Villainous Company

In some races, nobody wins...

Where to start? There is so much inaccuracy being passed off as 'reasonable discourse' here, it is hard to know.

• Walter Williams is a darling of the white supremacist neo-Confederate movement. He is even said to be a member of the segregationist and secessionist League of the South. His professionship? Paid for by the far Right foundations. If you are looking for a reliable source, you could not have chosen a worse one. (And, no, the fact he is African-American is no saving grace. Being a modern day Uncle Tom pays well, but it is not a measure of character or credibility.)

• The only people I know of who use race as a criterion to decide who criminals are are bigots. People who research crime rely on socio-economic status, instead. They know that if one controls for economic status, there is no negative discrepancy between African-Americans and whites. In fact, as commentator Tim Wise has noted, if one considers that half of black Americans live in or near poverty, then the surprising finding is that there are not more white victims of black criminals. Crime, especially violent crime, is an awful thing. But, to try to claim race decides who is a criminal, is just plain racism. Most crime is intraracial and among people who know each other. Your choice to mislead people with the material posted above is shameful.

• Black women may report more rapes because they are raped more often than white women. But, that does not mean a substantial part of the demographic fails to report rape, particularly by white men.

• Last, but definitely not least, you are missing the point of why those strippers were hired by those 'clients.' The facts suggest the lacrosse players specifically sought out African-American women to humiliate. They reportedly used fake names and claimed to be members of other sports teams, covering their tracks. Third-party witnesses say that they heard lacrosse team members hurling racial slurs at the dancers. This is not so unusual. I recall a similar case of white frat boys hiring black strippers to humilate at the University of Pennsylvania more than a decade ago, and, I've heard of the same thing occurring on other college cases. There are also videos of white men humiliating black women for sell online and in porn shops. For that reason, I believe that this behavior is, contrary to what you say, about all black women. The behavior tells us that in the minds of the men who engage in it, the black female demographic is seen as particularly deserving of degradation.

*sigh*

As you said, where to start?

It is easier to refute arguments you have actually read in my post. Knocking down straw men or arguing points I never made (nor intended to make) is no doubt amusing for you, but somewhat pointless.

1. Have you actually read any of Prof. Williams' work, or do you just randomly assassinate the character of anyone whose political views you disagree with? Apparently his major crime, as far as you are concerned, is being Conservative While Black.

Ummm...yeah. Because "those people all think alike", therefore he must be a traitor if he comes to a different opinion. Refute him on the facts and leave the ad hominem attacks. They don't enhance the credibility of your argument.

2. The only people I know of who use race as a criterion to decide who criminals are are bigots. People who research crime rely on socio-economic status, instead.

The only person who would be "misled" by what I wrote would be someone who didn't bother to read carefully. First of all, neither I nor the folks who did this study claim that being black makes one a criminal.

Any statistician on the face of the earth knows correlation is not the same thing as causation. In fact, most anyone you run into on the street is familiar with that principle too. Try reading what I actually said in reference to the stats I quoted:

One can draw many conclusions from the numbers and it’s tempting to read more into them than may be actually there. But while one can quibble over the relative percentages of blacks who rape whites and whites who rape blacks, what does emerge from the data is a very simple observation: how relatively rare it is for sex offenders of either race to choose victims of another color. This should not surprise us: rape is an intimate crime and rape victims are overwhelmingly more likely to be attacked by someone they know. Given the persistent tendency of both blacks and whites to associate with those of their own race, should we be surprised that an intimate crime of opportunity tends to be more intra-racial than inter-racial?

Gosh. When you bother to read what I said, I would appear to be in agreement with your statement:

Most crime is intraracial and among people who know each other.

So far as the rest of your argument, it logically follows that it must be "bigoted" to study economic or educational outcomes too, especially if you infer from the raw numbers that being black makes you more likely to be poor or not to do as well in school.

Wow. Guess we can throw out affirmative action (or any race-based criteria for allocating tax dollars to social programs designed to help people by race). Based on your reasoning, simply observing that being black makes one "more likely" to be poor or to have a worse educational outcome amounts to concluding that skin color causes these problems, and we don't want to do that.

In fact, as commentator Tim Wise has noted, if one considers that half of black Americans live in or near poverty, then the surprising finding is that there are not more white victims of black criminals.

Actually, it isn't really if you stop and think about it. Violent crime as well as rape is very much a function of proximity - in other words, violent criminals don't generally travel outside their community - they victimize those they live and work with.

3. Black women may report more rapes because they are raped more often than white women. But, that does not mean a substantial part of the demographic fails to report rape, particularly by white men.

First of all, the study didn't say black women report more rapes. It said a higher *proportion* of black women who have been raped report the attack, a statement that normalizes the data to make the actual number of black women raped irrelevant. Two very different statements.

Here it would have helped if you had actually read the study. It is not based on analyzing the number of reported vs. unreported rapes (how would researchers ever know a rape had occurred if it was unreported?). It was based on asking participants a few simple questions: have you been raped? Did you report it?

...that does not mean a substantial part of the demographic fails to report rape, particularly by white men

Actually it does, *unless you conclude that these women were lying*. That is something I would be hesitant to do without some supporting evidence. And the statistics quoted did not address the race of the assailant at all, so here you are trying to read into the data something that isn't there.

4. This bullet is particularly troubling.

Your arguments break down into two categories:

- The facts suggest the lacrosse players specifically sought out African-American women to humiliate. They reportedly used fake names and claimed to be members of other sports teams, covering their tracks. Third-party witnesses say that they heard lacrosse team members hurling racial slurs at the dancers.

This is called evidence. It is admissible in court, and is, in fact, precisely the type of criteria my post argues *should* be used to decide this case - not bigoted nonsense like "they're white and the victim is black, we all know because of slavery that white men like to sexually humiliate black women, therefore these defendants must be guilty because they're white".

FWIW, there are also videos of black men humiliating or raping white women in porn shops...which proves what? By your logic, that "...in the minds of the men who engage in it, the white female demographic is seen as particularly deserving of degradation"?

The rest of your argument (excluding any specific evidence which applies to this case) is nothing more than the type of race-based argument you deplore when it is used against blacks, but find convenient to use against whites.

It amounts to little more than "I heard of a similar incident a decade ago, therefore white people must be predisposed to do this type of thing".

It's amazing how willing you are to generalize on the basis of race when it helps your argument, but reject the tactic when *you think* it is being used against you.

In fact, I never argue that blacks are because of skin color, more likely to be criminals or racists. I merely observe that anyone who makes the opposite argument (whites are more likely, because of skin color, to rape black women) can only do so by ignoring what black women themselves have said about whether they have been raped and whether they reported it. IOW, by calling them liars.

I was in a fraternity. Yes, we ordered strippers on two occussions (in four years) that I recall for a particularly big party week.

In one case, we were stood up.

In the other, three showed as planned. With a huge man capable of hammering my unicycle into the floor like a 4 pound hammer on a finishing nail.

In other parties I attended in my youth, similar story: strippers accompanied bodily protection. Never a degrading comment outside the very act of being a stripper (without the unicycle) itself, nor inappropriate touching that took Mongo the Protector more than one threat of violence to end.

Naked and being a stripper are sadly two very different things.

It is morally wrong to be a stripper and equally wrong to hire a stripper. It also places both participants in physical and moral danger.

Why don't we start with crime itself and leave race out of it? Then again, what a lame-a** argument about fake names, etc. If I were to hire a male stripper, I sure as heck would give a fake name and pay cash just so no one would know. I seriously doubt the fake names can be construed as 'racist.' And specifically why African American women for the purposes of so called 'humiliation?'
Catcalls and the like have been part of strip acts for years...women who do it for a living know that and IGNORE IT as part of what comes with the territory. Are you suggesting that along with the rape charges that the lacrosse players be sued for sexual harrassment?

Not only that, the DNA collected from the players didn't MATCH the DNA taken from the victim. She is doing everything right, so why not let the system work and prosecute the perps for their crime of violence against a woman?

Walter Williams is a self made man. Just because he points out crimes committed by blacks doesn't make him a traitor to his race. I am sure he is deeply concerned about the causes behind it and which have been addressed by Dr. Cosby and other well educated, hard working African-Americans.

To call him an Uncle Tom as a slur is to compliment Uncle Tom. If you had actually BOTHERED to read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" you would know that he preferred to be beaten to death than betray the whereabouts of the escaped slaves.

I do appreciate your responding to my points, even in an ill-informed an arrogant way, Cassandra. However, you are responding to the short version. My second laptop battery ran out as I was writing that comment last night. Here's the rest:

• You are falsifying the source of the material you are advocating. Walter Williams' did not get it from the Justice Department, He got it from a publication published by American Renaissance, a white supremacist hate group. Note that he refers to Jared Taylor, one of the most well-known leaders of a hate group in America, quite fondly, as is his wont.

• The misrepresentation of hate crime data by American Renaissance relies on a rather simple ploy. Taylor and his ilk claim that any crime in which the victim is white and the perpetrator nonwhite is a hate crime. In reality, hate crimes are only those in which racial animus (or something similar) is the motivation for committing the crime. When hate crime data is analyzed using the correct definition it is clear that white people commit most hate crimes. There is also the reality that people of color are subjected to so much discriminatory treatment, that we weary of reporting it.

• Even if it is true that black women report about 10 percent more of sexual assaults than white women, we don't know the race of the majority of their rapists, because most rapes go unreported. Perhaps they are more likely not to report interracial rapes. And, I would be remiss not to mention the tendency of some white crime victims to lie about the race of the perpetrator, particularly if they have committed the crime themselves or are afraid to finger family, friends or acquaintances.

• The identification process used by the alleged victim of the Duke rape was proper. The young woman knew her attackers. The problem was that they had purposely lied about their names, so she needed to match faces to their real names. Providing a roster of Duke lacrosse players was the exemplary way to accomplish that goal. Furthermore, the objective of the investigation was to establish who might have committed the crime, not to challenge the credibility of the victim. (The appropriate time for doing that is at trial.) Thomas Sowell, in his eagerness to support the defense lawyers' smear campaign against the victim, is making himself appear even a greater fool than usual. Sowell is not a lawyer and should stop trying to play one on the Internet. I would not have made such embarrassing errors even in my second semester of law school.

Your additional comments may require additional refutation.

Cricket, I am reluctant to respond to someone so clueless that she thinks DNA is needed for a successful rape conviction. By now, even stupid people should know that no DNA evidence is present in 75 to 80 percent of modern rape convictions because the fact has been so widely disseminated. The use of condoms alone would explain the absence of DNA in the Duke case, though there may be other reasons. Furthermore, there will be additional DNA test results.

Then, not satisfied to prove yourself foolish once, you go on to declare that white conservatives decide who black leaders are. Reality is that people like Williams and Sowell are beloved by white conservatives precisely because of their hatred of other people of color. Uncle Toms (using the contemporary meaning) have no credibility, except to bigots.

Man, thanks for a look inside frat houses from someone who has had that experience.

Vet, declaring the participants immoral does nothing to resolve the matter of culpability in the Duke rape case.

Readers wishing to learn more about Cassandra's actual sources for the material she has embraced, the white supremacist organization American Renaissance, will find these links helpful:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=255

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=215

Tim Wise has written an excellent rebuttal of "The Color of Crime":

http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/

You really do need to read more carefully Mac Diva. There is a difference between arrogant and aggravated, which is the way I feel when someone obviously has not read what I wrote carefully and then sets up straw man arguments. That wastes my time.

I do not mind arguing points I actually made. I see no reason to defend myself against false accusations made by someone who can't take the time to read a short post carefully. To be called "arrogant and ill-informed" by someone who, as the rest of my comment will show, can't even get basic facts right, is a bit much. But let's set the record straight anyway. I don't enjoy having it implied I get my facts from white supremacists, especially when that is obviously untrue, so I'll lay out for you all the things you seem to have missed in the post and the linked material.

Try looking at the graphic I made, which contains the link right to the source material, which is *not* American Renaissance, by the way. For most people, the words "DOJ Criminal Victimization in the United States - Statistical Tables" would indicate that my numbers did NOT come from AR, but I also provided the link TO THE ACTUAL STATISTICAL TABLES USED TO CONSTRUCT THE CHART SO ANY READER WHO WANTS TO CAN CHECK THE NUMBERS FOR HIMSELF. Since you apparently had trouble seeing the link, here it is again:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/cvsprshts.htm

You will notice the words "Bureau of Justice" right across the top of the page.

If you are going to refute something in a post, you ought to at least READ IT, and the linked material, carefully. Walter Williams ALSO SAID he doubted the claims in the book The Color of Crime so he checked the numbers himself, which is exactly what I did with Kathleen Parker's original stat.

You have two examples of people who read something, didn't take it at face value, and took the time to research the original source material and check the numbers out for themselves, unlike you who don't even read the post you are refuting carefully before alleging I get my figures from a white supremacist organization (I didn't) and that I misled my readers (again, a false statement - the link to my source material is clearly stated RIGHT ON THE GRAPHIC).

Where is the Sam Hill did you think I got the numbers to "check"? And by the way, I also took the time to double-check that 90% statistic, which is the ONLY thing I quoted from the Walter Williams piece.

The really interesting thing about the lineup, if you've been following this case, is that one of the accused the victim picked out has ATM records, cell phone records, and an electronic record showing he was not even at the frat house during the alleged attack. Plus several witnesses saw him getting into a cab and LEAVING THE FRAT HOUSE. That is going to be difficult for her to explain.

I did not go into this in my post because as I said, the proper place for this case to be tried is IN COURT.

Does this mean she wasn't raped? In my opinion, no. She could be upset and confused. My point, again HAD YOU READ MY POST CAREFULLY is that the prosecutorial misconduct is making it difficult for her to win her case if in fact she has enough evidence against some of those boys.

You really need to stop injecting race into every thing on the face of the earth. You don't know what my opinion on this case is, and I'm not going to state it publicly.

But I'm never going to be in favor of railroading defendants or discrediting victims in the media (as has also happened). In you haste to convict the defendants before the trial, you seem to have missed the entire point of my post, which was simply this:

LET THE EVIDENCE DECIDE THE OUTCOME AND QUIT RACE-BAITING.

You have purposely, it seems, misconstrued most of my arguments in spite of my attempts to clarify what I ACTUALLY SAID.

And finally, regarding the improper police lineup, you might (again) try READING UP on the issue, as I did before using the Sowell quote:

However, an eyewitness identification expert believes the police lineup procedure was flawed because no non-lacrosse players were included.

Gary Wells, president of the American Psychology-Law Society, described it as "a multiple-choice test without any wrong answers."

By including "fillers," or non-suspects, in a police lineup, an accuser has to pick past the filler to choose people who actually might have committed the crime.

"Without fillers as a control, the process has no internal credibility check," Wells said.

David Rudolf, a North Carolina defense lawyer who has been an adjunct professor at Duke and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, believes the procedures may be problematic to the point of being inadmissible in court.

"I have significant doubt that this will be admitted in court," he said, "and no doubt defense will challenge it vigorously."

The issue, Rudolf explains, is that due process prohibits evidence from lineups that are unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to mistaken identity.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1877707&page=1

Facts are stubborn things. Arguing based on "I said so" or "he's just a racist shill" isn't really all that convincing when it turns out you haven't even done any checking on your own and you can't back up any of your arguments. I actually checked what the people I quoted said against several other sources before using their quotes.

And I checked all my statistics, which AGAIN were from the Dept. of Justice tables. I had NO access to American Renaissance, have never read their book, and would never have quoted Walter Williams if he hadn't said he checked the numbers himself (and if I hadn't done the SAME THING MYSELF to make sure he wasn't making it up).

I even brought this to readers' attention in my post:

Like me, he took an independent look at the numbers and was still disturbed by what he saw:

Yet you decided to overlook both his statement and mine and make a baseless charge that doesn't stand up to the facts.

Oh, and by the way, all three of the sources I quoted on interracial crime (Parker, Williams, and my own analysis) quote right in the exerpted section the source of the data, which you conveniently over looked:

Parker:

The U.S. Department of Justice's 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey, which breaks down crime victims and perpetrators by race, indicates that the vast majority of violent crimes, including rape, are intra-racial. Blacks tend to attack blacks, and whites tend to attack whites.

And let me note once again that Parker, like me, was careful not to infer what you keep accusing everyone of saying: that blacks are more likely because of skin color to attack whites. In fact, she clearly says the opposite: each race tends to attack their own.

Williams:

Since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice has conducted a National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine the frequency of certain crimes. One category is interracial crimes. Its most recent publication (1997), "Criminal Victimization in the U.S.," reports on data collected in 1994.

Cassandra:

"DOJ Criminal Victimization in the United States - Statistical Tables"

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/cvsprshts.htm

When three sources in a row quote the same DOJ study (and I was careful to make it plain from the part I CHOSE TO EXCERPT from each source that this is where the data came from to avoid any misunderstanding) yet you deliberately overlook all three cites and accuse me of getting my data from a second source NOT EVEN REFERENCED IN MY POST, two things become apparent:

1. You are either not paying attention (despite my having pointed out in my first response that you hadn't read carefully - something that *might* have prompted some folks to give it a second read before making an inflammatory - and false - accusation), or

2. You are determined to misrepresent what I have said, despite my having clearly identified the source of the data in ALL THREE CASES.

MacDiva,
I never said that the DNA evidence was needed for a conviction, but for a match to the accused. My exact words were the DNA samples taken from the victim didn't match any taken from the players. Don't put words in my mouth. I also noted that the victim was doing everything right. She reported it, the rape kits were used in the manner intended, so let the investigation proceed on the basis of the accusation: She has accused at least two people of rape. Where does race fit into that?

In reference to Uncle Tom you still ignored the basic fact that he didn't give his masters/owners what they wanted.

You mention 'third party' statements. Third party witnesses by definition would have heard it from a friend of a friend. Not as reliable as a first hand source, wouldn't you say?

And in terms of arrogance, kindly note that I did not refer to you as knee jerking.

"Then, not satisfied to prove yourself foolish once, you go on to declare that white conservatives decide who black leaders are. Reality is that people like Williams and Sowell are beloved by white conservatives precisely because of their hatred of other people of color. Uncle Toms (using the contemporary meaning) have no credibility, except to bigots."

Where did I say that white conservatives decide who black leaders are? First of all, Drs Williams and Cosby are men who have gotten an education and
worked hard and are successful. Where have you seen one word written or heard a word spoken by these two men that say they hate their people? They don't. They dislike the self defeating behavior of victimization that Revs. Sharpton and Jackson perpetuate. "'Uncle Toms (using the contemporary meaning)except to bigots.'" Well I am not sure what the contemporary meaning of an Uncle Tom is. When I read "Uncle Tom's Cabin," I thought of him as a hero, for putting his beliefs in freedom on the line so that others could live the dream he couldn't have, and make something of it. You find echoes of this not only in literature and movies, but in history as well.
I wonder if Uncle Tom would think of Jesse Jackson as having used that legacy wisely, or Malcom X?

You have called me clueless, stupid and foolish.
I have not applied such adjectives to you, although your arrogant backhandedness deserves no less than a return compliment. However, I don't stoop to that level simply because for people like you who seem to think that they occupy the moral high ground because of their so-called indignation, name calling is the first thing that comes to a liberal's mind when they disagree.

Let's focus on these points, for now.

• Cassandra, it seems that you did not realize the genesis of the material Walter Williams is promoting. I'm so used to seeing "The Color of Crime" pop up on conservative and white supremacist sites that I forget that people who do not follow these issues may not know about American Renaissance's role in promoting the claim that blacks and Hispanics are genetically inclined to be criminals, and, commit most of the crime in America. Still, if you are going to discuss race and crime, I believe this is something you need to familiarize yourself with. As I said before, people who link race and crime do so for invidious reasons. I recommend you read Tim Wise's analysis of how white supremacist Jared Taylor of AR misused the DOJ data to promote his agenda in "The Color of Crime." As for your beloved "90 percent statistic," one has to change the definition of "hate crime" to get there. Case closed.

• Sure, the defense can challenge the method of identification at trial. But, when it does, that will be weighed along with the other evidence by jurors. If the other evidence is convincing, they are going to accept the identification, too. Many will not find it a hard sell since the alleged victim saw her alleged attackers up close and conversed with them. And, no, contrary to what yet another piling on defense lawyer says, the identification process will not necessarily be grounds for appeal if the jurors find a defendant guilty. Cases in which identification is found faulty are usually stranger crimes. The context lends this identification validity.

BTW, I heard from a law school classmate yesterday who happens to be a prominent defense attorney. He said he had considered writing an op-ed piece criticizing the smear campaign against the alleged victim (who is unable to even live in her home because of death threats). He hasn't because he thinks most laymen are incapable of understanding that the things being done by the defense have little to do with the law and lots to do with public relations.

• Cricket, your obsessive interest in trying to trying to promote quislings like Bill Cosby and Walter Williams as 'role models' for African-Americans is comical to those us who actually understand American race relations. People of color reach their conclusions based on their own knowledge of history and culture. The 'we will tell you people what you can think and say' babbling of white conservatives like you is just plain irrelevant to the overwhelming majority. The situation is really fairly easy to understand unless one is a clueless white conservative. Rev. Jesse Jackson has a following because his views resonate with what most African-Americans know to be true. Walter Williams has no following because he denies the truths of the African-American experience in order to be the darling of white conservatives. He is free to make that choice, which he is paid well for, but he will never be a black leader.

Mac Dive,
First of all, your singularity drive in thinking I am clueless as to race relations doesn't surprise me. I am not obsessive about it, just merely stating another side of it, since there are two sides to look at. The African American experience
is one that I have been familiar with for a long while, but not in the sense of entitlements. I live in a mixed neighborhood. My neighbors run the gamut of renters to homeowners. You might be perturbed to know that we have homeowners who are blacks, not on welfare and who look down their noses on the gangsta mentality, who deplore the enabling behaviors of entitlements as being undignified and unbefitting them. Not because they have 'white' values, but because they are raising families, they have succeeded and know that the system does work and is fair.

Get over yourself. Your so called understanding and compassion rings false.

It strikes me as odd that you would call me obsessive, when you have not deviated one bit from your stand that the statistics Cassandra cited are compiled by or kept at a racist site, nor have you shown any proof that Dr. Williams and Dr. Cosby are bigots. Nor have you shown us the connection to Dr. Williams' use of said stats from the site you mentioned.

In compiling stats on crime vis a vis race, as in perpetrators/victims, a profile emerges in who they are, their standing, etc. It gives law enforcement and social workers some very necessary tools to effect change. I guess that is racist, because since you attend law school, you would also know that most laws are economic in nature in either protecting a group via funded mandates, or
enacting laws that make jobs, such as oh, emissions tests on cars.

If Dr. Williams observations as a chaired professor of economics is anathema to you, he is raising some valid questions about the use of the taxpayers' money across the board. That does not make him a quisling.

So, cite your evidence of his treason to his race.
Your feelings don't count.

Hello? Cricket, you obviously have the prerequisites to post nonsense to the comments section of this blog. So, you also have the prerequisites to research Walter Williams. The fact that the man is a Right Wing moonbat is no secret. Do the research.

As for your continuing idealization of people like Williams and Cosby, despite the contempt they are held in by the population they claim to speak for, it proves my point. The real interest of white conservatives like you is in covering up their own responsibility for creatiing and maintaining race-based wrongs. For y'all, it is all about blame shifting. Always has been. Your grandfathers made similar rationalizations when they were hanging people. Your forbears before them used rationalizations to set up and maintain chattel slavery. You use them to shift blame in regard to today's inequities, which are rooted in that very history.

Then there is the matter of hypocrisy. Middle-class and upper class families have the same personal failings as poor families, but people like you try to claim otherwise. For example, your ideal, Bill Cosby, has a long history of infidelity and sexual harrassment of women. His own family life has resulted in a daughter who became a drug addict and committed crimes to support her habit. If I were to have access your own background, I would find similar human failings. But, neither you nor Cosby are capable of seeing yourselves for the flawed creatures you are. Instead, human frailty is always the Other (race, class, zip code, whatever) for hypocrites like you. Instead of spending time detailing your black neighbhors' faults, it is about time you paid some attention to your own.

Face it Cricket - we are all products of our environment.

You can't help it: you're the product of generations of entrenched white racism. All this talk of personal responsibility is just the jabbering of those who want to shift the focus away from the shameful things their "forebears" did to MacDiva's "forebears", when smart people know that everything that happens to an individual today is really the inevitable product of what happened generations ago.

Wow. It's a good thing we all know only white folks make racist generalizations. For a moment I was getting worried.

Macdiva,
You just proved my point. No family is perfect, and we all know that our first Black President and Jesse Jackson had women chasing them and they had to beat them off with a stick. These men were untarnished paragons of virtue and truth in a sea of racist dogma, men who supported women's right to choose, and who were family men...Clinton's personal tutoring of his interns and Jackson's use of Rainbow Coalition money to help one of his assistants move to a better life are cases in point.

Not to mention Dr. King's infidelities...but I digress. I did NOT attack your beliefs, as you assiduosly hold to Sharpton and Jackson as reality based rather than role models.

And no, I am not going to do the research myself, because I am not the one who raised the question, YOU DID. We can agree to disagree.

="http://channels.netscape.com/whatsnew/default.jsp?story=20060502-1402">Oprah gets dissed by a rapper

The stripper originally claimed that the second stripper helped with the rape!

Just when you think this case hit rock bottom, you find a sub-basement.

If Mike Nifong doesn't get disbarred after this, then there really is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys.

AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

3 (b) The probable cause affidavit implies there is no question that [deleted] was sexually assaulted on March 14, 2006, at 610 N. Buchanan by three men. But three days before Investigator Himan signed his affidavit, March 20, 2006, at 10:10am., Investigator Himan interviewed Kim Pittman, the only eyewitness to the events of March 14, 2006, at 610 N. Buchanan. Before Ms. Pittman was granted extremely favorable bond consideration by District Attorney Nifon personally on april 17, 2006, she told investigator Himan [ deleted ] allegation that she was sexually assaulted was a “crock.” Instead Investigator Himan alleged that [ deleted ] “reported that she was sexually assaulted for an approximate 30 minute period.”

3 (e), (8) She told Investigator Himan first that she had consumed a 24 ounce bottle of beer and thereafter that she had consumed two twenty-two ounce Ice House beers. Finally, She told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole all her “money and everything.”

I'm just glad that three men who were clearly wrongly accused of rape were cleared of the charges. It was obvious from the start that the dancer was lying, and covering something up. The dancer she was working with wouldn't back her up on her story. Nifong completely screwed this case up from the beginning by playing politics with the blacks of the community, and it came back and bit him in the butt. The Black community, Black leaders, the so-called feminist groups, Duke University itself, and the faculty of the school who passed around a letter decrying the boys activities and what they supposedly did now have egg on their faces, period. I'm glad to see that. So-called Black leaders like Revs. Jackson, and Sharpton have yet to man-up, and apologize to the real victims of this crime, but I know they won't because they lack the real meaning of what it takes to be a man. The families of the victims should sue all the parties I just stated including Nifong, but that probably won't happen either. Unfortunately, those parties I just named off are not interested in real justice, but rather sticking it to white people just because they are right. That is real racism. wHite people are guilty until proven innocent, ufortunately, white people to many will never be found innocent of any crimes.