<p>“But if this turns out to be an opportunity for him to continue to condescend to Sgt. Crowley or humiliate him further, then the officer shouldn’t go.”</p>
<p>I would be very surprised if Gates were to try to condescend or humiliate the policeman. I’ve been on a panel about affirmative action that Gates moderated, and he was a courteous and laid back moderator no matter what side of the issue one was on.</p>
<p>I also have seen him interact with people in service jobs, and he was warm and friendly, not condescending. </p>
<p>Given the backgrounds of Obama, Crowley and Gates – it seems that no better threesome could be selected to discuss such a difficult to discuss topic. Crowley’s background in teaching about profiling also will be an asset to that discussion.</p>
<p>It also will be interesting to find out more about Crowley including what kind of day he had been having the day he took the call to Gates’ home. We already know that Gates probably wasn’t at his best after just arriving from China. Maybe Crowley had had a similarly stressful day.</p>
<p>I think, ultimately, Idad hit it on the head. Professor Gates reacted the way he did because he was caught off guard and didn’t realize that the police thought his house had been broken into. Officer Crowley reacted the way he did because he thought this house HAD been broken into by two “big black men” and here was one little guy.</p>
<p>Re post #820: the fact that he decided to leave. I don’t think he would have left without requesting to search the house if he thought there was a possibility that there were intruders in the house.</p>
<p>I agree, and I think it’s also quite feasible that Gates simply didn’t think through that he might be being asked to step outside because Crowley wanted to ensure that the residence was safe, and didn’t realize that merely proving he was the homeowner didn’t prove that fact (because an intruder could easily have threatened him and told him to send the cops away).</p>
You’re missing the point. Officer Crowley came, identified himself, said why he was there and immediately asked Professor Gates to step outside. Professor Gates said his instinct came into play and he refused. That’s when the situation degenerated. Officer Crowley decided to leave long after and at the point at which he asked Professor Gates to step outside, he had every reason to believe that there could be two “big black men” inside the house and acted accordingly. However, once he determined (which he did) that Professor Gates was the owner and was not in danger, the arrest was unconscionable.</p>
<p>The President “railed” against the Cambridge Police Dept as if speaking of “a half a century ago when Bull Conner blocked the doors to opportunity?” He used “heated” language that conveyed this message?" Really? Could you link me to the video tape, because I certainly must have missed it. A “railer” normally doesn’t admit that “he doesn’t have all the facts”, or indicate that his statements should be filtered through the fact that he has a friendship bias. A “railer” doesn’t explicitly say that the nation’s history of poor relations between the police and black and Latino communities, was quite aside from this incident. And a “railer” who would have you to believe “we’ve not progressed beyond the days of Bull Conner” would not have said that the police acted “stupidly” (a bad choice of words, to be sure). He would have said the police were “racist”. But, if you’ve got footage of The President saying anything of the kind, I’ll gladly admit that you’re 100% correct. Here and now, I’ll admit that I’ve not seen or heard any of the comments about this incident made by the “Harvard educated black Governor”. I’ll have to look that one up. Perhaps there’s a bit of “Bull Conner railing” in his speech. One can only hope, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The President declared that it was “OK to yell at the police?” I must have missed that one too. From what I saw, the President spoke precipitously, and ill advisedly even as he admitted he didn’t have all the facts. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the “Skip Gates” he felt he knew would never have done anything that warranted his being arrested in his own home. And I’d love for someone to direct me to the footage wherein The President “declared” that yelling at the The Police was just a fine and dandy thing to do. That the President’s initial response to this incident (a response born of his feelings of personal friendship) was ripe for political exploitation is a fact that conservatives and Obama non-supports obviously relish. But, it’s pretty disingenuous to try to paint him as part of some sort of highly placed black conspiracy of racial paranoia.</p>
<p>Are we supposed to buy that argument that Obama transforming the Rose Garden at the White House into a beer garden for Gates and Crowley will make the race relationships in America better? Will the event be attended by the likes of the Rev. Sharpton, Wright, and Jackson? </p>
<p>Fwiw, your line about “the polite discussions that Clinton tried to start” is indicative. Skipping the presidency of George Bush is in the same line as your comment regarding the arts in the White House after the Kennedy’s Camelot. </p>
<p>It’s downright … insulting to many Americans who happen NOT to evaluate everything to an enormously distorted lens that only recognizes two colors, namely black and white. </p>
<p>Obama can invite Officer Crowley all he wants; it will not undo the original mistake of allowing the “black narrative” and his friendship for Gates to cloud his judgment. That simple and naive statement is bound to hound him throughout his term, as it did leave the unmistakable image that he will be the president of a divided America, and that he clearly lacks the willingness to recognize correctly the elements who contribute negatively to the divisions. </p>
<p>Admitting he rendered an incorrect judgement and recognizing Prof. Gates’ culpable role in the escalation in Boston would be a good start. Until that happens, it is only grandstanding.</p>
<p>No, we are talking past one another when we really agree. </p>
<p>I said that it only mattered that Gates had been proven to be in his own home in refutation of Dbate’s suggestion that it mattered whether Gates was a Harvard prof. I don’t think that simply being a Harvard prof is enough to satisfy a police officer investigating a possible B&E. Moreover I think that going down the road that being a Harvard prof makes you automatically free of suspicion of crime is going down the road of profiling. The only relevant fact was that Gates had produced ID that showed that he was in his own home.</p>
<p>In answer to your question regarding why I think Crowley was pretty certain that burglars were not hiding in the house, I responded that the fact that Crowley decided to leave was evidence to me that he had decided that there was no crime in progress.</p>
<p>I don’t think Crowley would have left otherwise.</p>
<p>I should have further clarified, in response to your question, that Crowley’s initial words had nothing to do with my belief that he had reached the conclusion that there was no crime in progress. Clearly, when he first spoke to Gates he had reason to think that it was possible that a B&E had happened. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and I agree that Crowley’s initial inquiry/request was perfectly justified for that reason.</p>
<p>If your only goal is to make political hay, certainly. We can assume that Flush Limbaugh will be bloviating on the topic for decades, should he last that long.</p>
<p>Exactly. Leaving aside the fact that the officer’s action were NOT because he believed Gates was an intruder, but that he wished to ensure the house was secure …</p>
<p>Saying “he should be free from suspicion because he is a Harvard professor and H profs don’t do that sort of thing” is just as bad as saying “he should be suspect because he’s black and blacks have a higher tendency to do that sort of thing.”</p>
<p>Consolation, for that to be true one has to assume that the solutions to our problems are found in extreme and irrational positions. There is an America that wants nothing to do with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his counterparts on the opposing side. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I sincerely doubt that Obama’s reaction caused him to lose the support from many Limbaugh or Coulter fanboys. What he did lose is yet another sliver of independents who supported him, believed in policies of change, but we forced to conclude that the POTUS does prefer to rely on emotions, allegiances, and not so much on facts when they do not espouse his set of views. </p>
<p>Pretty much in line with some of the most egregious and repetitive posts in this thread.</p>
<p>“we forced to conclude that the POTUS does prefer to rely on emotions, allegiances, and not so much on facts when they do not espouse his set of views.”</p>
<p>I find it quite remarkable that one would choose to make such a sweeping judgment based on the actual remarks he made in that press conference. Particularly if those remarks are followed up in the way they have been.</p>
<p>Of course, a) I <em>do</em> think that the actual arrest was a case of someone acting stupidly, and b) I think that Obama is a human being, not an infallible being who descended from on high (or emigrated from Kenya).</p>
<p>PS I also think that it was completely reasonable of GWB to remain calm and finish reading My Pet Goat to the kids.</p>
<p>I agree that the arrest was probably stupid (awaiting release of tapes). My issue with the President’s comments are two-fold: first, any govenrmental official should give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement till facts are in, and second, that Professor Gates is her personal friend. The access discrepancy sort of bothers me.</p>
<p>:eek: :eek: :eek: Honestly xiggi, I hardly even know how to respond to such a callous and cynical remark.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That The President allowed his friendship to cloud his judgment when making his initial statement is without a doubt, but what was it about his statement that makes you think “the black narrative”—whatever that means----was a part of that faulty judgment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On can only hope, right? Bet the ad is already in the can for 2012;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, hope springs eternal. There was never a racially divided America before this one took the Oath of Office, nor did any of his predecessors ever say or do anything so injurious to race relations as his one “simple and naive statement”.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The President already took responsibility for his own role in “ratcheting up” the debate on this issue, and admitted he was wrong in how he spoke of it initially. If that amounts to nothing more than “grandstanding”, it seems curious to me that so few politicians have shown the political smarts to admit to their own mistakes.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>In other words, say that upon reviewing “all the facts” he believes Prof. Gates broke the law and deserved to be arrested that afternoon. Maybe he should also invite Skip over to the White House so that they might do the honorable thing—you know—commit suicide or something for their joint responsibility in destroying race relations in America.</p>
<p>Oh, but there again, that would probably be grandstanding…</p>
<p>Poetsheart, is it more callous and cynical than the pages of pure drivel that have been posted here, that included … false accusations of racism? </p>
<p>Obviously, we look at the Cambridge incident quite differently. If I remember correctly, you did object to the “cynical” interpretation that Prof. Gates had discovered an unusual result in his 4 hour ordeal in the form of a possible documentary for PBS, and this despite that he has disclosed that in his interview. </p>
<p>If you find it callous and cynical to lament the extreme effort to MAKE this incident one of a racial confrontation, so be it! On the other hand, I never did and never will consider this anything else than an unfortunate incident ENTIRELY caused by the lack of control of fatigued older professor.</p>
<p>Making this an issue about race and offering the White House as a venue is simply rewarding the forces that worked so hard to elevate the incident to anything more than a sordid, trivial and completely forgettable case.</p>