There are a number of news reports that she hit him, the most common one seems to be that it was with a cell phone she was holding, after she ignored the guard's repeated attempts to get her to stop and identify herself. One could just as well argue that she was guilty of racism and harassment of a white police officer--something that, given her history, would not be an impossible thought.
Why exactly do we start the racism and harassment charges before getting to the facts.
Heavens, I could have sworn that I said I wanted to see the footage first. Or were you talking to someone else? If to Rep. McKinney, it is possible that she is misrepresenting the facts, but she certainly knows what they are.
My initial inclination is to agree with you. But McKinney's crazy; there are relatively few stories people could tell about her that I would dismiss out of hand.
She's certainly said some intemperate things, but I've seen nothing that suggests that she's crazy in any literal sense, particularly in the sense that she's prone to unprovoked violence.
And to be less snippy in response to 1: I just want to see the footage. If, as she says, she showed ID, and the incident consists of her shoving a policeman who grabbed her rudely and unnecessarily, I can't see that being a sane reason for an arrest.
People are charged with assault for very minor incidents, aren't they? I know the security guard here called the police after an old lady, with zero upper body strength, tried to push her. Security guards and police people seem to have a general policy of overreacting to being touched.
Not that she's prone to violence, but that everything is a racist plot. Also: "For years afterward, The Hill reports, the Capitol Police pinned a picture of McKinney to an office wall, warning officers to learn her face because she refuses to wear her member's pin."
If, as she says, she showed ID, and the incident consists of her shoving a policeman who grabbed her rudely and unnecessarily, I can't see that being a sane reason for an arrest.
Even then, I'm not sure that shows it extends to racism. Sometimes cops fuck with people for bad reasons. Sometimes they fuck with people because people fuck with them. It's going to be hard to distinguish between the two.
Such a policy of overreaction would be most sensible in company with a policy of being polite and circumspect about touching people.
The thing is, this wasn't an imperative security matter. If the standard for who may walk around the scanner is that they're wearing a half-inch lapel pin, that's ridiculously loose security unless the guards know everyone's faces as well. So the guard wasn't stopping an imminent danger, he was stopping someone who he thought was cutting the line. Under those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to expect him to be polite about the process of stopping her -- I've certainly forgotten to show my ID when entering my office building, and have never been grabbed by one of the guards.
It is perfectly possible she behaved badly: the Capitol policeman may have been civil, and she may have wildly overreacted. But again, I'd really, really, like to see the footage.
Even then, I'm not sure that shows it extends to racism. Sometimes cops fuck with people for bad reasons. Sometimes they fuck with people because people fuck with them.
See, the thing is here, she's a Representative. The whole purpose of the Capitol Building, and the Capitol police force, is so that she and her 534 co-workers can do their jobs. I find it very surprising that a minor incident of this nature was not resolved by the policeman's apologizing for not having recognized her.
Right, we're all working without the relevant facts.
However, I tend to pay the same level of attention to McKinney claiming racist treatment as I do to the NRA claiming the government is going to confiscate firearms. I know that sometimes a car alarm is going off in response to somebody breaking into it, but I long ago stopped getting up to check every time one goes off.
I just meant that it's the culture of police work, not specific to this person or kind of interaction. In the incident with the old lady I mentioned, the security guard was black, the old lady white.
What's setting me off about this story, though, is that she has to be not only be claiming racist treatment when it isn't true, she also has to have attacked a police officer unreasonably -- if she didn't do the latter, then arresting her is at least nuts. I'll buy that she might have a hair-trigger for complaining about racism, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that she has a hair-trigger for assaulting cops.
If the standard you're applying is that touching a police officer is automatically arrest-worthy, than the warrant is appropriate, and we don't need to see the footage. I have to think, though, that if Tom DeLay (selected at random) forgot his pin one morning and blew by the scanner, if a policeman grabbed him there's a good chance DeLay would shove him off, and I can't see that turning into an arrest; it's rude, but not criminal. If this is what happened with McKinney, it really seems to me that she is being treated differently than another Rep. might be.
This is reminding me of the female lawyer I know who was fired for rudeness to the staff. Was it polite, meritorious behavior? Absolutely not. Is it the sort of thing people get fired over? Not normally.
The whole purpose of the Capitol Building, and the Capitol police force, is so that she and her 534 co-workers can do their jobs. I find it very surprising that a minor incident of this nature was not resolved by the policeman's apologizing for not having recognized her.
We may be talking past each other. I'm not saying that McKinney behaved badly and the police behaved appropriately. I'm claiming something closer to a superior overhearing you make fun of his wife and then giving you complete shit work that you shouldn't be doing.
I'm claiming something closer to a superior overhearing you make fun of his wife and then giving you complete shit work that you shouldn't be doing.
See, if that explanation (that the police are screwing with her because they can) is correct (not saying it is, don't have the facts, but it's a possibility and I'm speculating), that's racism. Because I don't believe they'd screw with Tom DeLay (randomly selected white Rep.) like that. A powerful white man who's rude or dismissive to the staff may be disliked for it, but doesn't get that sort of blowback.
Let's distinguish between two things that might be meant by "racism." First, people might mean that they fucked with her, in part or in whole, because she was black; this is pretty much the standard understanding of "racism." Second, they fucked with her for entirely separate reasons unmotivated by race, but knew they could get away with it because of her race. This is clearly bad, and I'm not sure I'm against calling this racism. But I think it's important to distinguish from the first case. Because on this account, they would or could take a shot at a white dude who was not powerful (even if a Rep.) for some reason - may Kucinich, or something.
I don't know how the Capitol police are funded, to whom they report, or the rest. And there have certainly been lots of charges of racism in DC, and specifically, charges against the DC cops. But I wonder if thinking you can fuck with a black person just because they're black in Chocolate City is, in this day and age, a mistake; if it is, I'm not sure it's one that Capitol police would make.
I'm not sure if that was clear. Saying 'I like people in category A, and hate people in category B,' is racism against category B. However, saying 'Sometimes I like As, and sometimes they piss me off. The same with Bs. When As piss me off, though, I take it from them. When Bs piss me off, I retaliate -- I have the power to resist ill-treatment from Bs, even when I don't from As," is also racism against category B, even though the speaker likes Bs just about as well as As.
I'm wondering now about calibration. Let's say that the police would react badly to being touched by white people of low rank, but would take it from DeLay. What does that mean exactly?
That is, part of your point seems to be that she doesn't get the same special treatment as DeLay, but gets what a member of the general public might. Let's say, for argument's sake, she is treated as an aide might be--someone who has business there, but not as much power as DeLay. It probably is racism, or sexism, of a sort, but it's a bit complicated, isn't it?
But I wonder if thinking you can fuck with a black person just because they're black in Chocolate City is, in this day and age, a mistake; if it is, I'm not sure it's one that Capitol police would make.
is, I think, off base. I don't think the racial makeup of DC is going to affect racial dynamics in the Capitol.
I should back off again and say that I'm waiting to see footage of this -- I'm not convinced that she didn't behave badly, it just seems very possible that she is. I'm also wondering why no footage has emerged -- it seems impossible that there aren't security cameras, but I haven't seen any mention of this having been caught on tape.
I think it makes use of racism in the system, but it doesn't necessarily imply that the actor is a racist. Bill Clinton can drop Lani Guinier like a hot potato with little cost in part because she's a black woman - the costs are just lower for harming her; I'm not sure that means he's a racist misogynist. (I realize Guinier/Clinton is not the best example, but I've only had 24 oz of coffee, so roll with me.)
Let's say, for argument's sake, she is treated as an aide might be--someone who has business there, but not as much power as DeLay. It probably is racism, or sexism, of a sort, but it's a bit complicated, isn't it?
If that's the explanation, it really isn't complicated at all.
It seems possible to me that the cops might have first demanded the extra security because she was black and they didn't recognize her (she'd taken out her braids), and then once the situation had escalated, they prosecuted the charge because they hate McKinney personally.
It is complicated if you, the police officer, treat everyone you do not recognize the same way, and it's only the ability to communicate your special status--and ability to get you, the police officer fired--that alters that.
I think it makes use of racism in the system, but it doesn't necessarily imply that the actor is a racist. Bill Clinton can drop Lani Guinier like a hot potato with little cost in part because she's a black woman - the costs are just lower for harming her; I'm not sure that means he's a racist misogynist.
See, this point is one that gets made all the time in these discussions, and I think it's irrelevant. What goes on within the soul of the Capitol policeman (both the one who stopped her, and the one who made the decision to call for the arrest, and under the as yet unsupported assumption that they did behave badly as described) is between him and his God, and is of very little interest to me. If the policeman treats a black Congresswoman with less respect than a white Congressman due to her race, that's racism, it's wrong, and it should be stopped regardless. I don't care whether the motivation is 'real racism' or a belief that her race makes her a safe candidate for being treated with lesser respect, I just care what the guy does.
and random white Representative. If they're treating McKinney the same way they'd treat Randy Neugebauer, that's one thing. If they're treating her the way they'd treat an aide, who I think doesn't have the privilege to bypass the metal detector, that's another thing entirely. (SCMT made this point in 16.)
And my instinct is: Asking for an arrest warrant for a sitting Congresscritter is a big big deal. LB is right that she'd better have slugged him. (I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that Congresscritters should be able to get away with shoving cops, but there it is.)
We may remember this, where the police seemed to acquit themselves OK (as in, told the Republicans to stop whining).
(On preview, 24 seems reasonable, if it's "they didn't recognize her.")
17 is all true, although it is not at all clear whether it is the guard, Rep. McKinney or both regarding whom we should be doing the analysis.
surprising that a minor incident of this nature was not resolved by the policeman's apologizing for not having recognized her
How about her apologizing to the guard for refusing to stop when asked (whether or not she showed her ID, she has absolutely no excuse for not stopping when asked by a guard) and striking the guard.
I must admit that my view of this is colored by my experience. Guarding the Capitol is not like being a security guard at the shopping mall. It is a serious business. I have been involved in the security of serious things--where a refusal to halt when ordered would result in your being shot, even when the guards knew who the person they were shooting was. Of course I am not suggesting that Rep. McKinney should have been shot (or hurt in any other way) for refusing to stop when the guard told her to, but whatever the guard may or may not have done wrong, there simply is no excuse for McKinney's conduct. That said, I suspect the Capitol police are just making a point and that no one intends on trying to arrest McKinney, which would be a stupid thing to do and would, I will agree, be blowing things out of proportion.
How about her apologizing to the guard for refusing to stop when asked (whether or not she showed her ID, she has absolutely no excuse for not stopping when asked by a guard) and striking the guard
Given that the system appears to be set up so that members of Congress are permitted to walk through without stopping, so long as they are recognized as such (e.g., by use of the high-security lapel pin), it's not clear to me that she 'refused' to stop -- this is the kind of thing I'd like either security footage or a detailed third-party account on. A plausible version would be that he was shouting at her from behind, and she was unaware that she was being addressed until he grabbed her (but again, we'd have to have details.)
I must admit that my view of this is colored by my experience. Guarding the Capitol is not like being a security guard at the shopping mall. It is a serious business.
Serious it may be, but it's set up so that more than 500 people are entitled to walk through without being stopped so long as they have a little lapel pin. Expected behavior isn't comparable to that around nuclear weapons storage.
but whatever the guard may or may not have done wrong, there simply is no excuse for McKinney's conduct.
Surely you don't mean the first clause of that sentence literally?
That said, I suspect the Capitol police are just making a point and that no one intends on trying to arrest McKinney, which would be a stupid thing to do and would, I will agree, be blowing things out of proportion.
We can certainly agree on this much, which is hardly less than I said in the post.
But it seems like there are two different points, the scuffle itself, and the filing of charges. It seems reasonable for the guard to physically stop her if he didn't recognize her and she wasn't wearing a pin. That is not in itself racist--it's doing the job. And that's what I was saying. Whether it makes sense to pursue legal action against her is another matter.
It seems reasonable for the guard to physically stop her if he didn't recognize her and she wasn't wearing a pin. That is not in itself racist--it's doing the job. And that's what I was saying.
This gets subtle, which is why I keep talking about wanting to see the tape. I work in an office building with fairly tight security -- tighter, in some senses, than the Capitol, because we don't have a class of people entitled to bypass security. (Although less tight in that the turnstiles we're supposed to pass through aren't metal detectors.) People blunder past, or around, the turnstiles fairly often (it's badly set up) and get stopped by guards. I've never seen a guard lay hands on someone -- if someone doesn't respond when told to stop they catch up and walk around in front of you.
As this incident has been described, it seems possible that the guard was uncivilly and unnecessarily rough, and grabbed her when he didn't need to. While, even if that were the case, a less touchy person might not have pushed him away, pushing him away doesn't seem like an insane response.
I'd also say that this incident is a big fuss because the Capitol police have made it so. They were talking arrest from the moment the story broke. So the initial scuffle may have been simple rudeness and touchiness, distributed between the parties in unknown proportions. Talk of an arrest, though, if her conduct wasn't truly egregious, looks like harassment.
500 people are entitled to walk through without being stopped so long as they have a little lapel pin.
Not true because incomplete. They have to be wearing the pin and to have been recognized as such. Apparently, neither of those things happened here.
but whatever the guard may or may not have done wrong, there simply is no excuse for McKinney's conduct.
Surely you don't mean the first clause of that sentence literally?Surely you don't mean the first clause of that sentence literally?.
In the context of this discussion, yes. Despite Rep. McKinney's special powers to see into that guard's heart and to know that he was trying to stop her because he was a horrible racist bastard rather than because he (please choose one or more) (1) did not recognize her, (2) did not see her ID, (3) reacted to her refusal to respond to his repeated attempts to stop, the way for McKinney to react was not to keep walking and then hit the guard when he tried to get her to stop, it was to lodge a complaint with the Capitol Police. You would not stand for such arrogant abuse of power from a Republican, why do you condone it here?
You may not have understood my point. If 'whatever the guard may or may not have done wrong' included, say, grabbing McKinney in a rough and frightening manner from behind, would you still consider her shoving him away from her inexcusable? People react to being surprised and threatened, and it seems odd to, without having details of the interaction, have decided that her behavior was inexcusable.
Further, there are varying levels of 'hit'. If we're talking about slugging the guy, that's pretty inexcusable. If he's grabbing her by the shoulder, and she puts her hand on his chest and pushes him away saying "Take your hand off me, I'm a member of Congress" as she shows her ID, is that inexcusable? We don't know what happened.
It does depend in part on the cop's actions. If 'putting his hand somewhere on her body' was grabbing a breast, she seems to be justified in shoving him. If the contact was a hand on her arm, not so much.
What's with the article's attention to her hairstyle? Might that space have been better used explaining security protocols for non-response to efforts to determine identity?
Since you are now so insistent that we do not know the facts, what was the point of the post, the focus of which was your readiness to assume that the guard was a horrible white racist bastard who attacked poor innocent Rep. McKinney? Some of the facts you are now positing as justifications for McKinney's actions have not even been advanced by McKinney herself.
On a calmer note, maybe we should just agree:
(1) adults, including members of Congress, should express their concerns in a situation such as appears to have arisen here by talk, not hitting people with their cell phones.
(2) if the security guard acted improperly--for example by assuming that an African-American woman could not be a member of Congress, the guard should be fired and Rep. McKinney is owed an appology
(3) if McKinney was being an arrogant dick and is now using false claims of racism to cover up her own misconduct, she owes the guard and her constituents an apology
what was the point of the post, the focus of which was your readiness to assume that the guard was a horrible white racist bastard who attacked poor innocent Rep. McKinney?
LB is quite right, without more information it is pretty hard to judge. It is plausible that this particular member would over-react, but that doesn't mean she did. On the other hand, just because it is fairly common for police & security to engadge in inappropriately forceful behaviour, that doesn't mean that this particular one did, either.
It is plausible that this particular member would over-react, but that doesn't mean she did. On the other hand, just because it is fairly common for police & security to engadge in inappropriately forceful behaviour, that doesn't mean that this particular one did, either.
I agree 100 percent. But this shows why we should not assume the worst about the security guard as a first impulse.
what was the point of the post, the focus of which was your readiness to assume that the guard was a horrible white racist bastard who attacked poor innocent Rep. McKinney?
Where exactly do you get off making up nonsense like this? The post doesn't say word one about misconduct by the guard -- the comments discuss the possibility that he might have behaved badly, but clearly as a possibility, not as a certainty. Rather than referring to the 'poor, innocent Rep. McKinney', the post describes her conduct as 'bad' and 'stupid'.
The 'focus of the post' was that unless her conduct was more egregious than seems likely, arresting her for it would be disproportionate, and in a way that I'm willing to call racist. A conclusion, at least with respect to the disproportionateness, that you agreed to. (See 29, 30, 32.)
It'd be a lot easier to sympathise with people like you who are worried that some cry racism too easily if you didn't have to make things up to be offended by.
It would be good to see the tape, but people get arrested all the time for things that aren't taped.
>McKinney, 51, scuffled with a police officer on March 29 when she entered a House office building without her identifying lapel pin and did not stop when asked.
>Several police sources said the officer, who was not identified, asked her three times to stop. When she kept going, he placed a hand somewhere on her and she hit him, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
This is the kind of beyond the rules behavior that we really don't want to condone in our elected officials. I don't buy her story. I think she is lying to save her career.
I don't buy her story. I think she is lying to save her career.
See, this is nuts. Can you imagine a situation where you'd be talking about a white Congressman needing to 'save his career' because he shoved a security guard?
44 -- I had the same reaction to 38 and am trying to figure it out. My guess is that "racism" is (for our conservative interlocutor) a buzzword -- when you used the term in your post that drowned out the rest of what you were writing about, and visions of Jesse Jackson started dancing in Idealist's head.
Sure. If this story were 'McKinney in scuffle with Capitol Police', I'd probably think both that there was some unfortunate differential treatment of her going on (that is, that a white male Rep. of her seniority would more likely have been recognized and waved through), and that she was an ass for overreacting. And I probably wouldn't have posted on it. But an arrest warrant seems nuts, unless she really punched the guy.
To 49 -- while I can't say that I wasn't irritated by 38, I am also irritated by speculation as to what goes on inside the heads of people one disagrees with. Can we keep that sort of psychologizing to a minimum?
Also, what's the usual procedure for arrests in this kind of confrontation? If it was so bad, why wasn't she arrested on the spot? Would a non-Congressperson have been arrested immediately?
And why am I asking so many questions? What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? How come I'm not getting any work done?
Well how else can one explain him jumping to "orrible white racist bastard who attacked poor innocent Rep. McKinney"? -- It seems bizarre to me and I automatically search for an explanation. Perhaps I should ask Idealist about it.
Idealist: how come you characterized LB's post that way? Do you recognize how far out of sync it is with what she actually wrote?
57: Still, think back over 200 years of Congressional history. Can you come up with a story comparable to this, where you're talking about 'saving the career' of a congressman for a minor scuffle with, heck, anyone? It's possible that her actions were seriously bizarre -- the policeman was civilly doing his job and she hauled off and punched him despite that. But that doesn't sound like the likeliest version of the story to me; first, it is bizarre, and second, you don't hit someone with a cell phone if you're really hitting them.
44 gets it exactly right. This article says she "allegedly poked him with her cellphone." The policeman may or may not have acted improperly–I don't know and don't much care–but unless is the kind of poke that leaves marks, for the Capitol Police to be making a big fuss about such a non-incident suggests that they're gunning for McKinney for some reason.
Possibly race, possibly party, possibly nuttery (she's much nuttier than I'd like, which is to say she may be as removed from reality as the average Republican member of Congress–cheap shot, sorry), possibly she made them look bad before, possibly they just want to show that nobody messes with Fred C. Dobbs. Whatever it is, they should shut up about arrest warrants.
See, I think there's another factor at work, which is that the definition of assault has really been watered down in recent years. This is just an impression of mine, but I can think of a few incidents that sounded ridiculous to me that were nonetheless pursued through the courts. This, combined with general police officiousness and some particular taboo about being touched, adds a more general culture of paranoia element to the affair, rather than pure racism. Though I'm perfectly willing to grant that her race is also a factor.
OK. Let's try it this way, because for a variety of reason I would like to make this less contentious.
LB, if I misread your intentions, I apologize. Really. Friends?
Modesto Kid, I read the post as I did for a variety of reasons, which I will bore you with when we go get Mexican food tomorrow night if you really want to know.
Cleverly using this as a transition, if anyone else wants to follow the Modesto Kid to great Mexican food, be at the kiosk in the center of the main terminal at Grand Central at 6 PM tomorrow (Wednesday) evening. Let us know if you are coming if you want us to wait--or maybe TMK can post the address of where we are going.
Yeah, the reported detail that she hit the guard in the chest with her cellphone is what makes me wonder a bit about how serious the "assault" was. The verbs floating around on the net--"slugged," "punched," "attacked"--seem to prejudge the event. Did she react to being touched "somewhere" with a shove? Whether or not voters approve of such behavior, is it really criminal?
On a completely inappropriate sartorial note, I liked her hair better in braids.
On a completely inappropriate sartorial note, I liked her hair better in braids.
I like the twist-out. There's a lousy picture of it that's gotten attached to a couple of these stories, but in moving footage and other pictures it's pretty -- doesn't look as stiff as the braids did.
60, I think that's right; that's part of what I was thinking of as "Nobody messes with Fred C. Dobbs!" (Or "No one touches my bike and lives!") And I guess I think of it this way: Nobody should be prosecuted for silly guff, at least when they're somewhere they have the right to be rather than evading legitimate security. Given that people are, is it good for a Congresscritter to be able to avoid it? I sort of think it is; both because it's dumb in all cases and because I think it's especially egregious to prosecute Congresscritters for ridiculous silly stuff (when there are so many to prosecute for other reasons).
And I do think that if it were miscellaneous white Republican they might not be pursuing this so assiduously.
And I think I will stick to this even if the election McKinney faces is a primary, which I would prefer that she lose.
maybe TMK can post the address of where we are going
Good idea -- it is La Espiga, 42-13 102nd St. in Corona, Queens. To get there take the 7 to Junction Blvd or to 103rd St, walk along Roosevelt Ave. to 102nd, turn south (i.e. right if you are coming from Junction, left if you are coming from 103rd), and walk about 2 1/2 blocks. La Espiga is on your left. We'll be there around 6:30 or :45. Or meet us in Grand Central, but email one or the other of us beforehand.
If it's "great" Mexican food you're having, you're on yer way to Texas!
Ahem. More important than what she did is what the police did. One presumes the Representative was reacting in surprise or anger, but the police ought to have been following procedure—a script—and the justice of the police complaints hinges on whether they did things by the books. If they treated her inappropriately and she overreacted, she's (reasonably) vindicated for overreacting.
This and followup seem to support bphd's point in our earlier kerfuffle about hair (not that I think anyone here has said anything in any way objectionable about C McK's hair).
And what's up with assaulting people with phones? You've got Russel Crowe, Naomi Campbell (twice!), and now this? Is it that they're particularly handy? I wouldn't want to risk breaking mine.
It's what was in your hand at the moment you decided to hit, because it's always in your hand -- these aren't people who have a plan to injure, there are people having hissy-fits. Wasn't NC hitting with a jewel-encrusted Blackberry, though?
McKinney in an interview with Larry King pronounces herself disgusted that everyone is now talking about her hair. So I'll stop with that. (Yeah, the twist looked nice; I wish I could my hair to stick in neat shapes like that.)
People who are frequently treated inappropriately or held to a different standard by authority figures because they're a minority of some kind also frequently over-react to being treated inappropriately. It's the snowball effect.
I'm not necessarily defending her, since I don't know the details of the case either, but if she was originally treated inappropriately for reasons of race or gender, that is a serious issue which must be taken into account when dealing with her reaction.
McKinney reminds me a lot of my representative, Jim Moran, D of Virginia, who (besides being a white Irish-American) has made alleged anti-Semitic remarks (he disputes it), has scuffled with hecklers at a polling place, has had a confrontation with a pre-teen black kid who was near his car, and has been involved in at least one domestic incident. Any time Jim is rumored to be involved in some unlikely disturbance, people around here basically shake their heads, assume it's true, and say "that's Jim." He's never claimed anti-Irish bias in any of his confrontations, however. He is a whiz at constituent service and a very (believe it or not) friendly and approachable guy. I voted for him for many years until the (alleged) anti-Semitic remarks. He keeps getting re-elected, which shows that people get pretty much the type of representation they'll put up with.
He's never claimed anti-Irish bias in any of his confrontations, however.
Maybe because Irish people are less likely to get served with arrest warrants after trivial scuffles than black people. See, for instance, Jim Moran and Cynthia McKinney.
True fact. This is not a comment about the incident itself, but about the coverage of and blog-commentary on the incident: it is ridiculous, and tellingly ridiculous, that in a discussion of whether a Congresswoman was treated with appropriate respect, an issue is whether her hairstyle justified the treatment she got. It's framed as "That's why she wasn't recognized" but Neal Boortz went straight from there to "ghetto slut".
People who are frequently treated inappropriately or held to a different standard by authority figures because they're a minority of some kind also frequently over-react to being treated inappropriately. It's the snowball effect.
For my 14th birthday party I went to see Stop Making Sense at a movie theater in the university part of town (King's Court, for my homies). Afterward me and two friends were waiting for my dad to pick me up when a cop pulled up and told us to move along. When I tried to explain that we were waiting for my dad, he asked if I wanted to spend the night in juvenile detention. My Chinese friend and I quietly walked around the block, but my Afro-Asian friend was absolutely howling with rage.
It took me years to figure out why we might have reacted so differently.
has made alleged anti-Semitic remarks (he disputes it),
I remember that -- if I recall correctly, they were right on the line between reasonable commentary on the existence of pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC and the effect that they may have had on US foreign policy, and nasty anti-Semitism. I remember thinking that you couldn't tell if he was perfectly innocent and just got caught in an unfortunate turn of phrase, or if he was a real creep, without knowing the rest of his record with regard to anti-Semitism.
ah, Jim Moran. He came to speak to my sixth grade class for civ. ed. many many years ago when I lived in northern virginia. At that time there was a minor scandal going on about congresspeople bouncing "rubber checks" at the congress dining areas. So one of my classmates who wanted to grow up to be a lawyer asked Moran, politely, about it. Moran dropped the good ole boy act like a rock and *snarled* "who told you to ask that?!"
Then he stopped short when he saw the shock on our little twelve-year old faces, and gave us some platitudes. But it was a nice moment of demasking.
I'm going to pretend this is the occasion to tell my Congressman stories. When we bought this house, our Rep was the late Frank Annunnzio, also caught up in the postal scandal.
The story goes that when the leadership sacrificed his baby, Meat for Seniors, or some such thing, a reporter sought him out for comment:
True. I don't actually know who Boortz is -- he was described wherever I saw the quote as a nationally syndicated radio host. Is he a shock jock, or more political?
86: He's more political, doing the libertarian-but-only-sorta schtick. He's pro-choice, pro-separation of church and state, and anti-DrugWar. He reliably hates on liberals and gives big, slobbery kisses to the GOP, though.
From Wikipedia: Boortz can frequently be heard insulting "government schools", liberals, smokers, welfare recipients, and others. He also creates controversy among his many listeners for his staunch support of gay rights and for his negative comments regarding Southerners, Baptists, and Confederate issues (such as governmental support of the Confederate flag).
So, not so much "Southern Republican," as we think of the term down here.
The warrant does seem like an overreaction to pretty much any version of the initial event. But I'm not sure you can jump from that to race as an explanation without considering the possibility that the Capitol Police and Rep. McKinney really, really don't like each other and this is just another skirmish in something that was already ugly. I'm trying to imagine how this might have played out with somebody like Traficant in McKinney's role. If you imagine a history of being a PITA to the police, I'm not sure that a nutty white guy would necessarily have been immune to an attempt at payback, if that's what this is.
Moran's on the appropriations committee that oversees Smithsonian funding, and he's come forward a (well-publicized) push to charge admission fees for Smithsonian Institutions. Which defies not just the spirit but also the letter of the laws establishing many of the SI museums. He makes a firm promise to charge just $1 per person, but seeing how his promise can only be backed up by the same firm law he'd be overruling by charging anything at all, well, he irritates me.
The information we have about what actually happened is very thin, and it's all he-said she-said. McKinney is a magnet for accusations and is being prejudged here and elsewhere by people, including many Democrats, who have other reasons for disliking her.
The story as it circulated left me with many questions. Did she actually punch the cop, as many have said, or did she just resist him or shove back when grabbed from behind? (Legally the same thing, maybe, but propagandawise a punch is a lot more serious). Is she the only one who doesn't wear the pin, or is it fairly common? Is it a rule, or a custom? Where did the rule come from? Did she show her photo ID, as has been said? How often is a warrant put out for this kind of incident? Have there ever been similiar incidents in the past, and what happened then?
Do the Capitol Police have it in for McKinney? Can't rule that out. She's been in the House for 8 of 10 years and should be easily recognizable by someone whose job is recognizing Congressmen. (These aren't minimum-wage rentacops).
Elected representatives are a little huffy about their prerogatives and thay damn well should be. They aren't just low-level employees of a trillion-dollar organization; in theory they're management, though their role is diminishing as democracy is replaced by managerialism. (People who say "If I did something like that at my job I'd be fired" are accepting the diminished role of Congress. At your job, you're an employee. Congressmen aren't employees.)
Early on she refused to obey the "skirts for women" rule -- God knows where that one came from Good for her.
See, if that's part of it (which of course we don't know) -- a history of bad blood between McKinney and the Capitol Police -- I still think the parsimonious explanation includes racism. As discussed above in 16, 17, 21 and 25, I can't see the Capitol Police pursuing a vendetta against a white Congressman. Having an institutional opinion that he was a jerk, maybe, but taking that to the point of threatening arrest over something like this seems very, very unlikely.
Just occurred to me BTW, I was on a jury recently where the defendant was charged with assault for punching a woman, and his defense consisted in large part of the assertion that he had only pushed her. (This was belied by her broken bones and haemorrhage.) So I think there's a lot of room for semantic confusion around the word "punch".
Right -- the phrasing on this in a lot of stories is "He touched her and then she hit him." Which is different from "He grabbed her and then she pushed him away", or from "He grabbed her and then she poked him with her cell phone."
If the capitol police really don't like McKinney, then their claim that they didn't recognize her is, of course, totally bogus.
The fact that this came out on a Friday strikes me as suspicious. It might take another day or two to settle it, and even if no charges end up being filed, the rumor will have spread everywhere. This story has also served to split Democrats. If it was a setup, it was done perfectly.
The fast that McKinney is on the farthest wing of the out-party, and has a lot of enemies, also makes it more likely that it was a frame.
If the capitol police really don't like McKinney, then their claim that they didn't recognize her is, of course, totally bogus.
Not necessarily. The incident could be based on sincere non-recognition by one officer, and then the publicity and talk of arrest might grow out of a bad relationship with decisionmakers in the CP.
To pick up on something said before -- if it were a white male Congressman he would have been much less likely to be grabbed, and the arrest warrant would have been much less likely.
I agree with much of 93, but if I'm "management," or a veteran Congressperson, where do I get off bending security rules and putting the onus on a Capitol police officer to bear with me? Again, the facts are everything in a case like this, but if I owned a business that needed security, I wouldn't put my employees in such a spot. And I'm not ready to concede that Congresspeople should be considered "owners" of anything -- after all, they're more like, er... representatives of, ahhh...the people.
Why exactly do we start the racism and harassment charges before getting to the facts.
Because the woman herself claims that it's racial profiling, obviously. I have no clue if she's bullshitting or not, but her saying that introduces the issue, duh.
And also, let's be honest: because she's a congresswoman. When Cheney shot his friend, there was tons of speculation about whether or not it was the friend's fault. Same diff.
As representatives of the people, they're not employees. That was my point.
We do not know yet that McKinney broke a rule.
There are a total of nine black Congresswomen, so it shouldn't be hard to learn to recognize all of them instantly. It's not as if the poor security guard was being forced to distinguish McKinney from 385 other middle-aged black women.
Post 9/11 security rules have been systematically used to increase police powers and reduce limitations on them. Using them against Congresspersons and poutting them in the position of obedient (or disobedient) schoolchildren strikes me with a consistent long-term diminution of the authority and dignity of Congress.
Our President got into a physical altercation with a secuirty man at a summit meeting in Chile, and he was very proud of how tough he was. Many admired him.
Some think that the Chileans set Bush up, but it makes as much sense to think that we set the Chileans up. Another flight-suit moment.
There are a total of nine black Congresswomen, so it shouldn't be hard to learn to recognize all of them instantly. It's not as if the poor security guard was being forced to distinguish McKinney from 385 other middle-aged black women.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding where this happened, but there are, I believe, other black women who work on the Hill who are not Congresspeople.
See, if that's part of it (which of course we don't know) -- a history of bad blood between McKinney and the Capitol Police -- I still think the parsimonious explanation includes racism.
I'm not sure that's true. The Capitol Police have to be dealing with enough powerful black people, including members of Congress, that you would expect them to work pretty hard at avoiding racism. Maybe they fail. But if you start from the assumption that they are working hard at it, it's plausible that a history of being treated badly and accused of racism over innocent or invented slights would be particularly likely to get under their skins. That would be race-related, I suppose, but I don't think it would be racism. People don't generally like being told they're doing a terrible job at something they're working hard at.
As discussed above in 16, 17, 21 and 25, I can't see the Capitol Police pursuing a vendetta against a white Congressman. Having an institutional opinion that he was a jerk, maybe, but taking that to the point of threatening arrest over something like this seems very, very unlikely.
Again, I think it's important that this was not just any black Congresswoman. Maybe my perception is skewed, but from the little I know of her, McKinney seems to be out there on the fringe, which is why I'm thinking of someone like Traficant rather than someone like DeLay as an appropriate white male comparison. And I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that the police would show a lot of deference to a white guy who was widely perceived as a nut and an embarrassment to the institution. Maybe that's naive.
Of course, most of this is pure conjecture. I'm not arguing that racism isn't the explanation for what's happening, but only that racism is not the only plausible explanation.
I'm not a good googler, and I am paranoid, but I think there's room for speculation about political motives. Remember, these are the same Capitol Police who arrested Cindy Sheehan a few months ago for wearing a T-shirt with a message they disliked.
I've lost the sources, but I think that the Chief of the Capitol Police is picked by a board. It is chaired alternately by the Sgt at Arms of the House and Senate. I think the only other member is the Architect of the Capitol.
There shall also be a Captain and Lieutenants, who are chosen jointly by the Sgts at Arms of the House and Senate
The Sgts. at Arms are selected by the House and Senate. We know who has had the majority in those two bodies recently.
Not the point, although I was thinking out loud so I didn't have much of a point. If Rep. McKinney did not have a required piece of ID (the "lapel pin?" again, a factual issue as to whether it's required) and If she kept walking past the guards as at least one news report says, then her actions could reasonably have had the effect of requiring the guard on duty to ask herself or himself "What do I do now?" (Maybe not. Maybe the guard was then supposed to ask for alternative ID. But she did apparently keep walking.) I don't have much confidence that even under the best, most benign circumstances, the police would achieve an optimal solution. I guess I would expect more from any given U.S. representative (expectations that are repeatedly dashed). Rep. McKinney has served multiple terms in Congress. She's not a rookie and she's not an employee, as one commenter says. She's been through the security system before (maybe it was recently changed? another factual question) Why wouldn't she stop and say "I'm sorry, there must be some confusion. I'm Rep. McKinney of Georgia. Please call my office or escort me there so that I can meet my constituents/lobbyists/etc." Instead, hand-to-hand cellphone combat ensues? Expectations dashed again.
Yeah, the reported detail that she hit the guard in the chest with her cellphone is what makes me wonder a bit about how serious the "assault" was. The verbs floating around on the net--"slugged," "punched," "attacked"--seem to prejudge the event.
Jackmormon (?) has a good point here. We haven't talked about the differences between the legal definition of assault and common usage. IIRC, in many states the legal definition doesn't even require that you touch the person for it to be considered assault.
In court (or on an arrest warrant), assault has a very specific, codified meaning. In ordinary speech, it's kind of a flamethrower -- you don't say "assault" when you mean "Mom, Bobby shoved me."
The fact that McKinney is on the farthest wing of the out-party, and has a lot of enemies, also makes it more likely that it was a frame.
Amen to that. Of any Congressperson, charges like these stick to McKinney the easiest. Conservatives don't like her because she's, well, Cynthia McKinney; liberals don't like her because she's a loose cannon.
If she behaved rudely, she should apologize. But talk of arrest sounds motivated more by a vendetta than anything else.
Again, I think it's important that this was not just any black Congresswoman. Maybe my perception is skewed, but from the little I know of her, McKinney seems to be out there on the fringe, which is why I'm thinking of someone like Traficant rather than someone like DeLay as an appropriate white male comparison.
We don't know anything here, it's all speculation, but I'm not coming up with stories where Traficant was threatened with arrest under similar circumstances (or, you know, anything similar at all). You'd have to do some incredibly broadbased and probably impossible study to prove that black women perceived as being a little 'out there' get treated more harshly and less respectfully than white men whose behavior is similarly odd, but I do get the strong sense that they do. (And of course, Traficant is much weirder than McKinney -- that that's the comparison that springs to mind is part of the problem. She has somewhat extreme political views -- he used to end speeches on the House floor by saying 'Beam me up.')
My favorite Traficant quote was from his trial: "I want you to disregard all the opposing counsel has said. I think they're delusionary. I think they've had something funny for lunch in their meal, I think they should be handcuffed, chained to a fence and flogged, and all of their hearsay evidence should be thrown the hell out. And if they lie again, I'm going to go over there and kick them in the crotch. Thank you very much."
If we're arguing about whether the police don't like McKinney for racist reasons or for some other bad reason, who cares.
Maybe there are other black women on the Hill, but asking that cops learn to reliably identify nine black Congresswomen is not unreasonable. We're not asking them to reliably identify the other, nonCongressional, black women.
We're still stuck with the problem that McKinney was so obscure that she wasn't recognized, but so notorious that she was widely disliked. LB's hypothetical solution only works if the cop on duty was very new and poorly trained.
Well, there's the 'all you people look alike' effect, which is compounded by racist indifference, but which is a real problem for cross-racial identification even in the absence of such indifference. I've probably told this story a dozen times before, but living in Samoa, I was consistently confused with any other white woman between 5'3" and 5'10", with hair that wasn't blond or black, regardless of the total absence of any actual resemblance. And this wasn't casual acquaintances -- people who worked with other Peace Corps Volunteers would come up to me and launch into conversations under the assumption that I was their co-worker.
So it's not actually incredible to me that a new guy (if he was new) could have trouble identifying McKinney despite the fact (if true) that she was notorious and disliked among the CP.
I can't imagine that Capitol police are asked to memorize the faces of various Congresspeople. If they are, there's no need for the pins. I shudder at the idea of having to come up with a formulation that explains to cops that they have to memorize what the black Congresspeople look like, and not the white ones. It is entirely possible that the guy recognized her and hassled her. It's also entirely possible that he didn't. It's possible that racial animus played a part. It's also possible that it didn't.
I really don't trust McKinney in these sorts of situations; I note that I just saw something (TNR?) indicating that other Dems are getting irritated because she's oxygenating a story that competes with their efforts to focus on Republican sins.
Democrats are irritated at Feingold. Democrats are shit.
This has been covered. The ordinary doorkeeper of an ordinary apartment complex has to identify everyone in the complex, and there might be 400+. He will sometimes be a little shaky on the new ones, but McKinney wasn't new. Identifying 435 congresspersons isn't an unreasonable demand on someone making their living doing security for Congress. It would be for us, but that's not our job.
Identifying 435 congresspersons isn't an unreasonable demand on someone making their living doing security for Congress. It would be for us, but that's not our job.
I do agree with this -- I find being unable to identify her unreasonable, in that it's their job and it's perfectly doable, but not implausible, in that it's the sort of thing that people do screw up.
It might not be unreasonable, but apparently it isn't being done. I don't know what the pins are for if all the cops are supposed to recognize the Congresspeople.
Also - Feingold's bit is about an assault on the country. McKinney's is about an assualt on her. Feingold's bit should play a part in getting our people in; I can't see McKinney's bit doing that.
I don't know what the pins are for if all the cops are supposed to recognize the Congresspeople.
The thing is, though, the pins are nonsense security if the cops aren't supposed to recognize the Congresspeople -- talk about easily faked. Relying on a little pin on the lapel of someone walking past you? The pins only make sense as security in the context of a group of people who are recognized, and the pin is maybe necessary to jog the guard's memory.
Given that she's, what, in her fourth term, and distinctive in appearance, a guard doing his job should have known her by sight and let her through.
As far as I know, the status of the pins is uncertain. It's made to seem that it's a hard and fast rule, but who made the rule, whether it is a rule, or whether McKinney is the only one who ever breaks the rule, if it is one, hasn't been discussed.
The thinness of the facts in this case is pretty striking. I don't think that there's been much new information in four days so far.
Anyway, to repeat I think the real problem is with the Police continuing to make a fuss out of it. And I think it's really of a piece with Bush going after the Chilean security guy, which was all a part of the Secret Service swinging their mighty batons. Part of the authoritarian cult of security is that no one touches the sacred cop. (I don't mean this as a blanket statement about all police.)
Anyway, to repeat I think the real problem is with the Police continuing to make a fuss out of it.
You betcha. My sense of the intitial incident is that probably the CP guy was not doing the best job he could possibly do, for whatever reason, and McKinney was overly touchy about it and overreacted, but that it shouldn't have been any big thing. What makes it bizarre is the threats of prosecution.
In the biography A Beautiful Mind, there's a short interlude about John Nash's first day of work, where he was introduced to the security guard by a senior researcher, who instructed the guard to memorize Nash's face. It doesn't strike me as all that surprising for the Capitol security.
I'm not buying this magic pin thing, though. Probably most of the Congresscritters (I'm lovin' this phrase) wear them on their lapels, and probably most of them are so well-known to the guards that a pin, and looking white and middle-aged are enough to jog their memories. But surely it isn't their only ID, because they all have IDs, too.
My sense of the incident lines up with LBs. Guy's probably doing his job, probably isn't good with African-American faces, stops McKinney thinking she's an aide, she overreacts, guy is embarassed. At this point, it seems that all we need is an 'Oops, sorry ma'am.'
I'm not the anon poster. But Moran is my rep too. Feh. I've voted against him in every election since he took a "loan" from a lobbyist. Barely within the letter of the law.
On McKinney, I think former members also wear a pin as I've seen some go around security. That ups the number of candidates.
At my 5-sided office building in VA if I show my picture ID to the cop working the pre-security station (yes, we have security to protect the main security!) and the officer doesn't see it long enough to compare it with my face I will get ordered to halt. If I don't, I figure that at best I'll get tackled.
The Capitol Police are making a political hash of this; they should let it drop.
Not her -- she's a member of Congress. I was thinking that the guard who was involved probably needs a lawyer to defend against a possible civil suit by McKinney.
Oh, heavens, in the terribly unlikely event that anything of the sort should happen, he'll have someone much richer than I am slavering to pay for his lawyer.
I just thought of this: so far, there has been no official statement from the capital police, as far as I know, and no named source. In other words, someone anonymous is feeding scuttlebutt to a reporter. It's "he-said she-said", but the "he" is nameless and faceless. To me this makes the whole thing even fishier, and it makes the way people are piling on even more offensive.
146: Well, she's not giving details of the incident, and I certainly didn't see anything from her on the incident before the threats of arrest began. She hasn't been perfectly silent, but she really doesn't appear to be where the energy in the story comes from.
See the latest update -- according to Slate it's perfectly conventional for Representatives who expect to be recognized not to wear their pins.
Digression: When I interned at a document holding institution in DC one of my supervisors met me at the security station on my first day and vouched for me as I signed in. He then took me through the process of getting my own ID/badge. When it was over I pointed out that at no time during the process did anyone actually see my driver's license or passport. That was 1998; hopefully security is better now.
148: I actually find the race element more troubling in the initial missed identification than in the threats of prosecution. I can imagine innocent explanations, but you'd generally expect Capitol Police officers to recognize members of Congress, and when one doesn't you wonder if it's because he's not looking for a member of Congress when he sees a black woman.
But the prosecution thing is a considered decision from a higher level, and it's so over the top that I have to assume that there's more to it than slapping down an uppity black woman. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense for the CP leadership to take on a member of Congress. If there's any police department in the country that would have an incentive NOT to assume that "black = powerless," I'd think that the Capitol Police would be it.
But throw the Republican leadership into the mix and maybe the picture changes. If the CP is political, then it makes sense to go after McKinney to serve the interests of the Republicans. And I don't doubt that part of the Repubican animus against McKinney is racial.
As I understand, this became a big story when the Capitol police announced that they would try to get a warrant. The story would have faded quickly otherwise. McKinney had already expressed her regrets (not quit an apology, people say). Once the warrant was out, McKinney had to fight.
They still haven't got a warrant. If the goal was 5-6 days of publicity, they've already got what they wanted. They may not care whether the prosecutor decides to prosecute or not.
The upshot: she couldn't have asked for better cover to this silliness than the DeLay debacle (DeLaybacle?).
Prior to my post, I count eleven (11) mentions of "DeLay" in this comments thread alone. Why? Because his true wickedness makes her (at-best) foolishness seem almost unnewsworthy.
Huh. Apparently the name of the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is Bill Pickle. A friend of mine used to date a guy named Big Bill Pickle, but he was a swing bandleader in Cincinnati -- probably not the same guy.
(And thanks for the research -- I read them the same way. Members, i.e. the majority party, elect Sergeants at Arms for the House and Senate, and the SaAs run the Capitol police.
The evening news on my local Fox affiliate just did a story on the resignation of Tom DeLay. They followed it with a piece on McKinney being charged. The McKinney piece seemed at least as long, and treated the incident as more serious than DeLay's resignation.
You're right, I'm showing bias. Story 1: Republican has legal problems, resigns. Story 2: Democrat has legal problems, hasn't yet resigned. What could be more fair and balanced?
I suppose I should sit in front of the TV for the extra hour to watch one of the other channels' 10pm news. That'd be the American thing to do. But KASA was airing House from 8 to 9. It had what's-her-name, who played Buffy's sister Dawn. So staying for the Fox 9pm news seemed destined. I think I've just proved that TV does cause brain damage. Maybe I shouldn't start my taxes tonight.
If any connection is drawn between the apology and a decision not to prosecute, that is grotesque. Assaulting a police officer is a crime, not a faux pas. If this is something which can be amended for by an apology, then we've just seem a member of Congress threatened with arrest because she was rude.
I assume (hope) she apologized because she was taken into the woodshed by the leadership and told to get this off of the front page. Maybe she made a deal with the cops - I've certainly had the experience that look of contrition + speeding = warning, while speeding + mouthiness = ticket. I don't have a problem with this is any direction; I just don't want anything to fuck up whatever chances we have in '06.
Crazy black people and Dems enable them = get out the base. I know of one pretty liberal DC Dem who switched parties based on some rough version of the above. It works.
Oh, I'm not arguing with it as political calculation -- if it's what she has to do to get this off the front page, it's worth it. I just find the fact, if it appears that the apology was what was wanted to resolve the situation, that the Capitol Police considered it appropriate to extort an apology from a Congresswoman by threatening her with prosecution absolutely unconscionable and repellent.
I don't know who would care about this other that Kotsko and possibly Dr. B, but apparently a Gospel of Judas has been discovered and more-or-less authenticated (as much as such a thing can be authenticated).
Seems to me that Pavlovian get-out-the-base issues are created when needed. They need take no notice of the facts; who'd have been cynical enough to expect Willie Horton to be an issue in a presidential election?
Joe, for religious feeling the fact of canonical writings is crucial. Things are studied, revered, memorized because they have been for a long time. The bible was selected from available writings many centuries ago. I don't know, but I'd expect this text was known then and didn't make the cut. Apochryphal writings aren't likely to be able to effect many people's faith, whether literal or essentially poetic, like mine.
Since it looks to be from the 3rd century, "canonical" doesn't enter into it, but it is exciting to see proof that the theological problem of Judas (also explored in Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ) was a live issue that far back.
This detail from the article makes me spitting angry:
Discovered in the 1970's in a cavern near El Minya, Egypt, the document circulated for years among antiquities dealers in Egypt, then Europe and finally in the United States. It moldered in a safe-deposit box at a bank in Hicksville, N. Y., for 16 years before being bought in 2000 by a Zurich dealer, Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos. The manuscript was given the name Codex Tchacos. When attempts to resell the codex failed, Ms. Nussberger-Tchacos turned it over to the Maecenas Foundation for conservation and translation.
When I worked for the historical-document dealer, everyone was making the argument that the private market helped publicize and conserve significant finds. Here, however, everyone was out to make a buck and nobody knew exactly what it was they had. A safety-deposit box in Hicksville? Are you fucking kidding me?
There are a number of news reports that she hit him, the most common one seems to be that it was with a cell phone she was holding, after she ignored the guard's repeated attempts to get her to stop and identify herself. One could just as well argue that she was guilty of racism and harassment of a white police officer--something that, given her history, would not be an impossible thought.
Why exactly do we start the racism and harassment charges before getting to the facts.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:19 AM
Heavens, I could have sworn that I said I wanted to see the footage first. Or were you talking to someone else? If to Rep. McKinney, it is possible that she is misrepresenting the facts, but she certainly knows what they are.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:22 AM
My initial inclination is to agree with you. But McKinney's crazy; there are relatively few stories people could tell about her that I would dismiss out of hand.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:22 AM
But McKinney's crazy; there are relatively few stories people could tell about her that I would dismiss out of hand.
This is unfortunate but true.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:25 AM
She's certainly said some intemperate things, but I've seen nothing that suggests that she's crazy in any literal sense, particularly in the sense that she's prone to unprovoked violence.
And to be less snippy in response to 1: I just want to see the footage. If, as she says, she showed ID, and the incident consists of her shoving a policeman who grabbed her rudely and unnecessarily, I can't see that being a sane reason for an arrest.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:30 AM
People are charged with assault for very minor incidents, aren't they? I know the security guard here called the police after an old lady, with zero upper body strength, tried to push her. Security guards and police people seem to have a general policy of overreacting to being touched.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:32 AM
I've seen nothing that suggests that she's crazy
Not that she's prone to violence, but that everything is a racist plot. Also: "For years afterward, The Hill reports, the Capitol Police pinned a picture of McKinney to an office wall, warning officers to learn her face because she refuses to wear her member's pin."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:42 AM
If, as she says, she showed ID, and the incident consists of her shoving a policeman who grabbed her rudely and unnecessarily, I can't see that being a sane reason for an arrest.
Even then, I'm not sure that shows it extends to racism. Sometimes cops fuck with people for bad reasons. Sometimes they fuck with people because people fuck with them. It's going to be hard to distinguish between the two.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:46 AM
Such a policy of overreaction would be most sensible in company with a policy of being polite and circumspect about touching people.
The thing is, this wasn't an imperative security matter. If the standard for who may walk around the scanner is that they're wearing a half-inch lapel pin, that's ridiculously loose security unless the guards know everyone's faces as well. So the guard wasn't stopping an imminent danger, he was stopping someone who he thought was cutting the line. Under those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to expect him to be polite about the process of stopping her -- I've certainly forgotten to show my ID when entering my office building, and have never been grabbed by one of the guards.
It is perfectly possible she behaved badly: the Capitol policeman may have been civil, and she may have wildly overreacted. But again, I'd really, really, like to see the footage.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:50 AM
Even then, I'm not sure that shows it extends to racism. Sometimes cops fuck with people for bad reasons. Sometimes they fuck with people because people fuck with them.
See, the thing is here, she's a Representative. The whole purpose of the Capitol Building, and the Capitol police force, is so that she and her 534 co-workers can do their jobs. I find it very surprising that a minor incident of this nature was not resolved by the policeman's apologizing for not having recognized her.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:54 AM
Right, we're all working without the relevant facts.
However, I tend to pay the same level of attention to McKinney claiming racist treatment as I do to the NRA claiming the government is going to confiscate firearms. I know that sometimes a car alarm is going off in response to somebody breaking into it, but I long ago stopped getting up to check every time one goes off.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 8:57 AM
I just meant that it's the culture of police work, not specific to this person or kind of interaction. In the incident with the old lady I mentioned, the security guard was black, the old lady white.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:04 AM
What's setting me off about this story, though, is that she has to be not only be claiming racist treatment when it isn't true, she also has to have attacked a police officer unreasonably -- if she didn't do the latter, then arresting her is at least nuts. I'll buy that she might have a hair-trigger for complaining about racism, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that she has a hair-trigger for assaulting cops.
If the standard you're applying is that touching a police officer is automatically arrest-worthy, than the warrant is appropriate, and we don't need to see the footage. I have to think, though, that if Tom DeLay (selected at random) forgot his pin one morning and blew by the scanner, if a policeman grabbed him there's a good chance DeLay would shove him off, and I can't see that turning into an arrest; it's rude, but not criminal. If this is what happened with McKinney, it really seems to me that she is being treated differently than another Rep. might be.
This is reminding me of the female lawyer I know who was fired for rudeness to the staff. Was it polite, meritorious behavior? Absolutely not. Is it the sort of thing people get fired over? Not normally.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:08 AM
The whole purpose of the Capitol Building, and the Capitol police force, is so that she and her 534 co-workers can do their jobs. I find it very surprising that a minor incident of this nature was not resolved by the policeman's apologizing for not having recognized her.
We may be talking past each other. I'm not saying that McKinney behaved badly and the police behaved appropriately. I'm claiming something closer to a superior overhearing you make fun of his wife and then giving you complete shit work that you shouldn't be doing.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:11 AM
I'm claiming something closer to a superior overhearing you make fun of his wife and then giving you complete shit work that you shouldn't be doing.
See, if that explanation (that the police are screwing with her because they can) is correct (not saying it is, don't have the facts, but it's a possibility and I'm speculating), that's racism. Because I don't believe they'd screw with Tom DeLay (randomly selected white Rep.) like that. A powerful white man who's rude or dismissive to the staff may be disliked for it, but doesn't get that sort of blowback.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:16 AM
Let's distinguish between two things that might be meant by "racism." First, people might mean that they fucked with her, in part or in whole, because she was black; this is pretty much the standard understanding of "racism." Second, they fucked with her for entirely separate reasons unmotivated by race, but knew they could get away with it because of her race. This is clearly bad, and I'm not sure I'm against calling this racism. But I think it's important to distinguish from the first case. Because on this account, they would or could take a shot at a white dude who was not powerful (even if a Rep.) for some reason - may Kucinich, or something.
I don't know how the Capitol police are funded, to whom they report, or the rest. And there have certainly been lots of charges of racism in DC, and specifically, charges against the DC cops. But I wonder if thinking you can fuck with a black person just because they're black in Chocolate City is, in this day and age, a mistake; if it is, I'm not sure it's one that Capitol police would make.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:26 AM
I'm not sure if that was clear. Saying 'I like people in category A, and hate people in category B,' is racism against category B. However, saying 'Sometimes I like As, and sometimes they piss me off. The same with Bs. When As piss me off, though, I take it from them. When Bs piss me off, I retaliate -- I have the power to resist ill-treatment from Bs, even when I don't from As," is also racism against category B, even though the speaker likes Bs just about as well as As.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:28 AM
I'm wondering now about calibration. Let's say that the police would react badly to being touched by white people of low rank, but would take it from DeLay. What does that mean exactly?
That is, part of your point seems to be that she doesn't get the same special treatment as DeLay, but gets what a member of the general public might. Let's say, for argument's sake, she is treated as an aide might be--someone who has business there, but not as much power as DeLay. It probably is racism, or sexism, of a sort, but it's a bit complicated, isn't it?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:31 AM
I see I'm making a similar point to Tim.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:32 AM
17 crossed with 16, which makes the same point.
And this:
But I wonder if thinking you can fuck with a black person just because they're black in Chocolate City is, in this day and age, a mistake; if it is, I'm not sure it's one that Capitol police would make.
is, I think, off base. I don't think the racial makeup of DC is going to affect racial dynamics in the Capitol.
I should back off again and say that I'm waiting to see footage of this -- I'm not convinced that she didn't behave badly, it just seems very possible that she is. I'm also wondering why no footage has emerged -- it seems impossible that there aren't security cameras, but I haven't seen any mention of this having been caught on tape.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:32 AM
I think it makes use of racism in the system, but it doesn't necessarily imply that the actor is a racist. Bill Clinton can drop Lani Guinier like a hot potato with little cost in part because she's a black woman - the costs are just lower for harming her; I'm not sure that means he's a racist misogynist. (I realize Guinier/Clinton is not the best example, but I've only had 24 oz of coffee, so roll with me.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:33 AM
Let's say, for argument's sake, she is treated as an aide might be--someone who has business there, but not as much power as DeLay. It probably is racism, or sexism, of a sort, but it's a bit complicated, isn't it?
If that's the explanation, it really isn't complicated at all.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:34 AM
It seems possible to me that the cops might have first demanded the extra security because she was black and they didn't recognize her (she'd taken out her braids), and then once the situation had escalated, they prosecuted the charge because they hate McKinney personally.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:36 AM
It is complicated if you, the police officer, treat everyone you do not recognize the same way, and it's only the ability to communicate your special status--and ability to get you, the police officer fired--that alters that.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:39 AM
I think it makes use of racism in the system, but it doesn't necessarily imply that the actor is a racist. Bill Clinton can drop Lani Guinier like a hot potato with little cost in part because she's a black woman - the costs are just lower for harming her; I'm not sure that means he's a racist misogynist.
See, this point is one that gets made all the time in these discussions, and I think it's irrelevant. What goes on within the soul of the Capitol policeman (both the one who stopped her, and the one who made the decision to call for the arrest, and under the as yet unsupported assumption that they did behave badly as described) is between him and his God, and is of very little interest to me. If the policeman treats a black Congresswoman with less respect than a white Congressman due to her race, that's racism, it's wrong, and it should be stopped regardless. I don't care whether the motivation is 'real racism' or a belief that her race makes her a safe candidate for being treated with lesser respect, I just care what the guy does.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:39 AM
"your special status" s/b "the person's special status"
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:41 AM
23 seems reasonable to me as well, for varying values of 'hate' -- 'are irritated with', 'think they can screw with without penalty', whatever.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:52 AM
18, 22: I don't know if "aide" is the best level of comparison. There's a big gulf between DeLay
that's SOON-TO-BE-EX-REPRESENTATIVE Delay! Ha! Ha! Ha!
and random white Representative. If they're treating McKinney the same way they'd treat Randy Neugebauer, that's one thing. If they're treating her the way they'd treat an aide, who I think doesn't have the privilege to bypass the metal detector, that's another thing entirely. (SCMT made this point in 16.)
And my instinct is: Asking for an arrest warrant for a sitting Congresscritter is a big big deal. LB is right that she'd better have slugged him. (I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that Congresscritters should be able to get away with shoving cops, but there it is.)
We may remember this, where the police seemed to acquit themselves OK (as in, told the Republicans to stop whining).
(On preview, 24 seems reasonable, if it's "they didn't recognize her.")
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:57 AM
17 is all true, although it is not at all clear whether it is the guard, Rep. McKinney or both regarding whom we should be doing the analysis.
surprising that a minor incident of this nature was not resolved by the policeman's apologizing for not having recognized her
How about her apologizing to the guard for refusing to stop when asked (whether or not she showed her ID, she has absolutely no excuse for not stopping when asked by a guard) and striking the guard.
I must admit that my view of this is colored by my experience. Guarding the Capitol is not like being a security guard at the shopping mall. It is a serious business. I have been involved in the security of serious things--where a refusal to halt when ordered would result in your being shot, even when the guards knew who the person they were shooting was. Of course I am not suggesting that Rep. McKinney should have been shot (or hurt in any other way) for refusing to stop when the guard told her to, but whatever the guard may or may not have done wrong, there simply is no excuse for McKinney's conduct. That said, I suspect the Capitol police are just making a point and that no one intends on trying to arrest McKinney, which would be a stupid thing to do and would, I will agree, be blowing things out of proportion.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:58 AM
How about her apologizing to the guard for refusing to stop when asked (whether or not she showed her ID, she has absolutely no excuse for not stopping when asked by a guard) and striking the guard
Given that the system appears to be set up so that members of Congress are permitted to walk through without stopping, so long as they are recognized as such (e.g., by use of the high-security lapel pin), it's not clear to me that she 'refused' to stop -- this is the kind of thing I'd like either security footage or a detailed third-party account on. A plausible version would be that he was shouting at her from behind, and she was unaware that she was being addressed until he grabbed her (but again, we'd have to have details.)
I must admit that my view of this is colored by my experience. Guarding the Capitol is not like being a security guard at the shopping mall. It is a serious business.
Serious it may be, but it's set up so that more than 500 people are entitled to walk through without being stopped so long as they have a little lapel pin. Expected behavior isn't comparable to that around nuclear weapons storage.
but whatever the guard may or may not have done wrong, there simply is no excuse for McKinney's conduct.
Surely you don't mean the first clause of that sentence literally?
That said, I suspect the Capitol police are just making a point and that no one intends on trying to arrest McKinney, which would be a stupid thing to do and would, I will agree, be blowing things out of proportion.
We can certainly agree on this much, which is hardly less than I said in the post.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:10 AM
But it seems like there are two different points, the scuffle itself, and the filing of charges. It seems reasonable for the guard to physically stop her if he didn't recognize her and she wasn't wearing a pin. That is not in itself racist--it's doing the job. And that's what I was saying. Whether it makes sense to pursue legal action against her is another matter.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:15 AM
It seems reasonable for the guard to physically stop her if he didn't recognize her and she wasn't wearing a pin. That is not in itself racist--it's doing the job. And that's what I was saying.
This gets subtle, which is why I keep talking about wanting to see the tape. I work in an office building with fairly tight security -- tighter, in some senses, than the Capitol, because we don't have a class of people entitled to bypass security. (Although less tight in that the turnstiles we're supposed to pass through aren't metal detectors.) People blunder past, or around, the turnstiles fairly often (it's badly set up) and get stopped by guards. I've never seen a guard lay hands on someone -- if someone doesn't respond when told to stop they catch up and walk around in front of you.
As this incident has been described, it seems possible that the guard was uncivilly and unnecessarily rough, and grabbed her when he didn't need to. While, even if that were the case, a less touchy person might not have pushed him away, pushing him away doesn't seem like an insane response.
I'd also say that this incident is a big fuss because the Capitol police have made it so. They were talking arrest from the moment the story broke. So the initial scuffle may have been simple rudeness and touchiness, distributed between the parties in unknown proportions. Talk of an arrest, though, if her conduct wasn't truly egregious, looks like harassment.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:28 AM
which is hardly less than I said in the post.
Sure.
500 people are entitled to walk through without being stopped so long as they have a little lapel pin.
Not true because incomplete. They have to be wearing the pin and to have been recognized as such. Apparently, neither of those things happened here.
but whatever the guard may or may not have done wrong, there simply is no excuse for McKinney's conduct.
Surely you don't mean the first clause of that sentence literally?Surely you don't mean the first clause of that sentence literally?.
In the context of this discussion, yes. Despite Rep. McKinney's special powers to see into that guard's heart and to know that he was trying to stop her because he was a horrible racist bastard rather than because he (please choose one or more) (1) did not recognize her, (2) did not see her ID, (3) reacted to her refusal to respond to his repeated attempts to stop, the way for McKinney to react was not to keep walking and then hit the guard when he tried to get her to stop, it was to lodge a complaint with the Capitol Police. You would not stand for such arrogant abuse of power from a Republican, why do you condone it here?
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:29 AM
You may not have understood my point. If 'whatever the guard may or may not have done wrong' included, say, grabbing McKinney in a rough and frightening manner from behind, would you still consider her shoving him away from her inexcusable? People react to being surprised and threatened, and it seems odd to, without having details of the interaction, have decided that her behavior was inexcusable.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:33 AM
Further, there are varying levels of 'hit'. If we're talking about slugging the guy, that's pretty inexcusable. If he's grabbing her by the shoulder, and she puts her hand on his chest and pushes him away saying "Take your hand off me, I'm a member of Congress" as she shows her ID, is that inexcusable? We don't know what happened.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:43 AM
It does depend in part on the cop's actions. If 'putting his hand somewhere on her body' was grabbing a breast, she seems to be justified in shoving him. If the contact was a hand on her arm, not so much.
On preview, 34 says the same thing.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:44 AM
What's with the article's attention to her hairstyle? Might that space have been better used explaining security protocols for non-response to efforts to determine identity?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:54 AM
re: 34 and 35
Since you are now so insistent that we do not know the facts, what was the point of the post, the focus of which was your readiness to assume that the guard was a horrible white racist bastard who attacked poor innocent Rep. McKinney? Some of the facts you are now positing as justifications for McKinney's actions have not even been advanced by McKinney herself.
On a calmer note, maybe we should just agree:
(1) adults, including members of Congress, should express their concerns in a situation such as appears to have arisen here by talk, not hitting people with their cell phones.
(2) if the security guard acted improperly--for example by assuming that an African-American woman could not be a member of Congress, the guard should be fired and Rep. McKinney is owed an appology
(3) if McKinney was being an arrogant dick and is now using false claims of racism to cover up her own misconduct, she owes the guard and her constituents an apology
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:59 AM
what was the point of the post, the focus of which was your readiness to assume that the guard was a horrible white racist bastard who attacked poor innocent Rep. McKinney?
See 2.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:00 AM
What's with the article's attention to her hairstyle?
It's relevant to why the guard might not have recognized her and let her in even though she did not show ID.
explaining security protocols for non-response to efforts to determine identity
This is a very good point.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:02 AM
LB is quite right, without more information it is pretty hard to judge. It is plausible that this particular member would over-react, but that doesn't mean she did. On the other hand, just because it is fairly common for police & security to engadge in inappropriately forceful behaviour, that doesn't mean that this particular one did, either.
Posted by soubzriquet | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:02 AM
In the absence of security camera footage, I'm waiting for Paul Haggis to make a movie about this incident before I draw any conclusions.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:07 AM
It is plausible that this particular member would over-react, but that doesn't mean she did. On the other hand, just because it is fairly common for police & security to engadge in inappropriately forceful behaviour, that doesn't mean that this particular one did, either.
I agree 100 percent. But this shows why we should not assume the worst about the security guard as a first impulse.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:11 AM
To expand on 39:
what was the point of the post, the focus of which was your readiness to assume that the guard was a horrible white racist bastard who attacked poor innocent Rep. McKinney?
Where exactly do you get off making up nonsense like this? The post doesn't say word one about misconduct by the guard -- the comments discuss the possibility that he might have behaved badly, but clearly as a possibility, not as a certainty. Rather than referring to the 'poor, innocent Rep. McKinney', the post describes her conduct as 'bad' and 'stupid'.
The 'focus of the post' was that unless her conduct was more egregious than seems likely, arresting her for it would be disproportionate, and in a way that I'm willing to call racist. A conclusion, at least with respect to the disproportionateness, that you agreed to. (See 29, 30, 32.)
It'd be a lot easier to sympathise with people like you who are worried that some cry racism too easily if you didn't have to make things up to be offended by.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:14 AM
It would be good to see the tape, but people get arrested all the time for things that aren't taped.
>McKinney, 51, scuffled with a police officer on March 29 when she entered a House office building without her identifying lapel pin and did not stop when asked.
>Several police sources said the officer, who was not identified, asked her three times to stop. When she kept going, he placed a hand somewhere on her and she hit him, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
This is the kind of beyond the rules behavior that we really don't want to condone in our elected officials. I don't buy her story. I think she is lying to save her career.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:15 AM
I don't buy her story. I think she is lying to save her career.
See, this is nuts. Can you imagine a situation where you'd be talking about a white Congressman needing to 'save his career' because he shoved a security guard?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:18 AM
And I misquoted myself in 44 -- the post refers to McKinney's conduct as 'bad' and 'silly', not 'stupid'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:19 AM
I can imagine a situation where we'd all be assuming that the white Congressman was being an arrogant asshole.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:20 AM
44 -- I had the same reaction to 38 and am trying to figure it out. My guess is that "racism" is (for our conservative interlocutor) a buzzword -- when you used the term in your post that drowned out the rest of what you were writing about, and visions of Jesse Jackson started dancing in Idealist's head.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:21 AM
Sure. If this story were 'McKinney in scuffle with Capitol Police', I'd probably think both that there was some unfortunate differential treatment of her going on (that is, that a white male Rep. of her seniority would more likely have been recognized and waved through), and that she was an ass for overreacting. And I probably wouldn't have posted on it. But an arrest warrant seems nuts, unless she really punched the guy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:24 AM
Indeed -- not only did you say "racism" but "cry racism" -- which combination might be a little stronger/more buzzwordy.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:24 AM
Has the identity, racial or otherwise, of the cop ever been revealed? I know they're not giving the name of the officer, but do we know anything else?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:25 AM
50 to 48.
To 49 -- while I can't say that I wasn't irritated by 38, I am also irritated by speculation as to what goes on inside the heads of people one disagrees with. Can we keep that sort of psychologizing to a minimum?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:27 AM
Also, what's the usual procedure for arrests in this kind of confrontation? If it was so bad, why wasn't she arrested on the spot? Would a non-Congressperson have been arrested immediately?
And why am I asking so many questions? What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? How come I'm not getting any work done?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:28 AM
Well how else can one explain him jumping to "orrible white racist bastard who attacked poor innocent Rep. McKinney"? -- It seems bizarre to me and I automatically search for an explanation. Perhaps I should ask Idealist about it.
Idealist: how come you characterized LB's post that way? Do you recognize how far out of sync it is with what she actually wrote?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:29 AM
"orrible"
-- Not meaning to characterize Idealist as a Cockney.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:30 AM
>Can you imagine a situation where you'd be talking about a white Congressman needing to 'save his career' because he shoved a security guard?
The article said she hit the policeman. Hitting policemen is not something voters like.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:35 AM
57: Still, think back over 200 years of Congressional history. Can you come up with a story comparable to this, where you're talking about 'saving the career' of a congressman for a minor scuffle with, heck, anyone? It's possible that her actions were seriously bizarre -- the policeman was civilly doing his job and she hauled off and punched him despite that. But that doesn't sound like the likeliest version of the story to me; first, it is bizarre, and second, you don't hit someone with a cell phone if you're really hitting them.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:42 AM
44 gets it exactly right. This article says she "allegedly poked him with her cellphone." The policeman may or may not have acted improperly–I don't know and don't much care–but unless is the kind of poke that leaves marks, for the Capitol Police to be making a big fuss about such a non-incident suggests that they're gunning for McKinney for some reason.
Possibly race, possibly party, possibly nuttery (she's much nuttier than I'd like, which is to say she may be as removed from reality as the average Republican member of Congress–cheap shot, sorry), possibly she made them look bad before, possibly they just want to show that nobody messes with Fred C. Dobbs. Whatever it is, they should shut up about arrest warrants.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:43 AM
See, I think there's another factor at work, which is that the definition of assault has really been watered down in recent years. This is just an impression of mine, but I can think of a few incidents that sounded ridiculous to me that were nonetheless pursued through the courts. This, combined with general police officiousness and some particular taboo about being touched, adds a more general culture of paranoia element to the affair, rather than pure racism. Though I'm perfectly willing to grant that her race is also a factor.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:49 AM
OK. Let's try it this way, because for a variety of reason I would like to make this less contentious.
LB, if I misread your intentions, I apologize. Really. Friends?
Modesto Kid, I read the post as I did for a variety of reasons, which I will bore you with when we go get Mexican food tomorrow night if you really want to know.
Cleverly using this as a transition, if anyone else wants to follow the Modesto Kid to great Mexican food, be at the kiosk in the center of the main terminal at Grand Central at 6 PM tomorrow (Wednesday) evening. Let us know if you are coming if you want us to wait--or maybe TMK can post the address of where we are going.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:50 AM
Yeah, the reported detail that she hit the guard in the chest with her cellphone is what makes me wonder a bit about how serious the "assault" was. The verbs floating around on the net--"slugged," "punched," "attacked"--seem to prejudge the event. Did she react to being touched "somewhere" with a shove? Whether or not voters approve of such behavior, is it really criminal?
On a completely inappropriate sartorial note, I liked her hair better in braids.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:53 AM
LB, if I misread your intentions, I apologize. Really.
This is still bullshit. You didn't address my intentions, you addressed my post, which said nothing resembling what you claimed.
Friends?
Of course.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:53 AM
On a completely inappropriate sartorial note, I liked her hair better in braids.
I like the twist-out. There's a lousy picture of it that's gotten attached to a couple of these stories, but in moving footage and other pictures it's pretty -- doesn't look as stiff as the braids did.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:56 AM
60, I think that's right; that's part of what I was thinking of as "Nobody messes with Fred C. Dobbs!" (Or "No one touches my bike and lives!") And I guess I think of it this way: Nobody should be prosecuted for silly guff, at least when they're somewhere they have the right to be rather than evading legitimate security. Given that people are, is it good for a Congresscritter to be able to avoid it? I sort of think it is; both because it's dumb in all cases and because I think it's especially egregious to prosecute Congresscritters for ridiculous silly stuff (when there are so many to prosecute for other reasons).
And I do think that if it were miscellaneous white Republican they might not be pursuing this so assiduously.
And I think I will stick to this even if the election McKinney faces is a primary, which I would prefer that she lose.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:56 AM
maybe TMK can post the address of where we are going
Good idea -- it is La Espiga, 42-13 102nd St. in Corona, Queens. To get there take the 7 to Junction Blvd or to 103rd St, walk along Roosevelt Ave. to 102nd, turn south (i.e. right if you are coming from Junction, left if you are coming from 103rd), and walk about 2 1/2 blocks. La Espiga is on your left. We'll be there around 6:30 or :45. Or meet us in Grand Central, but email one or the other of us beforehand.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:59 AM
If it's "great" Mexican food you're having, you're on yer way to Texas!
Ahem. More important than what she did is what the police did. One presumes the Representative was reacting in surprise or anger, but the police ought to have been following procedure—a script—and the justice of the police complaints hinges on whether they did things by the books. If they treated her inappropriately and she overreacted, she's (reasonably) vindicated for overreacting.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 11:59 AM
This and followup seem to support bphd's point in our earlier kerfuffle about hair (not that I think anyone here has said anything in any way objectionable about C McK's hair).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:00 PM
I mean, heavens, has no one seen The Real World: San Diego? The "assault" (captured on camera) that led to charges there was totally ridiculous.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:05 PM
punching and scratching a Marine at a bar, leaving "several six-inch scratches" on his body, The Smoking Gun reports.
At least it left marks. Poking someone with a cell phone is a couple of steps down from that, even.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:06 PM
If you look at the actual incident, you don't see how it could have left marks.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:09 PM
And what's up with assaulting people with phones? You've got Russel Crowe, Naomi Campbell (twice!), and now this? Is it that they're particularly handy? I wouldn't want to risk breaking mine.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:11 PM
It's what was in your hand at the moment you decided to hit, because it's always in your hand -- these aren't people who have a plan to injure, there are people having hissy-fits. Wasn't NC hitting with a jewel-encrusted Blackberry, though?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:17 PM
McKinney in an interview with Larry King pronounces herself disgusted that everyone is now talking about her hair. So I'll stop with that. (Yeah, the twist looked nice; I wish I could my hair to stick in neat shapes like that.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:26 PM
People who are frequently treated inappropriately or held to a different standard by authority figures because they're a minority of some kind also frequently over-react to being treated inappropriately. It's the snowball effect.
I'm not necessarily defending her, since I don't know the details of the case either, but if she was originally treated inappropriately for reasons of race or gender, that is a serious issue which must be taken into account when dealing with her reaction.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:28 PM
McKinney reminds me a lot of my representative, Jim Moran, D of Virginia, who (besides being a white Irish-American) has made alleged anti-Semitic remarks (he disputes it), has scuffled with hecklers at a polling place, has had a confrontation with a pre-teen black kid who was near his car, and has been involved in at least one domestic incident. Any time Jim is rumored to be involved in some unlikely disturbance, people around here basically shake their heads, assume it's true, and say "that's Jim." He's never claimed anti-Irish bias in any of his confrontations, however. He is a whiz at constituent service and a very (believe it or not) friendly and approachable guy. I voted for him for many years until the (alleged) anti-Semitic remarks. He keeps getting re-elected, which shows that people get pretty much the type of representation they'll put up with.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:29 PM
He's never claimed anti-Irish bias in any of his confrontations, however.
Maybe because Irish people are less likely to get served with arrest warrants after trivial scuffles than black people. See, for instance, Jim Moran and Cynthia McKinney.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:33 PM
True fact. This is not a comment about the incident itself, but about the coverage of and blog-commentary on the incident: it is ridiculous, and tellingly ridiculous, that in a discussion of whether a Congresswoman was treated with appropriate respect, an issue is whether her hairstyle justified the treatment she got. It's framed as "That's why she wasn't recognized" but Neal Boortz went straight from there to "ghetto slut".
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:33 PM
Neal Boortz went straight from there to "ghetto slut".
One of the reasons that Southern Republicans worry me so much.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:36 PM
People who are frequently treated inappropriately or held to a different standard by authority figures because they're a minority of some kind also frequently over-react to being treated inappropriately. It's the snowball effect.
For my 14th birthday party I went to see Stop Making Sense at a movie theater in the university part of town (King's Court, for my homies). Afterward me and two friends were waiting for my dad to pick me up when a cop pulled up and told us to move along. When I tried to explain that we were waiting for my dad, he asked if I wanted to spend the night in juvenile detention. My Chinese friend and I quietly walked around the block, but my Afro-Asian friend was absolutely howling with rage.
It took me years to figure out why we might have reacted so differently.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:36 PM
what's up with assaulting people with phones?
Maybe it was one of these.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:38 PM
has made alleged anti-Semitic remarks (he disputes it),
I remember that -- if I recall correctly, they were right on the line between reasonable commentary on the existence of pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC and the effect that they may have had on US foreign policy, and nasty anti-Semitism. I remember thinking that you couldn't tell if he was perfectly innocent and just got caught in an unfortunate turn of phrase, or if he was a real creep, without knowing the rest of his record with regard to anti-Semitism.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:43 PM
ah, Jim Moran. He came to speak to my sixth grade class for civ. ed. many many years ago when I lived in northern virginia. At that time there was a minor scandal going on about congresspeople bouncing "rubber checks" at the congress dining areas. So one of my classmates who wanted to grow up to be a lawyer asked Moran, politely, about it. Moran dropped the good ole boy act like a rock and *snarled* "who told you to ask that?!"
Then he stopped short when he saw the shock on our little twelve-year old faces, and gave us some platitudes. But it was a nice moment of demasking.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:45 PM
One of the reasons that Southern Republicans worry me so much.
Butcha know, that's no different than what you might hear come out of New Yorkers like Michael Savage, Don Imus, or Howard Stern.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:50 PM
I'm going to pretend this is the occasion to tell my Congressman stories. When we bought this house, our Rep was the late Frank Annunnzio, also caught up in the postal scandal.
The story goes that when the leadership sacrificed his baby, Meat for Seniors, or some such thing, a reporter sought him out for comment:
"The people got f***ed!"
"Can't print that Frank, family newspaper."
Wheels turn in Annunnzio's brain.
"How about 'The family got f***ed?'"
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:55 PM
True. I don't actually know who Boortz is -- he was described wherever I saw the quote as a nationally syndicated radio host. Is he a shock jock, or more political?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:56 PM
Re: 83
(Shakes head) That's Jim.
Re: 77
Another difference between Moran and McKinney, he hasn't scuffled with police, at least to my recollection. One of the few groups he's missed.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 12:58 PM
76, 87: Are those by the same person, and if so, who are you? (You needn't be anyone in particular, but please come up with a handle, if you would.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:01 PM
86: He's more political, doing the libertarian-but-only-sorta schtick. He's pro-choice, pro-separation of church and state, and anti-DrugWar. He reliably hates on liberals and gives big, slobbery kisses to the GOP, though.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:05 PM
From Wikipedia: Boortz can frequently be heard insulting "government schools", liberals, smokers, welfare recipients, and others. He also creates controversy among his many listeners for his staunch support of gay rights and for his negative comments regarding Southerners, Baptists, and Confederate issues (such as governmental support of the Confederate flag).
So, not so much "Southern Republican," as we think of the term down here.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:07 PM
The warrant does seem like an overreaction to pretty much any version of the initial event. But I'm not sure you can jump from that to race as an explanation without considering the possibility that the Capitol Police and Rep. McKinney really, really don't like each other and this is just another skirmish in something that was already ugly. I'm trying to imagine how this might have played out with somebody like Traficant in McKinney's role. If you imagine a history of being a PITA to the police, I'm not sure that a nutty white guy would necessarily have been immune to an attempt at payback, if that's what this is.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:10 PM
Moran's on the appropriations committee that oversees Smithsonian funding, and he's come forward a (well-publicized) push to charge admission fees for Smithsonian Institutions. Which defies not just the spirit but also the letter of the laws establishing many of the SI museums. He makes a firm promise to charge just $1 per person, but seeing how his promise can only be backed up by the same firm law he'd be overruling by charging anything at all, well, he irritates me.
Posted by Jimsmasher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:17 PM
The information we have about what actually happened is very thin, and it's all he-said she-said. McKinney is a magnet for accusations and is being prejudged here and elsewhere by people, including many Democrats, who have other reasons for disliking her.
The story as it circulated left me with many questions. Did she actually punch the cop, as many have said, or did she just resist him or shove back when grabbed from behind? (Legally the same thing, maybe, but propagandawise a punch is a lot more serious). Is she the only one who doesn't wear the pin, or is it fairly common? Is it a rule, or a custom? Where did the rule come from? Did she show her photo ID, as has been said? How often is a warrant put out for this kind of incident? Have there ever been similiar incidents in the past, and what happened then?
Do the Capitol Police have it in for McKinney? Can't rule that out. She's been in the House for 8 of 10 years and should be easily recognizable by someone whose job is recognizing Congressmen. (These aren't minimum-wage rentacops).
Elected representatives are a little huffy about their prerogatives and thay damn well should be. They aren't just low-level employees of a trillion-dollar organization; in theory they're management, though their role is diminishing as democracy is replaced by managerialism. (People who say "If I did something like that at my job I'd be fired" are accepting the diminished role of Congress. At your job, you're an employee. Congressmen aren't employees.)
Early on she refused to obey the "skirts for women" rule -- God knows where that one came from Good for her.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:18 PM
See, if that's part of it (which of course we don't know) -- a history of bad blood between McKinney and the Capitol Police -- I still think the parsimonious explanation includes racism. As discussed above in 16, 17, 21 and 25, I can't see the Capitol Police pursuing a vendetta against a white Congressman. Having an institutional opinion that he was a jerk, maybe, but taking that to the point of threatening arrest over something like this seems very, very unlikely.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:19 PM
94 to 91, and yes, absolutely to all the questions in 93.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:21 PM
Just occurred to me BTW, I was on a jury recently where the defendant was charged with assault for punching a woman, and his defense consisted in large part of the assertion that he had only pushed her. (This was belied by her broken bones and haemorrhage.) So I think there's a lot of room for semantic confusion around the word "punch".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:23 PM
Right -- the phrasing on this in a lot of stories is "He touched her and then she hit him." Which is different from "He grabbed her and then she pushed him away", or from "He grabbed her and then she poked him with her cell phone."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:26 PM
If the capitol police really don't like McKinney, then their claim that they didn't recognize her is, of course, totally bogus.
The fact that this came out on a Friday strikes me as suspicious. It might take another day or two to settle it, and even if no charges end up being filed, the rumor will have spread everywhere. This story has also served to split Democrats. If it was a setup, it was done perfectly.
The fast that McKinney is on the farthest wing of the out-party, and has a lot of enemies, also makes it more likely that it was a frame.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:28 PM
If the capitol police really don't like McKinney, then their claim that they didn't recognize her is, of course, totally bogus.
Not necessarily. The incident could be based on sincere non-recognition by one officer, and then the publicity and talk of arrest might grow out of a bad relationship with decisionmakers in the CP.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:32 PM
To pick up on something said before -- if it were a white male Congressman he would have been much less likely to be grabbed, and the arrest warrant would have been much less likely.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:35 PM
I agree with much of 93, but if I'm "management," or a veteran Congressperson, where do I get off bending security rules and putting the onus on a Capitol police officer to bear with me? Again, the facts are everything in a case like this, but if I owned a business that needed security, I wouldn't put my employees in such a spot. And I'm not ready to concede that Congresspeople should be considered "owners" of anything -- after all, they're more like, er... representatives of, ahhh...the people.
Posted by bill | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:37 PM
Why exactly do we start the racism and harassment charges before getting to the facts.
Because the woman herself claims that it's racial profiling, obviously. I have no clue if she's bullshitting or not, but her saying that introduces the issue, duh.
And also, let's be honest: because she's a congresswoman. When Cheney shot his friend, there was tons of speculation about whether or not it was the friend's fault. Same diff.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:43 PM
As representatives of the people, they're not employees. That was my point.
We do not know yet that McKinney broke a rule.
There are a total of nine black Congresswomen, so it shouldn't be hard to learn to recognize all of them instantly. It's not as if the poor security guard was being forced to distinguish McKinney from 385 other middle-aged black women.
Post 9/11 security rules have been systematically used to increase police powers and reduce limitations on them. Using them against Congresspersons and poutting them in the position of obedient (or disobedient) schoolchildren strikes me with a consistent long-term diminution of the authority and dignity of Congress.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:44 PM
where do I get off bending security rules and putting the onus on a Capitol police officer to bear with me?
What's your point -- that her conduct merits arrest?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:45 PM
"as consistent with"
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:48 PM
Our President got into a physical altercation with a secuirty man at a summit meeting in Chile, and he was very proud of how tough he was. Many admired him.
Some think that the Chileans set Bush up, but it makes as much sense to think that we set the Chileans up. Another flight-suit moment.
Chilean incident
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:55 PM
Chilean incident.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:56 PM
Dude, that's the lamest excuse for a link I've ever seen. Let me go fix it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:57 PM
No, let me.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:57 PM
I'd forgotten that story, but it's excellently applicable. I think I'll add it up top.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 1:59 PM
There are a total of nine black Congresswomen, so it shouldn't be hard to learn to recognize all of them instantly. It's not as if the poor security guard was being forced to distinguish McKinney from 385 other middle-aged black women.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding where this happened, but there are, I believe, other black women who work on the Hill who are not Congresspeople.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:01 PM
110 -- as long as you're updating the top, you might want to take out one or more of the "there"s.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:02 PM
See, if that's part of it (which of course we don't know) -- a history of bad blood between McKinney and the Capitol Police -- I still think the parsimonious explanation includes racism.
I'm not sure that's true. The Capitol Police have to be dealing with enough powerful black people, including members of Congress, that you would expect them to work pretty hard at avoiding racism. Maybe they fail. But if you start from the assumption that they are working hard at it, it's plausible that a history of being treated badly and accused of racism over innocent or invented slights would be particularly likely to get under their skins. That would be race-related, I suppose, but I don't think it would be racism. People don't generally like being told they're doing a terrible job at something they're working hard at.
As discussed above in 16, 17, 21 and 25, I can't see the Capitol Police pursuing a vendetta against a white Congressman. Having an institutional opinion that he was a jerk, maybe, but taking that to the point of threatening arrest over something like this seems very, very unlikely.
Again, I think it's important that this was not just any black Congresswoman. Maybe my perception is skewed, but from the little I know of her, McKinney seems to be out there on the fringe, which is why I'm thinking of someone like Traficant rather than someone like DeLay as an appropriate white male comparison. And I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that the police would show a lot of deference to a white guy who was widely perceived as a nut and an embarrassment to the institution. Maybe that's naive.
Of course, most of this is pure conjecture. I'm not arguing that racism isn't the explanation for what's happening, but only that racism is not the only plausible explanation.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:08 PM
I'm not a good googler, and I am paranoid, but I think there's room for speculation about political motives. Remember, these are the same Capitol Police who arrested Cindy Sheehan a few months ago for wearing a T-shirt with a message they disliked.
I've lost the sources, but I think that the Chief of the Capitol Police is picked by a board. It is chaired alternately by the Sgt at Arms of the House and Senate. I think the only other member is the Architect of the Capitol.
There shall also be a Captain and Lieutenants, who are chosen jointly by the Sgts at Arms of the House and Senate
The Sgts. at Arms are selected by the House and Senate. We know who has had the majority in those two bodies recently.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:12 PM
To 104 --
Not the point, although I was thinking out loud so I didn't have much of a point. If Rep. McKinney did not have a required piece of ID (the "lapel pin?" again, a factual issue as to whether it's required) and If she kept walking past the guards as at least one news report says, then her actions could reasonably have had the effect of requiring the guard on duty to ask herself or himself "What do I do now?" (Maybe not. Maybe the guard was then supposed to ask for alternative ID. But she did apparently keep walking.) I don't have much confidence that even under the best, most benign circumstances, the police would achieve an optimal solution. I guess I would expect more from any given U.S. representative (expectations that are repeatedly dashed). Rep. McKinney has served multiple terms in Congress. She's not a rookie and she's not an employee, as one commenter says. She's been through the security system before (maybe it was recently changed? another factual question) Why wouldn't she stop and say "I'm sorry, there must be some confusion. I'm Rep. McKinney of Georgia. Please call my office or escort me there so that I can meet my constituents/lobbyists/etc." Instead, hand-to-hand cellphone combat ensues? Expectations dashed again.
Posted by bill | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:26 PM
We know who has had the majority in those two bodies recently.
The Freemasons!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:26 PM
Yeah, the reported detail that she hit the guard in the chest with her cellphone is what makes me wonder a bit about how serious the "assault" was. The verbs floating around on the net--"slugged," "punched," "attacked"--seem to prejudge the event.
Jackmormon (?) has a good point here. We haven't talked about the differences between the legal definition of assault and common usage. IIRC, in many states the legal definition doesn't even require that you touch the person for it to be considered assault.
In court (or on an arrest warrant), assault has a very specific, codified meaning. In ordinary speech, it's kind of a flamethrower -- you don't say "assault" when you mean "Mom, Bobby shoved me."
Posted by Witt | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:28 PM
The fact that McKinney is on the farthest wing of the out-party, and has a lot of enemies, also makes it more likely that it was a frame.
Amen to that. Of any Congressperson, charges like these stick to McKinney the easiest. Conservatives don't like her because she's, well, Cynthia McKinney; liberals don't like her because she's a loose cannon.
If she behaved rudely, she should apologize. But talk of arrest sounds motivated more by a vendetta than anything else.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:28 PM
Again, I think it's important that this was not just any black Congresswoman. Maybe my perception is skewed, but from the little I know of her, McKinney seems to be out there on the fringe, which is why I'm thinking of someone like Traficant rather than someone like DeLay as an appropriate white male comparison.
We don't know anything here, it's all speculation, but I'm not coming up with stories where Traficant was threatened with arrest under similar circumstances (or, you know, anything similar at all). You'd have to do some incredibly broadbased and probably impossible study to prove that black women perceived as being a little 'out there' get treated more harshly and less respectfully than white men whose behavior is similarly odd, but I do get the strong sense that they do. (And of course, Traficant is much weirder than McKinney -- that that's the comparison that springs to mind is part of the problem. She has somewhat extreme political views -- he used to end speeches on the House floor by saying 'Beam me up.')
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:30 PM
My favorite Traficant quote was from his trial: "I want you to disregard all the opposing counsel has said. I think they're delusionary. I think they've had something funny for lunch in their meal, I think they should be handcuffed, chained to a fence and flogged, and all of their hearsay evidence should be thrown the hell out. And if they lie again, I'm going to go over there and kick them in the crotch. Thank you very much."
A class act, to the end.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:35 PM
If we're arguing about whether the police don't like McKinney for racist reasons or for some other bad reason, who cares.
Maybe there are other black women on the Hill, but asking that cops learn to reliably identify nine black Congresswomen is not unreasonable. We're not asking them to reliably identify the other, nonCongressional, black women.
We're still stuck with the problem that McKinney was so obscure that she wasn't recognized, but so notorious that she was widely disliked. LB's hypothetical solution only works if the cop on duty was very new and poorly trained.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:38 PM
Well, there's the 'all you people look alike' effect, which is compounded by racist indifference, but which is a real problem for cross-racial identification even in the absence of such indifference. I've probably told this story a dozen times before, but living in Samoa, I was consistently confused with any other white woman between 5'3" and 5'10", with hair that wasn't blond or black, regardless of the total absence of any actual resemblance. And this wasn't casual acquaintances -- people who worked with other Peace Corps Volunteers would come up to me and launch into conversations under the assumption that I was their co-worker.
So it's not actually incredible to me that a new guy (if he was new) could have trouble identifying McKinney despite the fact (if true) that she was notorious and disliked among the CP.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 2:46 PM
Emerson:
I can't imagine that Capitol police are asked to memorize the faces of various Congresspeople. If they are, there's no need for the pins. I shudder at the idea of having to come up with a formulation that explains to cops that they have to memorize what the black Congresspeople look like, and not the white ones. It is entirely possible that the guy recognized her and hassled her. It's also entirely possible that he didn't. It's possible that racial animus played a part. It's also possible that it didn't.
I really don't trust McKinney in these sorts of situations; I note that I just saw something (TNR?) indicating that other Dems are getting irritated because she's oxygenating a story that competes with their efforts to focus on Republican sins.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:00 PM
Those Samoans shouldn't be hired for jobs of that type, obviously.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:00 PM
Democrats are irritated at Feingold. Democrats are shit.
This has been covered. The ordinary doorkeeper of an ordinary apartment complex has to identify everyone in the complex, and there might be 400+. He will sometimes be a little shaky on the new ones, but McKinney wasn't new. Identifying 435 congresspersons isn't an unreasonable demand on someone making their living doing security for Congress. It would be for us, but that's not our job.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:04 PM
Identifying 435 congresspersons isn't an unreasonable demand on someone making their living doing security for Congress. It would be for us, but that's not our job.
I do agree with this -- I find being unable to identify her unreasonable, in that it's their job and it's perfectly doable, but not implausible, in that it's the sort of thing that people do screw up.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:07 PM
It might not be unreasonable, but apparently it isn't being done. I don't know what the pins are for if all the cops are supposed to recognize the Congresspeople.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:10 PM
Also - Feingold's bit is about an assault on the country. McKinney's is about an assualt on her. Feingold's bit should play a part in getting our people in; I can't see McKinney's bit doing that.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:13 PM
I don't know what the pins are for if all the cops are supposed to recognize the Congresspeople.
The thing is, though, the pins are nonsense security if the cops aren't supposed to recognize the Congresspeople -- talk about easily faked. Relying on a little pin on the lapel of someone walking past you? The pins only make sense as security in the context of a group of people who are recognized, and the pin is maybe necessary to jog the guard's memory.
Given that she's, what, in her fourth term, and distinctive in appearance, a guard doing his job should have known her by sight and let her through.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:14 PM
As far as I know, the status of the pins is uncertain. It's made to seem that it's a hard and fast rule, but who made the rule, whether it is a rule, or whether McKinney is the only one who ever breaks the rule, if it is one, hasn't been discussed.
The thinness of the facts in this case is pretty striking. I don't think that there's been much new information in four days so far.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:15 PM
she's, what, in her fourth term
To be fair, she sat out the one before this one.
Anyway, to repeat I think the real problem is with the Police continuing to make a fuss out of it. And I think it's really of a piece with Bush going after the Chilean security guy, which was all a part of the Secret Service swinging their mighty batons. Part of the authoritarian cult of security is that no one touches the sacred cop. (I don't mean this as a blanket statement about all police.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:21 PM
Anyway, to repeat I think the real problem is with the Police continuing to make a fuss out of it.
You betcha. My sense of the intitial incident is that probably the CP guy was not doing the best job he could possibly do, for whatever reason, and McKinney was overly touchy about it and overreacted, but that it shouldn't have been any big thing. What makes it bizarre is the threats of prosecution.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:25 PM
The Republicans are making hay: USA Today.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 3:53 PM
The Dems aren't exactly leaping to her defense. LB, I sense a pro bono case in the making!
Posted by bill | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:01 PM
She's a member of Congress, not a waif. She has lawyers.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:03 PM
133: Yuck. Just in case the whole thing wasn't already enough of a circus.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:05 PM
Right. And not a circus of McKinney's making -- this has all been blown up out of nothing by the CP and the Republicans.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:09 PM
this has all been blown up out of nothing by the CP and the Republicans.
This is completely true.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:16 PM
In the biography A Beautiful Mind, there's a short interlude about John Nash's first day of work, where he was introduced to the security guard by a senior researcher, who instructed the guard to memorize Nash's face. It doesn't strike me as all that surprising for the Capitol security.
I'm not buying this magic pin thing, though. Probably most of the Congresscritters (I'm lovin' this phrase) wear them on their lapels, and probably most of them are so well-known to the guards that a pin, and looking white and middle-aged are enough to jog their memories. But surely it isn't their only ID, because they all have IDs, too.
My sense of the incident lines up with LBs. Guy's probably doing his job, probably isn't good with African-American faces, stops McKinney thinking she's an aide, she overreacts, guy is embarassed. At this point, it seems that all we need is an 'Oops, sorry ma'am.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:17 PM
I'm not the anon poster. But Moran is my rep too. Feh. I've voted against him in every election since he took a "loan" from a lobbyist. Barely within the letter of the law.
On McKinney, I think former members also wear a pin as I've seen some go around security. That ups the number of candidates.
At my 5-sided office building in VA if I show my picture ID to the cop working the pre-security station (yes, we have security to protect the main security!) and the officer doesn't see it long enough to compare it with my face I will get ordered to halt. If I don't, I figure that at best I'll get tackled.
The Capitol Police are making a political hash of this; they should let it drop.
Posted by md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:18 PM
To 135:
Not her -- she's a member of Congress. I was thinking that the guard who was involved probably needs a lawyer to defend against a possible civil suit by McKinney.
Posted by bill | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:18 PM
Oh, heavens, in the terribly unlikely event that anything of the sort should happen, he'll have someone much richer than I am slavering to pay for his lawyer.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:27 PM
But surely it isn't their only ID, because they all have IDs, too.
They have ID cards, which Rep. McKinney says that she showed.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:29 PM
I just thought of this: so far, there has been no official statement from the capital police, as far as I know, and no named source. In other words, someone anonymous is feeding scuttlebutt to a reporter. It's "he-said she-said", but the "he" is nameless and faceless. To me this makes the whole thing even fishier, and it makes the way people are piling on even more offensive.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:30 PM
In other words, someone anonymous is feeding scuttlebutt to a reporter. It's "he-said she-said", but the "he" is nameless and faceless.
Yes. I hadn't put it together, but this is irking me as well.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:34 PM
And not a circus of McKinney's making -- this has all been blown up out of nothing by the CP and the Republicans.
I was under the impression that McKinney has been doing her part in pushing the story. Is that not correct?
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:36 PM
OT but did you see this?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:44 PM
146: Well, she's not giving details of the incident, and I certainly didn't see anything from her on the incident before the threats of arrest began. She hasn't been perfectly silent, but she really doesn't appear to be where the energy in the story comes from.
See the latest update -- according to Slate it's perfectly conventional for Representatives who expect to be recognized not to wear their pins.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:49 PM
Digression: When I interned at a document holding institution in DC one of my supervisors met me at the security station on my first day and vouched for me as I signed in. He then took me through the process of getting my own ID/badge. When it was over I pointed out that at no time during the process did anyone actually see my driver's license or passport. That was 1998; hopefully security is better now.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 4:56 PM
148: I actually find the race element more troubling in the initial missed identification than in the threats of prosecution. I can imagine innocent explanations, but you'd generally expect Capitol Police officers to recognize members of Congress, and when one doesn't you wonder if it's because he's not looking for a member of Congress when he sees a black woman.
But the prosecution thing is a considered decision from a higher level, and it's so over the top that I have to assume that there's more to it than slapping down an uppity black woman. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense for the CP leadership to take on a member of Congress. If there's any police department in the country that would have an incentive NOT to assume that "black = powerless," I'd think that the Capitol Police would be it.
But throw the Republican leadership into the mix and maybe the picture changes. If the CP is political, then it makes sense to go after McKinney to serve the interests of the Republicans. And I don't doubt that part of the Repubican animus against McKinney is racial.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 5:17 PM
As I understand, this became a big story when the Capitol police announced that they would try to get a warrant. The story would have faded quickly otherwise. McKinney had already expressed her regrets (not quit an apology, people say). Once the warrant was out, McKinney had to fight.
They still haven't got a warrant. If the goal was 5-6 days of publicity, they've already got what they wanted. They may not care whether the prosecutor decides to prosecute or not.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 5:26 PM
The upshot: she couldn't have asked for better cover to this silliness than the DeLay debacle (DeLaybacle?).
Prior to my post, I count eleven (11) mentions of "DeLay" in this comments thread alone. Why? Because his true wickedness makes her (at-best) foolishness seem almost unnewsworthy.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 5:45 PM
152 was I.
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 5:46 PM
Okay, here are the statutes which, if I read them correctly, make the Capitol Police an arm of the majority parties in the House and Senate
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title40/chapter2_.html
scroll down and click on section 206
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/02C29.txt
Damn but I hate computerized research, keyword searching, and trying to read things on a screen.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 6:08 PM
Huh. Apparently the name of the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is Bill Pickle. A friend of mine used to date a guy named Big Bill Pickle, but he was a swing bandleader in Cincinnati -- probably not the same guy.
(And thanks for the research -- I read them the same way. Members, i.e. the majority party, elect Sergeants at Arms for the House and Senate, and the SaAs run the Capitol police.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 6:14 PM
Thank you for the kind words, LB.
The evening news on my local Fox affiliate just did a story on the resignation of Tom DeLay. They followed it with a piece on McKinney being charged. The McKinney piece seemed at least as long, and treated the incident as more serious than DeLay's resignation.
I smell politics.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 9:43 PM
What, you would question the fine editorial judgment of the KASA Fox 2 News at Nine? I'm shocked.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:00 PM
You're right, I'm showing bias. Story 1: Republican has legal problems, resigns. Story 2: Democrat has legal problems, hasn't yet resigned. What could be more fair and balanced?
I suppose I should sit in front of the TV for the extra hour to watch one of the other channels' 10pm news. That'd be the American thing to do. But KASA was airing House from 8 to 9. It had what's-her-name, who played Buffy's sister Dawn. So staying for the Fox 9pm news seemed destined. I think I've just proved that TV does cause brain damage. Maybe I shouldn't start my taxes tonight.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04- 4-06 10:38 PM
FWIW: McKinney apologizes.
Posted by SomeCalledMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:24 PM
If any connection is drawn between the apology and a decision not to prosecute, that is grotesque. Assaulting a police officer is a crime, not a faux pas. If this is something which can be amended for by an apology, then we've just seem a member of Congress threatened with arrest because she was rude.
This makes me sick.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:35 PM
I assume (hope) she apologized because she was taken into the woodshed by the leadership and told to get this off of the front page. Maybe she made a deal with the cops - I've certainly had the experience that look of contrition + speeding = warning, while speeding + mouthiness = ticket. I don't have a problem with this is any direction; I just don't want anything to fuck up whatever chances we have in '06.
Posted by SomeCalledMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:46 PM
How's that supposed to work? My neighbors might not vote for Tammy Duckworth because they're upset about McKinney?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:49 PM
Crazy black people and Dems enable them = get out the base. I know of one pretty liberal DC Dem who switched parties based on some rough version of the above. It works.
Posted by SomeCalledMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:50 PM
Oh, I'm not arguing with it as political calculation -- if it's what she has to do to get this off the front page, it's worth it. I just find the fact, if it appears that the apology was what was wanted to resolve the situation, that the Capitol Police considered it appropriate to extort an apology from a Congresswoman by threatening her with prosecution absolutely unconscionable and repellent.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:51 PM
Yeah, fuck tha police. I want to see security protocols at the Capitol, not territorial bullies acting like provincial yahoo sherriffs.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:06 PM
I don't know who would care about this other that Kotsko and possibly Dr. B, but apparently a Gospel of Judas has been discovered and more-or-less authenticated (as much as such a thing can be authenticated).
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:06 PM
provincial yahoo sherriffs.
Exactly. "Are you going to apologize to the officer, or are we going to have to lock you up?" That's not what criminal prosecution is for.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:13 PM
Hey I saw Gospel of Judas in 10th grade -- that show rocked!
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:16 PM
166--I'm pretty excited about it.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:16 PM
Neat. I can't wait until the translation is up on line.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:16 PM
Seems to me that Pavlovian get-out-the-base issues are created when needed. They need take no notice of the facts; who'd have been cynical enough to expect Willie Horton to be an issue in a presidential election?
Joe, for religious feeling the fact of canonical writings is crucial. Things are studied, revered, memorized because they have been for a long time. The bible was selected from available writings many centuries ago. I don't know, but I'd expect this text was known then and didn't make the cut. Apochryphal writings aren't likely to be able to effect many people's faith, whether literal or essentially poetic, like mine.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:21 PM
171 me
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:22 PM
I didn't say anything about shattering anyone's faith. I just thought it was interesting, and that others would find it so as well.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:27 PM
The newsworthiness of the Gospel of Judas, I get. But am I the only one who doesn't see the big deal about "Maybe Jesus Walked on Ice!"?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:29 PM
170 -- the Times story linked in 166 has a link to a PDF of the translation, and to a zoomable image of the original.
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:31 PM
Shorter Gospel of Judas: Bitch set me up!
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:31 PM
174 -- purported scientific explanations for biblical miracles always strike me as way corny.
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:32 PM
Since it looks to be from the 3rd century, "canonical" doesn't enter into it, but it is exciting to see proof that the theological problem of Judas (also explored in Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ) was a live issue that far back.
Posted by mealworm | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:34 PM
Hey mealworm, any chance you're a Longhorn? Common name and all but I thought I'd check.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:36 PM
This detail from the article makes me spitting angry:
When I worked for the historical-document dealer, everyone was making the argument that the private market helped publicize and conserve significant finds. Here, however, everyone was out to make a buck and nobody knew exactly what it was they had. A safety-deposit box in Hicksville? Are you fucking kidding me?Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:51 PM