Part I: Where's The Beef?

This is part one of a five-part article on the Duke Lacrosse case.

Has anyone notice all the media coverage lately on the Duke case? No? Gee willikers! It’s everywhere! Oh wait, that was when every freaking MSM outlet was sure they did it, regardless of the evidence. They based their opinions, yes OPINIONS upon typical feminist logic (now ain’t that oxymoronic). They did it, pure and simple. Women don’t lie, especially about rape. Women are above reproach when it comes to these things, donchaknow!

Three rich white boys. Three privileged boys. These are just some of the labels the media has placed upon three young men that have apparently done nothing wrong other than being well off, white, and male. Yep, in other words, they are the epitome of the evil empire called “The Patriarchy ™”.

It is truly ironic to see the media just up and leave the story. No sound bites. No “breaking news” on the case. Nothing. Now why would that be, one would wonder. Why is it that the media has now all but forgotten about the case? Why, after all the constant barrage of “exclusive” tasty morsels has the media somehow forgotten that there are still three young men out there that are being railroaded for a crime they did not commit?

I will give props to a few outlets, such as Newsweek for example. In a recent article, Newsweek came out and stated that initially the story was a clear case of rape/racism. Yet, now that the facts (gosh golly! Facts! Imagine that!), have shed some light on the case, the accuser “may” be lying. OK. So I give them very small props. They still wont state her name, and they most certainly wont come right out and say that this is a clear case of FALSE ACCCUSATIONS. Why would they?

From their recent article; Asked for an interview last week by NEWSWEEK, Nifong declined, but sent an angry e-mail accusing the national media of getting spun by defense lawyers and sticking to his earlier comments to the press. "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially," he wrote. He lashed out at "media speculation" (adding, "and it is even worse on the blogs"). He said that he was bound by ethics rules against commenting any more about the case or evidence.

Now if that isn’t the most ridiculous statement ever made by this dolt. Truth be known, the asshat (Gonzo ™) made over 70, that’s SEVENTY, SEVEN ZERO, statements to the press during the initial weeks of the case. Why? Well, unless you have been living under a rock these past few months, you know the reason. You see, Mr. Justice was running for re-election as District Attorney coincidently. He needed votes. He had to show the overall BLACK population that he was strict on crime, even if it was “them thar Duke boys”.

Ethics? What are they? Because I am most certain that Nifong has no fucking clue what they are. He is intentionally pushing the case out beyond his re-election, sometime in the spring of 2007. Why? Again, it’s just simply logic. He knows, and knew from the start he had no case. He knew right from the beginning that if he didn’t tow the typical feminist and the race card, he would not be re-elected, plain and simple.

If he were to do what a DA with ethical values were to do (not even sure there is one but..) he would have continued with his press conferences as the facts came to light. Eventually coming to the conclusion that the charges must be dropped because of lack of evidence. This would have shown to the general public that he did his job.

Nope. Can’t do that. Instead, he is shut tighter than a clam out of water. He won’t say a damned thing about the case. Oh, wait, with one exception. He will state that the media is going too far speculating and judging the case; or to condemn the defense attorneys for the accused for leaking information about the case to the press. Sorry, that’s technically two exceptions.

Uhm, news fucking flash there pally! It’s called “damage control” in the legal world. They essentially have three young men convicted by proxy (white, rich, & male) BECAUSE of statements that YOU’VE made to the media. You fed the media, and the media fed the world. They are guilty in the eyes of a good portion of the population because YOU tried and convicted then in the media. The defense is now doing your fucking job. They are releasing, not leaking jackass, the information to the media to DISPROVE some of the assumptions and conclusions that have been made because of things that YOU’VE said. Anyhow, here we are. The Duke boys (and I affectionately call them), are still in a pickle. Sure they are not really in the spotlight as much, but the pickle still exists. Meanwhile, Crystal Gail Magnum still has the wonder-cloak of anonymity.

In closing this part of my article, I wanted to take a moment to explain something. I am not sure if you all have noticed, but I tend to NOT use their names. It is my little way of showing the MSM that I do not prescribe to their “choice” of splashing the accused all over the place and never ever, ever publishing the picture or even stating the name of the accuser. To protect them, donchaknow. And it IS a choice. Well, my “choice” is that if they are named, so should Crystal Gail Magnum.There is NO law stating that they cannot publish said information. For all you femikooks out there, let me give you a bit of fact. Rape shield laws state that a woman’s previous activities. Specifically SEXUAL, cannot be brought up during a rape trial. That is essentially it. Nowhere in that pathetic excuse of a law does it say, you will not divulge the identity of the woman. Nowhere! So get that “rose-colored glasses definition” out of your fucking heads.

Next up: Part II. What a Tangled Web We Weave.

TMOTS

Click here for more.

New Book Revives Lost Notions of Boyhood

By Wendy McElroy
Tuesday , July 04, 2006

Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails are what readers of a surprise bestseller are made of.

The Dangerous Book for Boys by the British brothers Conn and Hal Iggulden is a practical manual that returns boys to the wonder and almost lost world of tree houses and pirate flags. It celebrates the art of teaching an old mutt new tricks and accepts skinned knees as an acceptable risk for running through fields with the same dog yapping along.

As of July 3, The Dangerous Book is the number one seller on Amazon UK and it is holding steady at about 7,000 on Amazon in the U.S., where it was published on June 5. The Australian News reports that the book "has made it to the top five of…Amazon [Australia], after just a week."

Those results make publishers take notice. But social commentators are also reacting with both applause and condemnation.

Condemnation arises because The Dangerous Book breaks the dominant and politically correct stereotype for children's books. It presents boys as being deeply different than girls in terms of their interests and pursuits. Although it is highly probable that bookstores will sell the book to girls who then will go on to practice skimming stones, nevertheless the genders are separated within the book's pages.

The authors clearly believe that the majority of children interested in learning to build a catapult are boys. Girls are included only through a final chapter in which boys are admonished to treat them with respect.

In celebrating old-fashioned boyhood and providing a blueprint on how to reclaim it, The Dangerous Book is revolutionary. It discards decades of social engineering that approaches children as being psychologically gender neutral. The book implicitly rebukes school texts that strip out gender references. Instead, it says 'boys will be boys'; they always have been, they always will be, and that's a good thing.

Thus The Dangerous Book achieves social revolution without preaching or politics; it does so in the name of fun.

The sort of fun promoted has also raised eyebrows. In a society that is preoccupied with safety, The Dangerous Book promotes activities in which boys are likely to get scuffed. This is a book for tree-climbers who occasionally pause to decipher enemy code or erupt into wood-wielding pirate fights.

Why would the Iggulden brothers imperil children?

Clearly they do not think the rough-and-tumble of boyhood constitutes a health hazard. Perhaps they agree with parents who view over-protectiveness to be a greater danger, who wish to stir the imagination and muscles of their children instead.

But the brothers wish to achieve more than this. In a world where children are isolated behind computer screens and iPods, they wish to establish a niche for old-fashioned childhood.

The brothers state, "In this age of video games and mobile phones, there must still be a place for knots, tree-houses and stories of incredible courage." They advise children to "play sport of some kind. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as it replaces the corpse-like pallor of the computer programmer with a ruddy glow."

Their vision is not utopian or even impractical. For example, a tree house requires only a blueprint, some scrap lumber and a willing parent. The latter requirement turns The Dangerous Book into something more than a work for boys. It is also a guide for parents, especially for fathers who wish to establish an old-fashioned connection with their children.

Indeed, since parents purchase most children's books, it is reasonable to assume that the run-away success of The Dangerous Book is partly due to their longing for a better connection.

One father describes his experience with the book, "I gave it to my 11-year-old son Charles and his friend…Then I stood well back." Raised on The Lord of the Rings, "they immediately turned to the section of the book that showed them how to create their own Legolas-style archery kit, using bits of old branch no longer needed by the Ents. When they began stripping the bark off with a big, shiny, sharp-bladed Swiss Army knife, I had to dig down deep in order to ignore the parental risk-ometer readings that were going off the scale, accompanied by vivid flash-forwards of the inevitable long, bloodstained-bandaged hours ahead in casualty."

Happily, the only injury was to evildoers who lurked in the garden shrubbery.

These days, the news about boys is not happy and often contains the word 'crisis.' The Education Sector, a non-profit think tank, offers a typical description of the perceived 'crisis' within education.

"After decades spent worrying about how schools 'shortchange girls,' the eyes of the nation's education commentariat are now fixed on how they shortchange boys. In 2006 alone, a Newsweek cover story, a major New Republic article, a long article in Esquire, a 'Today' show segment, and numerous op-eds have informed the public that boys are falling behind girls in elementary and secondary school and are increasingly outnumbered on college campuses."

Society is awakening to the possibility that boys have been disadvantaged. In past decades, what it means to be a boy has been redefined, deconstructed, reconstructed, politically analyzed and mathematically modeled. In the process, the meaning of being a boy's father has become jumbled as well.

In the midst of the confusion, The Dangerous Book brings non-political truths into focus. For example, most boys like rough-and-tumble. They are riveted by tales of heroism on blood-soaked battlefields. They will learn history eagerly if it is presented in a chapter on Artillery.

Like Peter Pan, the Iggulden brothers have rediscovered the Lost Boys and are beckoning for them to come out to play. "Oh…and bring along your father too," they add with a dangerous wink and a smile.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Click here for more.

Twelve-step feminist cure

Carey Roberts
June 27, 2006

It's a condition that's known to be chronic, progressive, and highly contagious. With my own eyes I've seen bright, caring women fall under the sway of its deceptive allure. They soon begin to speak and act like someone possessed.

Its initiates are taught that women are "strong and invincible," but at the same time are the victims of an implacable patriarchal conspiracy. These self-contradictory beliefs induce a stress-producing condition known as cognitive dissonance. To relieve the discomfort, the girls are instructed to immerse themselves in the radical ideology.

The next stage of the disease is marked by a loss of sense of humor, self-centeredness, and a decreasing ability to perceive reality accurately. Some adherents refuse to use lip-stick or brush their hair, believing such actions contribute to their "objectification."

As the condition progresses, serious psychiatric symptoms begin to appear, including paranoia, hysteria, and intense anger. Some of these persons become diagnosed with conditions such as borderline personality disorder.
[www.orangecounty.net/html/living_article5.html]

In its most extreme form, the disorder becomes life-threatening. Just look at the picture of high-priestess Andrea Dworkin that was taken shortly before her untimely death last year:
www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/15/
andrea_dworkin_narrowweb__200x266.jpg

Somehow Ms. Dworkin doesn't appear particularly liberated or enlightened. In fact she looks downright miserable.

It's hard to dispute the fact that millions of women have been duped by the chimera of radical feminism. How will we help these poor ladies?

One program, Rachel's Vineyard, offers weekend retreats to help women (and men) grieve the loss of their aborted children. That's a good start.

But many feminists have become skeptical of the value of therapy. Traditional cognitive approaches don't work, of course, because these women have been taught that reason and logical thinking are the cause of their distress.

Other women got involved in a rogue form of counseling called "feminist psychotherapy," which teaches patients that patriarchy is the cause of all their woes. [www.womensfreedom.org/artic552.htm] Imagine going to a counselor to get help for your abusive tendencies, and being told join the N.O.W. for the cure! Wonder how much they charge for that advice?

Obviously psychotherapy will make only a dent in the epidemic. What we need is a massive de-programming effort to help the millions of Gender Studies grads who now endure lives of resentment and barren solitude. They urgently need a helping hand — what will we do?

The solution is a 12-step self-help program — you guessed it: Feminists Anonymous. With no apologies to the Friends of Bill, here are the 12 Steps to gender recovery:

1. We admitted we were powerless over feminism — that our lives had become bitter, lonely, and meaningless.

2. We came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. We made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. (That's right, Him. Now's the time to get rid of that Wiccan broomstick stashed in your closet.)

4. We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. (Hint: Humility is the first step in the path to self-awareness.)

5. We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. We were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character — despite the self-professed good intentions of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem.

7. We humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. We made a list of all men and women we had harmed, living and unborn, and became willing to make amends to them. (Practice saying, "I'm sorry" in front of the mirror each morning.)

9. We made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would be impossible, or would injure them or others.

10. We continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it. (If you haven't already taken your name off the Feminist Majority alert list, do it now.)

11. We sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to feminists, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Over the years I've seen far too many families destroyed, too many men broken, too many children harmed, and too many women forced into "choices" that they later came to regret.

These women deserve our compassion and understanding. Let's put an end to the insanity.

________________

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060627

Click here for more.