One Country But Fifty States

New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow writes

The troubling association — in fact, overassociation — of blacks with criminality directly affects the way we think about both crime and blacks as a whole.

A damning report released by the Sentencing Project last week lays bare the bias and the interconnecting systemic structures that reinforce it and disproportionately affect African-Americans.

This is the kind of report that one really wants to publish in its totality, for its conclusion is such a powerful condemnation of the perversity of racial oppression. 

Fortunately, the Sentencing Project begins its report with an Executive Summary, so we are able to preview its contents and get a fair representation of its findings, as well as recognize the main thrust(s) of the analysts and their priorities.

Don't expect objectivity. Wikipedia describes the Sentencing Project as a 501(c)3 organization which "works for a fair and effective U.S. criminal justice system by promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing unjust racial disparities and practices, and advocating for alternatives to incarceration."

Their slant is evident.  Still, a few valid observations are made in the report and- more sparingly in the Executive Summary.

We read "Whites who more strongly associate crime with racial minorities are more supportive of punitive policies," a crucial point because the perception of voters influences the actions of policymakers. If voters are to support such measures as capital punishment and mandatory sentencing, they ought to do so because they benefit the nation, their community, or themselves, rather than from their view of blacks as prone to criminality.   Whatever the validity of that perception, it evidently skews for unacceptable reasons support for punitive measures .

In the same vein, "racial perceptions of crime have undermined public safety" because

By increasing the scale of criminal sanctions and disproportionately directing penalties toward people of color, racial perceptions of crime have been counterproductive for public safety. Racial minorities’ perceptions of unfairness in the criminal justice system have dampened cooperation with police work and impeded criminal trials. 

Of course, "people of color," to those of us who passed second grade English, is synonymous with "colored people," a term which thankfully passed out of the lexicon decades ago.  (If blacks are "people of color," does that make whites "people of light?" That would be a logical, and fairly ugly, extrapolation.)  Now, regrettably, it has returned, to mean, as the user finds convenient, blacks;or blacks and Hispanics; or blacks, Hispanics, and anyone else not white. notwithstanding the Asian experience in the U.S.A. has been dramatically different from that of African-Americans.  (And, yes, some Hispanics are, anthropologists have found, are black and some white.  Don't expect the Sentencing Project to make that distinction.)

This is not some overly technical objection.  It is likely that the perception of blacks toward the criminal justice system is somewhat different than that of Hispanics, and substantially different than that of, say, Asian-Americans.  Moreover, whatever alienation there may be of the latter group toward the justice system would not have an identical genesis.

Yet, this misleading and arguably racially biased terminology pops up elsewhere.  "White Americans," the Sentencing Project has discovered, "are more punitive than people of color." This might actually have meaning, if we knew whether the reference is to blacks exclusively. Nonetheless, this is hardly a surprising finding given that, as the organization notes, "White Americans overestimate the proportion of crime committed by people of color, and associate people of color with criminality."

It's curious, though, that while pointing out "respondents in a 2010 survey overestimated the actual share of burglaries, illegal drug sales, and juvenile crime committed by African Americans by 20-30%,"  the report neglects to reveal how many of those respondents themselves were black.  More significantly, the Executive Summary uses the figure of 20-30%.  The meaning of the figures is clarified when we later read "The researchers found that the respondents overestimated actual black participation in these crimes – measured by arrests – by approximately 20 to 30 percent (between 6.6 to 9.5 percentage points)."  Americans are off in their estimation by 6.6 to 9.4 percentage points: off with their heads!

The Executive Summary belies the main body of the report in other ways.  The former includes

Disparities in police stops, in prosecutorial charging, and in bail and sentencing decisions reveal that implicit racial bias has penetrated all corners of the criminal justice system. Moreover,polices that are race-neutral on their surface- such as "hot spot"policing and certain risk assessment instruments- have targeted low-income people of color for heightened surveillance and punishment. 

Agreed: law-enforcement policies race-neutral on their surface have targeted low-income people of color for heightened surveillance and punishment. While punishment is a separate issue, the wisdom of targeting black communities (assuming that they are the communities of "people of color" referred to) for increased surveillance might be understood when we read on page 38 (38!) of the report

whites are far less likely than blacks and Hispanics to be victims of crime. In 2008, African Americans were 78% more likely than whites to experience household burglary, 133% more likely to experience motor vehicle theft, and experienced other types of theft at about the same rate.38 Hispanics were 46% more likely than non-Hispanics to be victims of property crimes. Black Americans are also exposed to violent crime, especially serious violent crime, at much higher rates than whites and Hispanics. 

Let's not demand police apologize when they show greater attention- "heightened surveillance"- toward poor black neighborhoods.  It's a far worse problem when police avoid those poor, black communities precisely because they are more dangerous, not only to the people of the area but also to themselves. (Out here in America, that happens, and too often.)

The report aims to start correcting, in the words of a sympathetic Blow, "The troubling association — in fact, overassociation — of blacks with criminality (which) directly affects the way we think about both crime and blacks as a whole."

But there is an association- not a causation, but an association- of blacks with crime, leading to a somewhat accurate though way over-exaggerated perception among whites.   The numbers are complex and not directly comparable, yet statistically significant.  According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report of 2012 , 69.1% of offenders charged were white and 28.01% were black. (There other categories were American Indian or Alaska Native and Asian or Pacific Islander. I don't know how Hispanics were treated- or whether they were considered "people of color.") Given that blacks comprised approximately 13.2% of the population that year but were 29.01% of the population charged, there is something going on.

But the fundamental flaw in both he Sentencing Project's report and its favorable treatment by Charles Blow is failure to understand that crime in the USA is treated primarily on the state, not federal, level. To be sure, there are national offenses, law enforcement personnel, arrests, and punishment- but there are far more of all on the state level.   There are, further, glaring differences among states. Consider that in 2010, Tennessee had 6.4 crimes per 1,000 residents; Massachusetts, 4.06.  In 2008, Tennesseans had given Barack  Obama 41.8% of their vote in the presidential election; Massachusetts, 62.0%. Why, some people have speculated even that the perception of blacks is different in Tennessee than in Massachusetts!

But when it comes to crime, we're expected to assume it's all the same: in Tennessee and in Massachusetts, in Arkansas and in Rhode Island, in Utah and in Michigan.  There is a racial disparity, one that demands analysis, in the American criminal justice system. However, it is exceeded by inter-state disparity in our federal system.

Facts, we know, have a liberal bias. Let's leave the over-generalization and simplistic accusations to conservatives- they're much better at it, anyway.




Share |

Or He Could Cut And Run, Like Ronald Reagan

Addressing the issue of the Syrian civil war and ISIS on Thursday, President Obama stated "i don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet."

John McCain, sensing a way to prove he was born sometime after 1900, responded by tweeting "#ISIS is largest, richest terrorist group in history & 192,000 dead in #Syria."   Slamming President Obama, Karl Rove contended "He was warned about the role that ISIS was playing inside Syria, and he has had all that time to develop a strategy about what to do about ISIS in Syria and he still doesn't."

Indicted Texas Governor Rick Perry argued "Yesterday, the president admitted he had no strategy to deal with ISIS. The deepening chaos in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Ukraine is all the clear and compelling evidence the world needs of a president one step behind, lurching from crisis to crisis, always playing catch up." And House Budget Committee chairperson Paul Ryan recommended the USA implement a strategy "not to contain them... but to fundamentally finish them off. And I don't think the president sees this moment for what it is."

Given the complexity of the Syrian War, it's easy to understand why a thoroughgoing policy has not yet been developed, unless one is as clueless about international affairs as the latter three guys.  It becomes even more understandable (and maybe a little disconcerting) upon remembering that the worst President in modern American history didn't see a moment in the Middle East for what it was.

In February, recalling the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which left 241 American military personnel dead, Micah Zenko explained

In October 1983, after five Marines were killed in three separate incidents, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane convinced the president to authorize the USS New Jersey to launch attacks against the Druze militia and Syrian forces on land. According to Powell, once the naval attack commenced, the Shiites "assumed the American 'referee' had taken sides against them. And since they could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target: the exposed Marines at the airport." Within one week, Hezbollah-linked militants drove two truck bombs containing a half a kiloton of explosives into the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport, killing 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members.

In the months that followed, the Reagan administration discussed a range of options including striking back and fully withdrawing the Marines.

Reagan never retaliated against Hezbollah or their Iranian and Syrian sponsors responsible for the bombings, a position widely endorsed by senior military officials. As then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Vessey declared: "It is beneath our dignity to retaliate against the terrorists who blew up the Marine barracks."

The Reagan administration also considered the pluses and minuses of withdrawing from the MNF. On the day after the barracks bombing, however, the president reaffirmed his commitment: "The reason they must stay there until the situation is under control is quite clear. We have vital interests in Lebanon. And our actions in Lebanon are in the cause of world peace." Over a month later, on Dec. 1, Reagan stated that the Marines were in Beirut to "demonstrate the strength of our commitment to peace in the Middle East.... Their presence is making it possible for reason to triumph over the forces of violence, hatred, and intimidation." Nine days later, he told the nation: "Once internal stability is established and withdrawal of all foreign forces is assured, the Marines will leave." Finally, on Feb. 4, 1984, Reagan stated something frequently heard in debates over Afghanistan and other theaters of conflict today -- if the United States withdraws, "we'll be sending one signal to terrorists everywhere: They can gain by waging war against innocent people.... If we're to be secure in our homes and in the world, we must stand together against those who threaten us."

Yet, just three days later, on Feb. 7, Reagan ordered the Marines to "redeploy" to their ships offshore -- which was actually a full withdrawal achieved in three weeks. Although the Marine's mission in Lebanon was not clearly defined and, subsequently, not achieved, Reagan's tacit admission of failure and withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon limited America's further involvement in foreign-policy disaster -- saving money, lives, and time. Many pundits later claimed wrongly that Reagan was erroneous, because Osama bin Laden contended that the withdrawal was a sign of U.S. weakness; as if America's strategic choices should be held hostage to how terrorists choose to describe them.

For three-and-a-half months, Saint Ronnie dithered, as Republicans would characterize a Democrat proceeding in such a fashion.  Unsure what to do, he finally took a rhetorically tough stand, the equivalent of declaring "if we hesitate, the terrorists win."  Days later he backed down and began to withdraw U.S. forces.

President Obama probably will act more decisively than did President Reagan, who didn't have to fear that the Republican Party would accuse him of appeasement, nor a Democratic Party which doesn't roll that way.

One of Reagan's most enthusiastic acolytes of recent years has been Sean Hannity, who a few years ago promoted the "What Would Reagan Do?" campaign with other conservatives unable to distinguish between Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) and Jesus Christ.  Elias Isquith of Salon reports on a recent episode of  "Hannity"

“I’ve always had the greatest respect for people, like yourself, that have served our country,” Hannity began, speaking to guest Ralph Peters, a retired Army Colonel. “And if I’m looking at us giving up all of our gains in Iraq, I don’t know if I can in good conscience recommend that any American sign up for the military under this leadership,” he continued, referring to the success the Islamic extremist group ISIS has had in claiming territory in Iraq since most U.S. troops left the country in 2011.

“If they risk their blood and treasure and give up their lives only to give it back a year later?” Hannity continued, referring to portions of Iraq, a sovereign country that is not and never was annexed to the United States. “I really could not in good conscience recommend people serve under those circumstances.”

Here Sean is pimping the myth of the success of the surge in Iraq as he casually refers to "all of our gains in Iraq."  One of those "gains" was the  election of Nouri-al Maliki, who recently agreed to resign as Prime Minister of Iraq  after several years of encouraging continued bloodshed between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims and helping create the conditions giving rise to ISIL.  Had, however, United States soldiers remained in Iraq (presumably as peacekeepers) as Senator McCain had recommended and Hannity appears to believe would have been wise, they would have been susceptible to the kind of brutality displayed by ISIL- and to a major attack reminiscent of the Marine barracks bombing.

If that had occurred, the United States would be in an even worse situation than it was in October, 1983 and the President would have been urged not to give in to the terrorists.  The caveat always heard today- "but no boots on the ground"- would have been employed far less often. With the surge of testosterone throughout the media and official Washington, the President would not have the luxury to deliberate carefully before setting out a strategy which would have regional, possibly worldwide, implications and whose repercussions could have affected the globe for decades to come.




Share |

The Fourth Reich?

In Dana Point, California in June, reported The Nation's Lauren Windsor, the Koch Brothers held their annual 2-3 day conference of up to 300 billionaires at the quaint little retreat (photo below) known as the St. Regis Monarch. The whos's who of right-wing operatives was joined by a smattering of high-placed Repub politicians for strategy sessions on campaign finance, climate change, healthcare, higher education, and gaining control of  the U.S. Senate.  Charles and David rented for 870,000 the entire venue, though each attendee was responsible for paying for his/her own room, the cheapest of which goes for $495 a night.

Extreme  measures were taken to maintain security at, and of, the confab, though Windsor did post a recording of Minority Leader McConnell, who called the day President Bush signed McCain-Feingold "the worst day of my political life" and boasted

So in the House and Senate, we own the budget. So what does that mean? That means that we can pass the spending bill. And I assure you that in the spending bill, we will be pushing back against this bureaucracy by doing what’s called placing riders in the bill. No money can be spent to do this or to do that. We’re going to go after them on healthcare, on financial services, on the Environmental Protection Agency, across the board [inaudible]. All across the federal government, we’re going to go after it.

It's safe to assume the inaudible portion did not refer to funds to bomb Syria, for the Pentagon to acquire the latest in weaponry, to continue NSA spying, or for extraordinary rendition.

Another recording has come to light from the conference.   Think Progress has posted a video (for which it which credits The Undercurrent) in which Executive Vice-President of Koch industries Richard Fink linked the minimum wage and Nazi Germany, arguing

We’re taking these 500,000 people that would’ve had a job and putting them unemployed, making dependence part of government programs, and destroying their opportunity for earned success. And so we see this as a very big part of recruitment in Germany in the twenties. When the Germans were crushed by World War I, the allies put a very strong settlement on that. They lost their meaning in life. And if you look at the rise and fall of the Third Reich … what happens is a fascist comes in and offers them an opportunity.

Coincidentally, Kevin Drum has posted from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development a table (below) which displays the minimum wage in 26 wealthy nations as a percentage of the median wage:

The country third from the bottom is the United States of America.  If we increase the minimum wage, as the Koch Brothers and their cohorts fear, the U.S.A. may turn into Nazi Germany.    Or Spain, Israel, or the Netherlands. Or, heaven forbid, New Zealand.


Share |

God Speaks. It's Not Entirely Comforting.

Are all of us liberals agreed: Christianity is bad, Islam is good? Not all of us do, not myself, and not Bill Maher, though he is much a liberal libertarian (if there is such a thing) than a liberal. Some other liberals/progressive activists, recognizing the political narrow-mindedness and extremism characterizing (accurately or otherwise) Christian fundamentalists, have concluded that all is well with Islam and Muslims themselves. They pose no threat to the West, they strongly imply, other than what has been forced upon them by the USA, Europe, or (of course) Satan himself, Israel. That's what Alternet's C.J. Werleman believes. He condemns atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Bill Maher, critics of Islamist extremism, because "For them, Islam is the root of all Muslim rage against the West, the root of all barbarism, and the root of all conflict in the Middle East." I knew little about the views of Dawkins and Harris toward the Middle East, and know little more since reading Werleman's diatribe against them and American foreign policy and values. But I do know that Maher has, if nothing else, a realistic view of the region, as reflected in his remarks in a Real Time interview in April, 2013: I mean there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you, or wants to kill you, if you draw a bad cartoon of the Prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you, or wants to kill you, if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So, you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real. The Transportation Safety Administration undertakes major security precautions at every major airport in the U.S.A., primarily as a response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01, secondarily in response to perceived, or actual, threats from the East which have followed. As Maher has explained in the past, notwithstanding isolated acts of terrorism committed by Christian fundamentalists, the threat posed by such individuals pales in comparison to the danger of a massive attack by Islamic extremists. One does not have to believe most Muslims are coming after Americans, or that the conflict in the region is due solely to religion, to recognize a significant danger. Fear did not justify Gulf War II, largely unsuccessful, which was commenced primarily to ensure a free flow of oil to the West, nor guarantee victory in Afghanistan, a war launched against the forces which harbored al-Qaeda. Nor is it enough alone to justify bombing raids against ISIS in Syria, which would come with their own implications. But denying that Muslim fanatics harbor anger toward the West, and toward Jews and Christians, partly on a religious basis is as empty-headed as Christian fundamentalists denying climate change because they believe God wouldn't permit it. Maher angers Werleman by tweeting“This ISIS is some cocky m-fuckers. This is one I’m really rooting for us to kick their ass down their throats. America, fuck yeah!"  Profanity and chauvinism aside, the remark harbors some truth, as confirmed by God (below), who has tweeted "People are people, all men are brothers, and there's good and bad in everyone. Having said that, these #ISIS bastards have to die." And nearly echoing the comedian, the Almighty tweets "Just because some members of a particular religion are crazy, doesn't mean some members of other religions aren't also crazy."

Share |

Boldness Must Be In The Eye Of The Beholder

"Bold leadership" is defined by the defenders of the likes of Governor Brownback and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as exercising the courage of pursuing policies transparently harmful to the voters (i.e., constituents) of the state governed.  That isn't only by the right. In an analysis by the Kansas City Star's Brad Cooper, director of Public Policy Polling Tom Jensen is quoted as asserting "Being a bold leader will come back to bite you if the bold things you do are things that voters don't like."  Cooper summarizes

Brownback has slashed income taxes, cut thousands off welfare, curbed abortion rights, tried gaining control of judicial appointments and made a failed attempt to cut arts funding.

When the moderate wing of his party stood in the way, Brownback successfully campaigned for conservatives more in step with his political philosophy so he could exert a tighter grip on the statehouse.

Cooper admits "the state’s credit rating was downgraded partly because of income tax cuts he signed into law."   Early last month Reuters had reported

Standard & Poor's Ratings cut the credit score for Kansas to AA from AA+ on Wednesday in another blow to the deep income tax cuts championed by Republican Governor Sam Brownback, who is struggling to keep his post in upcoming elections.

In a report explaining the downgrade, S&P said the Kansas budget is not structurally balanced and described a fiscal situation with very little breathing room.

S&P noted Kansas relied on a "substantial drawdown" of its general fund balance in fiscal 2014, which ended in June, to cover a revenue shortfall.

Pandering to voters by cutting their taxes today and drawing down a general fund, courting serious repercussions once the governor leaves office. How bold!

Cooper notes "the Brownback administration’s decision to move Medicaid services for the developmentally disabled into a managed-care program run by private insurers." He does not mention that in upon considering Medicaid expansion (map below from The Advisory Board Company; click here for interactivity ability), the Governor in May, 2013

punted the decision to the Republican-controlled state legislature, which has largely kept the topic under study during a legislative session dominated by the topics of taxes, abortion and guns. With lawmakers reconvening this week, it appears likely that the legislature will further delay a decision on expanding Medicaid by requiring any such expansion be approved by lawmakers.

Brownback is one of three governors not to take a definitive postion on Medicaid. 

The legislature later included a provision in the budget "that would require a legislative vote for the state to expand its Medicaid program," according to the Wichita Business Journal.  A year later, there still has been no action. Consequently, Brownback is able to deny that he squelched extension of  health care coverage to needy Kansans while his strategy is well understood by his political benefactors, the Koch brothers.

It is a strategy reminiscent of that of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who in June 2013 indicated he was

planning to expand Medicaid eligibility for low-income New Jersey residents, but he doesn’t want the expansion to be backed up by state law.

On Friday, Christie vetoed a bill (S-2644/A-4233) that would have made the expansion he announced in February permanent.

While he didn’t spell out why he vetoed the bill, he said when originally announcing the expansion that if the fiscal and public health benefits ever change “because of adverse actions by the Obama administration, I will end it as quickly as it started"...

Under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the cost of the expansion through 2016, with the state share rising to 10 percent of the cost by 2020.

The ACA is Obama's baby, his signature legislation.  Any "adverse actions" would be undertaken not by the Administration, but by the House of Representatives, controlled by Christie's own party. But never mind:.while he can't be attacked in the largely liberal state of New Jersey for blocking Medicaid expansion, the governor made sure the right people got the right message, for

Christie’s veto was immediately praised by Mike Proto of Americans for Prosperity, a group that opposed the ACA. Proto suggested that the veto would prevent the expansion, but Christie administration officials have indicated that the expansion will move forward without the legislation.

“This is a win for the taxpayers of the state of New Jersey,” Proto said in a statement. “As AFP has stated time and again, this expansion would have put even greater pressure on an already strapped state budget, and forced more Americans onto a broken healthcare program.

“Americans for Prosperity would like to thank all of those in the Assembly and Senate who realized that Medicaid is bad medicine and voted no on its original passage and once again thanks Gov. Christie for doing the right thing,” the statement added.

There they are, Republican governors posing as "bold leaders" for the mainstream media and giving a whole new meaning to cowardice.

Share |

Is Rich Lowry Questioning John McCain's Patriotism?

It must be fun being National Review editor Rich Lowry. Politico has allowed Lowry, he of starbursts for Sarah Palin, to write another silly column for its magazine.  In this one, entitled for both Politico Magazine and the NR website "Warren Buffett Betrays America," Lowry hits Buffet for bankrolling Burger King's inversion, a term defined here as "re-incorporating a company overseas in order to reduce the tax burden on income earned abroad."

Lowry then writes 13 paragraphs not only neglecting to criticize the strategy, but largely defends it because corporations are being devastated by, and during, the current Administration, when they are earning the greatest profits in American history. Accounting in 1952 for 33% of all federal tax revenue, they now pay 10% of the taxes.

Further, Lowry contends "In most other contexts, Obama is a proud 'citizen of the world.' Except when it comes to taxing businesses."

Yes, Senator Obama did once sinfully refer to himself as "a fellow citizen of the world" (not a proud citizen of the world). That was right after he remarked "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States."

But anyone, even wealthy journalists, can take something out of context. More amusingly (must keep sense of humor- Rich actually gets paid for this stuff!), Lowry points to criticism of Burger King by Democrats and maintains "This outpouring of patriotic fervor is something to behold, especially from the same sort of people who used to think expecting a politician to wear a flag lapel pin was a crudely nationalistic imposition."

So let's go back to campaign '08 and its three presidential debates.  As the videos (of the three debates, presented in order) below indicate, one of the candidates is wearing a flag lapel pin in each. One of the candidates is not.     (It's hard to make out what is being worn on the lapel, but that is an image you may recall).  The tall, younger guy is wearing it on each of the three occasions while the older and shorter fellow is not.

Rich Lowry implies the level of a politician's patriotism can be measured by how often he or she wears a flag lapel pin. Evidently, that leaves out war heroes.

Share |

If Only We Could Be As Good As Jeff Gates

Is that a chip on your shoulder or are you just better than the rest of us?

Jeff Gates, who describes himself as "a Web designer, writer and artist in Silver Spring," writes

After my family arrives on the Cape May ferry for our annual vacation to the Jersey Shore, I take pictures of our two daughters on the ferry’s deck as we leave the harbor. I’ve been doing this since they were 3 and 4 years old. They are now 16 and 17. Each photo chronicles one year in the life of our family and our daughters’ growth into the beautiful young women they have become. Getting just the right exposure and interaction between the two has never been easy. They’ve gone from squirming toddlers to ambivalent teens who barely put up with their dad’s ongoing photography project.

But this year, everything was perfect. It has been an extraordinary summer in the Mid-Atlantic: mild heat with low humidity. On that first day of vacation, the sea was calm and the sky a brilliant blue. As I focused on the image in my camera’s viewfinder, the girls stood in their usual spot against the railing at the back of the boat. I was looking for just the right pose — often waiting for that perfect smile or pausing as they fixed their hair after a strong ocean breeze. I was trying to get just the right exposure and flash combination to bring out their faces in the harsh midday sun.

Totally engaged with the scene in front of me, I jumped when a man came up beside me and said to my daughters: “I would be remiss if I didn’t ask if you were okay.”

At first none of us understood what he was talking about. His polite tone and tourist attire of shorts, polo shirt and baseball cap threw us off. It took me a moment to figure out what he meant, but then it hit me: He thought I might be exploiting the girls, taking questionable photos for one of those “Exotic Beauties Want to Meet You!” Web sites or something just as unseemly. When I explained to my daughters what he was talking about, they were understandably confused. I told the man I was their father. He quickly apologized and turned away. But that perfect moment was ruined, and our annual photo shoot was over. (Only after we arrived at our rented condo did I find out I had gotten a great shot.)

At that point, you would figure Gates would have been merely happy that he had gotten a great shot, resolved to develop a good comeback if a similar situation would reoccur, and call it a day.  No such luck:

As I was telling my wife what had happened, I saw the man again, scanning the horizon with his binoculars. The more I thought about what he had said, the more upset I became. My wife and I, both white, adopted our two daughters in China when they were infants. Over the years, as a transracial family, we have often gotten strange looks and intrusive questions from strangers, but nothing like this. Yet part of me understood what he was seeing: Here was this middle-aged white guy taking lots of pictures of two beautiful, young Asian women.

Would this man have approached us, I wondered, if I had been Asian, like my children, or if my daughters had been white? No, I didn’t think so. I knew I’d regret not going back to speak to him about what had happened. My wife warned me I might be asking for trouble, but I reassured her that I would be fine.

He's probably correct that he wouldn't have been approached if of the same race as his daughters. But, truth be told, even today in the USA, most parents are of the same race as their children. Call it a quirk of society.

At least when he followed up, Gates was polite, diplomatic, and more than willing to see things from his inquisitor's viewpoint.  No such luck, again:

I walked outside to where he was standing and calmly said: “Excuse me, sir, but you just embarrassed me in front of my children and strangers. And what you said was racist.”

The man didn’t seem at all fazed. He replied: “I work for the Department of Homeland Security. And let me give you some advice: You were standing there taking photos of them hugging for 15 minutes.”

I see. So we didn’t fit the mold of what he considered a typical American family, and he thought my picture-taking was excessive, possibly depraved. How long should family snapshots take? He thought he was qualified to judge. I told him I was a professional photographer and take lots of photos.

Well, no, Gates' family is not a typical American family which, otherwise, he seems acutely, smugly aware of. And if the Homeland Security guy "thought he was qualified to judge," he probably would have made an accusation, rather than offered up a question; would have been a little more direct than to say (or ask) if they "were O.K."; and wouldn't have prefaced the question with the passive, almost apologetic "I would be remiss if."

And, of course, when trying to elicit from a stranger the same tolerance you yourself exhibit, it's always wise to tell him he's being racist.

But when the Homeland Security guy was apologetic and tried to meet Gates halfway, the latter accepted the man's offer and was similarly forthcoming.  Yet again, no luck:

“My wife’s a photographer,” he said. “I understand.”

“Then you should have known better,” I replied.

He agreed to consider everything I had said. But he didn’t sound very sincere. When I had questions about his observations, he deflected them, hoping to manage my reaction with simple apologies, except they weren’t simple at all: He apologized; he criticized; and he apologized again.

There was nothing more I could say, nor did I need to hear any more explanations from him. I thought about asking for his business card or his name, but instead I just walked away, feeling exposed.

Then you should have known better, Gates responded. Could he have been any more smug?

There was one last thing for Gates to do: play the family card. "I'm not responding on my behalf, you understand, but for the benefit of my family."  Showing a fine political instinct, the Web designer, writer and artist continues

I had to consider my daughters’ feelings as well as my own. My 17-year-old, usually the stoic one, told me she almost cried when she understood what he was asking. And all the while I kept wondering: Had he overreached when he approached us, or was he just being a good citizen, looking out for the welfare of two young women? Perhaps he was doing what his professional training had taught him to do: Look for things that seem out of place, and act on those observations. But what is normal and what is not?...

Although Gates already had played the race card ("what you said was racist"), at least he eschews buzz words and avoids blowing up the incident to satisfy his own political urges.   Still no luck:

The world and its suspicions had intruded on our family’s vacation as we crossed Delaware Bay. Racial profiling became personal that day. And while our experience was minimal compared with the constant profiling experienced by others, it left a repugnant taste in my mouth.

Uh, no, that wasn't racial profiling (first cartoon by Matt Bors, second by Roy Delgado), which Wikipedia defines accurately as "the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. stop and search or arrest)."  We could expand the definition (as Gates is trying to do) but then the phrase uses its unique meaning- and much of its power.

After clearly expressing his moral superiority, Gates, with a bit of humble brag, concludes "I’ve been thinking about this for weeks and have no clear answers. And that’s what disturbs me the most."  Finally, he has something right. He does have no clear answers, and he should be disturbed, especially at his own lack of self-awareness.

                                                      HAPPY LABOR DAY







Share |