« Older Home
Loading Newer »

ACLU Silence

The silence displayed by the North Carolina American Civil Liberties Union toward the Duke lacrosse case is deafening. It is amazing that the ACLU, a clever, intelligent, if misleading organization aimed at furthering the liberal agenda through judicial activism, would be dim-witted and arrogant enough to seriously believe that no one would notice their detachment from a case concerning due process that happens to have become a national phenomenon. Does it fit their liberalistic political agenda? Absolutely not. However, it gives conservatives who have been attacking the association a decisive advantage, and, all moral issues aside, that alone is a key reason as to why they should have latched on to the case. Their “wall-of-silence” all but proves that the ACLU is not bringing cases to court for the common good.

At first, this was a “perfect case” for the liberals: a poor, black “exotic dancer” raped by three rich, rowdy, white boys. It was the perfect case to associate with liberal ideology. However, now that it has exploded, no one wants to touch it. The ACLU has no interest in helping these three young men. The case involves a Democratic District Attorney elected by a Democratic African-American faction in the Democratic town of Durham overshadowed by what they picture as the rich, pompous, elitist, and arrogant Caucasians of Duke University. The ACLU, in voicing its concern about District Attorney Michael Nifong, might contribute to the bad reputation of a Democrat. To them, that is unacceptable.

Certainly the idea of standing up for rich, white males is going to be unpopular in a liberal organization such as the ACLU. However, if they are as evenhanded and non-discriminatory about race as they say, then they should have rushed to protect these young men the moment abuse of their civil rights and lack of due process hit the press. At the very least they needed to make a statement condemning Nifong for his abuse of race polarization and prosecutorial immunity for political motivations. For the ACLU, with such a stature, to not make a statement relevant to a case concerning civil rights abuse is a public relations disaster waiting to happen. One would have thought that at least a single intelligent lawyer in the organization would have recognized this and, at best, spoke up and convinced the group to make a statement, or, at the very worst, made an arbitrary statement to defend the legitimacy of the faction.

If the ACLU wishes to leave itself a shred of dignity after their lack of response in this case, then one rule they must stick by is the idea of swapping races. Imagine a white woman accusing three black males of raping her. She proceeds to tell a dozen different stories involving as little as two and as many as twenty rapists. The woman makes blatantly false statements, asserting that one of her accused rapists had a mustache (pictures confirm his denial of ever having a mustache), suggesting that a man over twenty miles away was at the party, and accusing a male who has heaps of exculpatory evidence. Nine months later she “is no longer certain” that there was penile penetration. The District Attorney proceeds to prosecute the case on this white woman’s word. With that mental image, can anyone seriously believe that the ACLU would have reacted the same? Would you suggest, with a straight face, that they would have made no comment on the issue? They would have jumped on the bandwagon the moment the DNA tests came back negative. That is the true racism at hand here.

This all boils down to a considerable dilemma. They can either sit back and make no statement, as if nothing significant has happened, in order to protect liberal ideals, or they can do what is morally right and “defend the guarantees of individual liberty found in the North Carolina Constitution and the US Constitution … equal protection under law for all people, the right to privacy, the right to due process of law, and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure” as their mission statement says they supposedly do.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! Once again, my post will be postponed until tomorrow.

Not So Pro-choice

I apologize for the delay; my DSL service was down all of yesterday and most of today.
Recently, New York City decided to ban trans-fat in all its restaraunts. The idea is to fight obesity; the growing American “epidemic.” I’d hardly call obesity an epidemic when the measurements of it are flawed: using a Body Mass Index to measure children and adults who are obese completely ignores the intricacies of the body and personal health. Not everyone is the same, a certain body mass index will not neccessarily measure obesity correctly.

So this slightly called for, yet ridiculous, ordinance has put a squeeze on some chefs who need certain greases and oils to make their food taste…good. God forbid.

As a New Jersian who commutes to the city relatively often for meals, this upsets me. I am essentially being punished. As a fit, healthy human being (to go by their not-so-accurate scale, I have a BMI of 19.5, which is good), I want to indulge sometimes. And if that means eating some trans-fat, then by god give me the trans-fat. It is insulting to me to think that I, a perfectly healthy man, cannot control my own diet.  Get the hell out of my dietary decisions.

This is intrusive politics at its best. The government has no place making decisions about what types of food I eat. If someone wants to eat themselves to death, go for it. It would be one thing if there was a law forcing restaraunts to warn customers about trans-fat in a certain dish. I would be all for that (and with that, the market would end up taking care of itself in a much more efficient way. People don’t like to see the word “fat” anywhere, let alone on their menu. The healthier restaraunts would not scare away any such customers).

The reason I am bringing this up is because recently McDonalds announced that it is attempting to make its fries healthier while keeping the taste. Let’s be realistic: No way in hell is the taste going to be the same. It is a bit like the latest restrictions that pseudo ephedrine be sold at the counter (Pseudo ephedrine is a major ingredient in both Crystal Meth and cold and sinus medicines, such as Sudafed). Most cold and sinus medications now have an inferior drug (known as P-E) in them that do not work as well. Why? Just so that they could be sold on the shelves. Everyone is punished because a few people abuse it. Quite frankly, it is insulting.

So we can fool ourselves and say, “It’s just a corporation, who cares?”

Or we can realize that the reason those “Mom and Pop” stores are sometimes successful is because of their recipe. With this ban you are driving out famed corporate formulas and secret homemade recipes.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, everyone! My Monday post will be postponed until tomorrow.

Lacrosse Charges Dropped

Ah, the Duke Lacrosse “Scandal.” Everyone has heard of it. At the first mention of it in the media, the verdict was immediately decided as guilty. No reasonable person could possibly believe that these three rich, white, lazy, privileged “hooligans” were innocent of raping this hard-working, black, single-mother navy veteran. The prosecutor (up for election) made public statements about the case and gave over fifty interviews, completely ignoring legal and ethical standards. The media pressured Duke University into the unprecedented action of canceling rest of the Lacrosse season. The head coach resigned. Eighty-eight Duke professors signed a statement, outraged at the white privilege these students were showing and demanding that a teammate either confess to the crime or turn his buddies in.

Then the evidence, or lack-thereof, came crashing down upon their racial justice parade. The prosecutor, Mike Nifong, promised DNA evidence. He said that they would finally find out who it was that raped the woman.

Then the tests came back negative.

Nifong went on a rampage, saying that he would prosecute the case “the old-fashioned way.” Not all old-fashioned things are good, Mike. Compare HDTV against old television sets. I daresay HDTV is a step above black and white. That’s what genetics does for us: it gives us an infinitely clearer picture of who commits the crime, as well as who doesn’t.

Nifong indicted two players before the primary election, and one afterwards.

Discussed also were the racial slurs thrown at the girl. Apparently they called her a “nigger.” Obviously this is racially offensive and appalling…until you realize she called them “little dick white boys.” I find it hard to think of a man that wouldn’t react with a word like that after being called a “little dick white boy.” I suppose the media should report this?

I could go on and on about the ridiculousness and controversies of the case, (including the latest conspiracy between Nifong and Meehan to exclude DNA discovered in their rape kit tests of the accuser from their report). Rather, I’d like to note that justice is slowly getting closer to reality.

That it took about nine months to finally drop the rape charges is a travesty. But it isn’t over yet.

Somehow Nifong intends to proceed with charges of kidnapping and sexual assault. The rape charges were dropped only after an investigator in the case talked to the victim—who said that she would not be able to testify for sure that she was raped. Nifong still holds no evidence but that of a testimony by a woman who has changed her story countless times, falsely accused three men of gang-raping her in the past, and the recent, provable lie she has told (She said she had not had sex in the past week, however the DNA of other men was found in her vaginal and anal areas).

The North Carolina Attorney General and Bar show no interest, which gives conservatives a tough dilemma: Should Attorney General Alberto Gonzales step in? Obviously these three boys must be protected from this case being tried (especially in Durham, who has elected this DA) and Nifong needs to be punished. This, of course, would defy our calls for a small federal government. I am no fan of an expansive government intervening in state affairs.

When it comes down to it, the government has the ability to save these three students. It might as well use it while it has that power.