Nice video done, I'm told, by a 15-year-old girl.

Thanks to JackStraw.

Posted by: Ace at 07:07 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

The pwnage of a troll. The dulcet speaking voice of a chimp.

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Now I see why the Muslim world's population is growing so briskly. They've eliminated the chief impediment to sex: Fear of the Vagina.

According to the religious edict issued by Rashad Hassan Khalil, a former dean of Al-Azhar University’s faculty of Sharia (or Islamic law), “being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage”.

This brings Islam into accordance to the teachings of the Prophet "Diamond" Dave Roth (pbuh), who stated, in Sura 8, Verse 5:

I like the way the line runs up the back of the stockings.

IÂ’ve always liked those kind of high heels too. you know, I ...

No no no no, donÂ’t take Â’em off, donÂ’t take... leave Â’em on, leave Â’em on.

Other scholars were far more liberal, however:

For his part, Al-AzharÂ’s fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each otherÂ’s genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex.

Can't drop that reference without linking this, of course

Thanks to someone and ABW.

Bonus: Bacon in a Koran? CAIR calls for an investigation into this "hate crime," despite, you know, that putting bacon in a Koran is not technically a crime, and therefore, you know, cannot be a hate crime, or any other sort of crime.

Malcious? Hostile? Intended to provoke? Yes. It's called speech.

And we were allowed to engage in it, back in the days before Islam became the Official State Religion.

I'm not joking about this anymore: This is precisely the treatment a real official state religion would get. If there is no difference between how an official state religion would be treated, and how Islam is currently being treated, then we do, in fact, now have an all-but-declared official state religion.

Now the FBI has not actually begun a hate crime investigation. But I have little doubt they will.

Thus acknowleging that the defacement of Islam's holy text -- and no other holy text -- is a crime.

Posted by: Ace at 05:12 PM | Comments (62)
Post contains 352 words, total size 3 kb.

(Newsbusters link, not NYT): So, NYT moron Duff Wilson (a sports reporter, by the way, so he has no excuses for exhibiting the stupidty that infects normal ultraliberal incompetent NYT reporters) notoriously wrote this even as Nifong's case was self-destructing for all the world to see. Nifong desperately needed a little buttressing for the dykes bursting all around him, and he knew whose number to dial.

Who do you call when you need an easy score? Well, who else but a cheap whore, not unlike Crystal Gail Mangum.

"By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury."

This was rubbished at the time by Stuart Taylor, among others, who marvelled at the crafty dishonesty of that statement -- committing to so very little (there's merely a "body of evidence" to support, not compel, taking the case to trial) while implying so much (1,850 pages of evidence -- wow! what a lot of pages! They must really be on to something with this!).

Note also the reporter is not merely reporting what he's been told -- he's not saying Nifong's office claims... He's stating these things, straight-up, of his own authority -- he's read the evidence, and he can say there's a "body of evidence" supporting a jury trial.

Wilson's story today repeats the facts you already know (NYT link), noting that Nifong was branded a "rogue prosecutor" and all that.

And what of that "body of evidence supporting" taking the prosectution to a jury?

No mention of it. Down the memory hole. He uses that reporter psychology to pretend it never existed: "Cold fish-head? Would you like a cold head of fish? It's frozen, and it has its eyes sticking out, and its skeleton coming through. It comes with a turnip and a spork."

Thanks to Brit Hume, too, and whoever tipped me to this.

No apologies. No correction.

No retreat. No surrender.

The "Truth"-- it must always move forward. Like a shark.

Posted by: Ace at 04:44 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

Hey -- don't fool yourself. These guys were "no choirboys." Damnit, with behavior like this, you know they're guilty of something.

The prosecutors, Assistant U.S. Attorneys George P. Varghese and Rhonda T. Redwood, said Finnerty was guilty of assault because of any one of three acts: They said he shoved at least one of the men; he was effectively aiding one of his friends who punched Bloxsom; and he was menacing Bloxsom by throwing punches that stopped just short of striking him.

A shove, "aiding" a friend who threw a punch, and throwing fake punches.

Now, let me say this: That does constitute assault. Technically. Such a minor "assault" (which does in fact encompass merely threatening to unlawfully touch, or attempting to unlawfully touch without actually making contact) would almost never be prosecuted. But every once in a while, lightning strikes, and you get charged. In this case, it probably got prosecuted because Finnerty's buddy did make contact with a blow.

However. I'd like to see Terry Moran correct his idiotic post to note precisely what is meant here by "assualt" -- and here, it's the rock-bottom legal minimum to support the charge at all. It's such a technical form of "assault" as to show up frequently on bar examinations.

What would the bar answer be to this set of facts? Yeah, it's an assault. Why is that a good question? Because you have to know the technical definition of assault to know a shove or a false punch that isn't intended to even hit at all does satisfy the requirments of the charge. Someone who didn't bone up on their dumb-little-definitions-of-small-bore-crimes would probably say it isn't.

(Though, I have to say, this wouldn't be hard bar question. Any imbecile who slept through law school would get it. But it would at least screen out those who didn't even bother showing up to class to sleep.)

Thanks to Dario, who says his kid isn't going anywhere near Durham.

I'd keep him well away from the liberal media-political complex as well.

"Assault."

Yeah, Terry. "Assault." He's technically guilty of assault.

And you are guilty -- no technicality about it -- of dishonesty and journalistic malpractice.

"No Choirboys:" TopsecretK9 takes me to task for sugar-coating the Duke 3's previous behavior. We don't merely have this one assault. Indeed, the three together have been arrested and charged several times.

Together, the rap sheet of the Duke 3 reads:

Felonious Assault with a Deadly Weapon on Police Officer, O2-CRS-49961

Felonious Larceny and Felonious Possession of Stolen Vehicle charges, 02-CRS-49955

Felonious Speeding to Elude Arrest, Driving while Impaired (.19 Blood Alcohol Content) and Driving while License Revoked, 02-CRS-49956

Driving Left of Center, 02-CR-49958

Failure to Heed Blue Light and Siren and Reckless Driving in Wanton Disregard to Rights or Safety of Others, 02-CR-49959

Driving the Wrong Way on Dual Lane Highway and Open Container After Consuming Alcohol, 02-CR-49960

two counts of Injury to Personal Property, 02-CR-49962-63

Resisting a Public Officer, 02-CR-49964

Oh, wait: That's not the Duke 3's combined rap sheet. That's Crystal Gail Mangum's rap sheet.

"No choirgirl," this one.

And yet Terry Moran's heart bleeds for her.

Posted by: Ace at 03:19 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 528 words, total size 4 kb.

Although KC Johnson has been a hero in all of this -- not just a hero in terms of intellect and virtue, but in pure indefatiguability -- and Glenn Reynolds has been an influential stalwart, neither man, as far as I can tell, has thusfar named the certified liar Crystal Gail Mangum as the original villain in this story.

Why? Previously one could stand on ceremony and give her the benefit of the usual rule protecting the name of rape victims, even though it's been clear for six months she was not a rape victim at all. Or a victim of any kind, except of her own delusions and corrupt nature.

I did that, to be sure. I almost named her when I felt it was reasonably clear that she was no "victim" at all. But I didn't. I observed the still-operating pretext that she was a "victim" and afforded her the anonymity I'd afford a real victim, even though I and pretty much every sane person in the country knew she was no such thing.

So what accounts for Glenn Reynolds' and KC Johnson's reluctance to name her now?

She is clearly not a victim; nor is she the pepetrator of some minor crime. She is guilty of a great crime, a crime that plunged three innocent men into a 13 month nightmare, and inflamed racial tensions, and made it harder for real victims of rape to press their cases in court.

What accounts, then, for the continuing treatment of her as a "victim"?

I ask quite rhetorically: Is her "victim" status based upon her class, gender, and race, and hence not forfeitable? And if it's not that, that upon what slim reed do these otherwise reasonable men continue extending to her special victim treatment?

I know the easy answer: It would seem like piling on. With all due respect, this answer is perfect bullshit. It also seems like piling on when we go after any other notorious malefactor, such as OJ Simpson or Scott Peterson, and yet we do not shy away from calliing a villain what he is simply because we are "piling on" the villain.

Another easy answer: She's a troubled young woman. But many who commit heinous crimes are "troubled;" one doesn't find a great many well-adjusted, perfectly-centered people in the nation's prisons.

Jeffrey Dahmer, I need hardly say, was deeply "troubled." Ted Kaczynsky was not unburdened by psychological baggage.

And, on a lesser scale: Mel Gibson is quite obviously not entirely right in the head.

The fact that someone who deliberately inflicts pain on the innocent is generally not considered a reason to not note their transgression -- and note their transgression by stating the name of the transgressor.

Either she is a liar -- as Instapundit and Durham In Wonderland clearly believe -- or she is not. If she is not, then I can't see why these men have urged the innocence of the Duke 3.

If she is a liar -- which an exhasutive re-examination of the case by a team of lawyers working under the NC AG have determined beyond any doubt -- then what, precisely, is the resistance to saying so, and naming her as a liar?

Is she a victim? Or is she not a victim? Are we pretending this is crime without any victimization? Or are we to pretend that Mike Nifong invented her charges himself? (It should be noted one knock on Nifong was that he didn't even meet with Mangum for months after he indicted the Duke 3 on her fantastical testimony.)

Piling on? She will not be prosecuted for her crime.

She will not be held civilly liable for her crime.

What penalty does she face apart from public shaming? And if we're unwilling to publicly shame this monster, then what is left of shame at all?

John Podhoertz, on the other hand, has little trouble applying the default rule to this criminal. A criminal gets named. She might not get charged or sued -- this one won't -- but she ought at least be named, so her name, along with Mike Nifong's, can echo in infamy.

HER name is Crystal Gail Mangum.

She is the woman who falsely accused three Duke University students of rape. Yesterday, the attorney general of North Carolina came forward and flatly declared the three young men "innocent of these charges."

That means their accuser is a liar.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum.

It is the policy of the news media not to publish the names of rape accusers on the grounds that they should not have to fear public shame for coming forward with word of a horrifying personal violation.

That is a noble policy. But it needs a codicil. The codicil is that if a rape accuser is revealed as a liar, her name should be spoken loudly and often - as loudly and often as the names of those whom she falsely accused have been over the past year.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum.

She must be denied anonymity because she makes a mockery of the very policy of granting anonymity to rape accusers. We do not publish their names so that they will not fear public exposure. But people who are tempted to do the monstrous thing Mangum did should fear public exposure.

They should be terrified of it.

They should have nightmares about it.

They should be given no encouragement whatsoever to believe they can launch a nuclear weapon at someone's reputation and escape unscathed.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum, and she should not escape the world's scorn because she is poor, or because she is black, or because her life circumstances led her to work as a "stripper."

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum, and she does not deserve to lick the underside of the shoes of hardworking and honest people of color and modest means who somehow manage to get through life without attempting to destroy and defile the lives of others.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum, and she plunged the nation into yet another spasm of racial recriminations.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum, and she made it more difficult for any woman actually raped to find justice in court.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum. She plunged the Duke innocents you obviously emphatize so much with into a waking nightmare.

Her name is not Mike Nifong. Mike Nifong could not invent Crystal Gail Mangum's vicious lies for her. The most he could do -- which he did -- is adjust her lies to better conform to the provable facts.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum. Why is this so hard for some to say?

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum. If she is not to be jailed, not to be sued, and not even to be named by the "respectable," why should anyone believe she actually did anything wrong?

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum. A small number of zealous race and sex warriors continue to insist "something happened" at that house night. If respectable commentators continue treating her as if she's a true victim of rape, it only reinforces them in their delusions and legitimizes their continued fantasies. Certainly people aren't behaving as if she's guilty of anything, except being poor, black, and female.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum. Isn't it time to treat her differently than genuine victims of rape? Or shall we treat the true victims and venal criminals falsely charging rape as if they have the same status in the eyes of the law and the court of respectable public opinion?

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum. Rape shield laws were not enacted to protect her, nor her repellent kind.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum. To play upon a favorite formulation of Reynolds' -- have we created a new law for her? The Not-A-Rape Shield law?

Why The Kid Gloves? It gives me heart-ache to see that Hot Air is also embargoing the name, at least in its posts, although Allah links to the News Observer (of Durham) forthrightly naming Crystal Gail Mangum as the culpable liar. And the FoxNews statement profiling her was linked, as were several of my posts linking her. But as for actually naming the name in a post? Nope.

As I say, continuing to treat her as if she might actually have been raped enables cryptomarxist idiots, such as Rose McGowan and the ugly sacks of fat on the View, to claim that the Duke 3 must have been guilty of something. That's right there in Allah's post -- that claim.

If the media continuing embargoing her name, they're doing something that NC AG Roy Cooper refused to do. Something NC AG Roy Cooper decided that was legally inappropriate to do -- withhold her name as if she were an actual victim of rape.

Which. She. Was. Not.

I expect this from the media -- but from the blogosphere? Especially the blogosphere which was been arguing the innocence of Crystal Gail Mangum's victims for so long?

Why? Why continue giving cover to those who will, of course, claim that the Duke 3 were guilty of something?

Either she's a victim or she's not. We can no longer pretend this is a matter of disputation. The "legal system has played itself out," as many have urged it to be allowed to do. Well, the system played itself out, and it concluced, unequivocally, she's either a deliberate liar or a demented fabulist.

Perhaps a little of both, though of course that latter possibility was chiefly invented as a pretext for not prosecuting this woman.

I would have guessed that perhaps this was Michelle Malkin's policy at the moment, but nope, she names the liar on her eponymous blog.

I certainly don't mean to beat up on my homeslice MCA, or Bryan, or Ian. Or Instapundit or KC Johnson, for that matter.

But this skittishness about openly and forthrightly naming the name of the criminal liar here is sending mixed signals.

If even these guys can't bring themselves to speak the name, then how can CNN be expected to? And if CNN is permitted to continue treating her as if she just might be a real victim of rape, why shouldn't the Duke 3 Truthers continue positing fantastical conspiracy theories about a rape having actually occurred?

Allah's Answer: Allah notes he's linked the name several times (which I noted myself, bonehead), but offers this reason for not previously stating it:

Ace is filled with heart-ache that I havenÂ’t named the accuser, Crystal Mangum. Thus endeth the heart-ache. I didnÂ’t name her before because we all know whatÂ’s going to happen if someone so much as looks crossly at her on the street or leaves a bag of dog shinola on her porch: like I said above, the media will use it as a pretext to restore her victimhood and scapegoat the hell out of its political enemies, which in this case means right-wing media and blogs.....

there comes a point where you do what you can to limit their opportunities to show their bad faith and breathtaking disingenuousness.

Ah. Good reason, actually.

However, it's wrong of the media to embargo the woman's name, and one can't take them to task for playing at pretending she's a victim if the blogosphere is playing right along -- albeit, for different reasons.

At any rate he names her.

Good. Now on to Reynolds and Johnson.

Posted by: Ace at 02:14 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 1927 words, total size 11 kb.

On Cavuto.

Let me get this straight:

Imus is a rich, white male.

He made his controversial statements about poor (let's assume) black women just one week and one day ago. He called them "nappy headed ho's," and they've been forced to live with this false charge, although actually they haven't, because no one believes they are "nappy headed ho's" and the media has been quite sympathetic in noting they are not "nappy headed ho's." Indeed, even Imus says they're not "nappy headed ho's."

They faced, of course, no possible prosecution nor jail time for the false allegation of being "nappy headed ho's," and were not, as far as I know, indicted on a count of aggravated hoing with possession of nappy hair.

Imus is now fired.

It took the Rutgers Womens Basketball team eight days to get justice for a minor slight that hurt their feelings, perhaps, for an hour, and angered them for at most a week.

On the other hand:

Crystal Gail Mangum is a poor, black woman. And, you know, a whore, a criminal, a thief, and a perjurer.

The Duke Three were rich white boys.

They were accused of this fantastical crime thirteen months ago. They were indicted for the second-worse crime on the books -- rape -- and condemned by the media and most of the world of the worst moral crime, racism.

They faced perhaps 25 years in jail if convicted of this actual crime.

It took 395 days for them to receive justice.

The villainous perjurer, Crystal Gail Mangum, will never receive justice, incidentally -- because the NC AG has decided not to prosecute, and the rich, white male victims of her vicious lie have decided not to sue the poor, black woman for the nightmare she plunged them into.

I seem to remember an old slogan favored by the civil rights movement:

"Justice delayed is justice denied."

Is that principle in operation any longer? Or is only sometimes true?

Terry Moran seems to think the Duke boys, in the end, got what they deserved -- thirteen months of hell for having the temerity to attend a party in which strippers were invited (and white strippers were requested!) -- even though it might have been overkill, slightly, to actually imprison them for this crime.

So 395 days of hell isn't enough for us to feel "too sorry" for the Duke 3, but 8 days of l'affaire Imus proves just how racist, sexist, and classist this society is.

Those poor Rutgers Womens Basketball team players. How they soldiered on this past week and a day is beyond all comprehension.

They're the real heroes here.

I don't mean to knock them -- they are, like the Duke 3, blameless in this. And they were, in fact, wronged.

But one cannot help but notice that the wrong inflicted on the Duke 3 was of a rather more solemn and serious sort than the trivial playground putdown inflicted on the Rutgers 11.

And yet the media -- such as Terry Moran -- straight-facedly compares the two, and not only does he compare the incomparable, he deems the Rutgers 11 to be the more aggrieved party, and the party deserving of greater sympathy, the ones who really had to dig deep within themselves to find the strength... to overcome.

Because a minor shock-jock, 20th or lower in the ratings, called them "nappy headed ho's," and not a single person in the entire world supported or endorsed this insult. Not even the man first uttering it.

What.

The hell.

Has the world.

Come to.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 630 words, total size 4 kb.

And I'm sure the Duke families will accept his apology, "to the extent" they can seize every goddamn coin in his pocket.

Good news for Nifong though! That pension he was concerned with increasing? Usually not attachable by judgment in a civil suit.

So it all works out for him.

Pretty soon he'll be signing books and jerseys with OJ.

You Know They Want To Say It... but they can't.

What they'd like to say about the most corrupt prosecutor in the past decade, a good liberal Democrat with all his white-guilt papers in order?

"If he's guilty of anything, it's of caring too much."

They want to say it. It's on the tip of their tongues. It's in the forefront of their brains.

But they can't quite say that. It would give the game away, a bit too transparently for dishonest scumbags used to working in darkness and misdirection.

So they'll just have to resort to a bit of subtext.

The way they... surround a story.

Posted by: Ace at 12:31 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

I repeat myself, but I think it bears repeating.

Had the Duke 3 been convicted, it would have proven the liberal media-political complex's metanarrative about power inequalities based on class, gender, and race.

But with the Duke 3 completely vindicated, exonerated, and declared innocent of all claims -- and the villainous liar Crystal Gail Mangum revealed to be the venal lunatic she is -- it still proves the liberal media-political complex's metarnarrative about power inqualities based on class, gender, and race.

And if there had been a more muddled resolution -- with Roy Cooper being less of a stand-up guy, and simply saying he was declining to prosecute based on an ambiguous record -- it also would have proven the liberal media-political compex's metanarrative about power inequalities based on calls, gender, and race.

What we have here, folks, is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which is usually labled a dogma, and of a distinctly religious kind.

I'm reminded of global wamring, where whether it gets warmer, or it gets colder, or models correctly predict future weather, or whether they incorrectly predict future weather (see, global warming causes inherent unpredictability in the weather!), but this is a tad worse.

The models have been rubbished, the theory has been starkly repudiated.

And yet the metanarrative continues.

It can't be falsfied. It can't be undermined. It is immune to evidence or facts or changing circumstance.

It is eternal, as eternal as God Himself, and if the metanarrative occasionally causes some amount of cognitive dissonance, that is just a challenge to the faithful to believe even more strongly, and accept that the Metanarrative works in mysterious ways, and we can never fully comprehend all of Its Holy Mysteries.

Sign Up Now While Their Are Still Seats Left! The White Privilege Concert 8 (aka Guiltapalooza) will explore the issues of "white supremacy and oppression."

Featured speaker: Terry Moran, delivering a speech titled "Why Am I Such a Sniveling, Stupid, Dishonest Worm?: Pale Reflections In A Broken Mirror."

Thanks to Andrew's Dad.

Quote of the Day: Yeah, the first one who says Hitler loses. I don't care. I'm willing to "lose."

Each change must never affect the content of the propaganda, rather must always draw the same conclusions.

-- Propaganda Abteilung, Propaganda (Munich: Reichs-Parteileitung der N.S.D.A.P., 1927) (quoting Chapter 6 of Mein Kampf).

If the definition fits, wear it. Wear it proud, Howie Kurtz. Wear it proud, Terry Moran.

Thanks to Phinn.

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

Two incidences make a trend, as Kaus says.

ABCNews' kneejerk liberal instructs us that we shouldn't empathize too much with the hell the Duke 3 went through, because they were no choirboys, and they're privileged, and also -- the Rutgers Womens Basketball team is suffering far more due Imus' three words!

Perpective:

DON'T FEEL TOO SORRY FOR THE DUKIES

...

But perhaps the outpouring of sympathy for Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans is just a bit misplaced. They got special treatment in the justice system--both negative and positive. The conduct of the lacrosse team of which they were members was not admirable on the night of the incident, to say the least. And there are so many other victims of prosecutorial misconduct in this country who never get the high-priced legal representation and the high-profile, high-minded vindication that it strikes me as just a bit unseemly to heap praise and sympathy on these particular men.

Gee, why would it appear "unseemly" to you, Terry? Would it be unseemly were their an outpouring of sympathy for falsely accused blacks?

This is the MSM's new metanarrative for this story, by the way. Previously this story's chief metanarrative instructed us about power inequalities between black and white, poor and rich, female and male, as three privileged white men could rape a poor black woman and imagine they'd get away with it.

The new metarrative is compeletly different, as it now teaches us about power inequalities between black and white, poor and rich, female and male, because it teaches us that three privileged white men can hire expensive lawyers to prove their innocence while poor black men suffer in jail despite their innocence.

See how easy that was? A completely different set of facts, and yet the metanarrative needs no changing whatsoever!

It's as true as it ever was! Indeed, it might be even more true now.

So as we rightly cover the vindication of these young men and focus on the genuine ordeal they have endured, let us also remember a few other things:

They were part of a team that collected $800 to purchase the time of two strippers.

"Purchase." Like slaves.

ABCNews, incidentally, has collected at least $150,000 to "purchase the time" of Terry Moran to write cryptomarxist twaddle like this.

Their team specifically requested at least one white stripper.

Hey, asshole? People are still allowed to have their own tastes as to what excites them sexually.

During the incident, racial epithets were hurled at the strippers.

Allegedly. Given that the rest of this is bullshit, why do they cling to this? Also note the resort to the passive voice here. "Racial epithets were hurled." Why resort to the disfavored passive voice? Only for one reason: To obscure the subject committing the act by writing him out of the sentence entirely.

Who allegedly hurled these epithets, Terry? He knows, but he writes his sentence to avoid saying so -- because it wasn't the three accused and now vindicated.

So he slimes them up by passing on an allegation that "racial epithets were hurled" by deliberately denying the reader information Terry Moran actually has -- the alleged "epithet hurlers" weren't even the Duke 3 at all.

Colin Finnerty was charged with assault in Washington, DC, in 2005.

Oh, dear. A criminal. A college kid getting into a fight.

The young men were able to retain a battery of top-flight attorneys, investigators and media strategists.

As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives.

There's that word -- privileged.

Why shouldn't they get on with their lives, Terry? They're innocent. Did you not get the memo?

There is a very large cushion under them--the one that softens the blows of life for most of those who go to Duke or similar places, and have connections through family, friends and school to all kinds of prospects for success.

Actually there were two cushions, Terry. One that obsesses you, and one you care little about.

The first cushion: They had the support of their families, who had enough money to fight the charges.

The second cushion: Their factual, provable, obvious innocence.

They are very differently situated in life from, say, the young women of the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

I'm sorry, I thought that it had just been one stupid redneck-wannabe shock jock that maligned them, Terry, while the rest of the country rushed to support them.

Have the, err, been indicted of being "nappy-haired hos" on Imus' false testimony, I wonder?

Did I miss that, Terry? Are they currently in jeopardy of being jailed for 25 years for prostitution based on the word of a liar?

No?

Then excuse me. I don't know how to say this. Let me try it this way:

THEN WHAT ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, MORON?

Oh, don't worry about my resorting to all caps. Terry does, so I thought I'd follow suit.

And, MOST IMPORTANT, there are many, many cases of prosecutorial misconduct across our country every year....

Not like this. Prosecutors sometimes resort to shady means, but they generally do not frame people they know to be innocent.

I hope we all keep him and others in mind, as we cover the celebrated exoneration of well-heeled, well-connected, well-publicized young men whose conduct, while not illegal, was not entirely admirable, either. They aren't heroes.

They can't be heroes because they're white, just like Crystal Gail Mangum can't be a villain because she's black.

I don't really think they're heroes, by the way. They conducted themselves well, but that's not enough to be a "hero" in my book.

But note once again the left-liberals' determination to claim that while they may be technically innocent of rape, goddamnit, they're guilty of something approaching the transgression of a rape. To wit, being white and "privileged."

Posted by: Ace at 12:02 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 998 words, total size 6 kb.