It's our duty to protest Bell decision
It was a disaster that leaves a large swath of the population with the sense that the odds are rigged against them, the cops are out of control, and the courts are no place to look for justice.
It didn't have to be that way.
Sitting in the front row of the courtroom as the verdict was read, I was amazed at how Cooperman gave the case a narrow reading that mentioned the flaws and inconsistencies of the prosecution case, but ignored the gaping holes in the defense version of what happened outside the Kalua that fateful night in 2006.
The detectives' defense depended on the notion that they identified themselves as officers, ordered Bell and his companions to surrender, and reacted when Bell tried to drive away.
But the lieutenant in charge of the operation testified that he never heard his companions ID themselves, and the first outside officers to arrive on the scene testified that they didn't see the detectives wearing badges. Cooperman gave no indication the inconsistencies mattered.
Cooperman also skipped any mention of whether the level of deadly force applied - dozens of shots fired at unarmed men who committed no crime - made any difference.
Adapted from --nydaileynews.com and --Errol Louis Opinions 4-26-2008
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Housing help for Harlem
Facing fierce opposition to its rezoning plan for 125th Street, the Bloomberg administration agreed today to reserve an astonishing 46 percent of new housing units in Harlem for low- and moderate-income residents.
"The amount of affordable housing that is going to be provided by this rezoning is unprecedented," declared Amanda Burden, chairwoman of the City Planning Commission, after a key City Council committee voted 9-1 to approve a revised plan for the historic thoroughfare.
City Council member Inez Dickens (D-Manhattan), who negotiated the record-setting deal, pointed out that it also included height restrictions so developers couldn't build luxury apartment towers that speed gentrification.
The limits were set at 195 feet on the north side of 125th Street and 160 feet on the south side.
"My community said it did not want housing in the core," said Dickens, "because of the possibility of high-end condos being put there, which meant that those of us who [grew up] in Harlem would no longer be able to remain there."
Officials said that 1,785 of 3,858 of the apartments planned for Harlem would be "income-targeted," with 900 set aside for those earning $46,000 or less a year for a family of four, and 200 for families earning a maximum of $30,750 a year.
Dickens had so much clout she was even able to demand that 50 percent of the affordable units had to be two bedrooms or larger to "allow young people with growing families" to remain in the community.
Activists charged that the city's original rezoning plan would have destroyed the character of the nation's pre-eminent black community.
Without Dickens' support, the administration had no chance of winning approval from the entire council, which generally follows the lead of the legislator whose district is being rezoned.
david.seifman@nypost.com 4-16-200 p18 posted by davidsradiotv2000
"The amount of affordable housing that is going to be provided by this rezoning is unprecedented," declared Amanda Burden, chairwoman of the City Planning Commission, after a key City Council committee voted 9-1 to approve a revised plan for the historic thoroughfare.
City Council member Inez Dickens (D-Manhattan), who negotiated the record-setting deal, pointed out that it also included height restrictions so developers couldn't build luxury apartment towers that speed gentrification.
The limits were set at 195 feet on the north side of 125th Street and 160 feet on the south side.
"My community said it did not want housing in the core," said Dickens, "because of the possibility of high-end condos being put there, which meant that those of us who [grew up] in Harlem would no longer be able to remain there."
Officials said that 1,785 of 3,858 of the apartments planned for Harlem would be "income-targeted," with 900 set aside for those earning $46,000 or less a year for a family of four, and 200 for families earning a maximum of $30,750 a year.
Dickens had so much clout she was even able to demand that 50 percent of the affordable units had to be two bedrooms or larger to "allow young people with growing families" to remain in the community.
Activists charged that the city's original rezoning plan would have destroyed the character of the nation's pre-eminent black community.
Without Dickens' support, the administration had no chance of winning approval from the entire council, which generally follows the lead of the legislator whose district is being rezoned.
david.seifman@nypost.com 4-16-200 p18 posted by davidsradiotv2000
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Obama misspeaks, but Clinton shows a forked tongue
Obama misspeaks, but Clinton shows a forked tongue
Tuesday, April 15th 2008, 4:00 AM
Long ago, I discovered that the word "frankly" often meant a lie was coming my way. I learned this from an insurance agent, who preceded every attempt to sell meuseless coverage with a "frankly." This explains why I distrust what Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama and his admittedly klutzy statement about guns, church, immigrants and bitterness - "elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing," she said. Frankly, I don't believe her.
And this, frankly or not, is the trouble with Clinton. Obama clearly misspoke. But there are very few moments with him where I feel that he does not believe what he is saying - even when, as with his lame capitulation of leadership regarding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright I can't respect it. With Clinton, on the other hand, those moments are frequent.
The current fuss is an example. She has turned Obama's statement into an affront to gun lovers everywhere, which it just might be. But since when is Clinton a gun lover, a hunter or even a weekend skeet shooter? She is, apparently, none of the above - at least she will not say when she last fired a gun. The truth, if a guess is allowed, is that she does not give a damn about guns and hunting, and when she brings up her "churchgoing family" and her "Our Town" values, they are expressions of treacly nostalgia and not the life of incredible affluence and situational morality she now enjoys.
At times, Obama has the air of a maitre d' who shows you to a bad table. It's the impeccable suit. It's the air of consummate confidence. It's the awesome self-assurance that comes from knowing that he has something you want. In the headwaiter's case, it's a good table. In Obama's case, it's himself.
That air of self-confidence can sometimes come off as smugness or indifference.
The signal moment for that came in a New Hampshire debate when Obama glanced at Clinton and said, by way of dismissal, "You're likable enough, Hillary."
It is this quality of Obama's - this sense that you need him more than he needs you - that probably explains why Clinton has seized upon his remarks about the poor of Pennsylvania and elsewhere who, in Obama's artless telling, have turned to God and guns. It was, as he conceded, a bumbling attempt at expressing an economic truth. But the true spirit of what Obama said was not condescension, but empathy. People were hurting. They were bitter. He understood.
Both Clinton and Obama are liberal Democrats - the former less liberal than the latter, but nomatter. One is more experienced than the other. One is white, the other black, and one is a woman and the other is not. Still, on mortgages, Iraq, Israel and almost anything you can name, they are in general agreement.
That's why the campaign has increasingly been about what one or the other candidate said or meant to say or should have said.
Obama should not have attributed a yearning to hunt or attend church to hard economic times. The remarks will haunt him - witness how John McCain has also called them "elitist "
But Obama was right about the economic roots of bitterness and anti-immigrant sentiment. And he's been right, too, about the patent insincerity of Clinton's criticism. Her attack is hardly based on a touching regard for gun owners or, even, churchgoers, but on the desperate hope that the smoothly aloof Obama can be painted as arrogant and elitist. It's old, tiresome politics - the politics of politics - and, paradoxically, more patronizing than anything Obama himself said.
Frankly.
cohenr@washp adapted from nydailynews Opinions 4-15-2008 posted by davidsradiotv2000
Tuesday, April 15th 2008, 4:00 AM
Long ago, I discovered that the word "frankly" often meant a lie was coming my way. I learned this from an insurance agent, who preceded every attempt to sell meuseless coverage with a "frankly." This explains why I distrust what Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama and his admittedly klutzy statement about guns, church, immigrants and bitterness - "elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing," she said. Frankly, I don't believe her.
And this, frankly or not, is the trouble with Clinton. Obama clearly misspoke. But there are very few moments with him where I feel that he does not believe what he is saying - even when, as with his lame capitulation of leadership regarding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright I can't respect it. With Clinton, on the other hand, those moments are frequent.
The current fuss is an example. She has turned Obama's statement into an affront to gun lovers everywhere, which it just might be. But since when is Clinton a gun lover, a hunter or even a weekend skeet shooter? She is, apparently, none of the above - at least she will not say when she last fired a gun. The truth, if a guess is allowed, is that she does not give a damn about guns and hunting, and when she brings up her "churchgoing family" and her "Our Town" values, they are expressions of treacly nostalgia and not the life of incredible affluence and situational morality she now enjoys.
At times, Obama has the air of a maitre d' who shows you to a bad table. It's the impeccable suit. It's the air of consummate confidence. It's the awesome self-assurance that comes from knowing that he has something you want. In the headwaiter's case, it's a good table. In Obama's case, it's himself.
That air of self-confidence can sometimes come off as smugness or indifference.
The signal moment for that came in a New Hampshire debate when Obama glanced at Clinton and said, by way of dismissal, "You're likable enough, Hillary."
It is this quality of Obama's - this sense that you need him more than he needs you - that probably explains why Clinton has seized upon his remarks about the poor of Pennsylvania and elsewhere who, in Obama's artless telling, have turned to God and guns. It was, as he conceded, a bumbling attempt at expressing an economic truth. But the true spirit of what Obama said was not condescension, but empathy. People were hurting. They were bitter. He understood.
Both Clinton and Obama are liberal Democrats - the former less liberal than the latter, but nomatter. One is more experienced than the other. One is white, the other black, and one is a woman and the other is not. Still, on mortgages, Iraq, Israel and almost anything you can name, they are in general agreement.
That's why the campaign has increasingly been about what one or the other candidate said or meant to say or should have said.
Obama should not have attributed a yearning to hunt or attend church to hard economic times. The remarks will haunt him - witness how John McCain has also called them "elitist "
But Obama was right about the economic roots of bitterness and anti-immigrant sentiment. And he's been right, too, about the patent insincerity of Clinton's criticism. Her attack is hardly based on a touching regard for gun owners or, even, churchgoers, but on the desperate hope that the smoothly aloof Obama can be painted as arrogant and elitist. It's old, tiresome politics - the politics of politics - and, paradoxically, more patronizing than anything Obama himself said.
Frankly.
cohenr@washp adapted from nydailynews Opinions 4-15-2008 posted by davidsradiotv2000
Monday, April 14, 2008
Ex--model dressed to kill Harlem rezoning
A Harlem man fighting plans to rezone his neighborhood is giving a new meaning to the term "model citizen." Craig Schley, a former Wilhelmina fashion model, is the founder of Voices of the Everyday People (Vote People), an activist group working to freeze the city's redevelopment of central Harlem. If approved by the City Council, the plan will displace more than 70 small businesses on 125th st. from Second Ave to Broadway to make room for a new high-rise commercial and residential complex.
To Schley, the rezoning is bigger than just business.
" The city is writing Harlem's death warrant " he said." You erase 125th St., you erase Harlem, Period". Schley and the rest of the Vote People research team last week found a century-old clause in the City Charter that could slow the rezoning process. The clause says that if the owners of at least 20% of the land either adjacent to or across from the area being rezoned disapprove of the development, 75%--not a simple majority--of the Council must approve the rezoning for the process to continue.
City Planning Commission officials said the proposed new buildings will provide more jobs and housing and increase local retail sales.
Schley is skeptical. "The only thing they're going to give us is an eviction notice " he said. "The city should probably pack a lunch,We're going to fight to the end." adapted from nydailynews Caitlin Millat 4-14-2008 p 21 Posted by davidsradiotv2000.
To Schley, the rezoning is bigger than just business.
" The city is writing Harlem's death warrant " he said." You erase 125th St., you erase Harlem, Period". Schley and the rest of the Vote People research team last week found a century-old clause in the City Charter that could slow the rezoning process. The clause says that if the owners of at least 20% of the land either adjacent to or across from the area being rezoned disapprove of the development, 75%--not a simple majority--of the Council must approve the rezoning for the process to continue.
City Planning Commission officials said the proposed new buildings will provide more jobs and housing and increase local retail sales.
Schley is skeptical. "The only thing they're going to give us is an eviction notice " he said. "The city should probably pack a lunch,We're going to fight to the end." adapted from nydailynews Caitlin Millat 4-14-2008 p 21 Posted by davidsradiotv2000.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Quinn's little piggies
Council pols feast off the public for their own political gain
It seems there is no limit to how much of the public's money politicians will steal, waste and abuse if we don't keep a close and skeptical eye on them. The piggies have been busy lately, and it's going to cost us plenty. What we know so far about the budget scandal engulfing the City Council is that the Council has, since 2001, allocated $17 million by giving grants to nonexistent organizations. Quinn's been in charge there since 2006, and her pork pool __ the term she uses is "reserve funds"_was then diverted to pet projects favored by the speaker and/or her staff. Quinn says she banned the shady bookkeeping and alerted federal prosecutors last fall after realizing the staff had ignored her order to stop the practice. That's a step in the right direction _ but the possibility of fraud isn't the only scandal.
The deeper problem is the mentality at City Hall that allowed the pork trough to operate unnoticed for years. It stems from the feeling by many pols_ at all levels of government_ that the public's money is theirs to spend on whatever strikes their fancy: gifts to friends and family members, pork to pay off political allies, even pay raises to stick in their own pockets.
Adapted from newyorkdailynews and__Errol Louis
Posted by David's radiotv 2000 4-6-2008 page 29
It seems there is no limit to how much of the public's money politicians will steal, waste and abuse if we don't keep a close and skeptical eye on them. The piggies have been busy lately, and it's going to cost us plenty. What we know so far about the budget scandal engulfing the City Council is that the Council has, since 2001, allocated $17 million by giving grants to nonexistent organizations. Quinn's been in charge there since 2006, and her pork pool __ the term she uses is "reserve funds"_was then diverted to pet projects favored by the speaker and/or her staff. Quinn says she banned the shady bookkeeping and alerted federal prosecutors last fall after realizing the staff had ignored her order to stop the practice. That's a step in the right direction _ but the possibility of fraud isn't the only scandal.
The deeper problem is the mentality at City Hall that allowed the pork trough to operate unnoticed for years. It stems from the feeling by many pols_ at all levels of government_ that the public's money is theirs to spend on whatever strikes their fancy: gifts to friends and family members, pork to pay off political allies, even pay raises to stick in their own pockets.
Adapted from newyorkdailynews and__Errol Louis
Posted by David's radiotv 2000 4-6-2008 page 29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)