Do you think you know which side is telling the truth in the Duke lacrosse team rape case? You shouldn't.
IN THE COMMENTS: I defend Dahlia Lithwick as commenters rage about a line -- "our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots" -- that appears in the essay.
ADDED: A commenter links to the Slate version of Lithwick's essay and makes a persuasive argument that my defense of Lithwick is wrong. [MORE: Actually, several commenters made good arguments.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
82 comments:
Do I think I know which side is telling the truth in the Duke lacrosse team rape case?
No. But I will. For a price.
I don't get this conclusion: This case serves as yet another depressing reminder of all that is wrong with this country: Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots...
Is she saying we think this about our sons or is she actually saying they are?
I've heard people saying that whichever side attempts to try their case in the media probably has a losing hand. What does it mean when both parties are doing it?
Tawana Brawley.
Sometimes the truth does out, even with racial hucksters in the mix...
By the way, whoever this Dahlia Lithwick person is, she is to be congratulated for convincing someone to pay her money for a shapeless, hysterical rant that amounts to nothing more than a legalish, case-specific reminder that we ought not rush to judgment.
Jennifer asked: "Is she saying we think this about our sons or is she actually saying they are?"
I think she is saying everybody is an idiot except her and people who agree with her.
Jennifer: Look at the whole quote, in the context of the essay:
Pick your fact. Each of them can, it seems, be spun both ways. This case serves as yet another depressing reminder of all that is wrong with this country: Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots, and our colleges are hotbeds of polarizing identity politics.
She's saying there are two frames of analysis that different people are using. The first one -- "our sons," etc. -- is adopted by the people who are siding with the prosecution. The second -- "our colleges," etc. -- is adopted by the people who are siding with the defense. She's saying don't do that. Recognize your mindset and get beyond it, so that you can be in a position to see what is true.
A little editing could have helped in this passage, as your puzzlement shows.
But I thought it was a well-done piece. Dahlia Litwick has written many excellent pieces about law over the years on Slate. She has a casual, humorous style in her essays there, and the subject here is not funny, and she's chiding us about not being so free-swinging with our analysis of facts. Seeing the comments here, I can see now that she was not quite properly in control of her writing -- which is ironing since she is scolding us.
I mean ironic.
(Now let me get to my chores...)
I read the article and already knew all of those things. I learned nothing new. I hate to say this, but the underlying fact that nobody wants to talk about, is that if you're white, maybe you shouldn't hire black people. If anything goes wrong, you will be called a racist. Those white students should never had let those black strippers inside their house.
CB said...
Wow--where to even begin? This reads like a satire of leftist ideology.
First, most crime, especially rape, is intra-racial. Second, most crime is not committed by wealthy people. Third, the perpetrators of most crimes are caught and punished justly....
Uh yea, CB, if she actually said that. But she didn't. There is nothing inherently leftist about the article, or the opionion expressed in it. All it seems to be saying is that people rush to conclusions, with utter certainty, and without a full set of facts. And, DON'T DO THAT.
AllenS said...
...I hate to say this, but the underlying fact that nobody wants to talk about, is that if you're white, maybe you shouldn't hire black people. If anything goes wrong, you will be called a racist.
Hmmm. See, I reached the exact opposite conclusion. That black people should never let ANY white people hire them, ever, cause if anything goes wrong, (like you clean the house badly) you will be called a "nigger" and a "ho". I am sure both our wise opinions can be harmonized and will prove logical and insightful, and not utterly stupid and pulled half browned from our rear ends.
****
Even if we took part of her statement-"Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots"- as being somewhat literal (and not the presentation of one half of a worldview as Ann suggests), one could argue that 47 white males hiring two black strippers, or anyone hiring strippers, might indeed fall into the misogynistic category. (We won't comment on the bigot part, and whether there is generally a greater supply of white strippers over black, and why black strippers were chosen at all. Uhm, cause nothing seems odd about that part, right? Right!).
However, the usage of the term "our sons" can be thought of as not specifically meaning YOUR charming little innocent boy (who of course does no wrong when away from you at school all day), but rather, a broader reference, like using the word "mankind" to speak of man generally.
Obviously all the idiots in the world come from somewhere, and usually the parents are the last to know whether or not their college age sons are in fact pure saints (and who are all those wild drunken womanizing youths on spring breaks across the nation,...Chinese in whiteface?)
That said, I lean toward the woman being an unreliable source and likely lying, but will save my complete animosity for her when a full (or at least better) set of facts is presented in court.
You're right! We don't know which side is telling the truth. It may be that the victim/accuser doesn't even know if she is telling the truth about the two accused, given the police line-up procedures. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1877707&page=1
Sippican:"Ann- "and" is not "or.""
I agree, but in context, I think it needed to be "or." The essay doesn't make sense if she's siding with the pro-prosecution position. It's totally incoherent to end like that. And the phrase itself -- " Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots" -- is blatantly over-the-top, so it's obviously not her own assertion. If she'd meant to say it herself, she'd have made it more superficially palatable. The crudeness of the assertion is the proof that it's a characterization of the thinking of the people she's disapproving of.
Do I think I know what happened? No, of course not. If I knew some of the people involved I'd probably have some idea but I don't and I put almost no faith in the press's relations one way or the other.
And I think the press is probably being really ethical as opposed to the lawyers who I trust far less.
And I have learned a valuable lesson about the risks of making the first comment. Now that everything is getting all serious, my first comment seems way too flippant.
I'll avoid commenting on the tone of the article other than to say that I was offended by the "Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots" section. Some are.. Most aren't.
The players may be rapists... I don't know... We certainly don't have all the facts, however the theory is that they are innocent until proven guilty.
These young men have been tried and convicted in the press already and I think that is completely beyond the pale. Earlier this week my local paper the WaPo had color photo's of both boys on the front page.. The front page, my god! The article talks about their background, wealth, etc. Nicely structured around the meme's of white, rich, pampered, bigoted, etc...
What I do think is the the indictments are some level a gift to the prosecutor. I think he has already lost the ultimate case with his rush to score election points. The best example was the victim's photo lineup of the alleged attackers.
1. she said she was attacked by 2 lacrosse players.
2. Police/DA present her with photos of the 46 players, AND NOBODY ELSE and ask her to ID her attackers.
3. Surprise! She IDs 2 players she recognizes...
The defense is going to move that the ID and any subsequent ID testimony from the victim was tainted by that sloppy process.
Without a good ID, with a poor crime time line, no other useful defense witnesses, no DNA or physical evidence linking the victim to attackers, and some level of alibi for the 2 defendants, this botched process is going to degenerate. His only hope is to turn a player. The result:
1. 3 lives destroyed.
2. a community polarized.
3. no justice for anyone.
Gerry wrote:
"I think I know which side is telling the truth.
But then, my God-daughter dates a junior on the now-evaporated team.
The boys are getting absolutely screwed here."
Is she dating the one who said he wanted to skin a stripper for sexual gratification, or the one who is facing charges for beating up a gay man in DC?
I don't believe a rape occured either, but I don't think we should pretend these are choir boys we're talking about here.
geoduck2 said...
For people getting upset, y'all aren't reading this paragraph correctly:
One of the rare times when I agree fully with geoduck2
Ann updated her pitch on the front to drive up comments on a slow Sunday :)
IN THE COMMENTS: I defend Dahlia Lithwick as commenters rage about a line -- "our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots" -- that appears in the essay.
WTG Ann
First, I think her editors juiced this essay up to conform to the template. Happens all the time. And "America" is not obsessed with cases such as this--the chattering class is. Most people teach their daughters that getting drunk with strangers is dangerous, and teach their boys that "if you lie down with strippers, you'll wake up with pleas" as Ann Coulter aptly put it.
There is no reason why the public should know or care what the facts are because they will not be sitting on the jury, and so most of hope it will turn all right, nothing more. The case does make for titillating, though by now formulaic, TV, and that's why it's on continuously. It's cheaper than sending a camera to say, Kabul.
As for the "rich white" kids--I question how she knows this; did she check the financial records to make sure they're not graduating with $100,000 in student loans?--they are well on their way to being convicted of being evil white males, the last permissible racial epithet in America.
"A Duke English professor has called for the university to expel the whole lacrosse team to stop the 'drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us.'"
I think they forgot to mention he was reading a copy of "I am Charlotte Simmons," and paused to say this.
Kudos to Jennifer for firing the starter's pistol!
And to Prof. Althouse for teeing that puppy up.
Mixed metaphor? I don't think so!
I've been reading Dahlia Lithwick's columns about the law in Slate for years, and I agree with Ann. If Ms. Lithwick meant that comment about misogynistic sons as a statement of her own opinion, I'll eat my hat. She is a smart, witty, fair-minded woman who knows a lot about the law and who also, usually at least, knows a lot about constructing clear sentences.
Nothing she has ever written in Slate suggests that she is capable of either believing or expressing such a silly generalization. I think this is an issue of clear writing. The sentence is so poorly constructed that it's no wonder people are reading it the way they are. Either she slipped badly in writing that paragraph, or a New York Times editor got hold of her piece and made changes that messed it up. But please go look her up on Slate and read some of her stuff before assuming that she meant this the way so many of you are reading it. I really think if you read a few of her pieces, you'll see why those of us who are familiar with her work are trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.
My two cents: The "boys" part reads substantially different between the two different articles, precisely because of where that sentence falls and the removal of the "fiction-writing/truth seeking" one.
I'd be interested in knowing why and by whom that edit was made.
I would think (or at least would hope) that there would have been some sort of discussion about that. That's precisely the sort of change I'd discuss with a writer, because, as an editor, I'd know that there was a strong likelihood that I could be changing the emphasis, if not the entire meaning.
(In either case, I think this part could have been written/edited better.)
The point of the overall article is well taken, IMHO.
My initial reaction when I read that line was all of our sons? Even if this was kneejerk lefty claptrap, it wouldn't make sense to sweep poor sons, black sons and gay sons into the same pile of spoiled misogynistic bigotry.
But, the way it is written does make it seem that this is her statement.
That's why it confused me.
I'm inclined to believe it was written clumsily.
While her sentiments may not be new or even readily understandable, don't rush to judgment sure seems to be a timely message.
Actually, more to the point, I'd be interesting in knowing which was the original version. (Just because it appeared in Slate first doesn't necessarily mean that was the first version.)
Now THAT would be telling.
"Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots, and our colleges are hotbeds of polarizing identity politics. Race and gender and poverty still tear us apart."
Sorry Ann, but you're wrong on this one. The bigot here is Lithwick. I'm not even sure our colleges are hotbeds of polarizing politics and such (outside of various humanities departments, and even there the polarization is with external things like the real world). I had professors who made goofy political statements all the time - we rolled our eyes, made sure it wasn't on the test, and pressed on.
"Facts are, more often than not, just our own subjective opinions, dressed up to look like incontrovertible truths."
Well, maybe in the Washington Post, but for the rest of us facts are things that are actually true. What she's describing is a strongly held opinion and sadly, I'm not surprised someone in the press industry doesn't know the difference. This might be the stupidest remark I've ever seen in a newspaper - including quotes.
mrswhatsit- I like your name.
I'm sort of at a loss to understand the point you're trying to make. You think she's swell. I get that part. All the rest of us have to go by is what's written down in front of us. And neither version works out in any form or fashion to anything but assigning collective guilt to innocents.
It's tiresome having people use every damn thing in the news to club persons they see as their political opponents.
I never gave the whole circus much attention. But if anyone has anything in common with the these rich, spoiled, undereducated but credentialed fauntleroys she doesn't like, it's her, not my or anyone else's kids.
There's a lot of talk on in all media channels about the rise of internet writing and what it means to the dead tree media. This is a wonderful example of the most overlooked part of the equation: (Please note colon! I'm referring to what follows!) It's not news gathering that's in jeopardy from the blogosphere--yet; it's opinion writing for old media that's dead man walking right now.
Lithwick apparently can't write well enough to make herself understood (the kindest version)or she hold a most puerile and crabby worldview. Either way, she's of no use to me. And papers like the Times and the Post can't subsidize bad writing and inane thinking indefinitely. I can come here to Althouse, or over to Amba's or read Reader, or go to any one of ten million places and get good, solid, interesting, well written analysis. There are commenters here that write better than Lithwick.
Lithwick's thing is a joke, or worse, today. You choose.
Lithwick is just another America hater like Nina Burleigh who recently wrote about her dreaded life in the hinterland an hour outside of NY city.
And I suspect something did happen at the lacrosse party but that's no reason to smear all Duke students or lacrosse players as "privileged'. Lithwick would never use that term to describe herself or her nerdy peers at Yale.
Ah, so many of us with perfect sons, as though we can mind read our college age children.
I would assume that if we are offended at the possibility that the article's author called all of our sons misogynists and bigots, that we are also saying that each of us has never in our lives had a misogynistic or bigoted thought, action or moment. I would seriously doubt that. We are all capable of moments of indiscretion that do not necessarily define us as a whole.
And I like the commenter who suggested that lack of DNA in a gang rape suggests no rape. Well it's possible that the "gang" of 2 or three could have done quite a bit of spermless damage. Try a broom. Or a condom. Or a bottle. Or try out the fact that rape cases are tried all the time lacking DNA evidence.
The theoretical rapists could have been quite smart enough NOT to actually pump sperm into someone they are raping. They are Duke students after all, and not dim bulbs.
I do agree that the team as a whole should not have been put under such a spotlight, but then again, a good third of the team had previous campus violations and not entire spotless in lesser matters.
Ann thinks that Ms. Lithwick is usually pretty good. I'll accept that. But the article under discussion is not so hot--it's based on too many tired lefty pieties and cliches. Race, gender, sex, don't rush to judgment, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well sure. So what? She brings nothing new to the table and manages to be insulting, too. We've got lives and reputations at stake. There's sex and violence and intrigue. Incompetence in high places. I think she could have done a little more with the material than to preach at us, but that's me.
I have great respect and some compassion for those who have to write often and write well. The Duke piece is not so hot. Not terrible either. Maybe her next will be better.
sippican wrote: mrswhatsit- I like your name.
Thanks! I liked the book, too.
Then sippican wrote: I'm sort of at a loss to understand the point you're trying to make.
That seems to be going around today. Summed up, I guess, my point is that Lithwick is way too smart to write an article with the central theme that it's a mistake to rush to judgment when you don't have all the facts, and then include in it an over-the-top non-fact-based judgment like "Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots" and mean it as a statement of her own views. (Talk about a badly-written sentence! I should get some kind of a prize for that one.) Anyway, I believe she intended that phrase, and the one that follows it about universities as polarizing hotbeds of whatever-it-says, as examples of the foolish judgments she is criticizing.
We'll probably have to continue to disagree about it, though, because the paragraph is so poorly written that it allows both your reading and mine. This is how legislatures get into trouble . . .
Joe said...""Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project says, 'There's an old saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.'" Unless of course, Neufeld's client is involved, because if the DNA evidence does not implicate his client, other evidence of guilt is without significance to him. Pet peeve of mine, I have dealt with Neufeld and the Innocence Project in the past."
The Innocence Project deals with people who have been convicted using real evidence that was not tested using the DNA tests we now have. If a DNA test shows that something that was presented as coming from the defendant could not have come from the defendant, that is quite different from going to trial today without DNA evidence. In the former situation, you have probably shown that the wrong person is in prison. In the latter, you have a trial on whatever evidence the prosecution has, and both sides can argue about what the lack of DNA evidence means. The prosecution must meet the burden of proof or the defendant is acquitted.
Well, I think we have to read Lithwick's line about "our sons" in context. Lithwick is a wholly conventional left/liberal/feminist without any demonstrated capacity for independent thought. This sort of line, with its phony acceptance of responsibility ("our" sons) is just the sort of thing that is very popular at left/liberal/feminist gatherings. It's a way of attacking others (young men, in this case) while paying lip service to one's own complicity in evil. But it never convinces, because the listener always knows that the speaker is tacitly exempting himself or herself from the seeming import of the words. So clearly Lithwick is speaking the words in question in propria persona: it's standard fare in her circles.
I had to post another comment solely because of the word verification word:
sfnxy
Sean said...
This sort of line, with its phony acceptance of responsibility ("our" sons) is just the sort of thing that is very popular at left/liberal/feminist gatherings.
Nicely put. I always gag on the same label, "our troops" or "our sons and daughters in harms way" used by some left wing elitist SOB who would never ever allow his/her son or daughter to even talk with a recruiter, much less serve their country. Those types often don't even know anyone who served. We really should bring back the flags in windows with blue stars.
http://www.bluestarmothers.org/images/bd_twostarservicestarbanner.jpg
I think I agree with Ann on the passage in dispute.
It's unbelievably bad writing/editing; absolutely no doubt about that.
But I also can't quite believe this idea about "our sons" is actually hers and agree that if it were she would not state it that baldly. And I agree that it doesn't really make sense with the entire piece for that to be her thought; and it is paired with an idea about identity politics that could be seen as the opposite pole.
Plus, there is enough of a hint in the entire passage that she meant it as a description of the two poles that I'm willing to assume that's what she was going for. Maybe she did a bong while she was writing. And passed it to the editor.
The Slate version is basically the same horrible writing and confusion, long form.
I'm not totally sure of this, by the way. 60%-70%. I'd have to ask Dahlia.
Sean -
Very, very good point about the phony shared responsibility for "our" failings. You see that a lot in left writing. And if she is as you say, a member in good standing of that approach (I don't know her well enough; she's a skirt and I tend not to pay much attention to their mental aspects, I'm more of a breast guy) that does provide some circumstantial evidence.
I don't really think the rape is the big issue here. Jesse Jackson didn't go to Durham because this woman was raped, he came to Durham because she was black and there were a lot of microphones around. Anybody who thinks the prosecutor in this case would let the suspects off easy simply because he's the same race as them clearly hasn't spent much time in a prosecutor's office -- the is the sort of case that makes or breaks your career.
Just a couple of years ago, there was a big labor strike at Yale University, which, as a student, I followed closely. The dining hall and clerical workers went on strike, demanding more pay and better benefits. The University thought its employees were sufficiently compensated. New Haven, like Durham, is mostly black and Yale, like Duke, is less "white" than the national population at large, but it seen as a bastion of privilege. It didn't take long for this exact same cast of characters -- Jesse Jackson, etc -- to descend upon Yale to rail against the injustice that privileged white people inflict upon everybody who isn't white and privileged.
None of it had anything to do with whether a dining hall employee ought to earn $15, $17, or $20 an hour. It was simply an excuse to talk, a stage from which Jackson and others knew that they would be heard.
By the way, Duke's President, Richard Brodhead, was the beloved Dean of Yale College when I was an undergraduate.
John Jenkins obviously cannot read.
The line in question refers to a link to the email sent by one of the players. The email in question clearly states that the player speaks to ejaculating on his uniform at the thought of harming the women. Perhaps John Jenkins doesn't know what "cumming" means and therefore didn't understand the reference to sexual gratification.
Also, I think the "our sons" swept a bit too broad. She clearly ment to refer to the player in question and the team, not all American sons. It was an unfortunate choice of words.
sorry, above should read john r henry, not john jenkins.
"This case serves as yet another depressing reminder of all that is wrong with this country:"
Is this her personal view as the Canadian citizen that she is?
The article was more complicated than some people are giving it credit for. Dahlia Lithwick is not just someone who repeats the left-wing take on things. Her link in the misogynistic sons comment was to the email in which anon-accused lax player said he was going to have some strippers in his dorm room whom he would kill and skin while cumming in his duke issue spandex. That is about as misogynistic as you can get. As for the "our sons" comment, I think her point is that the guy who wrote the email is the son of some people who probably were recently very proud of their Duke lacrosse-playing son. She said that the whole email revelation was separate from the case, where she took the non-knee jerk liberal position that we don't know that just because these kids are privileged, white, and connected to ppl w/ poor judgment that they committed rape.
Sippican, it's a really good book. If you enjoy fantasy or science fiction at all, you might want to try it. The book in question is "A Wrinkle in Time," by Madeleine L'Engle, a children's novel that won the Newbery Award in 1962. It tells the story of some children who are trying to rescue their father and find themselves fighting a dark force trying to take over the universe.
I just discovered that the passage Sippican mentioned is actually online. The children have been traveling through space with three mystical eccentrics named Mrs Who, Mrs Whatsit, and Mrs Which. They've just landed with the three Mrs. W's on the planet of the Happy Medium, who shows them, in her crystal ball, the dark cloud that covers Earth:
"But what is it?" Calvin demanded. "We know that it's evil, but what is it?"
"Yyouu hhave ssaidd itt!" Mrs. Which's voice rang out. "Itt iss Eevill. Itt iss thee Ppowers of Ddarrkknesss!"
"But what's going to happen?" Meg's voice trembled. "Oh, please, Mrs. Which, tell us what's going to happen!"
"Wee wwill cconnttinnue tto ffightt!"
Something in Mrs. Which's voice made all three of the children stand straighter, throwing back their shoulders with determination, looking at the glimmer that was Mrs. Which with pride and confidence.
"And we're not alone, you know, children," came Mrs. Whatsit, the comforter. "All through the universe it's being fought, all through the cosmos, and my, but it's a grand and exciting battle. I know it's hard for you to understand about size, how there's very little difference in the size of the tiniest microbe and the greatest galaxy. You think about that, and maybe it won't seem strange to you that some of our very best fighters have come right from your own planet, and it's a little planet, dears, out on the edge of a little galaxy. You can be proud that it's done so well."
"Who have our fighters been?" Calvin asked.
"Oh, you must know them, dear," Mrs. Whatsit said.
Mrs. Who's spectacles shown out at them triumphantly. "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
"Jesus!" Charles Wallace said. "Why of course, Jesus!"
"Of course!" Mrs. Whatsit said. "Go on, Charles, love. There were others. All your great artists. They've been lights for us to see by."
"Leonardo da Vinci?" Calvin suggested tentatively. "And Michelangelo?"
"And Shakespeare," Charles Wallace called out, "and Bach! And Pasteur and Madame Curie and Einstein!"
Now Calvin's voice rang with confidence. "And Schweitzer and Ghandi and Buddha and Beethoven and Rembrandt and St. Francis!"
"Now you, Meg," Mrs. Whatsit ordered.
"Oh, Euclid, I suppose." Meg was in such an agony of impatience that her voice grated irritably. "And Copernicus. But what about Father? Please, what about Father?"
"Wee aarre ggoingg tto your ffatherr," Mrs. Which said.
"But where is he?" Meg went over to Mrs. Which and stamped as though she were as young as Charles Wallace.
Mrs. Whatsit answered in a voice that was low but quite firm. "On a planet that has given in. So you must prepare to be very strong."
John Henry wrote:
"Seems to me that the note said nothing about sexual gratification. In fact, it said "no nudity".
It is a pretty trashy note and sentiment. However,I think it tends to exonerate, not incriminate."
What part of "cumming in my duke issue spandex" leads you to believe the note said nothing about sexual gratification?
And you'll notice I said I did not think a rape occured, but that it was silly for gerry to suggest that these guys are such fine, upstanding young gentlemen. They may not be rapists, but it sounds like many of them are not someone you'd want your daughter to date.
I still love that book and still have a copy.
L'Engle rocks.
Mrs. Whatsis: This conversation sounds familiar to me; didn't we talk about this book before at Althouse at some point?
I know we both are fond of "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn," too.
I do believe you're right, reader_iam (and that's a great name!) You have a better memory than I do, but now that you mention it I do remember our conversation about this and about "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn."
They are both great books.
Sean wrote:
Aaron, that may be true, but I wouldn't want my daughter to be a stripper either. More generally, it doesn't make sense to me to condemn young men for sexual crudity while valorizing those who supply them with the raw material.
But I admit, I am not very politically correct. The politically correct line is that [name deleted] is an admirable, empowered woman but the men who masturbate to her pictures are not only losers (which is true), but patriarchal sexist pigs responsible for women's suffering everywhere
Let's not gratuitously reprint the name here.
geoduck2 said...
The politically correct line is that [name deleted] is an admirable, empowered woman but the men who masturbate to her pictures are not only losers (which is true), but patriarchal sexist pigs responsible for women's suffering everywhere.
Huh? There's a big difference between 1)masturbating to porn and 2)telling your teamates that you want to skin and kill women while you're jacking off.
The latter sounds very Jeffery Dahmer-esque.
----
If there were over 40 people in a small house (with drinking, music and noise) -- I think it's possible that an assault (or rape, or something nasty) happened without a lot of people knowing what was going on.
4:05 PM, April 23, 2006
Sean, I'm not trying to defend the woman (or strippers in general) at all, my comment was merely a reponse to gerry, who seemed to be implying that the team was filled with admirable young gentlemen.
And I'd have to agree with Ann that's it quite a stretch to compare masturbating to porn with killing and skinning a stripper to get your rocks off.
Geoduck: Oh, yes, you're right. I thought he was reprinting the victim's name. Sorry, I don't know the big porn star names! But now that you mention it, I do know it from the David Foster Wallace essay about the porn movie awards (in "Consider the Lobster").
My concern is that I read that the District Attorney acknowledged that there is no DNA evidence that implicates a Duke lacrosse player. I had thought that the whole point of the innocence project was using the lack of DNA evidence to free someone who had been convicted of a crime where it was relevant. Perhaps it only works for poor black men from the inner city, while white college students who play lacrosse are not exonerated by the lack of DNA evidence (if this is true). We presume that the white lacrosse player is guilty until he can prove himself innocent.
Jim,
while I agree about your general position, I think that the innocence folks are primarily focused on cases where there WAS DNA evidence, but because no DNA tests existed it could not be tested. e.g. They got an attacker blood sample or semen and it matched the defendant, but after DNA testing, it was proven that it wasn't him.
ShadyCharacter said...
Tawana Brawley.
Sometimes the truth does out, even with racial hucksters in the mix...
There are 3 problems of course.
1. Some folks in the black community still believe the fraud.
2. Black demagogues still use the case
3. The accused, ends up the real victim, with a ruined reputation.
"The" truth?
I added an update to the post, linking to the Slate article. I think the piece is miswritten, but she really does make the stupid generalization I defended her against.
CB "I do know it from the David Foster Wallace essay." Suure. ;) (Funny, though, how everyone seems to know who Jenna Jameson is, even though they'll never admit to having seen any of her oeuvre)
Read this old post, #6. It's true!
LOL, Bunkergurl
I googled "al sharpton duke rake" and came up with 99,000+ hits including this first one on Fox cable.
Al can save air fare and reach more folks via cable now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192277,00.html
I did the post update before I read Brylin's comment, so it was the foregoing argument and my own decision to go find the Slate article, but it is true that doing a link makes a difference.
LOL Ann,
I've done all of them except 6 and 10. Though 5 was around 40 years ago. I wonder if that makes be a better or worse person. Though 5 was around 40 years ago. :)
CB, I don't know why, but I've assumed you're male, too. No specific reason, and just a neutral observation.
I wonder how we decide these things, unconsciously.
I looked again.
4 and 7 were job related. And I saw the orginal 9 on the job as well.
Now I'm rolling I guess. Beats the heck out of talking about strippers and jocks
I've done them all except 4 & 10!
I have not watched porn in federal court, though. That's gotta kill the mood!
"That must have been some forteiture proceeding!"
No, it was perfectly ordinary. The government seized videotapes that were obscene and a judicial proceeding was needed to deprive individuals of their property. These were ordinary videotapes that ordinary people wanted to watch, and the goverenment intercepted them. The judge had to watch them to determine that they were, in fact, obscene. It was quite absurd, really. It happened all the time.
I made the comment regarding the lack of DNA evidence:
Well it's possible that the "gang" of 2 or three could have done quite a bit of spermless damage. Try a broom. Or a condom. Or a bottle.
Critical Observer responded:
I would, but I'm not a misogynistic bigot. Speak for yourself.
Oh yea, that really addresses my main point. Critical observer indeed.
In my two posts I simply stated that 1) we should not rush to judgment about anyone without further facts, 2) that if any of us have ever had a misogynistic or bigoted moment, it's more than possible that our offspring might have had such a moment as well, 3) and it is quite possible to have rape cases prosecuted without any DNA evidence at all.
So the comment by Observer hardly address the scope of what I said, as though rudeness counts for wisdom, wit or righteousness.
(And Critical, you can thank me later for cleaning up your spelling of misogynistic. Perhaps more observation, less criticism).
A lot of interesting commentary above.
I think from a defense strategy point of view, going to the media right away is a smart one. It is clear that black leaders, etc.. want this case so that they can go and march! They don't care about truth, they just want to march! They don't care about the victim. They just want to march! They don't care about justice, they just want to march! They want to march for all their other gripes and concerns. What better than to attach themselves to a potential crime comitted by three upper middle class white fraternity men... THE ULTIMATE SYMBOL OF THE WHITE POWER STRUCTURE. In fact I cannot think of a better story in recent times for marching!
Knowing this, the defense has to leak so that the defendants reputations do not get destroyed in the name of marching for black justice.
I haven't done 2 of them--net.
(I was taken a ski trip as a toddler and remember the skis, but not the trip, so 1/2 point there; one of my "friends" spontaneously decided to shoplift in my presence, and while I didn't do it, I didn't leave or rat her out either--though we weren't really friends thereafter--so 1/2 point there, just because I felt as guilty as if I had.)
#4 is the one pure, definitely haven't done.
Technically, I got "paid" in relation to #6. I had a job in an art movie house which, to stay alive, did midnight showings of pr0n, rock movies, and Rocky Horror. I "monitored" things during the showings and then cleaned up afterwards. Later, I worked in a video store (also specializing non-mainstream movies), which had a "special area." I was supposed to be at least somewhat conversant with the material aimed at women (this was way back when there was a flowering of female directors etc.) so that I could make recommendations if asked.
LOL. The (many) jobs I have had ... well, I suppose there's something to be said for having a variety of life experiences.
I think the "our sons" swept a bit too broad. She clearly ment to refer to the player in question and the team, not all American sons. It was an unfortunate choice of words.
What's her basis for saying it about the team? There's good evidence that one member of the team is misgynistic, but that doesn't mean the whole team is. Gender views are neither a qualification for, nor a disqualification from, playing lacrosse.
The email everyone's unhappy about, while disgusting and indicative of terrible judgment on the author's part, is hardly evidence of an incubating Jeffrey Dahmer, or even a bigoted mysoginist. When some people get together their conversation becomes a gross-out contest between them, and the topics touched upon are less indicative of actual desires and habits than they are of the limits of the participants' imagination.
In other words, get over it. The kid was making a terrible, offensive joke, but that makes him neither a killer nor a mysoginist. Just a jerk.
Ann - or any lawyer still reading this thread - can you help me understand why Collin Finnerty, still just indicted for this rape, is in violation of the don't-commit-any-crimes provision of his diversion program (stemming from the gay assault). Isn't he presumed innocent of the crime? And what happens if he is found not guilty of the rape, or the charges are dismissed? Would that negate the decision to go to trial on the gay assault?
Post a Comment