At 26, Zuckerberg is a year older than our first Person of the Year, Charles Lindbergh — another young man who used technology to bridge continents. He is the same age as Queen Elizabeth when she was Person of the Year, for 1952. But unlike the Queen, he did not inherit an empire; he created one. (The Queen, by the way, launched a Facebook page this year.) Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is a recognition of the power of individuals to shape our world. For connecting more than half a billion people and mapping the social relations among them (something that has never been done before); for creating a new system of exchanging information that has become both indispensable and sometimes a little scary; and finally, for changing how we all live our lives in ways that are innovative and even optimistic, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg is TIME's 2010 Person of the Year.The story of the founding of Facebook is depicted in the movie The Social Network starring Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, adapted from a fictionalization into a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher. The movie has been winning several end-of-year critics awards and must be considered one of the frontrunners for the Best Picture Oscar.
Q And this one is on the issue of marriage. Since you’ve become President, a lot has changed. More states have passed marriage equality laws. This summer a federal judge declared DOMA unconstitutional in two different cases. A judge in San Francisco declared Prop 8 was unconstitutional. And I know during the campaign you often said you thought marriage was the union between a man and a woman, and there — like I said, when you look at public opinion polling, it’s heading in the right direction. We’ve actually got Republicans like Ted Olson and even Ken Mehlman on our side now. So I just really want to know what is your position on same-sex marriage?THE PRESIDENT: Joe, I do not intend to make big news sitting here with the five of you, as wonderful as you guys are. (Laughter.) But I’ll say this –Q I just want to say, I would be remiss if I didn’t ask you this question.THE PRESIDENT: Of course.Q People in our community are really desperate to know.THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s a fair question to ask. I think that — I am a strong supporter of civil unions. As you say, I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents.And I care about them deeply. And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today. (Laughter.)Q It is an important issue, and I think that –THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s an entirely fair question to ask.Q And part of it is that you can’t be equal in this country if the very core of who you are as a person and the love — the person you love is not — if that relationship isn’t the same as everybody else’s, then we’re not equal. And I think that a lot of — particularly in the wake of the California election on Prop 8, a lot of gay people realized we’re not equal. And I think that that’s — that’s been part of the change in the –THE PRESIDENT: Prop 8, which I opposed.Q Right. I remember you did. You sent the letter and that was great. I think that the level of intensity in the LGBT community changed after we lost rights in that election. And I think that’s a lot of where the community is right now.THE PRESIDENT: The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going.Q The arc of history.THE PRESIDENT: The arc of history. Anything else?
As many progressives and liberals know, Fox News is not a news outlet. It is a right-wing propaganda arm. But now we have more ammunition because the parent company of the channel, News Corporation, has decided to give one million dollars to the Republican Governors Association:The company's media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and the GOP. The company's highest-ranking Democratic executive, Peter Chernin, recently departed.
[...]
UPDATE: News Corp. Spokesman Jack Horner emails, "News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy."
The giant check to the RGA dwarfs low four-figure checks from Fox's PAC to Democrats including Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.
Panic over a crack epidemic in the nation's cities in the 1980s led to draconian laws that ultimately would be as devastating to entire communities as the drug itself. According to a 2006 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, 1 in 14 black children has a parent in prison because of felony drug convictions. That's why a bipartisan bill to reduce the 100-1 sentencing disparity, approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is at once welcome and disheartening. The committee voted to reduce the disparity to 18 to 1, but the ratio should be 1 to 1, as proposed by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Under the bill, possession of 28 grams of crack, instead of 5 grams, would trigger the five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The bill also would stiffen penalties for bribing a peace officer and violence attendant to a crack-related offense.
It has taken more than a decade of determined advocacy to reach this point, and although it's not perfect, the Senate's reform measure, which is not retroactive, would mitigate the sentences of an estimated 3,000 people a year. So we reluctantly urge the House to forgo its rational, reasonable and more just approach -- because insisting on a 1-1 ratio, as approved by the House Judiciary Committee in the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, would by most accounts destroy any chance of passage. This is one issue on which there is cross-aisle cowardice: Few members of either party are willing to appear "soft on crime."
So 18 to 1 appears to be the best we can get. Republicans are insisting that bipartisanship is over and that there will be little, if any, cooperation for the rest of this year. But this agreement has already been struck. Before year's end, we hope to see the biased sentencing disparity on its way out.
The War on Drugs. Now 82% less racist. Sheeesh.
Beyond the theories, the reality is that there were only four known cases of transfusion-related HIV infection from 1999 to 2007, out of more than 112 million units of blood. In all four cases, the donors had denied having any risk factors. In addition to sexually active gay men, the high-risk groups banned from donating include anyone who was ever an intravenous drug user, people with a history or family history of certain illnesses and anyone who has ever accepted payment for sex. Other groups cannot donate for up to a year -- people who have had acupuncture or body piercings, for instance, or heterosexuals who have engaged in high-risk sexual practices.So, they think the lifetime ban should be lifted, but want to replace it with a 5-10 year ban if you have had sex with another man, as opposed to a year for all other "high risk groups." Still sounds discriminatory to me.
[...]
A 2008 report by the American Medical Assn., which reviewed a host of pertinent studies, concluded that there was a very small but statistically significant increase in risk of transmission of AIDS and other diseases if men who had abstained from sex for one year were allowed to give blood. That risk, small as it might be, is nonetheless too big. The FDA should reject a shift to a one-year abstention policy.
But the agency should seriously consider allowing donations from gay men who have abstained from sexual contact for at least five years. Under that scenario, the AMA found, the risk would be indistinguishable from current levels. The figures are theoretical, of course, based on statistical probabilities. If anything, they are probably conservative. The four transfusion-related HIV cases in recent years were a tiny fraction of what the statistical models predicted. Because not all donors remember exactly how long they have abstained from sex, the FDA should consider adding a buffer of several more years. If it does ease the restrictions, it should require.
No one should be deceived about how meaningful such a change would be. Mostly, it would give a symbolic victory to the gay and lesbian community. The number of gay men who have abstained completely from sex for at least five years is considered to be quite small. Fewer yet would be interested in donating blood. The AMA report predicts that even though changes in risk would be unnoticeable, the number of blood donors would not increase appreciably.
But that's not a valid defense for clinging to what might be outdated guidelines. The country has more effective tests and other safety measures than when these rules were devised. If there is no reason to think the country would see a rise in transfusion- related illness with a five- to 10-year rule, refusal to relax the restriction would indeed be unfairly discriminatory.
Legal experts on the left and right gleaned three insights from the high court intervention:I think there's almost no chance of the Supreme Court upholding a ruling from the 9th Circuit which goes as far as California's 2008 landmark gay marriage decision In Re Marriage Cases but I do think it is possible there could be 5 votes on the court to rule that it violates the federal constitution when a minority is granted rights through a judicial proceeding and then the majority electorate votes to take those rights away. That should be a legal principle that Justice Anthony Kennedy should be able to agree with, even if it would only apply to striking down Proposition 8 and legalizing marriage in California, and not the 45 states where it is currently not legal already.
First, the justices are following this case closely. They typically rule on appeals after cases are decided. It is rare for them to intervene in a pending trial.
Second, the court's conservatives do not trust Walker to set fair rules for proceedings. Their opinion described how he had given shifting explanations of his plans. This suggests Walker's ruling on Proposition 8 may be viewed with some skepticism.
And third, the majority has a distinct sympathy for the foes of same-sex marriage. The justices cited a series of newspaper stories reporting on the threats and harassment faced by those who have publicly opposed gay unions.
"The ideological split was stunning," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal law professor and dean of the UC Irvine Law School. "It made me think of Bush vs. Gore" -- when, after the 2000 presidential election, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 emergency order to halt the recount of Florida's paper ballots and three days later ended the recount.
Last week's intervention in the San Francisco case "suggests the majority has a very strong sympathy for Prop. 8's supporters," USC law professor David Cruz added.
M. Edward Whelan, a conservative former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, called the high court decision "a stinging rebuke" of Walker that "strongly signals that at least five justices have serious questions about his impartiality and judgment in this matter."
Chemerinsky, Cruz and Whelan all cautioned against predicting the outcome in the high court, but said the justices' ruling was an early sign that the advocates of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage may face an uphill fight.
Bizarrely, I also said that the biggest event in LGBT history for which 2009 will be remembered is President Obama's signing of the federal hate-crimes act which includes gender identity and sexual orientation. But I'm glad Kamala Harris had the exact same thought. Great minds think alike, indeed!If Obama does not reverse the military policy "there will be hell to pay," said Ron Buckmire, a professor at Occidental College who leads the governing board of the Jordan/Rustin Coalition, an African American LGBT group in Los Angeles.
Buckmire said it is important to note that Obama signed a law in October that makes it a federal crime to assault someone because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
"That was huge," San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said recently while attending a fundraiser for Equality California.
Last week, a group of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders released a “declaration” reminding fellow believers that "Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required." Then, after a specious invocation of King, the 152 signers hurl this anathema at those who would enact laws protecting abortion or extending the rights of civil (not religious) marriage to same-sex couples:Of course, hate-filled Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones. The strange land described in this statement is one in which a sinister secularist government is determined to force Christians to betray their principles about abortion or the belief that "holy matrimony" is "an institution ordained by God." The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."
This sweeping claim is supported by anecdotes of the sort radio talk-show hosts purvey. For example, the declaration says that "a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax-exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions." (In 2007, New Jersey did strip a Methodist camp of its tax privileges under a state recreation program because it no longer was open to all.) For other examples, it must search beyond the United States: "In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality."
The impression left is that the legal environment in which churches must operate is reminiscent of the Roman Empire that threw Christians to the lions. Never mind that advocates of same-sex civil marriage and legal abortion have made significant concessions to believers or that religious groups have recourse to courts, which have aggressively protected the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exempting believers in some cases from having to comply with applicable laws.
This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous. Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn? Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don't like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform? They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men -- even holy men.
MARRIAGE AFFORDS unparalleled rights and benefits to people who commit to long-term relationships. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have an equal right to marry under the law. On Election Day, Maine voters should vote “no’’ on ballot Question 1 and respect the rights of their neighbors and fellow citizens to live how they choose.
Supporters of the ballot initiative argue that same-sex marriage erodes heterosexual marriage, but experience has proven them wrong: Since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage five years ago, the state has seen its divorce rate, already the lowest in the nation, decline further. But that hasn’t stopped supporters of the initiative from making other wild claims. No, gay marriage is not being taught, alongside spelling and long division, as part of the public-school curriculum in Massachusetts. No, an equal right to civil marriage has not rendered Massachusetts genderless.
Religions differ in their beliefs, customs, and ceremonies about marriage - none of which will be affected by a new Maine law that deals only with civil marriages. If Question 1 fails, churches and other religious groups could still refuse to perform same-sex marriages. But the law would ensure that courts will continue to marry gay and lesbian couples.
The law signed by Governor John E. Baldacci in May recognizes that legalizing gay marriage is a matter of fairness. A civil union, the governor said, is not equal to a marriage. Just as the state of Maine would not deny the equal rights and protections of the law to its other citizens, it should not deny them to gay people who wish to build stable families. A vote of “no’’ on Question 1 is a vote for equal protection of the laws, a guarantee in Maine’s constitution and in the country’s that all citizens should defend and embrace.
There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.It is imperative we pass health care reform this year.
First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.
Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.
Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.
Lane Hudson: Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” right now? Please...It was pretty electric to be in the room at the time. Interestingly,when we sat down I had tried to talk Matt and Andres into heckling Big Dog with "What About DOMA" but they talked me out of it. Apparently Lane asked people in the Netroots Nation LGBT caucus on Twitter right before standing up and doing it.
President Clinton: Hey, you know, you ought to go to one of those congressional health care meetings. You did really well there. I’ll be glad to talk about that. If you will… If you will sit down and let me talk, I’ll be glad to discuss it. But if you stand up and scream I won’t be able to talk. But the other guys would love to have ya. I wanna talk a little about that too.
But anyway, so, here we are in a different world. Now, it’s not like the 1990’s. You wanna talk about ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military and the media supported them. They raised all kinds of devilment. And all most of you did was to attack me instead of getting some support in the congress. Now, that’s the truth.
Secondly – it’s true! – You know, you may have noticed that presidents aren’t dictators. They voted - they were about to vote for the old policy – by margins exceeding 80% in the House and exceeding 70% in the Senate. The gave test votes out there to send me a message that they were going to reverse any attempt I made by executive order to force them to accept gays into the military. And let me remind you that the public opinion is now more strongly in our favor than it was sixteen years ago and I have continued supporting it. That John Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under me, was against “Don’t A..” – was against letting gays serve – is now in favor of it. This is a different world. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Let me also say something that never got sufficient publicity at the time. When General Colin Powell came up with this ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ it was defined while he was Chairman much differently than it was implemented. He said that, if you will accept this, here is what we’ll do. We will not pursue anyone, any military members out of uniform will be free to march in gay rights parades, go to gay bars, go to political meetings, whatever mailings they get, whatever they do in their private lives, none of this will be a basis for dismissal. It all turned out to be a fraud because of the enormous reaction against it among the middle level officers and down after it was promulgated and Colin was gone. So nobody regrets how this was implemented even more… anymore than I do. But the congress also put that into law by a veto-proof majority and many of your friends voted for that, believing the explanation about how it would be eliminated. So, I hated what happened. I regret it. But I didn’t have, I didn’t think at the time, any choice if I wanted any progress to be made at all. Look, I think it’s ridiculous. Can you believe they spent – what did they spend? - 150,000 dollars to get rid of a valuable Arabic speaker recently?
And, you know, the thing that changed me forever on ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ was when I learned that 130 gay service people were allowed to serve and risk their lives in the 1st Gulf War and all their commanders knew they were gay, they let them go and risk their lives ‘cause they needed them, and then as soon as the 1st Gulf War was over, they kicked them out. That’s all I needed to know, that’s all anybody needs to know, to know that this policy should be changed.
Now, while we’re at it, let me say one thing about DOMA, since you… The reason I signed DOMA was, and I said when I signed it, that I thought the question of whether gays should marry should be left out to states and the religious organizations, and if any church or other religious body wanted to recognize gay marriage they ought to. We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the Levin referendum much later in 2004, in the election, which the Republicans put on the ballot, to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it’s obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican congress presenting that. The President doesn’t even get to veto that. It’s the Congress can refer constitutional amendments to the states. I didn’t like signing DOMA, and I certainly didn’t like the constraints it would put on benefits, and I’ve done everything I’ve could, and I am proud to say that the State Department was the first federal department to restore benefits to gay partners in the Obama administration, and I think we are going forward in the right direction now for federal employees, and I don’t like that eith… I don’t like the DOMA.
But actually all these things illustrate the point I was trying to make. America has rapidly moved to a different place to a lot of these issues and so what we have to decide is what we are going to do about it.
It's regrettable that the restoration of marriage rights to gays and lesbians has to be subject to strategic political calculation. But it's also hard to argue with the conclusion reached by Equality California, the state's largest gay-rights group, that the repeal of Proposition 8 would have a better chance in 2012 than in 2010.Openly gay State Senator Mark Leno was the chief sponsor of the marriage equality bill passed by the California Legislature in 2005 and 2007 and vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Other gay-rights groups plan to push forward with a ballot measure in 2010.
Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said he agrees with the decision to wait. "There is much work to be done in winning the hearts and minds of California voters," he said, citing polls that showed public opinion has not shifted notably since November.
However, polls show an unmistakable correlation between voters' ages and their support for marriage equality, and each election cycle brings another wave of young voters. The issue also is advanced as Californians who may be instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage consider the effect of this discrimination among neighbors and colleagues who are denied the rights, responsibilities - and societal reverence - of marriage.
The delay is wise in giving advocates of marriage equality the time - and resources - to educate and motivate voters to remove this vestige of discrimination from the state constitution.
Newsom said today he believes that a 2012 ballot initiative makes sense, considering the fragmented state of the same-sex marriage coalition.It will be interesting to see the 2010 proponents rebut these arguments from same-sex marriage supporters with data and analysis, instead of emotion and "magical thinking."
"In a perfect world we'd go forward next year, but the reality is we're not united," Newsom said.
"Time is definitely our ally," especially with thousands of younger, liberal Californians registering to vote, he said.
In the aftermath of the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign, it became apparent that much, if not all, of the winning margin came from African American and Latino voters who turned out in extra-heavy numbers to support Obama's presidential bid, and that has generated nearly a year of acrimonious debate within the gay rights community and black and Latino political circles.While it is true that if only White voters had voted in November 2008, Proposition 8 would have failed. That does not mean that people of color are responsible for the passage of the measure. When you control for the rate at which different groups go to church (i.e. once a week, once a month, almost never) Black, Latino and Asians have approximately equivalent rates of support for marriage equality as white voters.
Ron Buckmire, a mathematics professor at Occidental College who describes himself in his Internet blog as a "black, gay, Caribbean, liberal, progressive, moderate, fit, married, college-educated, NPR-Listening, tennis-playing feminist atheist," has emerged as one of the leading advocates for waiting.
"As I like to say: Do the math," Buckmire said in one interview. "It's going to take a long time. … I haven't seen a plan to win yet. I've seen a plan to get on the ballot. But not to win."
One question that gay rights advocates are trying to answer is whether the 2010 election, an off-year for presidential politics but one in which California will elect a new governor, would be more or less conducive to same-sex marriage.
Voter turnout would be lower than in 2008, most likely, and that probably would mean a somewhat whiter and older set of voters, which also could mean a lower turnout of those pro-Proposition 8 black and Latino voters.
Garofioli goes on to intimate that a plan to win will be released on Monday. Presumably, he is referring to Equality California's Marc Solomon's much anticipated memo on exactly how and when the state's largest LGBT organization feels Proposition 8 should be repealed.Leave it to a math professor -- like Ron Buckmire, associate math prof at Occidental College -- to break down some raw numbers to illustrate the task facing folks who want to put gay marriage on the ballot in November 2010.
The Mad Professah -- as herefers to himself in his blog-- has another gig as board prez of the Jordan/Rustin Coaltion, a African-American gay rights group in LA. As we've told you before, it's one ofseveral LGBT coalitions of colorthat says there hasn't been enough outreach done, and wants to hold off on rushing to the ballot (like in 2010) until more hearts and minds can be changed. The Professah knows how hard that can be. He's been canvassing in LA for a while (and involved in other gay rights campaigns since the early 1990s).
In July, he was part of a group that had its most successful day ever in "moving" voters in a middle-class black neighborhood in LA -- that is getting them to change their mind just a bit about the issue. They moved 50 voters -- after knocking on 1,200 doors.
"As I like to say: Do the math," Buckmire told us. "It's going to take a long time." While he's happy that some outreach is starting, "I haven't seen a plan to win yet. I've seen a plan to get on the ballot. But not to win."
At the end of Wednesday night's prime-time news conference that was intended to be chiefly about health care, Obama was asked about the incident, to which he responded: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."Today, President Obama was asked about the controversy arising from his remarks last night and declined to modify or withdraw them.
But Obama went on to say, "I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
Obama acknowledged that Gates is a friend and that since he was not there, he cannot know exactly what role race may have played in the incident. He also acknowledged that the Cambridge police acted appropriately in initially responding to the call that a man was seen forcibly entering the Gates home
"I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home," Obama said.The Cambridge police department and Officer Joseph Crowley who teaches a class on (how to avoid) racial profiling at a a local police adacdemy appear to disagree with the President:
In an exclusive interview with ABC's Terry Moran to air on "Nightline" tonight, Obama said it doesn't make sense to him that the situation escalated to the point that Gates was arrested.
"I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do," the president told Moran. "And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That's my suspicion."
The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an "outstanding police officer." But he added that with all that's going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, "it doesn't make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he's not causing a serious disturbance."
Asked about Obama's comment, Cambridge police commissioner Haas said that "this department is deeply pained."Somehow I don't think this story is going away anytime soon.
"It deeply hurts the pride of this agency," he told a news conference this afternoon at city police headquarters.
"Sergeant Crowley followed proper protocol and procedures in making the arrest," said Haas, describing Crowley as a "stellar member of this department. I rely on his judgment every day."
In the interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper pressed Obama as to why his administration had not moved on a key promise it made to the gay rights community -- that it would overturn the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy crafted during the Clinton years.
"Look," the president replied, "I've had conversations with [Defense Secretary] Bob Gates as well as Admiral [Mike] Mullen about the fact that I want to see this law change. I also want to make sure that we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the Executive Branch simply to say we will not enforce a law. It is our duty to enforce laws.
"But look, the bottom line is, I want to see this changed," Obama added, "and we've already contacted congressional allies. I want to make sure that it's changed in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist."
"Do you personally have a timetable in your mind of when you would like to see [the law] changed?" Cooper interjected.
"I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later," Obama replied. "And we've got a process to not only work it through Congress, but also to make sure that the Pentagon has thought through all the ramifications of how this would be most effective."
