Lie Of The Day (June 5, 2018)

It's the GOP fallback position, and very, very important.

Chris Cuomo interviewed an uncomfortably smiling Sarah Huckabee Sanders on "Cuomo Prime Time" Wednesday night about a variety of topics.  They included the credibility of the Presidential Press Secretary compared to that of the press, the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the allegation of an FBI "spy" inside the White House, veterans, tariffs, the budget deficit, and immigration.

But what Sanders really wanted to talk about was the economy.  She realizes, after all, that it is the issue on which the Administration is least likely to get challenged- by Cuomo, other journalists, even Democrats. She even stated "I wish we spent a lot more time talking about the economy," she said at one point.

And she said "Multiple people have said that we have the strongest economy that we've had since World War II."

That may well be true. She may have gone home one night and said to her husband and two children "repeat after me: 'we have the strongest economy that we've had since World War II.'" They may have complied. Multiple people.

Better, we have Donald Trump on Tuesday:

The U.S. has an increased economic value of more than 7 Trillion Dollars since the Election. May be the best economy in the history of our country. Record Jobs numbers. Nice!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2018

It would be "nice," even "cool" or "awesome"- were it true.

Unfortunately it's not, and fortunately we have Jeanna Smialek to explain

Judging solely by gross domestic product, perhaps the simplest way to gauge a nation’s progress, the decades that followed World War II were the hottest in American history. Pent-up consumer demand, a housing boom and a vibrant manufacturing sector all melded into the economy’s Golden Age. By the GDP yardstick, the current pace of the expansion pales in comparison…

Still, the overall jobless rate -- 3.8 percent in May -- has been lower in the past, dipping below 3 percent during the 1950s. The time it takes unemployed people to find work also remains elevated. And while wage growth has slowly picked up, past expansions have seen much bigger gains. That’s true even after accounting for today’s modest inflation.

“If you’re a new data scientist, or Ph.D. economist, yeah, it’s a great time to look for a job,” Lawrence Katz, a Harvard University economics professor who served as the Labor Department chief economist during the Clinton administration, said when asked if this is the best time to look for work. “If you’re a janitor, a construction worker in some places -- No.”

Katz noted that in the late 1960s and late 1990s, wage growth was booming for such everyday employees. And in the 1960s, jobs put workers on a path toward benefits and economic security in the longer run -- more of a rarity today, in a world where unions and pension plans are few and far between.

Michael Bordo, an economics professor at Rutgers University and an authority on monetary history, agrees with Katz on that timing. The best economic period judging by unemployment was the 1960s, he said. In terms of economic growth, it was the 1960s and the 1990s.

Bloomberg's Timothy L.O'Brien notes

As you might have guessed just from reading this, "increased economic value" in this context is a bogus metric, one Trump has ginned up to describe something that isn't actually happening.

Trump's $7 trillion figure refers to how much the overall value of the U.S. stock market has risen since he was inaugurated as president last year. It has nothing to do with the growth in the value of goods and services — which is known as "gross domestic product," not "increased economic value."

More important, Trump isn't presiding over "the best economy in the history of our country." 

Unemployment is at an 18-year low, 3.8 percent, but the unemployment rate was lower in the years right after World War II (it was 2.5 percent in 1953, for example). GDP growth is ticking along at about 2 percent to 3 percent annually, but in the 1960s it was about 5 percent annually. Wage growth is slower today than in the past and the labor force participation rate also lags.

That's not to say that things aren't good right now in many ways. They are. They're just not as good as Trump is saying.

In the interests of full disclosure: O'Brien added "I suspect that Trump isn't riffing on "increased economic value" simply out of ignorance. By tying an economic assessment to the stock market's ascent, Trump can clearly distinguish himself from his predecessor, Barack Obama."

But that is why he is not simply ignorant.  The Chaos President does virtually everything- the pardons, the Iran nuclear deal, health care, taxes, trade- in a manner meant to distinguish himself from No Drama Obama. And it is hard to believe the 71-year-old Trump, proud graduate of the esteemed Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, is unaware of the booming economy enjoyed by his country (in this case, the USA, not Russia) in the years immediately following World War II.

Best economy since WWII? Increased economic activity by $7 trillion dollars.

Democrats have been ceding ground to President Trump on "the economy." They should not. 

Share |

Avoiding The Bait

I'm going to take Jeffrey Lurie's advice.

pic.twitter.com/2HUoFhVc33

— Philadelphia Eagles (@Eagles) June 5, 2018

To be sure, the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles should have (as Dave Zangaro of NBC Sports Philadelphia pointed out) issued a statement which would have argued the Eagles' players "are true patriots." While noting the team is "disappointed some chose to hijack the spotlight," he could have emphasized added that the players "have so much respect for our nation they have used their celebrity and platform to fight for important causes, like social and racial injustice, poverty and educational inequality." 

By contrast, Philadelphia Inquirer/Daily News columnist Mike Sielski argued the organization "did the right thing by sending out that milquetoast quote from owner Jeffrey Lurie and not commenting further, by declining to have Trump bait them into a longer war of words, by ignoring the whole thing, because the whole thing was relatively harmless..."

On the same day Sielski wrote, Ken Belson of The New York Times described the October, 2017 meeting in which NFL commissioner Roger Goodell discussed with team owners the league's possible response to criticism by the President of owners for not having "fired" protesting players.  Belson explained

Jeffrey Lurie, owner of the Eagles, took a different view. Don’t pander to the president, he said, by clamping down on the players. Work with the players and tune out the noise. The president will do what he does regardless.

“We’ve got to be careful not to be baited by Trump or whomever else,” he said at the meeting. “We have to find a way to not be divided and not get baited.”

Most of the owners took the bait anyway.

And so, I will not take the bait. 

The President of the United States of America on Tuesday was viewed- as he undoubtedly knew he would be- evidently failing to remember the words of "God Bless America."

Arguably, Trump should have recalled the lyrics. Inarguably, any normal human being who doesn't know all the words, realizing the camera would lock in on him, would have taken the 2-3 minutes beforehand to memorize them.

And now you're thinking: but Donald J. Trump is not a normal human being. That, too, is inarguably true; but as a first-term President, he wants to curry favor with the public, at least his base, which at least pretends it is patriotic.

Yet, there were words Trump failed to sing or mouth .Had he respectfully stood at attention or stood with his hand (insincerely) over his heart, it would not be so clear that he did not know the words. Instead, he evidently sang a few words and then made it clear that he did not know the rest.

Or did he? Donald Trump has been- and continues to be- an actor, one who significantly in fame by pretending on The Apprentice to be a tough guy who could fire individuals willy-nilly. Nonetheless, he did not pretend to know the words, which he could have done by simply standing with solemnity and dignity as the US Marine Band and Army Chorus eloquently sang.

The three possible explanations are that Trump: a) thought he knew the words and discovered too late that he didn't; b) reprising his campaign strategy of demonstrating he has only contempt for Christianity, was trying to send the same message about the country; or c) recognizing the power of social media, realized his failure to remember the words of an oft-sung patriotic tune would become the next day's hit on Twitter and elsewhere.

Option (a) is incomprehensible because no one is that stupid. Option (b) probably played a role as Trump continues trolling the American public, wondering when it will recognize him as a fake, a phony, and fraud. (He'd still be President and would still stand a chance at re-election.)

But I'm guessing option (c) is most valid.  Today (Wednesday) the video is being played over and over, with Trump as usual being the main attraction, as he must be. Further, he is surrounded by heart-warming symbols, the American flag and the Marine Band, the latter giving a stirring rendition of the patriotic and faith-based God Bless America while, as always, impressively standing at attention.

And have I mentioned how great the weather looked? As portrayed, the scene is a winner, and President Trump is in it, which likely delights him further. 

Jeffrey Lurie is concerned about individuals being baited by the President and therefore I will not add the obvious video to this post which, admittedly, will not be seen by Donald Trump, Colin Kaepernick, or the Eagles' Malcolm Jenkins.   However, the song below, which the latter two might appreciate, surely would thoroughly annoy the President, in either depiction.

Share |

White Evangelicals Cast Their Vote

A group of evangelical leaders representing seven organizations has sent the President a letter asking him to

urge law enforcement entities to exercise discretion to protect the unity of families. We also ask that you work with the U.S. State Department to resume a robust U.S. refugee resettlement program and to leverage U.S. influence to seek peaceful resolutions to the situations of violence in Central America.

The individuals, together comprising the Evangelical Immigration Table, not only speaks "as evangelical Christians guided by the Bible" but with an impressive understanding of past and present policy.

Some critics have implied that the Administration has reversed a policy which routinely and consistently kept parents and their children together.  Instead, as the EIY explains

While illegal entry to the United States can be a misdemeanor criminal violation, past administrations have exercised discretion in determining when to charge individuals with this offense, taking into account the wellbeing of children who may also be involved. A “zero tolerance” policy removes that discretion—with the effect of removing even small children from their parents

More adults, as the group notes, are being charged with a criminal offense when they have presented themselves at the board with a request for asylum. Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen are accurately notes that a child of parents "who have broken the law" (i.e., those accused of breaking the law) "goes to H.H.S. (Department of Health and Human Services) for care and custody." Nonetheless, she warns "if you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law."

Refugees=smugglers, contends the Administration.  Worse, perhaps, is that President Trump's most fervent supporters are either falling for the regime's propaganda, or were already there.

That would, of course, be white Christian evangelicals.  Two weeks ago, the Washington Post's Philip Bump reported on a Pew Research Center study which polled individuals from 4/25/18-5/1/18, asking (emphasis from Pew) "do you think the U.S. has a responsibility to accept refugees into the country, or do you think the U.S. does NOT have a responsibility to do this?" The options were "U.S. has a responsibility to accept refugees," "U.S. does not have a responsibility to accept refugees," and "Don't know/Refused."

It was little surprise that, as Bump wrote

No group agrees less with the idea that the United States has a responsibility to accept refugees than white evangelical Protestants.

Only 25 percent of evangelicals told Pew that they believed the United States has such a responsibility, half the percentage of Catholics who said the same thing and substantially lower than the religiously unaffiliated. In statistical terms, the percentage of evangelicals holding that view was about equal to the percentage of Republicans, 26 percent, given margins of error.

Shocking, I know. Bump reminds us

In October 2016, after The Washington Post published the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump describes groping women, the pollsters at PRRI asked Americans whether an elected official who’d committed an immoral act in their personal life could still behave ethically in office. In 2011, 30 percent of evangelicals said that he or she could, the lowest percentage of any religious group. In 2016, 72 percent of evangelicals said that the politician could do so — the highest percentage.

(In this 2016 study, the category was "white evangelical Protestant;" in the recent one, it was "white evangelicals.")

Hypocrisy in this, earlier study aside: we don't know whether evangelicals, white evangelicals, or white evangelical Protestants would typically hold intolerant views about refugees because they are conservative or simply because of continuing membership in the Donald J. Trump cult.

  

But the Evangelical Immigration Table knows that doing the work God has laid out for them requires a few sacrifices. Unfortunately, it appears that one of those sacrifices is the support of, or agreement with, others theologically like-minded. And when the Trump Administration is relegated to the waste bin of history, this is part of the tale that must not be forgotten.

Share |

Not Before November

President Trump:

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2018

"Do it," Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, dares.

The day before, on Sunday, Rudy Giuliani was asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" whether "the president has the power to pardon himself." After stating that Trump "has no intention of pardoning himself" and being asked a follow-up question, Giuliani responded "It would be an open question. I think it would probably get answered by gosh, that’s what the constitution says and if you want to change it, change it. But yes."

"No intention" is politician-speak for "at this time, I must say no." This was Rudy Giuliani speaking, and he was representing the most deceitful human being on the planet. But even assuming he was telling the truth, Giuliani was speaking only in the present tense- "has no intention."

Discussions surrounding the self-pardon controversy have been interesting, and even informative. But they are missing an important point. Shortly before Giuliani's pardon warning on Sunday, Will Bunch, in an important piece, argued

Hour by hour, lie by lie, dictate by dictate, Donald Trump is becoming an American dictator. And recent days have proved what many of us have long feared: That no one knows how to stop this. Not the Republicans or Democrats on Capitol Hill who, for different reasons, are too cowed politically to take substantive action. And not a news media that doesn’t have the mechanisms for informing the public when a president is a compulsive liar. Maybe things will change after the November midterm election — but there’s no guarantee, and that feels like a long time away.

Bharara, by contrast, stated on CNN's "State of the Union" a few hours later

And I think it's a sad commentary on the power, which, by the way, can be taken away by the American people in the future -- and if you abuse the pardon power in a particular way, there comes a point where Congress can take action as well. 

This Congress will- as Bunch realizes- do nothing. But it will do nothing because it is under GOP control.  Republican members of Congress believe if they undercut the President, one of their own, he will tweet, and possible even campaign, against them. Moreover, they recognize it would prove divisive within their party and cause discord, which would be unhappily received by the voting public.

So they're all in. But the power can be taken away- in November, or rather in January when Congress is reconstituted. If voters put the House of Representatives into Democratic control, they will not only give Democrats the power to determine whether impeachment hearings would be held.  This would- to an incomplete but significant extent- break the Republican fever. 

The elections in November will undoubtedly be nationalized, become something of a referendum on President Trump, and will be interpreted in that manner. If Republicans relinquish control of the House of Representatives, things start to happen.  And the President surely realizes that were he to pardon himself before November 6, he would lose his House (and possibly Senate) majority.

If they do not, and the GOP remains in control, the election will be perceived as vindicating Donald Trump's authoritative leadership. President Trump will do as he wishes, whether it is is firing Mueller/Rosenstein/Sessions or pardoning himself and/or others. The President will be emboldened, and Republicans in Congress will no longer even have to pretend that they are uncomfortable with the king. 

Share |

Lie Of The Day (June 2, 2018)

President Trump may ask questions, even rhetorical ones, and even misleading ones without being accused of lying. And so he may ask, as he did on June 2, "Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead?"

....“$17 million spent, it’s a scam Investigation. Americans are being worked. We now know there was Russian collusion, with Russians and the Democrats. The Mueller team is stacked with anti-Trumpers, who actually represented Clinton people (& gave $’s to Crooked H).” Dan Bongino

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 2, 2018

In the vast majority of cases, the leaks pertaining to the Special Counsel's investigation are coming from his side. The "fake news media" doesn't exist, unless Trump is referring to the National Enquirer, Breitbart, and much of the rest of the right-wing media, which he is not.   

The President is entitled also to refer to "this very expensive Witch Hunt Hoax." However, it has cost (as Trump noted) approximately $17 million compared to Ken Starr's late 1980s probe, which started as an investigation into an Arkansas land deal but went far afield,  That $40 million would be equivalent to more than $60 million in 2018 dollars.

However, Mr. Trump is not entitled to claim "there was no collusion with Russia (except by the Democrats)" without being called out for it.

Unless he is delusional, he knows there was no collusion by the Democrats. Moreover, he does not claim that he did not collude with Russia, which is debatable, but that there was no collusion with the Russians by his gang.

Sorry, gang, but that's extremely close to inconceivable.  On May 1, Jonathan Chait cited as evidence of collusion Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Peter W. Smith, Roger Stone, and

Then of course there is the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. I would argue that the publicly available information pertaining to that episode amounts to proof of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. You have a Russian agent dangling Russian assistance in the election (“part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”), and the offer of help being accepted (“if it’s what you say I love it”). ..

The report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee reports that, on June 6, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. made two phone calls with Emin Agalarov. In between those two calls — which, based on emails he exchanged around that time with Rob Goldstone, indicate Trump successfully arranged the meeting during the calls — Donald Jr. made another call. Phone records show the call, at 4:27 p.m., was to a blocked phone number. Corey Lewandowski told the House Intelligence Committee that Donald Trump had a blocked phone number....

There is clear forensic evidence to show that Donald Trump, Jr. called somebody, quite likely his father, while he was rushing to set up the Trump Tower meeting. House Republicans blocked an effort to prove that Donald Trump was the person he called.

Further, this weekend we learned

The bombshell 20-page letter written by Donald Trump’s attorneys to special counsel Robert Mueller early this year and obtained by The New York Times Saturday includes the intriguing revelation that the president “dictated” the misleading statement about Donald Trump Jr.’s controversial meeting with a Russian representative during the 2016 election.

Trump’s eldest son met at Trump Tower in Manhattan in June 2016 with Kremlin-linked attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who said she could deliver damaging information on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

After the Times reported on the Trump Tower meeting last summer, “The president dictated a short but accurate response ... on behalf of his son,” stated the newly obtained letter, written by Trump attorneys Jay Sekulow and John Dowd (who has since left the Trump legal team).

By one interpretation, President Trump knows his side colluded and the other didn't. By a more generous interpretation, he knows there was collusion on his side and assumes everyone similarly acts in bad faith.  In either case, he lied in his Saturday evening tweet.

Share |

America's Allies Redefined By One Man

In 2014 the National Post of Canada reported

Byron Greff never lived in his family’s newly-built home but his presence is everywhere.

There are countless photos; some show him proudly wearing his military uniform while other candid moments capture the zeal with which he lived, including his full range of goofy, comical faces.

He delighted in making people laugh. Greff might have agonized over memorizing his school work but he never forgot a joke. Even if it wasn’t funny, he would chuckle in its telling and then his family would laugh. Then Greff would howl at their laughter and they would laugh some more. It was contagious.

“He had a very big heart and was full of fun,” says his mother Candy. “Oh my goodness, we’d have sore sides from laughing.”

But there’s one photo missing, which the family dearly wishes could have been taken.

The family—parents Candy and Greg, siblings Chelsey and Dustin—planned to sit for a formal portrait when Byron returned from Afghanistan on leave at Christmas in 2011.

He didn’t make it home.

He didn't make it home because Master Cpl. Greff was killed when explosives blew up a NATO bus in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing seventeen people, including that one Canadian.

Greff was the last of 158 Canadian casualties fighting alongside Americans and other NATO allies in the war Washington launched inb A Taliban suicide bomber driving a car packed with 700 kilograms of explosives targeted the NATO bus and detonated the device in a fiery blast. Seventeen people were killed. Greff was the only Canadian casualty.

And now, this:

President Trump is imposing steep tariffs on steel and aluminum from three of America's biggest trading partners — Canada, Mexico and the European Union.

The trade penalties, 25% on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminum, take effect at midnight, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters Thursday.

President Trump wants to impose tariffs on Canada despite- or perhaps because

Chapter 148 of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), addresses policies and planning related to the “national technology and industrial base” (NTIB) which it defines as “persons and organizations that are engaged in research, development, production, integration, services, or information technology activities conducted within the United States and Canada.

Jonathan Chait explains that the President can do this because

A 1962 law gives the president authority to impose tariffs for national security reasons. In the middle of the 20th century, control of natural resources and certain kinds of manufacturing determined the outcome of wars. Japan and Nazi Germany selected areas of conquest in order to acquire oil and other resources needed to fuel their militaries; factories that built cars and appliances could be converted to making tanks and fighter planes. The law allowing the president to set tariffs for national security reasons set few limits on how this alleged need would be defined, but that didn’t matter, because presidents used it sparingly.

Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada was not persuaded, and responded

Our soldiers who had fought and died together on the beaches of World War II … and the mountains of Afghanistan, and have stood shoulder to shoulder in some of the most difficult places in the world, that are always there for each other, somehow — this is insulting to them...

Cynics such as Canadian-American David Frum will observe

The trouble is that the most effective way to engage this president - pay him or his relatives- is usually illegal under the laws of democratic allies like Canada, Germany, etc

However, that only removes a deterrent to imposition of a tariff. Canada has been recognized by American presidents as a trusted ally, as usually has been the European Union since it came into existence in 1993. Trudeau's remark, then, might suggest an actual incentive for the imposition of tariffs. Fiona Hill noted in February 2015

In short, Putin wants Europe to understand—as he stated in a 2014 speech to Russia’s ambassadors––that the U.S.-led “unipolar order” is over. The United States trumpeted its victory in the Cold War. Now it is the West’s turn to be humiliated. And Putin intends to have Russia draw up the new borders of a Europe “free, whole and at peace” that the United States, NATO and the EU defined after 1989.

Canada is not as critical to geopolitical alliances as is the European Union. For the former, it might be simply that Trump doesn't see any potential there to increase his family's wealth, or that Trudeau and Obama got along well, so he cannot.  

But two things are clear: President Trump has far more interest in forging alliances with Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Il-un than with leaders of democratic nations. And that what Charlie Pierce wrote of American war dead applies even to the likes of Byron Greff and the other NATO soldiers who died fighting alongside the USA: they deserve more than to have the the free world sullied by a "dangerous and ridiculous man" who has squandered the peace and profaned the sacrifice of so many.

Share |

A Police Issue, And It's Not Race

In a story pertaining to an incident in the greater Philadelphia region underplayed in the national media, the Philadelphia Inquirer/Philadelphia Daily News reports

In body-cam video released this week, the Wildwood police officer can be seen lifting the compartment of his beach buggy, picking up a yellow portable breathalyzer wand and approaching a Philadelphia woman sitting on her beach towel with an open container of fruit.

Emily Weinman, 20, agrees to submit her breath to the testing device, which comes up negative, but the encounter quickly escalates to a violent arrest in which the officer pulled her hair, slammed her to the ground, and punched her twice, all of his actions filmed by an onlooker and viewed by millions.

Has the Jersey Shore become a place where police officers are going beach towel to beach towel with their breathalyzers?

Not in Atlantic City. Not in Margate. Not in Sea Isle. Not in North Wildwood. Not in Ventnor. Not in Ocean City. None of those towns use portable breathalyzers on their beaches.

Wildwood is pretty much on its own in using this breathalyzer strategy of turning their wide beaches into one big underage-drinking-while-sunning police checkpoint.

Ms. Weinman, as the video attests, is white, but more on that later. This would not have occurred were Wildwood not (knowingly or unknowingly) evidently in thrall to a policing tactic popularized by then-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.  In a broad but invaluable survey of possible explanations for the sharp decline in crime since the mid 1980s, Vox reporters Dara Lind and German Lopez note

New York implemented a host of policing reforms in the early 1990s under Mayor Rudy Giuliani (of whom you may have heard), but the most famous was "broken-windows policing" — an emphasis on enforcing minor "quality-of-life" offenses to make neighborhoods feel safer and encourage residents to feel pride (as well as deter people from committing more serious crimes). And sure enough, crime declined precipitously in New York during the Giuliani era.

They also explain, however, that

crime declined in plenty of places that weren't New York City during the 1990s — meaning New York's trends probably weren't totally the result of the NYPD. For another thing, broken-windows policing was just one aspect of the policing reforms implemented in New York or other places during this time; crime-tracking system CompStat, for example, also came online in the mid-1990s. How can you separate how much of the crime drop was due to one thing, or to another introduced at the same time?

The article was not intended to be an in-depth analysis of each theory and was written 36 months ago, at the genesis of our recognition of  "mass incarceration," to which arrest for offenses such as possession of small amounts of marijuana contributes. (Even if the individual is not incarcerated for possessing marijuana, he will go through the criminal justice system, with significant inconvenience and cost to both the offender and the state.)

Without so labeling it- the approach has, thankfully, fallen out of favor- Wildwood has been practicing broken-windows policing, at least as pertains to its greatest resource, its beaches.

The police officers involved are seasonal officers. Commonly used by shore towns in New Jersey, they are not as quite as well-trained and not nearly as well-paid as full-time police.  Nevertheless, all officers should defuse the situation, as Paul Hetznecker, quoted as explaining

When she blows the breathalyzer and it comes up negative, they're done. It's an overreach. Any reason to come back to her is gone. She makes a statement to you, that's covered by the First Amendment. Police have to be trained to de-escalate and deal with the negative reaction to their authority. It's really important that police are trained to deal with colorful language and obscene language. There's been a lack of training on those protections overall.

The entire situation was blown out of proportion, from municipal ordinance to arrest. But missing the point is Weinman attorney Stephen Dicht, who charged "Thank God it wasn't a black person. A black person wouldn't have gotten out alive." 

As a long-time resident and (retired) criminal justice professional in New Jersey, I find that outcome extremely unlikely. Given the fear among African-Americans of over-policing, he or she probably would not have responded as did the suspect. Additionally, law enforcement is required to undergo cultural diversity training, as he should be well aware. Recognition that police may overreact, intolerance of racial bias by courts, and oversight of state and local departments deter racial preference, a problem at least somewhat less prevalent in New Jersey than elsewhere. 

And video everywhere. With real problems exemplified by the special police of Wildwood, we shouldn't be imagining unreal ones.

Share |