On the Developing Implosion Controversy over the Rolling Stone UVA-Rape Story

UPDATED to reflect controversy/rather than implicate falseness of the statements. The points of the post are relevant whether the allegations are true or not.

Journalism is hard.

I've never been a reporter, so I'll leave the professionals and media critics to talk about the ethical and professional lapses at Rolling Stone that led to what appears to be exaggerated, if not flat-out false gang rape allegations publishing a piece that shook the University of Virginia.

But I do know about rape victims. I've been trusted by several of my female friends with the information that they have been raped at some point in their lives. I can't explain how it feels to hear that someone you care about has been raped. As far as I know, only one of my friends ever went to the police about it.

I never judge the woman for making the decision not to press charges, because going through that process can be a trauma on top of the trauma of being raped. Some people think it's an ethical duty to keep that person from raping again, but I'm always much more concerned with the immediacy of my friend's emotional well-being. Granted, it was usually well after the fact that I was told, but it is nevertheless something I do not feel qualified to pass judgment on.

And yes, this is something that has occurred enough times in my life that I can use the term "usually." This sickening fact is why I have no patience for people who claim that "rape culture" doesn't exist.

I have also had the unfortunate experience of hearing false rape claims.

Years ago, two friends and I were standing outside of a bar in Chinatown here in DC. We hear a woman yelling, mostly indistinct. She sounds angry, but it's nighttime in Chinatown, it's not particularly unusual. Then she yells "RAPE!"

One of my friends, J--who takes his role as a responsible citizen more seriously than most people I know--immediately runs to her aid. My other friend, G, and I look at each other, utter some obscenities, take a deep breath, and run after our friend because we have his back.

We get to this screaming woman yelling rape as she's a passenger in a parked car. Someone has already called 911, a bystander, if I recall correctly.

J tries to calm her down, G and I confront the guy in the drivers seat and ask him what the hell was going on. He tries to run away, but we corner him. 

He explains to us that he was breaking up with her and she was upset and wouldn't get out of the car. We were hostile and skeptical at first, but he was pretty convincing. (After all, once we started running, we had to prepare for the prospect of violence, so this wasn't the most cordial introduction.)

Moreover, he says works for a prominent [then-]US senator and can't be dealing with police. We tell him that A) he needs to stick around, if for no other reason than they have his car it'll look awful to flee and B) this woman needs to come clean about what happened.

We go back to ask her what happened, and she admitted that she just wanted to put pressure on him because she loved him.  G asked her why she made that up. She then starts cussing him out and calling him "nigger" and I pull him away.

Then the police show up. Like a dozen of them.

We give our statements and say that she yelled rape and we came running (thanks to J) and that she admitted to making it up because she was upset, in addition to the verbal abuse of G. We were talking to a male officer about what happened and the look on his face was like "Oh great, another one." Two female officers a few feet away but within earshot looked very angry, as well they should have been.

We were all angry. And I'm angry now.

For every case like that awful woman in Chinatown, there are countless women who don't say anything for fear of ruining their own lives--risking so much without any guarantee of a conviction. This UVA case, if it falls apart as the some reports indicate is possible, could be another Tawana Brawley or Duke lacrosse case--unverified stories that opportunists (or perhaps in the case of this writer, someone too trusting) exploited for their own careers. These few instances of false claims will likely dissuade more victims from coming forward and undermine the legitimate efforts to curb rape and bring its perpetrators to justice.

If innocent, the men accused at UVA ought to be fully and publicly exonerated, full stop. But it is important to believe women if and when they tell you they've been raped. The overwhelming majority of women don't make that stuff up, and they need support if they ask for it.

It is almost a mathematical certainty that you know a woman that has been raped. It may have happened before they met you, or since you've known them. That you may not know speaks not only to what they suffered, but the stigma, guilt, and shame that accompanies such an intimate and scarring violation.

Rape is far too common in this country, and it is an acute problem on college campuses. Collectively, we need to take it more seriously, and as individuals, we need to believe and support the women who come forward.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Burying the Lede

So I'm doing my usual morning news round-up for work, checking out the major papers' headlines and features, and when I get to the LA Times, I come across, "L.A. County sheriff says budget cuts have slowed agency's analysis of drug evidence."

Now, for those who don't share my opinions regarding legalization may read this and just think that Los Angeles needs to get its budgetary house in order (which, of course, it does). But at the end of the story, where many people never manage to reach (such is the fate of most news stories), are these troubling revelations (my emphasis):

Sheriff's officials say cost-saving measures have put them on track to meet their budget-reduction goals — but not without sacrifice. Restrictions on overtime, for example, were shown last month to have significantly slowed fingerprint collection and analysis, often resulting in the destruction of potentially vital evidence.

The lag has delayed dozens of homicide investigations. It's also forced burglary victims to wait longer to have their homes or cars fingerprinted. In May, more than 120 burglary victims decided they couldn't continue preserving the crime scene, calling the Sheriff's Department to cancel fingerprinting altogether.

Cuts have also affected air support, according to Baca's report, with more than 150 requests from patrol units on the ground going unanswered during a two-week span in June.

Clearly, it's more important to spend so much time and resources on consensual exchange and personal drug use than it is to allocate basic services to victims of robbery and murder.

To be fair, some of the drug charges are probably tied to other more serious crimes, but that is not apparent in the thrust of the story, nor would most of those crimes ever be committed if it weren't for drug prohibition enforcement in the first place. What gets me about this story is not simply the police department's priorities, but that the implicit acceptance of those priorities, resulting in the 'oh by the way, murder and burglary cases are growing cold too.' If it was your house that was robbed--and your sense of security shattered--or your loved one dead at the hands of another human being, how would you feel about your case being discarded or delayed to pursue unrelated, non-violent drug busts?

Consider Me 'Especially Unchastened'

I don't know who Charles Lane is or how he landed a job at the Post--and regardless of your personal thoughts on medical marijuana--this is just insipid nonsense:

The death of John Patrick Bedell, the 36-year-old man shot and killed by Pentagon police officers after he opened fire on them March 4, is a tragedy. It might have been avoided if Bedell had received timely and effective treatment for his obviously serious mental illness. The fact that he did not is a cause for soul-searching by all of us. Advocates of “medical marijuana” should be especially chastened.

I, for one, am not one bit chastened by my open advocacy for the legalization of drugs, especially medical cannabis. That Bedell's alleged bi-polar disorder went un- or mistreated has absolutely no bearing whatever that he self-medicated with marijuana. His family was apparently well aware of his mental health issues and he did not receive adequate treatment for it hardly makes medical cannabis blameworthy in this.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to delve into Bedell's medical and personal history, but even if we take Mr. Lane's story at face value--that Bedell sought treatment for insomnia in 2006 where his doctor may or may not have properly searched for the underlying cause for that insomnia--blaming a medicine is intellectually derelict.

If some doctor treated a broken leg with Vicodin and no other remedy--such as to properly set the broken bone--the fault lies not with the Vicodin, but with the inadequate treatment on behalf of the physician. Likewise, if a doctor doesn't properly diagnose a severe mental disorder that would be evident through routine examination, the doctor--and not the prescribed inadequate remedy--is to blame.

But Lane continues on this irresponsible crusade against medical cannabis:

Let’s debate legalizing marijuana as a recreational drug. If smoking pot makes terminally ill AIDS and cancer patients feel better, give it to them.

But, for the most part, “medical marijuana” is a pseudo-scientific myth, and a dangerous one at that.

Parsing this a bit: "if it makes terminally ill AIDS and cancer patients feel better" belies the reason many of those patience actually use cannabis: It isn't to escape the pain or feel kinda groovy--which, admittedly, is a side-effect--it allows many of them to eat without vomiting from the chemotherapy and other chemical cocktails they are taking. There are plenty of pain medicines that get you high--"opiates" or "opioids" are among the strongest and derived from the same plant you get opium and heroin. No one doubts their efficacy or propriety just because they--and alternate forms of the drug--are often used recreationally or abused.

Mr. Lane appears to be operating on a fallacious assumption: that because a medicine doesn't come with a stamp from Eli Lilly or Merck that it has no legitimate medicinal purpose. But medicines are just chemicals that interact with the body for an intended effect. If cannabis alleviates nausea and increases appetite in sick people--which it most certainly does--it has a legitimate medicinal effect and should therefore be considered a legitimate treatment. That some doctors may neglect their patients' underlying problems should not be put at the feet of medical cannabis availability--that is medical malpractice.

I mean to make no insinuations about Bedell's prescribing physician, particularly. I don't know what happened and I don't pretend to--although Mr. Lane seems perfectly fine with insinuating malpractice, but that's between him and his editors. Nevertheless, it is blatantly irresponsible of Mr. Lane to assign blame to the medical cannabis activist community because one man with severe mental issues smoked marijuana under medical pretenses for one month during an unknown period of time of already "excessive" marijuana use.

Bedell was a troubled man and it's a shame that whatever help he sought/was given was insufficient. It is certainly plausible that other people culpable in all of this, (i.e., how did a mentally disturbed man acquire two handguns?), but people who want to improve the life of very sick people are not among them.

You don't have to believe that medical cannabis is legitimate treatment to realize that this piece was half-assed scapegoating. Charles Lane and the Washington Post should be ashamed of themselves.

Strictly Speaking

Strict liability is bullshit.

An ex-soldier handing in a found sawed-off shotgun faces five years in an English prison for illegal possession of a firearm. Of course, he only possessed it in order to get it off the streets and turn it into police:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

The story goes on to say that Mr. Clarke's intent is irrelevant because gun possession is a "strict liability" offense, meaning that no matter how one comes into possession of a banned item or substance, or whether or not one had mens rea--criminal intent--he is technically guilty.

This is doubly frustrating because he faces "at least" five years in prison. Like some gun and other criminal offenses in the United States, Mr. Clarke is poised to lose five years of his liberty for doing the right thing because of mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

One-size-fits-all laws are pernicious. While most of these laws were crafted to bring uniformity and fairness to criminal sentencing--consistency , generally speaking, is a good thing--they become inflexible barriers to true justice in many cases. As I have said before, judges should be allowed to assess the facts of any given case to bring about a just conclusion to a criminal matter. Statutory constraints like "strict liability"--particularly when coupled with mandatory minimum sentences--cross the line from proper legislative decisionmaking into what should be exclusively judicial purview. Stripping judges of their ability to judge mitigating factors--or, in this case, undisputed facts that should have led to immediate dismissal--can result in the state committing crimes against its citizenry.

While I'm not familiar with the English criminal justice system, given that America's common law is a direct descendant of English common law, there has to be some executive or other official that can issue a pardon for this man. They should issue that pardon immediately, in addition to an apology.

Last year, I wrote a piece for reason on mandatory minimum sentences as they applied to ex-(and hopefully future) NFL star Plaxico Burress, that can be found here. Also, in today's WSJ, the feds are rethinking mandatory minimum policy. Let's hope (against hope, probably) that they get this right, at least on a federal level.

E-Thugs-'n'-Harmony

Now, I'm all for using empirical data (aka "evidence-based" methods) to shape public policy, but just because some doctor to writes a test does not automatically pass the threshold of acceptable public policy utility:

LOS ANGELES -- In more than 40 years of studying this city's street gangs as a social psychologist, Malcolm Klein says his home was burglarized nine times. Now, the retired University of Southern California professor is offering the city what he hopes one day will help stem crime: A test that he says could predict if a child is destined to join a gang.

We'll leave aside the questionable wisdom of a man whose house has been robbed nine times, but there is something creepy and very (Philip K.) Dickish about commenting on anyone "destined" to be criminal. It isn't as if we're talking about hardened sociopaths who are incapable of feeling any sort of empathy or remorse:

The screening, intended for children between 10 and 15 years old, asks a range of questions on issues ranging from past relationships to drug use to attitudes toward violence. One question asks test takers if they recently had a breakup with a boyfriend or girlfriend; another asks test takers if they are kind to younger children.

I can only imagine some of these questions:

13. You get a "D" on an English exam. Do you:

A. Tell your mother that you'll do better next time and follow through
B. Come to grips with the fact you'll be wearing a name tag for the rest of your life.
C. Say "Hey Mom, look! I didn't fail!"
D. Smack a ho.

27. What is the best meaning of the following sentence: "The gentleman left his domicile in order to collect his remuneration from gainful employment."

A. The guy escaped from his nag of a wife to get his money he owed his bookie before he went to the bar.
B. The man left his home to pick up his paycheck.
C. Donde esta la bibliotecha?
D. That nigga done left his crib to get his n's from them hoes, cuz a nigga needs to be gettin' paid, yaknowhumsayin?!?!?

70. If you've gotten this far on the exam, the chances of you being a gangsta are slim because:

A) You've demonstrated an ability to read
B) You have followed through with an assignment, which is a sign of responsibility
C) You showed up for school today
D) All your clothes are not the same color
E) All of the Above

In all seriousness, this is a quote from the city's "gang czar" (How many czars does it take to run a democratic republic these days?):

"We were not relying on data," says Rev. Jeff Carr, an evangelical minister who is the city's "gang czar," leading outreach and prevention efforts. "We had gang-prevention programs, but no criteria to determine who was in a gang." (emphasis mine)

Well, failing to identify individuals who, wear certain colors every day or perhaps...I dunno...PERMANENTLY SCAR THEIR AFFILIATION ALL OVER THEIR BODIES may be indicative of a less-than-effective anti-gang strategy, so I can see why some in the community may want to try a new approach.

But why this test, with no remote proof of effectiveness?

This year, the test is being given to children for the first time, and officials say they will use the results to determine whether some of the city's $24 million annual budget for gang prevention is being spent on children who aren't at high risk.

Yes, folks, it's just another way to allocate money. Shocking, I know. Get an academic with an impressive résumé (albeit with a less-than-stellar home insurance rating) to create an arbitrary measure and we'll figure out how to fiddle with the budget because Raoul and Jaquan have recently broken-up with their Boos and harass their little brothers.

Just because eHarmony can come up with a test for romantic compatibility doesn't mean some retired Ph.D can determine with any degree of certainty who ends up bangin' and who doesn't. (Nor, might I add, is gang affiliation alone a sufficient indicator of criminal violence.)

If you want to decrease gang activity, eliminate their most lucrative business: end the damned drug war. Will gangs completely go away? Probably not--but without the money to keep operations afloat, the majority of the gang--those non-sociopathic, non-murdering members just looking for a sense of belonging and a little money to go with--will be much more likely to revert to legitimate means of living.

Added music bonus:

I.R.S. Plans a Deduction for Madoff Victims

Really?

The Internal Revenue Service will allow victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s investment fraud to claim a tax deduction related to the bulk of their losses, the I.R.S. commissioner told the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday.

The commissioner, Douglas H. Shulman, told lawmakers that the agency was offering guidelines for taxpayers who are victims of losses from Ponzi schemes like Mr. Madoff’s.

For those not familiar yet, a "Ponzi" scheme is a type of scam where a hustler takes money from investors and returns money at rates at a much higher return than what would normally be earned. The way to do this is to keep drawing investors in with the promise of huge returns and paying off initial investors' dividends and withdrawals with newly invested money. As long as the operator can count on more money invested than withdrawn, the fraud can go on in perpetuity. However, when a large number of people make withdrawals and/or he runs out of investors, there is a catastrophic amount of debt and the scheme is exposed for the fraud that it is. Bernie Madoff will spend the rest of his life behind bars, with good reason, for this crime.

You see, I too have been a victim of a "Ponzi" scheme. I have been paying into this mess my entire adult life. This ridiculous scam has cost me thousands of dollars over the past 16 years. I pay money in and they tell me that I can expect a return in the future, even though I know my money goes to direct payments to others. And soon, I know the "fund" is going to be insolvent just like Madoff's and there will be no one to bail me out.

It's called Social Security.

I've been hosed by a Ponzi scheme too, damnit. I want my money back.

This year, I'm writing off FICA.

Mood Music Monday

Some language may offend, but I thought this was appropriate given my last post:

Huckabee Fears American Minorities, Not Actual Terrorists

Now, I've already discussed less credible charges of veiled racism from within the McCain campaign, but here is an example I think deserves a closer look:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, mentioned as a possible running mate for presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, yesterday said he feels safer in Israel than in American cities.

...

"I have no fear to go to Israel," Huckabee said before boarding a plane at Kennedy Airport.

"I felt more fear in American cities. I can walk down the streets of Tel Aviv at night without a problem. But I, of course, have the knowledge of which places not to go at night, just like any other city in America."

Uh huh. And how do you know that, governor? Oh yes, when black and brown people are standing outside....

Make no mistake, America has some very terrible neighborhoods (most of which are heavily dependent on the government dole, might I add). But poor and black (or Hispanic) does not mean dangerous.

I'm not saying Huckabee is a racist, but what he said is certainly more likely to be construed as such than the now notorious "Celeb" ad. (That said, coming from a Baptist good ol' boy it strikes me as entirely plausible that it is.) Statistically speaking, he may very well be right to say he's safer in Tel Aviv than he is in New York City or Washington,DC, but the added "where not to go at night" comment was questionable, at best.

It will be interesting to see what kind of attention the media gives the comments.

UPDATE: A friend emailed me to disagree with what I wrote in this post. I think her criticisms are fair, although I stand by what I wrote. In response to her, however, I wrote the following which I probably should have included in the original:

Euphemisms and political correctness have replaced overt racism in the broader American lexicon...The language is benign, often masking a more malicious or callous intent. He would never say "I know better than to go into poor black neighborhoods" -- but in fact, he just did.

UPDATE II: It should also be noted that I don't mean to pick on Israel as a particularly dangerous country. It was the characterization of US cities and the implications of certain sections of them which offended me, not the comparison to Israel. My headline is admittedly overstated, but in no way to dispute that there are places more dangerous in the US to live than Israel.

Quote of the Day

(Ok, it was this weekend. But I've been traveling, so deal)

[D.C. Police Chief Cathy] Lanier, who was accompanied at the news conference by City Administrator Dan Tangherlini with Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) out of town, defended the [Trinidad neighborhood] checkpoints yesterday as legal and a useful police tool. "Until a judge orders me to stop, I'm going to do everything I can to protect the people in Trinidad," Lanier said.

Except, of course, make it easier for the citizens to protect themselves with handguns.

"Was He Black?"

For those of you who don't know, I went to New York City last week to attend the Milton Friedman Prize award dinner. It--the dinner-- was a good time.

Afterward, a few of us younger folk went out on the town, determined to show New Yorkers how we Beltway kids do it up -- and 'do it up' we did.

After we shut the bars down, we wandered around the streets of New York looking for something to eat. I grew weary of waiting on those less-sober members of our group lagging behind and ducked into McDonald's. Apparently, when my friends caught up to me and were denied access to the Mickey D's bathroom, they took off without me. No big deal -- in the age of cell phones, I could catch up when my breakfast burritos were ready.

Well, there was one individual in the place rather upset with the service. He began berating a young woman behind the counter, walked away momentarily, and then came back for another chance at deriding her. With a style I can best describe as "Oh no you di'int" (with obligatory effeminate head swivel, minus the snapping fingers), he said to her:

"You know what, you are a terrible employer."

Far be it from me to let someone show such disrespect for a service worker repeatedly, but then with such an abuse of the language? Yeah. I had to say something:

"The word is employee."

He didn't take that very well.

So, in his diminutive angry way, he follows me outside threatening to do all sorts of harm to me and going on about his origins from "the ghetto." (Personal note: If someone is in your face telling you their personal history about what qualifies them to pummel you, and especially if it doesn't sound very convincing, chances are they are full of it.) I was less than impressed with the performance, but was still in my tux and not looking for trouble. I just walked away, eating my food and drinking my orange juice.

He runs after me around the corner and then starts on about "you white people," which of course, I also couldn't let slide. I take a sip from my oj and say "Actually, my father is black--but whatever." His response was to inform me that he wasn't really interested in that little bit of information, in admittedly more graphic and direct terms. I keep walking.

The next thing I know, he hurls his drink at my head. I don't see it coming, it stunned me, and temporarily blinded me in my right eye. The nerves were working, but all I could see were indistinct shapes and I could feel my eye swelling immediately. It tore open the skin beneath my eyebrow and I started bleeding everywhere.

I was, for the first time, legitimately frightened because I was, for all intents and purposes, incapacitated for self-defense. All he had to do was come at me from my right side and he could have torn me up.

But for all his tough talk about being from the 'hood', the blood coming from my head seems to have been enough for him and he got the hell out of there. (People where I come from would have then hit me with a fist to knock me down to the ground, kicked me repeatedly and taken my wallet. I've never claimed to be a hard ass, I've just met enough of them in my time. But I digress.)

After a terse but calm phone call, my friends find me with the help of a man I'll call "Tyrone," who apparently works in urban pharmaceutical sales. (He was in the area when my friends freaked out upon hearing my phone call. My friends were not in the market for his wares.)

Somebody called the police, I went back to McDonald's and tried to clean myself up. One of the men at McDonald's--I'm guessing an off-the-clock employee--asked me something I thought strange: "Was he black?" I said yeah, and rattled off a description: light-skinned, early 20s, kinda chubby, and about 5'9", at best. The man was visibly disappointed, but not surprised.

The NYPD shows up in pretty short order, treat me with nothing but respect and are very cool-- to me. I give them the same description I gave to the random McDonald's guy. They ask if I could be any more specific, and I really couldn't.

Then an officer says they have someone out front and asks me to ID him. They wanted me to look at him through the window of the restaurant, which had a glare from the lights inside and I was down one eye, at that particular moment, so I was tentative about making any kind of identification for court. But as soon as I could make out the body, I knew it was not even close to what I said.

They were talking to Tyrone.

Tyrone is easily in his 30s, if not 40s, around 6'4", skinny as a rail, and black as midnight. Other than the race identifier, they couldn't have been more off. It seems that Tyrone has had some run-ins with New York's finest in the past, and the police were none-too-happy to see him. I can't make a judgment on whether or not Tyrone is a good guy, but he helped my friends -- thereby helping me--and for that I am grateful to him.

I am also grateful to the NYPD for their prompt arrival and professionalism when they dealt with me. The EMTs in the ambulance were quite cool, as were the staff members at Roosevelt Hospital who stitched me up. I also hope that the guy in the Emergency Room with me is ok-- the man was working himself so hard that after passing out and vomiting at work, he wanted to complete his shift instead of going to the hospital.

So, after a ridiculously short stay in the ER, I go back to my (paternal) uncle's place to pass out on the couch. A couple hours later, I wake up and let him know what happened so he doesn't freak out when he passes me sleeping in the living room with a bloody swollen eye.

He was very upset that my weekend in New York started off this way and asked me "Was he black?"

My uncle was visibly disappointed, but not surprised.

Marvin, His Bar, and His Gun

When I turned Mike and Mike in the Morning on as I was getting ready for work today, I heard veteran ESPN reporter and resident Phillyophile Sal Paolantonio go on and on about the shooting outside the garage and down the street from a bar that Colts WR Marvin Harrison owns.

What bugged me about the story is two-fold:

1) Paolantonio, whose reporting I normally respect, harped on the type of gun Harrison handed-in for the investigation: a custom made Belgian pistol designed to 'kill cops.' This is an assertion Paolantonio made because it reportedly is so powerful its ammo can go through many layers of Kevlar at 50m. Granted, the gun may be particularly powerful, but for some reason I don't think there are a bunch of police-hating Belgian gun designers plotting to perfect "cop-killer" weapons.


2) Paolantonio then began to speculate as to why Harrison, a multi-millionaire and probable future Hall of Famer (provided he's not taken down in this or another scandal of some kind) , would bother to run a bar, a garage and car wash in his very violent neighborhood back in Philadelphia. It was unfathomable to this man, who lives and breathes life in Philly, that a native son would own businesses where he was raised. Apparently Sal believes that NFL players should stick to filming United Way ads and volunteering in their adopted communities instead of providing people needed jobs and desired services where they grew up.

I don't know enough about the story to say whether Marvin is guilty of a crime or not. Looking over some reports, it looks like the weapon--while legal and registered--was not in the place it was supposed to have been (Harrison's home). And if there was any impropriety, God knows the NFL will act swiftly and, in all probability, harshly against the star receiver. But those issues are for the courts and the NFL to decide.

In the meantime, Sal and co. should stick to reporting more of Donovan McNabb's whiny dramathon and the success of the Philadelphia Flyers in the Stanley Cup Playoffs than criticizing an unaccused man for owning a legal firearm and running legitimate businesses in his hometown.

Airing Our Dirty Laundry

Those of us who speak openly about the problems acutely affecting blacks in the U.S. often find ourselves in a Catch-22: If we speak to a diverse audience, or at least one that can be reported by the media to a white audience, we catch hell because whites will get the idea that the stereotypes are true and thus their prejudice is justified. If we say things privately, albeit secluded in an otherwise public setting, apologies have to be made too:

[Marvin] Arrington, who is African-American, is a judge in Fulton County, Georgia, which includes the city of Atlanta.

He said he got fed up seeing a parade of young black defendants shuffle into his courtroom and decided to address them one day last week -- out of the earshot of white lawyers.

"I came out and saw the defendants, and it was about 99.9 percent Afro-Americans," Arrington told CNN affiliate WSB-TV of Atlanta, "and at some point in time, I excused some lawyers -- most of them white -- and said to the young people in here, 'What in the world are you doing with your lives?'"

The judge thought his message would make a greater impact if he delivered it to a black-only audience, he said.

Comedian Chris Rock, known for his pull-no-punches attitude on the state of the black underclass, has been notably toning it down to his diverse audiences. People question whether Dave Chappelle's show on Comedy Central was brilliant or explicitly racist -- including Chappelle himself. And, as I alluded to above, there was the whole Bill Cosby fiasco.

On the other side, you have famous black people who rarely or never speak on black issues at all -- or at least not in categorical racial terms: Tiger Woods, Condi Rice, Derek Jeter, and Oprah Winfrey, to name a few.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I don't know what to make of what Judge Arrington did. While I am certainly sympathetic to what he tried to do, it isn't really in the prerogative of a jurist to use official time for a wake-up call for black people.

But then again, who else was going to say it?

"Everywhere, police, police, police"

In today's Washington Post, a curious story details the ridiculousness of the District's gun laws -- without, apparently, recognizing the absurdity of them all.

The reporter goes to great lengths describing all the loopholes that provide for firearms ownership within the District, quoting a gun expert who says there are "thousands and thousands of legal firearms" in D.C.:

Because the city's "handgun ban" does not ban handguns entirely, and because the statute outlaws only certain kinds of rifles and shotguns, a huge number of D.C. residents legally possess firearms.

A "huge number."

That huge number does not include any non-"Special Police Officer" who has moved into the city since 1976 -- which I think would qualify as a "huger" number of people who may otherwise wish to protect themselves from intruders and other violent offenders.

But, surely, the gun ban has had a positive effect on violent crime since the ban, right?

Well, not so much. As you can see below, as linked above the article in the online edition of the Post, the homicide justification for the bans is flimsy, to be polite:

I have no idea how an article that justifies the bans by pointing out numerous exemptions to the ban can link to such a damning graphic and maintain such a contrary position. Granted, the piece does not explicitly back the bans, but I fail to see the "news" in the fact that people in D.C. have guns.

Of course, most of the exemptions are for law enforcement agencies, both public and private. I think this is a telling statement about how the government works, grows, and dominates the culture. What's more, its growing influence -- literally at the point of a gun -- goes virtually unchallenged as the populace is deprived of their right to self-defense:

[D.C. police Lt. Jon] Shelton can hold forth in encyclopedic detail on the thicket of laws and rules that apply to special police officers. There's a separate maze of regulations governing off-duty D.C. and federal police officers and what types of guns, if any, they are allowed to carry in the District.

Some agencies -- the D.C. police and U.S. Park Police for example -- fall under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, meaning officers are allowed (even required) to be armed at all times and have police powers throughout the city. Officers in other departments, such as the Library of Congress police, fall under Title 40, Shelton said. They have police powers only where they work and are not allowed to carry guns on private or city property while off duty.

"In D.C., we have all these quasi-law enforcement agencies," he said. "Everywhere, police, police, police -- it's like every federal agency in the city has its own police force. It's hard to keep up with who's under what title."

(Emphasis added.)

So, the government and its nimiety of overlapping police organizations glut the District, whereas no private individual -- save those in law enforcement and life-long residents approaching their 60s -- may legally possess a handgun for protection in one of the most dangerous cities in the nation.

When it comes to self-defense, it seems some District residents are more equal than others.

Update: Colorado Shooting

From the security guard who took down the killer in the Colorado church shootings:

[Security Guard Jeanne] Assam said, "I wasn't just going to wait for him to do further damage."

How much damage could he have done?

[Gunman/dead guy Matthew] Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

But gun control advocates would say that calling 911 and waiting for the police would be the prudent thing to do.

Tell that to the survivors.

Moon Shot?

Yet another person with a weapon stops a criminal from hurting people:

An off-duty SWAT team member is being called a hero Sunday after shooting an armed robber outside a Brevard County supermarket.

Investigators said it all began after a man went into the Winn-Dixie on Singleton Avenue with a shotgun Saturday night. He then fired a shot at an office door to get inside and grab money.

Cool. But what unit is he from?

A member of the Kennedy Space Center SWAT team walked in the store, saw what was happening, and then went back to his car to get his gun.

Why in the world does the Kennedy Space Center have a SWAT team?

Technology Fights The System

In the latest incident of technology catching police abuse/lying, a man gets a cop busted for perjury (and consequently escapes a 25-year prison stint) because he secretly recorded his own interrogation:

A teenage suspect who secretly recorded his interrogation on an MP3 player has landed a veteran detective in the middle of perjury charges, authorities said Thursday.

Unaware of the recording, Detective Christopher Perino testified in April that the suspect "wasn't questioned" about a shooting in the Bronx, a criminal complaint said. But then the defense confronted the detective with a transcript it said proved he had spent more than an hour unsuccessfully trying to persuade Erik Crespo to confess - at times with vulgar tactics.

Once the transcript was revealed in court, prosecutors asked for a recess, defense attorney Mark DeMarco said. The detective was pulled from the witness stand and advised to get a lawyer.

[...]

Prosecutors then offered Crespo, who had faced as many as 25 years if convicted, seven years if he pleaded guilty to a weapons charge. He accepted.

Cojones Grande!

Radley has a great post over at reason (money quote):

But to call for tossing online gamblers in prison while pushing for new casinos in the same bill? Points to Patrick for testicular fortitude, I guess. And for at least being open and transparent about his bald protectionism.

"All Hands On Deck" Goes Down With Ship

Last weekend, the D.C. police chief implemented an initiative increasing the police presence on the streets. The results:

Violence in the District continued to rise last weekend despite an increase in arrests and police presence during the department's latest "All Hands on Deck" crime-fighting initiative, police data show.

Most available officers were working the streets Friday to Sunday, making 481 arrests, many for minor offenses. Yet the city recorded two homicides, three sexual abuse cases, 31 robberies and 26 assaults over the three days -- a total of 62 violent crimes, compared with 34 for the same three-day stretch last year.

"The numbers aren't looking good," said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), head of the public safety committee. "This says that 'All Hands on Deck' is more about catching law breakers than deterring crime."

Of the 481 arrests, made between 12:01 a.m. Friday and 7 a.m. Sunday -- the time period for the "All Hands on Deck" effort -- 119 arrests involved drug offenses, 101 were for traffic violations, 58 for disorderly conduct and 43 for prostitution. There was one arrest after a homicide, four in connection with robberies or carjackings, and 15 involving assaults.

...

Crime is on the rise in the District, with 165 homicides so far this year -- just four fewer than the homicide total for all of 2006.

Less than 13% of the arrests made this weekend were for violent crimes, whereas more than a third were arrested for completely voluntary recreational activity (drugs and prostitution).

In a city as violent as this one, you would think that arresting people for the sake of "being tough on crime" should take a back seat to actually concentrating on bringing the violators of others' rights to justice. Instead, however, the police concentrate on "moral" violations which reflect the upstanding nature of this pious capital of ours.

Self-Love is a Battlefield

me from reason.'s blog

A Florida judges adds 60 days in jail to a convicted robber's 10-year sentence. The crime?

A Broward prisoner accused of committing a sex act while he was alone in his jail cell was found guilty Tuesday of indecent exposure...

In reaching the guilty verdict, jurors found that an inmate's jail cell is ''a limited access public place'' where exposing oneself is against the law.

The judge sentenced [Terry Lee] Alexander, of Lauderdale Lakes, to 60 days in jail, on top of the 10-year sentence he is currently serving for armed robbery.

While punishing a prisoner for exposing himself seems reasonable, the guard who brought the charges is not:

Alexander's attorney argued that the prison cell was a private place and that what Alexander was doing was perfectly normal.

''Did other inmates start masturbating because of Mr. Alexander?'' [Defense attorney Kathleen] McHugh asked [BSO Deputy Coryus Veal, the officer who brought the charges]. ``Did you call a SWAT team?''

''I wish I had,'' Veal answered...

Veal, who has charged seven other inmates with the same offense, insisted that she was not against the act itself -- just the fact that Alexander was so blatant about it.

As if this case weren't silly enough:

Defense attorney Kathleen McHugh faced 17 prospective jurors and asked point-blank who among them had never done that particular sex act.

No hands went up.

If BSO Veal can't find a way to discipline prisoners for this behavior outside of the court system, perhaps she should find a new line of work.