John McNesby Is Why Philadelphia Police Are Broken

It's been a week full of stories about the corruption of Philadelphia police, but none of that disturbed me half as much as this story about an escape attempt by accused cop killer Rasheed Scrugs.

Here's John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police:

John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, said Scrugs "started to ramp up his antics" earlier this week when he indicated that he didn't want to appear in court.

"He's a savage," McNesby said. "They should have finished him off on the street. Now we have to deal with antics."

I'm just astonished. Not that McNesby would feel that way, but that he -- as one of the highest-profile cops in the city of Philadelphia -- would feel comfortable publicly advocating that police commit street executions in lieu of letting the justice system work. It's horrifying: I have to live in a city full of cops he's encouraging to behave that way.

Thanks to McNesby, of course, Philadelphia cops don't have to live in this city. And though there are frequent stories in this city's media, you generally don't ever hear McNesby decrying corruption in the ranks -- he's usually attacking, even threatening to sue, the Daily News for exposing that corruption.

This surely can't be an easy city to police. There have been more cop killings in the two years I've lived here than I would've thought possible. But the relationship between Philadelphia police and its citizens appears to be broken -- and a good chunk of that is the fault of police. I can't help but think John McNesby, who openly calls for police to circumvent the law and execute suspects, is a very big part of the problem.

* UPDATE: A friend -- uncharitably, I think -- interprets my last paragraph to mean I believe that police have brought cop-killings upon themselves. I do not believe that, I repudiate that idea, and I did not intend to convey it. I included that sentence to convey that I understand that policing Philly is difficult; that doesn't justify the attitude, exemplified by McNesby, that the police are better than the community they deserve, nor that they're entitled to administer justice outside the bounds of the law.

Netflix Queue: 'Irma Vep'

When "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" came out on DVD nearly a decade ago, it had a great, compelling and dramatic movie to offer "Star Wars" fans. Unfortunately, it wasn't "The Phantom Menace." Instead, included among the extras, was an hour-long unnarrated "making of" documentary that proved far more dramatic and engaging in its depiction of George Lucas than anything Lucas managed to put up on the screen himself.

For whatever reason, though, I've never managed to get into movies or shows that purport to depict show business from behind the camera. "30 Rock" is an exception because it's not really about the creation of an SNL-type live comedy show; that just happens to be the workplace of your typical NBC workplace comedy. I can add another entry to my short list of exceptions: "Irma Vep," a 1996 movie from France.

A quick rundown: Hong Kong actress Maggie Cheung -- playing herself, and doing so delightfully -- is brought to Paris to play the lead in the remake of a classic silent film about female vampires. The production proves a mess, undone by the failing powers of its once-great director and the petty jealousies that infect any small group of highly talented, highly competitive people.

Given such a description, "Irma Vep" sounds, perhaps, like one of your run-of-the-mill Christopher Guest mockumentaries. Being French, however, it so much more sensuous -- filled with scenes of driving through Paris streets at night, intensely evoking the bittersweetness of an unrequited crush. At one point, Cheung -- trying to connect to her character in the movie-within-a-movie -- dons a latex catsuit and climbs to the rain-drench rooftop of her hotel. Immediately, the viewer can see how much craft has been brought to the scene -- if only because we earlier saw how badly botched a similar effort was in the movie-within-a-movie. But such cleverness isn't the only thing going on here, because that would be merely cynical.

There's also celebration. Because, honestly: Watching Maggie Chung creep around in a catsuit in the dark rain is the reason movies were invented. The scene -- and the movie -- are unexpectedly beautiful.

John Featherman Responds!

The Republican candidate for Philly mayor responds to my complaints about his lack of specificity. I'll let him have the floor:

Joel,

Thanks for your write-up. I welcome the opportunity to address all of your questions.

First, I appreciate that the Daily News gave me the opportunity to express my views on Nutter as well as generally introduce my campaign to the voters of Philadelphia.

Second, you are correct. With 800 words, I can't offer the level of specificity that you and others need to make an educated judgment about my qualifications for becoming the next mayor. I am more than delighted to get as specific as you like. If you send me questions, I will answer them thoroughly. As an example, when I ran for public office before, I answered quite candidly many bloggers' intriguing questions. One such interview was with "Above Average Jane," and can be seen here: http://aboveavgjane.blogspot.com/2006/02/interview-with-john-featherman.html.

Third, what government does best is govern! That may seem tautological, but it makes sense if you think about it. Government is best at creating tax policies, job initiatives, creating regulations, enforcing zoning issues, etc. Government is best at administering public policy. A concrete example is government deciding to tax people for trash pickup. That is fine, and that is governing. Actually picking up the trash is something that Philadelphia's government is not good at, as evidenced by the need for neighborhood associations to raise money to hire people to clean their streets. So, with respect to trash, Philadelphia "governs" by taxing for the pickup, but would be best suited to "bid out" trash collection to private agencies that do it better and cheaper than the city can ... in such a way that the City can shift the burden of trash worker's pensions to the private sector.

That's an example. There are many more. I'm not suggesting we run a city like a business. I'm suggesting we run a city professionally, farming out items that will allow us to cut out pensions and benefits from our budget. We do not have a choice, as this city is on the cusp of bankrupcy. Don't believe me? Just Google "Harrisburg bankruptcy" and see how they are about to declare Act 47.

As for the online presence, www.featherman.com will be up by this Friday, October 8th. It won't be a fancy site. I just purchased a license to se "Website Tonight" from Godaddy.com, and I'll be managing it myself.

It's not easy, Joel, as I don't have the luxury of being able to campaign on taxpayer dollars. I'm a full time Realtor, and I have to pay the bills at the same time that I'm launching the campaign. I'm going to have to continue showing properties during the day to make a living, but I'm going to devote the rest of my free time to campaigning in a meaningful way.

I don't have the bank accounts that Tom Knox, Sam Katz or Michael Nutter have. If people want to handicap me as a long shot because I'm not a fat cat, so be it. At least they won't be able to claim that I'm such rich egomaniac who is buying a seat.

But please give me consideration. That's all I ask. I'm trying to reform the Philadelphia City Committee -- of which I've been a critic of their ineffectiveness (you can Google that) -- at the same time that I'm attempting to generate constructive ideas to positively turn our city around.

So please be open minded. Be as critical as you like, but keep in consideration that I'm just like you and many others -- an average person who's fed up, who has the courage (to some, perhaps foolishness) to put his name on the line, and who will be a punching bag for a lot of folks.

-John Featherman

john@featherman.com

Karl Rove Calls Kettle Black

As always, Karl Rove's career in punditry requires amnesia to take seriously. He writes about Democrats' poor prospects during the forthcoming midterm election:

Given this dismal picture, Democrats believe they have only one option: a thermonuclear assault on their GOP opponents, which means raising questions about their character, distorting their views, and making outlandish claims.

Such a strategy, he writes, "will further besmirch the reputations of the Democratic Party and its leader, Mr. Obama."

I'm no fan of negative campaigning. But Rove has zero credibility on such matters. You'll remember what he did, prior to his entry in national politics, to an Alabama judge seeking re-election:

Some of (Mark)Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the (Rove)camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out—he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."

And yet Karl Rove has a cushy gig writing for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. To be fair, though, that's not proof his reputation wasn't besmirched.

Today - And Today Only - I Root For Fred Phelps

The gay-bashing folks of Westboro Baptist Church had their day in the Supreme Court today, contesting a lawsuit that would force them to pay millions of dollars in damages for demonstrating near a military funeral.

The church's actions are distasteful in the extreme. But it's important to note that a number of news organizations -- including the New York Times -- have weighed in on the side of the church. Limiting Fred Phelps' ugly free speech, you see, might have real consequences for the speech the rest of us express and hear.

Respondents were found liable for millions of dollars in damages for intrusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress based solely on their publication of offensive religious and political opinions -- opinions which the Petitioner encountered not at his son's funeral, but only several hours later by watching news reports, and then weeks later after conducting an online search. Imposing tort liability for such speech will chill the activities of all who speak or publish on controversial issues.

In other words, the family didn't actually encounter the Phelpses at the funeral. But they knew the Phelpses were out there, somewhere near -- 1,000 feet away, in compliance with funeral picketing laws -- being offensive. In fact, the family is claiming to have been intruded upon because they found offensive material by searching for it on Westboro's web site. With all due respect to the family, that's a really lousy foundation to start restricting free speech rights: It doesn't really punish the Phelpses for intruding on their privacy, but for expressing repugnant opinions. That's not how it is supposed to work in America.

Either you believe in the First Amendment, in other words, or you don't. Read the whole brief, and you'll get a sense of how silencing Fred Phelps might be a step down the slippery slope to silencing all of us.

John Featherman's Case for a Republican Mayor

John Featherman makes it today in the Daily News. I've previously expressed skepticism that the GOP -- which culturally seems to favor rural areas, and philosophically seems ill-suited to providing the kinds of services that a big city needs just to hang together -- is really equipped to provide municipal leadership here. But it would probably prove useful if Democrats actually had competition for city leadership.

The problem is that John Featherman -- who actually has filed papers to run as a Republican candidate for mayor -- doesn't seem to offer much in the way of competition. Most of his solutions sound familiar: Cut business taxes! Really crack down on corruption! The only problem is, we hear those kinds of promises fairly often from our politicians -- Mayor Nutter said those things when he was a candidate. Why would Featherman or any other Republican be better-positioned to make those things happen?

Featherman gets intriguing, though, with this proposal:

MAKE REAL BUDGET CUTS! Government should stick to what it does best and consider outsourcing everything else. This means bidding out trash, call centers, prisons and administrative services, among others. This means cutting wasteful government jobs, with the mayor focusing exclusively on the needs of our 1.5 million residents. And having the political courage to negotiate the three unresolved municipal contracts and fight for fair concessions - in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie-like style.

This raises a couple of questions:

* What does municipal government "do best" according to Featherman? After all, his "everything else" seems to cover a pretty wide range of necessary services.

* What does Featherman actually propose to cut? He doesn't actually name a single program or job that needs to go.

Maybe these are questions for which Featherman actually has answers. It's not easy to lay out a detailed governing platform in an 800-word op-ed, after all. Here's the problem, though: John Featherman is running for mayor, and today's piece certainly signals that the campaign has opened. But he has no online presence for his campaign that I can find -- not even a Blogger blog. It's to believe that Republicans are ready to govern Philadelphia if they're not even ready to made the case.

The ACLU and Jonah Goldberg's Assassination Straw Man

Jonah Goldberg's debating partner.

Toward the end of an otherwise-modest column on the government's plan to assassinate an American citizen affiliated with Al Qaeda, Jonah Goldberg stacks the deck:

Some civil libertarians seem to think we can never, ever kill an American citizen without a trial by jury (and perhaps not even then). That would have been silly during the days of conventional warfare. Now it's plain crazy.

Perhaps "some" civil libertarians believe that, but it's not the position of the ACLU, which has brought the lawsuit challenging the government's plan. In its complaint (PDF) asking for an injunction, the organization acknowledges there are times when due process will be skipped:

Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law
prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and
imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. The summary use of force is lawful
in these narrow circumstances only because the imminence of the threat makes judicial
process infeasible.

In other words, you can kill your enemy on the battlefield, when he's also trying to kill you. Not even the ACLU is against that.

That's not what the government is doing. It is reserving to itself the right to kill an American citizen who -- for all we know -- might be sitting peacefully in a kitchen somewhere in Yemen, presumably able to be captured if he's spotted. And that's where, at the very least, the government wanders into gray area. The ACLU, noting that the "right to life" is fundamental for U.S. citizens under the Constitution, wants that area to be a little less gray.

The government’s refusal to disclose the standard by which it determines
to target U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens
have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their
own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of
what may cause them to be put to death by the state.

The weird thing is, that's not so different from Goldberg's own conclusion. "So, let's have Congress and the president come up with some clear, public rules," he writes. "Better to start the debate over an easy case than a hard one." Sure. So why knock people who share your position? Can there never be a cease-fire in the war against liberals?