Worst argument of the week award

I’d never heard of ABC’s Terry Moran but, aside from now having learned that he’s a co-anchor on Nightline, I figured he must be someone, because they’ve given him his own blog page. (Wooo-ey!) The powers that be at ABC might have done him more of a favor if they hadn’t given him his own blog page because, as seems to happen occasionally when media people go off script, he exposes a part of his brain better left unseen.

Moran’s point today (hat tip: Drudge) is that the Duke LaCrosse players are not nice people, so they shouldn’t complain about having major criminal charges leveled against them, incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, and becoming the subject of nationwide scorn and humiliation. Yup, that’s what he really says. Here, read it yourself:

But perhaps the outpouring of sympathy for Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans is just a bit misplaced. They got special treatment in the justice system–both negative and positive. The conduct of the lacrosse team of which they were members was not admirable on the night of the incident, to say the least. And there are so many other victims of prosecutorial misconduct in this country who never get the high-priced legal representation and the high-profile, high-minded vindication that it strikes me as just a bit unseemly to heap praise and sympathy on these particular men.

So 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 Finnerty was charged with assault in Washington, DC, in 2005.

The young men were able to retain a battery of top-flight attorneys, investigators and media strategists.

As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives.

There’s more, but I think the stuff I quoted makes the point sufficiently well. Let me reiterate what he says: These men were charged with one of the worst crimes in America — gang rape. And not just gang rape, but racially motivated gang rape. It was apparent almost from the outset that the charges were unwarranted, and that they represented instead the perfect storm of a sociopathic, confabulating accuser, and a politically motivated, amoral prosecutor. The men were named in every media outlet in America, castigated as rapists and racists, dragged through the criminal justice system, and had their academic and athletic careers destroyed — all while it was manifestly obvious that they could not have done what they are alleged to have done. While it is true that they got more sympathy than the average defendant, they also got much, much, much more exposure. They can’t run and hide. Throughout America, not just in their community, they are the Duke rapists.

But heck, it’s all okay because they’re not nice people. You realize that this means that, from here on out, we’re justified in wrongly accusing and dragging through the justice system all Americans who watch strippers, who like strippers in a variety of colors, and who are in the company of people who make racial epithets (because you’ll notice that the not-so-bright Terry is still bright enough not to accuse the now-exonerated players of having voiced those same epithets). Also, you can smear anyone who was charged — not convicted, mind you, because we now know how much convictions are worth, but just charged — with assault. Oh, and by the way, here’s the kicker — anyone who goes to a fancy school is fair game. Clearly, Moran vaguely regrets that we didn’t just lynch them at the get-go for having the temerity to attend a nice college.

Of course, I’m sure you’ve realized by now that Moran is making precisely the same point Estrich belabors in the first 52 pages of her attempted take-down of Ann Coulter: People you don’t like have no rights. Moran makes clear that, in the identity politics game, one sociopathic, lying accuser trumps three innocuous college boys whose lives have gone through a sordid, public wringer, solely because she is poor and black, while they are, well, “rich” white college boys. In Moran’s view, the fact that they did nothing illegal, and were scapegoated for political opportunism, is totally okay because they are the wrong color, the wrong wealth, and they didn’t behave in the way Moran thinks they should have. Imagine this type of case in Mississippi, circa 1900, except switch the defendants a little bit: Moran still doesn’t care what they did, he just cares that they’re black, poor, and have the wrong attitude. It was a poisonous way of thinking then, it’s a poisonous way of thinking now.

UPDATE: Welcome, American Thinker readers. This is pretty much the post Thomas Lifson saw and commented upon. However, when I went back and read it, I found some grammar and typo problems that I corrected. (And I’m sure there are still legions that I haven’t corrected.)

UPDATE II: I didn’t realize it until I read it at American Thinker that Terry Moran is brother to Rick Moran, of Rightwing Nuthouse and American Thinker fame. As I noted in the opening paragraph, I’d never heard of Terry Moran. Respecting as I do Rick Moran’s thinking, I apologize for having personally insulted Terry’s intelligence, since I’m willing to bet that Terry shares Rick’s intelligence. (Those must be very interesting Thanksgiving dinners at the Moran home, though.) I do not apologize, though, for insulting Terry Moran’s ideas which, at least to the extent he expresses them vis a vis the lacrosse players, I think are dead wrong.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    And “People you don’t like have no rights!”. Exactly, Book. And that is why to me, Liberal/Left “Progressives” are totalitarians, every bit as were the Communists and Nazis. I have no doubt that, given the right circumstances, they and their Fellow Travelers would have no trouble putting the rest of us in camps. We stand between them and their Utopia.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Imagine the Democrat behavior back in the 1800s, then comparei t to the Demo behavior in the latter 20th and early 21st century.

    Same poisonous thinking, yes. But also the same party. Humans progress, but some things regress.

    I have no doubt that, given the right circumstances, they and their Fellow Travelers would have no trouble putting the rest of us in camps. We stand between them and their Utopia.

    Comment by Danny Lemieux | April 13, 20

    The difference is that the Left has always tried putting in the Stalins and Hitlers and Mussolinis. All those dictators have all, came from the Left. They try to rewrite that piece of history, but it is there. Right there. Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini had one advantage over their enablers. They were more ruthless, hardcore, and effective in their methods of oppression and intimidation. They were believers. Now the Left right now here in the US, don’t have believers of the same caliber. Sure, they have self-destructive hate and they think by embracing such an emotion they empower themselves, whether black or Kos Kidz. But that is not true strength, and it is not even truly a belief.

    It is true that the Left behaves like some kind of totalitarian fanatic religious dogmatic system from which heretics are processed and grinded down into paste. But what does their religion actually espouse and believe? For everything they espouse like racial equality, human rights, and liberty, they do everything to destroy them. So what are their beliefs? Their beliefs are in nothing. It’s all fake. Nothing’s real or solid. The Islamic JIhad and Hitler and Stalin and Musso had solid beliefs, solidly evil yes, but solid all the same. The Left doesn’t know what they believe, so they lie. They lie about their lying.

    So when you had true believers like Hitler and Stalin, go up against the “Left”, Hitler and Stalin purged the Left then. They were the first to go. After the Revolution had won of course, and sometimes even before that occured.

    Musso thought the Socialists of his party wasn’t hardcore enough, so he broke off and started doing his own thing.

    The subject of interest right here then becomes “how much trouble would they have putting the rest of us in camps”. I think it depends upon what kind of leader rises in the Left, with how many followers and how influential those followers are. Combined with say, business, money, influence, and a weakening of the US Constitution (Which Pelosi and Co are doing a good job of destroying).

    Revolutionary movements have trouble blowing people and things up, if the system and society is strong, prosperous, and regenerating. So therefore the first goal of any infection is to do like AIDS, infiltrate the immune system and destroy it first. If the US is too strong to face head to head, try to subvert them and hit their weak spots. Destroy the source of their strength and protection, and everything else will fall to you. Hitler of course, didn’t have to face a strong institution or the adversity of prosperity.

    So I think on balance, the Left is too weak even to do what Danny suggested they would do. They might “desire” it, but they don’t have the will. They don’t have the will because they don’t believe in anything. All their behaviors are only a reaction to Republican beliefs, in positive beliefs, in constructive pursuits. The Left destroys, but is unable to replace it with anything of creation. This means the Left is weak. Weaker than the Islamic Jihad and Nazism even.

    The requirement of will depends upon how much resistance there is. So if there is low resistance, you don’t need much power on Hitler’s side for him to take control. Here in the US

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    (Weird symbol cut off the rest of my post) Here in the US there is still a lot of resistance, and it is just too much for the Left, for now. The Left doesn’t believe in anything worth fighting and killing for. That’s their fundamental weakness.

    This means they may not have the power to destroy the supports of US civilization, but that they can weaken us by introducing their tainted essences into the halls of US power, the halls of US education, and every other institution that protects and supports US civilization. Could Pelosi do as much damage to the US Constitution if she was not in power, if she was not 2nd in line for the Presidency? No. When you elevate and promote the weakest links in your society, the entire society becomes weaker and more vulnerable to infection and disease.

    Neo wrote a very interesting post about the inside suicide bombing of the Iraqi parliament. She made the point that it was different there than over here, there you didn’t know who to trust, but over here we have more stability. That’s true but it doesn’t go deep enough. Why do we have more stability than Iraq? Why do we not have to worry about factions blowing each other up in Congress with nukes and bombs? Why do we not have to worry about political assassinations and intimidation, as much as the Iraqis do?

    The answer is simple. Because thousands… hundreds of thousands, millions of people in the United States for centuries have worked every second of their lives to make this country greater and stronger. More self-sufficient, more vigorous, and more healthy. Every second of existence for every person that has ever lived in the United States. Even murderers and outlaws have benefited the US, if only by being the agent that vaccinates us against future and greater diseases. We owe murderers a swift public execution and a public thanks, for making us stronger with their deaths.

    Iraq doesn’t have this. They don’t have the bulwark against the Hurricane of Disbelief. They didn’t have millions of ancestors that fought in the Ami Revo War, in the Spanish-Ami war, in the Civil War, in WWI, WWII, and etc.

    It is exactly the same in Iraqi as it is here in the United States. The only difference is that the sacrifice of American ancestors have made it very hard for anarchy and entropy to cause suffering to Americans. Not impossible, for evil knows many ways to infiltrate the hearts of men, but far harder than it is for Iraqis.

    I say exactly the same, because there are the same kinds of people in Iraq seeking the Revolution as there are in the US. But our institutions and strength prevent the disease of chaos and entropy to take hold. But everything degrades, and as you see Nancy Pelo decay the US Constitution, you can understand intuitively how that works.

    We can afford peace because others have paid the price for us. We can afford being lazy and without vigilance, because others have and will pay the price for our weakness.

    The Iraqis do not have such luxuries, and they never have. Nor does most of the world’s population enjoy such luxuries. That is why if Iraq survives the Armageddon conflict, they will make one of the US’s strongest allies in this century. Eastern Europe is stronger as an ally to the US than Western Europe for a reason. Eastern Europe has had less time to decay, to fall prey to entropy and internal weakness. They just recovered from that, their immune system is still strong. Unlike France and Britain’s, the Sick Man of Europe in a way.

    In the end, the point is simple. We have what we have because others paid for it. And if future Iraqis are to have anything, then current Iraqis, Americans, Kurds, and other people must pay the price. Children cannot defend themselves, we know this, the Left knows this, but they don’t give a damn. And neither does the Islamic Jihad. The Left doesn’t care because they will not fight for the next generation, they are too busy living off their inheritance in the now. The Islamic Jihad doesn’t care because they believe their God will give them all rewards and protect them from retribution if they kill anyone who opposes them.

    The rhetoric on the Left for leaving Iraq is simple. “We pay nothing, while our slaves pay for our upkeep”. But eventually, those slaves will rebel. You can’t live off a slave economy for long, not even the Left can pull that off. Serfdom was something most people thought was a relic of monarchies, divine rule, and medieval Europe. But it keeps cropping back in one way or another. It’s the human condition. Entropy’s always going on in this universe, and Evil always wants to blow things up when we obtain too much progress.

  • JJ
  • Danny Lemieux

    Good link, JJ. By the way, YM – I was referring to the Left/Liberal/Progressive intent, not their will to action. They would not be the ones goose-stepping down Nurenberg, they would be the Lili Riefenstahls, the ones giving the salutes in the stands. Could they pull it off? No way – we, the keepers of traditional American Revolutionary values on the other side are the ones with the will…and the guns! They, however, have many other tools at their disposal with which to dismantle our country and its exceptional values…and they seem to be pretty good at it.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    I notice how they talk about “racial epithets” but there are no specifics. Why is that not surprising?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    I think the hardcore violent anti-war pacifist protestors might have the will, if not the politicians. They sure do like burning things and doing violence upon folks and property. Good material for black and brownshirts.

  • Sherlock

    The extent to which liberals are willing to demonize those with whom the disagree is shocking to me. While riding on the bus recently, I overheard two professionals (a physics professor and a forensic lab director) heaping vitriol on Karl Rove. They spoke deliberately loudly so that their views would be apparent to those around them. Everyone nearby lapped it all up with affirming laughs and nodding heads. Their entire conversation consisted of derogatory personal remarks – there was not a single specific alleged misdeed.

    Finally, I politely asked them for an example of Rove’s criminal behavior. I was instantly the center of attention from a group of people stunned first to silence, and then disdainful laughter. I was insulted and mocked, but I never got my example… they didn’t need any facts.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    A physics professor riding the bus? Not trying to be insulting, but most physics people are conservative, assuming they even pay attention politics in the first place. But if they do pay attention, it sure isn’t to talk about Karl Rove.

    It just seems weird. I think Book’s reasoning for not doing as you did, Sherlock, is because it isn’t worth it. Maybe it really is a waste of time using reason with some people. Not the language they speak.

  • Pingback: Bill's Bites()