Good honest answer. Yes, that's the only way it does make sense, from experience, but my point was that if you were claiming that this is the way it should be, or is even legal, nope.

In other words, we could have said a few years ago "Enter this country with an Arabic name, you're going to get wiretapped and maybe hauled off to jail", and it might have even been true, but that sure as hell doesn't make it legal or right.

I see what you're saying about Crowley covering his ass, which is clearly true, but I actually think it would have come out differently had Gates been white.

A white professor, standing in his hallway on the phone, a report of a possible burglary in progress, but with hints that it's also likely just the resident trying to get in--- do we think that in that scenario, the cop's first words would have been "Step outside, now"? Or would they have been instead "Is everything okay?"

I know what I think. It's all speculation though, it's true.

I think what he did right at the start is what pissed Gates off, in any case.

What type of person almost instantly gets defensive when a police officer is responding to a call to protect THAT PERSON'S PROPERTY?

If you're thinking of protecting my property anytime soon by coming to handcuff me while I'm standing on my porch and hauling me off to jail, uh, no thanks, okay?

Who gets "defensive" in that situation? Good grief, defensive is the least of the issues here, of course you're "defensive" when someone accuses you of a crime you didn't commit.

Whatever view of this you may take, I don't think anyone rational is claiming that when Gates was taken away in handcuffs, that there was any pretense at that point that this was to "protect his property".

After all, the officer knew at that point beyond doubt that Gates lived there, it was his house. All of his "property" was staying put, while the guy who owned it was being taken away for questioning for four hours by police.

Whatever else may be true, there's no real dispute that the reason for the arrest was disrespect, or yelling, or insisting on asking for ID.

The problem for Crowley was that none of that is a crime, which is why the arrest was tossed out and charges dismissed. Funny how few are mentioning that.

Cops have to be able to control situations where they are wildly outnumbered, and preferably do so without using deadly or excessive force

You do realize how completely and utterly absurd that statement is in relation to this case, don't you?

That's the whole point, that's precisely what MA law says had to be in danger of happening for this arrest to have been justified, or to stick. If anyone thinks that Crowley was "outnumbered" here then they're really not even trying to be rational.

Re your "the way it should be" versus "the way it has to be", sorry, I'm not buying that in the least. The way it should be is the way it has to be, and that's called the law. If you start allowing "the way it has to be" despite that way being illegal, you've lost control already and you're doing a crappy job.

Again, Sarah Palin's religious identity and religious beliefs should be completely irrelevant in the secular, political arena. It's possible to discuss politics without bringing religion into it. Let's just focus on the issues at hand.

Right, because of course Sarah Palin never brought up religion as part of her campaign, never made it in fact a core theme of it from start to finish.

Your argument reminds me of Palin's absurdly hypocritical complaints about attacking her children publicly and how they should be "off limits", while pushing them into the spotlight at every opportunity and using them shamelessly as political foils the whole time. In fact even her complaining, especially her complaining, e.g. her full-tilt campaign against David Letterman, put the children front and center in her campaign against "the media" and used them for political ends.

Even more absurd really is just her entire campaign against "the media", ranting and raving about how they won't leave her alone.... while standing at a microphone gleefully courting as much media coverage as she can get. The worst thing that could happen to her is the media not paying attention at all, and she knows this.

Back to religion, if you doubt what I'm saying just Google "Sarah Palin God" to get many examples, starting with:

Sarah Palin: War in Iraq is "God's Plan", "God's servant on the ticket" and on and on.

Both Ahmadinejad and Palin and all the rest who claim that God tells them what direction things should take in the civic sphere and insist that the rest of us should follow deserve scrutiny of this religion-based claim first and foremost, in fact it's essential to do so.