Thoughts On The Police Attack On James Blake

(Photo of the attack on James Blake is from YouTube.)

I had not planned to post anything about the police attack on James Blake in New York. That's because the video of the incident, and the media coverage, seemed to sum it up pretty well -- that it was ridiculous and unnecessary. But since Patrick Lynch, spokesman for the NYPD police union, felt it necessary to issue his idiotic statement, I feel it necessary to comment.

Here is what Lynch said:

"If you have never struggled with someone who is resisting arrest or who pulled a gun or knife on you when you approached them for breaking a law, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of police officers putting themselves in harm’s way for the public good." 

"It is mystifying to all police officers to see pundits and editorial writers whose only expertise is writing fast-breaking, personal opinion, and who have never faced the dangers that police officers routinely do, come to instant conclusions that an officer’s actions were wrong based upon nothing but a silent video. That is irresponsible, unjust and un-American."

I doubt this blog qualifies as "media", but I do know something about law enforcement -- and I have "struggled" with criminals many times during my nearly 30-year career (as a corrections officer, a patrol officer in a high crime area of a large city, and as a parole officer). And I believe those criticizing the New York officer's actions are correct. I was personally shocked at his actions, and believe they were indefensible.

One of the first things I was taught upon entering the law enforcement field was to never take an action by yourself when you can call for back-up. Having sufficient back-up not only protects the officer, but also the person he is confronting.

Where was the back-up for this officer? He obviously had time to call for back-up, since the victim did not seemed to be leaving the area. If the officer was in danger, it is because of his own actions (making the attack without sufficient back-up).

And once the back-up arrived, it was still not necessary to attack the victim without warning. They could have approached the victim and asked him for identification. He would have provided it, and no struggle would have happened. And if he did struggle with offers, there would have been enough to take him down without anyone getting hurt (or he could have been tased and then handcuffed).

This incident was badly mishandled. Instead of showing the officer's bravery, it shows his incompetence. It should never have happened. And it could have easily been avoided if the officer had called for back-up, and then treated the victim with the respect that all American citizens deserve from their police.

It is this type of silly (and dangerous) behavior that gives police a bad name in this country -- and makes people think the police are incompetent and unfair. And that's a shame, since there are many thousands of competent police officers who do their job the right way.

And let me add one more thing -- it is never un-American to criticize a government agency. That is the right of every citizen (even those in the media).

NYPD Dishonored Their Job, Their Uniform, And Their City

(The cartoon image above is by Matt Wuerker at Politico.com.)

I spent more than 30 years working for the state of Texas -- and nearly 30 years of that service was in law enforcement. And throughout that service, there was a hard and fast rule that all state employees were required to adhere to -- they could not engage in any kind of political action while on duty, or while wearing a uniform designating them as a state employee. The reasoning behind that was that, while on duty or in uniform, we were representing the government (not ourselves) and government employees must be seen as being neutral on political matters. They must not give the impression that the government has taken sides in any political or social matter.

I always liked that rule. Because, especially for law enforcement, government employees must be perceived as treating every individual or group fairly -- and expressing any kind of political or social view destroys that perception and creates unneeded problems.

This does not mean a law enforcement official cannot express a political or social view. They have the same right as all other citizens to speak out or demonstrate (i.e., petition their government for a redress of grievances). They just must do that only when they are off duty and out of uniform. That makes it clear they are expressing their own personal opinion -- not the view of the city, state or federal government.

Many thousands of New York City Police Officers violated this basic principle of fairness in governing. They did it by turning their backs on the mayor at the funeral of a fallen officer. And many did it again at the funeral of the second fallen officer -- even after the Police Commissioner has requested (but not commanded) them to show respect for their job, their uniform, and their city by not repeating the action (an action that was very political). And it also showed a disrespect for the families of the fallen officers. The event was held to honor and mourn the fallen officers. It was NOT the time for a political demonstration.

Don't get me wrong. In my years of service, I met and worked with many honest and competent law enforcement officials -- men and women who adhered to the highest professional standards of conduct. And those men and women earned my respect and should have the respect of the community at large. But those NY officers who engaged in that political conduct while in uniform violated those professional standards -- and in doing so, they showed no respect for their job or the many thousands of law enforcement officials across the country. They should be ashamed of their conduct.

Let me add one more thought. The police expect the community to respect their authority when they are performing their legitimate duties. But how can that happen when they show public disrespect for the authorities in their city -- authorities who are just trying to perform their own legitimate duties?

NYC Poised For A Democratic Landslide

As the mayoral race in New York City draws near, Democratic candidate Bill de Blasio is looking at a landslide win he currently leads his Republican opponent, Joe Lhota, by about 45 points. Mr. de Blasio leads in all the boroughs of the city -- having 76% support in Manhattan and Bronx, 66% in Brooklyn, and 64% in Queens. He also leads among both genders, all age groups and ethnicities/races, and all education and income levels. here are those numbers:

Men...............64%
Women...............72%
18 to 29...............77%
30 to 44...............68%
45 to 64...............72%
65 & over...............62%
Whites...............55%
Blacks...............90%
Hispanics...............76%
College degree...............69%
No coll. degree...............67%
Under $50k...............75%
$50k-$100k...............72%
Over $100k...............63%

Mr. de Blasio is undoubtably a popular politician in the city, having a 62% favorability rating. But part of his huge lead could be due to the damage the Republican Party did to themselves in shutting down the government recently. About 47% of the NYC electorate said that had an effect on their decision, and the Republican Party is very unpopular in New York City right now.

All of the numbers used above are from the recent NY Times / Siena College Poll (conducted between October 21st and 26th of 701 likely New York City voters, and with a margin of error of 3.7 points).

Democrat Has Huge Lead In NYC Race

There's still a few weeks to go, but the first two polls show Democrat Bill de Blasio has a huge lead in the New York City mayor's race against Republican Joe Lhota and Independence Party candidate Adolfo Carrion. In the NBC/WSJ/Marist Poll (done on September 15th and 16th of 930 registered voters -- with a 3.2 point margin of error), de Blasio has a 43 point lead over Lhota and a 59 point lead over Carrion.

The Quinnipiac University Poll (done between September 15th and 18th of 891 likely voters -- with a 3.3 point margin of error) verifies that huge lead by de Blasio. Quinnipiac has him with a 41 point lead over Lhota and a 64 point lead over Carrion. I have included the demographic breakdown for the Quinnipiac poll to show that deBlasio leads by a large margin with every race, income level, gender, educational level and age group.

Lhota (and Carrion) have a very large mountain to climb just to get back in this race.

NYC Democrats Choose Their Candidates

(This beautiful image of New York City is by Daniel Schwen.)

The Democratic primary is over in New York City, and the mayor's race has come out just as predicted by the polls. Bill de Blasio is the big winner, and may even be able to avoid a run-off by getting 40% of the vote. With 97% of the precincts reporting, he has 40.2% of the vote. Here are the totals:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY (MAYOR)
97% reporting

Bill de Blasio...............255,265 (40.2%)
William Thompson...............165,540 (26.1%)
Christine Quinn...............98,168 (15.5%)
John Liu...............44,711 (7.0%)
Anthony Weiner...............31,161 (4.9%)

Meanwhile, in the race for NYC Comptroller, Scott Stringer has defeated Eliot Spitzer in a squeaker. Stringer's margin of victory was about 23,000 votes out of more than 540,000 votes cast. This gives some credence to the Quinnipiac University Poll, which had Stringer leading by a small margin going into the final days of the election. By comparison, the usually accurate Public Policy Polling had given the edge to Spitzer. Here are the numbers in the Comptroller race:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY (COMPTROLLER)
97% reporting

Scott Stringer...............283,152 (52.2%)
Eliot Spitzer...............259,740 (47.8%)

I must admit, I was a little surprised at the Comptroller race (even with the Quinnipiac numbers). I sort of expected Spitzer to pull it out. I was wrong.

But I was right about another prediction. I said it wouldn't surprise me if John Liu beat Anthony Weiner, even though Liu trailed him in the polls for the whole campaign -- and that's exactly what happened (by a pretty decent margin).

NOTE -- Joe Lhota won the Republican primary for mayor with 53% of the vote.

Last Polls On NYC Primary Races

Today the NYC Democrats will decide who they want to represent them in the races for mayor and comptroller -- and two final polls have come out on those races. The Quinnipiac University Poll was done between September 6th and 8th of 782 likely Democratic voters, and has a margin of error of 3.5 points. The Public Policy Polling survey was done on September 7th and 8th of 683 likely Democratic voters, with a margin of error of 3.8 points.

Both polls show that Bill de Blasio has a commanding lead in the mayor's race. The only question at this point is whether he will get 40% of the vote and avoid a run-off, or whether he will have to face Thompson or Quinn in a run-off election. Either way de Blasio looks like he will be the Democratic candidate for mayor (since he is far ahead of both his nearest competitors in proposed head-to-head match ups).

But the comptroller's race is a horse of a different color. This is still close, and either Spitzer or Stringer could win it. In fact, the two polls disagree on who is ahead. The Quinnipiac poll has Stringer ahead by 7 points, while the PPP poll has Spitzer ahead by 4 points. I guess the undecideds will decide this race when they finally make up their minds.

Latest Numbers In NYC Mayor Race

The latest Quinnipiac University Poll is out, and it is showing yet more movement in the race for mayor in the coming Democratic primary. The survey was done between August 28th and September 1st of 750 likely Democratic voters (with a 3.6 point margin of error) and 101 likely Republican voters (with a 9.8 point margin of error).

A week ago, Bill de Blasio had jumped in to lead in the Democratic race with 36% (to 21% for Quinn and 20% for Thompson). This latest poll shows he has now extended his lead to 43%, while Thompson has remained steady at 20% and Quinn has dropped another 3 points to 18%. Even if the poll's margin of error is considered, it looks like de Blasio now has a very good chance of avoiding a run-off by getting 40% of the vote. But even if a run-off is needed, the survey shows de Blasio would easily beat either of his closest competitors (with a 30 point lead over Thompson and a 41 point lead over Quinn in a two-person run-off).

This Quinnipiac University Poll, released yesterday, did not include any new numbers for the Democratic primary race for City Comptroller. But that doesn't mean nothing is happening in that race right now (which the last Quinnipiac poll had as dead even at 46% each between Eliot Spitzer and Scott Stringer).

Stringer has been trying to make hay out of Spitzers past dalliances with prostitutes, but last week the Spitzer campaign struck back. They revealed that Stringer had voted in the past to protect the tax-free status of Zymurgy. The problem with that is that Zymurgy is a front for the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) -- a group that promotes sexual relations between adults and children. In short, Stringer voted to continue tax-free status for an organization promoting pedophilia. Stringer spokeswoman Audrey Gelman tried to defend Stringer's vote by saying:

“He . . . voted on constitutional grounds that the Legislature should not be freely and subjectively revoking the nonprofit status of groups, (believing) it would be a slippery slope that could lead to targeting of group based on their political views.”


That may or may not be the real reason for the vote, but I can't believe the voters of New York City are going to approve of that. That revelation may be a lethal blow for Stringer's campaign. While visiting prostitutes, as Spitzer did, may not be approved of by voters, it is not nearly as bad as voting to give tax-free status to a group of pedophiles.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the poll shows that Joe Lhota leads the mayor's race by a large margin -- doubling the popularity of his nearest competitor, John Catsimatidis (48% to 24%). Lhota has led the race from the beginning, and looks to be the easy winner.

If I was a betting man (and fortunately I'm not), I wouldn't bet against de Blasio and Spitzer at this point -- or Lhota.

NYC Races Still Changing

There's just a little more than a week to go before the Democratic primary in New York City, and the races for mayor and for comptroller are still changing, according to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll (done between August 22nd and 27th of 602 likely primary voters -- with a margin of error of 4 points).

In the mayor's race, Bill de Blasio has once again extended his lead while his major opponents (Quinn and Thompson) seem stuck in the low twenties. Mr. de Blasio now has 36% of the likely vote, and with the 4 point margin of error, could actually reach the 40% level (which would give him the nomination without a run-off). But even if he does have to have a run-off with Quinn or Thompson, the Quinnipiac poll shows he would easily defeat either one -- 59% to 30% over Quinn, and 52% to 36% over Thompson.

But while a clear favorite is emerging in the mayor's race, the exact opposite is happening in the comptroller's race. It has devolved into a dead heat between Eliot Spitzer and Scott Stringer. Just two weeks ago, Spitzer had a 19 point lead and it looked like he was heading to a fairly easy victory. But all of that lead has disappeared, and the two candidates are now in a tie with 46% each. It looks like the 8% of undecided voters will decide the winner.

Both of these races have been very interesting to follow, and I can't wait to see how they come out on September 8th.

NOTE -- Anthony Weiner has now dropped down into single digits (8%) in the mayor's race. It wouldn't surprise me to see him get even less than that on election day (and possibly even lose to Mr. Liu, who has trailed him since he entered the race).

NYC Mayor Race Is Very Volatile

At this point there are a couple of things that can be said about the Democratic side of the New York City mayor's race. First, it is very volatile. There have been three different leaders in that race just since July 24th, and all of them had a lead larger than the Quinnipiac  University Poll margin of error (4.1 points). And the person who seems to be benefitting the most from the fall of Anthony Weiner is Bill de Blasio.

The latest Quinnipiac University Poll, taken of 579 likely Democratic primary voters between August 7th and 12th, shows de Blasio has now taken the lead (see top chart). Bill de Blasio now has 30% of the vote, while Christine Quinn has 24% and Bill Thompson has 22%. Anthony Weiner trails far behind with 10%, and John Liu has about 6%.

It now looks like it will come down to a run-off between two of three candidates -- deBlasio, Quinn, and Thompson. But with this race being so volatile, I'd be loath to pick which two will face off. There's still about three more weeks to go before the primary -- and that's an eternity considering how quickly the lead has been changing in this race.

As an admitted political junkie, I love these kind of contests.

Weiner Drops Like A Rock In NYC Race

For a while it looked like ex-congressman Anthony Weiner might be making a political comeback. A Quinnipiac University Poll in the middle of July had him leading the race for New York City Mayor -- three points ahead of his closest opponent, Christine Quinn. It seemed like the two would be battling it out in a Democratic primary run-off, since William Thompson and Bill de Blasio were both double-digits behind the two leaders.

But three weeks later, the bottom has fallen out of Weiner's campaign. NYC voters were turned off after learning that Weiner had continued his sexual peccadilloes after resigning his congressional seat. An August 8th New York Times/Siena College Poll shows Weiner has dropped from 25% to only 10%, and is currently trailing all three of the other leading candidates. It is only his obstinance that is keeping him in the race, since he has no chance of making any run-off now. There's still a month to go before the primary in early September, but it's hard to see Weiner making another comeback after the recent revelations.

Interestingly enough, Weiner's drop out of contention doesn't seem to have helped Ms. Quinn very much. She now leads the race, but is headed for a run-off with either Thompson or de Blasio -- both of whom benefitted from Weiner's fall from grace.

NYC Democrats In A Forgiving Mood ?

A few months ago it looked like the political careers of Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer were over. Both were caught in some extra-marital sexual misconduct -- Weiner for sending sexually-explicit photos of himself to several women, and Spitzer for using the services of some high-dollar prostitutes. Both resigned their elected positions. Now it looks like they may be on the comeback trail.

Weiner is running for mayor of New York City, and Spitzer has tossed his name in the ring to be that city's comptroller. And it looks like New York City Democrats may be ready to forgive them for their sexual peccadillos. A new poll shows both with a strong chance to win the Democratic primary to be held on September 10th.

The poll is the recent Quinnipiac University Poll (taken of 738 registered NYC Democrats between July 8th and 14th -- with a 3.6 point margin of error), and it shows both Weiner and Spitzer leading in their respective races. Weiner's lead over Christine Quinn is within the poll's margin of error, so the outcome of that race could go either way, but Weiner has been going up in the poll's since he annouced his candidacy. Spitzer, on the other hand, is a solid favorite to win his race.

I don't really care much who wins the mayoralty contest, since I live a long way from that wonderful city. But I am happy to see Eliot Spitzer starting to revive his political career. That's because he has shown in the past that he is not afraid to take on the monied interests of Wall Street and hold their feet to the fire -- and that is something I wish more politicians were brave enough to do.

How have these two men been able to come back from political oblivion? The poll tries to answer that question. It seems that most people, while they don't approve of sexual misconduct, don't consider it to be the unforgivable sin that financial corruption is considered to be. When the poll asked whether financial impropriety or sexual misconduct was worse, the results weren't even close. Here are the numbers:

WHICH IS WORSE?
Sexual misconduct...............22%
Financial impropriety...............69%
Unsure...............9%

It is still about 8 weeks until the city's Democratic primary, and anything could still happen. But right now it looks like both men may be well on their way to resurrecting their political careers.

I Hate American Airlines (But I Love New York City)

I feel like I owe my readers an explanation of why I had no new posts up yesterday. Some blogger friends invited me to spend a few days with them in New York, and I took them up on it. I flew into New York City last Friday. But it was not an uneventful flight. My first mistake was in booking a round trip flight on American Airlines (a mistake I won't repeat).

I should have known things were not going to go well when American Airlines called me two days before my flight -- at 3:30 AM!!! They had called to tell me that they had bumped me off my flight (even though I had booked it a month early and had already paid), and instead of arriving at La Guardia at 2:30 PM I would be arriving at midnight. After fighting with their computer for a while, it finally let me talk to a human -- a human who was not happy to learn that I was questioning the almighty wisdom of the corporate computer. After wrangling for about 30 minutes I was finally able to get on a flight that would get me there only one hour later than my original flight.

I probably should have known that would not be the end of my problems, but I was foolish and thought the worst was now over. I arrived at the airport plenty early (and was singled out for the special pat down). The TSA agent assured me that I was chosen randomly, but since I was the only person there with a beard and long hair I doubt that. But after our little sexual encounter (he could at least have offered me a cigarette afterwords), I was finally able to get to the American Airlines departure gate.

My computer was in my carry-on bag (where I knew I could look after it). I waited about thirty minutes to board with my carry-on bag in plain sight for all airline personnel to see, and no one said a thing. Then as we were boarding (and I was about two steps from the plane's door), the gate attendant decided my bag was too large to carry on-board, snatched it away from me and gave it to a baggage handler. She said it was because it was a smaller plane with a smaller overhead compartment, and I could reclaim the bag as I exited the plane in Dallas. It was not until I was seated on the plane that I remembered my MacBook was in that bag.

I tried to console myself by saying they would take good care of the bag. Boy, was I wrong! That bag (and the computer in it) would have been safer in the gorilla cage at the zoo. I retrieved it at DFW Airport and quickly checked the computer. It had three large cracks in the screen and was now unusable. My beautiful computer was now basically junk. It took me nearly an hour to find someone in charge even though I had asked several agents where I could file a complaint. Finally one of the "managers" showed up and said I would have to file a complaint once I returned to Amarillo in several days.

Question -- Is there anyone out there who thinks I'll ever see a penny from American Airlines for the computer they damaged? Me neither!

I did finally make it to New York City though, and stayed at a Midtown hotel in the Theater District. Went to a Broadway show Friday night (Billy Elliot), and loved it. Went to Times Square, and loved it. On Saturday, my friend took me on a walking excursion to show me the Midtown sights -- I haven't walked that much in years. Then on Saturday he gave me a car trip around Manhattan -- showing me Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, the Wall Street financial district, Tribeca, Greenwich Village, West Village, SoHo, and Ground Zero. 

As I write this I am now in Woodstock. I'll spend tomorrow up here and than take a train back to the city. I should be home and ready to blog again on Wednesday -- assuming I can find a computer to do it on. The title of this post pretty much sums up my feelings. I hate American Airlines, but I have developed a quick crush on the great city of New York (my first time here). I hope I can come back someday when I can stay longer and see more.

Darn It - I Had A Trip Planned

Now look at what you christians have gone and done. You seem to have made your invisible sky god so mad that's he's going to destroy the world, and the christians over at FamilyRadio.com are telling us that it's all going to happen on May 21, 2011. And it's hard to argue with the immutable logic they're throwing down. Here's just a taste of it:

In 2 Peter 3:8, which is quoted above, Holy God reminds us that one day is as 1,000 years. Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. Because Holy Infinite God is all-knowing, He knows the end from the beginning. He knew how sinful the world would become.

Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year 2011 A.D. (our calendar). 4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7,000

[One year must be subtracted in going from an Old Testament B.C. calendar date to a New Testament A.D. calendar date because the calendar does not have a year zero.]

Thus Holy God is showing us by the words of 2 Peter 3:8 that He wants us to know that exactly 7,000 years after He destroyed the world with water in Noah’s day, He plans to destroy the entire world forever. Because the year 2011 A.D. is exactly 7,000 years after 4990 B.C. when the flood began, the Bible has given us absolute proof that the year 2011 is the end of the world during the Day of Judgment, which will come on the last day of the Day of Judgment.

Amazingly, May 21, 2011 is the 17th day of the 2nd month of the Biblical calendar of our day. Remember, the flood waters also began on the 17th day of the 2nd month, in the year 4990 B.C.

Well, I guess that proves it. Darn! What couldn't god have just waited a couple more weeks? I had a trip to New York City planned for the next week, and it would have been my first visit to that city. You know American Airlines ain't gonna refund that ticket. Just my doggone luck!

Ron Paul Actually Makes Sense (This Time)

It's not very often that I agree with anything that Rep. Ron Paul says, but this is one of those times. He has come out and scolded neoconservatives and other right-wingers for making the proposed muslim community center in New York City an issue. He says they "never miss a chance to use hatred toward muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventive wars." He goes on to say:

"Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque.They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible. [...]

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City?The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty. [...]

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia."

I agree. Personally, I think this is just a trumped up issue to take Americans minds off the wars the Republicans started and the recession they caused.

Hotel Gets X-Rating

The Standard Hotel in Manhattan was just finished and opened last year, and has already become something of a landmark in the city.   In fact, the Municipal Arts Society of New York gave the hotel an award as the best new building erected in the city last year.

But the hotel is also starting to get a reputation for something else -- giving X-rated shows to the citizens and visitors of New York City.   That's because a new city park (High Line Park) was just opened on an abandoned elevated railway across the street.   The hotel rooms have floor to ceiling windows and when the curtains are left open, visitors to the park have an unobstructed view into the hotel rooms.

It turns out that many hotel visitors are leaving those curtains open and putting on quite a show for park visitors.   One neighborhood worker says the "shows" are "healthy and fun" -- sort of like the TV show Wild Kingdom.   But City Council Speaker Christine Quinn disagrees.   She calls the situation "unacceptable", and wants something done about it.

In a statement released last Monday, the hotel said its managers will try to "remind guests of the transparency" of the windows.

I suspect the visitors in the park will probably continue to get at least a few of the X-rated shows.   You know at least some of the hotel customers will find the idea of leaving the curtains open kind of exciting, and will do it on purpose.

It gives new meaning to the term "the naked city", doesn't it?