Welcome! Log in or register to comment on the blog posts you see here, or even write your own blog post! Find out how to use this site, and join the conversation today!
If you're in the mood for a bizarre story, check out the Washington Monthly's cover article on black Baltimore drug dealers using a strange form of legal defense derived from white supremacist ideology. Kevin Carey explains:
In the previous year, nearly twenty defendants in other Baltimore cases had begun adopting what lawyers in the federal courthouse came to call “the flesh-and-blood defense.” The defense, such as it is, boils down to this: As officers of the court, all defense lawyers are really on the government’s side, having sworn an oath to uphold a vast, century-old conspiracy to conceal the fact that most aspects of the federal government are illegitimate, including the courts, which have no constitutional authority to bring people to trial. The defendants also believed that a legal distinction could be drawn between their name as written on their indictment and their true identity as a “flesh and blood man.”
Judge Davis and his law clerk pored over the case files, which led them to a series of strange Web sites. The flesh-and-blood defense, they discovered, came from a place far from Baltimore, from people as different from Willie Mitchell as people could possibly be. Its antecedents stretched back decades, involving religious zealots, gun nuts, tax protestors, and violent separatists driven by theories that had fueled delusions of Aryan supremacy and race war in gun-loaded compounds in the wilds of Montana and Idaho. Although Mitchell and his peers didn’t know it, they were inheriting the intellectual legacy of white supremacists who believe that America was irrevocably broken when the 14th Amendment provided equal rights to former slaves. It was the ideology that inspired the Oklahoma City bombing, the biggest act of domestic terrorism in the nation’s history, and now, a decade later, it had somehow sprouted in the crime-ridden ghettos of Baltimore.
I don't really have a larger point to make, if that's even possible here, but the article provides a good look at the problem of crime in Baltimore.
Despite appearances, the city of Baltimore has actually made strides in reducing the crime rate:
Baltimore's police chief, Frederick Bealefeld, prefers not to rely on divine intervention. With 282 murders last year among a population of 630,000, Baltimore was one of the most violent cities in America. But since last summer, the killing has slowed. The six months to March this year saw an impressive 28% fewer murders than the same period a year earlier. Mr Bealefeld credits smarter policing, and says he is cautiously optimistic that the trend will continue.
Television dramas such as “The Wire” may give the impression that Baltimore is a hellhole. It is not. Most of the city is calm and pleasant. Only a couple of areas are crime-ridden. And even in these areas, relatively few young men commit—and are the victims of—the most serious crimes. Last year, 89% of those murdered in Baltimore had a criminal record.
Mr Bealefeld thinks the murder rate has fallen because the police are paying more attention to the most violent offenders. One helpful new tool is a registry for gun offenders which the mayor, Sheila Dixon, announced last year. Like sex criminals, anyone who commits a crime using a gun must register his whereabouts with the police as soon as he is convicted or once released from jail. Failure to do so can get him imprisoned again for up to a year.
The logic is simple. Of the 135 people arrested for murder in Baltimore last year, nearly half had a prior conviction for a gun offence. So it makes sense for police and parole officers to keep close tabs on former gun criminals.
One interesting thing about the article is that, despite the improvements in policing, Bealefield comes out in favor of drug legalization as the best way to reduce crime in the city, an approach that's rejected by Mayor Dixon. It is depressing that the lessons of Prohibition have been so thoroughly forgotten in this country, but it's good to see that someone on the frontline of the War on Drugs realizes that it's not a war that we should be fighting in the first place.
The crucial question (posed by councilmember Doug Barry) is, does this threaten the safety or well-being of any Takoma Park resident?
Er, . . . . no, came the answer (in essence) from Chief Ronald Ricucci
So, what’s the big deal about the TP Police Department losing its accreditation?
It was Topic Number One at the April 7 City Council meeting, The mayor brought it, and the chief, up first thing during the Council Comment segment. The chief told a long story about it. The short version is that due to the transition between chiefs, the transition between employees whose job it is to track accreditation issues, the addition of criteria by the accreditation agency, and the TPPD’s discovery of those additional criteria too late to fully meet them, they decided to opt out of accreditation this year.
So with the General Assembly's legislative session all wrapped up as of last night, what got accomplished?
The Global Warming Solutions Act died in House committee. It's sad that the environmentalists and labor couldn't work together on this issue, since it's clear that strong climate change regulations wouldn't necessarily mean the death of the Sparrows Point steel mill. At the same time, it's hardly a tragedy that it didn't get passed: According to Dawn Stoltzfus of the Maryland LCV, Nathaniel Exum's amendment to have every new climate regulation be subject to legislative approval weakened the bill so badly that it would be better just to start over next year. Or better yet, let Congress adopt a broad climate policy, and we can obviate the concern of potentially losing jobs in Maryland to other states. In any case, the more important measures, in my opinion -- increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency standards -- passed, which will help put Maryland in a better position to transition to a low-carbon economy.
Speaking of energy, the Constellation settlement also got approved, and without any provision to regulate the sale of electricity from new plants. This is also good news, as Jay Hancock notes, as it gives Maryland a good place from which it can decide where to go with respect to electricity, be it further deregulation or reregulation.
Of the expanded DNA database for criminal investigations, I don't see it in as apocalyptic terms as Paul Gordon does, but it seems true to say that it's of dubious constitutionality. This seems to be part of an unfortunate pattern when it comes to Gov. O'Malley's record on civil liberties.
I was also disappointed that neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions got anywhere this session. There was some progress with respect to domestic partnership benefits, but the leadership needs a lot more cajoling on this issue.
One more thing I should add is that I think we can explain the right-ward lurch, as Paul puts it, in the General Assembly this session as a reaction to the economy taking a nosedive and the aftermath of the special session. I know I harp on this, but the inability of states to do deficit spending like the federal government severly constricts what states can do during a recession. We can all admire Gov. O'Malley's courage in taking on the budget deficit last November, but let's not kid ourselves, he paid a price: the sales tax increase, besides being regressive, came at a rather bad time; and unlike the federal government, Maryland doesn't have the ability to pass a stimulus package. Given that environment, it's easy to see how O'Malley and the General Assembly adopted a tempermentally, if not ideologically, conservative stance on fiscal matters.
Of course, that doesn't explain why the Democratic leadership would act timid on social issues or civil liberties issues, as Paul laments; it may be enough to say that 1) there are still many Democrats uncomfortable with the concept of same-sex marriage or abortion rights, and 2) Being "tough on crime" is a well both Democrats and Republicans like to draw from. So perhaps instead of saying the General Assembly tilted right this session, they hunkered down and tried not to rock the boat too much.
UPDATE: Be sure to check Think Progress's Wonk Room, which has a good post on the Global Warming Solutions Act. (h/t to Josh)
Local Republican leader Michael Collins pines for the good old days of former Housing Authority Director Pat Croslan in a guest column in The Capital titled "Want to cut crime? Bring back Pat Croslan." Collins makes a direct correlation with violent crime and management of HACA.
While CP agrees that Ms. Croslan was a tough leader trying to restore order and efficiency to our long-beleaguered public housing, I don't think it is simply a matter of who holds the position of HACA executive director that really counts. Collins goes a bit into the history of Croslan's removal, blaming Democrats including Mayor Moyer and House Speaker Busch. It seems accurate to me, but CP is concerned that Republicans will and indeed are making the long festering issue of public housing into an essentially politicized debate. First they claim the Democrats have made a mess of it. True. Then they claim that Democrats will never clean it up. Maybe true. Then they seem to be (or at least Collins is, and maybe others as well...) that Republicans are needed to wrest control and save us.
I have heard enough grumblings from Republicans and am trying to sort out the emerging picture. We cannot allow the public housing debate to be led by or to get mired in a game of Republican-Democratic mudslinging. A good Democrat or a good Republican can lead us out of this mess. Don't make it a party thing anymore than it may already be a party thing.
While many Democrats have allowed this wound to fester, I'm not going to concede that a change of leadership to a Republican will matter. And frankly, when it comes to fixing public housing, Annapolitans are not concerned with the party either. We want meaningful results. Many folks have suggested to me that by somehow keeping thousands of people locked into public housing, Democrats maintain a powerful voting bloc. This seems to have become a bit of urban folklore in these parts. I have no doubt there has been some hanky panky but the essential argument is hard to swallow.
The argument seems to go like this--As long as Democrats keep people in public housing segregated for generations living off the public dole, even subjected to mismanagement, inefficiency, poverty, crime, violence, gunfire etc., etc., they'll vote to keep the Democrats in control because it's goodto live under a welfare state. Can anyone gather hard data to show voting patterns or show a correlation here? It sounds like a research and a philosophical nightmare. The potential pitfalls are mind boggling. I would not even know what kind of model to apply to analyze this. Critical theory? Marxist? Hegemonic? Free market? Social-democratic?
What disturbs me most about Collin's piece is not his call for better management, but that he does not call for a major overhaul, elimination or transformation of public housing. Maybe that's because after learning from Democrats, he and other Republicans can get more use out of maintaining public housing for their own political purposes than if it were drastically changed. I guess the big question is do we cut crime and poverty by redistributing wealth to make everyone equal or by giving everyone an equal chance to become unequal? Or by eliminating private property and have the people--or the government own everything? Or by letting everyone fight amongst themselves to get more?
I don't know. All I know is that there is no good answer to this as long as it is based along party lines. We all end up losers as long as we have the shame of public housing poverty and despair alongside the shame of conspicuous consumption and opulence. Read Collin's piece here.
Nice that someone was videotaping this asshole police officer. I wish folks in South West had the video cameras to cover the treatment they receive there.
Del. Robert McKee, a Republican from Washington County, has resigned his position, as well as his position as head of the Washington County chapter of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, after the local sheriff's department and the FBI searched his house and seized his computer. Washington County Sheriff Douglas Mullendore confirms what I think everyone thought when the news first broke: McKee is being investigated on possible charges of possessing child pornography:
Mullendore, at a press conference Friday afternoon, said his department received a telephone call on Jan. 31, alleging there was child pornography in McKee’s home.
Deputies searched McKee’s home later on that same date.
As a result of a search, deputies seized two computers, about 30 videotapes, and a “significant amount” of printed material, Mullendore said.
No charges have been filed.
Experts at the sheriff’s office are looking for evidence of crimes on the computers.
The FBI became involved in the investigation at the request of the Washington County State’s Attorney’s office, Mullendore said.
He said he believed a child had been living in the home, and that the child was not a blood relative of McKee’s.
I suspect this case will become even more sordid as we learn more of the details.
Extra! Extra! You've already read all about it. Once again it is my distinct displeasure to bring the following "old" news to your attention. The Washington Post's Arundel Extra section is full of puffery, rehashed and re-aggregated news stories, press releases and generally useless information. I have opined about this before, and here goes again, as today's Extra tells us that crime is down in Annapolis!
Oh, you knew that already? Of course you did. You knew it from many other news sources days ago because they come out daily and the Extra comes out weekly, er should I say weakly? Not only is the news stale by Thursday, but the Post actually pays a reporter to rehash it without telling us anything new. In this case, they missed the big picture, which is what a weekly should be all about. Many crime stats are down, if you only look at 2007 compared to the really bad crime stats of 2006, but all in all, our crime rates are way higher than comparable cities and at or near historic highs despite close to zero population growth.
The Post's Ray McCaffrey completely missed that Annapolis citizens are on the verge of rebelling (okay so I exaggerate a bit) about gunshots and violent crime and what they perceive as sluggish local government response. But worst of all is Mr. McCaffrey's complete reliance on official news sources. He quotes Mayor Moyer, Police Officer Hal Dalton and Alderman Ross Arnett as well as FBI figures but not a single one of the outspoken and increasingly active citizens who are concerned about crime.
In fairness to Arnett and McCaffrey, the lawmaker was quoted as saying, "I'm not sure that statistics are telling the whole story here or the right story." Well, that does beg the question as to what is the whole story, does it not? So I ask you, Mr. McCaffrey and editors, what is the whole story? We are waiting. The Post may call this journalism. I have another word for it. Read it for yourself.
My daughter and I got into a good old fashioned Irish family argument over the topic of DNA testing last night. It arose from a discussion of a story on the local news about a proposed bill that will be taken up by the Maryland General Assembly. The bill proposes taking DNA swabs from everyone arrested for violent felonies and some burglaries. The basic argument in favor here is we fingerprint people when arrested why not take their DNA fingerprint.
It is axiomatic (cool word huh?) that the news media may not necessarily tell us what to think, but they do tell us what to think about. In other words, the editors don't of course, decide to cause a major car crash or burn down a major building, but in another, equally important sense, they decide to make "news" of it or not. At the end of every year, as is customary, our local editors, who in their role as "gatekeepers" of the news, have already decided on what to report, how to report, how much prominence, depth, duration or salience to give to the news, then go on to tell us their thoughts about what are the top ten news stories of the year. Can you say ironic?
