A bullet point list of Obama’s accomplishments
Bookworm on Jul 26 2009 at 10:44 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Randal Hoven’s carefully documented list of Obama’s accomplishments during his (so far) brief tenure in office, especially as compared to President Bush’s eight years holding the same job, makes for interesting (very interesting) reading.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
14 Responses to “A bullet point list of Obama’s accomplishments”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Book, do you mind if I creatively change your header to:
It more accurately (below) describes the meaning.
To endure a punishment or consequence with dignity or stoicism.
To accept a negative aspect of a situation in order to continue moving forward.
Not that “I” would actually ever endure or accept without having first expressed myself.
Thank you, Bookworm, for a full-blown episode of projectile vomiting. I guess I’m going to have to drink a lot of fluids for the next four years. God, I hope it’s only four years.
Spielberg had no idea how prophetic this line would be: “Hang on, this is gonna be bad.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf
Unlike most people, which includes the police, the issue is not Gates or Crowley, or even Obama.
Obama’s actions are certainly relevant on racism, but I will speak not of racism. I will simply speak of escalation and how wars and blood feuds are started in history and in the present. Yes, the present.
How much blood does the average person believe has been shed due to police actions? Not so much individual police misjudgment as the illegal, unlawful, and unwise policies and rules of engagement ordering the police into a situation that can only end badly?
Read the link, if you wish to know. But here is the executive summary and a bit of the intro for those interested in real police abuses, real law and order, and not just the politically and prejudicially motivated ulterior purposes of Obama and others.
Americans have long maintained that a man’s
home is his castle and that he has the right to
defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately,
that right may be disappearing. Over the
last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization
of its civilian law enforcement, along
with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of
paramilitary police units (most commonly called
Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine
police work. The most common use of SWAT
teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually
with forced, unannounced entry into the
home.
These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per
year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting
nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and
wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having
their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually
by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units
dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.
These raids bring unnecessary violence and
provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many
of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The
raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly
target the wrong residence. And they have resulted
in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not
only of drug offenders, but also of police officers,
children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.
This paper presents a history and overview of
the issue of paramilitary drug raids, provides an
extensive catalogue of abuses and mistaken
raids, and offers recommendations for reform.
Anyone that seeks to hide this aspect in America, this militarization and occupation of American civil rights, or anyone who tries to misdirect, mislead, or divert the attention of the public from such issues is an enemy of the United States of America’s Constitution.
They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This includes Obama. This includes black racists, white racists, Latino racists, and Islamic terrorists.
One instance of blaming Haditha or the US military’s professional about killing innocents is one thing. They can be ignored of the reality. But many are not. And they aren’t all Leftists. Do you think Sarah Palin’s enemies in the Republican party would have anything bad to say on this issue? Would they care more than she would?
I wish the nation would focus on what matters, rather than on trying to make things worse for others.
It’s a perversion of justice, especially since those in power don’t have to suffer the consequences of their own policies.
The system can work, but when the powerful are immune to the consequences of their actions, their corruption, their greed and their megalomania.
We are all part of the this situation, whether we want to be or not.
I understand why people don’t clearly see certain aspects of the world or even their own government. And wishing that it was not so, will not change it.
Ymar #3,
Already been there. Balko’s The Agitator is one of my favorites, and I keep copies of his tracts on the rise of para-militarism in US police forces. A problem that began during Nixon’s term in office with the no-knock warrant serve. I have been watching this rise for well over 30 years. Every President, every Governor, every legislator, since then shares blame.
Unfortunately, there is a spill-over effect that can and does affect the ordinary beat cop. I only realized how much a few years ago. It is a change from being part of the community, as Sir Robert Peel envisaged in this “that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence“, to being over the community. A separate force, Orwell’s jackboot. A jackboot that feels only its power as it grinds a face into the dirt.
““The rule is, if a police officer stops you in a car or on the street, he’s the captain of the ship, and whatever he says goes,” says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police’s legislative division. “If you’ve got something to address, do it later. Do what he says, or else only bad things can happen.”
If meant literally, it is also a statement of an occupying force. When he adds “at your door”, we will be finished.
Already been there.
Been where? You’re not for police authority.
Been where? You’re not for police authority.
Ymar, its statements like that that truly bother me, on multiple levels and directions. Obviously, the “Already been there” had to do with Balko and his writings. Its in the next sentence.
The “you’re not for police authority” is simply not true. If you had actually read and understood what I wrote after “already been there”, or anything else I’ve written on the subject of police, you couldn’t in good conscience write that blanket statement. You simply don’t understand the underlying concepts, not in their fullest sense. That is not an insult, simply the conclusion I must draw from such statements.
Police have qualified immunity, not sovereign. Their authority is not absolute. It must be used lawfully, when it is used unlawfully they step out from under the umbrella. There has been at least one Supreme Court decision that said that a citizen could physically fight back when an officer used “excessive force”, because the officer was acting unlawfully. Obviously, after a stay in the hospital, you’ll spend a long time in the grinder that our legal system can be before you’re vindicated, if the officer was actually using excessive force. Excessive force is not the only way an officer can act unlawfully, it is simply the easiest illustration.
If you or anyone here thinks that it can never happen to you reread what Ymar quoted from Balko. It is not limited to these raids, they are simply the most recognizable problem.
There is also no uniformity of acceptable police practices across this country, or even within a state. The El Monte, CA, kick the spread-eagled gangbanger in the head, called a distraction technique, is acceptable procedure for El Monte. LAPD and the LACSD consider it too dangerous and excessive, and would discipline any officer caught doing it. They have said as much. The point of this is in my last sentence.
It is a dynamic system that must always be nudged back; too little authority and the police can’t do their job; too much and you have a police state. For all of us that point of too little or too much will be different. Balko addresses the para-militarization of the police because of not only those damaging raids, but because of what I called the spill-over.
There is nothing cut-and-dried on the question of police power, authority, or procedure. Nothing.
Serious subject, but you guys need to take a step back from the keyboard.
To keep from getting tasred Ariel, you should use a smiley face at the appropriate time until folks are more comfortable with your style. Just a suggestion.
I am also concerned about the militarization of the police departments, but there is an implication in these posts, coupled with the previous discussion about rogue cops, that the police are the problem.
Ariel, I meant to ask you on the other thread, where would you draw the line that a citizen must cross before it would be appropriate for the police to arrest a person? Is there some amount of abuse a police officer must endure before he is justified escorting the person to the back seat of a cruiser?
As our society degenerates, the level of sophistication and brutality of the criminal element grows. Think North Hollywood bank robbey or the drug war spilling over into Texas. Police need a greater amount of protection and firepower. It is our politicians, responding to these levels of violence that are equipping the police.
Kicking a gangbanger in the head might be an appropriate distraction technique given that they may be high at the time. We will eventually descend into a
policeauthoritarian state. As a society we have lost any sense of common authority to govern us. Not too long ago, the laws of God bound the limits of societal behavior. As we move to a godless society, who becomes our authority? I certainly reject your authority and you’ll probably reject mine. This only leaves the authority of the state projected by sufficient power to force obedience.It is a truism that we act like we dress. Dress like a slob, act like a slob. Dress like a million dollars, attitude adjusts appropriately. Dress like a Navy seal, and yes, the lurking commando in that cop does manifest itself. What’s the answer? It’s probably too late for our society to put the genie back in the bottle, where respect for authority is taught at home, reinforced in the schools and acted out on our streets.
What our bureacracy has done is criminalize even trivial behavior– bring Tylenol to school- suspension; point your finger at another child at recess– suspension; plastic knife at school– expulsion. Since we as a society refuse to accept reasonable judgments by those in authority, and insist on some ridiculous level of equality, the outcomes become more severe and more black and white.
Given all of the problems stated about police actions, the last thing I want is more federal control over law enforcement. The only hope of reasonable controls lies at the local level, where we have some hope of affecting our politicians and where the police respond as our neighbors and friends.
You simply don’t understand the underlying concepts, not in their fullest sense.
Let’s not pretend that you have a sufficient understanding of me to make such judgments. You’re not in my shoes and you don’t attempt to provide even the minimum respect required for even half way comprehension between different perspectives.
What I don’t understand is how someone like you can come to this blog, while doing everything to undermine legitimate police authority in making legal arrests, including attempting to support Gate’s accusation that Crowley illegally misfiled his report.
One of the sources you provided is used by you to justify how your ‘conclusion’ is the same. But it is not. He came to it by accepting that the arrest was legal, but he said that it wasn’t worth it considering the powerful friends Gates has and the minor crime in question. The officer you quoted supports Crowley’s legal arrest, he does not undermine his authority. He simply recommends that that authority should have been used differently.
So I’d like to hear how you can justify coming to this blog and saying you support police authority, when it is far from clear exactly what kind of authority the police should even have in making arrests, legal arrests even.
Also, the narrative that Crowley wanted to teach Gates a lesson, and that this is why he led Gates outside and arrested him, is also extremely troubling. It simply justifies more police homicides, either way. It inflames the public conscience and will lead to escalation of violence between the community and the police.
This is irresponsible behavior. And a very good reason why Obama shouldn’t do it is because of his power, for it magnifies the negative consequences of irresponsible behavior on his part. But that doesn’t mean the regular citizens without Obama’s power can act more recklessly or just as recklessly.
There is nothing cut-and-dried on the question of police power, authority, or procedure. Nothing.
You have yourself contradicted that very statement. Who should I believe, the Ariel from before or the Ariel right here? I can’t believe both at the same time. I have not had as much practice in double thinking as Leftists, nor need for it really.
BrianE. #7,
Don’t even get me into the abuse of tasers. But before I go on, where the hell do I find those smiley faces? It is one area that I am clearly, and sorely, deficient. I find the alpha ones rather ugly so I shy away from them.
BrianE, there are police that are the problem and police that aren’t, departments that are and departments that aren’t, etc. As I wrote, they are human, not uniforms or badges. You see, don’t take the idealized concept, the Police, whatever connotation you add to that, and apply it across the board as true or real. That was my point to the “word is not the thing”, used elsewhere, among many other ramifications that simple phrase has.
I am going to give you a blanket agreement on the degeneration of our society (which is definitely part of the problem), the increased tactical and weapon sophistication of criminals, and the need for police to have the equipment in those situations. Here’s the butt monkey: they forget that just because they have a hammer, it doesn’t mean everything is a nail.This is one of Balko’s many points. My point on spill-over. Karl Mansoor’s points about the greater use of defusing or calming techniques, politeness, professional demeanor, etc. Aggressive and confrontational techniques used too often simply put police and good citizens in danger. As well as down the road to that police authoritarian state you fear we will go down. I’d rather it be the road less traveled or not at all, though the latter isn’t possible. The Ideal does not exist, it can only be approached asymptotically. The price, the cost, is too high to reach it.
My point on the gangbanger head kick is that even police and their departments disagree, not whether it’s right or wrong. I tried to make that clear. Given that anywhere from $100 million to $250 million is spent every year dealing with “whether it was right or wrong”, perhaps local, county, and state need to take a closer look. My fiscon coming out. That portion of money not from insurance would certainly be better spent on the police. I think they’re starting pay should be higher, their training on non-confrontational techniques greater, as well as law, etc. I’d prefer that they do not have to put in overtime to make a decent living. I would like the number of police increased. I’d like to see them with more time off to de-stress also. To rejoin the community, as it where.
Regarding abuse: where do you draw the line? The police have a term for that abuse, it is called “contempt of cop”. They know it isn’t an arrestable offense, because it isn’t. It’s obviously situational, and discretionary if it pushes the envelope, which is another thing I tried to show through Pepper Spray Me, but nobody got it. I think you started to when you you realized I was arguing not from a categorical difference, but from a matter of degree.
I would love to see a more polite, more respectful, more peaceful, and less hedonistic society. I was raised by people born before the Spanish-American war and before/during WWI (a slight correction on an earlier comment, confused my grandmother’s b/day), for heaven’s sake. I do not believe it is more God or less God, because the Jim Crow South was certainly filled with good Christian people that abused others routinely. It is respecting the dignity of others and the courtesies we owe them (if only to have that society we want), and the acceptance of the responsibilities we have that go along with rights. Not to mention instilling that in our children. I daily bang my head against the wall on that one.
If you want it imposed, make me King, I’ll quarter soldiers in all your homes to spy on you and rule you, and I’ll make you all behave, with decorum too. Oh, and I’ll make you foot the bill too. (insert smiley here, before someone misses the point).
I agree with you on “how we dress”, down to the last word, but I am more optimistic than you that it can be changed. I live in a very hot climate, but always wore long-sleeve shirts, ties, expensive dress pants, and dress shoes. As far as I cared, on my job I had to be in “dress blues” everyday, even though my job meant I would be in some of the nastiest industrial environments you could ever ask for. It was a sign of respect.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. Sometimes there is no recourse. I wish it wasn’t so. And when the PD is cleaned up, I want the Federal oversight gone.
Ymar #9,
Let’s not pretend that you have a sufficient understanding of me to make such judgments. You’re not in my shoes
“You simply don’t understand the underlying concepts, not in their fullest sense. That is not an insult, simply the conclusion I must draw from such statements.”
That is the full quote. It means something different than what you wrote in reply. And it was based on numerous comments of yours, as the such implies or I would have used a singular such as “that statement”.
you don’t attempt to provide even the minimum respect required for even half way comprehension between different perspectives.
I would say that you and suek violated that quite handily, from accusing me of lying, misrepresenting myself, or being a flaming liberal, and so on.
while doing everything to undermine legitimate police authority in making legal arrests, including attempting to support Gate’s accusation that Crowley illegally misfiled his report.
No you’re missing the point of why I sent you to Pepper Spray Me, and I knew everything he wrote there, everything. The arrest was discretionary, I thought Crowley made a mistake of ego, which he could only make when Gates was on the porch in front of a crowd (go look up Mass law on DC). Again, here is part of what I quoted “Crowley’s report did not convince me that a disorderly conduct arrest was in order here.” Discretionary power. Here’s another that I expected you to see:”Racism? No. A frivolous arrest? Perhaps.” It’s not cut-and dried. Follow the link to Pete Moskos’ blog, another I read regularly, and you’ll see more of the same.
I have yet to read Gate’s accusations. Frankly, I’m not interested. The “false” that I used regarding “crime in progress” was not that Crowley was lying. False doesn’t mean lying. Lying means lying. And I gave my rather legalistic, chronological reasons for that assessment. Unfortunately, I can’t find that comment. Look below and I expand on this.
he said that it wasn’t worth it considering the powerful friends Gates has and the minor crime in question
Nowhere did Pepper Spray Me say that unless you’re extrapolating from the “not worth the drama”. There is absolutely no mention of “powerful friends”, or anything about political connections. He only said it wasn’t worth it in an earlier sense. I quote:”Based on the sergeant’s report, the arrest was legal. Crowley articulated the elements of the crime, and it all looks good on paper. But that doesn’t mean it was a good arrest. There is a time and place to arrest for disorderly conduct, or disturbing the peace.”
(OT for a second) Looking at my first, my original, comment at this blog, the “it isn’t racism” directly followed “Gates is likely an unmitigated ass” and I assumed everyone would understand I meant the Gates charge against Crowley. The next sentence was “And there the agreement ends.” Tying it together. I really do not understand why you thought I was writing anything about Gates own racism. Also, your post #46 here, I never once said Crowley had an “us v them” mentality, nor “dictated” it in anyway whatsoever, or that the arrest wasn’t legal. Ego is not “us v them”. And doing it once is not doing it every time either.
I never once used the phrase “us v them” until #54, and that was in regards to terms cops use themselves to describe issues that bother them too. Mike Devx first used it as a hypothetical, if then statement, in #39 about me. Ymar you projected that all on to what I wrote. I’m sorry but you did. Then you assumed it true and ran with it, as if it were true.
(back OnT) Read Bookworms comment after mine. I had come from Pepper Spray Me before coming here, so I already had his arguments in mind, but I was thinking more from the legal sense of when or where the incident between Gates/Crowley should have ended. And the authority on both sides.
I had read, not at Pepper Spray Me, that Gates did tell Crowley that Gates broke into his own house. At that point, there was no “crime in progress”. Thus my “false” regarding Crowleys’s report. It doesn’t mean he was lying or even that an illegal report was filed. I actually agree with Pepper Spray Me as follows: “After Sgt Crowley walked out of his house, Gates talked himself into those handcuffs.”, I stated as much; and “maybe the better course of action for the police would have been to unhook the good professor once he calmed down. Sometimes that little misdemeanor arrest ain’t worth the headache and drama.” That’s real world. Which is why I thought Crowleys ego got the better of his good judgment. Not to mention the dismissal and wasted resources. I never said it wasn’t legal, not once. Just flimsy, which does not mean illegal.
So I’d like to hear how you can justify coming to this blog and saying you support police authority, when it is far from clear exactly what kind of authority the police should even have in making arrests, legal arrests even.
Because it isn’t cut-and-dried. It is always situational and discretionary on DC, disturbing the peace, interference, etc. . It can even be situational on “assaulting a police officer”, I’ve seen charges dropped on that a number of times also. Next, if what kind of authority police should have in making arrests were clear, every time, there wouldn’t be so many court cases still trying to determine the boundaries. Or the legality of different procedures when used in real world situations. However I can justify coming to this blog because Bookworm has said so, so long as I play nice with you, which is what I am trying to do. Nothing snarky meant by “play nice”.
Ymar #10,
the narrative that Crowley wanted to teach Gates a lesson, and that this is why he led Gates outside and arrested him, is also extremely troubling. It simply justifies more police homicides, either way.
Crowley never led Gates out, he had already exited and went to talk to the other police there, as well as possibly the woman that reported a break-in. It was Gates who came out on his own volition, screaming all the way (which does remind me of Christmas song).
Police admit to this “teaching a lesson” so perhaps you should talk to them, as long as its legally done its OK. The latter part of the quote is overreach. Criminals kill cops because cops stand in their way. Balko gives another way people kill cops in your quote of his.
Now as far as irresponsible or reckless, as I wrote, police blogs admit to this so you’re going to have to shut them down first. After that, you’ll need to remove a lot of video from YouTube, a large number of which have freed people and put police on trial or under discipline. I might suggest starting by confiscating every videophone in the country…After, that you’re going to have to go after a lot, if not all, the legal blogs. Finally, you may have to burn a lot of books, including bound court decisions all the way up to SCOTUS. If you miss any, do realize someone might see them and go samizdat.
Ymar #11,
Here I am left speechless. Show me as far as where.
As far as Leftist double think, I’ve had no experience other than reading it, or hearing it in conversations. But then I am not a Leftist. I do think Left and Right are poor terms, coming from the French Revolution and really only explaining their two sides of the aisle. Ours is much more complex, given that there are both, using your dichotomy, Left-wing and Right-wing civil libertarians for example. Not to be confused with libertarianism, which is not the same thing.
Enough for now. Good night.
And now for something completely different. Well, not really. I was searching for more on the Gates arrest and any follow up on a lawsuit. Came across this, an example of a real racist and quite stupid cop. Both the BPD and the National Guard have suspended him. There are no conclusions here to draw other than this is a “what the hell were you thinking?” moment.