Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, April 14, 2014

Doug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway

Its unthinkable that we still find instances of discrimination against former Phillies.

A police officer from West Hartford had pulled up across the street, exited his vehicle, and begun walking in my direction. I noted the strangeness of his being in Hartford—an entirely separate town with its own police force—so I thought he needed help. He approached me with purpose, and then, without any introduction or explanation he asked, “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

All of my homeowner confidence suddenly seemed like an illusion.

It would have been all too easy to play the “Do you know who I am?” game. My late father was an immigrant from Trinidad who enrolled at Howard University at age 31 and went on to become a psychiatrist. My mother was an important education reformer from the South. I graduated from an Ivy League school with an engineering degree, only to get selected in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft. I went on to play professionally for nearly 15 years, retiring into business then going on to write a book and a column for The New York Times. Today, I work at ESPN in another American dream job that lets me file my taxes under the description “baseball analyst.”

But I didn’t mention any of this to the officer. I tried to take his question at face value, explaining that the Old Tudor house behind me was my own. The more I talked, the more senseless it seemed that I was even answering the question. But I knew I wouldn’t be smiling anymore that day.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 14, 2014 at 08:08 PM | 576 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: connecticut, doug glanville, espn, phillies, racial profiling, racism

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 6 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6
   501. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4690975)
modern liberalism's excesses


As if there were such a thing.

Ah for the good old days of segregation. This Glanville incident wouldn't have happened back then, because he would have been in his place.
   502. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4690976)
Again, because he was black.

Because he'd been told a black man was soliciting. Why would he question a white guy, given that?

I wouldn't call it the new racism, more like the old cluelessness and indifference, fortified by resentment towards imaginary boogeymen.

More substance-free name calling.

Nice to see your robust dedication to false and exaggerated public depictions of public events.

As if there were such a thing.

As if there isn't. See, e.g., the rallying around falsehoods and exaggerations on display herein.
   503. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4690979)
Maybe sometime over the next 97 posts SugarBear or Ray or Morty can tell us the name of this poor policeman whose name has been unfairly trashed all over the world and martyrized on a symbolic cross.
   504. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4690982)
Maybe sometime over the next 97 posts you can tell us the name of this poor policeman whose name has been unfairly trashed all over the world and martyrized by you and your cohorts.

Wherein Andy continues the argument with the voices in his head and remains ahead on points ....

Are you ever going to address the false and exaggerated public accounts of this incident and their experiences issued forth by the Glanvilles? You know, the stuff you've airbrushed out of existence?

   505. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4691003)
Maybe sometime over the next 97 posts you can tell us the name of this poor policeman whose name has been unfairly trashed all over the world and martyrized by you and your cohorts.

Wherein Andy continues the argument with the voices in his head and remains ahead on points ....


Well, you and Ray in particular have raised the point of how this poor policeman's name has been slandered by Glanville and his wife and all of their supporters here in this thread. The clear implication is that he's suffered permanent damage and his life will never be the same.

And yet this must be the weakest effort of slander in the history of the internet, because you can google from now to Sunday and his name still hasn't been revealed by Glanville or anyone else in the lynch mob.

How long did it take the Duke lacrosse players' names to emerge? How long did it take the Central Park jogger's (falsely accused) assailants to have their names spread all over the media? If Glanville were really interested in "getting" this policeman, every rural rice gatherer in Vietnam would know his name by now.

Of course to you this is all "irrelevant", because it doesn't fit into your preconceived narrative of racial hysteria and political correctness, which only you and a few brave souls like Ray and Morty are able to see through and expose. It must be a joy to be so uniquely insightful.
   506. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:32 AM (#4691006)
Denying race: still the new racism. And SBB's preferred flavor.


I thought denying that there is such a thing as race was the province of liberals.

But accusing someone of racism without supporting evidence is horrid. That you don't understand that is your failing, not ours.
   507. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4691009)
Well, you and Ray in particular have raised the point of how this poor policeman's name has been slandered by Glanville and his wife and all of their supporters here in this thread. The clear implication is that he's suffered permanent damage and his life will never be the same.

And yet this must be the weakest effort of slander in the history of the internet, because you can google from now to Sunday and his name still hasn't been revealed by Glanville or anyone else in the lynch mob.

How long did it take the Duke lacrosse players' names to emerge? How long did it take the Central Park jogger's (falsely accused) assailants to have their names spread all over the media? If Glanville were really interested in "getting" this policeman, every rural rice picker in Vietnam would know his name by now.

Of course to you this is all "irrelevant", because it doesn't fit into your preconceived narrative of racial hysteria and political correctness, which only you and a few brave souls like Ray and Morty are able to see through and expose. It must be a joy to be so uniquely insightful.


So the answer is no, then?

You might ask yourself whether the objection to modern liberalism you find in many quarters in these threads is based not on "anger," "racism," "racial indifference," "resentment," and all the other buzzwords, but instead on disdain for modern liberals' relentless dedication to falsehood, euphemism, and exaggeration -- as we've seen on display yet again with this incident.

You're defending false and exaggerated public accounts with a Jesuitical devotion. Objective, well-intended people can't sign on to such things.
   508. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4691013)
Are you ever going to address the false and exaggerated public accounts of this incident and their experiences issued forth by the Glanvilles? You know, the stuff you've airbrushed out of existence?


Are you ever going to address the questions I raised?
   509. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4691014)
The cop presumed guilt *because he was black.*


False. The cop questioned Glanville because Glanville fit the description of the complaint the cop was investigating -- black, male, in his 40s, carrying a shovel (*). See all those different factors? See how that's several factors and not just one ("black")? I forget what subject you teach but hopefully it's something fluffy in the liberal arts arena (history, political science, literature, performing arts) that doesn't involve logical thinking. Because you're quite bad at that.

(*) There is also mention of a brown jacket but we have no information as to the jacket Glanville was wearing.

   510. formerly dp Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4691017)
I thought denying that there is such a thing as race was the province of liberals.
Ray, I really want to believe you are capable of understanding the concept of race as a social construct. Social constructs exist; they are powerful things that have important consequences for the way we interpret and understand reality. But maybe understanding the nuance of this claim outstrips the capacities of your current programming.
   511. formerly dp Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4691022)
False. The cop questioned Glanville because Glanville fit the description of the complaint the cop was investigating -- black, male, in his 40s, carrying a shovel (*). See all those different factors? See how that's several factors and not just one ("black")?
I'm not doing this dance with you either. Your inability to see how race is different than those other factors shows how deeply committed you are to denying it. It is predictable, and, after this many posts on the subject, boring.

I forget what subject you teach but hopefully it's something fluffy in the liberal arts arena (history, political science, literature, performing arts) that doesn't involve logical thinking.
Spoken with the petty resentment of someone who went to vocational school...
   512. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4691023)
Chait's cover story on Obama and race had a very telling data point showing the wholesale flight from reality of the white modern liberal. The split in unfavorable reaction to the OJ verdict among white Democrats and white Republicans was a mere four percent (57-53). The split in unfavorable reaction to a similarly racially-charged incident -- the George Zimmerman verdict -- was 43 points.

For the modern liberal, race is no longer an area of objective study and observation -- as we see in these threads -- but purely a political/ideological weapon.
   513. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4691024)
I'm not doing this dance with you either. Your inability to see how race is different than those other factors shows how deeply committed you are to denying it. It is predictable, and, after this many posts on the subject, boring.

Yeah, man ... the fact that everyone in the government denies the conspiracy just shows how deep the conspiracy runs ....
   514. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:47 AM (#4691025)
I thought denying that there is such a thing as race was the province of liberals.


No you didn't. You thought that posting this snark here would score you points in this, the four hundredth running of the bullshit about race vs "race realism" on this board.
   515. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4691027)
Again, because he was black.


Again, there were other factors involved, and "black" was about as relevant as "purple shoes" would have been. But I suppose it's "angry" of me to point out that you're terrible at logical reasoning.

But don't worry; I understand Bruce Springsteen is going to perform his new song "American Shoveling" at the next West Hartford Town Hall meeting. He'll be emoting and have a pained look on his face as he sings "One rude question... One rude question..." over and over again, sweat pouring off his brow.
   516. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4691031)
So the answer is no, then?

Yep, your answer to the request that you name this poor martyr is indeed "no", because nobody in the lynch mob has ever named him.

Which makes him a funny kind of martyr. Maybe he'll eventually wind up in Arlington next to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where I'm sure your spirit will seance with his at every opportunity in an effort to find out just who he was.
   517. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4691032)
Yep, your answer to the request that you name this poor martyr is indeed "no", because nobody in the lynch mob has ever named him.

Which makes him a funny kind of martyr. Maybe he'll eventually wind up in Arlington next to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where I'm sure your spirit will seance with his at every opportunity in an effort to find out just who he was.


Our top story tonight: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!!!
   518. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4691033)
But don't worry; I understand Bruce Springsteen is going to perform his new song "American Shoveling" at the next West Hartford Town Hall meeting. He'll be emoting and have a pained look on his face as he sings "One rude question... One rude question..." over and over again, sweat pouring off his brow.


What?! You're going to talk #### about an American institution? You're probably a Rammstein fan.
   519. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4691034)
Chait's cover story on Obama and race had a very telling data point showing the wholesale flight from reality of the white modern liberal. The split in unfavorable reaction to the OJ verdict among white Democrats and white Republicans was a mere four percent (57-53). The split in unfavorable reaction to a similarly racially-charged incident -- the George Zimmerman verdict -- was 43 points.


WTF?

In the OJ Simpson case, liberals were aghast that a murderer walked. African Americans sided with "getting one over on the racially suspect LAPD" more than white liberals did.

In the Zimmerman case, liberals were aghast that a murderer walked. Only white conservatives, interested in punishing their hated nemeses, the mythologically empowered "race hustlers" who had the uppity audacity to suggest that killing an unarmed teen was a bad thing, even if that teen was black, more than executing anything resembling justice in the case, broke in favor of letting the murderer walk.
   520. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:01 AM (#4691037)
But don't worry; I understand Bruce Springsteen is going to perform his new song "American Shoveling" at the next West Hartford Town Hall meeting. He'll be emoting and have a pained look on his face as he sings "One rude question... One rude question..." over and over again, sweat pouring off his brow.

And maybe you and SugarBear can show up at this hypothetical meeting and tell the world exactly whose honor you've been defending. It'd make for an interesting "I am Spartacus!" moment, to be sure, when you can't remember Spartacus's name.
   521. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM (#4691038)
WTF?

Bring it up with Chait who, like other center/center-left objectivists, sees the obvious parallels. Unsurprisingly, the non-objectivists don't. Film at 11.
   522. formerly dp Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4691041)
Again, there were other factors involved, and "black" was about as relevant as "purple shoes" would have been.
Because RayBot's algorithm says so. Beautiful.
   523. JE (Jason) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4691045)
So why hasn't Obama summoned the cop and Glanville to the White House for happy hour?
   524. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM (#4691053)
Because RayBot's algorithm says so. Beautiful.


If there had been no actual complaint; if the cop wasn't actually investigating anything; if the description of the person being complained about didn't fit Glanville; if the cop didn't simply turn around once Glanville answered; then maybe we could explore this fantasy about racism or racial profiling being involved. But since none of those things happened, there simply is no evidence that racism or racial profiling was involved. You can call me a robot and turn around with your hand in the air looking for high fives from all your progressive friends, but the charge is ironic because the person here who is following a narrative without stopping to think whether it makes any sense in this case is you.
   525. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4691055)
Chait's cover story on Obama and race had a very telling data point showing the wholesale flight from reality of the white modern liberal. The split in unfavorable reaction to the OJ verdict among white Democrats and white Republicans was a mere four percent (57-53). The split in unfavorable reaction to a similarly racially-charged incident -- the George Zimmerman verdict -- was 43 points.

For the modern liberal, race is no longer an area of objective study and observation -- as we see in these threads -- but purely a political/ideological weapon.


Chait's article had two points to make. Without getting into a long discussion about a very long article, I wonder what SugarBear thinks of the second one?

Liberals dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable. Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.
   526. JE (Jason) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4691061)
If there had been no actual complaint; if the cop wasn't actually investigating anything; if the description of the person being complained about didn't fit Glanville; if the cop didn't simply turn around once Glanville answered; then maybe we could explore this fantasy about racism or racial profiling being involved.

Dayenu!

(Sorry, it's still Passover and I just couldn't resist.)
   527. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4691070)
If you're really old (speaking!), there's a chance you'll start reading the headline as "Doug Glanville: I Dreamed I was Racially Profiled in my Maidenform Bra."
   528. formerly dp Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4691072)
You can call me a robot and turn around with your hand in the air looking for high fives from all your progressive friends, but the charge is ironic because the person here who is following a narrative without stopping to think whether it makes any sense in this case is you.
Please, keep going with this for another 300 posts, and then tell us how you're driven purely by cool logic rather than emotion. You're the one pouring hours of his life into loudly and publicly insisting that you are more qualified than Glanville to speak to the particulars of the incident.
   529. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4691079)
Please, keep going with this for another 300 posts, and then tell us how you're driven purely by cool logic rather than emotion. You're the one pouring hours of his life into loudly and publicly insisting that you are more qualified than Glanville to speak to the particulars of the incident.


It's not a matter of who is more "qualified" to speak. Anyone with knowledge of the relevant facts is "qualified." This is yet another display of your limitations in these areas.

Does Glanville have more facts than he himself reported in his column? Does he have more facts than the police department reported? If so, he should disclose them. If not, then I'm as "qualified" as him to analyze the non-incident.
   530. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:39 AM (#4691080)
I wonder what SugarBear thinks of the second one?

Liberals dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable. Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.


Both sides are nuts. The wholesale flight from objectivity by both sides -- as shown clearly in this thread and in the reactions to OJ and Zimmerman a mere 18 years apart -- is an awful development (*) that has greatly harmed our politics and threatens our future.

(*) And another emblem of our national decline.
   531. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4691086)
to speak to the particulars of the incident


Because this is the key. He only ever wants to talk about the specific particulars of any specific incident and never the whole topic. because when talking about the particulars he can waive away any notion of racism in that specific incident. And if you keep doing that with every specific incident he can aggregate the anecdotes into data - there is no real racism (but without having to specifically state something so obviously stupid).

It is basically the same dance as climate change deniers. No specific storm, nor specific bit of weather can be tied directly to climate change, so it must not exist in aggregate.

Looking at things in aggregate, applying a statistical view to these topics reveals they exist, they are very real, but if he did that it would challenge his firmly held faith. And people hate having their faith challenged. And this is why I know Ray is in fact not a robot (funny, yet trite, though the bit is).
   532. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4691095)
He only ever wants to talk about the specific particulars of any specific incident and never the whole topic.

The particulars of this incident are the "whole topic." The Glanvilles tried to plead the facts that would rightfully cause a discussion of broader factors, but they failed. You don't get to wrap yourself in the comfort of the "whole topic" without the necessary predicates in place as applied to you -- and those predicates cannot be merely the different races of the principals.

I walked down the street today and walked by some black people. Since black people frequently kill and mug white people on the street, I think we should talk about the "whole topic" of black-on-white crime. No, none of those black people actually committed any crime against me, but history shows that they might have. What? You want to deny the "whole topic"?

See?

Either we're judging people and incidents -- all people and incidents -- on their individual facts and actions, or we're not. Which is it?
   533. Shredder Posted: April 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM (#4691098)
And yet this must be the weakest effort of slander in the history of the internet, because you can google from now to Sunday and his name still hasn't been revealed by Glanville or anyone else in the lynch mob.
Quite frankly, this guy deserves to be ripped apart. Not really for the race thing, but for investigating something that wasn't in his jurisdiction, and wasn't against the law in the jurisdiction in which it was taking place. That's flat out incompetence. You're a freaking cop and you don't even know the borders of the town that employs you? That's ridiculous on its face.
   534. formerly dp Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4691106)
It's not a matter of who is more "qualified" to speak. Anyone with knowledge of the relevant facts is "qualified." This is yet another display of your limitations in these areas.
But you don't have all of the pertinent knowledge-- what do you know, for instance, about the racial politics in Hartford, CT? This is a huge and predictably arrogant mistake on your part, and one that you make with all questions of identity politics. Just because the Raybot hath declared him expert in all things does not make it so. Just because you think you've identified all of the pertinent factors does not make it so. Those are ideological claims as much as they are factual ones.

I've read the article a couple of times now, and I'm not really sure what there is to object to. Glanville had something happen to him that he admitted wasn't all that big a deal in the grand scheme. He used it as an excuse to talk about the problem of racial profiling, acknowledging how his own class privilege allows him the ability to do so. And he we are, 500+ posts later, discussing what Glanville did wrong. Crazy town.
   535. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4691110)
Either we're judging people and incidents -- all people and incidents -- on their individual facts and actions, or we're not. Which is it?


This clarifies your problem. Some of us are discussing the topic of racism in the context of this particular incident, but also in light of everything we know about the topic. You are busily judging specific people and incidents in a data point by data point fashion, and mistaking anecdotes from data; counting out each tree, measuring its circumference and height and not realizing you are in a forest. You are too busy determining who is to be scorned and judged unworthy.

   536. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4691114)
Some of us are discussing the topic of racism in the context of this particular incident, but also in light of everything we know about the topic.

You don't know anything about the topic. You're an ideologue, committed not to objectivity and exploration and data, but to a narrative. Your tools and conclusions are the sociological equivalent of "grit," "clutch," and "closer's mentality."
   537. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4691118)
And he we are, 500+ posts later, discussing what Glanville did wrong. Crazy town.

Some of us are discussing it. Most of "us" are ignoring it, some gleefully.
   538. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4691120)
He used it as an excuse to talk about the problem of racial profiling, acknowledging how his own class privilege allows him the ability to do so. And he we are, 500+ posts later, discussing what Glanville did wrong. Crazy town.


Indeed. 500+ posts, and still people either can't see or can't bring themselves to admit that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
   539. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4691129)
And yet this must be the weakest effort of slander in the history of the internet, because you can google from now to Sunday and his name still hasn't been revealed by Glanville or anyone else in the lynch mob.

Quite frankly, this guy deserves to be ripped apart. Not really for the race thing, but for investigating something that wasn't in his jurisdiction, and wasn't against the law in the jurisdiction in which it was taking place. That's flat out incompetence. You're a freaking cop and you don't even know the borders of the town that employs you? That's ridiculous on its face.


Well, Glanville lives only one block from the dividing line, which may or may not be all that clearly marked. And apparently the policeman is young and relatively inexperienced, and almost certainly received no more than an admonition to act better the next time around. If Glanville himself had asked for anything more punitive than that, it certainly hasn't come out, and the concluding part of his article was wholly conciliatory.

The bottom line is that the motivation for both Glanville's complaint and Glanville's article was raising awareness and deterring future incidents like this, not punishment of individuals, and only the usual suspects around here refuse to credit Glanville for sticking to that point.
   540. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4691137)
If Glanville himself had asked for anything more punitive than that


Once more: they couldn't "ask" for anything punitive, because there was no evidence of racism or racial bias. But they sure did cause a lot of commotion over a non-incident, even if you can't bring yourself to concede that.

The bottom line is that the motivation for both Glanville's complaint and Glanville's article was raising awareness and deterring future incidents like this,


Yes. Thank god for this "deterrence." I'm sure no cops will ever speak to us rudely again.

Do you really think this will "deter" cops from rude behavior even a tiny bit?

Do you really think "deterring" cops from rude behavior was why the Glanvilles brought the beams of city hall down? Or was it because they believed racism and racial profiling was involved?
   541. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4691148)
You don't know anything about the topic. You're an ideologue, committed not to objectivity and exploration and data, but to a narrative. Your tools and conclusions are the sociological equivalent of "grit," "clutch," and "closer's mentality."


And yet when I ask you questions about the topic, when I seek a better understanding from your no doubt superior wisdom, you refuse to answer my questions. You refuse to grant me the knowledge, the wisdom, of your greater experience. Instead you keep on repeating the same points over and over and repeatedly dodge my questions.

It is almost - almost I say - as if you really didn't have anything else to say and were afraid of my questions. Hmmmm.
   542. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4691151)
Yes. Thank god for this "deterrence." I'm sure no cops will ever speak to us rudely again.

Do you really think this will "deter" cops from rude behavior even a tiny bit?


Either accusing someone of racism is extremely "serious" and "despicable", and thus it has a very strong chance of influencing future behavior, or it is trivial, not a big deal and thus very unlikely to influence future behavior*. It can't both be extremely powerful and serious and completely unlikely to influence future behavior.

* And if it is this one, why are you making such a big deal about it? And since you are making such a huge deal of it, it must be significant and likely to influence future behavior.
   543. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:09 PM (#4691155)
It is almost - almost I say - as if you really didn't have anything else to say and were afraid of my questions. Hmmmm.


You wanted to use this incident involving no evidence of racism or racial bias to talk about the issue of racism and racial bias, because the "possibility" can't be ruled out that somewhere deep in the cop's mind he was race-obsessed. Your "questions" were the equivalent of using Roman Polanski or Jerry Sandusky to kick off a discussion about false accusations of child rape.

   544. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4691159)
You wanted to use this incident involving no evidence of racism or racial bias to talk about the issue of racism and racial bias, because the "possibility" can't be ruled out that somewhere deep in the cop's mind he was race-obsessed


Wait. Didn't the guy profile Glanville? Isn't that some sort of racial bias?
   545. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4691163)
The bottom line is that the motivation for both Glanville's complaint and Glanville's article was raising awareness and deterring future incidents like this,

Yes. Thank god for this "deterrence." I'm sure no cops will ever speak to us rudely again.

Do you really think this will "deter" cops from rude behavior even a tiny bit?


In the case of the West Hartford police department, and particularly in the case of that anonymous martyred policeman, I'd bet my last dollar on it. Do you really think that any West Hartford policeman is going to keep framing his introductory "questions" in the form of an accusation, as Martyr Policeman did to Glanville?

Do you really think "deterring" cops from rude behavior was why the Glanvilles brought the beams of city hall down? Or was it because they believed racism and racial profiling was involved?

This is like explaining tic-tac-toe to a five year old, but here goes one more time:

Granville saw racial profiling at work in the policeman's comportment. Regardless of your back seat interpretation of the confrontation, this was how he saw it.

Granville thought about having to explain this type of police behavior to his son, who wanted (and still wants) to grow up to be a policeman.

With that in mind, Glanville filed his complaint, for the express purpose of deterring similar behavior in the future.

It's only hard to understand if you're determined not to.

And oh, the horrors of "commotion," which in this case is almost exclusively the result of people like you not being able to accept the simple resolution of the issue by the parties directly involved. It's hard not to view this as simply one more case of a handful of nuts needing to be more Catholic than the Pope.
   546. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:19 PM (#4691166)
What would Glanville know? It's not like he went through the experience!
   547. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4691170)

It's only hard to understand if you're determined not to.


Well, right. It's amazing this thread continues. You are never going to get anywhere with the Rays of the world. It's pointless.
   548. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4691186)
You wanted to use this incident involving no evidence of racism or racial bias to talk about the issue of racism and racial bias, because the "possibility" can't be ruled out that somewhere deep in the cop's mind he was race-obsessed.


No, I wanted to use an article specifically about an incident that may or may not have been about race and racial profiling to talk about incidents involving race and racial profiling, how prevalent are they? How prevalent are false accusations? How damaging are both true incidents and false accusations? How do we reduce both actual incidents and false accusations?

So yeah my wanting to discuss the topics around true incidents and false accusations is totally out of bounds when discussing an article about an event that could be either (and has been discussed as being one or the other ad nauseum). What was I thinking? Why would I ever want to move past the same three talking points? Sheesh.
   549. Rob_Wood Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4691192)

Glanville took this incident to be a "teachable moment". Many others agree as demonstrated by how the administration handled it and the ultimate resolution.

However, even if you think absolutely nothing wrong was done by the policeman, the incident (non-incident) can still be used as a catalyst for discussion of racial-profiling. And nobody over the age of 10 can claim that we as a society would not benefit from such a (continued) discussion. In fact, it sort of makes a good example for discussion due to its "humorous" elements. If some people in this thread do not want to participate in that discussion, fine, but they cannot tell others not to have the discussion at all.

I am reminded of the first party my daughter attended where alcohol was served. A few underage kids got a little tipsy and their parents had to come pick them up from the party. Nothing really happened, but that is what made the incident a great teachable moment for my daughter. There was no need to be defensive about the other kids' behavior as opposed to, god forbid, if they had gotten behind the wheel and had a serious car accident. At a minimum I see Glanville "shoveling while black" in the same light.

   550. McCoy Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4691257)
Do you really think that any West Hartford policeman is going to keep framing his introductory "questions" in the form of an accusation, as Martyr Policeman did to Glanville?

Yes I do.
   551. CrosbyBird Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4691266)
He questioned a black guy about a nothingburger "crime" who bore a strong match to the person that had been described to him.

Where did you get a strong match from? Because he's a black adult male and the guy the police were looking for was a black adult male?
   552. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4691298)
Didn't the guy profile Glanville?

No.

I mean, sure, there are people who imagine that he did (*), in the face of no evidence, but they seceded from the reality-based community of objectivism and empiricism long ago -- a story told in the almost unfathomable descent from OJ liberalism to Zimmerman modern liberalism in less than a generation.

(*) In the same way that Andy imagines a column Glanville didn't actually write.
   553. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4691302)
Didn't the guy profile Glanville?

No.


How is this the case?
   554. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4691315)
Here, we must be fair to modern liberals. Not all of the 39-point swing in relative perceptions between OJ and Zimmerman is attributable to them, as the loons on the other pole certainly rallied around Zimmerman as a cause celebre and for the sole objective of being on the opposite side as the lefty loons.

Nor are modern liberals fully responsible for the dialectic of reaction and counter-reaction to the loons on the other pole, including the increased actual racism displayed by the righty loons with the rise of Barack Obama.
   555. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4691319)
How is this the case?

How is it not the case?
   556. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4691322)
How is it not the case?


I'm asking a simple question. I want to know how the event in question did not hinge on someone looking at Glanville and thinking "he doesn't belong here because he's black." If there's an argument to that end, I'd like to hear it without having to dig through six pages of people going back and forth with Ray.
   557. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4691328)
I want to know how the event in question did not hinge on someone looking at Glanville and thinking "he doesn't belong here because he's black." If there's an argument to that end, I'd like to hear it without having to dig through six pages of people going back and forth with Ray.

Someone in W. Hartford reported a black guy going door to door asking to shovel snow for money. Roughly 40, carrying a shovel. Cop goes a few blocks, slips into Hartford, comes upon Glanville shoveling snow, rudely asks him if he's shoveling for money. Glanville says this is my house, cop says ok, enjoy shoveling.

Ridiculous and silly and worthy of Glanville getting pissed off about. Not racial. Authorities investigate, say they're ok with the cop crossing jurisdictions and questioning Glanville, not ok with tone and approach of officer.
   558. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4691332)
Do you really think that any West Hartford policeman is going to keep framing his introductory "questions" in the form of an accusation, as Martyr Policeman did to Glanville?

Yes I do.


Well, if they do, and if it gets publicized, the next policeman may have something more tangible than this one did to worry about. The next time he might not be able to remain comfortably anonymous to the outside world, as was the case with this young man. Ignorance as an excuse is good for one free pass, but it's a pass that's not renewable.
   559. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4691342)
Authorities investigate, say they're ok with the cop crossing jurisdictions and questioning Glanville, not ok with tone and approach of officer.

Which they now vow to correct. So once again, what's your problem? The authorities aren't complaining. Why are you?

How do you think that institutions change in the real world when nobody complains? I'm sure that in your love for "authority" (or whatever you call it), you're perfectly fine with policemen who go around accusing people for no reason other than suspicion, but not everyone is required to accept that sort of official behavior as the norm.
   560. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4691343)
Someone in W. Hartford reported a black guy going door to door asking to shovel snow for money. Roughly 40, carrying a shovel. Cop goes a few blocks, slips into Hartford, comes upon Glanville shoveling snow, rudely asks him if he's shoveling for money. Glanville says this is my house, cop says ok, enjoy shoveling.

Ridiculous and silly and worthy of Glanville getting pissed off about. Not racial.


See? That's a reasonable argument. I have no real cause to disagree. If the report said "black man, roughly 40" then that's a description that fits Glanville. I have not seen any reports of the actual complaint. (I think the fact that there was a complaint at all is bullshit, but that's not relevant to the question at hand.)
   561. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4691345)
Saw the thread title. Saw the post count.

Pass.
   562. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4691355)
So once again, what's your problem?

The false and exaggerated account of the Glanvilles and their attribution of racial profiling/animus to the situation when it wasn't there. This is about the seventh time this has been said, but I guess persistence never hurt no one, as Sparky Anderson might have said.

(I think the fact that there was a complaint at all is ########, but that's not relevant to the question at hand.)

Agreed. It's a bullshit ordinance.
   563. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4691359)
The false and exaggerated account of the Glanvilles and their attribution of racial profiling/animus to the situation when it wasn't there.


The assertion is no less true for all its stridency. But still if only we could use this event, even if "false and exaggerated" to talk about issues that are real, are true. Sadly the fundamental nature of the internet is such one is not allowed to asked related questions, no matter how relevant (at least to people too afraid to answer them).
   564. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4691382)
But still if only we could use this event, even if "false and exaggerated" to talk about issues that are real, are true.

No -- as that stacks the deck "procedurally" in favor of your issues. The predicates were not met for a discussion of your issues, as the author of the cited essay did not in fact personally experience them. Moreover, the essay actually raised other issues of equal or greater importance to your issues.

So your issues go in the hopper with the rube from Utah who walks around Times Square and gets scared of all the black people there and wants to "talk about" the "real issue" of black-on-white violent crime. (Of course, modern liberals have ruled that topic out of bounds even where people actually experience it, but that isn't particularly relevant to the question at hand.)
   565. base ball chick Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4691392)
ok guys who don't believe there is any SUBTLE racism

- do you think that a White cop has the right to pull me over when i have not broken any laws to ask me "what are you doing in this neighborhood" (which is a DWB stop) - and do you think i have the right to reply - why have you pulled me over? instead of directly answering his question, which is actually not only none of his business, but rude?

if i tell him, officer, that is my business and this is a public road and anyone with a valid license has a right to drive on it without being stopped for no reason, do you think he is justified in demanding that he be allowed to search the veehickel i am driving without any obvious cause? do you think he has the right to make me lie face down on the ground with my hands cuffed behind my back while his partner searches the car for whatever? or cuff me and throw me in the back of the police car while they search the VEEhickle?

do you think that cop is going to treat a White man in a business suit the same way? or use the same tone of voice when speaking to him?
   566. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:05 PM (#4691393)
Saw the thread title. Saw the post count.

Pass.


Does that mean you missed the 4 pages about whether Glanville had his son circumsised?
   567. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4691394)
Sit down & shut up, Lisa. SBB & Ray & their ilk know far more about your life & experiences than you do.
   568. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4691396)
No -- as that stacks the deck "procedurally" in favor of your issues. The predicates were not met for a discussion of your issues, as the author of the cited essay did not in fact personally experience them. Moreover, the essay actually raised other issues of equal or greater importance to your issues.


Right, like I said you are afraid to answer my questions and are making up reasons to not answer them. Look we all get that, it's cool. Have some ice cream, find a fainting couch. It is fine. As a modern liberal I embrace diversity in courage.
   569. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4691401)
So once again, what's your problem?

The false and exaggerated account of the Glanvilles and their attribution of racial profiling/animus to the situation when it wasn't there.


Meaning your interpretation is that there wasn't any profiling, which amounts to nothing more than your opinion. Profiling isn't something that's going to be admitted by any authority, but as you're well aware, it's a real phenomenon. The "proof" you seem to be demanding is in the aggregate, not in any specific incident, so saying that "it wasn't there" in this case is meaningless.

In fact, neither you nor I nor Glanville "know" what was in the policeman's mind, but we do know that the policeman came up to a homeowner shoveling his driveway, and immediately accused him of violating the law. You keep calling it a "question", but this "question" was purely rhetorical.

   570. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4691402)
- do you think that a White cop has the right to pull me over when i have not broken any laws to ask me "what are you doing in this neighborhood" (which is a DWB stop)

No, of course not.

do you think he is justified in demanding that he be allowed to search the veehickel i am driving without any obvious cause? do you think he has the right to make me lie face down on the ground with my hands cuffed behind my back while his partner searches the car for whatever? or cuff me and throw me in the back of the police car while they search the VEEhickle?

No, of course not.

Police and law enforcement in the US are drunk with power, particularly post-9/11, and it's ridiculous.



   571. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4691406)
do you think that a White cop has the right to pull me over when i have not broken any laws to ask me "what are you doing in this neighborhood" (which is a DWB stop)


Absolutely not. That doesn't mean he won't, but he doesn't have that right. This is a distinct circumstance from the very specific (assumed) Glanville case where someone called and reported someone for breaking a stupid ordinance and gave a description matching Doug Glanville. But no, you should never be stopped for DWB. Nor should anyone else.
   572. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4691407)
The "proof" you seem to be demanding is in the aggregate, not in any specific incident, so saying that "it wasn't there" in this case is meaningless.

Exactly the opposite. In this specific incident there isn't a stitch of evidence of profiling.(*) You can imagine that there "might" have been profiling, but that isn't evidence.

(*) And significant evidence that there wasn't. Based on the report the cop had, he wasn't really going to approach a white guy shoveling his driveway.
   573. Rob_Wood Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4691423)

SBB, why do you think The Atlantic published Glanville's article? Please silently contemplate that question as you find another website/thread to demean (insert Shaw's joke here about wrestling with a pig).
   574. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4691428)
SBB, why do you think The Atlantic published Glanville's article?

A bunch of outlets publish Glanville's writings. He's an excellent writer. And I'm sure he -- unlike some here -- understands that when you write something for publication, particularly on matters of public import, readers and other writers/commentators get to review it and criticize it. He'll survive.
   575. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4691459)
- do you think that a White cop has the right to pull me over when i have not broken any laws to ask me "what are you doing in this neighborhood" (which is a DWB stop)
He has neither the legal nor moral right to do that.
- and do you think i have the right to reply - why have you pulled me over? instead of directly answering his question, which is actually not only none of his business, but rude?
You have the legal and moral right to do that (but it might not be the most prudent approach).
   576. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 22, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4691460)
Do you really think that any West Hartford policeman is going to keep framing his introductory "questions" in the form of an accusation, as Martyr Policeman did to Glanville?
Yes.
Page 6 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4714 - 2:02pm, Aug 21)
Last: Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick.

NewsblogGiants plan to protest bizarre loss at Wrigley
(87 - 1:58pm, Aug 21)
Last: odds are meatwad is drunk

NewsblogMegdal: Humble shortstop Marty Marion should be in Hall contention
(16 - 1:52pm, Aug 21)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogLA Times: Angels' Garrett Richards Suffers Knee Injury in Win Over Red Sox
(34 - 1:51pm, Aug 21)
Last: JAHV (DanF)

NewsblogAstros slugger Chris Carter: The most 2014 player of 2014
(8 - 1:51pm, Aug 21)
Last: kthejoker

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(460 - 1:44pm, Aug 21)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-21-2014
(7 - 1:43pm, Aug 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(280 - 1:35pm, Aug 21)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogCurt Schilling Reveals He Was Diagnosed With Mouth Cancer in February, Believes Chewing Tobacco Was the Cause
(32 - 1:34pm, Aug 21)
Last: Karl from NY

NewsblogIwakuma gives Mariners a second true ace
(27 - 1:33pm, Aug 21)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogLester return to Boston a long shot; Cubs, Yankees are likely players
(37 - 1:32pm, Aug 21)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-21-2014
(24 - 1:23pm, Aug 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing
(65 - 1:18pm, Aug 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogPrado at second base not how Yanks Drew it up
(55 - 1:08pm, Aug 21)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogBrisbee: The 10 most underrated players in baseball, part 2
(30 - 12:45pm, Aug 21)
Last: Moeball

Page rendered in 0.4772 seconds
52 querie(s) executed