Elizabeth Edwards: Don't feel sorry for me

It’s like that old school Heinz ketchup commercial, “Anticipation is making me wait;” Well, the same thing can be said for this latest modern-day Shakespearean tragedy, about a beautiful American family and a talented, charming, and handsome young former North Carolina Senator whose personal life became a political and moral train wreck. Now, according to unsubstantiated reports by the National Enquirer, John Edwards is preparing to announce the baby that former Mistress Reille Hunter gave birth to is in fact his. Maybe this should not come as too much of a surprise because he denied the affair, too. Not only that, but he has said, “the baby is not mine as far as I know and I would be willing to take a paternity test to prove it.” Of course on one level, his defense in this latest embarrassment is understandable, even if it is disgraceful.

Of course, the victim in all of this is Elizabeth Edwards and doubtless the book she authored, called “Resilience” is her way of coping with this betrayal of trust, but also in her battle against incurable breast cancer. It does seem quite appropriate for the crucible of suffering and pain that she is going through but in a sense this entire ongoing struggle has made her strong internally; forged to a very fine degree of mental and spiritual toughness like iron or steel. There is no doubt that Elizabeth has forgiven John in “Love,” which can only come from the grace of God. Perhaps Elizabeth even punishes herself a little bit for John’s indiscretion by blaming it on her health condition which prevented her from being the kind of wife, lover, and partner that she wanted to be and which in her mind at least, John very desperately wanted and needed her to be for him.

Perhaps a lesson can be learned from the famous Mexican painter Frieda Kahlo’s marriage to Diego Rivera, who although her husband was a “Lothario,” nevertheless, in Kahlo’s words, “he was loyal.” It isn’t always about whether someone loves us or is in love with us, but rather, will that person be there when someone needs them. There is no question that in spite of all the sex, lies, and thankfully, no videotape, this imperfect and flawed man can provide the comfort, devotion, and yes, ‘Love’ to Elizabeth that is true, sincere, and constant. When Elizabeth appeared on “OPRAH” several months ago in her first publicly televised interview since John withdrew his name as a Vice-Presidential candidate as well as later revealing the affair with Ms. Hunter, she told Oprah, “No one has left the house yet.” No, and it seems that neither one of them is in a hurry to pack up their suitcases and in-spite of “baby mama” or baby girl, no one is going to be heading out the door anytime soon. John and Elizabeth have something truly special and irrespective what others think or feel about what should be done or who should leave, it seems to work for them; and this is all that matters.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 20, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

Usain Bolt: Faster than a speeding. . .

Usain is just insanely fast; like a lightning bolt, if you excuse the pun. It does of course arouse suspicion of PED's when an athlete continues to shatter his own world records in a sport that continues to be tainted by the use of illegal substances. Hey, maybe someone should check his shoes because they might be constructed of materials that have been engineered to give him a competitive edge by almost eliminating surface tension or friction on the track, or reduces stress level and torque in his ankles and knees, etc. Better still, make him submit a sample of his blood to check for microscopic nanobytes; you never know, he could be part "Borg" or one of those human-looking Cylon duplicates from "BATTLESTAR GALLATICA." Anyway, I don't know about you but whether Queen Elizabeth of England confers Knighthood upon Usain or not as he jokingly mused about, but as far as 'Track and Field' goes, "He's still the King."


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 20, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

Dear Professor Gates: You may need to read Matthew 12: 37

Although this controversy is behind us for the most part, there still remains the matter of the esteemed Harvard Professor’s reputation, professionally and as a notable African-American educator, scholar, and distinguished citizen. It was he who raised the issue of “racial profiling” by the Cambridge Police department and Sgt. James Crowley. Is the charge justified or is “Skip” Gates a provocateur who saw an opportunity to play the “race” card in pursuit of his own personal agenda which has even embroiled the President of the United States, his friend and fellow Harvard Alum, Barrack Obama. A lot has been made about the different versions of what really happened on that meeting between Henry Gates and James Crowley, but the professor appeared as a guest on the Gayle King OPRAH Radio Show. Before the interview even got started, Professor Gates laid out his major points of grievance with the Cambridge Police; which are: (1) Racial profiling, and (2) arbitrary capricious acts by rogue police officers. Excerpts from his on-air comments will be weighed against his allegations to determine if there is any validity or merit to what he asserts in the following transcript conversation.

First, it might be prudent to include Sgt. Crowley’s brief account of what occurred on that day. After receiving a 911 call from a neighbor about a break in and burglary at a residence in “Harvard Square” the officers proceed to the address where a Black man was seen in “Plain View.” Sgt. Crowley asks the suspect [Gates] to step outside. The suspect [Gates] refused and asks, “Why; is it because I am a Black man in America…?”

Now, this is Professor Gates’ words: “I refused the officer’s command because I knew that as soon as I stepped outside I knew I could be arrested for breaking and entering. “I knew that without a warrant he [Crowley] or the police couldn’t arrest you inside your house. COMMENT: Why was Gates concerned about being arrested if he didn’t do anything wrong? This seems paranoid and irrational. Gates says that he was offended by Crowley’s bluntness by asking him [so tersely] to step outside, instead of asking him politely and respectfully. COMMENT: Why would “Skip” expect such deferential or special treatment since the police were there to investigate a felony criminal complaint and he was the prime ‘suspect’? He said that he felt that Sgt. Crowley should have addressed him as Professor Gates. COMMENT: Sgt. Crowley didn’t know who he was initially because he hadn’t been identified as of yet; even if the address on his report indicated who the homeowner was. It would seem that the professor was presumptuous, arrogant, and, did I mention irrational?

It seems that “Skip” tripped because Crowley didn’t ask if he was ‘ok,’ or if anybody was holding him hostage, but rather that Crowley just looked at him and told him, “To step outside.” Professor Gates told Sgt. Crowley, “No.” Gayle asked him why he did that and he reiterated his concern that he knew he could be arrested [if he stepped outside], and said that Crowley was “hostile.” Gates said that he could see it (the hostility) in Crowley’s face and hear it in his voice. COMMENT: If a police officer issues a legitimate command and you refuse, it is only reasonable that the officer would be peeved off. Then Gates goes on to say that he was on the phone in the kitchen talking to a lady from Harvard Real Estate about the problem with the lock on the door when he saw the police (Sgt. Crowley??) initially come up to the front door. Gates, recounting again, the command from Sgt. Crowley to step outside, and he says, “All of a sudden I knew that I was in danger.” COMMENT: Why did the Professor harbor such antipathy or is it pathology regarding mistreatment from the police, especially since he hadn’t done anything wrong?

Gates [upon seeing the police at the front door], says, “May I help you?” He mentions that the police told him that they are investigating a 911 Breaking and Entering call, to which he tells them, “That’s alright; “I’m Professor Gates and I live here and I am a Harvard Professor.” COMMENT: Was it necessary to volunteer this information that he was a Harvard Professor? Gayle asked him, and rightly so, if he didn’t get hostile with the police since he says they got hostile with him, Gayle said that she just couldn’t see him just calmly talking to the officers [Sgt. Crowley] since they were acting in the way Gates described. The professor said, “No,” and that he didn’t get “firm” with the police [Sgt. Crowley??] until later on. Gates said that he ‘never’ got hostile with the officers, but that he did get very, very firm. COMMENT: Does this sound like Slick Willie’s play on words? I didn’t get “hostile” but I got loud, belligerent, angry, and my body language suggested that I was pissed off and ready to take a swing at Sgt. Crowley??

Now Gates says that Sgt. Crowley asked him if he could prove that he was a Harvard Professor, but he didn’t ask Gates if he could prove that he lived at there. Gates said that he said ‘yes’ to the question about proving he worked at Harvard. Gates walks away from the front door to retrieve his wallet with his driver’s license and Harvard ID on the kitchen island and Sgt. Crowley enters the house behind him. Gates mentions that Crowley is inside the house and didn’t ask his permission. Gates says that he handed Sgt. Crowley both pieces of ID and notices a certain expression on the officer’s face, and says that he is trying to “unpack a narrative” [in his mind??]. Professor goes on to tell Gayle, “This is where ‘racial profiling’ comes in because Crowley was so sure he had a “catch” and that all of a sudden, he (Crowley) [because of his disappointment to find that Gates was who he said he was??] had to “unwrap” that story. As Sgt. Crowley starts to ask gates another (??) question, Gates interrupts him with, “Enough!” Gayle asked Gates what Sgt. Crowley was asking, but he said that Crowley started to ask about… but that he interrupted him and said, “That’s enough! “This is my house, you have my ID’s, and I want your name and your badge number.”

Professor Gates said, “This is when everything turned.” He said to Sgt. Crowley, “I am filing a complaint and I want your name and your badge number.” Gayle asked him why he was filing a complaint-why did he say that he wanted Crowley’s name and badge number. She added, “There had to be something between the two of you.” Gates said, “It all started on that front porch.” Gates said that he shouldn’t have been treated that way; and what about his security? Professor Gates goes on to say, “If he (Sgt. Crowley) is investigating a 911 call, I am the innocent person and he needed to greet me with ‘respect;’ not presume that I am a “Perp” as they say on television. “And I wanted to file a report so that their police instructions (Investigative Procedures) would be “transformed.” He continues, “Just because a Black man answers the door and you [the police] are responding to a 911 call or charge, treat him or her, in the case of an African-American woman, with respect; don’t go presuming anything else- “Protect me!” Gayle asked him, “You would say that you were not treated with respect in that moment?” Gates said, “Not at all.” Then he said, “It got worse.” He continues, “I kept saying, ‘Sir, I want your name and badge number; saying it over and over again.’” Gates said that Crowley just stared or rather glared at me; and mentioned that Sgt. Crowley turned his back and just walked out of the house. Gates, following after him, said, “Are you not answering me because I am a Black man and you are a White police officer?”

After listening to this confessional dialogue by Professor Henry Louis Gates jr., Sgt. Crowley and the Cambridge Police department just might not be the villains they have been initially portrayed to have been. Indeed, Jesus said in Matthew 12: 37, “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned [“judged”]. Although President Obama has called this incident a “teachable” moment, it appears that what is revealed is not consistent with the facts as first reported. For one thing, Professor Gates is not a Psychologist, Criminal Law Professor, nor is he knowledgeable in Criminal Investigative procedures. It seems that a “reasonable” person might conclude that the professor’s expectations and unfounded fear of arrest was predicated upon presumptions that are not rational because lacking any other criteria, he was a suspect in a Burglary and Criminal Trespass investigation and the police were legally authorized to be there. His complaint about police misconduct is, under the circumstances, not based upon any “Rule of Law” and is without merit. It is unlikely that he remained calm with the police but instead became belligerent with Sgt. Crowley that his verbal tirade escalated to such an extent to nearly incite some sort of potential physical altercation or confrontation with the police on the front porch; all in full view of the public. This disturbance and unwarranted misconduct complaint threat against police officers could indeed, at least in the technical sense, lead to a “Disorderly Conduct” charge and arrest.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 8, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

What does the “Second Amendment” really mean anyway?

There probably isn’t a more contentious issue in America than that of gun ownership; and for many, it is almost a “sacred” right. Due to the ‘cowboy’ attitude from territorial days when the original thirteen colonies and European settlers were located across the rugged terrain of the American frontier, there arose a need to arm oneself, protecting property and family from marauding bands of hostile Native tribes, invading foreign armies or acts of war and from other Whites as well. It was a time when the only organized law enforcement officials might be too far away to be of any real benefit in an emergency or during impending danger; so a person had to learn to defend themselves.

When the document that has become known as the Constitution of the United States was finally ratified in 1788, superceding the former Articles of Confederation of 1781, certain provisions had to be included to ensure that people would be safe, secure, and protected in their dwellings and personal effects from that which would not deprive them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, it is interesting to hear the NRA, members of Congress, gun advocates and others quoting part of the Second Amendment, but they do so by not considering the fullest context of the document or its real meaning.

First of all, a careful reading of ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 of the U.S. Constitution should precede the Second Amendment; which reads as follows: [THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER] To provide for (1) organizing, (2) arming, and (3) disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, {reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress}. Now, continuing with the SECOND AMENDMENT: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One of the important things that have to be considered is the definition of a “Militia,” which by definition is: a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. In modern terminology, this would be analogous to an official Militia, composed of citizen soldiers such as the Army Reserve or National Guard. So, the next time someone yells about violating their Second Amendment rights by attempting to confiscate their guns and leave them at the mercy of criminals, although a reasonably valid concern, still it has nothing to do with this Constitutional issue but rather, better police enforcement, Criminal Law legislation, the Court System, and better societal values.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 7, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

President Obama: Why won't you set the record straight?

It seems that minor controversies continue to nip at the heels of the 44th President of the United States. There have been accusations of shady character acquaintances such as millionaire slumlord Tony Rezko, ‘domestic terrorist’ William Ayers of the “Underground Weathermen,” religious firebrand Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the organization ACORN, and several Presidential Cabinet appointees who were revealed to having had tax troubles, conflicts-of-interest or other issues which disqualified them from being an officeholder. The one recurring interest which resonates with some Americans and is being kept alive by the “birthers” is Barack Obama’s citizenship; and this goes right to the heart of his legitimacy to be occupying the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is a serious issue that one should not take lightly or dismiss outright because it has to do with that cherished document and bedrock of our Democracy as a representative Republic, namely the Constitution of the United States. According to Article II, Section 1, it states: NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. . . The funny thing is that no copy of Barack Obama’s ‘original’ birth certificate has been made available nor facsimile thereof. Although under the Freedom of Information Act anyone can request to have a copy of this document, it doesn’t guarantee that the petitioner will be granted what they seek.

Hawaii State Law forbids the release of an original birth certificate to anyone without a “tangible interest” in obtaining this personal information from the State Department of Health and Director Dr. Chiyone Fukino has resisted all attempts and pleadings to produce a copy of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate; thereby averting a violation of State Law. The thing is though, it is not a matter of curiosity but rather whether there has been an abrogation of the Constitution. It does not satisfy the requirement of Law to merely post a so-called “official-looking” copy of President Obama’s Birth Certificate with critical information that is missing and saying that it is proof positive that he is a natural citizen and born on American soil.

It is surprising that no one has brought a lawsuit in behalf of the American people against the Hawaii Department of Health (Vital Records Department) and Dr. Fukino for a copy of the “original” birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama because it is in the “vested interest” of all Americans and to neglect this duty tends to undermine the Constitution, and if this is not done we might be living under the leadership of an “illegitimate” President (Imposter-in-Chief”). Also, the Legislative Branch in Congress as well as the Supreme Court should be involved in this matter, too; especially the Supreme Court because it is the Chief Justice who swears in the President by administering the Oath of Office.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 1, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com