Luke Ford

John Podhoretz writes on National Review:

Terry Moran of ABC News has written a blog item entitled "Don’t Feel Too Sorry for the Dukies." As a compendium of fashionable attitudes toward the Duke case, it is incomparable. It’s instructive to go through it to examine those attitudes and why they are so noxious. He says that "as we rightly cover the vindication of these young men and focus on the genuine ordeal they have endured, let us also remember a few other things: "They were part of a team that collected $800 to purchase the time of two strippers. "Their team specifically requested at least one white stripper. "During the incident, racial epithets were hurled at the strippers. "Colin [one of the three] Finnerty was charged with assault in Washington, DC, in 2005." There were 46 members of the Duke lacrosse team. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that David Evans, Reade Seligmann or Colin Finnerty collected the money for the strippers. Or that the three men had anything to do with the request for a white stripper, which I guess we are supposed to consider a racist act. Or that the three men were involved in hurling racial epithets at the strippers ‚Äî which is, by the way, a fact totally in dispute, as the only witnesses for it are the liar Crystal Mangum herself and her fellow stripper, who has recanted much of what she originally said. I agree that Colin Finnerty’s arrest on charges of having been involved in beating up a man and hurling anti-gay slurs at him suggests that he may not be a very good person. Then Moran should trash him. What does Finnerty’s arrest have to do with David Evans or Reade Seligmann? Moran’s main point is that we shouldn’t feel too sorry for the three because they had the financial resources to fight back against an unjust prosecution. They are, Moran writes, "well-heeled, well-connected, well-publicized young men whose conduct, while not illegal, was not entirely admirable, either." First, given the fact that we have no reason to believe Seligmann and Evans had anything to do with the slimy aspects of the evening in question, Moran has no right to describe their conduct as "not entirely admirable." To put it plainly: How the hell does he know? Second, that they are well-heeled and well-connected is of no moment when we are talking about what happened to them, which was a kind of reverse-racist hate crime. We all know why Durham D.A. pursued their prosecution based on no credible evidence. He did so because they were white and affluent, and he either believed he was doing something brave or that he needed their scalps to guarantee his reelection. The amount of money their parents may or may not have had does not mitigate the Kafka nightmare to which they were consigned. Indeed, America should be grateful their families had the resources to pursue their exoneration, as the process revealed that a the criminal-justice system in a city of 275,000 people was being run by a conscienceless sociopath. His certain prosecution and probable conviction on ethics and perjury charges will remove Mike Nifong from office and spare untold numbers of others who might be subject to his prosecutorial whim. Including poor people. Including African-Americans. Finally, Moran offers one of those cutesy, let’s-roll-the-news-events-of-the-moment-into-a-neat-package sentence when he says dismissively that the three men are "are very differently situated in life from, say, the young women of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team." Yes, they are. They spent a year in torment, as did their families. They and their families incurred huge legal fees (and it says something about Terry Moran, awash in a multi-million-dollar network contract, that he might think "well-heeled people" can afford $1 million plus in legal fees without suffering hundreds of sleepless nights over them and the possibility of having to, say, go into hock for the rest of their lives).

Jason Whitlock nails it:

Rather than inspire us to seize hard-earned opportunities, Jesse and Al have specialized in blackmailing white folks for profit and attention. They were at it again last week, helping to turn radio shock jock Don Imus’ stupidity into a world-wide crisis that reached its crescendo Tuesday afternoon when Rutgers women’s basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer led a massive pity party/recruiting rally. Hey, what Imus said, calling the Rutgers players "nappy-headed hos," was ignorant, insensitive and offensive. But so are many of the words that come out of the mouths of radio shock jocks/comedians. Imus’ words did no real damage. Let me tell you what damaged us this week: the sports cover of Tuesday’s USA Today. This country’s newspaper of record published a story about the NFL and crime and ran a picture of 41 NFL players who were arrested in 2006. By my count, 39 of those players were black. You want to talk about a damaging, powerful image, an image that went out across the globe? We’re holding news conferences about Imus when the behavior of NFL players is painting us as lawless and immoral. Come on. We can do better than that. Jesse and Al are smarter than that. Had Imus’ predictably poor attempt at humor not been turned into an international incident by the deluge of media coverage, 97 percent of America would’ve never known what Imus said. His platform isn’t that large and it has zero penetration into the sports world.

“Nappy-headed” is perfectly acceptable speech. Here’s a link to a movie called “Hair Piece: A Film for Nappy-Headed People.”

“Hos” is a slang term for women (its specific meaning is prostitute but it has a general meaning for women and all people that is not necessarily derogatory) that I think originated among inner-city blacks and then was spread to the general culture through rap (primarily black) music.

So why is Imus having his head handed to him for this?

If a black had called the Rutgers girls basketball team “nappy-headed hos” would there be such an outcry? Nope.

I suppose the reason for the backlash against Imus is that he has a history of making derogatory remarks about blacks (and almost every other group). Given this history, I guess I can understand MSNBC dropping his show.

I don’t believe his remarks in this instance justify such an assault (though I think Imus is loathsome and it is no loss to America that he no longer has a nationally syndicated radio show).

I’m trying to remember when this country had less free speech than it does today. I’m thinking World War II.

One can’t even joke in polite company about wife-beating or child-abuse without people getting all bent out shape. It’s enough to make a man want to hit a woman.

Free speech is about more than just government regulations. It is about a commitment that all of should make to allowing people a fair go to speak their mind (unless such speech calls for criminal violence, then it deserves censure). If someone such as Don Imus is going to have his life ruined for using such shock humor, then people have their priorities wrong.

Al Sharpton has led the charge against Imus. He warns: “‘It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves…”

Great, this from the guy who led 15 yo Tawana Brawley’s campaign to claim that she was raped by six white men. It turned out she had suffered no such sexual assault.

It is precisely that sort of speech by Sharpton making false rape charges that deserves 100 times the censure of Imus’s remarks about “nappy-headed hos.”

Until this Time magazine piece, all the commentators I read took it for granted that Imus did something horrible.

That’s nonsense. He did something tasteless, no more offensive than numerous other things said on network radio and TV every day. Has anybody listened to rap music lately?

Treating blacks as fragile creatures who are deeply wounded by such stupid remarks is doing nobody any favors.

Read what CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said when he announced the cancellation of Imus’s radio show. "There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

In other words, he’s saying that poor fragile blacks need the white man’s benevolent protection so they never hear anything that might damage their self-esteem.

I have a Jewish friend on the right who, in private, refers to some Jews on the left “kikes.” Big deal.