They Don't Need to Retract

In what can only be described as lunactivism, the 88 faculty members at Duke University who signed a letter assigning guilt to the Lacrosse team have refused to retract it, or even to issue an apology for their excessive zeal. It's a wonderful example of idealistic fervor trumping good sense.

Anyone can jump the gun and be wrong. Why not just say "Oops, sorry for ruining your lives!" and be done with it? This case, and in particular the faculty lynch mob, will give fuel to the anti-PC fire for years to come. An apology would have done a lot to douse that flame.

At The Minority Report blog, Daveinboca has a piece up about the Duke Lacrosse case. I don't call it the "Duke Rape Case", because the only people raped in that case were, figuratively speaking, the accused.

Why don't the Duke faculty need to apologize and issue a retraction of their infamous letter assigning guilt to the Lacrosse team? In a comment there, I said:

In their minds, they were right. It's the facts that were wrong, but only because this case was either A) an aberration or B) proof that rich White kids can do what they want.

Some of them in B) have it figured that the rich and powerful pulled strings and got the case to turn out how they wanted.

Others in A) are unhinged in a slightly different direction: they think that even though these particular rich White kids were put through the ringer this time, the justice system is still lopsided in their favor and it's only fair, because the academics just know this kind of thing happens to poor Blacks all the time.

No, it doesn't. While it may be true that the system is rigged against the poor, politicians don't pin their reelection hopes on prosecuting a particular set of poor Black defendants, or at least not on the basis that they're poor and Black.

Our legal system is biased in favor of the rich and powerful, but the bias is more heavily against the passive. Those who will fight the system, make noise, and do whatever they can to protest an injustice against them (whether justice is actually on their side or not) often will be rewarded, while those who roll over and accept their fate (deserved or not) will be punished.

Sphere: Related Content

Enough with the Half Mast, Already.

Ever since 9/11, we've put the flag at half mast for too many things. I won't list the hurricanes, floods, school shootings, mine accidents, and traffic snarlups down to which the slope has slid.

The flag should be lowered for the death of a former President, and now and then, for the death of a former leader of an allied nation. Not for Senators, not for noted journalists, nuns, generals, or astronauts. These people are to be honored in other ways. The flag is different.

Lowering the flag is not merely a token of respect, it's a sign that our country would not have been as great without the person for who we are lowering it. And the flag should only be lowered while we mourn for the passing of the noted person.

And it never should have been lowered for 9/11, not even for a minute. Cancel baseball, shut down the airlines, watch out for each other, and devote your life to what matters. But don't dip the flag when your nation is attacked.

And we certainly aren't in mourning for 9/11 any more. We shouldn't be mournful any more, even as yearly we pause to recall the day, our memories of it, and our response to it. But after mourning comes anger, and you should have been angry every day since.

Keep the flag high, in triumphant assertion of our unflagging commitment to the victory of light over darkness.

Sphere: Related Content

What 9/11 Taught Us

This will be brief, because it's all I have time for today.

What 9/11 Taught Us

About Terrorism

Yes, it really could happen here. Our oceans and sparkling personality were no match, by themselves, for the hatred of religion gone mad.

About Us

While we may argue amongst ourselves in good times, when attacked, we put aside our few differences and pull together. When that occurs, our enemies have no defense.

About Our Allies

When we were attacked, they responded. They didn't stand back and tell us it was our own fault.

And of all of those things, long and deep should our memory be.

Sphere: Related Content

Your Homework for the Weekend

For a possible 10 Anti-Lunacy credits, compare and contrast:

Larry Craig, flirting in public restrooms, presumed guilty because...
Classical Values: An Unforgiveable Sin

Pedophiles as foster parents, above suspicion because...
Michelle Malkin: The Horrors of Political Correctness

Sphere: Related Content

Friday Official News Agency: Product Focus

The Official News Agency has a listing for a long overdue product:

In the aftermath of the Sen. Larry Craig restroom sex scandal, the question of what is and what is not sexually solicitous behavior in a public restroom has become an important issue for Americans. Now, a new product emerges, promising to protect you by broadcasting your intentions before you enter the stall.

The "No Sex Please" sign is a step in the right direction, and can only help improve the public restroom experience for everyone. But what other signs are needed?

Surely signs showing the stall's status, such as "Do Not Flush" or "Hot Water Mixup" would be of extreme help. I'll never forget the time Maintenance did an experiment on the Academy's plumbing, such that the toilets flushed with hot water. That was quite a surprise, though I must admit that it was not entirely unpleasant.

But nothing ruins the public restroom experience like having the facilities all taken. I mean, who uses a public facility unless they are already in dire straits? The worst part (well, almost) is not knowing how long the torturous wait will be. Those signs with clock faces, used by barbers and other one-man storefronts to signal when the proprietor will return, could do double duty in public restrooms.

O'course, unless everyone brought their own sign, which would be quite a lot to ask from people on fixed incomes, hygiene would demand setting the hands with the proverbial ten-foot pole, and of course to be any good at all it would have to be done before entering. As I said, I've always got urgent business inside that will probably not get me arrested but certainly won't wait while I put up a sign.

As for the "No Sex Please" sign itself, will those of us who don't carry such a sign, or as explained, fail to display proper signage, then be open to the advances of randy undercover policemen cruising public restrooms?

It's time to set your feet apart and take a wide stance against this product. While the "No Sex Please" sign seems harmless enough, we must not allow failure to warn to be seen as an invitation, or our public restrooms will become as sleazy as the halls of Congress.

Sphere: Related Content

Global Alarming to Blame

What are the effects of Global Warming?

I consider Global Warming is an unmitigated good, because I like hot weather. Anything over 80°F and I'm happy, so a rise of 5 degrees will be just fine, thank you. Yes, I understand that the climate is complex, and no, it doesn't alarm me. But some people, especially those who live in urban heat traps or equatorial deserts, might not want the extra warmth.

I fail to see why I should alter my lifestyle in the slightest to accommodate their choice of habitat, when they can't even show that all of the changes that I and the rest of the developed world could make would even influence the climate, much less fix it. And given that some of us like it warm, they still need to show that the current global climate is the best one.

But beside being implicitly seen as the cause for famine in Ethiopia, Sudan, and the whole of East Africa, Global Warming has several other alleged effects:

• Mexican emigration to the US has been said to be due to difficulty farming in Mexico's heat
• Deer migrating in Yakutsk
• Cougar attacks
• Too many fungi
• Polar Bears can't find snow
• Death toll from heat waves, floods, etc., (ignoring effects of cold)
  

And from ClimateHotMap.org:

• Spreading disease (ignoring the effects of staying indoors in cold weather)
  
• Earlier spring arrival (yay!)
  
• Plant and animal range shifts and population changes (Fallacy of Antiquity)
  
• Coral reef bleaching (but are coral growing elsewhere?)
  
• Downpours, heavy snowfalls, and flooding
  
• Droughts and fires
  

Which is it, too much rain or too little?
Which is it (Classical Values), ocean too salty or ocean not salty enough?

The Global Alarmists want it both ways.

Sphere: Related Content

Hypeocracy

If you've not heard about the misfortunes of Senator Larry Craig, consider yourself both blessed for having missed the circus and cursed for having to read about it from me. On the plus side, I'm going to skip the sordid details and go straight for what's really important about the event: it highlights a difference between Left and Right on the subject of morality.

Specifically, the main charge against Craig is not what he did, but hypocrisy. Craig, as a Republican, is held to the familiar standards of traditional decency. (Yes, "traditional decency" is a loaded phrase, but it's the best one I can come up with that hasn't been co opted, redefined, and bumper stuck into obsolescence). Democrats are not held to those standards, or any other save the most clear and outlandish violations of law. Why is this so?

It is because on the Left, traditional standards of decency are not part of their morality. Morality, I've shown, is the set of rules for behavior that we believe everyone ought to obey. People differ wildly on what those rules are, but we all have them and a sense that ours are correct. On the left, even those who cling to traditional decency do not hold others to that standard, but prefer tolerance of wickedness over its disdain. Traditional decency is to liberals a matter of preference and lifestyle.

To liberals, then, traditional decency is an ethical choice. Since Senator Craig self-selected into a group adhering to traditional decency, liberals react to him as someone who has committed an ethical violation.

But don't fall for the "we just hate hypocrisy" line: consider the Global Warming alarmists who are palleted around in limousines and private jets while telling the little people to walk. Hypocrisy doesn't matter, only opportunity matters: the opportunity gain power by making public the peccadilloes of their political foes.

By the way: a United States Senator accused of public lewdness would not plead guilty unless he were guilty. If not guilty, he would come before the public and explain the misunderstanding, if any, or simply deny the charges. To plead guilty in secret and then exclaim innocence in public strains credulity, and where politicians are concerned, it already doesn't take much to make my lie detector peg the needle.

Sphere: Related Content