Demonstrators lie down during a protest in Grand Central Terminal in New York City on December 3, 2014. Protests began after a Grand Jury decided to not indict officer Daniel Pantaleo. Eric Garner died after being put in a chokehold by Pantaleo on July 17, 2014. Pantaleo had suspected Garner of selling untaxed cigarettes. By Yana Paskova/Getty Images.
A reader writes:
I am in fear.
My son is 15 years old but looks like he is 20. He just crossed six feet tall and is growing, he is an athlete, a swimmer and is muscular and imposing, but he is also a completely sensitive wimp. I am white, he looks more like his mother, who is black. He has already had a bizarre police encounter. When he was 13 years old, we hired a college student on summer break to take him to and from swim practice because we were at work; she is a family friend; young, white and blond. On his first week, they were pulled over by the police and no explanation was given. The police immediately came to the passenger side where my son was, told him to get out of the car, put him up against the car, patted him down and demanded identification. Being a 13 year old, he had no ID. The girl was asked to step out of the car and was questioned, only about my son.
After some time, they left, no explanation, no ticket – nothing. The girl’s parents were as upset as we were but understandably told us that no offense meant but they didn’t want to be putting their daughter in that situation and so we needed to find another ride. We spoke to the police and were told that since there was not ticket or arrest, there was no report, so there was no explanation. Nothing happened, but because I have no idea why the interaction happened in the first place, I have no idea what could have happened.
Therefore I ran through a hundred scenarios, a number of which where my son could be as dead as many others. My ex-wife and I are both lawyers, we have means and can protect our children better than most. They go to private school, they have every other benefit education family and money can provide. (By the way, they had airsoft guns – pink ones – and only used them right around the house but not after last week.) And certainly they have been told often not to argue with authority – teachers and law enforcement – but they are still kids and do stupid things. We live in a city, but not in a dangerous area. But I am terrified because I am white and although I knew these things happen, I have never walked in a black man’s shoes.
However, for me, myself as a father of a kid who fits a profile, black and imposing, the type who seems to lend to unnatural terror among police, this is a scenario I can’t account for or defend against. In this sliver of circumstance, I have some small realization of the plight of people who have to deal with this daily. I am frustrated that people like me, white and privileged, have no inkling how the parents of a black kid growing up a dangerous place must feel every freaking day and how blithely we can dismiss these events because they are never going to happen to us.
Another reader:
I just watched the video for the first time, and I’m pretty sure I’ll hear at work tomorrow (in my smaller southern town in NW Georgia) exactly what I heard a few days ago after the Michael Brown non-indictment: he got what he deserved, he was arguing with the police, he instigated the situation by (insert whatever the cops said he was doing here), what were they supposed to do anyway when he resisted arrest?
For the life of me, I cannot grasp the mindset among so many of my friends and co-workers that finds this sort of thing acceptable, that they can just shrug if off with a “Well, he brought it on himself.” They have no concept of proportionality, of a punishment fitting a crime. All the see is a person of color in conflict with authorities, and in those cases – ALWAYS in those cases – the person of color brings it upon him- or herself by not acquiescing to the demands of the police. And they get what they deserve, because they were asking for it.
A week or so ago, you featured a letter from a gay reader who was thankful that he was gay because, for one thing, it allowed him to understand what it is to be the Other. As a gay man myself, I join him in that sentiment. I have so much in common with these friends and co-workers, but on things that matter, on issues of empathy and compassion and attempts at understanding others who are different but who live next to us and work beside us daily, we are worlds apart, and it seems with every passing incident a chasm ever more unbreachable.
There are two tragedies here: the loss of life, and the loss of humanity. I am emotionally exhausted and distraught by both in equal measure.
You’re not alone.
Aiiiiieee! Let North Korea’s bombing of Toronto begin! @Sethrogen @JamesFrancoTV @TheInterview #TheInterviewMovie pic.twitter.com/2as1gJqmkM
— Adrian Humphreys (@AD_Humphreys) December 3, 2014
Gordon G. Chang thinks US companies are unprepared for the type of hacker threat plaguing Sony right now:
The real story is that Washington, over the last decade, has done little to prevent cyberattacks against American-based businesses. … North Korea does not appear to hack American companies for commercial purposes, but China does. According to the Intellectual Property Commission, that nation is “the world’s largest source of IP theft.” The Kim regime has undoubtedly noticed Washington’s ineffectual response to China, which has been implicated in Pyongyang’s alleged assault on Sony Pictures—the attackers apparently used IP addresses inside Beijing’s “Great Firewall,” a sign of Chinese knowledge of the crime and perhaps complicity.
David Holmes suggests that businesses aren’t the only ones in danger – you could be too:
While a lot of talk has centered on whether or not North Korea was involved as retaliation for an upcoming Seth Rogen movie, one cybersecurity expert has a different takeaway: That this could create a field day for hackers who didn’t even have anything to do with the attack.
Robert Cattanach is a partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney who specializes in cybersecurity regulatory litigation. After studying the moves of hackers for years, he argues that the films themselves leaked in the attack are going to become a prime target for cybercriminals. … Of course, pirated content has always been a breeding ground for malware. But part of what makes the content associated with the Sony attack so attractive to hackers, Cattanach argues, is that this is a high-profile, headline-making attack, and therefore the leaked movies could attract lots of average consumers who don’t normally seek out pirated content — and who may lack the expectations and experience to avoid malicious websites and prompts.
So bootlegger beware. Meanwhile, Sean Fitz-Gerald notes Sony’s other big struggle right now:
To make matters worse for the studio, Deadline reported that three class-action lawsuits involving an alleged anti-poaching and wage-fixing conspiracy with two of Sony’s animation divisions and other heavyweights have been lumped into one big complaint. Pixar, Lucasfilm, DreamWorks Animation, the Walt Disney Company, Blue Sky Studios, ImageMovers LLC, and ImageMovers Digital LLC are named as co-conspirators. The fixing allegedly began when a handful of animation-studio heads were displeased to learn about Sony’s competitive compensation and recruitment efforts, according to the documents. After restraining wage practices, the studios involved proceeded to agree upon compensation ranges.
Looking over some new polling from Quinnipiac University and CNN, Aaron Blake concludes that Obama’s executive action on immigration has made the chances of a comprehensive reform bill getting through Congress even worse. Why? Because it has “exacerbated the real problem with getting comprehensive reform done: a very motivated opposition”:
The Q poll shows support for allowing illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship falling to its lowest point since the survey started asking the question two years ago. Fewer than half — 48 percent — now support a path to citizenship, down from 57 percent one year ago. The poll also shows that 35 percent say these immigrants should be required to leave (the word “deportation” is not mentioned). That’s a new high, and it’s up nine points from the last poll. And here’s the real kicker: The shift is almost completely among Republicans. Although they supported citizenship over deportation 43 to 38 percent in November 2013, today they support deportation/involuntary departure over citizenship, 54 to 27 percent.
That’s two to one — a stunning shift.
And if it’s even close to accurate, there are very few Republicans in Congress who will be eager to vote for comprehensive reform in the 114th Congress. … The CNN/Opinion Research poll tells a similar tale. Although 42 percent favored the policies that Obama announced and 46 percent opposed them, it was clear where the motivation remains: with the opposition.
Waldman remarks that the pro-deportation shift among Republicans in the Quinnipiac poll “provides an object lesson in a dynamic that has repeated itself many times during the Obama presidency”:
We’ve talked a lot about how the GOP in Congress has moved steadily to the right in recent years, but we haven’t paid as much attention to the movement of Republican voters. But the two feed off each other in a cycle.
Immigration is a perfect example. Before this latest immigration controversy, Republican voters were at least favorably inclined toward a path to citizenship. But then Barack Obama moves to grant temporary legal status to some undocumented people (and by the way, nothing he’s doing creates a path to citizenship for anyone, but that’s another story). It becomes a huge, headline-dominating story, in which every single prominent Republican denounces the move as one of the most vile offenses to which the Constitution has ever been subjected. Conservative media light up with condemnations. And because voters take cues from the elites on their own side, Republicans are naturally going to think the order was wrong while Democrats are going to think it was right.
Drum wonders how Obama compares to past presidents:
Bush polarized public opinion in the same way Obama does. Perhaps all presidents do. Still, it sure seems as if Obama polarizes more than any previous president. I can think of several reasons this might be true:
• Something to do with Obama himself. This could be anything from underlying racism to the nature of Obama’s rhetoric.
• Our media environment has become increasingly loud and partisan over time, and this naturally polarizes opinions more than in the past.
• The Republican Party has simply become more radicalized over the past decade or so.
• In the past, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats acted as natural brakes on viewing everything through a purely partisan lens. But party and ideology have been converging for decades, and this naturally makes every issue more partisan.
Some thoughts, now that I’ve calmed down a little.
How does a prohibited, aggressive choke-hold on an unarmed, peaceful man that leads to his death not constitute manslaughter in the second degree? How is such an act not even brought to trial? Unlike the Brown case, there is no doubt about what happened – we can see it with our own eyes.
This is a case that might – just might – bring people together to force some kind of change. I note Allahpundit’s dismay at this decision and expect many other conservatives and libertarians to speak up about this. The cop had no reason to fear anything, let alone his life; he acted outside approved police procedures; and the father and grandfather is dead – and all because he might have been selling cigarettes without taxes applied! All of it is caught on video – by a dude who was – yes! – later indicted on a gun charge! Nick Gillespie has more on the campaign to prohibit selling loosies in New York City, and the inability of police departments to apparently regulate how their beat cops interact with civilians.
The key now is for the protests to be bigger and calmer than Ferguson and across the political spectrum. And for the DOJ to take a look. If cops can get away with this kind of thing, even when there’s direct video evidence, why would body cams make any difference at all?
(Photo: People stand around the beauty salon where Eric Garner was killed on July 17 by a police officer who put him in a choke hold on December 3, 2014 in the Staten Island borough of New York City. A grand jury announced today that they decided to not indict New York Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo in Garner’s death. By Andrew Burton/Getty Images.)
Danny Vinik expects a booming economy to help Clinton win the White House. Sean Trende counters with some electoral modeling:
Let’s first use CBO’s estimate of 4 percent growth. This is probably on the high side (CBO has been forecasting a surge in GDP just around the corner for five years now) so we’ll asterisk it as a high-end probability. President Obama’s job approval rating is -10.8 percent today. If we plug these two variables into [one of Alan Abramowitz’s forecasting models], it suggests that Republicans should be favored to win by about three points: 51.7 percent to 48.3 percent.
But, you say, with 4 percent growth, Obama is unlikely to remain at -10.8 percent approval. Fair enough. But even if we move him up to a net-neutral job approval, the models forecast a narrow Democratic loss, 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Obama would have to reach a net job approval of +6 before the model would forecast the Democrat to win (narrowly). Obama has accomplished this four times in his six years in office: During his two post-election “honeymoons,” after the shooting of Gabby Giffords, and after killing Osama bin Laden. If he ties his post-2009 best of +12 percent net approval, the model would favor the Democrat by a point.
Some important caveats:
These models aren’t the be-all/end-all of election analysis, and Republicans or Democrats probably could win under any of the scenarios outlined above. We also should remember that we’re building estimates on top of estimates here: Personal or national measurements of the economy could surprise us, pleasantly or negatively, and this would alter our estimates for 2016.
Regardless, these models probably can give us a rough sense of what would happen under various fundamentals for 2016. They point to a reasonably close election; they do not suggest that the Democratic nominee should be considered the favorite at this point.
Why yes, it is 4.20 somewhere:
Rachel Aviv reports on a Princeton undergraduate asked to leave the school following a suicide attempt:
In balancing the rights of students against the need for safety and order, many universities require suicidal students to leave campus. At Yale, Brown, George Washington University, Hunter College, Northwestern, and several other schools, students have protested these policies, by initiating litigation, submitting complaints to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, or writing columns in campus newspapers.
W.P. retained a lawyer, Julia Graff, an attorney at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, who said that she gets calls every month from students who were asked to withdraw after their universities became aware of their mental disorders. “Universities don’t seem to understand that mental-health disabilities are chronic illnesses, and it is not uncommon to have to be briefly hospitalized now and again,” she told me. “It doesn’t mean that you are not competent to be a student.”
Two weeks after being banned from his classes, W.P. appealed Princeton’s decision. In a long letter, he noted that the university prides itself on its diverse student body—he pointed out that his residential college called itself “a place where individuals could be accepted for who they are”—and students with mental disabilities, he wrote, contributed to that diversity. …
W.P.’s private psychiatrist, to whom he’d been referred by Princeton’s health center, submitted a letter that stated that W.P. did not pose a threat to himself. “An important aspect of W.P.’s recovery is a sense of purpose,” the psychiatrist wrote. “Requiring a leave of absence and excluding him from the university community at this time could be detrimental to his health and well-being.”
The appeal was denied.
Previous Dish on the topic here.
Here again is the key video of the assault on Eric Garner, an asthmatic subjected to an illegal choke-hold:
I’m honestly too upset to write anything else at this point.
“In all my time studying fraternity rapes for my own essay, I didn’t come across a single report of anything like this. I did find reports of women who were raped by multiple men on one night—but those always involved incapacitation, either by alcohol or a drugged drink. And I did also find accounts of violent, push-down rape of the kind in the essay—but those were always by one member, not a bunch of members. (In fact, many of that kind—now that I think about it—were committed by non-members, or by visiting former members). But a planned gang rape, without alcohol or drugs, and keyed to initiation—I have never seen a case like that. Nor have I seen penetration with a foreign object—I’ve seen plenty of that committed by brothers to pledges as hazing, but I haven’t seen it in sexual assault cases. I’m sure it’s happened, but again—as part of a ritualized gang rape … Never anything like it,” – Caitlin Flanagan, author of the definitive piece on frat house culture, to Slate‘s Hanna Rosin and Allison Benedikt.
The Dish 