Deadlines for papers and looming exam dates have forced me, like many others, to commit the dishonorable art of Camping à la Bibliothèque de Butler. The more time spent in the library, the more one sees the uglier side of human nature unearthing from its dormant winter state. And interestingly enough, the more time spent in the library, the more time that is spent looking blankly into one’s computer screen, or getting frustrated with the absurdities of today’s headlines.
On that note, I have some huge issues with the recent Sean Bell case and the subsequent acquittal of the detectives involved. This is not a race issue. Why is Rev. Al Sharpton getting involved?
“This verdict is one round down, but the fight is far from over. … What we saw in court today was not a miscarriage of justice. Justice didn’t miscarry. This was an abortion of justice … We are going to close the city down in a nonviolent, effective way.”
Uh, thanks Al.
While at other times Sharpton’s role as an activist (who happens to get called on by any remotely black-related issue in the city) plays some significance, the Sean Bell case does not allow for this. Two of the three detectives involved in the shooting were black. A hail of fifty bullets in this case is not race-targeting, it’s police misconduct. And actually (refer to image), fifty shots + NYcops = murder.
Oh, shyte, thanks for clearing that up.
But let’s be frank here, the cops did commit a major fuck-up.
A continuation of their postings as police officers should definitely be put into question, but the case still remains vague. Apparently however, it’s enough to know that he was “shot on the day before his wedding.” Like that even matters. That’s a pathetic plea for some sort of sympathy that can only arouse the kind of emotions that a case like this needs to be detached from. Sean Bell, the driver of the car, ran into a detective, and into the undercover police vehicle. Were those fifty bullets reasonable force in that particular situation? Probably not. But can any black card please be put back into the deck until it actually becomes relevant.
And to really put that extra heavyweight power behind the race-case, Ice Cube and Chamillionaire aren’t very happy about it all either.
And to fulfill the expectations that the blog’s title has so generously laid out, I will now talk about rude people. And expect more rude-people-antics as I spend more time in Butler.
Behind me, I see three prissy girls crowd around a cute little pink laptop. Sounds kinda appealing, maybe? Not really. I can also hear them guffaw loudly at today’s newly-posted Facebook photos, proving to the world that last night was not just another night out, that they have a social life (worth laughing at apparently), and that Butler 210 is the perfect place to amuse themselves today with what amused them so much last night. Terrific. If only you could watch me approach and humiliate them in front of everyone else in 210 who only wished they had the balls to do what I do best–fighting library crime and misconduct at Butler Library.
I think you should consider going back to writing your papers and studying for your exams, or injecting yourself with some perceptivity/humanity instead of plastering your somewhat insipid and embarrassingly pretentious comments regarding relevant (yes, relevant) socio-political dynamics which you apparently do not care to comprehend, disappointingly. Its fine to comment on Friday’s verdict; to agree or disagree, but it appears here as if you are more so opposed to people being upset about it, and that is absurd. Moreover, I find your lack of humanity disturbing more than anything (i.e. “…it’s enough to know that he was “shot on the day before his wedding.” Like that even matters. That’s a pathetic plea for some sort of sympathy…”) To say what you’re inferring here is horrible would be an understatement - as if someone shouldn’t sympathize for any innocent man who is murdered at all, especially before his wedding day, maliciously, by accident or not. Even Bloomberg released a statement to the contrary, recognizing the loss of a man’s life. What about his family? His children? I ask this because I’m certain you would appreciate your innocent relative getting shot, right? And I’m really sure you would enjoy having to explain to your children why their father was murdered by people meant to protect them and now no one is going to jail like Nicole Paultre Bill will.
This is the big issue of this case that you’ve failed to recognize, and there’s duality to it: the inexplicable disregard of someone’s life, interestingly, a black man’s life, and the hypocritical fact that an innocent, ordinary citizen can be murdered by law enforcement and no one is punished or held accountable, as if they are exempted from the very order they supposedly uphold and protect. To point to the ethnicities of two cops doesn’t necessarily address this problem; try considering the judge; the obvious perversion of rights versus the protection of law enforcement; an inherit racism or bias entrenched publicly and/or within the justice system and, evidently, in people like you (I hope I’m wrong). Nevertheless, it IS worth questioning whether you would exhibit such dismissal of someone’s life if they didn’t resemble Sean Bell. I don’t know where you’re from, but perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the disturbingly similar murders of Amadou Diallo and Eleanor Bumpurs and the outcomes of those trials. You, yourself should be concerned that in this city, you can be shot dead by law enforcement; despite your innocence, in a gross “misunderstanding” and those very “enforcers of law” will suffer no repercussions. How sadly ironic. This is a basic violation of your rights. Skim-examine the history of this country in respect to this; constitutionally, the fear of this very occurrence - an absolute domination of law enforcement or a political power whose wrongdoings go uncorrected - goes back to the earliest days of the United States, explaining militiamen, the second amendment, etc.
Still, your commentary doesn’t indicate whether you think the detectives should have been found guilty of anything, just that they’ve “fucked up.” Poignant. Thus, what’s the real point of your blurb? Besides to voice your notions about Sharpton and your unwillingness to even attempt to see this situation for what it really indicates about our rights. Also, you are embarrassingly mistaken to cite Chamillionare in order to, dismiss what this verdict really signifies and the validity of why it is deeply disconcerting, disillusioning and disheartening. A number of people are opposed to what has happened; try citing everyday New Yorkers or the prosecution, and you might see that legitimate voices negate your dismissal. Moreover, Sharpton is another aspect of this case which you clearly don’t understand. He is “called on” usually because, in comparison to the days of demanding civil rights and calling black empowerment, there are no mainstream authentic black “leaders.” That includes Chamillionare and Ice Cube. These are merely celebrities commenting, and you need to realize this. They are in no way putting “that extra heavyweight power behind the race-case,” whatever the hell that is. Your idea is laughable; for you to grant any validity to Chamillionare is to ignore the fact that than none of his “work” is neither political nor social nor relevant and to connect him to this is a move void of logic, not to mention your over-simplification of this entire mess as the cute little disyllabic rhyming “race-case.”
But you wouldn’t know to think that, would you? Nor do you understand why the deeply blood-soaked, indelibly violent and brutally oppressive (recent)history of this country regarding African-Americans would complicate any of this. And don’t advice me to forget or “get over” that history, because its remnants are not forgotten, if not perpetuated by all of this. As those girls facebooking in Butler annoy you, your intent to bring up the “race card” is aggravating to me. Your name doesn’t indicate that you’re a white individual; and if you aren’t, you might want to reconsider your utilization of the vapidly trite buzzword that is often used when anyone of color cites racism as a problem. Oh, no, that would imply that racism is still around, wouldn’t it? It is. Race is not a tiny thing that people enjoy bringing up at their leisure in this country, especially considering black people, as you would think with your “card” reference. Perhaps you should ask Barack Obama; as much as he tries to “not dwell on race,” people like Geraldine Ferraro say that he wouldn’t be doing so well if he weren’t black, or that his wins in Louisiana and S. Carolina were merely because black people voted for him. Because running of president is so easy if you’re black; that’s why we’ve had so many black presidents and politicians right? Oh. And nevermind states like Iowa and his overall political success and delegate lead. Perhaps problematically though, to say this is to not only dismiss black votes but also the entire democratic process.
I encourage you to re-read Sharpton’s statement despite the imagery. Better yet, I’ll rephrase it for you here. True justice was conveniently eliminated in this case, overlooked. Because otherwise, those detectives would’ve been tried and convicted for SOMETHING, rather than nothing. An innocent father and husband is dead; 50 bullets were fired at him. So what if he “ran into a detective, and into the undercover police vehicle.” Was it right for him to get shot? Do you honestly think it was right for all charges against the detectives to be acquitted? More importantly, can you understand what this verdict might promise you as a citizen, as a student, as a New Yorker? The ‘nothing’ implies that the loss of an ordinary person’s life at the hands of law enforcement, whether intentional, irresponsible or by accident, is worth nothing…specifically the loss of a black man’s life more so than others. So in that regard it is about race. And at the very least, then it IS about a citizen’s basic civil rights to not be killed by law enforcement and have nothing come of it, for that law to make an unconstitutional exception. This is something we should be concerned about. While this is not entirely about race, to dismiss it because it is, in part, is to ignore a very discomforting fact: that if you get shot by the cops, it’s probable that nothing will happen to right that wrong, and atonement is relative to on who you are.
At first I had difficulty recognizing the relevance of your comments about the prissy girls and rude people in Butler; it seems kind of incongruent with whatever else you’ve bee trying to say. I know you’re tired; I am too, but instead of trying to digest the more complex issues in this case, you’re utter lack of, or selective, humanity (sorry) and your sad tendency to dismiss and oversimplify things might render those fools in Butler the LEAST of your problems as a student and as a person. So let me be frank. While I too can testify that ditzy people in Butler are annoying, your empty comments and lack of perceptivity have made me lose a little bit of hope for CC2011 more than they ever have. They’re rude, but your response infers that you are a callous, ostentatious and generally imperceptive person in this regard. It’s so funny that you mention the “uglier side of human nature” because simply this is the root of everything, especially in this case, and if you’re capable of identifying it within Butler’s social dynamics, then I think you should examine it in the context of this case as well. Just keep that in mind.
Said c. hacym,
On April 26, 2008 at 1:16 am:
Okay, I’m a little bit tired for this right now but your response begs for a reply.
First of all, I’d like to sincerely thank you for offering a semi-decent response, even though you reminded me of my apparent inhumanity a few too many times. There were many things that made me shift uncomfortably in my seat.
First of all, I’d like to remind you that you too are part of CC2011. Are you categorizing yourself? Or are you simply leaving the rest of CC2011 in the subset of “rude,” “imperceptive,” etc? And you, polite, perceptive? I can hardly call your screaming reply, constantly pointing at my inhumanity, polite or perceptive.
Secondly, did I at any point indicate that I agreed or disagreed to the acquittal? Did I give any impression that those idiot detectives should “get away with it”? On this second note, I’ve trimmed down at least 80% of your comment which would be so much more manageable for me to respond to. (Scrolling up and down so much gets old very quickly).
Next, my dismissal of comments like “he was going to get married the next day” is not inhumane. Any murder or death is a tragedy to someone out there. I don’t see why Bell getting married the next day warrants any special consideration to the case or see how it would do anything but to viciously beg for sympathy and emotion that is better left out. Am I saying that the murder was not a tragedy? Am I saying that it wasn’t sad that it also happened to be the night before his marriage? No, you imperceptive, presumptuous girl.
But I find what really is at the heart of your attack is the fact that I said that THIS IS NOT A RACE ISSUE. And if your comprehension skills serve you a little better, you’d see that that was the main point of my article. It’s in bold for your convenience, too. And since you want to figure out if I’m white or not, here you’ve made my article a race issue too. Is it fair for me to point out that you also happen to be “interestingly,” black? (Before you decide to put words in my mouth, the answer is ‘no’).
Thank you too for your suggestion to familiarize myself with other “similar” cases. Similar of course in that they were black victims, not simply victims of police misconduct. And unfortunately for you, I have talked to many New Yorkers about this and the responses hardly sway to your opinion. All in all, your response would have carried a lot more weight if it weren’t riddled with ridiculous condescensions.
Also, don’t look for a connection between Butler fools and fools calling the Bell case a race issue.
And don’t even dare make it seem that Sharpton’s comments were made in passing or that he has nothing to do with this becoming a race issue.
It’s past 2AM, so I’m going to refuse commenting any further, tempting as it is to annihilate your ridiculous, emotionally-driven response. But also know that in repeatedly attesting to my inhumanity, your inhumanity has revealed itself. For someone who can by suggestion be considered humane, would not be so quick to jump at me like a blood-thirsty socially-undomesticated imbecile over an issue like this. My misalignment with your views is NOT testament to my inhumanity or my “embarrassing” comments or whatever have you. No, my dear, it is testament to your inability to respond without resorting, as many people do online, to petty ad hominem attacks.
Said Vesal Yazdi,
On April 26, 2008 at 2:36 am:
Careful, the comments “girl” (I’m not exactly sure where I indicated my gender and I’m curious as to why you used this) in addition to calling me “dear” and “a blood-thirsty socially-undomesticated animal” sound much more condescending and patronizing than anything I have said about you in my post. Those are more demeaning than my inquiries about the condition of your humanity or your perceptivity. I was not aware that my diction “screamed” at you, and I am sorry that you felt as if you were being “attacked,” but I insist that calling me “girl” and an “animal” is unacceptable in comparison to me questioning where your humanity is or your current understanding of this case. Seriously. There is a difference between calling someone imperceptive, and it is fair game to counter-accuse or bring up something that I have mentioned (i.e ethnicity), but referring to me as an “animalistic girl” and “dear” is difficult to justify because I don’t recall referring to you as an animalistic boy, rather a fellow student who I think has got it wrong. I think my strongest comment against you was that your ideas “infer that you are a callous, ostentatious and generally imperceptive person in this regard.” I made a point to use “infer” and “in this regard,” because I do not know you, and I accept “presumptuous”, “imperceptive” and challenges regarding my humanity, but not “undomesticated”, “dear”, “animal” and “girl.” Sure, my post is “emotional”, but you should recognize that this is an “emotional” case, assuming your decision to call me an “animal” is objective and void of emotion itself. Perhaps you should’ve indicated why you think my post was animalisitic, or why you think I am somehow “undomesticated.” What is the objective in that, really? Please go through refute my specific points (but you think they’re not worth reading); don’t stoop to calling me things I have not called you. I encourage you to challenge my perceptively and my basis for questioning your humanity as I have yours, but using “socially-undomesticated animal” discredits you as an opinion columnist in my eyes. I criticized the specific opinions you have stated here; I challenged your perception of the situation, your understanding of the dynamics of this case, and your humanity for a statement which you did clarify here, but I did not belittle or attempt to “size-up” the worth your post in general, your efforts in writing it, nor your “comprehension skills,” rather your current understanding of the issues in this case and your ideas in the post. Why else would I respond to this if I didn’t think you would consider and respond to my ideas as I have considered and responded to yours…instead you call me an animal and you patronize me after I, although boldly, addressed to you as a peer, as a FELLOW member of CC11. I brought up your ethnicity in hopes of warning you that your usage of the trite “race card” term is a weapon that is often used whenever any person of color cites racism as a necessary problem, even though you think it isn’t in this case, and that is fine. However, I wish you’d examine more carefully my idea that this is one side of the problem with this case, the other being the verdict’s implications about law enforcement and their exemption from the law. Yes, I am black, and you can point that out if you’d like, that is fair game since I inquired about your ethnicity (gender, not so much?). The main point of my response was that the problems in this case boil down to issues regarding BOTH law enforcement and race - this is my opinion if that wasn’t clear before. In response to “black victims, not simply victims of police misconduct”…they are both victims of gross police misconduct and racism. Those black people were ALSO victims of police misconduct; why else are they dead? They are examples of the duality that I sought to argue, that this is about both race and abuse of power and the relationship between the two. If you think race is irrelevant in those cases, they remain examples of police misconduct regardless. You argue that this is not about race but I wish you had spent less time on judging the worth of my post and me being an “animal” and more on what I have said, particularly regarding this being a case of abuse of power if not race. I kind of wish your response consisted more of the clarification contained in your fourth and fifth paragraphs that I took in. But how do you expect me even consider your ideas if you deem me “an undomesticated animal.” You say you are “tired of this”, tired of what? People disagreeing with you? I was the first an only person to comment. Perhaps there shouldn’t be a comment feature at all if people’s words are so exhausting. By the way, you’re not the only person who talks to New Yorkers, and while there are 8 million, the people I have talked to don’t think that the acquittal was fair. And neither do you I guess.
I’m curious, do you refer to everyone who disagrees with you as an “undomesticated animal.” I wrote this post in hopes of getting you to consider another perspective as your blurb got me thinking. You have to see how “Like that even matters” in reference to Sean Bell’s wedding might prompt me to question your humanity, and I accept your response. And while you focused some of your post on why you disagree with the points I have made, you decide to classify my response as “semi-decent” and allude to the time as inhibiting you from further criticism. Sorry, I don’t need your approval of my post. Instead, I was hoping you would share your thoughts on what I mentioned about the duality of this case - and the problem that results when law enforcement is exempted from the very law system they seek to uphold and protect. I never said that Sharpton made his comment “in passing” and that he’s not “responsible for it becoming a race issue,” I asked you to reconsider it as a statement indicating that something very unfair has occurred here. Maybe you should’ve picked a more explicit Sharpton quote that said something along the lines of “This is racist” because it seems to me that Sharpton’s presence at all makes this a “race” thing to you, and that’s something we could’ve argued. Also, I did not make a connection between fools in Butler and “fools” who connect this to race; actually, I made a tie between how you pointed out the harsh behavior of students in Butler and yet not in this case; it’s fine if you disagree with that. You mention the “uglier side of human nature unearthing from its dormant winter state” and refer to me as an “animal” and this makes me wonder what the purpose of this blog is. Apparently not an exchange of ideas I guess. I’ll be reluctant to comment next time, not because of how late it is (4:30am) or because I don’t think someone’s post is worth responding to, but because instead of my opinions being de-constructed or my accusations returned, being called “girl” and “animal” indicates that my opinion is neither wanted nor appreciated wholeheartedly. This is what I was referring to a loss of hope; we’re an intelligent class, so I expected you to return the respect I have for your first post and strong disagreement and a strong refutation of my ideas.
Said c. hacym,
On April 26, 2008 at 4:29 am:
C. Hacym–you made some excellent points on here. It’s a pity you don’t write for Commentariat and that your insightful criticisms are met with angry dismissal.
It seems whenever someone challenges this particular blogger he replies with arrogance that he is going to “refuse to comment further” and complains about ad hominem comments. Why the whining? Can’t we criticize him AND his writing at once? lol And he writes ad hominem comments, so why can’t we?
I would suggest not asking these questions unless you want a flurry of angry emails. Maybe you’ve already gotten them. But hey–at least they’re funny!
Said znudzony,
On April 26, 2008 at 11:51 am:
Uh, “undomesticated” doesn’t imply “animal.” (For the record).
Also, being called a “girl” shouldn’t be enough to stop you from commenting. I’m pretty sure the comments you made about me commensurate with the few things I called you, admittedly, in bursts rather than your relentless attack at my inhumanity amongst other things. While I may have called you presumptuous, imperceptive, socially-undomesticated (and those are the only adjectives used) it hardly measures up to your first comment. But again this is squibbling over nothing.
I responded to your opinion just like you did mine. I’m pretty sure both our responses were on similar level. In other words, don’t bite and gnarl at me and expect me to come and try to make peace with you. I bite and gnarl back.
(And as an aside, don’t bother about little ol’ hardcore Republican Bill Nosal over here. A few enquiries about this certain campus character tells me a lot about him that would be safer not to be mentioned online).
And despite what you say, you never expected anything better from me from the start. Calling me inhumane and categorizing me in the “rude,” “imperceptive” CC2011 class was probably not the best move to set up the foundations for a more intelligible response.
Said Vesal Yazdi,
On April 26, 2008 at 12:08 pm:
Let me also remind you of znudzony’s very first comment. You’ll see that it is completely unprovocative, completely fair. And as znudzony said himself “it seems whenever someone challenges this particular blogger he replies with arrogance.” Well let’s see what his first “challenge” was:
“mm except in theory the American flag is a lot different than your laundry/underwear, as it usually is the manifestation of patriotism for the wealthiest democracy on Earth..
But if you hate the very nation that produced the university you are lucky enough to attend, I could see how that would be confusing.
If you don’t like our country, go home and quit your vulgar whining about American stereotypes.”
I think you get my point.
Said Vesal Yazdi,
On April 26, 2008 at 12:13 pm:
I wish I could re-post other users’ comments and not get censored. lol
You obviously don’t get it. It’s clearly just a wild anomaly that a “hardcore Republican” like myself and all these other people agree on your writing. It’s all a wild conspiracy, we’re all “after” you! Don’t pay us any attention, even though are criticisms are all oddly the same it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with you or your perfect arguments. Keep up the racist name calling and crazy emails, that will shut us up!
In all seriousness, I thought it might be worthwhile to comment on here but clearly it does nothing but upset you. And while it’s been fun, I have better things to do with my time anyway.
I honestly hope, at a minimum, that you stop being so angry and become more tolerant of the diverse set of people and ideas that make Columbia (and this country) what it is.
Said znudzony,
On April 26, 2008 at 2:00 pm:
Feel free to post whatever you’ve heard about me that “would be safer not to be mentioned online” on here or juicycampus or whatever. I have absolutely nothing to hide. lol
Said znudzony,
On April 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm:
Sure okay, thanks anyway znudzony and thanks to Vesal too I guess. But you didn’t answer where you found out that I am a girl. I didn’t disclose that anywhere…Did you look that up? Can you do that, is that part of the policy (along with revealing znudzony’s name)? Isn’t that some violation of privacy? Please point to where you can release info not otherwise disclosed in the “comment policy.” That’s what might make me stop posting; if my comments are so rousing then who is to stop you from posting my name, gender, and other info (that I have not revealed myself) about me in your rebuttal.
Also the reluctance to post stemmed from more than your usage of “girl”, even thought that really tends to be more condescending than calling you an imperceptive “person” with however absurd ideas. And sorry, the fact that “socially-undomesticated” doesn’t imply “animal” doesn’t diminish the fact that you still used “animal” to address me, which is dehumanizing, period. Asking about someone’s humanity is not dehumanization; I still consider you a peer in my post, whereas you deemed me an animal, and you might want to careful with that. The next person might complain. Since I asked “where is your humanity?” or called you imperceptive, you should’ve responded with “where is your humanity because you’ve said, a, b and c in your post. You are imperceptive because of your ideas x, y and z. You failed to consider 1, 2, 3.” Still, no reason why I’m a socially undomesticated girl animal, which is offensive on a number of levels. Perhaps you have a different notion of social un-domestication, but you still didn’t indicate specifically why you think I am these things or how they fit into the argument, so there was really no point in using them. According to wikipedia, ad hominem “consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.” Now, while inquiries about your humanity and callousness do question a belief of yours, it came from your sentence “Like that even matters.” about Sean Bell’s life and wedding, so there is a connection to my argument. Your “imperceptivity” comes from what I view as your current failure to gauge certain realities that I explain in my lengthy post you didn’t think was worth reading in its entirety. However, please provide me with how “animal”, “girl” and “socially-undomesticated” fit into your argument against my points.
AND you missed another change to comment on my main idea regarding the duality of this case, and my question to you is: if it’s not about race at all, then what do you think it’s about? Abuse of the power of law enforcement? Explain specifically why it isn’t about race, at all or in part. Fill in: this is a __________ issue. Elaborate on the “huge issues” you do have with this case. Because clearly there is some kind of issue, otherwise there wouldn’t be such a problem. Is this a question worth answering to you?
Said c. hacym,
On April 26, 2008 at 3:57 pm: