Frat Boys Gone Wild...
Unless you have been living in a cave, you certainly have heard something about the case of an "exotic dancer" (i.e. whore with a better paycheck) in Durham, NC, who claims she was hired to...ahem...work...at a party being thrown by the Duke University Lacrosse team, and was subsequently (allegedly) raped by three of the players at the party.

Two suspects have been "identified" and a third remains unknown.

The case, in the meantime, has been tried in every public forum imaginable, which absolutely makes a mockery of the criminal justice system.

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong wasted no time at all in going to the media to announce, proudly and arrogantly, that his office had just landed the mother of all cases. Just as big as OJ, just as nasty as Lacy Peterson, just as salacious as Micheal Jackson, and it was right here in lil' 'ol Durham, previously only famous for bar-b-que and possibly incest (trust me, I lived in NC). It's got everything you need: sex, racial overtones, forcible gang rape, drinking and possibly drugs. It's the perfect set up: rich, white college boys take adavnatge of a poor, black, working mother (almost an oxymoron, I know), just trying to make ends meet (or in this case, meat).

And your's truly, Mike Nifong, District Attorney of a city that hardly deserves to be on the map, except that it fills in the blank space between Virginia and Charlotte on the map, will be there to try it.

And so, Mr. Nifong went on the air and in the papers with all the information he had (or at least was willing to talk about), and poisoned the well with regards to this trial, should it ever happen. He gave out all kinds of prejudicial information: the boy's names, for example, the fact that DNA tests were taken (and proved nothing, apparently), that the boys have had previous legal trouble (so has the alleged victim, but Mr. Nifong has suddenly become all high-and-mighty about it: just because she has a record doesn't mean she's a bad person. Hmm, I wonder why she's entitled to that consideration but the alleged rapists here are not. I'd say something about the pot calling the kettle black, but there are racial overtones to this whole thing...ooops!).

One of the alleged attackers seems to have an alibi (couretsy of his cell phone, a cab company and his ATM records), and possibly was not even present during the attack. The D.A. in this case seems to have jumped the gun and exposed his pecker for all to see: it's tiny, and is suffering from shrinkage as the weakness of his case is made apparent on television on a daily basis. However, he's up re-election and now also looks like and idiot for starting this whole business with no proof, but he seems more than willing to drive this case, kamikaze fashion, through the courts. Never underestimate the ability of a man who can't say "I'm sorry...I made a mistake" to turn his original mistake into a major disaster.

Of course, once the D.A. had gone ahead and exposed his pecker in public with the weakness of his evidence and the supposed lack of character of his victim, the defense attorneys took the opportunity to further muddy the waters. As far as I can see, we have a "rape" which sounds much more like a drunken woman who may have engaged in some rough sex (whether at the party or someplace else, no one can say for sure), she's not the most credible witness, having been intoxicated at the time, and with a known substance abuse problem, and possibly mental issues, to boot.

On the other side of the ledger, we have a bunch of stupid, arrogant, jocks, all of whom seem to have reputations as anything but choir boys, who managed to put themselves in a position where this could happen to them. I'm so glad they're teaching these kids to think at Duke University.

Of course, what's really amazing about all of this is the American public's ability to be distracted by something this sordid while much more important things are happening. Look, I don't condone rape, and I don't advocate being in a position where you can get raped (i.e. working as an "exotic dancer"), or in a position to be accused of rape (a drunken, college jock throwing stag parties in an off-campus house). I do believe, however, that at some point in life, people have to take responsibility for their actions.

If this woman, either willingly, for money, or under the influence of alcohol, engaged in sexual activity that she later regretted, that's too bad, but it does not give her the right to ruin someone else's life over it. You chalk it up to experience and move on with your life.

If these boys are in fact guilty of what they have been accused of, then for damn sure they should swing from the highest yardarm you can find in Durham (that'll be hard since most people there can't even SPELL yardarm, let alone know what one is). They do not have the right, just because they're Duke University Athletes, priviledged, drunk or stupid to take the dignity of another human being, or to forcibly engage in sex with an unwilling partner.

Quite frankly, I believe the DA should try his weak case, and regardless of the outcome, shoot everyone involved just to be certain they can no longer pollute the airwaves.

A Lot's Been Happening, Apparently...
Wow! Take a few weeks off and watch the world go to hell in an handbasket!

Usama Bin Hidin'shows up again. Topless dancers get (allegedly) raped at a frat party. Gas prices soar as Americans who who don't realize they pay $4.50 for a gallon of milk go completely bonkers because they can't fuel up the tank the Mrs. uses to take the kids to soccer practice. And would you believe, John Kerry is STILL talking as if someone is listening?

I will attempt, gentle reader, to lay down some thoughts on these, and other, burning issues of the day. Stay tuned.

A New Addition...
I'm adding a link to Canada Free Press (www.canadafreepress.com) because I think it's a wonderful blog, and I also believe we should know what our neighbors to the north think. It's about time that more Americans, in my opinion, stopped believing that Canada is a mere appendage to Michigan and Minnesota, or that you can arrive at the border with your skis in July.

I've only been north of the border twice myself, but enjoyed both trips, and found most Canadians to be little different than most Americans. Heck, they ARE Americans, only with National Health Care (a government-run program more dangerous than any Muslim suicide bomber!).

Illegal..and BALLSY...
Re: all the recent protests by illegal aliens (not IMMIGRANTS, you'll notice).

To begin with, just who do you think you are? You enter this country( in direct violation of the law), you stay in this country ( in direct violation of the law) , and you take advantage of the charity of the people of this great nation, while adding not thing-fucking-one, and you have the NERVE to protest when we decide we're going ot start enforcing our own laws?

To go on, I would have no issue with any of you if you were any of the following;

1. Legally allowed to be here
2. Legally allowed to work here
3. Not sucking at the government teat and wasting MY TAX DOLLARS. My government already does a good enough job of creatively vaporizing coerced wealth, it does not need 12 million useless mouths to help accelerate the process.

That having been said, we also have to lay blame in two other areas, both equally as culpable as the ballsy assholes who believe they have "rights" within a society that they have invaded and paid no respect to it's basic laws upon arrival. Those two other entities are government and business.

The American government has simply allowed Mexican and Central American illegal immigration because to do the right thing (enforce border security and immigration law) is not "sexy" enough to garner attention, on a good day. Better to waste the People's time and money by Federalizing the same high-school dropouts who allowed Mohammed Atta to walk through airport security when he was on a terrorist watch list, or the other jerk who sent him a visa to stay in the country six months after he crashed an airplane in the the WTC.

Of course, the government (both political parties) reap benefits from untold masses of illegal immigrants: there are campaign contributions for big business (most notably agriculture) and built-in grievance-based voting blocs.

American business is, of course, the biggest bully in this whole fight. On the one hand, it brought us NAFTA, one of the arguments for which was that once American companies built plants and assembly lines in Mexico, Mexicans would stay home. Didn't happen. It also screams for low-wage labor (particularly in agriculture, fod service and janitorial businesses), because, Goddammit, Americans all want $20 an hour, a dental plan and a silver-plated toilet seat to boot. Of course they do. Don't you, Mr. CEO?

NAFTA was the first overt attempt by American business to do that which they have always wanted: reinstitute slavery, or as close to it as you can get. Illegal immigration comes even closer, and the best part of both is? No one will report your abuses because they don't have any choice.

We now have a vicious confluence that is about to overflow and poison all our collective wells: we have imported an entire underclass, most from countries and cultures where law, democratic principles and political freedom do not exist, letting them live parasitically on the edges of our civilization, and many are thinking of "giving them a pass" (as the Senate Judiciary vote the other day on this subject seems to indicate) because proetsts are bad PR and our Senators simply cannot exist without those campaign contributions.

I wonder what John McCain (Traitor- Arizona) has to say about this? His state is one of the hardest hit in terms of what illegal immigration costs it. His state is one of the hardest hit when it comes to Hispanic gang activity. He's fought a steady battle for increased federal funding (i.e. stealing from Bismarck to feed illegals in Tuscon) to Arizona's immigration problems, but has he voted for a bill that would send these folks back home? Or punish their illegal employers?

Or is that not what Johnny means when he talks about "Campaign Finance Reform"? I mean, not like he can vote against something when he probably (can't prove it, but I'd bet on it) gets a nice paycheck from Big Agriculture or the Restaurant OwnersAssociation, or maybe even his own Country Club?

Score One for Free Speech...
Interesting opinion delivered by the Federal Election Commission with regards to blogs:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,70505-0.html?tw=wn_index_6

Take that John McCain!

We now return to the regularly-scheduled lambasting of governmental stupidity.

Found a New Blog...
Found an interesting blog today, not seen by mine eyes before. So, I did a little investigating and found it to my liking. So much to my liking that I have included it on the linkbar on the lower right of this blog. Please check out Liberty Just In Case.

God, Guns and Gays...
Been Freeping (for those of you who don't know what that is, a regular poster to FreeRepublic is a Freeper) lately, and have come under attack by "conservatives" on the site for my views on God, Guns and Gays (the triumverate of the politically-concerned, gap-toothed, shotgun-toting redneck).

I had the sheer AUDACITY to state that I do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but rather an enlightened man who sought to make his faith more accessible to the masses of Jews excluded from the Temple in Jerusalem in his day. Furthermore, I had the sheer gall to suggest that perhaps the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was because they saw his crimes as political ones (the Romans reserved crucifixion for traitors and enemies of the state, because it was painful and public), that is, stirring up religious dissent in such a way as to cause civil unrest. if there was one thing you could say about the Romans, it's that they didn't care what you worshipped, but start rioting and interfering with the collection of taxes and suddenly your religion attracted their attention.

On another post (or it could have been the same one, I'm not sure) I stated that I didn't particularly care whether anyone was gay or not. It simply wasn't my business, and I have better things to do than to peek into people's bedrooms. The response (all of it negative) was overwhelming. It was also crude, rude, obnoxious and bordering on insane. Didn't I know that homosexuality was an affront to God and that homos have to be stopped before they take over the planet?

Anyway, these...ahem..sins... earned me censure from those that didn't agree. Fine, I can deal with that; the purpose of FreeRepublic is to post your ideas an dgenerate debate, and I have no problem with reasonable debate. It's also earned me a cyber-stalker (who calls himself, get this, Godebert. Appropos, is it not?), because not only did I defame Christianity, I had the cojones to make a case for Rudy Giuliani as a candidate for some public office, and questioned the right of the people to own a Cruise missile or Napalm. I was immediately castigated for being a "fag-lover" (because, you know, Rudy appeared in drag as a gag once) and a "gun-grabber" for daring to suggest that the government has a right to restrict the sales and use of weaponry.

Now whenever you find yourself on FreeRepublic (or any politically-oriented website) you have to bear two things in mind: first, it takes all kinds. The internet is an interesting pplace in that regard, and very often, you will find reasonable, intelligent people mixing with the hoi polloi because there is a commonality of views. The second thing you have to bear in mind is that most people can't even spell "debate", let alone define it, because their tiny minds only work one way. In their world, the most intelligent man in the world is one who agrees with you completely.

FreeRepublic bills itself as a place where "conservatives" can share and discuss their views. It does not deign to apply a filter to most of this speech (unless it's grossly offensive), nor does it exlude that which does not pass muster according to "conservative" orthodoxy, if doing so would limit debate on a critical issue of the day. Posters are free to post whatever comment or articles they wish,so long as a reasonable person wouldn't consider it offensive. In general, FR is one of the most fair, most FREE political sites I've ever visited.

That having been said, there is a trend of late in which debate is being hijacked by the most extreme elements of the right, people who call themselves "Conservative" because Nazi or Fascist have, you know, bad connotations. You will find that most of the folks who fall into this category own a copy of the constitution (but don't read it, or if they do, don't understand English), and believe that if you quote a passage from scripture, this ends all argument. Naturally, if you persist, they have a whole list of names to call you; RINO (republican-in-name-only), fag-lover, "liberal" (conveniently forgetting that the republican party IS a liberal party, in historical terms), "gun-grabber", Rockefeller-winger (or variants), and of, course, Communist. They typically finish their diatribes by posting "you've been outed" or "you're busted", and then report you to the Moderators (who, to their credit, have taken no action against me).

This type of stuff goes on because these people wish to actually restrict Free Speech (much like John McCain) or, at the least, be protected from speech they find uncomfortable (because it goes against Scripture or makes them have to think). There is no debate. There is no exchange of ideas or information. There cannot be anything resembling argument if it directly stands in contrast to their religion or their selective reading of the Constitution. Yet, these are the same folks who will scream, laugh or cry at the most obvious examples of Political Correctness when it's the political left who has engaged in them, but cannot grasp the concept that they might also be guilty of the same thing. I believe that's on page 14 of Dr. Goebbel's "Berlitz-in-the-Bunker" School of Propaganda Handbook: when an affront or attrocity is committed by the "enemy", it is to be denounced as a crime of the most heinous sort. When "our" side does it, it is an act of heroism.

Now, I don't particularly have anything against Christians, just those that cannot divorce their religion from their politics (aren't we fighting in the Middle East to do just that?). Or those who are arrogant enough to suggest that salvation is reserved for them only (because they can recite Psalms or their minister told them so), and can't but help rubbing that in people's faces. They remind me every bit of Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" and her "Superiority Dance". Worst of all, is someone who is so in thrall to religious dogma that they simply cannot (or will not) tie their own shoes without divine intercession.

I used to pooh-pooh the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party's contention that there was a whacko religious fringe out there, waiting for thei ropportunity to turn America into a theocratic police state, where abortionists and gays will be frog-marched to the ovens, and we'll have to stop everything we're doing and pray 72 times day. I used to laugh at the notion, thinking to myself, "Hey, this America. These things just don't happen here.". Take a look at what calles themselves "Conservative" these days, and you can see that, perhaps, the dems have a point. At any rate, some of my fellow "republicans" are making such arguments easier to prove every day with their own words and actions.

Better Get This In...
Because of the monstrosity of what was once, euphamistically, called Campaign Finance Reform, starting tomorrow, political advocacy or dissent must cease in this country. Why, you ask? because there will be primaries held within the next month, and CFR restricts such political speech within 30 days of a primary or general election.

So, in the interests of following the law (as unconstitutional and ridiculous as it is), I wish to get the following things out in the open, before they become illegal:

1. John McCain is a Nazi, because he has promulgated legislation which violates the First Amendment. The Congress and Supreme Court which helped him do so are equally guilty.
2. John McCain is no republican, but rather an opportunistic slug willing to sell his party and his country down the river for personal gain.
3. CFR is nothing of the sort: it is a step towards lifetime tenure for elected officials.
4. John McCain is not fit to be dog catcher, let alone a Senator.
5. I hope John McCain is taking the other "gang of 14" traitors to a champagne lunch tomorrow, and that some of the democrats (yes, democrats) who will be re-elected because there will be no dissent posted anywhere against them, pick up part of the check.
6. I will do everything in my (admittedly limited) power to ensure that John McCain's name does not appear anywhere on ballot for the highest office in the land.
7. I hope John McCain chokes.
8. Anyone who's war record involves being shot down twice and being a POW for six years in a lost cause is NOT qualified to be Commander in Chief.
9. John McCain is an egomaniac who still can't believe he lost to Bush in '99, and who takes every opportunity he can to stick it to GWB, while still pretending to be above the fray. The "loyalty" act ain't workin' on me, Johnny.
10. John McCain and Hilary Clinton are the two most dangerous politicians in the United States today, and are, in fact, mirror images of each other, only McCain has bigger tits.

I'd Like to Teach the World To Sing...
Yet another example of the stupidity of the Kumbaya crowd:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597457/posts

Flooding the Shitholes...errr...Developing Nations (and just WHAT are they developing? Interesting question) of the planet with cheap PC's as a means of eliminating poverty? Give me a break.

Now "PC's for Africa" is no dumber than a "No Nukes" concert, or "LiveAid", or that concert that no one watched last year (was it Big 8 or Great 8 or what? I forget. Sounded more like a College basketball conference) . However, it is predictable and consistent. What the world needs, the purveyors of these screwy ideas will explain to you, is for the Developed world to show concern, and perhaps flash a little cash, on behalf of the Developing World, make a few investments in their future, and voila! we'll have peace and harmony, brotherhood and comity, civil discourse and economic prosperity.

What's never mentioned, of course, is gratititude, but that is a subject for another rant.

What's stupid about this idea is that should such a device ever be successfully created (and I've no doubt it will), there is no infrastructure exploit in some of these Developing Countries, many of which, barely verge on the Stick Age. What's even dumber is believing that even with the power of a PC, (to educate, to disseminate information, to reasearch) that people who's biggest concern is not catching Beri-Beri today, or avoiding the political/ethnic/religious death-squad-du-jour, will be able to utilize the things in the first place. Secondary to this idea is the simple question: who controls the distribution of these things (assuming a minimum infrastructure to actually make them of even marginal worth)?

By default this will mean government. It will mean the United Nations. I wouldn't trust the United Nations to lead a three-year old to the crapper, so I certainly wouldn't give them the responsibility (and power, not to mention the possibility of corruption) of handing these PC's out.

Many governments that are mostly repressive and undemocratic are wont to keep the distribution of these things to those they deem politically reliable, and in many cases, reliability revolves around race or ethnicity, or the willingness of the reliable to engage in attrocities on behalf of whichever "Colonel" manages to carry off a successful revolution this week. Assume Saddam Hussein was still in power and these things flooded Iraq; would Saddam allow Kurds to have them? How about Shi'a? The answer is: No.

Governments also have other interests at heart. Recently, Google, the internet search engine, was instructed (not requested) by the People's Republic of China to retsrict access and censor the results of it's searches made by Chinese citizens. The reasons: a) God forbid the Chinese people should discover a world beyond their own borders where a police state doesn't exist, and b) God help the Chinese citizen who finds his way to a political forum not specifically sanctioned by the state. The purpose of Google in China, then, is not to give people options or tools to improve their lives, but rather to help the Government feed the citizens a steady diet of PRC propaganda and deny them the ability to contrast and copmpare their conditions with those to be foiund elsewhere in the world, and c) to prevent those who ARE smart enough to use the power of the internet for the purposes of political dissent from being visible to the great mass of Chinese citizens.

It would be no different with cheap PC's in Zimbabwe. Or Indonesia. Or Vietnam.

Besides, there are already various alternatives available. Your basic PCS cell phone has much the same capability as envisioned for this $100 PC. The iPod is small, inexpensive and capable of storing information. Of course, the actual utilization of such devices also depends on whether or not the people who get them can read, write and have the same level of intelligence and technical skill to be found in the common house cat.

So this exercise is academic. Right?

Wrong. It's a good idea, just not practical, and the driving force behind it is not a desire to help poor folks get a leg up, it's another attempt by Western liberals to scratch that irrational guilt they all have when it comes to questions of poverty. In this country, we simply create more poor, so that we have someone to take care of, and it makes us feel good. At least until it's time to tweak the system by which the poor were created and maintained for some other political or guilt-related question. I mean, ask yourself this: if you can produce a $100 PC for Angola, why wouldn't you create one for Appalachia? Simple: There's too many white people in rural Kentucky, dolt!

It's yet another exercise in making liberals feel good about themselves by "helping" others. And like most liberal ideas that begin with this pretense, it will fail miserably. Better to dig a big hole, pour all those $100 laptops into it, and forget the whole thing.

No-Fault Ideology...
Again, I've been thinking of the vast mental rift between self-proclaimed "progressives" and normal folks. Normal folks are defined as those who work for a living and who exhibit the very minimum of personal and social responsibility.

Orwell stated quite clearly that "progressivism" was one of those mental states which human beings are more than happy to come across and embrace because it entails two of our most beloved conditions; soothing of the soul or consciousness and avoiding responsibility. It is, in effect, sort of like No-Fault Insurance; you can advocate whatever you want, no matter how ridiculous, impossible or blindly stupid, but no one (especially your fellow travelers) expects you to actually DO anything to make it happen. Progressives simply spin out an inconsistent (and often contradictory) view of the future which bears no resemblance to reality or even possibility of reality, and no one holds them accountable for it, nor does anyone actually hold them to their promises.

The greatest thing about progressivism is that when it does (as it must almost always) fail, it has yet another built-in responsibility-avoidance tool; just claim that it would work, if only the right people had been in charge.

I've been thinking about this more and more (mostly because I have scads of free time) as the War on Terror advances at a snail's pace, and the political rhetoric here in the United States begins to heat up again. Most of the rhetoric revolves around issues tertiary to the actual WOT and are being used as wedge issues by progressivists as a means by which to split the electorate in advance of the 2006 mid-term elections.

The three main issues of the War on Terror are simply: why hasn't Iraq become a bustling, first-world democratic economic powerhouse already, is the US government engaging in "domestic spying" and violating the rights of it's citizens, and finally, who do you trust more to complete what has been started?

On the first issue, it's easy enough to see why so little (relative) progress has been made. To begin with, Mr. Rumsfeld and Company obviously made a decision that this war could be fought on the cheap, and they skimped on the intial stages of the invasion of Iraq. This skimpiness was more or less dictated by the realities they were confronted with; not enough troops, of the right kind, to conduct an effective occupation of Iraq, stablizing a fluid situation until such time as the new Iraqi government could be set up. So, the plan called for an all-out bumrush on Baghdad, decapitating the government (i.e., Saddam) and a hope that the Iraqis would greet us as "Liberators", which would make everything that followed reasonably easy.

In the end, it did not turn out that way, did it? However, rather than go back and correct certain mistakes (not enough infantry on the ground, too soft on insurgents -- remember the three battles for Fallujah--too eager to turn everything over to an Iraqi government in which the enemy actually stood for elections), the Bush Administration would rather pretend that everything is fine. It isn't, nor will it be in the forseeable future. Naturally, creating a stable, operating democracy from scratch is not an easy job to begin with, especially in a place where there is no history of democatic action or institutions, but we have made the preliminary steps harder than they had to be. Too much public relations, not enough killing of the enemy.

Is the US government spying on US Citizens? Depends on who you ask. The Administration states that electronic eavesdropping on suspected terrorists is a necessary evil. I can buy that. The Left states that all eavesdropping is wrong, unless, of course, they're the one's doing it. That is the extent of their arguments, however they are careful not to frame the argument in that way. If the Left's exposure of the government's means and activities is intended merely to weaken the current administration so that it loses face in the realm of public opinion, and makes the Left look better by comparison. It has nothing to do with actual national security or defending against a future terror attack. The Left is not doing anything to actually protect anyone's Civil Liberties (which they define as the right to an abortion, the right to a state-funded paradise for do-nothings and a plethora of welfare entitlements for selected, politically-defined "minorities"); they are telling you (by their protests and endless scenarios about the abuse of federal and executive power) what THEY would do if they were armed with the Patriot Act and a War on Terror to justify it's use.

As to issues of trust, ask yourself this: who would you rather follow? On the one hand you have a bumbling, if well-intentioned administration which, one day, might actually get it's act together before it's head retires from the political stage, passing the torch to a possibly better informed and motivated bunch, or a group which has a 50 year history of promising the moon and the stars and delivering nothing but more promises and a lot of manufactured angst?

Why is it that one half of the political spectrum is actually expected to do what it says it will and the other gets a free ride with a history of failure? Mostly because the first half is viewed as serious and interested in results. The seocnd half is populated with idealistic thinkiners (not doers) and inhabits a world where results don't necessarily count: only the thought does.