The hate for Obama

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

From what I have seen of Gates, I would very much doubt he would have a drink with anyone who earns significantly less than he does.

I've read pieces by him over the years and never garnered that impression.

Sand wrote: »

Hes clearly a bit of an asshole/drama queen and so on. .

He's 59 or so. Unless he's had previous theatrical outings you're aware of, I think you judge too harshly. He's not an Al Sharpton or anything like.

LostinKildare

Sand wrote: »

In fairness:

- Your source is not a court of law, though maybe they have taken advice from lawyers in the writing of the article. Gates's activity has not been tested in a court of law. No determination has been made other than what the police officers on the scene determined.

In fairness, I can't very well cite a legal judgement on this case because obviously there is none. In arguing that the charges against were not legally viable, I can only reference judgements rendered on similar cases in Massachusetts, which I have done in previous posts. That is what a lawyer would do if a case were it to go forward. I reference some of them again below.

Sand wrote: »

- Crowely claims Gates was causing a public disorder through his shouting and yelling. None of the other police officers there disagreed. They are not lawyers, but they didnt seem to have any issue with Crowelys interpretation or application of the law. His police department, despite the political pressure, is backing him to the hilt on the validity of the arrest.

You do not know what all the other police officers and the police dept. privately think about the arrest. Or are you able to read minds? Even if they do believe it was just, well so what? As both you and I have pointed out, this sort of arrest is common, so maybe they believe it to be legal, or maybe they just think it should be. It's easy enough to "stand behind" the officer in spirit when the charges have been dropped and you are not called on to provide a legally sound justification for the arrest. Sand, can you make a legal argument, based on existing caselaw, rather than a moral argument for the validity of the arrest?

And see yesterday's NYT article for a sampling of police officers' views on arresting people for "contempt of cop." Predictably, some of them agree with Crowley's view, but some do not:

A mounted police officer who has been with the Los Angeles Police Department for 25 years said that taking verbal abuse was a regular part of his job.
“We don’t get to tell people what they want to hear,” said the Los Angeles officer, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being quoted on duty. “Whether we’re giving them a ticket or responding to some conflict between a husband and wife, we’re not dealing with people at their best, and if you don’t have a tough skin, then you shouldn’t be a cop.”
<snip>
Robert Anderson, with the same department [Denver] five years, said he tried to “let people vent” if they grew irate. “People usually aren’t happy to see the police,” he said. “They’d rather see a fireman.”
In New York, State Senator Eric Adams, a retired New York City police captain and co-founder of the group 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement, said the rules for dealing with someone differed by setting.
“If it’s their house, they’re allowed to call you all sorts of names,” Mr. Adams said. “A man’s house is his castle. If they’re in the street, and they don’t listen to the officer’s warning, ‘Sir, you’re being disorderly,’ you can lock them up at this time.”
Not that the officer necessarily should, he said.
“Let’s say I do a stop,” Mr. Adams said. “I question, and it’s nothing. ‘Sir, I’m sorry, I apologize.’ What’s the reason for staying, if the anger’s directed at me? If it’s directed at a third party, a storekeeper, I stay.”
But if the officer himself is the provocation, the officer should leave, he said, and added that Sergeant Crowley did not use such common sense.
<snip>
In Atlanta, Officer M. Tate, who would not give his first name, said he was trained not to lose his cool — or his job — by reacting to name calling. He recalled from memory the exact definition of when a person’s behavior crossed the line into being worthy of arrest: “The set of circumstances that will lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that a crime has or is about to be committed and that the person in question is involved in a significant manner.” Anything short of that, he said, does not warrant handcuffs.
“I’ll take them yelling at me,” Officer Tate said. “Unless I’m hit or they get violent, I won’t arrest them for just yelling at me.”
<snip>
Senator Adams said black men were more likely to be locked up for what in police parlance is called getting “lippy.”
“The ‘uppity Negro,’ ” he said. “You may not have committed a crime, but you know what? You’ve got a big mouth.”

LostinKildare wrote: No, the speech doesn't have to be criticism of police action to be protected, it's just that if it is, then it is even more strenuously protected than ordinary speech.

Sand wrote: »

Then why raise it if it is irrelevant? Its apparently completely legal to shout and scream abuse at people in a public space? Regardless of cause. Id imagine so long as you dont use hate speech, you can stand in a street screaming abuse at random people and its all totally legal?

I really, really, really, really, really ****ing doubt that if the police caught those guys in the act that they wouldnt find *something* to charge them under. Even if they had to go back to the 17th century.

So again, the political/criticism of police action angle is irrelevant, hes just some guy standing in a public space screaming and yelling abuse at people?

Thats not causing a public disorder?

When did I ever say the political speech angle is irrelevant? Go back and read the posts. You had said "while there is scope for criticism of police action . . . " and I was merely clarifying that speech doesn't necessarily have to be political speech to be protected. In this case, it is certainly relevant. Berating a cop for his actions, on its own (e.g., without also threatening violence, or causing others to riot, for example), as Gates did, does not rise to the level of the legal definition of "public disorder" as Massachusetts has interpreted it. This is not just my own opinion, but that of judges who have ruled in similar cases, which I have quoted.

Here's another case: in Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 N.E.2d 617 (Sup. J. Ct. Mass. 1975), the Supreme Court of Massachussets stated that the disorderly conduct statute must be interpreted narrowly as to prohibit only speech that is not constitutionally protected. In that case a juvenile was yelling and swearing at a police officer and was arrested and convicted. The conviction was overturned by this court because even though the behavior seemed to meet the requirements of the statute, its application to that behavior would be unconstitutional.

In a hypothetical case of a person just randomly abusing passers-by? I assume that would depend on the circumstances. Public disorder might apply, public drunkenness might apply, vagrancy might apply, etc. Or maybe no laws apply. He might be "disorderly" in the common sense of the word, but not in the legal sense. For the sake of this argument, I don't want to follow that tangent.

Again I refer to the 2004 ruling under the same Mass. public disorder statute Gates was arrested:

Levine v. Clement, 333 F.Supp.2d 1 (D. Mass. 2004). A man had been yelling at a parade about the Canadian flag (reportedly including the F-word to describe Canada and its flag). A police officer asked him to change the manner in which he was expressing himself. He yelled at the police officer, refusing to change his manner, and reportedly challenged the officer to arrest him. The officer arrested him for disorderly conduct. The court held that disorderly conduct can only be applied against speech that is not constitutionally protected, and that "neither a provocative nor a foul mouth" can be deemed disorderly conduct and that there must be conduct that "disturbs through acts other than speech." The court ruled on summary judgment that the officer violated the man's civil rights and was not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer could have believed that the man's behavior was not constitutionally protected.

Not only did the judge rule that the disorderly charge was improper, he also said that a reasonable officer would have known that. I challenge you to explain how Gates's behavior was materially different from that in the above case, so that a judge would reach a different conclusion.


****

A lot of what you say in your posts I don't disagree with. I know that policemen have vital, difficult, stressful jobs, are only human, and often kindly cut people slack. But there are policemen who are thin-skinned and quick to feel their authority is being maligned and challenged. To question, berate, or appear hostile to them provokes an unwarranted overreaction. They have stressful jobs, and they do not always handle the stress well. They are often aware that they are not liked. To ask for a cop's name or badge number is something they react really poorly to. If you have never encountered a cop like that, good for you. Obviously, people's attitudes to the police are colored by their own experiences. In most of the interactions I've had with cops they were friendly, helpful, and completely professional, but when you are even once on the other end of a nasty or unjust cop, and you realize that he will not be held to account for his treatment of you, you remember that and it chips away at your view of the institution.

While you look at the Crowley/Gates affair and conclude that the arrest was justified and Gates thinks he is "above the law," I look at it and see another example of an unjust arrest and a policeman who thinks he is "above the law." Recall this from the case I cited above:

The court ruled on summary judgment that the officer violated the man's civil rights and was not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer could have believed that the man's behavior was not constitutionally protected.

Gates yelled at the cop and was rude, but he has a constitutional right to be rude. Crowley broke the law and violated constitutional rights by arresting Gates. In one case a person (Gates) exercised his rights, albeit in a rude manner; in the other case a person (Crowley) used his official position to violate another person's civil rights. There is no comparison.

Manic Moran

I challenge you to explain how Gates's behavior was materially different from that in the above case, so that a judge would reach a different conclusion.

*Brushes off the cobwebs from his legal training*

Certainly.

In the case you cite here, the subject in question was hollering and yelling at a parade. His actions were not likely to cause any great changes in the environment. They would not have brought extra noise, extra people, or affected the normal flow of traffic, or even, brought any new police along. The parade was already doing that. In that instance, the parade was the main event, whilst the subject was simply a sideshow.

In the Gates case, Gates was the main event going on. Any inconveniences or effects such as to deprive the locals of the enjoyment of their day-to-day lives (Such as, maybe, lounging by the pool listening to Mozart without someone hollering and yelling about racist cops) would have been as a result of the Gates encounter, absent any evidence that there was any other form of disturbance going on at the time. Indeed, it does appear that a small crowd had started to gather to watch.

I would also submit that this is evidence that Mulvey, which you cite, should not apply. The Court explicitly said that the reason that they were reversing was that the physical barriers and distance between the incident and a place where the public may have access was such as to make disturbance unlikely. Such barriers and distance obviously do not apply here, given the appearance of a crowd to such an extent that photographs were being taken by the public which subsequently appeared on the news.

NTM

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

*Brushes off the cobwebs from his legal training*

Certainly.

In the case you cite here, the subject in question was hollering and yelling at a parade. His actions were not likely to cause any great changes in the environment. They would not have brought extra noise, extra people, or affected the normal flow of traffic, or even, brought any new police along. The parade was already doing that. In that instance, the parade was the main event, whilst the subject was simply a sideshow.

In the Gates case, Gates was the main event going on. Any inconveniences or effects such as to deprive the locals of the enjoyment of their day-to-day lives (Such as, maybe, lounging by the pool listening to Mozart without someone hollering and yelling about racist cops) would have been as a result of the Gates encounter, absent any evidence that there was any other form of disturbance going on at the time. Indeed, it does appear that a small crowd had started to gather to watch.

I would also submit that this is evidence that Mulvey, which you cite, should not apply. The Court explicitly said that the reason that they were reversing was that the physical barriers and distance between the incident and a place where the public may have access was such as to make disturbance unlikely. Such barriers and distance obviously do not apply here, given the appearance of a crowd to such an extent that photographs were being taken by the public which subsequently appeared on the news.

NTM

Do we have to pay for reading that, or was it Gratis?

Manic Moran

I believe it may be illegal for me to charge for that statement in terms of legal advice, given I decided against taking the Bar (I decided, too late, I didn't actually like studying law). However, I do take tips for entertainment factor.

NTM

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

*Brushes off the cobwebs from his legal training*

Certainly.

In the case you cite here, the subject in question was hollering and yelling at a parade. His actions were not likely to cause any great changes in the environment. They would not have brought extra noise, extra people, or affected the normal flow of traffic, or even, brought any new police along. The parade was already doing that. In that instance, the parade was the main event, whilst the subject was simply a sideshow.

In the Gates case, Gates was the main event going on. Any inconveniences or effects such as to deprive the locals of the enjoyment of their day-to-day lives (Such as, maybe, lounging by the pool listening to Mozart without someone hollering and yelling about racist cops) would have been as a result of the Gates encounter, absent any evidence that there was any other form of disturbance going on at the time. Indeed, it does appear that a small crowd had started to gather to watch.

I would also submit that this is evidence that Mulvey, which you cite, should not apply. The Court explicitly said that the reason that they were reversing was that the physical barriers and distance between the incident and a place where the public may have access was such as to make disturbance unlikely. Such barriers and distance obviously do not apply here, given the appearance of a crowd to such an extent that photographs were being taken by the public which subsequently appeared on the news.

NTM

I didn't cite a Mulvey (did I?). I don't know what that is and I can't reply to it. [EDIT: Oh I see now, the Mulvey case is a link in the Slate article I quoted from -- I didn't mean to cite it. I don't see it as similar because Mulvey's speech was not protected speech -- it was not expressly political (and there was no assertion that it was) and there was physical contact between the parties (he was also charged with assault and battery) -- conduct that "disturbs through acts other than speech," see Levine below.]

But I would say that the arguments re depriving others of the enjoyment of their surroundings and the physical barriers/distance are moot because the speech is constitutionally protected and therefore the disorderly conduct statute cannot be applied:

in Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 N.E.2d 617 (Sup. J. Ct. Mass. 1975), the Supreme Court of Massachussets stated that the disorderly conduct statute must be interpreted narrowly as to prohibit only speech that is not constitutionally protected

and

Levine v. Clement, 333 F.Supp.2d 1 (D. Mass. 2004). The court held that disorderly conduct can only be applied against speech that is not constitutionally protected, and that "neither a provocative nor a foul mouth" can be deemed disorderly conduct and that there must be conduct that "disturbs through acts other than speech."

Whether the Gates scene was the "main event," and whether it disturbed other people matters not a whit if the statute cannot be applied because the speech is constitutionally protected.

The only way you could win would be to first successfully beat back the assertion that Gates's speech was constitutionally protected. Good luck with that! Rotten case.

Manic Moran

LostinKildare wrote: »

I didn't cite a Mulvey (did I?). I don't know what that is and I can't reply to it.

It's really bad ju-ju to cite a case and not know what is in the case you cite. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes a judge nails you.
Post #118. You may not have noticed it because it was an internal link within the Slate commentary. But, since you provided the link, I followed it and had a read.

The only way you could win would be to first successfully beat back the assertion that Gates's speech was constitutionally protected. Good luck with that! Rotten case.

Not as hard as you may think. You merely need move to the manner and effect, and evaluate the situation without any overriding need to consider whether the content is protected. Witness below.

whether it disturbed other people matters not a whit if the statute cannot be applied because the speech is constitutionally protected.

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Please note that SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed that the freedom of speech granted by the 1st Amendment is not unlimited. Let us say, for example, that you are protesting the Iraq war (As per Levine). You draw up a banner, have your flag, and start up your protest sitting on the North-East Corridor, blocking the trains from moving. Is it your contention that because you are exercising your right to free speech of a political nature that you are immune from any form of lawful arrest? Or, in a less hypothetical example from a different war, United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (Burning draft cards as a political statement, arrest upheld as Constitutional).

However, should you wish to look at merely verbal acts, SCOTUS held in Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) that calling someone a 'damned Fascist' was not constitutionally protected and upheld a law against calling someone "by any offensive or derisive name." (Note, of course, that in 1942 the US was engaged in a war against fascism, so there was definitely a political intonation at the time).

I fully agree with you that Gates would have total immunity from any form of criminal legal action for appelling the officer as a racist or anything else as long as it's taken in isolation. But this differs from Levine because the speech cannot be taken in isolation because of the other effects.

NTM

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

I believe it may be illegal for me to charge for that statement in terms of legal advice, given I decided against taking the Bar (I decided, too late, I didn't actually like studying law). However, I do take tips for entertainment factor.

NTM

Then by all means Sir, print & spend this 100 Dollar Internet Voucher, as a small gift for your wisdom.


..................................................................................................
. .
. .
. .
. .
. Value 100 USD Internet voucher .
. .
. .
. .
. Redeemable by some dude

---

Do not accept for sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's really bad ju-ju to cite a case and not know what is in the case you cite. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes a judge nails you.
Post #118. You may not have noticed it because it was an internal link within the Slate commentary. But, since you provided the link, I followed it and had a read.

Sorry MM, my bad. I did realize that it was a link in the Slate article and edited my post above, but apparently after you read it.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Please note that SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed that the freedom of speech granted by the 1st Amendment is not unlimited. Let us say, for example, that you are protesting the Iraq war (As per Levine). You draw up a banner, have your flag, and start up your protest sitting on the North-East Corridor, blocking the trains from moving. Is it your contention that because you are exercising your right to free speech of a political nature that you are immune from any form of lawful arrest? Or, in a less hypothetical example from a different war, United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (Burning draft cards as a political statement, arrest upheld as Constitutional).

However, should you wish to look at merely verbal acts, SCOTUS held in Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) that calling someone a 'damned Fascist' was not constitutionally protected and upheld a law against calling someone "by any offensive or derisive name." (Note, of course, that in 1942 the US was engaged in a war against fascism, so there was definitely a political intonation at the time).

No, I'm not saying that "because you are exercising your right to free speech of a political nature that you are immune from any form of lawful arrest"! What I've said is much narrower -- that in Massachusetts the judges have ruled that where the speech is deemed to be constitutionally protected speech at issue, the disorderly conduct statute (alone) cannot be applied. I have not explored how other states deal with their own disorderly conduct statutes, and I did not say anything about the effect of consitutionally protected speech on any type of charge other than disorderly conduct -- presumably if you were blocking trains as in your hypothetical case you'd draw charges other than disorderly conduct; neither was the the draft card-burning case the result of a disorderly conduct charge. In Chaplinsky ("offensive behavior") the speech was held to not be protected because they were "fighting words" -- "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Gates speech doesn't rise to that. Note too that Wikipedia says

Although the Court continues to cite Chaplinsky's position on “fighting words” approvingly, subsequent cases have largely eroded its initial, broad formulation; libelous publications and even verbal challenges to police officers have come to enjoy some constitutional protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

Manic Moran wrote: »

I fully agree with you that Gates would have total immunity from any form of criminal legal action for appelling the officer as a racist or anything else as long as it's taken in isolation. But this differs from Levine because the speech cannot be taken in isolation because of the other effects.

What other effects are those? Drawing a "crowd" of about seven people, none of whom complained that they were disturbed by Gates?

Manic Moran

in Massachusetts the judges have ruled that where the speech is deemed to be constitutionally protected speech at issue, the disorderly conduct statute (alone) cannot be applied.

Ok, I'm not seeing that. If you are still relying on Levine, I still submit that the facts in this case are different because the only effect from levine's actions would be that people may disagree with or be offended by them, thus the only reliance the police may have had in that case would have been the content of the speech itself. This is not inconsistent with my position. I've tried looking up the case to read the exact wording of the opinion and the proper context of the selected quote you have, I've not found it yet. If you've got a link to the case, please provide it and I'll have a scan, but I think you're taking a narrow ruling, and expanding it beyond the scope of the case.

What other effects are those? Drawing a "crowd" of about seven people, none of whom complained that they were disturbed by Gates?

Does the law give a minimum number of people, or a requirement for them to make a complaint? The text of the legislation does not indicate any such requirement. He was making a scene, and was affecting the normal 'flow' (For lack of a better word) of the area.

Then by all means Sir, print & spend this 100 Dollar Internet Voucher, as a small gift for your wisdom.

Why, thank you!

NTM

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ok, I'm not seeing that. If you are still relying on Levine, I still submit that the facts in this case are different because the only effect from levine's actions would be that people may disagree with or be offended by them, thus the only reliance the police may have had in that case would have been the content of the speech itself. This is not inconsistent with my position. I've tried looking up the case to read the exact wording of the opinion and the proper context of the selected quote you have, I've not found it yet. If you've got a link to the case, please provide it and I'll have a scan, but I think you're taking a narrow ruling, and expanding it beyond the scope of the case.

Here is a link to Levine (warning it is a pdf, I couldn’t find an HTML link)

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=neiman/pdf/levine+9+04.pdf

In Levine the court concluded that if the disorderly conduct arrest is based on speech alone (i.e., without other illegal acts), the speech must be "fighting words" or it cannot be the subject of the arrest, even if the actions are "tumultuous" and done in "public" (key phrases that Crowley also inserted in his report, perhaps in the mistaken belief that that would immunize him -- didn’t work in Levine). It also indicated that an arrest generally is a civil rights violation where no reasonable police officer could conclude that the activity of the suspect amounts to activity other than protected speech. In the Gates arrest, it is clear from the police report that the only activity that Crowley accuses Gates of engaging in was constitutionally protected speech.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Does the law give a minimum number of people, or a requirement for them to make a complaint? The text of the legislation does not indicate any such requirement. He was making a scene, and was affecting the normal 'flow' (For lack of a better word) of the area.

I’m not persuaded by your argument that the “effects” of the exercise of protected free speech are relevant unless they produced a charge other than disorderly conduct, given the Levine decision that the disorderly conduct statute can only be applied against speech that is not constitutionally protected –-- i.e., if it is free speech, then the disorderly conduct charge is thrown out and there is no case to hear, right? But leaving that aside . . .

Crowley’s police report does not assert that the gathering of people was blocking car or foot traffic of creating a saftety hazard (if that’s what you’re getting at by “affecting the normal ‘flow’ of the area”), or that others were being denied the reasonable enjoyment of their property (and these are not factors in the Mass. disorderly conduct statute anyway) -- just that a small group of people on the sidewalk had gathered to watch and listen. And so what? As a commentator asked, what is the point of speech rights if a person can be required to use them so quietly that no one will bother to stop and listen? See:

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 418 U.S. 416 (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring)
"if absolute assurance of tranquility is required, we may as well forget about free speech. Under such a requirement, the only 'free' speech would consist of platitudes. That kind of speech does not need constitutional protection."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/418/405/case.html#416

City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
“Although the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order, the First Amendment requires that officers and municipalities respond with restraint in the face of verbal challenges to police action, since a certain amount of expressive disorder is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, and must be protected if that freedom would survive . . . .
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/451/case.html

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949)
"Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."
[in this case the Court upheld Terminiello's free speech rights, overturning his breach of peace convicition even though his speech provoked a violent riot among hundreds of listeners]
http://supreme.justia.com/us/337/1/case.html

Manic Moran

Here is a link to Levine (warning it is a pdf, I couldn’t find an HTML link)

That's fine. I actually prefer reading caselaw in PDF anyway, for some bizarre reason.

Out of interest, do we get to call this 'Gatesgate?'

I must say, reading the Levine case in detail, it does seem to rather support your position of requiring a determination of the protectedness of the speech, though I still think that that is not unlimited. If memory serves, Free Speech issues fall under 'intermediate', not 'strict' scrutiny.
However, a cite in the Levine case does rather leave open the possibility that it was not protected.

Quoting Cohen vs California

While the four-letter word displayed by Cohen in relation to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally provocative fashion, in this instance it was clearly not "directed to the person of the hearer." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 (1940). No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant's jacket as a direct personal insult.

Whilst statements of "This is what happens to a black man in America" obviously do not fit in the 'directed to the person of the hearer category' and thus would be protected, hollering at someone that he is racist very definitely can be reasonably regarded as a direct personal insult, and thus is not granted the Constitutional protections. My understanding is that Gates started with the personal attacks, and only moved to the 'this is what happens to a black man' type commentary after the handcuffs were placed upon him.

(I'm supposed to be fighting a war, here's me debating 'offensive words' law!)

NTM

JohnMc1

Another reason to hate Obama. His new Food Czar.

http://obamboozled.blogspot.com/2009/07/former-monsanto-vp-now-obamas-food.html

Former Monsanto VP now Obama's Food Safety Czar

By Jeffrey Smith
July 23, 2009

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

Hope and Change. :rolleyes:

jank

What do you think?

JohnMc1

jank wrote: »

What do you think?

Be careful next time you drink your Kool-Aid. With the new Food Czar nobody is safe.

JohnMc1

Another link confirming this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

We're seeing Change all right but we're not getting any Hope.

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, do we get to call this 'Gatesgate?'

Yes. Perfect.

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, a cite in the Levine case does rather leave open the possibility that it was not protected

The sentence that precedes the one you quoted from Cohen v California is important. Here is the expanded quote:

This Court has also held that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called "fighting words," those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). While the four-letter word displayed by Cohen in relation to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally provocative fashion, in this instance it was clearly not "directed to the person of the hearer." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 (1940).

In Cohen the judge rejects the argument that Cohen’s speech qualified as “fighting words” because it was not “directed to the person or hearer”; you are asserting that Gates’s speech was “directed to [a] person or hearer” (Crowley). True, but that is only one element necessary to meet the definition of “fighting words.” In Gates there is no evidence of any “personally abusive epithets,” let alone any that would be “inherently likely to provoke violent reaction” from the “ordinary citizen.” In addition, police officers may be held to a higher standard than the “ordinary citizen”:

Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 94 S.Ct. 970, 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974), quoted in City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
in a concurring opinion in Lewis, Justice POWELL suggested that even the "fighting words" exception recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942), might require a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because "a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to 'exercise a higher degree of restraint' than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words.' " 415 U.S., at 135, 94 S.Ct., at 973 (citation omitted).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/451/case.html

And from Mulvey:
As recognized in the commentaries to the Model Penal Code, behavior that has an impact only upon members of the police force is significantly different from that affecting other citizens in at least two respects: it is an unfortunate but inherent part of a police officer's job to be in the presence of distraught individuals; and, to the extent that the theory behind criminalizing disorderly conduct rests on the tendency of the actor's conduct to provoke violence in others, "one must suppose that [police officers], employed and trained to maintain order, would be least likely to be provoked to disorderly responses." Model Penal Code § 250.2 comment 7, at 350.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whilst statements of "This is what happens to a black man in America" obviously do not fit in the 'directed to the person of the hearer category' and thus would be protected, hollering at someone that he is racist very definitely can be reasonably regarded as a direct personal insult, and thus is not granted the Constitutional protections. My understanding is that Gates started with the personal attacks, and only moved to the 'this is what happens to a black man' type commentary afterthe handcuffs were placed upon him.

Not so. Here’s the police report –- Crowley’s and Officer Figueroa’s (backup police).

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

There’s no indication that Gates “holler[ed] at [Crowley] that he is racist” or in any other way personally insulted him, either before or after he was handcuffed. The silly “your mama” thing, even if it were true (Gates denies it, and it is corroborated neither by Officer Figueroa, who did corroborate the other statements, nor by anyone else on the scene) hardly rises to the level of “fighting words.” Personally, I doubt that Gates said it --- it’s absurdly out of character for him, and frankly it smells like something that was written into the report to bolster the police’s case. (Further damaging Crowley’s credibility is the news today that the 911 caller did not describe the suspects as black – the 911 recording backs this up -- and that she denies even talking to Crowley at the scene at all)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/28/
gates_arrest_audio_indicates_race_was_not_factor_at_start/?page=2

Sure, anything's possible, and I think it would be fantastically funny if Gates did say “your mama.” For the pure entertainment value, I would dearly love to hear the testimony in a court case that hung on whether an exceedingly erudite, dignified, and sophisticated semiotician had uttered that ghetto insult.

Manic Moran wrote: »

(I'm supposed to be fighting a war, here's me debating 'offensive words' law!)

I know just what you mean, I’m supposed to be entertaining a 7-year-old on summer vacation!

I recognize the irony in continuing to vigorously argue the finer points of a case that doesn’t even exist, and likely won't, well after the story has passed on. Maybe we should just have a beer and move on, like Gates and Crowley. Then you can get back to risking your life to keep the world safe for democracy and I can get back to losing at Guitar Hero. And this thread can get back on topic, hating on BHO.

Overheal

It came from my inbox. Sources all over the shop:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/london.asp

A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour!

On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.

We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February:

“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”

-Barack Obama

Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.

The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way
"Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital."
The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair . The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite their circumstances they’ll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip.

JohnMc1

Does this really surprise anybody? The Dems have been known for hypocrisy for years.

jank

Yea, snopes.com the world leader in reporting....

Manic Moran

In fairness, they do tend to be generally accurate, even though I've occasionally found the odd discrepancy in the details.

NTM

jank

Actually looking at the Obama stories the amount of crazy stuff that has been going around and that have been proven as false.

This is my favourite one
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

oh and im sure the conspiracy theory in JohnMc1 will like this one
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/pigsfly.asp

LostinKildare

Jank, this one's for you.

I particularly like the Fox-like intonation of "I report, you decide."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMAnlMmEPw&feature=player_embedded

Overheal

jank wrote: »

Yea, snopes.com the world leader in reporting....

Can you discredit the story though.

Even still. In the same context:

Barack Obama wrote:

“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”

I could also pull this one out, if I really had to.

Barack and Michelle hit Broadway


Just another politician. No messiah here. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Etc.

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

Can you discredit the story though.

I'm going to guess No. He'll just accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist like he tried to with me in an earlier post.

Overheal

No surprises here, either.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8235766

Two of President Barack Obama's economic heavyweights said middle-class taxes might have to go up to pare budget deficits or to pay for the proposed overhaul of the nation's health care system.

The tough talk from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers on Sunday capped a week that brought rare good news for the economy: The worst recession in the United States since World War II could be on the verge of ending. Even so, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits.

Geithner and Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to reduce the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

"Might" rise. I love how they word that.

President Barack Obama wrote:

"you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Fmr. President George H.W. Bush wrote:

Read my lips: "No. New. Taxes."

Another 1 term President in the works.

JohnMc1

Never underestimate the Cult like following he has. Even some posters here blindly worship him.

Overheal

I wouldnt put that on my fellow posters tbh. A strong hope that we're going in the right direction maybe. Not like the Obama Section you find at the Book Store now. The very sight of which invokes disbelief.

Back on this healthcare thing though - read that link. They are beginning to sound like they are tilting in an Irish direction: Higher taxes on middle-class [read: Working] families, and increasing benefits to the lower income class and the unemployed. The problem with that, as many of you are painfully aware, is that it creates serious barriers for re-entering the workforce if you are left unemployed for some time. Ill link you to some threads in After Hours later once I find them again (im off to work in a mo'). The case being in Ireland that a lot of people are waking up to the fact that unless they work for well and above the minimum wage, for a full time position, they actually lose income by being employed, because the unemployment benefits are that high. And the tax on income, is that high. Its a serious problem for Ireland, and one im worried the US will be stepping right into.

Not to mention, with a bureaucrat, and not a CEO (to be frank) in charge of my healthcare, am I going to see more of this?

The most thanked post on Boards

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

I wouldnt put that on my fellow posters tbh. A strong hope that we're going in the right direction maybe. Not like the Obama Section you find at the Book Store now. The very sight of which invokes disbelief.

Back on this healthcare thing though - read that link. They are beginning to sound like they are tilting in an Irish direction: Higher taxes on middle-class [read: Working] families, and increasing benefits to the lower income class and the unemployed. The problem with that, as many of you are painfully aware, is that it creates serious barriers for re-entering the workforce if you are left unemployed for some time. Ill link you to some threads in After Hours later once I find them again (im off to work in a mo'). The case being in Ireland that a lot of people are waking up to the fact that unless they work for well and above the minimum wage, for a full time position, they actually lose income by being employed, because the unemployment benefits are that high. And the tax on income, is that high. Its a serious problem for Ireland, and one im worried the US will be stepping right into.

Not to mention, with a bureaucrat, and not a CEO (to be frank) in charge of my healthcare, am I going to see more of this?

The most thanked post on Boards

A few here do border on it though. I know what you mean though. I was in my old hometown in Queens,NY in Jan and it was absolutely insane. There definitely is a cult like vibe wuth Obama's followers. I passed a T-shirt embroidery shop and on there front door was a painting of Obama with a halo [like any portrait of Jesus that you would find in any Church or religious shop] Plus those campaign posters look too much like those Che Guevara prints to be a coincidence.

Overheal

JohnMc1 wrote: »

A few here do border on it though.

I wish you'd just come out with it or be quiet. With these vague personal attacks. tbh.