A former student sent me this link. One of the funniest things I've seen a long time. Watch it while you can.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Isn't killing people a crime?
I have lots of smart readers.
Can someone please explain to me why it's not a crime to kill somebody if you're driving. If it were any other situation, it would be crime, right?
Hell driving drunk safely is a crime. But killing somebody sober isn't? I don't get it.
Here's just the latest example.
Can someone please explain to me why it's not a crime to kill somebody if you're driving. If it were any other situation, it would be crime, right?
Hell driving drunk safely is a crime. But killing somebody sober isn't? I don't get it.
Here's just the latest example.
Foot Patrol Working in Philly
It's always tough when you know something but can't convince others.
I know foot patrol works. At least I think I know. I've done it.
But there's so little research out there. There's no reason we should all still be quoting a study from 30 years ago (which did show that foot patrol reduced public fear).
Foot patrol has worked in New York (it would work better without quotas). And now there's some research by Jerry Ratcliffe coming out of Philadelphia. As reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
I know foot patrol works. At least I think I know. I've done it.
But there's so little research out there. There's no reason we should all still be quoting a study from 30 years ago (which did show that foot patrol reduced public fear).
Foot patrol has worked in New York (it would work better without quotas). And now there's some research by Jerry Ratcliffe coming out of Philadelphia. As reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Temple's study, which covered three months, showed a 22 percent drop in crime in areas covered by the foot patrols. Arrests were up 13 percent.
As in other major cities, crime has been on a decline in Philadelphia. Violent crime - down in all but three districts - dropped 7 percent citywide in 2009 compared with 2007, with homicide down 23 percent and aggravated assault down 4 percent.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
I got a plan. It can't go wrong.
This story blows me away both in terms of chutzpa and stupidity.
Say you're NYPD and need some extra money. Work overtime in the three-four? Naw. You don't play that game.
Instead... rent five vans, hire 16 day laborers, and then go to a perfume warehouse in Jersey where you have a connection. Then wave your real badge and gun around while yelling, "NYPD! Hands up!" Tie up eleven employees. Three hours after the start of the robbery, one of victims, says the Daily News, calls 911. According to the Times:
What would do with a million dollars of perfume anyway? You sell it for what, twenty cents on the dollar? Minus expenses and divided by a crew of six, that comes out to about $33,000 per person. I guess it wouldn't have been bad money for a few day's work... if you weren't so stupid.
Say you're NYPD and need some extra money. Work overtime in the three-four? Naw. You don't play that game.
Instead... rent five vans, hire 16 day laborers, and then go to a perfume warehouse in Jersey where you have a connection. Then wave your real badge and gun around while yelling, "NYPD! Hands up!" Tie up eleven employees. Three hours after the start of the robbery, one of victims, says the Daily News, calls 911. According to the Times:
When the police arrived, two of the rental trucks were at the scene. Officials traced those to a rental agency and found that Officer LeBlanca had paid $205.79 for one of the trucks with a Visa debit card, which was subscribed and billed to his home in Manhattan, the court papers said. He and Officer Checo had also provided information from their driver’s licenses, the court papers said.Really? That was your brilliant plan?
What would do with a million dollars of perfume anyway? You sell it for what, twenty cents on the dollar? Minus expenses and divided by a crew of six, that comes out to about $33,000 per person. I guess it wouldn't have been bad money for a few day's work... if you weren't so stupid.
Off Duty and Black in Montgomery County
I recently received this from a (black) Baltimore police officer:
If you want to know what an Eastside drug dealer feels when confronted by Baltimore Police, show BPD ID to Montgomery County police. They tossed me out of a restaurant in Bethesda because my shirt rode up and my holstered weapon with the badge adjacent were visible.
According to the manager, several patrons were "uncomfortable," and I was told by "security" that I couldn't be in the establishment while armed. When I didn't leave, police were called and I was escorted out by MCPD, told "not to make trouble," and threatened with "difficulty" if I didn't cooperate.
After securing my weapon and voluntarily offering to let a MCPD Lieutenant pat me down, I was told that I was making it more difficult than it had to be, threatened with arrest, and again refused entry into the establishment by police. No public intoxication, no disorderly, no assault, no nada! Apparently BWB (breathing while Black) is an arrestable offense in Montgomery County.
Amazing how Whites, both Hopkins oncologists and crackheads from Harford Co. pass through the Eastern District. As a police officer, I maintain the ability to discern which is which. How convenient it must be to work in Mont Co. where this skill is obviously not needed.
In the interest of fairness, when I made a formal IAD complaint, I specifically mentioned the Lt. and the Corporal, instead of the officers who were following their lead. They even sent a communication to BPD about it taking four of them to escort me out of the establishment. My chain of command just laughed it off. So far, but with IAD, you never know. You know, the last LOD death in Mont Co was run over by a fellow officer during a foot chase.
Talk about "Black and Blue"...This shit is depressing!
PLEASE make sure your students understand that when you REALLY need back up...you don't give a damn WHERE it comes from!
Thx for letting me vent,
[name]
Friday, March 5, 2010
It's Baltimore, hon!
Lest people think Baltimore is all ghetto, I'll link to a Sun feature showing some of the homes in nice neighborhoods. [The low prices listed for these neighborhoods almost make me want to move back!]
Funny that Greektown, where I lived, didn't make the cut.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime
While the prison population keeps going up, not many know that in some states it's going down. Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York have reduced their prison populations by five to twenty percent since 1999 (without any increases in crime) while the national prison population increased by another twelve percent.
The Sentencing Project explains.
The Sentencing Project explains.
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Homeless, Broken Windows, and Quality-of-Life Crimes in San Francisc
Since there's no good newspaper left in San Francisco, I guess it's up to the Washington Post to report stories like this.
Today, in 2010, the difference between New York City and San Francisco (or Santa Monica) is amazing. I'm always a little shocked out west and think, "Wow, I thought we figured out how to deal with this problem years ago."
I've noticed there is generally more aggressive begging in "nice" neighborhoods than there is in any poor neighborhood. Rich neighborhoods are safer. And in the ghetto, people have less money to give. Plus it's easier to play off white liberal guilt in "nice" parts of town.
In the past 20 years, homelessness has not gone away in New York City, but it's gotten a hell of lot better for both the homeless and normal residents.
Police need to pay attention to "Broken Windows" quality-of-life urban issues. Homelessness is one of these issues. But, some say, the link between "Broken Issues" issues and violent crime has never been proven. True. It may or may not exist (though I suspect it does).
But homicides have gone way down in San Fransisco without any obviously corresponding drop in quality-of-life issues. But quality-of-life issues matter for their own sake. Those who think that public urination, for instance, doesn't matter probably have never had anybody piss on their stoop.
Homeless people have problems. No home, for one. Unemployment, for another. And, more often than not, mental illness and substance abuse. Too many homeless advocates (though not all) seem to advocate for more homelessness rather than less. Aggressive begging helps neither the homeless nor the city.
San Francisco, in terms of homeless and aggressive begging, is like NYC 20 years ago. It doesn't have to be this way. While walking down the street, people have a right not be harassed while walking down the street. Period.
Idiots, like one guy quoted in the story, say that anti-homeless laws, "unfairly targets the poor, homeless and people of color. 'If you illegalize sleeping, camping, lying, sitting, congregating, then what's left: Walking?'" Oh, please. That attitude is so 1980s!
Homeless is a problem for both social services and police (yes, solving the problem does cost money). One without the other won't work. But without the police "or else" of arrest, some people will always "choose" to live on the streets. In my block, that's not an acceptable choice.
If you think thank that homeless should be allowed to live on my block or on my subway, I invite you instead to welcome them to camp in your yard or commute in your car.
Today, in 2010, the difference between New York City and San Francisco (or Santa Monica) is amazing. I'm always a little shocked out west and think, "Wow, I thought we figured out how to deal with this problem years ago."
I've noticed there is generally more aggressive begging in "nice" neighborhoods than there is in any poor neighborhood. Rich neighborhoods are safer. And in the ghetto, people have less money to give. Plus it's easier to play off white liberal guilt in "nice" parts of town.
In the past 20 years, homelessness has not gone away in New York City, but it's gotten a hell of lot better for both the homeless and normal residents.
Police need to pay attention to "Broken Windows" quality-of-life urban issues. Homelessness is one of these issues. But, some say, the link between "Broken Issues" issues and violent crime has never been proven. True. It may or may not exist (though I suspect it does).
But homicides have gone way down in San Fransisco without any obviously corresponding drop in quality-of-life issues. But quality-of-life issues matter for their own sake. Those who think that public urination, for instance, doesn't matter probably have never had anybody piss on their stoop.
Homeless people have problems. No home, for one. Unemployment, for another. And, more often than not, mental illness and substance abuse. Too many homeless advocates (though not all) seem to advocate for more homelessness rather than less. Aggressive begging helps neither the homeless nor the city.
San Francisco, in terms of homeless and aggressive begging, is like NYC 20 years ago. It doesn't have to be this way. While walking down the street, people have a right not be harassed while walking down the street. Period.
Idiots, like one guy quoted in the story, say that anti-homeless laws, "unfairly targets the poor, homeless and people of color. 'If you illegalize sleeping, camping, lying, sitting, congregating, then what's left: Walking?'" Oh, please. That attitude is so 1980s!
Homeless is a problem for both social services and police (yes, solving the problem does cost money). One without the other won't work. But without the police "or else" of arrest, some people will always "choose" to live on the streets. In my block, that's not an acceptable choice.
If you think thank that homeless should be allowed to live on my block or on my subway, I invite you instead to welcome them to camp in your yard or commute in your car.
Flint needs police!
You may know Flint, Michigan, from "Roger and Me". In many ways, Flint is typical of America's struggling small cities. It's 2000 population, just over half African-American, was 125,000 (so it's probably down to about 110,000 right now). Flint has about 35 homicides a year, disproportionatly concentrated in its north side ghetto. Thirty-five homicides puts Flint in the same league as Baltimore, at least when it comes to murder.
Michael East, Saginaw, Michigan police officer and author of the excellent Beyond Hope?, sent me this link responding to the mayor's plan to lay off police officers.
Now I don't know Flint Mayor Dayne Walling from Adam, and I've never been to Flint, but if the police officer in the video is being straight with us, that tow deal sounds shady.
What I find more amazing is the fact that Mayor Walling wants to reduce the police force to 120 officer. That's a rate of 109 per 100,000 citizens. By comparison (don't hold me to these numbers, they're rough and corrections are welcome), New York city had about 410. Baltimore 450. Chicago 500 (Does Chicago really have more officers per capita than NYC now? That's news to me). Los Angeles, always on the low end, has about 260 officers per 100,000.
Flint's 120 police officers for a city of 110,000 is scarily low! Especially for a city with a lot of crime. Remember, as a rule of thumb, at any given time 1/6 of officers are working and 1/2 of those are on patrol That's just 10 officers for any given shift!
Flint needs more cops. That's clear. But of course, given their dire straights (and it's not like I'm giving Flint any money), perhaps this a great opportunity for something truly radical!
How about unplugging Flint's police force from the 911 system? Alas, the mayor says he can reduce response time, so I don't have much hope.
A dozen officers on the street simply cannot answer 911 calls and do anything else. Period. So what is more important? Chasing the radio or real police work. I say real police.
What if one city would let polices officer actually be police officers, free to patrol and prevent crime (mostly on foot or bike) instead of being slaves to the radio, serving as glorified report writers, and chasing every last prank call to 911. Response time matter for fire and ambulance. Very rarely for police.
Why not try it? It's not like Flint has much choice.
Michael East, Saginaw, Michigan police officer and author of the excellent Beyond Hope?, sent me this link responding to the mayor's plan to lay off police officers.
Now I don't know Flint Mayor Dayne Walling from Adam, and I've never been to Flint, but if the police officer in the video is being straight with us, that tow deal sounds shady.
What I find more amazing is the fact that Mayor Walling wants to reduce the police force to 120 officer. That's a rate of 109 per 100,000 citizens. By comparison (don't hold me to these numbers, they're rough and corrections are welcome), New York city had about 410. Baltimore 450. Chicago 500 (Does Chicago really have more officers per capita than NYC now? That's news to me). Los Angeles, always on the low end, has about 260 officers per 100,000.
Flint's 120 police officers for a city of 110,000 is scarily low! Especially for a city with a lot of crime. Remember, as a rule of thumb, at any given time 1/6 of officers are working and 1/2 of those are on patrol That's just 10 officers for any given shift!
Flint needs more cops. That's clear. But of course, given their dire straights (and it's not like I'm giving Flint any money), perhaps this a great opportunity for something truly radical!
How about unplugging Flint's police force from the 911 system? Alas, the mayor says he can reduce response time, so I don't have much hope.
A dozen officers on the street simply cannot answer 911 calls and do anything else. Period. So what is more important? Chasing the radio or real police work. I say real police.
What if one city would let polices officer actually be police officers, free to patrol and prevent crime (mostly on foot or bike) instead of being slaves to the radio, serving as glorified report writers, and chasing every last prank call to 911. Response time matter for fire and ambulance. Very rarely for police.
Why not try it? It's not like Flint has much choice.
Why you never chase
Karen Schmeer, a friend of a dear friend, was killed on January 29 while carrying groceries home on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. She was killed by a speeding car filled with drug-shoplifting hoodlums fleeing the police. The impact knocked her out of her boots and flung her through the air, half a city block.
Karen’s death is more than a simple tragedy. Karen wasn’t just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Karen might be alive if police did not bend or break the exact rules put in place to prevent this kind of senseless death.
Let me be clear: the police did not kill Karen Schmeer. Criminals did. Let them rot. But their guilt does not absolve the police of responsibility.
While it is the job of police to catch crooks, it’s not always their job to chase crooks. Not in cars. Cars are dangerous.
Police say they weren’t in pursuit at the time of the crash, but witnesses, according to the Daily News, “saw the car weaving in and out of traffic going north on Broadway with a squad car with lights and sirens blaring in hot pursuit.” Why the discrepancy? Because police should never be chasing suspects up Broadway at 8pm.
You don't need to pull the trigger to be guilty of murder. You don’t have to want to kill somebody. You do need to accept the likely consequences of your actions. This is what moral responsibility is about.
New York, like most cities, forbids car chases “whenever the risks to [police] and the public outweigh the danger to the community if the suspect is not immediately apprehended.” That’s pretty much all the time unless it’s Osama Bin Laden himself at the wheel.
Car chases aren’t worth it. They often end in some crash. And the pursued car does not have the emergency lights and sirens to warn people out of the way. The car that killed Karen didn't even have its headlights on.
The NYPD pursuit policy is based on the only effective way to reduce the danger of a car chase: don’t do it. For police, it's as simple as it is unsatisfying.
Police love a good chase, and there are informal rules to keep your supervisor from stopping the fun. Don’t “chase.” Instead, “follow.” Don’t get on the radio unless your voice is calm and your siren is off. When the suspects bail and run, the one you catch is the driver. If, God forbid, something really bad happens, say you lost contact before it happened.
We all know that driving is dangerous--especially so for police--and we all know people who have been hurt and killed in car crashes. When I was a rookie cop on the streets of Baltimore and driving too fast to some call, I was confronted by my partner: “Do you know anybody [out there]!? Would you cry if anybody died?!” My sergeant put it another way, “I think of my wife or children in a car. They may die. For what?” This was the wisdom of experience. The message was simple: slow down.
Still I couldn’t resist the thrill of the chase. I remember one fondly, on small empty city streets in the middle of the night. A guy with a van was speeding, ran a red light, and wouldn’t pull over. It ended OK. The guy bailed and didn’t crash. I caught him. Nobody got hurt. I had a blast.
Three months later, when the judge saw my suspect in court, he said, “I know you! You’re a drug dealer.”
Taken off guard, the young man replied meekly, “I used to be a drug dealer.” Then he requested a jury trial. When I talked to him later, he said, “That judge doesn’t like me. I used to deal, but I don’t play that no more.”
“Then why did you run?” I asked.
“I didn’t have a license... And I was little drunk.” He was also backing up five years of prison time. He got off with a $500 fine for a suspended license.
I didn’t need to chase that guy, but I did it for the thrill. When I look back, I count my lucky stars nobody was killed. I made a dangerous situation worse by going the wrong way down one-way streets and pushing another driver past his limits.
Had Karen Schmeer walked in front of the car I was pursuing that night and been killed, I would have tried to cover my ass with the exact words a NYPD spokesman used in this case: “Cops tried to pull over the suspects minutes before the crash, but they lost the car momentarily. When they caught up with the vehicle, it had already struck Schmeer, as well as several other vehicles.” Maybe that’s true.
But I’m at least willing to say I was wrong.
[Reprinted from New York's West Side Spirit]
Karen’s death is more than a simple tragedy. Karen wasn’t just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Karen might be alive if police did not bend or break the exact rules put in place to prevent this kind of senseless death.
Let me be clear: the police did not kill Karen Schmeer. Criminals did. Let them rot. But their guilt does not absolve the police of responsibility.
While it is the job of police to catch crooks, it’s not always their job to chase crooks. Not in cars. Cars are dangerous.
Police say they weren’t in pursuit at the time of the crash, but witnesses, according to the Daily News, “saw the car weaving in and out of traffic going north on Broadway with a squad car with lights and sirens blaring in hot pursuit.” Why the discrepancy? Because police should never be chasing suspects up Broadway at 8pm.
You don't need to pull the trigger to be guilty of murder. You don’t have to want to kill somebody. You do need to accept the likely consequences of your actions. This is what moral responsibility is about.
New York, like most cities, forbids car chases “whenever the risks to [police] and the public outweigh the danger to the community if the suspect is not immediately apprehended.” That’s pretty much all the time unless it’s Osama Bin Laden himself at the wheel.
Car chases aren’t worth it. They often end in some crash. And the pursued car does not have the emergency lights and sirens to warn people out of the way. The car that killed Karen didn't even have its headlights on.
The NYPD pursuit policy is based on the only effective way to reduce the danger of a car chase: don’t do it. For police, it's as simple as it is unsatisfying.
Police love a good chase, and there are informal rules to keep your supervisor from stopping the fun. Don’t “chase.” Instead, “follow.” Don’t get on the radio unless your voice is calm and your siren is off. When the suspects bail and run, the one you catch is the driver. If, God forbid, something really bad happens, say you lost contact before it happened.
We all know that driving is dangerous--especially so for police--and we all know people who have been hurt and killed in car crashes. When I was a rookie cop on the streets of Baltimore and driving too fast to some call, I was confronted by my partner: “Do you know anybody [out there]!? Would you cry if anybody died?!” My sergeant put it another way, “I think of my wife or children in a car. They may die. For what?” This was the wisdom of experience. The message was simple: slow down.
Still I couldn’t resist the thrill of the chase. I remember one fondly, on small empty city streets in the middle of the night. A guy with a van was speeding, ran a red light, and wouldn’t pull over. It ended OK. The guy bailed and didn’t crash. I caught him. Nobody got hurt. I had a blast.
Three months later, when the judge saw my suspect in court, he said, “I know you! You’re a drug dealer.”
Taken off guard, the young man replied meekly, “I used to be a drug dealer.” Then he requested a jury trial. When I talked to him later, he said, “That judge doesn’t like me. I used to deal, but I don’t play that no more.”
“Then why did you run?” I asked.
“I didn’t have a license... And I was little drunk.” He was also backing up five years of prison time. He got off with a $500 fine for a suspended license.
I didn’t need to chase that guy, but I did it for the thrill. When I look back, I count my lucky stars nobody was killed. I made a dangerous situation worse by going the wrong way down one-way streets and pushing another driver past his limits.
Had Karen Schmeer walked in front of the car I was pursuing that night and been killed, I would have tried to cover my ass with the exact words a NYPD spokesman used in this case: “Cops tried to pull over the suspects minutes before the crash, but they lost the car momentarily. When they caught up with the vehicle, it had already struck Schmeer, as well as several other vehicles.” Maybe that’s true.
But I’m at least willing to say I was wrong.
[Reprinted from New York's West Side Spirit]
Saturday, February 27, 2010
New Orleans Police after the flood
Dan Baum wrote an excellent, award winning, best selling book about New Orleans, Nine Lives: Death and Life in New Orleans. He first spent time there as a reporter and writer for the New Yorker in the days after Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent devastating flood.
A few years ago I cold-called (or email) Dan after my wife realized that we were going to be in New Orleans with them and, more impressively, Dan and his wife just happen to be our doppelgangers. Dan and I shared a love for 1) writing books about ending the drug war, 2) food, 3) bicycles, and 4) literate women who edit extremely well. (Our mutual fondness for hats and hat stores is just, as they say down there, lagniappe.)
Dan is no dummy (though I'd never say that to his face). At our very first dinner, while discussion corporal punished in schools, Dan coined the title for my upcoming book, In Defense of Flogging.
Dan is also a very good writer. (He also loves guns and I look forward to his next book about America and guns.)
In the days after we met, Dan and his wife were kind enough to waste some time with us, so we [queue montage music] biked around, got a food tour of the city, danced in a second line, ate too much, drank just right, and heard some great music.
So naturally I'm very curious about Dan's thoughts on the famously f*cked New Orleans Police Department. But honestly, except for the police officers in his book, I had no idea what we thought about any of the many issues plaguing the NOPD. The officer who left? The officers who staying? The behavior during the flood? I couldn't get a straight answer! And it wasn't for lack of trying.
My queries were generally returned with what can only be described as minor apoplectic fits. There was this one: "didn't i ask you not to get me started about the NOPD during katrina? didn't i?" And then this one, "This is total, unreconstructed bullshit, and the kind of toxic rumor that made the disaster immeasurably worse when it was going on. christ almighty."
But stubborn I am. So I sent him the latest on the police killing and cover-up of unarmed civilians on the Danziger bridge and politely wrote, "If you could be so kind to help me out, would you mind calmly and briefly (15 sentences or less) telling me your thoughts on police behavior during and after the flood, and the criminal proceedings that have followed." Perhaps Dan is a sucker for uncharacteristic formality, but it worked. And that he did not stick to the length limit is but our gain.
A few years ago I cold-called (or email) Dan after my wife realized that we were going to be in New Orleans with them and, more impressively, Dan and his wife just happen to be our doppelgangers. Dan and I shared a love for 1) writing books about ending the drug war, 2) food, 3) bicycles, and 4) literate women who edit extremely well. (Our mutual fondness for hats and hat stores is just, as they say down there, lagniappe.)
Dan is no dummy (though I'd never say that to his face). At our very first dinner, while discussion corporal punished in schools, Dan coined the title for my upcoming book, In Defense of Flogging.
Dan is also a very good writer. (He also loves guns and I look forward to his next book about America and guns.)
In the days after we met, Dan and his wife were kind enough to waste some time with us, so we [queue montage music] biked around, got a food tour of the city, danced in a second line, ate too much, drank just right, and heard some great music.
So naturally I'm very curious about Dan's thoughts on the famously f*cked New Orleans Police Department. But honestly, except for the police officers in his book, I had no idea what we thought about any of the many issues plaguing the NOPD. The officer who left? The officers who staying? The behavior during the flood? I couldn't get a straight answer! And it wasn't for lack of trying.
My queries were generally returned with what can only be described as minor apoplectic fits. There was this one: "didn't i ask you not to get me started about the NOPD during katrina? didn't i?" And then this one, "This is total, unreconstructed bullshit, and the kind of toxic rumor that made the disaster immeasurably worse when it was going on. christ almighty."
But stubborn I am. So I sent him the latest on the police killing and cover-up of unarmed civilians on the Danziger bridge and politely wrote, "If you could be so kind to help me out, would you mind calmly and briefly (15 sentences or less) telling me your thoughts on police behavior during and after the flood, and the criminal proceedings that have followed." Perhaps Dan is a sucker for uncharacteristic formality, but it worked. And that he did not stick to the length limit is but our gain.
I decided early in my Katrina reporting to believe nothing I didn't see with my own eyes. New Orleans, as I constantly told the New Yorker's fact-checkers, is not a fact-rich environment, and the bullshit that flies around that city is beyond belief.
What I saw of the police during the storm were heroic officers operating with no leadership or resources whatsoever. The cops I was with were protecting and serving under incredibly trying conditions, and doing so with professionalism and compassion. That they were cut adrift from any command or support was obvious; Eddie Compass (and Ray Nagin) were not only criminally incompetent, they made everything immeasurably worse by all their talk about babies being raped in the Superdome and roving bands of marauders.
I also saw no violence or predation whatsover. Everyplace I was, people were taking care of each other with unbelievable tenderness. Even the gold-toothed young men in the Convention Center were bringing water to the old folks, protecting a play area for the toddlers, and so on. I never once saw a black man with a gun who was not in uniform. My editor kept asking me about the violence -- because he was listening to the reporters who were repeating the wild-ass assertions of the city's so-called leadership -- and I kept saying, "there is none." I saw looting, but what I saw was people going into supermarkets and drug stores to take what they needed. Invariably, the liquor shelves were completely intact. The French Quarter is full of stores full of valuable art and antiques and no burglar cages over the windows. They were untouched. (Yes, smash-and-grab artists tend to go after electronics, but still, a lot of very valuable stuff was left unmolested.)
I say all this because for the NOPD to say, "we had to do what we did because the city was in chaos" is patent bullshit and disgraces the majority of officers, who did their jobs without any support at all. There was no chaos. The structure of government disappeared, and the people behaved themselves admirably. The police abuses are prime examples of what Rebecca Solnit, in her excellent book, "A Paradise Built in Hell," calls "elite panic." Officials, cops especially, are terrified of mass chaos and therefore react to it whether it exists or not. On some level, it creeps them out that the people really don't need them at all. Left alone, they behave just fine.
We now are learning about some of the things bad cops did. And it's certainly true that a small number of civilians did bad things during Katrina. But the vast majority, cop and civilian alike, behaved exactly as we would hope they would.
Monday, February 22, 2010
I Like Art
I'm not a "quote of the day" kind of guy. But I just came across this one from Art Buchwald. I always like his moxie:
We seem to be going through a period of nostalgia, and everyone seems to think yesterday was better than today. I don’t think it was, and I would advise you not to wait ten years before admitting today was great. If you’re hung up on nostalgia, pretend today is yesterday and just go out and have one hell of a time.
Friday, February 19, 2010
A felony just ain't what it used to be!
Lost in all the talk about the NYPD juking the stats is the simple fact that each and every year, the value of felony theft ("grand larceny" in NY State) goes down with inflation.
New York State defines felony grand larceny (§155.30) as over $1,000. And this is where it's been for the past 25 years.
This makes the 64% reduction in grand larceny over the past 20 years all the more impressive since inflation alone has stripped almost 40% of a felony's value.
By lowering the value of a felony, we're cheapening its meaning and labeling more and more people as felons. And is harmful and costly for all of us.
$1,000 today is closer to the $275 a felony larceny was raised from in 1986 (and where it was from 1965 to 1986). To keep the value of a felony consistent, it's time to raise the dollar amount to $1,600 - $1,900. But since this figures stick with us for 20 or 30 years, why not jack it up to an even two-grand?
Last time we did this, serious felony crime in New York City decreased 11% overnight. And this despite rising crime!
Here's to a $2,000 felony! Let the movement start here.
[Thanks to a police officer for raising this question and to a John Jay librarian who dug up this hard-to-find information on a moment's notice! Ain't librarians grand?!]
p.s. While we're at it, maybe it's time to adjust that "$20" figure in the 9th Amendment, too.
New York State defines felony grand larceny (§155.30) as over $1,000. And this is where it's been for the past 25 years.
This makes the 64% reduction in grand larceny over the past 20 years all the more impressive since inflation alone has stripped almost 40% of a felony's value.
By lowering the value of a felony, we're cheapening its meaning and labeling more and more people as felons. And is harmful and costly for all of us.
$1,000 today is closer to the $275 a felony larceny was raised from in 1986 (and where it was from 1965 to 1986). To keep the value of a felony consistent, it's time to raise the dollar amount to $1,600 - $1,900. But since this figures stick with us for 20 or 30 years, why not jack it up to an even two-grand?
Last time we did this, serious felony crime in New York City decreased 11% overnight. And this despite rising crime!
Here's to a $2,000 felony! Let the movement start here.
[Thanks to a police officer for raising this question and to a John Jay librarian who dug up this hard-to-find information on a moment's notice! Ain't librarians grand?!]
p.s. While we're at it, maybe it's time to adjust that "$20" figure in the 9th Amendment, too.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Juking the Stats
A recent report of retired New York City police officers warns that the NYPD is playing fast and loose with the numbers. Knowing when and where crimes occur is essential to good policing and Compstat, a system of crime-data analysis created in 1994, played a large role in bringing down crime in New York City. But ever since, numbers have ruled the NYPD’s roost. If crime numbers are not down, precinct commanding officers need numbers to show they’re doing something—something quantifiable.
In the police world, two statistical categories are important: Part I felony crimes reported to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics and internal measures of “productivity,” namely arrests, citations, and summonses. There are ways to play with both. But perhaps surprisingly, the police department’s emphasis on the latter, the so-called productivity stats, is a much greater cause for concern.
Sergeants, lieutenants, captains and inspectors feel intense pressure to produce ever better stats. To some extent this can be good. Police are paid to work. But the pressure to produce more with less is as overwhelming as it is unrealistic. Mind you, the orders never come from above to just make numbers up, but when commanding officers talk about “productivity,” the rank-and-file hear “quotas.”
“I’d love it if I always had enough good C’s [criminal citations], but I need numbers,” one officer told me, “And if I don’t have enough stats and Compstat is coming up, I don’t care if they’re bullshit. I’ll take whatever the f— I can get!” In a world where “better stats” and “more stats” are synonymous, the tail is wagging the dog. And police are nothing if not creative in finding ways to please their bosses.
Officers know what they see on the streets. Any desk sergeant who reclassifies or “corrects” a report sends a terrible and destructive message. And these pressures have grown substantially in the past decade.
When a $2,000 stolen laptop model can be found on EBay for less than $1,000, a felony larceny might be reclassified as a misdemeanor and all but disappear from the stats. Or say a tourist reports a robbery but the police, knowing she’s on the next flight back to Germany, record her loss as lost property.
Of course statistical errors can run both ways. There's a lot more false reporting of crime than the public realize, and police are certainly not fools. That German tourist may have simply wanted a police report to scam insurance money. Real life is not easily quantifiable, and trying to determine which bubble on a report best reflects reality leaves lots of room for honest interpretation.
For statistical errors, data are supposed to be small and random. But for crime data, we’ll generally settle for errors as long as they’re consistent. Given that the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is basically arbitrary anyway, it doesn’t really matter if ten percent of felonies are reclassified as misdemeanors as long as it’s done every year. After all, far more than ten percent of crimes are never even reported.
The problem with fudging crime numbers for political gain is that you can’t stop. You have to do it every year just to stay even. Eventually you’ll get promoted and transferred, if you’re lucky, leaving your more honest and naïve replacement to deal with surprisingly bad crime numbers.
Certainly some stats, like murders and car thefts, are more reliable than others. The former are hard to fudge and the latter are generally reported for insurance reasons. And by these measures, the drop in violent crime is impressively clear. Murders alone are down 70 percent from their 1994 peak and 11 percent in the last year alone. This is real. These numbers matter.
But too many measure of police “production” do little but produce internal stats and pad officers’ overtime pay. Take low-level marijuana possession arrests. In 1994 there were 3,141 of these in New York City. In 2008 they had exploded to 40,383! This 1,285 percent increase was not the result of a epidemic of marijuana possession but a simple change in police tactics.
To say these arrests caused the crime drop is absurd, akin to claiming that a parking-ticket blitz prevents traffic deaths. These arrests—at great taxpayer expense and motivated only by internal police pressure to produce “stats”—simply pad officers’ overtime pay while sending tens of thousands of mostly poor minority men through the criminal-justice system.
Messy as they may be, it’s hard to image a police world were numbers didn’t matter. What’s important is that these numbers aren’t produced for their own sake. Statistics need to stay focused on crime and not internal, malleable, and ultimately destructive measures of “productivity.” The hard-working men and women of the NYPD deserve as much.
In the police world, two statistical categories are important: Part I felony crimes reported to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics and internal measures of “productivity,” namely arrests, citations, and summonses. There are ways to play with both. But perhaps surprisingly, the police department’s emphasis on the latter, the so-called productivity stats, is a much greater cause for concern.
Sergeants, lieutenants, captains and inspectors feel intense pressure to produce ever better stats. To some extent this can be good. Police are paid to work. But the pressure to produce more with less is as overwhelming as it is unrealistic. Mind you, the orders never come from above to just make numbers up, but when commanding officers talk about “productivity,” the rank-and-file hear “quotas.”
“I’d love it if I always had enough good C’s [criminal citations], but I need numbers,” one officer told me, “And if I don’t have enough stats and Compstat is coming up, I don’t care if they’re bullshit. I’ll take whatever the f— I can get!” In a world where “better stats” and “more stats” are synonymous, the tail is wagging the dog. And police are nothing if not creative in finding ways to please their bosses.
Officers know what they see on the streets. Any desk sergeant who reclassifies or “corrects” a report sends a terrible and destructive message. And these pressures have grown substantially in the past decade.
When a $2,000 stolen laptop model can be found on EBay for less than $1,000, a felony larceny might be reclassified as a misdemeanor and all but disappear from the stats. Or say a tourist reports a robbery but the police, knowing she’s on the next flight back to Germany, record her loss as lost property.
Of course statistical errors can run both ways. There's a lot more false reporting of crime than the public realize, and police are certainly not fools. That German tourist may have simply wanted a police report to scam insurance money. Real life is not easily quantifiable, and trying to determine which bubble on a report best reflects reality leaves lots of room for honest interpretation.
For statistical errors, data are supposed to be small and random. But for crime data, we’ll generally settle for errors as long as they’re consistent. Given that the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is basically arbitrary anyway, it doesn’t really matter if ten percent of felonies are reclassified as misdemeanors as long as it’s done every year. After all, far more than ten percent of crimes are never even reported.
The problem with fudging crime numbers for political gain is that you can’t stop. You have to do it every year just to stay even. Eventually you’ll get promoted and transferred, if you’re lucky, leaving your more honest and naïve replacement to deal with surprisingly bad crime numbers.
Certainly some stats, like murders and car thefts, are more reliable than others. The former are hard to fudge and the latter are generally reported for insurance reasons. And by these measures, the drop in violent crime is impressively clear. Murders alone are down 70 percent from their 1994 peak and 11 percent in the last year alone. This is real. These numbers matter.
But too many measure of police “production” do little but produce internal stats and pad officers’ overtime pay. Take low-level marijuana possession arrests. In 1994 there were 3,141 of these in New York City. In 2008 they had exploded to 40,383! This 1,285 percent increase was not the result of a epidemic of marijuana possession but a simple change in police tactics.
To say these arrests caused the crime drop is absurd, akin to claiming that a parking-ticket blitz prevents traffic deaths. These arrests—at great taxpayer expense and motivated only by internal police pressure to produce “stats”—simply pad officers’ overtime pay while sending tens of thousands of mostly poor minority men through the criminal-justice system.
Messy as they may be, it’s hard to image a police world were numbers didn’t matter. What’s important is that these numbers aren’t produced for their own sake. Statistics need to stay focused on crime and not internal, malleable, and ultimately destructive measures of “productivity.” The hard-working men and women of the NYPD deserve as much.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sean Bell officers won't face federal charges
Nor should they.
The story from the New York Times.
You can read everything I've written about Sean Bell. This post is probably the best, if you just want one.
Also, on principle, I'm against recharging people at the federal level. Smacks of double jeopardy to me. The Fifth Amendment is pretty explicit: "[No person shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." That's what trying somebody at the federal level is. One crime. One trial. Here's to the Bill of Rights!
Too bad the Supreme Court begs to differ.
The story from the New York Times.
You can read everything I've written about Sean Bell. This post is probably the best, if you just want one.
Also, on principle, I'm against recharging people at the federal level. Smacks of double jeopardy to me. The Fifth Amendment is pretty explicit: "[No person shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." That's what trying somebody at the federal level is. One crime. One trial. Here's to the Bill of Rights!
Too bad the Supreme Court begs to differ.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Historical Memory
National Public Radio just announced the death of some guy who was known for helping fund, "freedom fighters in Afghanistan fight the Soviet Union." And then, without any further talk, segued right into a story about the dangers of the Taliban's links to Al Qaeda.
Oh, the irony!
[For those who don't get it, those guys that Reagan called "freedom fighters" were the Taliban.]
Maybe we'd be safer if we could actually understand the language that some terrorists speak.
[Update: The guy is Charlie Wilson, Texas Congressman.]
Oh, the irony!
[For those who don't get it, those guys that Reagan called "freedom fighters" were the Taliban.]
Maybe we'd be safer if we could actually understand the language that some terrorists speak.
[Update: The guy is Charlie Wilson, Texas Congressman.]
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
No Sh*t
"A doctor testifying for the defense in the NYPD sodomy trial told jurors on Wednesday that the alleged victim's injuries couldn't have come from a police baton.
...
'Do I have an opinion on it? I don't believe it happened.'"
Both these quotes are from this Daily News article on Mineo.
...
'Do I have an opinion on it? I don't believe it happened.'"
Both these quotes are from this Daily News article on Mineo.
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Baltimore Colts
I'm not a football fan. Baseball is my game. But I enjoyed watching the game last night and rooting for the Saints (and my wife won $140 in the betting pool--of which I made off with $50 since I paid for her squares).
I was rooting for the Saints because if I don't have a personal stake: 1) I root for the better city, 2) I just like rooting for New Orleans in general, and 3) the Colts left Baltimore! And they didn't just leave but they snuck out of town in the middle of a night during a snow storm! At least that's how I remember it. I was only 12 and had no personal stake. I had never been to Baltimore. Still, it didn't seem fair.
What surprises me about Baltimore's relations with the Colts is how, at least in 2000, so many people seemed to wish them well. By comparison, I think you'd have a damn tough time finding any kind words in Brooklyn about the Dodgers. Is Baltimore more forgiving or did I just not understand the dynamics?
I suppose it helped that the Ravens won the Super Bowl that year (probably the only three hours in history there were no calls for service). But still, is it true that Baltimore does not hate the Colts? And if not, why not? Maybe it can be summed up in just two words: Johnny Unitas.
I was rooting for the Saints because if I don't have a personal stake: 1) I root for the better city, 2) I just like rooting for New Orleans in general, and 3) the Colts left Baltimore! And they didn't just leave but they snuck out of town in the middle of a night during a snow storm! At least that's how I remember it. I was only 12 and had no personal stake. I had never been to Baltimore. Still, it didn't seem fair.
What surprises me about Baltimore's relations with the Colts is how, at least in 2000, so many people seemed to wish them well. By comparison, I think you'd have a damn tough time finding any kind words in Brooklyn about the Dodgers. Is Baltimore more forgiving or did I just not understand the dynamics?
I suppose it helped that the Ravens won the Super Bowl that year (probably the only three hours in history there were no calls for service). But still, is it true that Baltimore does not hate the Colts? And if not, why not? Maybe it can be summed up in just two words: Johnny Unitas.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Less is Less
I didn't post for over a month and guess what? I kind of liked it.
So here's my plan: less posting. Maybe once or twice a week. We'll see how it goes.
If you need daily fixes of police news (and granted I still do), I urge you to look at all the links on the right side of this page. There's some good stuff out there. And that's where I get half my shit anyway.
I love all my readers (well... all but one or two). But still, blogging is kind of a one-way relationship.
Writing is hard work. Now no doubt blog writing is less hard work that "real" writing. But still, it's work. And it's not like I get paid for this. Just think... instead of writing stuff here I could be prepping for classes, or dating my wife, or cooking, or watching baseball, or playing pinball, or thinking about trains. Hell, instead of writing here, I could be doing basically anything!
But mostly I've got another book to write: In Defense of Flogging. While it's related to crime and justice, it's actually not about policing at all. And writing this book is something I actually get paid for.
So in case I don't post much and you wonder what I'm thinking, here are my beliefs to cover 90% of police issues:
1) Police: Good (but there's always room for improvement).
2) War on Drugs: Bad.
3) Prison: We've got too many people in them.
4) Tasers: Vastly overused.
5) Democrats: Better than Republicans.
6) Always do the right thing.
What else can I say?
So here's my plan: less posting. Maybe once or twice a week. We'll see how it goes.
If you need daily fixes of police news (and granted I still do), I urge you to look at all the links on the right side of this page. There's some good stuff out there. And that's where I get half my shit anyway.
I love all my readers (well... all but one or two). But still, blogging is kind of a one-way relationship.
Writing is hard work. Now no doubt blog writing is less hard work that "real" writing. But still, it's work. And it's not like I get paid for this. Just think... instead of writing stuff here I could be prepping for classes, or dating my wife, or cooking, or watching baseball, or playing pinball, or thinking about trains. Hell, instead of writing here, I could be doing basically anything!
But mostly I've got another book to write: In Defense of Flogging. While it's related to crime and justice, it's actually not about policing at all. And writing this book is something I actually get paid for.
So in case I don't post much and you wonder what I'm thinking, here are my beliefs to cover 90% of police issues:
1) Police: Good (but there's always room for improvement).
2) War on Drugs: Bad.
3) Prison: We've got too many people in them.
4) Tasers: Vastly overused.
5) Democrats: Better than Republicans.
6) Always do the right thing.
What else can I say?
Undoubtedly the most demoralizing force in the country today
It's official:
From the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology.Vol. 1(5) January, 1911. p. 788.
Responsibility of the Moving Picture Show for Crime
The demoralizing character of some of the moving picture shows, says the New Jersey Law Journal, continues to be exemplified by proceedings from time to time in our local and county criminal courts. One of the latest instances was a case which came before Judge Case, of the Somerset County courts, where a bright little fellow of nine years of age was arraigned before the judge for truancy and for incorrigibility. The prosecutor informed the court that the root of the boy's misconduct was the moving picture show, and the counsel for the boy stated that the offender had been a good child at home and obedient until he developed the passion for attending moving picture shows. The account of the case then goes on to say: "When the boy was commanded to stand up before Judge Case he burst into tears. Judge Case called him to his seat behind the bar and talked to him kindly, after which he announced that he would place him in charge of Probation Officer Osbourn for three years. In closing his remarks Judge Case said that the moving picture shows were undoubtedly the most demoralizing force in the country to-day. The pictures had a great fascination for even adults, and the graphic portrayals of holdups, robberies, and of immoral scenes and characters, made a lasting impression on the minds of children that were demoralizing in the extreme. Judge Case said that the court would expect the law relating to moving picture shows to be strictly obeyed in the county."
From the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology.Vol. 1(5) January, 1911. p. 788.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Notes on the Balinese Cockfight
My wife and I were in Kalibukbuk, Bali, visiting a few friends from Amsterdam, one of whom kind of lives in Bali now. He asked if we wanted to go see a cockfight. Well, in the name of Clifford Geertz and “thick description,” yes! (Hell, and this slightly worries me, I’ve enjoyed every bit of blood sport I’ve ever seen from bullfights to Thai Muay Thai kickboxing.)
Every student of sociology and anthropology knows Clifford Geertz’s classic, “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” It’s based on his 1958 fieldwork. It’s a qualitative classic. Not until Geertz and his wife ran from a police raid of a cockfight were they accepted in the village.
Well I didn't have to any running but it turns out that 50-years later, cockfighting is still illegal and not at all underground. Some places are shut down. But just because they don't have enough money to pay off the police.
So one night at dinner we're introduced to a slightly hardcore character who will take us (but only the men, he says) to a cockfight the next day.
So my buddy and I meet him and follow his mopen to the town of Singaraja. First we stop by his house where he judged the feistiness of a few of his cocks (and yes, the puns are same in the Balinese language) before placing one in a bag. They're kept throughout Asia in these wicker cages.
We continued and got to the venue (we never would have found it on our own). I love the parking lot. I resisted the urge to push a bike over, starting the domino effect and certain bar fight.
In some ways all sports venues are the same. There are parking lot attendants, tickets, seats, fans, food vendors, and games. But nothing I’ve seen is quite like a Balinese cockfight. I wish I had internet access and could have reread Geertz’s piece. There was a lot going on I didn’t get. I respect a man with the skills to tie a razor to the foot of the rooster. The betting, $10 was normal, is high stakes for a poor country.
Some side betting games.
And one of the food vendors. We ate nuts and drank warm beer.
I guess pairing up the birds.
Tying on the razor.
Our man told us which bird to bet on.
Here's some of the pre-fight scene:
Then, right before the fight start, there's this brief silence and then this wave of sound, unlike anything I've ever heard. You can hear the sound (I didn't start the recording early enough to get the "wave") at the very start of this video. Fair Warning: this a video of a Balinese cockfight. These are birds with razors strapped to their leg killing each other. Don't watch it if you don't like it.
That was our man's two-year old bird that died first. It was sold as food to somebody for $5. But the fight was a draw. I was happy with a draw because I may not know all the nuances of cockfighting, but I know a dead bird when I see one! If somebody won, it sure wasn't us. But part of the rules is that the “winning” bird has be standing after or for a ten count.
Also worth a few pictures is the following day's “pig roast in the hood” (my friend's words, not mine). This involved killing a pig, cleaning it in the river, and roasting it over an open fire.
Here's some of the scene, worth a few pictures:
Everybody loves cracklin!
The pig was delicious. The people, friendly. A good time was had by all. We have the feeling they party a bit like this everyday, this day they just had a pig.
It would be remiss to not mention that in the river were, among other things, one woman bathing and brushing her teeth upstream and another doing laundry. On the opposite bank people were gutting and cleaning a dog to eat. We were told they only eat the "bad dogs." Why not? Hell, on our side we were eating a dish made with raw pig's blood (mixed with grated coconut, spices, and grilled pigs innards). If it all sounds hardcore, well, I suppose it kind of is. I think it's only the second time bougie old me has eaten at a home without running water.
I also got a kick out of the fact that I was corrected for eating with my finger wrong. You can't take me anywhere! I didn’t even know you could eat with your fingers wrong. (Take note: after you grab your food, don’t put your fingers in your mouth but place the food on the ends of your first two fingers and then kind of shovel/push the food with your thumb into your mouth.)
The majority of trip was spend in Thailand and Bangkok. The food in Bangkok is incredible. I love Thai food and the Thais are truly more into food than any country I have ever seen. And their sheer obsession with food, the amount of prepared food for sale--delicious, clean, spicy food--is hard to imagine. But those stories are for another time.
Leaving Thailand, we saw perhaps the secret to their success: a sign keeping out all those with “‘hippy’ characteristics.”
And the police station sign on the Malaysian side of the border train station. We really did not want to leave Thailand, but damn it was nice to be a place again where you could sound out the alphabet!
And I've been to Maryland. I know Maryland. And this, my friends, is no deep fried fish Maryland (as seen in Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia).
Every student of sociology and anthropology knows Clifford Geertz’s classic, “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” It’s based on his 1958 fieldwork. It’s a qualitative classic. Not until Geertz and his wife ran from a police raid of a cockfight were they accepted in the village.
Well I didn't have to any running but it turns out that 50-years later, cockfighting is still illegal and not at all underground. Some places are shut down. But just because they don't have enough money to pay off the police.
So one night at dinner we're introduced to a slightly hardcore character who will take us (but only the men, he says) to a cockfight the next day.
So my buddy and I meet him and follow his mopen to the town of Singaraja. First we stop by his house where he judged the feistiness of a few of his cocks (and yes, the puns are same in the Balinese language) before placing one in a bag. They're kept throughout Asia in these wicker cages.
We continued and got to the venue (we never would have found it on our own). I love the parking lot. I resisted the urge to push a bike over, starting the domino effect and certain bar fight.
In some ways all sports venues are the same. There are parking lot attendants, tickets, seats, fans, food vendors, and games. But nothing I’ve seen is quite like a Balinese cockfight. I wish I had internet access and could have reread Geertz’s piece. There was a lot going on I didn’t get. I respect a man with the skills to tie a razor to the foot of the rooster. The betting, $10 was normal, is high stakes for a poor country.
Some side betting games.
And one of the food vendors. We ate nuts and drank warm beer.
I guess pairing up the birds.
Tying on the razor.
Our man told us which bird to bet on.
Here's some of the pre-fight scene:
Then, right before the fight start, there's this brief silence and then this wave of sound, unlike anything I've ever heard. You can hear the sound (I didn't start the recording early enough to get the "wave") at the very start of this video. Fair Warning: this a video of a Balinese cockfight. These are birds with razors strapped to their leg killing each other. Don't watch it if you don't like it.
That was our man's two-year old bird that died first. It was sold as food to somebody for $5. But the fight was a draw. I was happy with a draw because I may not know all the nuances of cockfighting, but I know a dead bird when I see one! If somebody won, it sure wasn't us. But part of the rules is that the “winning” bird has be standing after or for a ten count.
Also worth a few pictures is the following day's “pig roast in the hood” (my friend's words, not mine). This involved killing a pig, cleaning it in the river, and roasting it over an open fire.
Here's some of the scene, worth a few pictures:
Everybody loves cracklin! 
The pig was delicious. The people, friendly. A good time was had by all. We have the feeling they party a bit like this everyday, this day they just had a pig.It would be remiss to not mention that in the river were, among other things, one woman bathing and brushing her teeth upstream and another doing laundry. On the opposite bank people were gutting and cleaning a dog to eat. We were told they only eat the "bad dogs." Why not? Hell, on our side we were eating a dish made with raw pig's blood (mixed with grated coconut, spices, and grilled pigs innards). If it all sounds hardcore, well, I suppose it kind of is. I think it's only the second time bougie old me has eaten at a home without running water.
I also got a kick out of the fact that I was corrected for eating with my finger wrong. You can't take me anywhere! I didn’t even know you could eat with your fingers wrong. (Take note: after you grab your food, don’t put your fingers in your mouth but place the food on the ends of your first two fingers and then kind of shovel/push the food with your thumb into your mouth.)
The majority of trip was spend in Thailand and Bangkok. The food in Bangkok is incredible. I love Thai food and the Thais are truly more into food than any country I have ever seen. And their sheer obsession with food, the amount of prepared food for sale--delicious, clean, spicy food--is hard to imagine. But those stories are for another time.
Leaving Thailand, we saw perhaps the secret to their success: a sign keeping out all those with “‘hippy’ characteristics.”
And the police station sign on the Malaysian side of the border train station. We really did not want to leave Thailand, but damn it was nice to be a place again where you could sound out the alphabet!
And I've been to Maryland. I know Maryland. And this, my friends, is no deep fried fish Maryland (as seen in Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
