Phil Davis (aka Fantastic Babblings)

NYPD Harassment Across Street From Stonewall

2009-05-03T16:20:00.000-07:00

To:

Alice Muniz, Gay Officers Action League
Christine C. Quinn, President, New York City Council
Honorable Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City (by email form)

Last night, after dinner in the Village, a friend and I were walking and came to Christopher Park. The gates were wide open and there were other people there. We walked in and sat on a bench to talk and enjoy the beautiful evening. Tourists passed through and posed with the statues and people sat on benches. It was quiet and peaceful.

Between 10 and 10:30 police officers came into the park shining lights in peoples faces and saying the park was closed. We got up to leave and one officer (I regret I didn't get his badge or name, but he was the only one in a white shirt) demanded to see ID. I started getting my driver's license from my wallet and my friend asked why he needed to show ID. The officer didn't explain why he just demanded again. My friend insisted to know why. Then the officer in the white shirt instructed another officer to cuff him. I had seen the other officer get the cuffs out at the ready the first time my friend asked why. My friend did not do anything physical, he was only verbal and he was not insulting, but he was insistent on knowing why he was being treated like a criminal.

He was placed under arrest and pushed into an unmarked car. As he was getting into the car he looked at me and said "he called me queen."

I went to the 6th Precinct and inquired about his status. Officer Leahy, badge 18943, told me he was the one who cuffed my friend. I asked him if he was the one who called my friend a "queen" and he said no. Officer Leahy told me that it would take about three hours to process my friend at the precinct, then he would be taken to Central Booking and by that time no judge would be available so he would spend a night in jail. I informed him that I was a YouTube video director and that I was going to post a video about this as soon as I got home. For whatever reason, my friend was released about an hour later with a summons.

My friend says he does not think Leahy is the one who cuffed him. I don't know if there was some bait and switch going on or what the source of the confusion is.

The facts are that the park was physically open and the list of rules is on a dark plaque against dark shrubbery and not noticeable at night. Within 30 minutes after leaving the precinct, I rode by the park in a cab and it was wide open again.

If it is so important to public safety to keep people out of that park after dusk (whatever time that is), why don't they get locks that work? The locks looked unmolested to me and the gates were wide open. And why isn't the closing time posted more prominently at the entrance? Is this some scam so the city can make more money?

Why can't people just be asked to leave and not treated like criminals?

I asked the officer in charge why they needed to see ID. He answered with a question, "How can I write a summons without ID?" Well, I didn't see them write any summonses. They didn't write me one. Is this selective enforcement? Is it only because they perceived my friend to be gay? And even if all was legit, which I doubt, they have no right to use an anti-gay slur when they make an arrest.

I keep reading the City wants to encourage tourism for the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. This kind of behavior combined with the entrapment arrests at the video stores in Chelsea is not helpful. I have advised my friends to stay away because NYPD is hostile to gay people. Not 30 yards from Stonewall, no less.

Justice for Charles Lynch

2009-04-22T17:27:00.001-07:00

The Gathering Storm Remix

2009-04-10T15:25:00.000-07:00

2009-03-25T13:02:00.001-07:00

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Bobby Jindal: Exorcist and Faith Healer

2009-03-03T10:10:00.000-08:00

Judges Abuse Children and Get Off Easy

2009-02-19T08:02:00.000-08:00

Social Media Masturbation

2009-02-03T09:26:00.000-08:00

Aside from a few luminaries like Stephen Fry or Michael Buckley, most people on Twitter who have large followings seem to be tweeting about social networking, specifically about Twitter itself. I am curious: What percentage of tweets are actually about Twitter?

In noticing this, I thought I would post a satirical tweet to an imaginary Twitterer, @selfreferential. Until I checked and there actually is a user called @selfreferential. And what does he/she post about? Twitter, of course. Exclusively.

It makes me wonder, does social networking create much real social value? Or is it just meta-social. Among users with small followings (like me) it seems to be mostly about trading quips with friends, or linking to some article or video of mutual interest. But the big mucky-mucks (twicky-twits) - what social value are they creating?

How boring would it be to have a meeting to talk about having meetings? Or meet for lunch to talk about lunch? It's sort of like watching the cable channel that explains how to use your cable box. That's entertainment!

So here I am, gibbering about Twitter. Je suis hypocrite!

Oh, and @buckhollywood just tweeted that he is having diet pepsi for lunch. I wonder if they are paying him? At least it wasn't about twitter.

Limerick

2009-01-31T15:10:00.000-08:00

There was was a lad name of Billy
Who sported a corkscrew shaped willie.
With considerable torque he popped off my cork
and twisted me 'bout like fusilli.

Leave Prince Harry Alone

2009-01-12T20:05:00.000-08:00

Britain's Prince Harry is the object of much media attention these days because of a video that shows him making reference to "our little Paki friend", telling a soldier he looks like a "raghead" and other horseplay that the PC Police have determined is racist or homophobic.

Do we really have nothing better to worry about? These are the common vulgarities of a bored soldier goofing off. True, they are not high-minded, but they are the kinds of things people say in private. It's not worth getting so hot and bothered about.

Cut the guy some slack. If he were not a member of the royal family, nobody would have known about it. Harry did not pursue his royalty. He had no choice in the matter, and probably would rather it weren't so. Of course he does get many privileges, including financial wealth, from his position. But some people are reacting as if he had raped or murdered someone. He didn't.

Come on, people. There are real villains in the world and much more important things that require the attention of the media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7822574.stm

Paper, Technology, Waste and Healthcare

2009-01-04T05:41:00.001-08:00

Prop 8 The Musical

2008-12-03T17:29:00.001-08:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

The Obesity Song

2008-11-24T08:09:00.001-08:00

Nationwide Protest for Marriage Equality - NYC Rally

2008-11-15T20:42:00.001-08:00

Nationwide Protest for Marriage Equality Saturday 11/15

2008-11-12T11:01:00.000-08:00

It will be held simultaneously across the country at city halls in cities in every state. For more info:

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/

Barack is an Arab Remix

2008-10-12T19:36:00.000-07:00

Hat tip Sign543

Wisdom from Christopher Buckley

2008-10-10T09:17:00.001-07:00

Click here:

Christopher Buckley Endorses Obama

Betty Boop for President

2008-10-08T13:02:00.000-07:00

Draw your own conclusions.

Donna Brazile Rocks My World

2008-10-08T12:06:00.001-07:00

Watch the video here:

New Yorker Festival: Donna Brazile

A Well Lubricated Life

2008-10-03T19:18:00.000-07:00

Comfort and complacency have become so endemic to American life, it seems that many of our fellow citizens wish only for a well lubricated life through which they can slide without the intrusion of any thought or feeling that nettles the surface of ignorant bliss.

William F. Buckley is Rolling Over in His Grave

2008-10-03T13:26:00.001-07:00

Lowry on Palin

Oversimplification

2008-09-15T10:09:00.001-07:00

McCain gets Barackrolled

2008-09-15T09:45:00.000-07:00

From The Margins of Error

Hat Tip to Hugh Atkin

George Will is Wrong

2008-09-14T18:30:00.000-07:00

On today's edition of This Week with George Stephanopoulos the topic of McCain's misleading ad about Barack Obama's support of age-appropriate sex ed came up. Age-appropriate sex education for kindergarten is understood to be teaching the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching to help children protect themselves against predators. All of the panelists agreed the McCain ad was dishonest, except George Will, who challenged anyone to explain why it was dishonest. Once someone did, Will shifted his argument to the erstwhile Culture War and pompously opined that "It is very common across the centuries that parents, not schools, parents tell their children to beware of strangers. What's new here, and reflects a conservative/liberal difference, is the idea that a)it has to be tarted up as sex education, beware of strangers, and b)parents can't do it, schools must - in kindergarten! Now that's a cultural divide and let's vote."

As usual, Will's assertion was punctuated with contempt for anyone who is so stupid as to disagree with him. But he doesn't understand the issue at all.

This is from the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorders:

"Most often, sexual abusers know the child they abuse but are not relatives. In fact, about 60% of perpetrators are nonrelative acquaintances, such as a friend of the family, babysitter, or neighbor.

About 30% of those who sexually abuse children are relatives of the child, such as fathers, uncles, or cousins.

Strangers are perpetrators in about 10% of child sexual abuse cases."

Accordingly, to adopt Mr. Will's admonition to beware of strangers would protect children from only 10% of predators. Why does George Will want children to be exposed to 90% of abusers?

What does a child do when a parent or the close friend of a parent abuses her? And if a child has grown up in an abusive environment, how does he know that it is not appropriate. Children have a way of believing adults and blaming themselves.

George Will is a pompous idiot, who like most people who have too high an esteem of their own intelligence no longer think it is necessary to acquire actual facts or engage in actual analysis. No wonder children are at risk.

Culture war, my ass! This is about smart vs. stupid.

For Those Who Missed Tina Fey as Sarah Palin

2008-09-14T18:29:00.001-07:00

Remembering the Victims of 9/11

2008-09-11T13:32:00.001-07:00

Find more videos like this on MoarVideo Project

Trolling His Way to the Presidency

2008-09-10T10:57:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia defines an internet troll as "someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion".

The McCain campaign is doing exactly that with its latest ads about lipstick on a pig and Obama's support for sex education for kindergarten kids. Both ads are outright lies and they know it. The media also knows it, but instead of pointing out the obvious lies and setting the record straight, this morning on Morning Joe (MSNBC) the talking heads took the bait and were commending McCain fpr the political cleverness of it all.

Trolling is something usually done by immature disaffected guys whose only lifeline from a sea of despair is snark and destructiveness. It offers them a moment of respite from shooting people and watching them explode in a gory bloodbath in a video game. They become dissociated from healthy emotions like compassion or any sense of social responsibility. The only thing that matters is win vs fail (or phail).

What lofty aspirations for John McCain! Now that his character has been totally subsumed by a Rovian ethos, he apparently has decided that his only hope for winning is to bait and troll and destroy. Last week the Republicans spent so much energy building him up as a hero, which he once was. He apparently has decided to chuck his honor into the garbage bin and troll his way to the oval office. The very sad truth is that it may work.

The Palin Frenzy

2008-09-06T15:22:00.000-07:00

As the rumors about Sarah Palin spread maybe it's time to chill a bit while the wheat gets separated from the chaff. Whether the state jet was sold on eBay or not is not important to me (neither is whether or not Obama knows the correct name of college football teams). Taking care of her children while running for office is her problem, not mine or yours. It is important whether or not she abused the power of her office, and if she hasn't thought much about national issues, that is everybody's problem. The first casualty of the Sarah Palin pick was the truth. From bloggers with limited facts spreading unsubstantiated rumors to the glassy-eyed worship of "The Other One" from Republican delegates, most of what has passed for information thus far is pretty foggy. Let us hope that the public vetting of Palin over the next few weeks will be carried out with more professionalism and objectivity than has been displayed so far by either side. Perhaps Palin herself will not hide from the press during this period. Well, I can hope, can't I.

In the meantime one blogger has attempted to debunk some of the rumors. While the facts get settled, it doesn't hurt to laugh.

Sarah Palin Speech

2008-09-06T14:53:00.001-07:00

Stop for a Moment

2007-04-17T09:34:00.000-07:00

Before the bodies are cold journalists, pundits, and people with an axe to grind are already jumping on the Virginia Tech tragedy like buzzards. Fingers are being pointed, fault is being found, explanations are being given before the facts are known. The usual stuff. Can't we just pause for a moment and feel the sorrow? There will be plenty of time for the noise. But first, a bit of peace and quiet and respect, please.

What I Want to Do When I Grow Up

2007-03-28T13:04:00.000-07:00

A few years ago my high school class held its 30th reunion. I did not go. A few weeks afterwards a friend sent me a link to a website that had pictures of the attendees, mostly couples. I knew most of these people, some of them quite well. But I only recognized one or two of them. I’m sure I have changed a lot in 30 years. Even though the change has been gradual, sometimes I am nonplussed when I look into a mirror. Nothing could prepare me, however, for the shock of seeing my classmates. They looked old. It wasn’t just a chronological age, though. They looked done: Stick a fork in them. They looked like people for whom the Early Bird Special was the highlight of the day.

Now these were people in their early fifties. I heard someone on the radio the other day say that 50 is the new 30. An exaggeration, to be sure, but still, in this day and age why should 50ish people look so over the hill? I recently discussed this with another friend of mine from the same class who doesn’t have that look. He looks quite a bit younger than these people, and so do I (to be fair he looks ten years younger than I). It doesn’t hurt that neither of us has much gray hair, a natural phenomenon (in my case, at least.)

A major difference, we observed, was that most of the people at the reunion knew what they wanted to do early, finished college and went to work at good jobs and succeeded at their goals. That is an admirable thing. For the most part they looked happy and satisfied. Good for them. What is different about my friend and I is that we are still trying to figure out what we are going to do when we grow up. We have both had some successes and live comfortable, yet unextravagant lives. But we aren’t satisfied. We’re still trying, still hungry for achievement. Neither of us have found that satisfaction, unless you consider the striving for it to be the satisfaction istelf. It is a rather existential satisfaction, like Camus’ Sisyphus rolling the stone up the hill.

I think New York has something to do with that. It is a city of strivers. Author David McCullough commented on the Brooklyn Bridge being a symbol of monumental effort, something which characterizes the essence of New York City. Some days just getting to work requires overcoming adversity: traffic, subway delays, overcrowding, bad attitudes, climbing stairs when you’re too tired… But we thrive on the struggle, the minor ones like the commute or the major ones, like 9/11. It is not uncommon to see an elderly, stooped over New Yorker struggling with a walker to get to the market and return, with the bag tied to the walker. Perhaps in the snow. I live in a walk up building, and there used to be an elderly woman on the fifth floor who went out every day to get her six pack of Meister Brau and she would come back and walk up one flight, then sit and rest, walk up the next flight, then sit and rest, and so on. And she always seemed immensely happy. She conversed with people who passed during her rest periods, and that was her social time of the day. It is my hope, and indeed my belief, that she enjoyed every drop of the cheap beer she struggled every day to get.

New York is full of dreamers (and schemers). Everybody, young and old, has some angle going that is going to make life better. Some are full of shit, and some are con artists, but many of them are actually doing something to fulfill the dream. Even if they don’t fulfill it, the dreaming itself is worth something.

I am grateful for the struggle. Every time I get smacked in the face by the harsh realities of the city, and I overcome it, I feel a rush of possibility. I can do anything. I design computer networks and challenge the organizational structure and habits of my company. I write. I make videos for YouTube. I still search for what I am going to do next and get excited by how much fun it will be. My friend makes films and is on the verge of a major success. And though the climb up the subway stairs makes my body feel each day of my 54 years, I still dream like a high school kid with his future in front of him. That’s why I don’t need to go to a high school reunion. I haven’t graduated yet.

Movie Review: Zodiac

2007-03-06T07:48:00.000-08:00

Last night I saw David Fincher's (Se7en, Fight Club, Panic Room) new film Zodiac, about the serial killings by the Zodiac Murderer in and around San Francisco in the late 60s and early 70s. The crimes were never officially solved, but Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle, pursued the case relentlessly until he believed he solved the case. The film is based on two books that he wrote.

Graysmith is played by Jake Gyllenhaal who solidly captures the obsession that is the core of the film. It is an obsession with detail and concentration. Initially Graysmith is a bystander who observes crime reporter Paul Avery, portrayed by Robert Downey, Jr. in a brilliant performance (not unusual for Mr. Downey) that stories the decline from louche, cocky, but alert journalist to bitter, addicted has-been. Avery's main source is Detective Dave Toschi, played by Mark Ruffalo as a cross between Serpico and Columbo. The three leads are actors I love to watch; they have a way of getting under your skin. Chloe Sevigny plays Graysmith's frumpy wife, still atoning for her Brown Bunny fiasco.

Acknowledging it's cinematic predecessors, one scene takes place at an SFPD screening of Dirty Harry, built around a fictionalized version of the Zodiac killings. Ruffalo is at least once referred to as Bullitt, a nod to the fact that Toschi was the role model for Steve McQueen's Bullitt. The killer was apparently inspired by the 1932 film, The Most Dangerous Game. This path of inquiry leads Graysmith to a creepy scene in a dank basement with a spookily effective Charles Fleischer.

As the case moves on, Graysmith transforms from interested bystander to the prime mover of a cold case. He fervently hunts down minutiae and accumulates small facts and connects the dots to draw a map that leads him to a face-to-face encounter with a man that he looks in the eye and believes is the killer. It is a testament to perseverance and concentration, even to the detriment of his family life.

Fincher seems to identify with Graysmith. The film has no sweeping narrative chords, but is a note-by-note construction. The story is very dense and intricate, but the filmmaker seizes details with the same fervor as his cinematic counterpoint and ultimately attains clarity, if not certainty.

The cinematographer Harris Savides finds ways to illuminate Fincher's penchant for darkness so that it isn't the burden it was in Se7en. Though much of the film takes place at night or in dark places, Savides finds highlights and contrasts that give enough glow to reveal the visual information we need to be pulled into the scene.

There are some excellent performances in small roles, notably Philip Baker Hall as a handwriting analyst, another devotee of detail and concentration; Anthony Edwards as Toschi's partner who doesn't have the stomach for homicide; and the ubiquitous Brian Cox as attorney Melvin Belli, who gets caught up in the media circus of Zodiac. I am old enough to remember when there were only two celebrity lawyers: F. Lee Bailey of Chicago, and Melvin Belli of San Francisco. Both were showmen and self-promoters. Cox approaches the role with a serio-comic flair.

Video Blog: Good People of Faith

2007-03-06T07:43:00.000-08:00

Jesus Camp is Child Abuse

2006-10-07T20:30:00.000-07:00

The documentary Jesus Camp depicts instances of extreme emotional child abuse.