Over a month has passed since CNN dipped a toe in the Daniel Adkins case with no follow-up, and the local Phoenix newspaper, the Arizona Republic, hasn't once in the past 50 days even mentioned the killing or the progress of any charges being contemplated—or why there has been no charges filed by the prosecutor’s office. Even the alternative weekly, the Phoenix New Times, has had nothing to say. There has been some local television news reports, but outside the CNN story, the only time the story has been acknowledged was a few days ago by USA Today, which noted that police recommended a second degree murder charge against Cordell Jude, which was justified to any objective view of the facts. However, the Arizona "stand your ground" law, sponsored by the neo-fascist Arizona Citizens Defense League, is so stringent that a person who claims it cannot be arrested and interrogated, so as to stop "avaricious prosecutors from overdoing their jobs," according to a League spokesperson.
The Maricopa County prosecutor's office--no friend of Latinos--claims that the case is being reviewed by "a committee of seasoned prosecutors that was set up two years ago to evaluate self-defense cases." The fact that is almost two months since the shooting and no decision has been made seems to indicate a reluctance to anger gun rights advocates. Interestingly, such "liberal" outposts like the Huffington Post, MSNBC and left-wing radio like the Stephanie Miller show continue to beat the drum of the Martin case but are absolutely dumb on the Adkins case. Why? Apparently for fear that it would dilute the “impact” of the Martin story line—after all, Adkins did not strike Jude in any way, let alone in a "mixed martial arts" fashion. I wouldn’t even give the media a “pass” for not wanting to start a “war” between blacks and Latinos, because it is already doing its best to start one with the Martin case.
The Martin and Adkins cases are just two examples of a nearly endless supply of media duplicity. Provoking a primitive emotional response is preferred over candid reporting of fact. We may recall four years ago that the media was trying to provoke hysteria over Rev. Jeremiah Wright; what was completely lost in the discussion was the context of his supposedly “radical” statements. Why is it “radical” and “extreme” to talk about discrimination, inequality and poverty in this country? Has the media learned anything since then? Apparently not; right-wing pacs are already airing new attack ads featuring Rev. Wright; does it matter that Barack Obama has had no apparent contacts with him during his presidency? Of course not; the media can’t help itself but to fan the flames of idiocy.
Sometimes you have to wonder whether reporters really have the ability to look beyond the façade of a story. Take a recent front-page story in the Seattle Times concerning so-called “doomsday preppers,” who don’t just stockpile subsistence items, but an arsenal of weapons. I don’t know if the reporter, Eric Lacitis, was trying “expose” the existence of such people, or he thought it was intriguing that such people exist, but he did seem remarkably naïve about their true ideology. It’s not that we don’t know that “doomsday preppers” exist; it’s that we have given them different names: The “Patriot” movement, anti-government militias, paramilitaries, conspiracy theorists, fascists, white supremacists, white separatists, cultists, or just plain lone nuts. There was a Twilight Zone episode where a man barricaded himself and his family in a bomb shelter and refused to acknowledge the pleas for help from his friends and neighbors. The man the Times story profiled isn’t worried about nuclear war, because his stash would not survive such an event; he is the kind of paranoid fanatic who is a menace to civilized society. He is part of the problem and not the solution in times of want. He thinks he can survive by denying that he is one in the human fold, but the reality is that to survive he must work with the collective whole. In the end, it will be people like him who are the odd person out, because no matter how many guns he has, he can’t eat them; when he runs out of his stash, what will he do? Will he be so hypocritical as to expect to draw from government assistance, which all of sudden he sees as a "right"? Or will he just go out and rob and kill?
*************************************************************
What about people you think you should trust? What about the “expert” talking heads the media relies on? Danny Westneat of the Times is usually reliably progressive, but sometimes a personal weakness slips through. He recently composed an op-ed about how the election of Barack Obama has not seemed to lessened the level of racial bias in voting patterns, this according to a study by a UW professor named Tony Greenwald. This probably shouldn’t be all that surprising, given the level of inane “socialist,” “communist” and “ extreme radical liberal” labels that have been applied to Obama by the right, fanning fear and paranoia into the ignorant. A key element of Greenwald’s study was the use of photographs of people of differing races, and measuring subjects’ gut reactions to them. Of course, such a study omits certain variables, such as a candidate’s celebrity, speaking skills, charisma etc. which may overcome initial first reactions. Obama also has “open,” non-threatening features which sets him apart; he isn’t like “them,” no matter how many times Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity refer to him as a scary black man.
However, what I focused on was one statement that Westneat attributed to Greenwald–that Obama benefited from “race bias” among minority voters. On the surface this might seem logical, but in fact it was not an entirely accurate assessment of voting patterns. Ever since Ronald Reagan demonstrated that he was no friend of minorities, particularly blacks, voting patterns—most notably among blacks—has veered overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party. While everyone knows that the Republican Party is the “white party,” the race of the Democratic candidate has little impact on the way minorities’ vote, so long as the candidate says the right things. If Obama benefited from anything out of the ordinary, it was that minority—and young white—voters, increased their turnout. Otherwise, presidential elections beginning in 1984 invariably saw the vast majority of black voters pulling the lever for the white candidate. I wrote to both Westneat and Prof. Greenwald about my concerns; the latter responded to my email, stating that what Westneat wrote was the “opposite” of what he actually said—that Obama did not benefit in any substantial way from so-called “race bias” by minority voters:
“These were his words, not mine. I actually told him the reverse, but he must have misunderstood.”
That gives the story a slightly different “spin.”
**************************************************************
Sometimes you just don’t get all the facts, and sometimes not at all. I recall years ago reading in the paper a brief blurb about a woman who called the police one night to report that someone knocked on her door, and she didn’t know where he went from there. The police came a few minutes later, but saw no one. They got back in their patrol car and drove around; a few blocks away was a park, where a man was seen driving out of the parking lot. Police claim to have attempted to block his progress, and for an unexplained reason, shot the driver to death. In subsequent weeks I tried to find a follow-up to this story, but none was forthcoming. Incidents like this occur more frequently than people think. There is just no “angle” for the media to exploit. In New York, several White Plains officers are facing a civil lawsuit for violating the civil rights of two brothers of Jordanian descent—singling them out on trumped-up charges during a patrol of the city’s night life district, using demeaning “ethnic” slurs and beating one of them in a patrol car.
One of these officers was also involved in the shooting death of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., a 68-year-old black man who apparently accidentally pushed the button on his LifeAid medical alert device while asleep. For a presumed medical emergency, one would also presume that police would employ means appropriate to the situation—meaning lifesaving, not life taking. But if police are not social workers, neither are they doctors, as one of the cops at scene stated. Their “business” is intimidation and violence, not empathy or commiseration. Chamberlain became aware that there was an “emergency” only after he awakened by police pounding on his door. According to news reports Chamberlain had “encounters” with the police before, and that the officers at the scene knew him; it would appear that the officers may have had another motive to appear at his door in force, rather than to “assist” him. Tenants of the building that Chamberlain lived in reported that the officers were “regulars” who didn’t seem interested in getting to know the citizens on their “beat,” but were not adverse to engaging in frequent harassment. This was the context of following transcript of the audio of Chamberlain’s encounter with White Plains police (courtesy Democracy Now!):
LIFEAID OPERATOR: This is your help center for LifeAid, Mr. Chamberlain. Do you need help?
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: Yes, this is an emergency! I have the White Plains Police Department banging on my door, and I did not call them, and I am not sick!
LIFEAID OPERATOR: Everything’s all right, sir?
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: No, it’s not all right! I need help! The White Plains Police Department are banging on my door!
As one can ascertain, Chamberlain distrust of the police is such that he does not trust that they have his health in mind. He believes that since he does not need their “help,” they should just go away and leave him alone. But as we all know, once police are called on the scene and they smell blood, there is no stopping them.
LIFEAID OPERATOR: Good morning, sir. I’m attempting to cancel that dispatch for Kenneth Chamberlain at 135 South Lexington.
OFFICER CIANCI: OK. You know, we have—we have units on scene right now.
LIFEAID OPERATOR: Yeah, he’s—we’re on the line with him on a two-way communication, and he’s saying he’s not going to open the door and is scared he’s going to bust his door down.
OFFICER CIANCI: Right. They’re going to make entry anyway.
LIFEAID OPERATOR: OK, so, hold on. Give him a chance to come to the door to open it, because he’s OK to open it.
OFFICER CIANCI: OK. I mean, they have a key they can open it with anyway, so...
LIFEAID OPERATOR: Oh, they have a key?
OFFICER CIANCI: Yeah, they’re not going to break it down.
LIFEAID OPERATOR: Oh, because they’re banging on it. We can hear on the line.
OFFICER CIANCI: What’s that?
LIFEAID OPERATOR: They’re banging on it. We can hear on the line. They’re—
OFFICER CIANCI: Yeah, yeah. We have units going over there right now. They get in.
As we can see, the LifeAid operator, disturbed by the noise the police are making from the speaker in Chamberlain’s room, is trying to call off the dogs, but to no avail. Note that the officer on desk duty tells the operator that it doesn’t matter what Chamberlain wants, they are going to get into his room one way or the other—with or without a “key.”
LIFEAID OPERATOR: Officers, this is LifeAid. Are you inside Mr. Chamberlain’s home?
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: They’re breaking in my door! They’re breaking in my door!
LIFEAID OPERATOR: Mr. Chamberlain, I heard you say they’re breaking in your door. Are you OK?
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: My door.
LIFEAID OPERATOR: Mr. Chamberlain, are you OK?
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: I’m fine!
LIFEAID OPERATOR: OK. You pressed your medical button. That’s why the officers are there. Can you go to the door and speak to them?
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: I [inaudible] the door. They’ve got their guns out! They have their guns out!
LIFEAID OPERATOR: OK. Do you have weapon, Mr. Chamberlain?
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: I [inaudible] weapons. I am just protecting myself.
LIFEAID OPERATOR: OK. They’re not there to hurt you. I’m here on the line.
POLICE OFFICER: Mr. Chamberlain, we’re not here to help—hurt you. We’re here to give you a hand, help you out.
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: I’m OK! I told you I was OK! [inaudible] I’m OK! I’m fine! Leave me alone! I’m fine!
Note the “slip of the tongue” by the officer. Chamberlain has repeatedly told the police he does not need their “help.” Why are they insisting that they are there to “help” him. Their actions clearly suggest otherwise.
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: They have stun guns and shotguns! [inaudible]
POLICE OFFICER: Mr. Chamberlain! Mr. Chamberlain!
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: They’ve come to kill me with that, because I have a bad heart.
POLICE OFFICER: It doesn’t have to happen that way. [inaudible] just have to open the door.
After putting them through all that trouble and exertion, cops have to “release” their pent-up frustrations some way. In the midst of this encounter, Chamberlain’s sister contacted the police in order to serve as an intermediary and calm him down. The police dismissively refused her request, insisting that they knew how to “handle” these situations.
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: Get out! I didn’t call you! I did not call you. Why are you here? Why are you here?
POLICE OFFICER: Life alert called us.
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: Why are you here?
POLICE OFFICER: Life alert called us.
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: They have their nine-millimeter Glocks at the ready. They’re getting ready to kill me or beat me up.
POLICE OFFICER: Open the door.
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: I’m OK.
POLICE OFFICER: Let them check you out. And then we will leave.
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: I’m OK. I’m OK. I’m fine.
POLICE OFFICER: Yeah, but I’m not a doctor.
KENNETH CHAMBERLAIN SR.: I am fine!
One must confess that the officer’s request seems “reasonable.” But if the “patient” doesn’t want help, isn’t that his right? And the actions of the police up to this point seem more intent on forcing their will on a situation where no crime was committed, but they seem determined that one is committed (mainly by themselves). The police eventually broke through door, and a video camera attached to a Taser shows Chamberlain dressed only in underpants in a non-threatening posture. No sooner did the police gain entry that an electrical charge can seen discharged from the Taser toward Chamberlain. The video camera is then inexplicably turned off, or destroyed after the encounter. In any case, within minutes, Chamberlain was dead on the floor.
The White Plains prosecutor, a bleach blonde woman who resembles Arizona governor Jan Brewer, announced that a grand jury had looked at the evidence (or the evidence the prosecutor chose to make available) against the police officers, and decided that charges were not warranted. One can, of course, reason that the shooting was avoidable if Chamberlain had simply opened the door and allowed medics to examine him. But this ignores the distrust that minorities have of the police, that their interactions with them always tend to have a negative or harmful implications. This incident should serve as evidence of the poisoned relationship between police and the minority community. But what we are more likely to get from the mainstream news media is simplistic surface detail that serves to rationalize the actions of the officers. There was something to learn from this episode, but the people charged to do our “observing and reporting” only did the bare minimum they were required to do. Thus most people who are even aware of the case likely only had their own stereotypes confirmed.
**********************************************************
Sometimes the media can’t seem to distinguish from front and fraud, unable to see what lies behind “even-temperedness” is something quite sinister. Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, continues to be in the news. Despite the fact that his henchpersons in the county prosecutors’ office have been disbarred for aiding and abetting Arpaio’s Mafioso reign of terror, that has plain elements of criminality, fraud, extortion, abuse of power and the like, he continues to be reelected sheriff every four years by a voter base that condones his civil rights abuses and frequent bizarre behavior as long as they are not personally discomfited by it (that’s where racial profiling comes in). Arpaio may come off as “reasonable” when he appears on news programs, but the reality is that this is the kind bigoted fanatic who is most dangerous, because he is a pied piper leading his followers to their moral doom. What one must do is ignore his words and judge his actions. In a state whose first American settlers were intent on founding a new slave state (like Texas), it shouldn’t be surprising that Arizona often behaves like a Deep South Dixie state. The state ignored the citizenship and property rights granted to “Mexicans” who chose to stay in the U.S. by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and some may remember for years how Arizona was a pariah for its refusal to acknowledge the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
Arpaio has become a bit of a joke in some circles, a fool too foolish to know when to quit. His recent attempt to re-ignite the “birther” controversy has gone to absurd lengths. To aid a bizarre “Cold Case Posse” of volunteers in Hawaii to uncover the “truth” about Barack Obama’s birth records, one of his trusted Mafioso deputies, Mike Zollo, was sent to Hawaii on the taxpayer dime to provide “security” as the “investigation” entered a “perilous” stage. Although the birth certificate issue has now been “resolved,” one must ask if Arpaio was off his medication. Zollo, meanwhile, continues to be posted in Hawaii, for reasons not fully explained. The sheriff claims that 250 Tea Party members in some far-right enclave called Surprise, Arizona “requested” that the Hawaii “posse” be established; donations of up to $40,000 has actually been raised to support the archeological expedition in search of “skeletons” in Obama’s closet. This is what I mean by that Arpaio should be judged by his actions, not his words. Will the media ever learn?
An LA Times story recently revealed how Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB-1070 law will be enforced if the Supreme Court upholds its most controversial section and turns Arpaio’s thugs loose: “In one case, a Latina who is a U.S. citizen and was five months pregnant was stopped after she pulled into her driveway. She alleges that when she refused an order to sit on the hood of the car, she was slammed stomach-first three times onto the vehicle. Deputies next dragged her to a patrol car and locked her inside for 30 minutes without air conditioning, she said. She was cited for not providing identification.” Apparently her driver’s license—which is usually sufficient in most circumstances—will be only the first layer that Latinos will be expected to carry with them in a fascist state. And the media won’t be there to tell you about it.
***********************************************************
Sometimes a simple report leaves one asking “Isn’t there something else you should be telling us?” Take for example a story about a West Seattle elementary-school principal named Jo Lute-Ervin who was investigated for alleged sexual harassment of a third-grade student after a complaint from the student’s parent, but found not to have violated district policy and was merely cautioned to observe vague “best practices” when dealing with children in a sexual context. After a boy reportedly touched himself “inappropriately” during a lunch break, Lute-Ervin (don’t you just love the conceit of those hyphenated names?), called in five “witnesses” and asked them to “demonstrate” what the boy did—which apparently involved touching, rather than describing, “sensitive” parts of the body. No other adult was present. The investigators did not speak to any of the children about this “meeting” to discover their own feelings, which likely would have made for rather disturbing reading and put Lute-Ervin in a much worse light. Why did district investigators go light on her, when if she was a male principal he probably would have been fired in disgrace, perhaps even charged as a sexual predator? It seems that Lute-Ervin has a job waiting for her as a district administrator, and it won’t do for her career trajectory to have such a record on her resume. Sort of like how Catholic priest pedophiles were protected from their sins.
***********************************************************
Last month I wrote about a young male that I encountered on the Interurban Trail early one Sunday Morning on my way to work, who claimed to have been kidnapped and raped. I was fairly certain that something of physical nature had occurred, given his clearly traumatic state. As I noted in an update, I contacted police several times afterwards, but in the end received nothing more than an acknowledgement that the incident “had been” investigated. Comments made by a police sergeant suggested to me that there were no suspects, and that the police had closed the book on the case. I thought perhaps a member of the media might be interested in the case. I tried to contact the writer of the Kent Reporter’ police blotter; surely he must have “contacts” in the police department. This was certainly an “out-of-the-ordinary” case, so it was bit unusual that there was no mention of it on the blotter report. I emailed a description of the incident and suggested he might look into it. I didn’t receive a response, so a week later I again wrote to reporter, this time making it plain that if he didn’t respond, I would impute some corrupt motive. But again I did not receive a response.
No comments:
Post a Comment