Election 2007: The final countdown
The Riverside City Election recounts began yesterday in both Wards One and Seven at the Riverside County Voters' Registrar's office. Head on down there to watch democracy or something in action if you have the time.
Already, there's been some serious drama. After all, with a $2 billion extravaganza at stake could it be any other way?
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
At one point in the morning, Frizzel challenged a voided electronic vote in which the voter initially voted for Frizzel then canceled the vote.
It didn't make sense that someone would go to a polling place, sign in and go to one of the voting computers, vote, then cancel the vote, Frizzel representative Suzanne Martin told Assistant Registrar Doug Kinzle, who then brought Dunmore to the table.
"I cannot allow a voided ballot, so your challenge is overruled," Dunmore told Frizzel.
Betro's representatives, including his attorney, Gabe Camarillo, challenged an absentee ballot marked for both Betro and Gardner. Dunmore said that ballot also could not be counted.
Dunmore said late Monday there had been fewer than 20 challenges that had led to some changes in votes. She would not give a tally until the recount is completed.
Gardner said four votes that had apparently not been counted originally were all for him and were added to his total. But Betro won several more challenges than he did, leaving the total so far at or close to Gardner's seven-vote margin, Gardner said.
In the Ward 1 race, temporary workers finished recounting the absentee ballots. That leaves the electronic votes and any nonabsentee paper ballots. In the Ward 7 race, they looked only at electronic votes, and there are many more of those to count as well as all the paper ballots, Dunmore said.
Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein took that time to take a gander himself having clearly survived his encounter with his mother-in-law's garbage disposal.
(excerpt)
I expected a crowded room with flying elbows and angry eruptions: "You counted that one twice!" Or, "What did you just take out of your pocket, pal?" But it was more like a meeting of the Riverside Bridge Club. Only quieter.
There were three tables -- two for Ward 1 (Betro's request) and one for Ward 7. Four official counters, all women, sat at each table. Some were bare knuckled. Others wore blue surgical gloves, as if they regarded democracy as toxic waste. Or maybe they just didn't want to leave any fingerprints.
Some official counters read aloud ("Betro," "Betro," "Gardner," "Gardner") from stacks of absentee ballots they had removed from cardboard boxes. Others pulled white paper from small spools, reciting printed results of touch-screen voting (RIP).
"Observers" hovered over the bridge tables: Betro's lawyer. A young union rep. A Gardner booster. Gardner himself! Frizzel was there, too, leaning over her table at a 90-degree angle.
But there was no sign of Betro, which was surprising since he was paying for his recount. No Steve Adams, either. He's the incumbent who had (apparently) edged Frizzel. Maybe they'd show up later -- the counting supposedly continues today. But I don't think they'd miss much if they decided to get their hair done.
I'm sure Betro will show up at Governmental Affairs with two other BASS team members to fiddle with elections of tomorrow, even as the results of the one today are still being recounted.
The show which always results from rash agenda items concocted by the Governmental Affairs Committee will as usual, be most entertaining. Popcorn and soda are optional of course and not provided at the door. There was talk at one point of putting a weiner cart in that space between the city council chambers and City Hall for nourishment during the meetings. However, the city has decided to do like the county which it's mirroring and put in a really ritzy, expensive restaurant instead that its own employees can't afford to eat at.
If you have some spare time to see your elected government in action, come to City Hall this evening and watch the city council grapple once again with how to keep public participation to a minimum.
It's nothing new, just something they dragged out of the closet of packed away agenda items, dusted off and placed on the blink-and-you'll-miss-it consent calendar. The kind that's become chock filled with high-dollar items after city residents were banned from pulling items on July 12, 2005.
As has been stated, the Governmental Affairs Committee met on March 20, 2007 to review the recommendations submitted in this report submitted by Councilman Steve Adams which was dated Feb. 27.
The committee took this action which was proposed by Chair Frank Schiavone and seconded by Councilman Dom Betro. Two already proven staunch promoters of past restrictions made involving public participation at city council meetings including banning the public from removing items from the consent calendar for discussion so the vote came as no surprise even though that particular meeting was well-attended by people interested in public participation.
The city council has the votes to pass these measures. But the voters have the power to send more city council members out of office during the next election cycle so it does balance itself out. Still, what's interesting about tomorrow's agenda item, is that it had been passed by the Governmental Affairs Committee over eight months ago. Yet, it didn't see light at a city council meeting until the end of November.
Why? Because the city council waited until after the elections had wrapped up before bringing it back to discussion, which shows you how much confidence it had in how the public would receive its passage. One would guess that would be very little confidence.
Of course, the vote also takes place before the Dec. 11 city council meeting. Why does that matter? Because that's when the new city council will be sworn into office. I guess the current body isn't confident that it would receive the votes needed to carry it. I guess you could call this agenda item and its inevitable outcome, a parting shot from BASS.
As you can see here, this item on changing the way meetings are conducted is not being placed on the discussion section of the agenda but the consent calendar where only an elected official can pull it for discussion.
That of course is not going to happen. So if you have anything to say about it, you'll have to say it during public comment period and then sit and watch as elected official after elected official says, "pass" and votes to pass it along with a laundry list of other agenda items. That's how things work in Riverside, when it comes to public participation.
Ward One Councilman-elect Mike Gardner responded to the proposed changes to the election process which will be discussed at the Governmental Affairs Committee here.
(excerpt)
"With regard to the first item, nominating by ward but electing at large, I believe this will make City Council races even more expensive. It is costly enough to communicate with voters in a single ward, but if you have to communicate with voters citywide costs will be far higher. This will have a chilling effect on the candidacy of anyone without lots of their own money to spend or without substantial backing from those with money (labor associations, big developers, successful business owners, etc.). I do not think that is good for Riverside and would oppose the proposal on that basis alone."
That's an interesting and important point. I would guess that the success of two grass-roots campaigns, including one winning campaign has upset those who have spent well into the six figures to try to win reelection. And Gardner's correct, launching a campaign citywide would be much more expensive than doing so in a single ward and the fact is, most of the big money contributed to candidates in city council elections are from labor unions and large development firms. So candidates who accepted contributions from these entities would be most likely to be able to campaign successfully citywide especially after having already spent money campaigning for the preliminary rounds of the election.
But the three members of this committee received the lionshare of their donations from labor unions and development firms so they'll just love this little plan to "reform" the election process in this city.
The people who would propose such a plan obviously do not want to see a repeat of Election 2007. They don't want to see two candidates pushed into a runoff especially incumbents and they don't want to see incumbents spend $200,000 in campaign contributions only to lose at the polls to someone who's spent much less.
This plan would not even be proposed unless those proposing it believed it would change the outcome of city elections and could the elected officials pushing this proposal possibly show any less confidence in ward residents' ability to elect their own representatives. Probably not, but I'm sure they'll try to raise the bar on that one anyway.
But Gardner's right. This latest folly courtesy of Riverside would have to pass the muster of the voters possibly as soon as next March. But I hope someone asks the following question.
If there's problems with the election process such as misplaced ballots and other alleged incidents, how does taking away the right of wards to elect their own representatives remedy this situation?
Why does asking this question matter? Because the problems with past elections will be used to sell this item, which was snuck in like a side of pork onto a laundry list of so-called remedies to election follies.
Some people thought it was keen that I caught that this meeting was taking place, but you can blame or credit the Festival of Lights for that. On my way over there, I stopped by the City Hall agenda box to see what the city council had in store for its constituents and what it was trying to hide behind its Trojan horse of choice, long holiday weekends.
Still compliments are nice to receive. For a long time, this blog received very few and its blogger has been called everything from a bitch to a whore and just about the gambit of slurs, genderized or other, in between of course by anonymous individuals. For those who tried to leave comments after a certain posting the other day, comments as you know are closed for now until further notice. Including for that one individual whose last attempt at brilliance with the written word was about Mexicans getting beaten up in L.A.'s MacArthur Park last May by police officers to see if candy would spill out.
One individual under some alias, I think it was a famous porn star, rambled something off last spring and then wrote, "your[sic] such a whore!". I'm like, huh? Why the gender slur? It's cruel to even use it as a gender slur against a particular class of women, given the deplorable situations that lead many women to sell their bodies in the first place around the world and it's a commentary on the men (and often, it's men) who use these slurs and others to try to put women in their place, more than the uppity women it's used against.
Then it's like, dude take your SPS syndrome or its close cousin, the truly dire MPS and sit it some place else. Though these syndromes (which are defined by and in fact related to how masculinity is defined) are in part created by the same reality that leads to the proliferation of slurs against women in comparison to the few used against men, which in reality target them by proxy rather than directly. Meaning that most gender slurs against men insult them by essentially calling them women, challenging their masculinity, challenging their sexual orientation or smearing those who birth and/or raise them. There are also a wide assortment of racial slurs used against men of color to choose from as well.
At the time they are uttered or written by people real or anonymous, slurs hurt. They hurt as they are intended to and in ways that those who use them probably don't understand what they are doing enough to know. But after the sting (and many African-Americans describe that feeling even upon seeing the "n-word" in any context) or the deeper pain from being a direct target of such bigotry and hatred passes or lessens, some of them make for ripe analysis.
Then some of these individuals go further and assume the right to define who is a woman and who's not. They justify their use of gender slurs and the reactions they cause by saying, well you're not a real woman, you are what I call you because I get to decide. In one case, I was called a "creature" and on one occasion, the "village idiot" which is a stereotype often used against disabled individuals and is considered a slur by many in those communities.
That's a very patriarchal and sexist way of thinking and it's been historically used in this context as well as in terms of the use of racial slurs and stereotypes as well.
Most of my blogging tenure has been a difficult one but then I think that's true of many bloggers out there. But as always, it's an educational experience.
Press Enterprise Columnist Cassie MacDuff writes an excellent commentary about the difficulty the publication had in getting records in relation to San Bernardino County's credit card scandal.
(excerpt)
It shouldn't take nearly four months for the county to produce the records.
And when they arrive, they shouldn't look like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI had a field day on them with a black marker.
But that's what happened when The Press-Enterprise and another newspaper asked to see receipts for elected officials' county-issued credit cards and county-issued fuel cards for the past two fiscal years.
I wanted to ask County Counsel Ruth Stringer and Chief Deputy County Counsel Dan Haueter why the records were so heavily redacted. They didn't return repeated phone calls.
No visible tattoos are the order for San Jose Police Department officers according to the San Jose Mercury News.
(excerpt)
Tattoos, which many years ago often signified military service or gang affiliation, have become more mainstream, according to a study published last year in the Journal of American Academy of Dermatology. Nearly one out of every four Americans has a tattoo, according to the study, which also found about 36 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 29 have tattoos.
Community concerns
But Chief Davis believes the policy, which went into effect Sept. 23, is necessary. Davis first became aware of the issue after hearing people in the community voice concerns about the tattoos being displayed by officers. After looking internally, Davis found that "the concerns people voiced were valid."
"We cannot settle for anything less when it comes to the presentation of our officers in the community, and how we are perceived in the community," Davis said.
Some agencies, including police departments in San Jose, Long Beach and San Diego, allow tattoos that are partly visible or deemed inoffensive. In San Jose, any exceptions to the rule must be approved by the chief's office or a member of his command staff. Davis said the policy will be "pretty stringent," and that officers seeking an exception must meet "a real high mark."
"Clearly there are some individuals who are not happy," Davis said. "They are in the minority. The majority of the feedback from officers has been 'this is great.' They've seen some of the tattoos displayed" and do not feel they are professional.
There's a survey at the above link where you can voice your opinion on the issues pertaining to police officers and tattoos.
The New York Daily News wrote this column about the impact that the loss of her daughter-in-law after a tragic incident at Phoenix International Airport earlier this year has had on Betsy Gotbaum.
(excerpt)
Gotbaum admitted Sunday she worries more about cop behavior since her daughter-in-law, Carol Anne Gotbaum, died in September while in police custody at the Phoenix International Airport.
"Something is terribly wrong," she said. "I am more sensitive to that fact."
When asked what exactly she thought was wrong, Gotbaum said, "There's a lack of kindness."
The National Latino Officers Association of America has blasted the "stop and frisk" study done by a private company, according to the New York Daily News.
The study by RAND determined that despite the fact that Black and Latinos were stopped at rates disproportionate to their representation in the city that no racial profiling was taking place. The association took exception to that conclusion.
(excerpt)
This study is comprised of endless excuses, statistical justifications," the association said, and African Americans and Hispanics are categorized "as statistically insignificant."
"The report draws conclusions that have no basis in reality. If left unchallenged, it is the justification for racial profiling, abuse and discrimination," the group said.
The department has long denied allegations of bias and officials have said the report was an independent review.
"Not surprisingly, this statement is riddled with inaccuracies and exposes Miranda's deep ignorance of the statistical process employed by RAND, a nationally respected non-profit, which subjected its research to rigorous peer review," police spokesman Paul Browne said in a statement referring to Anthony Miranda, the association's executive chairman.
Kyle Piry said she probably should have been more afraid of Drew Peterson when she dated him than she was, according to the MSNBC News.
(excerpt)
“I look back, no, I wasn’t afraid — probably naively,” Piry told TODAY co-host Meredith Vieira on Monday of her experience with Peterson.
Asked to describe her reaction to news stories that Peterson is being investigated in connection with the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, Piry said initially she was in disbelief.
“I was shocked,” Piry said.
The police car of the future. And no, it doesn't hover in mid-air yet.
Already, there's been some serious drama. After all, with a $2 billion extravaganza at stake could it be any other way?
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
At one point in the morning, Frizzel challenged a voided electronic vote in which the voter initially voted for Frizzel then canceled the vote.
It didn't make sense that someone would go to a polling place, sign in and go to one of the voting computers, vote, then cancel the vote, Frizzel representative Suzanne Martin told Assistant Registrar Doug Kinzle, who then brought Dunmore to the table.
"I cannot allow a voided ballot, so your challenge is overruled," Dunmore told Frizzel.
Betro's representatives, including his attorney, Gabe Camarillo, challenged an absentee ballot marked for both Betro and Gardner. Dunmore said that ballot also could not be counted.
Dunmore said late Monday there had been fewer than 20 challenges that had led to some changes in votes. She would not give a tally until the recount is completed.
Gardner said four votes that had apparently not been counted originally were all for him and were added to his total. But Betro won several more challenges than he did, leaving the total so far at or close to Gardner's seven-vote margin, Gardner said.
In the Ward 1 race, temporary workers finished recounting the absentee ballots. That leaves the electronic votes and any nonabsentee paper ballots. In the Ward 7 race, they looked only at electronic votes, and there are many more of those to count as well as all the paper ballots, Dunmore said.
Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein took that time to take a gander himself having clearly survived his encounter with his mother-in-law's garbage disposal.
(excerpt)
I expected a crowded room with flying elbows and angry eruptions: "You counted that one twice!" Or, "What did you just take out of your pocket, pal?" But it was more like a meeting of the Riverside Bridge Club. Only quieter.
There were three tables -- two for Ward 1 (Betro's request) and one for Ward 7. Four official counters, all women, sat at each table. Some were bare knuckled. Others wore blue surgical gloves, as if they regarded democracy as toxic waste. Or maybe they just didn't want to leave any fingerprints.
Some official counters read aloud ("Betro," "Betro," "Gardner," "Gardner") from stacks of absentee ballots they had removed from cardboard boxes. Others pulled white paper from small spools, reciting printed results of touch-screen voting (RIP).
"Observers" hovered over the bridge tables: Betro's lawyer. A young union rep. A Gardner booster. Gardner himself! Frizzel was there, too, leaning over her table at a 90-degree angle.
But there was no sign of Betro, which was surprising since he was paying for his recount. No Steve Adams, either. He's the incumbent who had (apparently) edged Frizzel. Maybe they'd show up later -- the counting supposedly continues today. But I don't think they'd miss much if they decided to get their hair done.
I'm sure Betro will show up at Governmental Affairs with two other BASS team members to fiddle with elections of tomorrow, even as the results of the one today are still being recounted.
The show which always results from rash agenda items concocted by the Governmental Affairs Committee will as usual, be most entertaining. Popcorn and soda are optional of course and not provided at the door. There was talk at one point of putting a weiner cart in that space between the city council chambers and City Hall for nourishment during the meetings. However, the city has decided to do like the county which it's mirroring and put in a really ritzy, expensive restaurant instead that its own employees can't afford to eat at.
If you have some spare time to see your elected government in action, come to City Hall this evening and watch the city council grapple once again with how to keep public participation to a minimum.
It's nothing new, just something they dragged out of the closet of packed away agenda items, dusted off and placed on the blink-and-you'll-miss-it consent calendar. The kind that's become chock filled with high-dollar items after city residents were banned from pulling items on July 12, 2005.
As has been stated, the Governmental Affairs Committee met on March 20, 2007 to review the recommendations submitted in this report submitted by Councilman Steve Adams which was dated Feb. 27.
The committee took this action which was proposed by Chair Frank Schiavone and seconded by Councilman Dom Betro. Two already proven staunch promoters of past restrictions made involving public participation at city council meetings including banning the public from removing items from the consent calendar for discussion so the vote came as no surprise even though that particular meeting was well-attended by people interested in public participation.
The city council has the votes to pass these measures. But the voters have the power to send more city council members out of office during the next election cycle so it does balance itself out. Still, what's interesting about tomorrow's agenda item, is that it had been passed by the Governmental Affairs Committee over eight months ago. Yet, it didn't see light at a city council meeting until the end of November.
Why? Because the city council waited until after the elections had wrapped up before bringing it back to discussion, which shows you how much confidence it had in how the public would receive its passage. One would guess that would be very little confidence.
Of course, the vote also takes place before the Dec. 11 city council meeting. Why does that matter? Because that's when the new city council will be sworn into office. I guess the current body isn't confident that it would receive the votes needed to carry it. I guess you could call this agenda item and its inevitable outcome, a parting shot from BASS.
As you can see here, this item on changing the way meetings are conducted is not being placed on the discussion section of the agenda but the consent calendar where only an elected official can pull it for discussion.
That of course is not going to happen. So if you have anything to say about it, you'll have to say it during public comment period and then sit and watch as elected official after elected official says, "pass" and votes to pass it along with a laundry list of other agenda items. That's how things work in Riverside, when it comes to public participation.
Ward One Councilman-elect Mike Gardner responded to the proposed changes to the election process which will be discussed at the Governmental Affairs Committee here.
(excerpt)
"With regard to the first item, nominating by ward but electing at large, I believe this will make City Council races even more expensive. It is costly enough to communicate with voters in a single ward, but if you have to communicate with voters citywide costs will be far higher. This will have a chilling effect on the candidacy of anyone without lots of their own money to spend or without substantial backing from those with money (labor associations, big developers, successful business owners, etc.). I do not think that is good for Riverside and would oppose the proposal on that basis alone."
That's an interesting and important point. I would guess that the success of two grass-roots campaigns, including one winning campaign has upset those who have spent well into the six figures to try to win reelection. And Gardner's correct, launching a campaign citywide would be much more expensive than doing so in a single ward and the fact is, most of the big money contributed to candidates in city council elections are from labor unions and large development firms. So candidates who accepted contributions from these entities would be most likely to be able to campaign successfully citywide especially after having already spent money campaigning for the preliminary rounds of the election.
But the three members of this committee received the lionshare of their donations from labor unions and development firms so they'll just love this little plan to "reform" the election process in this city.
The people who would propose such a plan obviously do not want to see a repeat of Election 2007. They don't want to see two candidates pushed into a runoff especially incumbents and they don't want to see incumbents spend $200,000 in campaign contributions only to lose at the polls to someone who's spent much less.
This plan would not even be proposed unless those proposing it believed it would change the outcome of city elections and could the elected officials pushing this proposal possibly show any less confidence in ward residents' ability to elect their own representatives. Probably not, but I'm sure they'll try to raise the bar on that one anyway.
But Gardner's right. This latest folly courtesy of Riverside would have to pass the muster of the voters possibly as soon as next March. But I hope someone asks the following question.
If there's problems with the election process such as misplaced ballots and other alleged incidents, how does taking away the right of wards to elect their own representatives remedy this situation?
Why does asking this question matter? Because the problems with past elections will be used to sell this item, which was snuck in like a side of pork onto a laundry list of so-called remedies to election follies.
Some people thought it was keen that I caught that this meeting was taking place, but you can blame or credit the Festival of Lights for that. On my way over there, I stopped by the City Hall agenda box to see what the city council had in store for its constituents and what it was trying to hide behind its Trojan horse of choice, long holiday weekends.
Still compliments are nice to receive. For a long time, this blog received very few and its blogger has been called everything from a bitch to a whore and just about the gambit of slurs, genderized or other, in between of course by anonymous individuals. For those who tried to leave comments after a certain posting the other day, comments as you know are closed for now until further notice. Including for that one individual whose last attempt at brilliance with the written word was about Mexicans getting beaten up in L.A.'s MacArthur Park last May by police officers to see if candy would spill out.
One individual under some alias, I think it was a famous porn star, rambled something off last spring and then wrote, "your[sic] such a whore!". I'm like, huh? Why the gender slur? It's cruel to even use it as a gender slur against a particular class of women, given the deplorable situations that lead many women to sell their bodies in the first place around the world and it's a commentary on the men (and often, it's men) who use these slurs and others to try to put women in their place, more than the uppity women it's used against.
Then it's like, dude take your SPS syndrome or its close cousin, the truly dire MPS and sit it some place else. Though these syndromes (which are defined by and in fact related to how masculinity is defined) are in part created by the same reality that leads to the proliferation of slurs against women in comparison to the few used against men, which in reality target them by proxy rather than directly. Meaning that most gender slurs against men insult them by essentially calling them women, challenging their masculinity, challenging their sexual orientation or smearing those who birth and/or raise them. There are also a wide assortment of racial slurs used against men of color to choose from as well.
At the time they are uttered or written by people real or anonymous, slurs hurt. They hurt as they are intended to and in ways that those who use them probably don't understand what they are doing enough to know. But after the sting (and many African-Americans describe that feeling even upon seeing the "n-word" in any context) or the deeper pain from being a direct target of such bigotry and hatred passes or lessens, some of them make for ripe analysis.
Then some of these individuals go further and assume the right to define who is a woman and who's not. They justify their use of gender slurs and the reactions they cause by saying, well you're not a real woman, you are what I call you because I get to decide. In one case, I was called a "creature" and on one occasion, the "village idiot" which is a stereotype often used against disabled individuals and is considered a slur by many in those communities.
That's a very patriarchal and sexist way of thinking and it's been historically used in this context as well as in terms of the use of racial slurs and stereotypes as well.
Most of my blogging tenure has been a difficult one but then I think that's true of many bloggers out there. But as always, it's an educational experience.
Press Enterprise Columnist Cassie MacDuff writes an excellent commentary about the difficulty the publication had in getting records in relation to San Bernardino County's credit card scandal.
(excerpt)
It shouldn't take nearly four months for the county to produce the records.
And when they arrive, they shouldn't look like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI had a field day on them with a black marker.
But that's what happened when The Press-Enterprise and another newspaper asked to see receipts for elected officials' county-issued credit cards and county-issued fuel cards for the past two fiscal years.
I wanted to ask County Counsel Ruth Stringer and Chief Deputy County Counsel Dan Haueter why the records were so heavily redacted. They didn't return repeated phone calls.
No visible tattoos are the order for San Jose Police Department officers according to the San Jose Mercury News.
(excerpt)
Tattoos, which many years ago often signified military service or gang affiliation, have become more mainstream, according to a study published last year in the Journal of American Academy of Dermatology. Nearly one out of every four Americans has a tattoo, according to the study, which also found about 36 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 29 have tattoos.
Community concerns
But Chief Davis believes the policy, which went into effect Sept. 23, is necessary. Davis first became aware of the issue after hearing people in the community voice concerns about the tattoos being displayed by officers. After looking internally, Davis found that "the concerns people voiced were valid."
"We cannot settle for anything less when it comes to the presentation of our officers in the community, and how we are perceived in the community," Davis said.
Some agencies, including police departments in San Jose, Long Beach and San Diego, allow tattoos that are partly visible or deemed inoffensive. In San Jose, any exceptions to the rule must be approved by the chief's office or a member of his command staff. Davis said the policy will be "pretty stringent," and that officers seeking an exception must meet "a real high mark."
"Clearly there are some individuals who are not happy," Davis said. "They are in the minority. The majority of the feedback from officers has been 'this is great.' They've seen some of the tattoos displayed" and do not feel they are professional.
There's a survey at the above link where you can voice your opinion on the issues pertaining to police officers and tattoos.
The New York Daily News wrote this column about the impact that the loss of her daughter-in-law after a tragic incident at Phoenix International Airport earlier this year has had on Betsy Gotbaum.
(excerpt)
Gotbaum admitted Sunday she worries more about cop behavior since her daughter-in-law, Carol Anne Gotbaum, died in September while in police custody at the Phoenix International Airport.
"Something is terribly wrong," she said. "I am more sensitive to that fact."
When asked what exactly she thought was wrong, Gotbaum said, "There's a lack of kindness."
The National Latino Officers Association of America has blasted the "stop and frisk" study done by a private company, according to the New York Daily News.
The study by RAND determined that despite the fact that Black and Latinos were stopped at rates disproportionate to their representation in the city that no racial profiling was taking place. The association took exception to that conclusion.
(excerpt)
This study is comprised of endless excuses, statistical justifications," the association said, and African Americans and Hispanics are categorized "as statistically insignificant."
"The report draws conclusions that have no basis in reality. If left unchallenged, it is the justification for racial profiling, abuse and discrimination," the group said.
The department has long denied allegations of bias and officials have said the report was an independent review.
"Not surprisingly, this statement is riddled with inaccuracies and exposes Miranda's deep ignorance of the statistical process employed by RAND, a nationally respected non-profit, which subjected its research to rigorous peer review," police spokesman Paul Browne said in a statement referring to Anthony Miranda, the association's executive chairman.
Kyle Piry said she probably should have been more afraid of Drew Peterson when she dated him than she was, according to the MSNBC News.
(excerpt)
“I look back, no, I wasn’t afraid — probably naively,” Piry told TODAY co-host Meredith Vieira on Monday of her experience with Peterson.
Asked to describe her reaction to news stories that Peterson is being investigated in connection with the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, Piry said initially she was in disbelief.
“I was shocked,” Piry said.
The police car of the future. And no, it doesn't hover in mid-air yet.
Labels: battering while blue, City elections, corruption 101, public forums in all places
posted by Five Before Midnight | 12:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home