitochondrial encodes ony 37... a little easier to study. Suffice it to say that mitochondrial DNA offers other advantages such as rapid and identifiable mutation without affecting the neutrality of others. Another advantage is that the DNA derives from the mother alone making the clock of changes even easier to determine. So therefore, the Hot Dogs are proving through DNA that Homo Erectus and other Homos came originally out of only a few parts of the African continent. They say that then these Homos eventually migrated to other parts of the world. ***Back to top [May 16, 2005 ** Letter From Mayor.] [Presumptuous as it may sound to some Monitors of Departmental Decorum, following is a mock letter I would like to see the likes of written by the Mayor. ronoz] Dear Citizens of Oakland , It's time to get serious about crime in our fair city. I have appointed Chief Tucker to take over the Oakland Police Department and given him authority to show imagination and initiative in reorganizing our resources to meet the needs of our citizens. The very first priority is to make certain we are staffed adequately and appropriately to answer your calls for service, all your calls for service. We have listened to some squeaky wheels and over time twisted our allocation of police resources in order to keep functioning, while perhaps we should have fixed the wheels in the first place. We are looking at every position in the Police Department, reviewing every bottle-neck and delay, evaluating every distraction which may have been instituted for good politically correct reasons, and most of all shaking up the management structure. We will rethink our Police role from the ground up. that is, from your calls for police service through investigative follow-up and then on up to how we should staff and define our command structure. We are going to be thorough in our investigation of all murders, but qualitatively most have nothing to do with our deployment and everyone should know that. Murders perpetrated in a general culture of drug violence, murders in domestic disputes, and premeditated murders are simply not responsive to police deployment and to think so is to raise expectations unnecessarily or to take credit undeservedly. We very well may have bred an ethos on our police department that has made our members overly defensive and sensitive to every complaint, however reasonable they may be, to such an extent that in itself we likely promoted lack of responsiveness overall to our citizens' calls for service. Therefore, we will shake up the chain of command, the very management of our police at all levels, and make it responsible to encourage forthrightness, honesty, good judgment, fair discretion and rapid response on the part of every officer in every assignment. We will be more interested in crime control than damage control. When there are mistakes made by individual officers we will review them through management channels as it should be done, and managers will be held accountable. However, mistakes will also be reviewed within contexts: Were the mistakes intentional wrongdoing or simply Monday morning quarterback differences in retrospect? Did the mistakes offend the sensitivities of some or were they more serious and actually offended the sensibilities of our values. There is a difference. Do the mistakes justify individual training or training more generally? We must allow our officers the luxury of mistakes if we are to afford them the judgment and discretion they need to get their job done. In a broader scope we will also review all subrogation of historic Oakland Police Officer assignments to the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, to civilian positions, to private security services and other conveniences where we may have tried to relieve our police for more important tasks. Our City's citizens live, work and pay taxes throughout the City and they expect our Police to insure their liberty, peace and pursuit of happiness throughout our City also. Therefore, perhaps contrary to recent experiments in fiscal expedience, we want to enlist as many positions performing public service within our City that in any way contribute to peace and freedom from crime or hazards to public safety and actually broaden the reach of the Oakland Police Department. We will reevaluate our policies on officers with short and long term disabilities, policies against hiring already retired police officers, our use of new appointees, our assignments of elderly active officers, a more active use of volunteer Reserve Officers, new designations of Limited Officers, redesignation and training of Public School and Parks officers, and so on. There have to be advantages by increasing the scope of Oakland Police in our City that far outweigh the immediate gratification of cutting them. It is imagination that will overcome mediocrity. Moonbeam. ***Back to top [May 16, 2005 ** Police Response] Hopefully Chief Tucker will stand and take notice to Souza's article... ***Back to top [May 16, 2005 ** Social Security Underfunding] Some should take heed about Souza's post on pension plan troubles. Of ***Back to top [May 16, 2005 ** Blogging OPD] It should also be mentioned that "Blogging" has become a legitimate infant branch of the media. Both political conventions had their Press and Blogger credentials and bleacher sections to report the happenings. It was the Bloggers who reported heavily on Kerry with items that the mainstream news ignored. The Blogs can be Left, Right, or Both. Now, major news programs (Fox) and news reporters and commentators have Blogger sites to get their thoughts out and encourage participation of others. No one is safe from Blogging. The relatively mild bulletin Board of Openline has naturally become a Blog to inform and participate with opinions and offbeat news. Actually, just about all legitimate commentators have agreed that Blogging is a wonderful consequence of people's need to know and others' need to tell. Yahoogroups has commented that its group sites are perfect for Blogging and it now has 3,199 groups with the name "Police" in their titles. It has tens of thousands of different groups. A look at some at random shows they are replete with personal opinions and communications for information and debate. Many allow entry simply as a guest. Just as a test, I communicated just now with DC_Area_Lesbians_and_Wives, Galaxi Police (Who protect the Royal Family of Jurai), and Cops_Police_Seduction (609 Members "This is the place for cops to tell who they seduced and who seduced them." Very strong sexual content.) Yahoo Groups, recognizing Free Speech and the relevance of Blogging, has virtually no restrictions on what might be posted, although they obviously disclaim any participation or approval. Many of the sites, including police, are very raunchy. One must be careful in selecting. I participate in a half dozen groups and enjoy pricking the lawyers groups (95 sites) and law groups (100 sites) and Constitution sites (1,392), but it's tough to find any seriously engaged in healthy debate. Many lawyers, it seems, are too reticent to respond because of either ignorance or disinterest in the legal philosophy, history, and theory in which I love to debate. The lawyer-cops are actually my best sparring partners. Whatever your interest, there is a YahooGroup Blog to keep you entertained, informed and engaged... but of course my favorite is Openline. ronoz > >From: dondisc2@aol.com Suddenly we all hear the word, "blogging." Ever wonder what in the world it means? Blog is short for Weblog. It simply means that anyone at all can step up to a soapbox and fire away. Blogging, therefore, is the act of writing a blog. This is especially prevalent around presidential election time. don discher ***Back to top [May 14, 2005 ** A Dumping Ground] I can remember when Emeryville was worse than a dumping ground. It was a giant Toxic Waste site. Now it is the home for high end, high rise, ***Back to top Wounds, scratches and little pricks are most often quickly covered with Band-Aids of Political Correctness. Yes, sometimes I peel them back a little and a few hairs get pulled. But any doctor will tell you that wounds, no matter how deep or how small, heal much better in the light of day and if they get an open airing. Presumptuously I'm just trying to make a small difference in a sea of indifference. ronoz ***Back to top [May 13, 2005 ** Face to Face] I'm still thinking about Frank Mellott's post. He is so smart. He said a face-to-face is much more effective communication. So here's my effort: Mayor Brown: I know why you're called Moonbeam and I join in the affection of it. I remember when you were Pat Brown's kid and now who remembers Pat Brown? I identify very much with your thoughts and talents. I too studied world religions for two years trying to "get it." I enjoy your playing with words and appreciate the deeper meanings involved (".aren't we all temporary?"). I wish I had the time to help you get Oakland on the map for positive and constructive reasons. Believe me I know you want it... and the things you have to put up with... I would fervently wish you read everything I posted on Openline, but then... Sheriff Plummer: I know you know my name from my ex-wife who rose in the ranks at ACSO and worked for you in Berkeley . Good woman, I was very proud of her. You've got one impressive operation going. It scares me. I hope Oakland PD is not in your sights. I'd hate to see you take over our criminalistics, motor officer training, recruit school training, records, command staff, in service training, Flat Land Beats, and all the other little jobs that you've prepared for by creating such distinguished and superior area wide operations in your Department. You've got the energy, drive, ambition and initiative that I constantly try to stir in our fellows. I would fervently wish you read everything I posted on Openline, but then... Chief Tucker: You've got a tough job ahead of you. I agree with Brown that no job is temporary. I wish you were coming to the Reunion but I understand. A letter from the Chief would serve wonders though. I hope you especially read my posts on Openline because some of our shallow types just don't seem to read fine print very well. I'd like to make a whole series of recommendations to you. Your success will depend on how collaborative you can experiment and how in tune you are to the 400,000 citizens who desperately need to feel confident that their police department is responsive, concerned, and will follow-up. The best way to experiment is to get back to basics and start from there, put your best team together, and make getting the job done the role of management (25 people in IA just means you need 25 more). You've got more cops than you need if they become a motivated team. That starts with pride. I regret not knowing you at all, and also that you must think of me, if at all, as an insignificant newt. Judge Henderson: I know a few Judges. I've even bought a large tract of land from a Federal District Judge. Yes, I poke hard at what in my opinion is an over reach of the judiciary, but I hope I do it thoughtfully and respectfully. I know you've got passion and concern. I've read how you wear it on your sleeve. Be careful, I do the same thing and look at the flack I get. In any event, my opinions are only first amendment rights. aren't they? I would fervently wish you read everything I posted on Openline, but then. Officer Batt: I have no idea who you are. I know you were active OPD once, and that has a special meaning for me. I hope when this so-called Riders Trial is over that you will post your opinions on Openline. No matter what you post you will find me forefront at both your right to say anything you want and encouraging you to do so. I would fervently wish you read everything I posted on Openline, but then. Barney Fife: My offer to buy your lunch still stands (I won't eat it). I know I was rough on you for posting your tirade anonymously on Openline, but you have every opportunity as a long standing Openline member to give your own opinion. As I said, you can blast me privately all you want, but don't spit on OPD. Say what you want, but do it with a smile and respect. I know you fervently read everyone of my posts. Don Discher: Why are you on my list? You weren't singled out by our moderators for apologies. Nevertheless, you undoubtedly hold the record for the most responses to my posts on Openline. All of them are private and all are contrary. That's why I address my inevitable counter responses to you as Curmudgeon. You've given me many bare skin merciless lashes, but oddly you do it in a very respectful way. I know I often tell you that your opinions are disagreeable and I think you ought to post them on Openline, but you insist on always playing it safe. It's not easy to put opinions on Openline and survive is it? Not quite like mindless dribble and inane trivia. O.k., I admit it.. I read them. How many times have I told you I love you....? Bob and Gail Souza: I suppose I should have a face-to-face with you because you are probably my most consistent and persistent antagonists. Funny thing, it all seems so one sided because I expend every opportunity to tell everyone how terrific you guys are. I know you would like to see Openline as an endless bulletin board where nothing of the slightest provocative or sensitive nature should mar it. Thankfully for you and others, by my count, my posts are only about one-eightieth in frequency as yours. I do read every one of yours, as you must know because sometimes I comment on some obscure tidbit. You're doing a great job and I know how much time and effort it takes to post so many informative bulletins. The very few posts I do make also take considerable time and effort. We don't know each other, and we've never worked together, but please continue to do what you do in your way to make OPD better. I intend to continue helping OPD in my way. at least if we're coming at it from opposite ends we're working for the same thing. Did I cover everyone you apologized to for my posts? Sorry if I forgot anyone. but that's 983 words and 750 should be the max. thanks, ronoz [May 13, 2005 ** Opinions - Why Not?] Well.... why not express your opinion on Openline...? Believe it or not I'm told City Fathers and Mothers read it... members of the community read it... Members of the Judicary read it... Members of the Sheriff's Department read it... The Chief reads it... Commanding Officers read it... or is that a good reason not to post opinions on Openline....? ***Back to top Just a few comments about opinions in general, if you will indulge me just a little before you hit the delete key. Opinions are never wrong. They are right in the mind of the person expressing it. Opinions merely express to others which side of the fence you're on. Or do they? My own opinions seem to confuse some, become misconstrued and misinterpreted, and regrettably even distorted at times. That's the risk of posing an opinion, and raising the heat in the kitchen. Then there's the question of whether opinions should be posted on Openline at all. God knows I receive constant mail from a few who tell me consistently where to put my opinions. Bob and Gail rarely express an opinion, and when they do they must also feel the coldness on their extended necks. I feel it every time because I care so much what other OPD may think of me for what I say. It is so much easier, and likely never suffer the indignity of being voted off the Island , never to post an opinion at all. There are those who disagree, those who think you're a smart-ass, those who say it's out of place, those who even respond with personal hate mail. And, there are those who feel strongly that personal opinions shouldn't be on Openline at all. David R. Evans and the Souza's certainly get deserved accolades for starting and maintaining Openline. I've always said that, and their stature for doing that is larger than themselves at this point. I say that because for whatever purpose they originally started Openline it has taken on a communication lifeline beyond its genesis. As I was rounding Lake Merritt today I passed a couple of guys bigger than me so I stepped onto the lawn deferring their right of way. I couldn't help overhearing one say to the other that ".anyone saying something should keep his mouth shut unless he's willing to stand by his words." I halted. The larger one with the gold filled front teeth said to me "Whatchuwunt." We all stopped and I explained in my simple way that I agreed with him, with one little exception. "If a man says something and later hears something plausible to the contrary, that even though he stood by his words the first time he should be able to change his mind." Otherwise, no one would ever have the confidence to say anything. With two fingers in the direction ofmy chest I was given first a lecture about minding my own business. Taking a chance that a smile might work, and risk the loss of my front teeth, I was persistent with my tact. Voices were raised, but at least we engaged then on topic. O.k. so I'm taking a little poetic license, but I'm trying to keep it interesting. The bottom line is we parted back-patting, laughing, and somewhat agreeing. I went on ahead probably leaving them wondering. "Who was that masked man?" It's like Frank Mellott's post of wisdom. Face-to-face would be the best forum possible for antagonists. However, Openline is attractive in its broad reach to so many we really care to engage in conversation. So we should make the best of it and try to understand what someone is saying behind what he posts and estimate HOW he/she is saying it. For example, those who know me, the old timers, can take what I say and picture my personality behind the words. I've been out of the loop for 30 years so most of you don't have that advantage and you can't seem to give me that advantage either. So I choose my words ever so carefully. This brings me to my bottom line. and then you can delete. Each of us should rely that we are OPD, and as such there is a commonality, or there should be, of having worked together, or having worked the same assignments together at different times. Yes, there are some outside of OPD on Openline and they should somehow enjoy their vicariousness with some tolerance for not grasping fully (yes, I regret hanging in effigy the Barney Fife who is handicapped by not having been OPD... but then he shouldn't have spit on OPD). It is perfectly appropriate and even responsible to take opposing opinions. It's like Ying and Yang, or for most enjoying the opposite sex. Sure, it's fun to all sing in the same choir on some issues, but with opinions they just become dogma if there aren't counterpoints. Most posts are not opinions, and even fewer are actually controversial. But I would like to encourage more opinionated interchange on Openline where we all can banter our own thoughts. There is much more respect when inviting the opinions of others than discouraging them. Thanks for making it this far. ronoz ***Back to top [May 12, 2005 ** Connect The Dots] [Many may simply not care, but I've been out of the loop for a long time and the City I grew up in, worked in, and loved seems so wrapped in confusion with forces pulling in every direction. I still carry a pride in an OPD that seems so incongruent with what I'm reading and hearing today. I just picked up another article mentioning Judge Hensderson and this time it hits much closer to home. Some of the dots are just starting to form a picture... ronoz] Federal Judge Swings, Mayor Jerry Brown Ducks By J. DOUGLAS ALLEN-TAYLOR Column UNDERCURRENTS OF THE EAST BAY AND BEYOND (02-18-05) Buddhist references to Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown tend to get stale from overuse. Still, you just can't help saying that it's karma when the man who sat on his hands and did nothing while the Oakland public schools were being seized by the state is now in danger of having his upcoming state attorney general candidacy put in some difficulty by a threatened federal court takeover of the Oakland Police Department. In early 2003, the City of Oakland settled with more than 100 residents who fielded a lawsuit claiming they had suffered serious mistreatment by Oakland police. Among the actions Oakland police were accused of were racially profiling African-American and Latino citizens, beating folks without legal justification, lying on the witness stand, and planting false evidence against suspects. The settlement is often mistakenly called the "Riders settlement" by the local press, after four West Oakland police officers who called themselves the "Oakland Riders," and who were fired and faced criminal charges on some of these matters. But the Oakland police misconduct lawsuit, filed by attorneys John Burris and James Chanin, involved many more police than just the four Riders. Part of the 2003 police misconduct settlement was that the Oakland Police Department put systems in place to keep their officers from breaking the law. But OPD has been a little slow in complying, leading to a severely-critical report by the court-ordered Independent Monitoring Team significant progress in the coming weeks, he will consider citing the city or city officials for contempt of court. The most serious sanction the judge could order [according to the Tribune] would be to strip the city of its power over the department and put a caretaker in charge." Judge Henderson gave the city until April 25 to come up with significant progress. This is no idle threat. Henderson is the same judge who has been monitoring prison guard misconduct at Pelican Bay State Prison for years through a Special Master, forcing needed reforms, and recently warned Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that he would order the federal takeover of the entire California prison system if the state did not stop mistreating its prisoners. The judge has a reputation for bing serious about making sure that law enforcement officials and officers don't go outside the law. Knowing what probably was going to happen in Judge Henderson's court this week may be at least one possible reason why Mayor Brown so suddenly reversed himself in naming an interim police chief. When Chief Richard Word left the Oakland Police Department last November, Brown refused to name a temporary replacement (a search for a permanent replacement is ongoing, but it may be delayed until after a new mayor is elected next year). Anyway, instead of immediately replacing Word, Brown chose to run the department himself through City Manager Deborah Edgerly, a command-and-control nightmare that left nobody in the ultimate decision-making position who had ever strapped on a gun and covered a police beat. One wonders why Jerry Brown would want to run the Oakland Police Department when, after all, he has shown little interest in working in the job at which we are actually paying him.running the City of Oakland . And, after the essons of Oakland Parks chief Harry Edwards or Assistant City Manager George Musgrove as school superintendent, one would have thought he'd had his fill of the idea that just because a guy is smart in one area, you can put him anywhere, to run anything. (The sad experience of Harry Edwards is still fresh in Oaklanders' minds, but people may have forgotten that in the days after Carol Quan was forced out as Superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District, Mayor Brown had Mr. Musgrove moved over from the city manager's office to run the school district, even though Mr. Musgrove had-um-no experience running a school district. The results weren't pretty. Mr. Musgrove seemed generally surprised one afternoon when he received a storm of protest from teachers after he arbitrarily moved up the date for district-wide, state-mandated student testing. Not having ever run a school district, it apparently never occurred to Mr. Musgrove that thousands of people in the district might have been spending as much as year of preparation pointing toward the original test date.) Anyhow, none of those experiences seemed to faze Mr. Brown, who resisted-for two months-sometimes heated calls from the public, the Oakland Police Department, and Oakland City Councilmembers to appoint an interim police chief. Asked about his refusal by the San Francisco Chronicle's Matier & Ross political columnists last December, the mayor gave one of his typical smart-ass answers to serious issues he wants to avoid, saying "Interim chief? What's does that mean? In between? Everyone is interim-we're all in between something." (I'd put in a gratuitous Buddhist comment here but, like I said, those things can get quickly worn out.) One can only speculate that Mr. Brown-who has no experience as a practicing lawyer since passing the California bar many, many, many years ago-needed to buck up his qualifications for state attorney general by putting the "he's had hands-on experience running a city police department" handle on his résumé. But Mr. Brown suddenly switched gears, this month naming retired Alameda County Assistant Sheriff Wayne G. Tucker as interim Oakland chief. And so it was Interim Chief Tucker (and not Mr. Brown) who had to stand in the courtroom and listen to the scolding from Judge Henderson, the judge stating "I haven't seen anything like this in 25 years. This is contemptuous. I'm so angry at the slap in the face, the ignoring of this decree." It was Interim Chief Tucker (and not Mr. Brown) who had to admit that the OPD suffered from a "failure of leadership" for not following the orders of the misconduct consent decree. And it was Interim Chief Tucker (and not Mr. Brown) who, according to the Tribune report, "promised it would not continue under his watch." City Manager Edgerly made the trip over to San Francisco , but if Mr. Brown was even there-which is doubtful-it wasn't mentioned in either the Chronicle or the Tribune reports. Not a good record for a man who wants to be able to tell voters he was tough enough to send cops out every day and night in harm's way. ***Back to top [May 11, 2005 ** Are We Temporary?] I'm not sure I understand what it means to have an ACSO "Temporary Police Chief." Are we in the temporary custody of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office? Is this a coup for the Sheriff to add to his custody of everything from the Coroner's office to the taking over full time of much of Oakland (airport, colleges, Coliseum, Highland , and the Bay waters)? Have Brown and Plummer made a deal with Judge Henderson? Is it that a few people and a couple of lawyers have so convinced a Judge that the Oakland Police department is a gang of thugs? Has OPD denigrated to a reputation and effectiveness less exemplary than our Police Administration Building ? I've got to tell you. I am extremely impressed with Sheriff Plummer's website. To read and explore it is to wonder why he hasn't taken over the Oakland Police Department before now. With almost 20 years on the job Sheriff Plummer seems to have attained the status and reputation of Hoover 's FBI in its heyday. While many of us may remember the ACSO as a hayseed outfit with good guys but not equal to our standards, you all better take another look. While some of us seem to be content with our efforts and accomplishments at pay, overtime and benefits, the glass house may have come shattering in shards around us. Yes, as Martin reminded us we have recruited good OPD from ACSO in the past. They came because it was a step up. They went through OPD Recruit Schools and got their initiations in sociology and cultural anthropology on our streets. Chief Tucker is not as likely to enter the OPD Academy as he would perhaps consolidate it with the very impressive ACSO Regional Training Center . You all might take heed at the words under Sheriff Plummer's Mission Statement where under Mandated Services it states simply that the ACSO will take over. "The level of services (as) determined by specific statute or judicial mandate." Read carefully those last two overpowering words. again. OPD, get your act together. None of us believes that we have become anywhere near the perception believed by those who want to believe it. We can and should clean our own shop, but certainly that means focusing on our jobs in ways that will make people believe in us again. Our shop is a frenzy of ineffective responses to distracting expedients while the basics of police work have been ignored by the uplifted noses of politically correct snobbery. This next statement is going to hurt, offend, and draw fire, but someone has to say it. The OPOA better reorganize to draw together the strength of every current and formerly active OPD, whether working, retired, PERS, or whatever. It better change from an image of confrontation to one seeking every advantage of propaganda, psychology, image, public relations, accomplishment, and anything that will draw pride in our direction. We need to enroll spokesmen who can engage in successful and impressive politics at all levels in Oakland , Sacramento and at any level of Federal Government that can help. The hundred disgruntled people who influenced a judge and inspired attorneys to castigate and effectively smear perhaps the best police department in the country are not Oakland 's 400,000 citizens. We went to ballots in years past and found we were indeed appreciated by the greater populace. Let's tell them, all our citizens, we care about their calls for service, their burglaries, their auto thefts, their auto accidents, their fears for safety and that we're not going to be distracted by statistics like murders which have no connection to the general liberties of our citizens. If we pull out the murders related to drug and gang violence, murders related to domestic disputes, and murders premeditated for personal reasons...ll categories easily identifiable, then those murders which actually affect the safety of average citizens is drawn much diminished into proper perspective. Our citizens in general would readily give us a vote of confidence if they could just see us as a proud unified force again. Address the newspapers, media, citizen groups, City Councils, and business groups with an offense of confidence and focus instead of defensively whimpering with fly swatters of unbelieved sensitivities. Cut some slack with warnings, reach out helping hands, drop an outlook that treats every infraction as if it's the highest felony, take time to talk and listen, be impressive, and treat every citizen as if your job depended on it. Give us a year of getting the job done with many of the methods and priorities that worked in years past, and then go to the ballot for a vote of confidence guaranteeing an OPD for all of Oakland 's citizens. Earn your Department back! ***Back to top [May 11, 2005 ** Fealty To Courts] Catching a quick breakfast at Nation's this morning I picked up a discarded Chronicle and noticed on the front page an article indicating a certain Federal District Court Judge Thelton Henderson was apparently outraged and ready to cite California officials for contempt and a possibility was discussed to put the entire State department of Corrections into receivership. In other words the court would run the prison system. Not intending any disrespect, I have to repeat my oft question of where do the Courts gain the authority to preempt, usurp, and take over the roles of the legislatures and executive branches from the local, through state and all the way up to national levels. I can't find that authority in the Constitution or the laws of this country. Even if a court action is morally justified, where is the authority? It seems every day the news is full of reports about this court or that announcing edicts that affect every citizens' every day lives. Laws passed by legislatures are redefined and laws carried out by policies and >procedures of executive branches at all levels are simply changed into new procedures and regulations written by the courts. For example, the Supreme Court actually told each police agency in the country how and what they should advise suspects of their rights. No Legislature or Executive Branch gave this order. The courts may be right about perceived conditions (they may be wrong), but isn't it the prerogative of the citizens, their elected representatives, and their various executives to interpret and apply what is cruel and unusual punishment, which conditions are lawful or not, how the schools should be run, how the jails should be run, how the police departments should be operated and so on? We have many OPD lawyers who feel the judges and courts have to straighten out our country or else who will? But if we're a nation of laws, a government divided into three agencies of the people. Where are the laws that grant the courts authority to interpret the Constitution with their own opinions of what the laws should be and how they should be carried out? I just can't find it anywhere except in the so-called precedents mandated by the courts themselves. Going back to the relatively minor civil service appointment dispute in Marbury vs Madison it is no more impressive than the Supreme Court treatment that the fifty year old slave old Dred Scott received, or the Supreme Court decisions interring Japanese citizens of our land. What I'm wondering is that if the Court's current powers and authority are self assumed then why are we called a nation of laws? If the Courts can tell the prison system, the schools, the police how to operate their roles where does that come from? The lawyers and courts today seem so intent on basing their current authority by going back to Marshall's decision in Marbury vs Madison that one must wonder why Marshall and those who followed him for 80 years had no idea they gave the Court such power. But when Chief Justice Marshall boomed a real decision that affected the laws of Congress enacted to defend the rights of the Cherokee Nation our President Andrew Jackson cut off his testicles with his infamous response, "The Supreme Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it." With that one fourth of the Cherokee Nation died in a "Trail of Tears" while the government and outlaws stole everything they had. But was that a rightful precedent that all Presidents since then may simply disregard the Legislature or the Supreme Court? Of course not, but then why do the courts now usurp the powers of the other branches? Yes, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt neutered the courts and legislatures for a righteous cause but was it right? When Andy Jackson showed the courts who was boss was he right? When any branch of government unilaterally takes over the conscience of the country is it proper? When the Constitution was drafted the President and Legislature were granted considerable attention while the mention of the Supreme Court was hardly a subordinate byline. That is to say no powers were granted to the Supreme Court that in any way resemble their reach today. The Congress had to establish a Judiciary Act to even grant the Supreme Court any active role in government at all. So what has happened since? Has the Constitution been amended to give our Courts the powers and reach they exhibit today (not)? Just as Jackson has been regarded by historians as arrogant and overstepping his authority so perhaps will historians regard Earl Warren and the following Courts that have been emboldened to act similarly. When the Capitol Building was completed in Washington DC all Congressmen got their nice offices, the President had the impressive White House, but the little-thought-of Supreme Court was barely given breathing room in the Capitol basement. Now, the courts are perceived by many as so many ordinary people wearing robes of extraordinary powers. Everyone who practices law, as well as those who witness the courts in action, seem to know that courts are regularly shopped for favorable politics and personal leanings of the judges in that venue. Aren't the laws of our land clear? Isn't our Constitution clear? If not, then perhaps everyone, especially the judges, should read the Constitution from the beginning... "We the people..." In other words the entire purpose of our nation is intent on providing the stipulated benefits for The People, not any privileged few. So what's my point? Of course we have to follow the rules as they are currently played out. If we have bad cops, bad teachers, bad prison guards, then of course we should clean our houses. If the legislatures and executives are compliant and complicit with the courts then so be it. We should follow the rules faithfully, as all three branches seem to conduct our actions. But even if our education is only academic it is still better than operating in ignorance. In fact, I am not as critical of the courts as I am about the fealty of the other branches of government. There are many right and wrongs in our country. Why should the intended weakest branch of government as destined by our forefathers have to lead us so much as errant children? ***Back to top [May 10, 2005 ** Black Rednecks and White Liberals] [I've talked about Dr. Thomas Sowell before. He has a new book (his 13th) out I've not read but will soon do so. Sowell was a high school drop out who ten years later took the SAT and applied to Harvard. He was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem . He served in the Marines in Korea .
***Back to top [May 9, 2005 ** Social Security] Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT) ***Back to top [April 30, 2005 ** Communications] Communication is about writing skills but even more so as a cop it is about getting your meaning across. One poster recently wrote that a good cop needs communication skills to talk a bad guy into the back seat of a police car, and implied that physical force shouldn't be part of the equation. I think any good guy can be asked to please step in, but a real bad guy has to be told and if necessary physically assisted. Communication on the street is in large measure non verbal. Physical appearance is a much better color of authority than any song and dance. ***Back to top [April 27, 2005 ** Hire The Best] The Oakland Police Department wants to hire The Best By the time you read this you'll believe it. We're looking for people to work a demanding and, yes, a sometimes hazardous job. However, it would be difficult to imagine a more rewarding job. It's not an easy job, it can be extra tough at times, but if we do it right we'll have one of the best cities in the country. Our location, weather, demographics, cultural attractions, heritage and diversity are an unbeatable combination. We feel that reaching our potential will be to develop the best police department in the nation. We will not be influenced by any factor giving credit or debit to your gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, national origin, or quite frankly whether you have any minority or majority status. We simply want to hire and train anyone we judge has the potential to be The Best. Everyone will be considered with equal regard. How the results fare with respect to some category you think you belong to is not our concern. Your new category will be as an Oakland Police Officer. Quite simply we will hire those interested in career positions. Every career with the Oakland Police Department begins after extensive classroom and field training followed with a minimum of 18 months of demanding police work "on the street." While the later opportunities for advancement and entry into the diversity of other assignments are manifold, the criteria for hiring begins with a commitment to the citizens of Oakland that you can handle this job first. It is here that your mettle will be tested, your steel tempered, and those skills will be prerequisite to the rest of your career. We have certain parameters in our initial screen that simply set out the generic criteria that must be met first. We are not specific as to your preparation for the job, nor is our selection process exclusive as to where you were born, raised, educated or currently residing. If you were educated in Police Science or Criminology you will be on an equal footing with those educated in other fields, including academic and life experiences. There will be extensive report writing aspects to the job so preparation in technical writing and creative writing will be helpful. You will have to be both definitive and descriptive. Again, we want The Best. Our selection process is rigorous, but we know The Best wouldn't have it any other way. We want people to be smart, tough, compassionate and sensitive. But if you are overweight, or underweight, in any of the areas you won't be hired. We're looking for a good balance. Our next screen is to know if you're smart enough. A four-year degree from an accredited university is qualifying, but we're not looking for professors so we will administer an SAT type substitute to anyone wishing to apply. We expect a minimum 70% percentile score. You will also be given a closed, timed short essay test to assess your ability to communicate in writing. Those who qualify will have to submit to us a certification from your doctor as to passing our physical criteria along with an evaluation that concludes you are physically fit for the rigors of the job without restrictions or exceptions. Assuming this, you will be engaged in the physical agility phase, and not coddled with any exception. It can at a few crucial times be a very physical job and lives will be at stake. The final portal of our hiring process will evaluate the intangible. We will conduct an interview panel to form an impression of you as to your suitability for potential to join The Best. After all, it is an impression that you will project to citizens, in courts, among your fellow officers, and in many other circumstances where we expect all to regard you as The Best. The three person panel will be drawn especially from those officers regarded as well qualified and experienced in the duties that will be required of you. They will pass judgment as to whom you seem to be. You will be asked questions to gauge your character, your heart, your sensitivity, your ability to process situations, and generally to see who you are and what you're made of. Each panel member will rate his/her unsigned impression of you, without deliberating with the others, and drop his casting into a sealed box. It will take two votes to seal your fate. Each vote will be one of three choices: 1. It is my impression that the person interviewed HAS the potential to be among The Best as an Oakland Police Officer and I recommend hiring on a probationary status. 2. It is my impression that the person interviewed DOES NOT HAVE the potential. 3. I was unable to form a conclusive impression, and I recommend the person interviewed be rescheduled with a different panel. Those recommended will have a background check conducted and will also have to be evaluated by the City Physician or another. So there you have it. We need police officers, but all current members are dedicated to doing what it takes to fill the gap while we wait for The Best to join The Best. Good Luck, ***Back to top [April 24, 2005 ** Shibboleths] I had to take note the other day when I saw Ty (?), a stunning black motorcycle female officer. She was impressive in her confidence, her stature, and her obvious commanding presence. I don't know anything else about her except she made a very positive impression on me and I assume it is the same impression she must project to others in the community and on the Department. She was outspoken yet well spoken. She could smile without holding back her venom. Anyway, when I first walked up to her while visiting Eastmont she reacted to me in a way that let me assume she felt I was a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. I laughed immediately and thanked her for even having an impression and that my reputation obviously precedes me. I asked her if she read any of my postings on Openline and she said "I called Renee at OPOA and Renee told me to just delete every time I see your name." I'm still laughing about this. I trust after our parking lot encounter and conversation that Ty is not falling for the "Bigot Trap." That is to say, that she has judged me further by her first impression of me as a person, and not her first interpretations of what I wrote. Bigotry is a pleasant comfort nest from which to avoid the controversies that challenge our belief systems. However nests become spoiled and fouled by the ideological incest that must occur in closed and isolated thinking. In that sense, I have indeed been on a mission to unfurl the colors of our culture and get all to recognize that engaging in heartfelt, both humorous and serious, discussions about very sensitive topics is exactly the catharsis we all need. I also asked to 940 with another woman I had never met named Becky who has in the past berated me in private emails for my outing of the word "Queer." She was not alone in her criticism of me in the past, but again a face to face is the best for true impressions and revised interpretations. I'm sure Becky and Ty both left my company somewhat tentative and guarded, and so they should because I am indeed a bit odd. I left their presence liking each of them very much. Sure, you can all recede into your little bastions of mutual fondling and join clubs and organizations where everyone will tell you how wonderful it is to have pride in your minority status, whatever that might be. That's fine, but unfortunately the secret ceremonies and utterances that so segregate our society are carefully cultivated to fracture our melting pot into "us and them" or into a Salad Bowl of very different flavors. From Rednecks to Pussy-pansies. Yes, I intentionally provoke the shibboleths that are created not as unions of common interest but rather as an assault on the sensibilities of integration, national pride, and efforts to change our society and its values for peculiar and queer reasons. Why is there a need for a pigmented portion of our society to be so Afro-centrist? Why do some have to overtly distinguish themselves by definitions of sexual orientation and practices? Why are we afraid of prejudices when we are so free to choose? Why can't we laugh at stereotypes as we would self-deprecate? Is racism a myth? Should we rewrite history? Have we become so fearful to speak freely, experimenting in thought and ideas, that the Grand Ayatollah of Political Correctness has us shaking in our boots? Is Freedom of Speech merely a right to say only what's approved? Is Atheism a religion subject to the fabricated notion of "separation of church and state?" The topics for true social intercourse and dialogue are endless. I believe that in order for us to respect ourselves, our neighbors and our country that we must not build a house where each fragile card is dependent on political correctness to maintain itself. No, it is only through challenges to separatist thinking, which can only be bigoted to sustain itself, that we can hope to be a team... An American team. ronoz ***Back to top Coincidentally, I met three of the so-called Riders at OPOA this morning. I know nothing about the case, except that I understand they are in their third week of deliberations. My first impression, was one of complete empathy. In that feeling I could share the fraught that weighed down these strong guys. Meeting these tall, youthful, young, stout men was as if stepping into an OPD recruiting poster. What have they done? What is reported and attributed so scornfully of these men? I have no idea. I thought of the ancient Greek Sysiphus, the strong king who offended Zeus and was tormented with a lifetime of rolling a large rock up a steep hill, watching it roll back down to the bottom, and doomed to repeat the process over and over again. We indeed live in an absurd world where we prosecute symbols for indiscretions we feel offend us. Our own President is prosecuted daily and there are those who would easily punish him without mercy just for doing his job. Camus wrote his Myth of Sysiphus with the Riders in mind. "The absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in their presence together...it is the only bond uniting them." He wrote of the absurd mind, absurd work, absurd man, absurd reasoning, absurd world, absurd thought, and we have all felt this to be true in our line of work. We are the keepers. Every cop, each of us, is prosecuted as racist, sexist, brutal, insensitive, homophobic, and stereotypically barbarous and callous by someone. As Camus narrated this metaphor of the carnival in which we live he turned it around and gave strength to Sysiphus, and actually gave him victory in the circumstances which befell him. By the mere use of the label "Riders," which is the most common reference, our guys have been symbolically pasted on the targets of political correctness with as little feeling for them as a black silhouette. It is my inclination that these young men are not on trial, but rather the perception of what they stand for in the absurd minds of their prosecutors is what they seem so desperate to crucify. If anyone has been keeping a log of trial events from the beginning I would cherish the thought of reading them. Something just doesn't smell right. Ronoz ***Back to top [April 7, 2005 ** Bloody Hundredth] Hope you all read Frank's post... There are about 100 aviation museums in England . The Europeans may be complacent about the current geopolitical situation and reticent to even think about wars today, but throughout Europe , East and West, there are countless museums, large and small, public and private, dedicated to the memories and experiences of the WWI and WWII warriors. 2nd Lt. Jack Berkowitz, the navigator on the flight, was taken to Frankfurt , Germany after capture and intensively interrogated for two weeks because the Germans wanted to know all about this new threat: "crazy Americans flying with eight motors." The Bloody Hundredth was part of the Army's Eighth Air Force and suffered 47,483 casualties, 40% of all Army air campaigns "The Bloody Hundredth Bomb Squadron" has their own museum in Norfolk . It's nothing special, except to offer something barely tangible so that their missions and exploits will not be forgotten. In my travels I always check to see the local military museums. In fact, near our island in Sweden there are two very small private museums (almost one-room generation memorials). One celebrates the Swedes who violated their neutrality and engaged in uniformed activities of other allied countries. The other memorializes an old fisherman who trained seals to discover torpedoes, submarines, mines and other underwater activities of the Germans (we have such a brass torpoedo hanging in our family room). Oslo , Norway has a fantastic underground museum with WWI trenches where one really "feels" the ozone, the sounds, the dank, as much as is possible, and as little as it must be, of what millions of young men suffered. It is dedicated in large part to the thousands of organized resistance fighters who fought, died, were interred and who are not forgotten. My Dad, as were many of our dads and relatives, was deeply involved in a tank force in England when it was teeming with young men from all over the world England and onto Normandy and throughout the European war theater. I was a war baby born there during the invasion wait. So I've emphasized the museums, cemeteries, and memorials in Europe . But remember, our guys fought in Hell in the Pacific and it grips my heart in precisely the same way each time I hear mention of it. There are literally many thousands of military museums throughout the world. In any city, large or small, one needs only to look or ask and a small side trip will reinforce a set of emotions that cannot be duplicated in any other environment. I have also been visiting Eastern countries like Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania and of course Russia (took my kids there even when St. Pete was Leningrad ). The museums are usually manned by old warriors or matrons who sit silently until approached with respect when they light dimly with humble pride. Once in a while it has been my habit to purchase and return with a bayonet if available. Its cold steel and personal attachment to some soldier offers a special sentiment. Not to worry, we Americans are always received with a special kind of engagement, either as mighty foes or beloved allies, but always with admiration and respect. If you want to feel proud as an American, humble as a survivor, grateful for your freedoms, and in awe of what real hardship and sacrifice is/was all about, then just visit these museums, cemeteries, and memorials. ronoz From: cowchpt8o@aol.com This is pretty long but worth the read if you can stick with it. Frank Mellott ***Back to top ************************************************************************* Tomorrow morning they'll lay the remains of Glenn Rojohn to rest in the Peace Lutheran Cemetery in the little town of Greenock , Pa. , just southeast of Pittsburgh . He was 81, and had been in the air conditioning and plumbing business in nearby McKeesport . If you had seen him on the street he would probably have looked to you like so many other graying, bespectacled old World War II veterans whose names appear so often now on obituary pages. But like so many of them, though he seldom talked about it, he could have told you one hell of a story. He won the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Purple Heart all in one fell swoop in the skies over Germany on December 31, 1944. Fell swoop indeed. Capt. Glenn Rojohn, of the 8th Air Force's 100th Bomb Group, was flying his B-17G Flying Fortress bomber on a raid over Hamburg . His formation had braved heavy flak to drop their bombs, then turned 180 degrees to head out over the North Sea . They had finally turned northwest, headed back to England , when they were jumped by German fighters at 22,000 feet. The Messerschmitt Me-109s pressed their attack so closely that Capt. Rojohn could see the faces of the German pilots. He and other pilots fought to remain in formation so they could use each other's guns to defend the group. Rojohn saw a B-17 ahead of him burst intoflames and slide sickeningly toward the earth. He gunned his ship forward tofill in the gap. He felt a huge impact. The big bomber shuddered, felt suddenly very heavy and began losing altitude. Rojohn grasped almost immediately that he had collided with another plane. A B-17 below him, piloted by Lt. William G. McNab, had slammed the top of its fuselage into the bottom of Rojohn's. The top turret gun of McNab's plane was now locked in the belly of Rojohn's plane and the ball turret in the belly of Rojohn's had smashed through the top of McNab's. The two bombers werealmost perfectly aligned - the tail of the lower plane was slightly to the left of Rojohn's tailpiece. They were stuck together, as a crewman later recalled, "like mating dragon flies." No one will ever know exactly how it happened. Perhaps both pilots had moved >instinctively to fill the same gap in formation. Perhaps McNab's plane had hit an air pocket. Three of the engines on the bottom plane were still running, as were all four of Rojohn's. The fourth engine on the lower bomber was on fire and the flames were spreading to the rest of the aircraft. The two were losing altitude quickly. Rojohn tried several times to gun his engines and break free of the other plane. The two were inextricably locked together. Fearing a fire, Rojohn cuts his engines and rang the bailout bell. If his crew had any chance of parachuting, he had to keep the plane under control somehow. The ball turret, hanging below the belly of the B-17, was considered by many to be a death trap - the worst station on the bomber. In this case, both ball turrets figured in a swift and terrible drama of life and death. Staff Sgt. Edward L. Woodall, Jr., in the ball turret of the lower bomber, had felt the impact of the collision above him and saw shards of metal drop past him. Worse, he realized both electrical and hydraulic power was gone. Remembering escape drills, he grabbed the handcrank, released the clutch and cranked the turret and its guns until they were straight down, then turned and climbed out the back of the turret up into the fuselage. Once inside the plane's belly Woodall saw a chilling sight, the ball turret of the other bomber rotruding through the top of the fuselage. In that turret, hopelessly trapped, was Staff Sgt. Joseph Russo. Several crewmembers on Rojohn's plane tried frantically to crank Russo's turret around so he could escape. But, jammed into the fuselage of the lower plane, the turret would not budge. Aware of his plight, but possibly unaware that his voice was going out over the intercom of his plane, Sgt. Russo began reciting his Hail Marys. Up in the cockpit, Capt. Rojohn and his co-pilot, 2nd Lt. William G. Leek, Jr., had propped their feet against the instrument panel so they could pull back on their controls with all their strength, trying to prevent their plane from going into a spinning dive that would prevent the crew from jumping out. Capt. Rojohn motioned left and the two managed to wheel the grotesque, collision-born hybrid of a plane back toward the German coast. Leek felt like he was intruding on Sgt. Russo as his prayers crackled over the radio, so he pulledoff his flying helmet with its earphones. Rojohn, immediately grasping that crew could not exit from the bottom of his plane, ordered his top turret gunner and his radio operator, Tech Sgts. Orville Elkin and Edward G. Neuhaus, to make their way to the back of the fuselage and out the waist door behind the left wing. Then he got his navigator, 2 nd Lt. Robert Washington, and his bombardier, Sgt. James Shirley to follow them. As Rojohn and Leek somehow held the plane steady, these four men, as well as waist gunner Sgt. Roy Little and tail gunner Staff Sgt. Francis Chase were able to bail out. Now the plane locked below them was aflame. Fire poured over Rojohn's left wing He could feel the heat from the plane below and hear the sound of .50 aliber machinegun ammunition "cooking off" in the flames. Capt. Rojohn ordered Lieut. Leek to bail out. Leek knew that without him helping keep the controls back, the plane would drop in a flaming spiral and the centrifugal force would prevent Rojohn from bailing. He refused the order. Meanwhile, German soldiers and civilians on the ground that afternoon looked up in wonder. Some of them thought they were seeing a new Allied secret weapon - a strange eight-engined double bomber. But anti-aircraft gunners on the North Sea coastal island of Wangerooge had seen the collision. A German battery captain wrote in his logbook at 12:47 p.m.: "Two fortresses collided in a formation in the NE. The planes flew hooked together and flew 20 miles south. The two planes were unable to fight anymore. The crash could be awaited so I stopped the firing at these two planes." Suspended in his parachute in the cold December sky, Bob Washington watched with deadly fascination as the mated bombers, trailing black smoke, fell to earth about three miles away, their downward trip ending in an ugly boiling blossom of fire. In the cockpit Rojohn and Leek held grimly to the controls trying to ride a falling rock. Leek tersely recalled, "The ground came up faster and faster. Praying was allowed. We gave it one last effort and slammed intothe ground." The McNab plane on the bottom exploded, vaulting the other B-17 upward and forward. It hit the ground and slid along until its left wing slammed through a wooden building and the smoldering mass of aluminum came to a stop. Rojohn and Leek were still seated in their cockpit. The nose of the plane was relatively intact, but everything from the B-17's massive wings back was destroyed. They looked at each other incredulously. Neither was badly injured.Movies have nothing on reality. Still perhaps in shock, Leek crawled out through a huge hole behind the cockpit, felt for the familiar pack in his uniform pocket and pulled out a cigarette. He placed it in his mouth and was about to light it. Then he noticed a young German soldier pointing a rifle at him.The soldier looked scared and annoyed. He grabbed the cigarette out of Leek's mouth and pointed down to the gasoline pouring out over the wing from a ruptured fuel tank. Two of the six men who parachuted from Rojohn's plane did not survive the jump. But the other four and, amazingly, four men from the other bomber, including ball turret gunner Woodall, survived. All were taken prisoner. Several of them were interrogated at length by the Germans until they were satisfied that what had crashed was not a new American secret weapon. Rojohn, typically, didn't talk much about his Distinguished Flying Cross. Of Leek, he said, "In all fairness to my co-pilot, he's the reason I'm alive today." Like so many veterans, Rojohn got back to life unsentimentally after the war, marrying and raising a son and daughter. For many years, though, he tried to link back up with Leek, going through government records to try to track him down. It took him 40 years, but in 1986, he found the number of Leek's mother, in Washington State . Yes, her son Bill was visiting from California . Would Rojohn like to speak with him? Two old men on a phone line, trying to pick up some familiar timbre of youth in each other's voice. One can imagine that first conversation between the two men who had shared that wild ride in thecockpit of a B-17. A year later, the two were re-united at a reunion of the 100th Bomb Group in Long Beach , Calif. Bill Leek died the following year. Glenn Rojohn was the last survivor of the remarkable piggyback flight. He was like thousands upon thousands of men -- soda jerks and lumberjacks, teachers and dentists, students and lawyers and service station attendants and store clerks and farm boys -- who in the prime of their lives went to war in World War II. They sometimes did incredible things, endured awful things, and for the most part most of them pretty much kept it to themselves and just faded back into the fabric of civilian life. Capt. Glenn Rojohn, AAF, died last Saturday after a long siege of illness. But he apparently faced that final battle with the same grim aplomb he displayed that remarkable day over Germany so long ago. Let us be thankful for such men. A great story. I wonder how many more stories like this one are lost each day as members of the Greatest Generation pass on. Leon Skeen ***Back to top John is surely a thinking man... Yes, Descartes is famous for saying "I think, therefore I am" ["cogito, ergo sum"]..... but he also pondered (Meditations) that whatever he could doubt he must reject, and this is likely the thought process for Atheists and others in our modern times who reject what they cannot perceive as real. While I can't subscribe to old Rene's cynicism, his process of doubt, and verification beyond doubt, as a way to peel back beliefs and opinions to seek the actual truth is something I advocate strongly. To doubt God, patriotism, our wars on drugs and poverty, liberalism and conservatism, sexuality, and all the other "belief systems" of the "true believers" is actually healthy.... The truth is there, the best thinking regarding the pursuit of that truth must involve "doubts" or they simply will not be explored. The doubting process, and as a start to reject everything that can be doubted, is merely a deconstructionist outlook. It says to break everything down to it's simplest provable elements and reconstruct a new model of understanding with what can be proved. My point, not his, is that so many accept ideology, politics, religion, so-called "facts," authority, accepted notions (such as global warming), and so many others without having doubted at all. Propaganda, advertising, marketing, all efforts at mass psychology, can rely on the sad situation that most will follow a leader, an idea, a politic, or whatever simply on the absence of doubt. Ronoz ***Back to top I had to take note the other day when I saw Ty (?), a stunning black motorcycle female officer. She was impressive in her confidence, her stature, and her obvious commanding presence. I don't know anything else about her except she made a very positive impression on me and I assume it is the same impression she must project to others in the community and on the Department. She was outspoken yet well spoken. She could smile without holding back her venom. [Feb 24, 2005 ** Chief Tucker] Who is Chief Tucker and should we fear him or what he intends to do?
What good does it do to start out with the assumption that police overtime is a bad thing? Imagine.... ***Back to top [October 23, 2004 ** Oakland Redwoods] The City of Oakland is a prime climate for redwoods. As many of you know, most of San Francisco was built of redwood lumber hauled out of the Oakland hills (yes, redwood came from Redwood City also). The Oakland hills were filled with enough redwoods to keep the many lumber companies busy for decades. My point is that after the big fire in 1991, exactly 13 years ago, there was much legitimate concern that we had too many eucalyptus and pine trees flourishing our hillsides with their highly incendiary fuels. So what did the City of Oakland do about it? It should have been obvious that the solution should have been to replant thousands of redwood trees and encourage residents to do the same. Friends of ours planted a small grove after their home was rebuilt in the Charing Cross area and these trees are now 30 feet tall. We lost a home near Broadway Terrace and planted a single redwood that has grown over 30 feet. Even in Orinda as I look outside the window I see a redwood planted only 15 years ago and it is above the roofline of our two story home. However, anyone driving in the fire area, say through the tunnel, has only to look at the many acres of new growth eucalyptus and pine that have completely taken over. This is all unattractive scrub just waiting for another fire. It is impassable to casual hikers and home to insects and rodents. Redwoods are majestic and very resistant to fires and disease. Younger redwoods burn much easier than the older ones but the high moisture content raises their flashpoint much higher than eucalyptus or pines. You've probably noticed how pleasant it is to walk among redwoods. There is very little undergrowth, the areas are somewhat insect free, rats and rodents find no refuge there, hikers can easily traverse, and they grow with natural exuberance in the Oakland hills. Of course fires have ravaged our forest lands, but you will notice that the redwood groves amazingly survive. Lightning can strike and travel through roots setting the interior of redwoods into fires that can smolder for weeks. When fire sweeps through the forest the duff and slash around the base of the trees burns hotter and longer, thereby finding a week spot in the trunk and burning out the heartwood. The resulting hollowed out areas are called "goosepens" because settlers kept their geese and chickens in them. When a tree dies and leaves a decomposing stump, other trees sprout around its base, sometimes creating what is called a "fairy ring" - several mature trees growing in a nearly perfect circle. Why don't the City Fathers (and Mothers) get it? Would Oakland hill residents rather have eucalyptus, oak, pine, or redwood trees around their homes during a fire? ronoz ***Back to top [April 18, 2004 ** Kennedy Honesty?] It was correct for Atwood to point out that Chappaquiddick is probably ancient and forgotten history, at least in the minds of some who revere Senator Teddy Kennedy as the Democrat, second only to Bill Clinton, as the standard bearer for their vision of an America devoid of decency or morality. For those interested: Ordinarily, as reported, Teddy Kennedy's chauffer, who was present for the weekend of partying, would drive him everywhere. But, getting close to midnight Teddy Kennedy chose to drive 20 year old Mary Jo Kopechne somewhere for some unknown purpose when he lost control crossing an old wooden bridge. Ted Kennedy's statement to the police. "On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 PM in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard , Massachusetts , I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road , instead of bearing hard left on Main Street . After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. The car went off the side of the bridge. There was one passenger with me, one Miss Mary ________( There was a blank space here because Kennedy was not sure of the spelling of the dead girl's last name, and instead offered a rough phonetic approximation), a former secretary of my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy. The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom. I attempted to open the door and the window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car. I was unsuccessful in the attempt. I was exhausted and in a state of shock. I recall walking back to where my friends were eating. There was a car parked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the back seat. I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown. I remember walking around for a period of time and then going back to my hotel room. When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police." "She was alive, easily an hour, maybe two." Police diver John Farrar. It took Farrar 30 minutes from the time he got the call to recover her body from the vehicle. On August 13, based on a tip from a telephone company employee, The Manchester Union Leader reported that Senator Kennedy had charged 17 long distance telephone calls to his credit card during the hours he claimed to be "in shock" after the accident. None of the calls were for emergency services. "I found it hard to believe the Senator had been in a major automobile accident. His face bore no traces of any marks. He never sat down or appeared in any kind of physical discomfort. If he had been injured, in shock, or confused, nothing of it lingered in our meeting, to my observation." - Police Chief Dominick Arena - Detective Bernie Flynn's statement."I figure,we've got a drunk driver, Ted Kennedy. He's with this girl, and he has it in his mind to go down to the beach and make love to her. He's probably driving too fast and he misses the curve and goes into Cemetery Road . He's backing up when he sees this guy in uniform coming toward him. That's panic for the average driver who's been drinking; but here's a United States Senator about to get tagged for driving under. He doesn't want to get caught with a girl in his car, on a deserted road late at night, with no license and driving drunk on top of it. In his mind, the most important thing is to get away from the situation." Kennedy walked by houses where he could have sought help and ignored a nearby volunteer firehouse. He got his two lawyers (Gargan and Markham). For the next 8 hours, they would be the only people on the island who were even aware of the accident. They went back to the scene and still didn't report the accident. Two fishermen passing by noticed the submerged vehicle and called it in. However, under the rules for attorney-client privilege they wouldn't be able to discuss Kennedy's actions. When Farrar arrived no one knew there was a woman in the car. The car was upside down with the driver's window open and tires breaking the surface of the water. In John Farrar's opinion, if the accident had occurred at 12:40 AM, Mary Jo Kopechne could have lived until 2:40 AM - an hour after Kennedy, Gargan, and Markham had returned to and left the scene. "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? "Be disciplined. Be courageous. Meet every challenge with what ability you have." Bobby Kennedy to his younger brother Teddy years earlier. "Why couldn't Mary Jo have been driving the car? Why couldn't she have let me off, and driven to the ferry herself and made a wrong turn? I'm going to say that Mary Jo was driving." Also. Kennedy suggested that when he was back at the Shiretown Inn, Gargan could "discover" the accident and report to police that Mary Jo had been alone in the car. .as reported by Gargan years later (1988). ronoz ***Back to top >From: "Attwood" < blatt@pcisys.net > Wow that's reaching back a few years. I doubt our president even knows about Chappaquiddick. The following is at least up to date. Bob Scary Performance, and a Signal for Slaughter Matthew Rothschild The Progressive, 14 April 2004 EXCERPT: George Bush's press conference on April 13 was a scary performance. Not because his second sentence was ungrammatical: "This has been tough weeks in that country." Not because he pronounced "instigated" as "instikated" in his fourth sentence. Not because he said Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of State. Not because of his foolish comment that before 9/11 "we assumed oceans would protect us." (Ever since the Russians built their first ICBMs fifty years ago, the oceans haven't protected us.) Not because he said of the August 6 briefing, "Frankly, I didn't think it was anything new"! Not because he said that even if he had known beforehand that Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles, he still would have gone to war against Saddam Hussein. Not because he had no coherent answer as to why Dick Cheney must hold his hand when he testifies to the 9/11 commission. Not because he said that no one in his Administration had "any indication that bin Laden might hijack an airplane and run it into a building," when in fact, at the Genoa G-8 summit, there were precautions taken against incoming airplanes as missiles. And not because he repeatedly refused to take a shred of personal responsibility for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen on his watch. No, his performance was scary because he plunged the United States deeper into a no-win war in Iraq . > ----- Original Message ----- From: Terence J. Green
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Teddy "Chappaquidick" Kennedy failed to grasp the true meaning of Rumsfeld's answer.......... A great response. (2004-02-05) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Edward M. Kennedy yesterday that he was "all wet" when the Senator alleged that the Bush administration lied about Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war. The verbal clash came during Mr. Rumsfeld's testimony at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing probing the state of pre-war intelligence. Sen. Kennedy began his questioning of the Defense Secretary by saying, "Don't you think some members of the Bush administration should be held legally accountable for the lies they told about Iraqi weapons, and the subsequent cover-up?" "First, with all due respect Senator Kennedy, you're all wet," said Mr. Rumsfeld "The administration has not lied or covered up. However, in general, I do believe that when a man commits a crime he should face the bar of justice. He should not be allowed to serve in positions of power in our government, and be hailed as a leader, when the question of his guilt remains unresolved, if you know what I mean." Terry and Donna Green ***Back to top [February 21, 2004 ** Cost of Cops] This is 2004, and the public budgets for 2004 are already spent. Cut back on teachers and cut back on police and firefighters! We hear this all the time. However, these positions provide the core of necessary services that are the essence of preserving our way of life. Could it be that the budgets, so bloated with line-items that are in the "nice to have" or "politically correct" categories, contain costs that are not essential when compared with the roles of teachers, cops, and firefighters? Yet, it's the core positions, the persons who are actually our life's blood whose work is the first to be placed on the chopping block. Those responsible for the budgets of police (I'm a cop, so I'll emphasize police), and the firefighters, and the teachers, have sterilized the souls of their occupations with embellishments that serve causes other than their principal and principle purpose. It seems so rudimentary to simply take a 1964 budget and set it aside a 2004 budget. Which one do you think has the most line-items? It wouldn't be a surprise if the 2004 budget were more than five times longer. And yet, the number and salaries of police, firefighters, and teacher personnel would still only be one line item in each of the budgets. Why not go back and focus on the missions of these personnel, and cut back on everything that doesn't work, hasn't worked, to increase success for those missions. Tough questions would have to be asked? Has higher technology helped to fight crime (cars bristling with antennas, brilliant strobes, field computers, etc.)? Have special internal programs made for smoother operations (new civilian positions, racist and sexist promotions, stress and sensitivity programs, side issue positions, etc.)? Have community interface efforts and community relations helped citizen involvement? Have safety efforts and changes reduced the personnel injuries and time from duty (2-person cars, safety vests, specialized uniforms, equipment and weapons, etc), Have operational changes worked (Dogs, Horses, SWAT, etc.)? Have politically correct "adjustments" done anything to reduce crime? Have personnel changes made a difference (hiring standards. de facto racial quotas, living in City limit advantages, bilingual talents over others, lowered physical standards, etc.)? Has mushroomed training made a difference (year long academies, special training, sensitivity training, etc.)? Yes, maybe, no, don't know? Most of these current costs added to the 1964 budget are darlings of the community, the City administration, the political climate, and yes, even of the cops themselves. And yet, the answers to the questions are ignored. Has the crime rate reduced since 1964? Is the personnel safety experience today any better than in 1964? Are the cops any more effective in responding to calls, resolving unsolved crimes, keeping the community safe for citizens? The answers to all these questions are simple to quantify, but the qualitative answers lie in the guts of each of us. As in science, only hypotheses, experiments, and careful review, review, and review can lead to successful continuing operations. Thus far, only the slogging City and community politicos with their hunchback correctness have come up with Lewis Carroll hypotheses. They're the ones with the purse strings of course. Speaking of purse strings, in 1964 people complained about the prices of houses, the amount of their property taxes, and the crime rate. If they only knew.. With all the ridiculously ill-advised special studies financed and flushed into wasteful effluence over the past 40 years, why not spend another few dollars on a simple financial model and see what can be learned? Why not look at all the line items and their costs for 1964, correlate the line items with the 2004 budget and study them first. For example, how many police did we have and what were their salaries? Yes, I know you could juxtapose calls for service and crime statistics, but first let's Keep It Simple Stupid. The 1964 dollars would have to be adjusted for 2004 dollars, and that methodology can be manipulated so be careful. I know in 1964 I bought a $25,000 house in Montclair on my $625 a month salary that was paid for by my ($425) property taxes. That house is now worth $625,000. Have entry cop salaries gone up 25 times ($15,625 a month)? I paid $450 a year in property taxes and on a $625,000 house today (at 1.2%) the property taxes would now be $7,500. Have the entry salaries gone up 17 times ($10,625 a month)? In other words, start with the hypothesis that the core items, the line-items of the 1964 "control" budget, are essential. If the line items are relevant today (some may not), then tabulate the agreed cost of living equivalent in 2004 dollars for each entry. Then tie it into the relative revenue sources for 1964 and 2004. That is, take the portion of revenue from property taxes (and other City income) in 1964 (for police personnel and salaries as an example) and figure the cost of the line item as a percentage of that, and compare it with 2004. You will probably come up with some real surprises. Simple is as simple does. I think we could afford to budget another brand new Police Administration Building like we got back in the early sixties, the same number of police, the same type of personnel backgrounds and police training, the same expenditure on equipment, the same internal staffing, etc.... and be able to handle the calls for service at the same levels of response as we did then. That's an hypothesis. Now, argumentatively make changes and adjustments, keeping true to the line-item costs, while correlating them to our revenue sources. But.. Keep the mission in focus and abandon the social and political correctness of the day (don't worry it can't and won't be ignored). Give the current PAB to a new City Department and let them staff it with whatever dollars are left over (I suspect quite a few) with social workers, community relations experts, sensitivity specialists, out-reach disciples, stress palpators, and all the others that don't belong in the operating room of crime fighting. Give this new Department over to the community and political influences who can hire and advance personnel based on whatever criteria that might satiate their narcotic appetites for politically correct sweets. But leave crime fighting methodology and application to real cops. Ronoz ***Back to top [February 20,2004 ** US Mission ] Randy is absolutely right. Looking at the numbers it is indeed evident that the cost of not going to war, or not having the resolve to go to war, has been much greater in human lives. The Russians have just announced an ICBM that easily defeats our planned missile defense system. Iran , Korea , and who knows whom now have nuclear weapons. The Islamic world seems set to take on Western Civilization (and Russia ). Terrorists have no borders. Tyrants abound. The world respects our military might (see Libya ), but just can't believe we have the fortitude to use it. With Bush, at least there is now a question mark about our resolve. However, the threats to humanity around the world must merely be taking a breather as they see the Democratic Presidential candidates once again repeat the tail-between-legs retreat failure to maintain resolve as the Democrats did when they cut off all funds to the Viet Nam effort. We didn't lose that war, the Democrats abandoned it to the North and more than 3,000,000 people in the neighborhood soon after lost their lives. Now, the bad guys play over and over again the speeches of Gore, Kerry, Clark, Dean and the others that whine about the costs being too great in Iraq . United Nations demographic numbers indicate that in as little as 30 years France , Germany and Belgium will be more than half Islamic. It's no wonder that Britain wants to keep a strong alliance with the US . It's sad that France , Germany and Belgium are willing to contemplate prostituting their futures to avoid inconvenient sacrifices today. At least the Spanish, the Italians, and the new independents of the old Eastern bloc appreciate the threats and join in our efforts. And for those who might feel naively idealistic (nihilistic?) about the intentions of Islam, they simply don't appreciate the principle of the ratchet. The Islamic nations do not believe in the same democratic principles and insist that their religion preeminenates their governments, laws, and ethics. The Western Democracies are all aging populations and the massive immigration of Muslims is not assimilating. Yes, the Communists were a terrible and deathly wrath in the 20th century, so how can we ignore a possible Taliban future? Our social crises here may include issues like gay marriages and abortion today, but what of a way of life that follows the national mayhems justified by the Koran in the eyes of millions and millions? Yes, it's one thing to criticize, and another to offer solutions. In that regard, I would repeat what I've said before. Let's take advantage of our strengths and avoid our weaknesses. If a tyrant is too much of a threat, let's take him out. and get out. We've got the resolve and the might to jump in and kick ass, but we lack it to stay behind and nation-build. In the case of Iraq , we should simply foreclose on their oil properties, keep a fortified physical presence on those properties, and leave the cities to Iraq 's citizens. Perhaps a bit too clinical, but we could offer Iraqis a simple up or down vote. "Would you vote to retain an Islamic nation or form a democratic one?" The country would simply be divided after the vote. The square miles of the country would be divided by the votes cast. All those voting would be "asked" to move to their respective apportionment. The US would guarantee the security of all those living in the democracy portion. Holy Islam can take care of the citizens in their lands. The oil lands would be taken out of the equation and "protected" and administered by the US until after our debts are repaid, and then turned over to the UN. A reasonable priority would apportion all first oil dollars respectively to the Iraqis. The proceeds of oil can simply not be allowed to foment war or tyranny. After all, Iraq and all the present Muslim countries were entirely created by a Westerner using best-guess determinations and a pencil.. Just a few years ago (ending the last 600 year wave of Islam all the way north to the Baltic countries). We should seek to advise the world that there needs to be a geo-political and a geo-religious balance. The citizens of the Middle Eastern countries, to the extent they want Islam, should be so contained. Yes, we are by default the SWAT Team of the world, and the world needs to respect that. The United Nations can be the social workers and provide humanitarian assistance. Perhaps NATO can be the parole and probation officers. One last side comment. Let's take away the arguments from the weak kneed that we are losing too many soldiers in the war. Of course we are, but it is war. We lose too many policemen also, but I don't see anyone saying "Let's get the police out of our cities." Losing even one soldier, or one cop, is indescribable agony. But there is reason, purpose and righteousness to the missions of soldiers and cops. ronoz ***Back to top [February 19, 2004 ** World Murder] Aside from war casualties, most likely the Nazis wiped out 5,291,000 Jews, 258,000 Gypsies, 10,547,000 Slavs, and 220,000 homosexuals. They also "euthanized" 173,500 handicapped Germans. They murdered many more millions in every country they occupied. According to careful estimates, in total they likely annihilated 20,946,000 human beings. The war killed another 28,736,000 Europeans In total, the 20th century's battle killed in all its international and domestic wars, revolutions, and violent conflicts is about 35,654,000. However, it is credibly estimated that non-war mass killings perpetrated by evil governments during the 20th century is 119,394,000. These figures do not even include the 1921-1922 and 1958-1961 famines in the Soviet Union and China causing about 4 million and 27 million dead, respectably. The former famine was mainly due to the imposition of a command agricultural economy, forced requisitions of food by the Soviets, and the liquidation campaigns of the Cheka; the latter was wholly caused by Mao's agriculturally destructive Great Leap Forward and collectivization. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan 's Savage Military on civilians 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey 's Genocidal Purges 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland 's Ethnic Cleansing 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse 1,663,000 Murdered: Orwellian North Korea The Soviet Union , under communism between 1917 and 1987, aside from war casualties, murdered 61,911,000 people. Communist China wiped out 35,266,000 people between 1949 and 1987. They're only numbers... Ronoz [December 23, 2003 ** Supreme Emperors] "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States , which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." So reads the first Section of the first Article of the Constitution of The United States. So important was it to understand the authority of the Congress to be the sole determiner of the laws of our land. So why, and how, has the Supreme Court garnered the power for itself to create new laws? And, hanging on the power grab of the Supreme Court, lower Federal courts have been set up, and regard themselves just as creative in creating new judicial laws. It isn't until much later, when Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution begins: "The judicial Power of the United States , shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." It doesn't take a careful reading to realize Congress has the power to restrict the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, limit their authority, in all matters excepting those "Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party" where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (Section 2). Therefore, without violating the Constitution, Congress could eliminate all federal courts, except the Supreme Court, break up the Supreme Court or create 500 Justices and spread them throughout the country to hear only much more limited concerns. Maybe 500 Justices voting on a decision would be more democratic. It isn't odd that the Constitution spelled out the powers of Congress but remained virtually blank about what the powers of the Supreme Court should be. It took first, the Judiciary Act of 1789, a legislative action of the Congress to give any definition at all to the role of the Supreme Court. In other words, Congress was meant to lead the Supreme Court, by enacting laws, not the other way around. The Act created one Chief Justice and five associates, who were to sit as a body in only two sessions annually. It created thirteen federal court districts, with one judge in each, to hear federal cases where punishments wouldn't exceed 30 lashes of a whip, no penalty over $100, and no imprisonment over six months. There were to be Circuit Courts in each district and the Supreme Court Justices were expected to get in their buggies and hold court to decide appeals in the circuits. The Justices would hold no more power here than the district judges. Most informed persons have a historical sense of how the Supreme Court swelled with it's own power, some in admiration and others in contempt. After Chief Justice Marshall ignored the Eleventh Amendment (State sovereignty issues), Thomas Jefferson wrote some biting words against the Supreme Court, and they speak for themselves: He told the court that there was no intention, in the writing or passage of the Constitution, ".to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties and restraining vice within their own territory." In other words, he said that each State's sovereign authority to govern its own internal affairs, free from federal judicial intervention, should remain inviolate. In another letter, showing frightened concern of a Supreme Court unbridled, he said ".a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so." Moreover, "their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control." Article VI says that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of The Land, and all judges are bound to support the Constitution. Not only is there no mention of the Supreme Court having the capacity to create it's own structure or agenda, with free rein to select social issues for federal mandate, according to the collective biases of it's Justices, there is also no mention of any responsibility or authority for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as "an evolving document." If Miranda, abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, gun control, search and seizure, and on and on, should become restrictions or prescriptions as the laws of the land, and if Congress legislated such acts, then the Supreme Court, upon a challenge, would have a proper place to determine if, under the Constitution, the Federal Government had the right to usurp State prerogatives. But that's not the Supreme Court Godzilla we have today. Many liberals have, since Earl Warren, cheered a Supreme Court that has effectively passed laws that affect every American, laws that were never legislated by Congress. But it is a false elixir, because these same liberals, when the social tide turns, and it always does, will scream like castrated canaries when the conservatives use the Supreme Court to effect its agenda, all with the same justifications. Maybe one of the lawyers in our ranks can set me straight, but under our Constitution, couldn't in another time, and in another place, the Congress establish a federal system of "People's Courts," whose judges would be specially selected members of political parties in power, much as was done by the National Socialist German Workers' Party? Couldn't then, the Congress disallow appeals for certain crimes to the Supreme Court? Keep in mind that ostensibly, the laws and institutions remained the same when the Nazis subverted the system for their own aims. If liberal Justices can interpret the Constitution as an evolving document, in other words the words mean whatever they would like them to mean within the current social context, cannot conservative justices do the same? ronoz [December 23, 2004 ** Supremes] My point exactly, but I think you miss the point as do so many others. ***Back to top [December 4, 2003 ** Poverty?] I hope many on Openline get a chance to see Ray Miller's post with a video clip of a million dollar helicopter trying to tow a small pleasure boat into shore. It crashed. Reminds me very much of a lot of other things we do, at all levels, to fix society as if fixing a one watch after another with a sledge hammer and never learning the lesson. Every Democrat during the various debates has blamed the Republicans for not caring about the "35 million Americans in poverty." Think about this for a minute. For the period after WWII until the sixties when Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats indeed thought we needed a War On Poverty, the poverty rate in this country had actually been declining steadily, a full 50%. Nevertheless, the War On Poverty has since been the continuous showcase of the Democrats. Estimates as high as six trillion dollars have been spent on this war. And, now they tell us that poverty has increased to a level of 35 million people! That's one eighth of the American population. Where are they all? This is an increase of 600% in poverty since the inception of the War on Poverty. Something is non-sensical, of course. If this country cares about poverty, and there has been such a costly War on Poverty waged and funded by the Democrats, and it has failed so miserably, then who would want to vote Democrat? John Edwards says over and over again that "Children are going to bed hungry," and that there are poor children that "Don't have enough clothes to keep warm." Hello? Surely the armada of news scurrilists can ferret out photos and stories of naked skinny kids with distended stomachs. Surely we all care about anyone down and out. Even if the War on Poverty is a scam and the cry-poor statistics are ridiculous, we've all seen some real needy, albeit temporary, cases. But, consider a little more depth of the issue: The World Bank defines "poor" as those earning less than $2 a day for the Philippines . Under that guideline there are 35 million people in poverty there. Understandable. The Heritage Foundation here in the US , on the 40th Anniversary of the War On Poverty, said that ".few of the 35 million people identified as being 'in poverty' by the Census Bureau could be characterized as 'poor'." They put the word "poor" constantly in quotes, and asserted that "the press, liberal activists and politicians" created the condition in their imagination. Of course the Left is upset with the report and criticizes how tactless it is for the report to conclude that poverty is caused in some measure by "the laziness and promiscuity of the poor." It can't be that guaranteed government handouts could actually be promoting "poverty," can it? According to Heritage's report of the poor, 78% own a VCR/DVD player, 58% own a stereo, and 73% own a microwave, that 98.9% of poor households own a refrigerator, 64.7% own a washer dryer and 75.6% own an air conditioner. Studies by the Left rebut that it takes almost $13,000 to afford childcare, and requires an income of about $30,000 (aside the child care) to pay for average low-end rent. The Left rebuts the two major findings of the Heritage Foundation: First, "if poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty." Second, that each poor family should work 2,000 hours per year. They say that 76% of poor spouses suffer violent abuse and many of the poor are too old to work, and there is hardly any work to be found for many others. Unfortunately for that argument, about 12 million illegal immigrants of both sexes seem to find work between the cracks. The government doesn't clear anything up because the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. However, even by the best guestimate, only three tenths of one percent of the 35 million is actually "destitute." According to other government studies and publications, most of America 's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation. Today, forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris , London , Vienna , Athens , and other cities throughout Europe . (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Another report indicates that ".poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II." "The principal nutrition-related health problem among the poor, as with the general U.S. population, stems from the overconsumption, not underconsumption, of food. While overweight and obesity are prevalent problems throughout the U.S. population, they are found most frequently among poor adults." Whether we talk about poverty in the nation, stress on the job, sexual harassment, racism, health care, or any other issue, why don't smart people want smart answers? ronoz ***Back to top Every day it seems I read in the press, national and international, that Liberia has a special relationship with the US . So I dig a little deeper. Please read no further if offended by politically incorrect, albeit accurate, discussion of a sensitive topic. First thing one might think about in looking at Liberia is that if relying on the scientific (statistical) method is good enough for verifying the efficacy of pharmaceuticals, then Liberia might be a perfect "control group" by which to determine the validity of Reparations. In other words, everyone knows that freed American slaves emigrated voluntarily back to Africa to found the nation of Liberia to make better lives for themselves. Thus it should be a fair study to compare Liberia's Blacks, their freedoms, their rights, their successes, their progress, and so on in the 150 years or so since they left racism, slavery, lack of freedoms, discrimination, prejudice and so on behind in the United States. Starting most notably with Paul Cuffee who was a successful ship owner and Quaker of both African and American Indian ancestry in 1816, he got tacit support from the British government and the US to ship eager Black persons to Sierra Leone. No one asked the Blacks of Sierra Leone, but the British who subjugated them said it was alright. No Liberia yet, but The American Colonization Society (ACS) was born. The goal of the Society should be the measure of judging the success of Liberia for Blacks compared with Blacks who remained in the US : The stated goal "to place them in a country where they may enjoy the benefits of free government . . . and to spread civilization, sound morals, and true religion throughout Africa ." More Americans keen on Blacks going back to Africa continued the efforts. One, a Robert Stockton, persuaded African King Peter (why Stockton named so named him might prove interesting) to sell the program Cape Montserado ( Mesurado Peninsula ) by pointing a pistol at his head. Stockton 's ships were ominously named Shark and Alligator. Then a Jehudi Ashman leased, annexed and bought additional tribal lands. Jehudi employed aggressive tactics and forced King Peter and other native kings, in May 1825, to agree to sell substantial land in return for 500 bars of tobacco, three barrels of rum, five casks of powder, five umbrellas, ten iron posts, and ten pairs of shoes, among other items. Thus the early worth of Liberia was clearly established. Many more Blacks wanted to leave the US for the New Land than could be afforded to sponsor, in large part because the US government refused continual requests for funds. There were private bonds sold; Virginia set aside $30,000 annually for five years to aid and support emigration; the society also received several thousand dollars from the New Jersey , Pennsylvania , Missouri , and Maryland legislatures. The United States government, it seems, played no part in the formation of Liberia other than to endorse that it was a good idea. Even under pressure, the United States refused to claim sovereignty over Liberia , so in 1846 the ACS ordered the Liberians to proclaim their independence (from the Africans who were there first?). In fact, the US disassociated itself and wouldn't even acknowledge Liberia 's sovereignty. The British were the first to do so. So far it doesn't sound like a very special relationship. It gets more interesting. It seems that less than 3% of Liberia 's population was freed slaves and other Blacks from America , known as Americo-Liberians. They were widely reported in the US to have formed a Constitution for Liberia patterned after the US Constitution. You know, the kind with freedoms for all, three branches of government, and so on. 98% of the indigenous population of Liberia , regarded the Americo-Liberians as thieves and criminals who had stolen their lands. According to a Liberian historian, "instead of calling every citizen just a Liberian, the Americo-Liberians created a class system modeled after the antebellum plantations of slavery from which they had been extricated. In their system they were the masters and the African majority became the servants. As this nation of two states in which all the citizens did not have equal rights or equal access to national benefits in all spheres of social development evolved, efforts were made to suppress any awareness of the African self-worth. One of the obnoxious reminders of this insidious legacy is that some African-Liberians today feel inferior as the system has conditioned them to be. Sometimes, they exhibit a tendency of low self-esteem, timidity and deference, especially so when the two groups interact." O.K., so far it seems like the few Blacks who came over did have a better life, but the 98% of the native Black population were apparently treated as badly as the slaves back home, or worse. Of Liberia 's 19 presidents before 1980, none was African-Liberian. A clique of about three hundred Americo- Liberian families controlled all vital vehicles for political participation. Fifteen years after their Declaration of Independence, in 1862, the Liberian Supreme Court ruled that the African-Liberians were only subjects of the state, to be ruled by the law of the land without citizenship because of the "peculiar situation of the Africans in their incapability to understand the working of civilized governments." So, these enlightened freed slaves from America were wise enough to have a Supreme Court that defined the other 98% of Blacks in Liberia as non-citizens. In fact they were regarded as being too ignorant and also as property. They were less than human to the American ex-slaves. Sound familiar? Yes, a few of the local tribes still practiced slavery, but the Americo-Liberians practiced it with government authority (their government). The highest government Americo-Liberian officials actually sold Liberians as slaves to the Spanish and others. They also kept slaves for their own use. I think I'll hold what I found out they did with children. What's wrong with this picture? A Liberian history text explains "The history of Liberia since independence is replete with 'politics of exclusion', corruption, slavery, humiliation of the indigenous, greed and selfishness." So the history of ex-slaves with no freedoms founding a new country for new slaves with no freedoms doesn't sound quite right. How about today? How great is Liberia today? Well it looks like two coups in 1980 and 1990 ended much of the reign of the glorious Americo-Liberians by executions, throat slitting, amputations and disemboweling. It actually looks like the last Christian nation in Africa is about to become the latest Muslim nation. The State Department describes modern day Liberia : "Eighty-five percent unemployment, a 15 percent literacy rate, the continued internal displacement of civilians, and the absence of infrastructure throughout the country continued to depress productive capacity, despite the country's rich natural resources and potential self-sufficiency in food. Government officials and former combatants continued to exploit the country's natural resources for personal benefit. Extortion is a widespread phenomenon in all strata of society." Any research into the current conditin of Liberia leads to the conclusion that it is a trash heap, a dump, a wretched refuse, an apocalypse of human events. Here's a little more "Ritualistic killings, in which body parts used in traditional rituals are removed from the victim, continued to occur. The number of such killings is difficult to ascertain, since police often describe deaths as accidents even when body parts have been removed. Deaths that appear to be natural or accidental sometimes are rumored to be the work of ritualistic killers." The body parts, by the way, are eaten. I tried to be nice about this message, because the details, facts and available photos are difficult to stomach in this land where female genital mutilation is still practiced. Many Americans, especially Black Americans, must certainly be pleased to have lived their continuing history in the United States when viewing the naive option of Liberia . So what's the special relationship to America ? ronoz ***Back to top
|
