This coming Friday a new movie will be released that focuses on the events of 9/11. More specifically, the movie focuses on United Airlines Flight 93, which was brought down by passengers that heroically fought to regain control of the hijacked plane. Since the movie’s trailer was released a few weeks back, there has been controversy over whether the movie has been made too soon after the tragic events of that day.
Believe it or not, each family that lost a loved one in that plane signed off on its making and they stand behind the directors, producers and studio for making the film. Also, 10% of the grosses made from the films first 3 day box office campaign will go to The Flight 93 National Memorial.
As I’m sure you are aware, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. All evidence uncovered indicates that the hijacked plane was to be flown into the Capitol building in Washington DC on the same morning that 3 other flights brought down the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center and crashed into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the plane was crashed by the hijackers after the 40 passengers onboard revolted.
The National Memorial for the Flight will be erected, and is slated to cover hundreds of acres of land; however, one Congressman is adamantly against the size of it. He is afraid that the total cost of the memorial will be shouldered by the government (the families of the victims pledged to raise 50% of the money necessary to erect it, but are far from that goal to date). So red tape and bureaucracy still seem to rule, even when the situation is of this magnitude and importance.
Back to the issue at hand…
…why make a movie about this tragedy now?
In my opinion, the writers/producers/directors of this movie are exploiting the tragedy for monetary gain. I could be totally wrong, and they could be making this movie for pristine purposes, but I highly doubt it, and here’s why:
If the makers of the film meant to only portray the events of the day, and to only cause us to “never forget” the lives lost, then why not give ALL of the profits of the movie to The Flight 93 National Memorial? Though the 10% is a kind gesture, it is but a pittance if your intentions are truly magnanimous. And at that, the studio (Universal) is only giving 10% of its first 3 day weekend grosses to the Memorial.
How cheap?!!!
If you understand how movies work, the 1st weekend buzz will often generate more and more people to come out and see the movie in the coming weeks. Therefore the theatre is only giving a small portion of cash to the Memorial in comparison to what they could be giving if the 10% were given throughout the movie’s theatre run.
As for the families of the victims, the sentiment that I keep hearing them echo is that everyone needs to remember. My response to such a sentiment is “has anyone forgotten?” Seriously, anyone in their mid-teens, I’m sure, vividly remembers the events of that day. In order for people to remember they would’ve had to have forgotten, and trust me September 11th doesn’t only live with the victims’ families everyday, it lives with all of us everyday.
Speaking as someone that has lost many loved ones, I know that the concept of “remembering” is very important. But the simple fact is that no one has forgotten the sacrifices made on that day (although I must admit that the Trade Centers get much more attention than the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and Flight 93).
That brings me to my major point, which is simply that there is no reason for this movie to be made right now. If, as the families say, we need to remember, then certainly the movie could’ve been postponed for another 10 or 15 years. No one I know has forgotten the events of 9/11. And if the goal of the Studio isn’t money driven, then give ALL of the profits to the Memorial.
In 10 or 15 years this movie would actually make much more sense, given the reasoning of the family. It could serve as an educational tool as well as a moment to recall the sacrifices made on that day. It could act in the same way that Malcolm X and Titanic did in the mid-nineties; give people a chance to see and understand a part of history that they didn’t have the chance to witness for themselves; spur interests in the events of that day.
Doing it now, in my opinion, only amplifies and conjures up not-so-old wounds that haven’t healed for many of the other families who directly lost people on that day, not to mention the American public. 2,300 other families lost loved ones on the morning of September 11th, and millions of American citizens were terribly (emotionally, socially, some physically) wounded by 9/11, not just the 40 families directly affected by Flight 93’s crash.
Will the movie do well at the box office? I think so. Will I go see the movie? Probably. Do the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 need and deserve to be remembered? Absolutely! Is this film too much too soon? Without a doubt!
-Maelstrom
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Debra Lafave
So my anger has been smoldering for a couple of weeks now, and I can’t let it go. Please allow me the opportunity to diffuse my utter frustration with the criminal justice system in this country with respect to a particular topic.
A couple weeks back a confessed child rapist got off the hook. This time, in my opinion, it isn’t because of their race (the perpetrator is white), or status (they worked as a school teacher), or because of their looks (although some say the criminal is extremely pretty). The reason the assailant got off the hook is because the rapist is a woman.
Before I get going with this post I’d like to make it absolutely clear that I understand women are societal targets and men are the agents. I am keenly aware of the fact that men are the recipients of privilege in society and not nearly enough men have been punished for the evil sexual abuse that they have perpetrated against women worldwide.
That being said, women sometimes get away with committing the same wicked acts as their male counterparts, and enjoy much kinder judicial treatment, and that’s not right!
Back to the case at hand.
A married, 24-year-old female school teacher from Florida plead guilty to having sex with her 14-year-old male student. The teacher, Debra Lafave, began a relationship with the boy in 2004, and had several sexual encounters with boy soon after they met. One instance included her having sex with the boy while his 15-year-old cousin drove them around in her vehicle. The case actually never went to trial, and Lafave got 3 years house arrest and seven years of probation as part of a plea deal.
Can you believe that? Have you EVER heard of a man in a similar situation getting the same kind of treatment?
So as I listened to every argument about this case, and heard about several other similar cases, many things heavily troubled me. So let me just lay it out for you real plain: If you are an adult and you’re having sex with a minor without parental permission through marriage (as is legal in many States), then you are a Sex Offender and you need to go to jail. Furthermore, if you are a 24-year-old, married, schoolteacher (as was Debra Lafave), and you’re having sex with your 14-year-old student (like Lafave did), then you are a Sexual Predator.
I cannot believe that this lady got off the hook at all. What she has done violates the law, morality, her marriage, common sense. I am outraged.
BUT, I heard people making sympathetic statements that would seem to justify such behavior, largely because it was a boy who was being violated by an older woman and not a girl being violated by an older man.
The following several sentiments expressed in cases where these female teachers sexually assault their male students seriously bother me:
• These women are not sexual predators like men who do the same thing
• The female (ADULT!!!) teacher is seduced by these boys
• 14-17 year old boys look like men, and so it’s not like they (the women) are having sex with a little boy
• Young boys want to have sex with their older, often “hot,” teacher
• Boys are touted as heroes by their male peers when they have sex with an adult female
• It wasn’t rape, there was a real love and passion between the two of them
There is a problem with all of these assertions, and they simply derive from the societal notion that a boy CANNOT be raped or sexually violated by a woman once he reaches adolescence. A concept that is totally false and wrong if for no other reason than the fact that EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS UNIQUE and feels differently about any number of things; including sex.
What frustrates me (almost more than the fact that these women often get off the hook) is that people in the media and apparently in the Courthouse allow arguments like the ones I listed above to fly without challenging their inherent flaws. Everytime I hear these arguments being made on the news, without opposition, I just wanna jump through the TV screen and yell at the top of my lungs YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.
But since that never works (I’ve tried), I’ll use this site to annihilate all such arguments and leave no doubt in the minds of the reading audience that when a female teacher has sex with one of her male students under the age of 18, they should lose their job and also serve jail time just like any man engaged in the same sickening activity.
A predator, according to Webster.com, is one that preys, destroys or devours. Societally, we call anyone a sexual predator as long as they prey on children; whether that’s a first time offense, or the seventh. BUT, that only seems to apply if the perpetrator is a male. When it’s a woman, we shy away from calling the destroyer a predator. I even hear people say about women like Lafave “I don’t think she’s a predator.” But if a predator is truly one that destroys, as the definition points out, then I think she certainly falls in that category. Do you think the boy that she sexually violated can live out a normal childhood or even adulthood? I doubt it; childhood destroyed.
The female teacher is the Adult, and the student is the Child. There’s NO WAY THE BOY CHILD SEDUCED THE TEACHER. Any crushes that the boys in her class have on her can easily be squelched by the ADULT teacher not indulging the boys in their fantasies. For a sexual relationship to occur means that the female teacher was seeking a relationship with the boy, further validating my point that the female teacher is a sexual predator. Predators have to seek out and hunt for something, just like Lafave did with her male student.
Of all the things I’ve heard on this topic, the concept that “these boys look or carry themselves like men” is the silliest. Is that supposed to be a legitimate defense? If that argument works for women (which it absolutely SHOULD NOT), then shouldn’t it also work for men. Let me remind you that women develop years earlier than most boys their age. I personally know 12-year-old girls who are far more physically voluptuous than some of my 25 and 30-year-old friends. To let you know just how developed some of them are, a 12-year-old classmate of mine (who was quite shapely and physically developed) got pregnant and had a baby when we were only in 7th grade. Point being, if the physical allure of these boys is so adult that it can be confusing to the female teacher (who has a class list and sees the children in her class everyday and knows that the boys are in fact boys), then male teachers who have sex with their 14-17 year old female students should be allowed the same excuse. Of course I think that the teachers are at fault here, be they male or female.
Boys often have just as many insecurities about their sexuality as girls do. So the concept that young boys want to have sex with their attractive adult teacher is also silly. Some of them might, but I’d bet my next 37 paychecks that many of them also do not.
That being said, the idea that boys who have sex with their teacher are celebrated by their peers as heroes isn’t necessarily true either. As easy as it would be for one’s peers to celebrate their sexual involvement with a teacher, the likelihood of one’s peers teasing them about it also exists. I could see that reputation and stigma following a boy all the way through the remainder of his grade school education.
AND WHO CARES IF HIS PEERS CHEER HIM! That doesn’t change the fact that the teacher had no business, as an adult, engaging her student in a sexual relationship.
Finally, the concept of “Love” between the teacher and student is never an argument made when a 25-year-old man has sex with his adolescent female student; even though it is equally as likely to be the case. No matter though, because an adult knows that they are an adult, and they know that it is illegal and criminal to have sex with an underage child.
Now, I must be clear and point out that I think that the sexual brutality is different when a man forcibly rapes a girl. However, there are many instances where the male adult uses his influence to exploit a young student, and has sex with his female student (at which time he may argue that it was consensual). It is instances like the latter that I believe are identical to Lafave’s case. And no matter if it’s sexually brutal, or influentially consensual, a man RARELY gets a break (and I don’t think he should, I’m just making the point). Women, however OFTEN do get a break and also should not.
Let me clarify. Men almost always get a minimum of 3 years jail time for cases like these. Women almost never get more than 2 years of jail time and often only receive probation. That’s not right. These women ARE sexual traitors and exploiters of their young male victims. These women need to serve legitimate jail sentences like their sick male-counterparts. These women do (although I haven’t made the case for this point here) cause their boy victims emotional damage and societal ridicule that follows them for years if not forever.
Call a spade a spade, and treat an animal like an animal. Women teachers that engage in sexual relationships with their boy students are sexual predators and need to be put behind bars.
-Maelstrom
PS: If you think the Lafave case is rare, just look into several other cases that have come to the attention of the media (e.g. Pamela Rogers-Turner, Mary Kay Letourneau…go ahead, “google” their names and note how the criminal justice system has let them off the hook and how they re-offended the law). It is a more prolific problem than you think.
A couple weeks back a confessed child rapist got off the hook. This time, in my opinion, it isn’t because of their race (the perpetrator is white), or status (they worked as a school teacher), or because of their looks (although some say the criminal is extremely pretty). The reason the assailant got off the hook is because the rapist is a woman.
Before I get going with this post I’d like to make it absolutely clear that I understand women are societal targets and men are the agents. I am keenly aware of the fact that men are the recipients of privilege in society and not nearly enough men have been punished for the evil sexual abuse that they have perpetrated against women worldwide.
That being said, women sometimes get away with committing the same wicked acts as their male counterparts, and enjoy much kinder judicial treatment, and that’s not right!
Back to the case at hand.
A married, 24-year-old female school teacher from Florida plead guilty to having sex with her 14-year-old male student. The teacher, Debra Lafave, began a relationship with the boy in 2004, and had several sexual encounters with boy soon after they met. One instance included her having sex with the boy while his 15-year-old cousin drove them around in her vehicle. The case actually never went to trial, and Lafave got 3 years house arrest and seven years of probation as part of a plea deal.
Can you believe that? Have you EVER heard of a man in a similar situation getting the same kind of treatment?
So as I listened to every argument about this case, and heard about several other similar cases, many things heavily troubled me. So let me just lay it out for you real plain: If you are an adult and you’re having sex with a minor without parental permission through marriage (as is legal in many States), then you are a Sex Offender and you need to go to jail. Furthermore, if you are a 24-year-old, married, schoolteacher (as was Debra Lafave), and you’re having sex with your 14-year-old student (like Lafave did), then you are a Sexual Predator.
I cannot believe that this lady got off the hook at all. What she has done violates the law, morality, her marriage, common sense. I am outraged.
BUT, I heard people making sympathetic statements that would seem to justify such behavior, largely because it was a boy who was being violated by an older woman and not a girl being violated by an older man.
The following several sentiments expressed in cases where these female teachers sexually assault their male students seriously bother me:
• These women are not sexual predators like men who do the same thing
• The female (ADULT!!!) teacher is seduced by these boys
• 14-17 year old boys look like men, and so it’s not like they (the women) are having sex with a little boy
• Young boys want to have sex with their older, often “hot,” teacher
• Boys are touted as heroes by their male peers when they have sex with an adult female
• It wasn’t rape, there was a real love and passion between the two of them
There is a problem with all of these assertions, and they simply derive from the societal notion that a boy CANNOT be raped or sexually violated by a woman once he reaches adolescence. A concept that is totally false and wrong if for no other reason than the fact that EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS UNIQUE and feels differently about any number of things; including sex.
What frustrates me (almost more than the fact that these women often get off the hook) is that people in the media and apparently in the Courthouse allow arguments like the ones I listed above to fly without challenging their inherent flaws. Everytime I hear these arguments being made on the news, without opposition, I just wanna jump through the TV screen and yell at the top of my lungs YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.
But since that never works (I’ve tried), I’ll use this site to annihilate all such arguments and leave no doubt in the minds of the reading audience that when a female teacher has sex with one of her male students under the age of 18, they should lose their job and also serve jail time just like any man engaged in the same sickening activity.
A predator, according to Webster.com, is one that preys, destroys or devours. Societally, we call anyone a sexual predator as long as they prey on children; whether that’s a first time offense, or the seventh. BUT, that only seems to apply if the perpetrator is a male. When it’s a woman, we shy away from calling the destroyer a predator. I even hear people say about women like Lafave “I don’t think she’s a predator.” But if a predator is truly one that destroys, as the definition points out, then I think she certainly falls in that category. Do you think the boy that she sexually violated can live out a normal childhood or even adulthood? I doubt it; childhood destroyed.
The female teacher is the Adult, and the student is the Child. There’s NO WAY THE BOY CHILD SEDUCED THE TEACHER. Any crushes that the boys in her class have on her can easily be squelched by the ADULT teacher not indulging the boys in their fantasies. For a sexual relationship to occur means that the female teacher was seeking a relationship with the boy, further validating my point that the female teacher is a sexual predator. Predators have to seek out and hunt for something, just like Lafave did with her male student.
Of all the things I’ve heard on this topic, the concept that “these boys look or carry themselves like men” is the silliest. Is that supposed to be a legitimate defense? If that argument works for women (which it absolutely SHOULD NOT), then shouldn’t it also work for men. Let me remind you that women develop years earlier than most boys their age. I personally know 12-year-old girls who are far more physically voluptuous than some of my 25 and 30-year-old friends. To let you know just how developed some of them are, a 12-year-old classmate of mine (who was quite shapely and physically developed) got pregnant and had a baby when we were only in 7th grade. Point being, if the physical allure of these boys is so adult that it can be confusing to the female teacher (who has a class list and sees the children in her class everyday and knows that the boys are in fact boys), then male teachers who have sex with their 14-17 year old female students should be allowed the same excuse. Of course I think that the teachers are at fault here, be they male or female.
Boys often have just as many insecurities about their sexuality as girls do. So the concept that young boys want to have sex with their attractive adult teacher is also silly. Some of them might, but I’d bet my next 37 paychecks that many of them also do not.
That being said, the idea that boys who have sex with their teacher are celebrated by their peers as heroes isn’t necessarily true either. As easy as it would be for one’s peers to celebrate their sexual involvement with a teacher, the likelihood of one’s peers teasing them about it also exists. I could see that reputation and stigma following a boy all the way through the remainder of his grade school education.
AND WHO CARES IF HIS PEERS CHEER HIM! That doesn’t change the fact that the teacher had no business, as an adult, engaging her student in a sexual relationship.
Finally, the concept of “Love” between the teacher and student is never an argument made when a 25-year-old man has sex with his adolescent female student; even though it is equally as likely to be the case. No matter though, because an adult knows that they are an adult, and they know that it is illegal and criminal to have sex with an underage child.
Now, I must be clear and point out that I think that the sexual brutality is different when a man forcibly rapes a girl. However, there are many instances where the male adult uses his influence to exploit a young student, and has sex with his female student (at which time he may argue that it was consensual). It is instances like the latter that I believe are identical to Lafave’s case. And no matter if it’s sexually brutal, or influentially consensual, a man RARELY gets a break (and I don’t think he should, I’m just making the point). Women, however OFTEN do get a break and also should not.
Let me clarify. Men almost always get a minimum of 3 years jail time for cases like these. Women almost never get more than 2 years of jail time and often only receive probation. That’s not right. These women ARE sexual traitors and exploiters of their young male victims. These women need to serve legitimate jail sentences like their sick male-counterparts. These women do (although I haven’t made the case for this point here) cause their boy victims emotional damage and societal ridicule that follows them for years if not forever.
Call a spade a spade, and treat an animal like an animal. Women teachers that engage in sexual relationships with their boy students are sexual predators and need to be put behind bars.
-Maelstrom
PS: If you think the Lafave case is rare, just look into several other cases that have come to the attention of the media (e.g. Pamela Rogers-Turner, Mary Kay Letourneau…go ahead, “google” their names and note how the criminal justice system has let them off the hook and how they re-offended the law). It is a more prolific problem than you think.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Duke's Lacrosse Team
At the behest of a former roommate, I will address the growing story surrounding alleged rape allegations against Duke University’s Lacrosse team. I’ll start by saying that it is way too early to really speculate about what happened; whether the allegations are false and frivolous, or whether the University could’ve done something different to prevent the incident if it turns out to be true. Be that as it may, I’ve been watching extensive coverage of the case over the last few days, and I (of course) have some opinions based on all I’ve seen and heard.
So here’s the skinny: A college student that works part-time as an exotic dancer (i.e. stripper) was performing at a house party that several Duke University Lacrosse players attended. Sometime during the night she claims to have been taken to a bathroom by a handful of the players and sexually assaulted there.
Tragic as this situation is, whether the allegations are true or false, what has really caught the attention of the media with this case is our good old friend, Race. After the incident came to light, the police obtained DNA from all but one player on the team. The one player that wasn’t tested was not tested because he is the only Black player on the team, and the victim said that her assailants were White. So, I won’t get into the allegations, but I will discuss some of the racial things I’ve heard since the story first broke.
If you’ve never been to the South of the USA, you might not know that there is yet much racial tension that exists in many areas. Durham, North Carolina is certainly one of those places. So much so that Duke University is sometimes referred to as “the Plantation.” Many affluent and opulent (largely White) college students feed their money into the private institution, which serves to bolster Duke’s image. Yet the city that houses Duke is home to many who cannot afford to attend Duke, but needs Duke in order to function. And of course, many of the Durham residents that cannot take advantage of the education that Duke has to offer are Black.
That causes problems…racial problems!
As an avid news junkie, I caught an argument made by MSNBC’s Dan Abrams (a lawyer that I have a great deal of respect for, and often agree with). Abrams was calling the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to task because there hasn’t been an outcry by the organization over the blanket DNA testing of the White Lacrosse Players.
The ACLU often raises a big stink about police departments and Courthouses that screen accused groups of people because such screenings are often only based on race, and the race of people screened is determined by the person who (sometimes falsely) made the accusation. Essentially, many innocent people are hassled by law enforcement officials because of their race and a false accusation.
Why does the ACLU care? Because the racial targets of such screenings have historically been minorities; primarily Black people.
Abrams point is that if the ACLU has a problem with blanket DNA testing based on race, then why don’t they cause a fuss over the Duke players being tested, minus the one Black player. Idealistically, I agree with him. Unfortunately we don’t live in an idealistic world, and the idealistic view ignores hundreds of years of history.
Anyone that watched Michael Moore’s (the leftist film director) movie Bowling for Columbine may remember that he did a section on America’s guilty group of people; Black men. He cited several examples in 1990’s America. I myself can immediately think of 2 examples where White women falsely made claims that Black men committed crimes against them.
One instance, from 1920’s Rosewood, Florida, led to the lynchings of dozens (some reports hundreds) of Black people in less than a week’s time because a White lady claimed she’d been raped by a Black man (to explain away bruises on her body) when she had really been cheating on her husband with another White man. The other instance that comes to mind was in the mid-1990’s when a white lady named Susan Smith drowned her children by strapping them into their seats in her car, and then driving the car into a lake. She falsely claimed that a Black man made her do it in a carjacking attempt. (A notion that I just laugh at because clearly she planned to kill her kids, and that’s the best alibi she could come up with. Unfortunately America believed her in the initial moments after she made the claim, until she confessed to killing them.)
These days I often don’t agree with the cases that the ACLU takes on. And in this instance I think Abrams has a good point. However, I don’t think he’s fully considered the breadth and depth of history that might afford the ACLU a pass because the tables have been turned (accused White assailants, Black victim).
To finish, I’d just like to point out that the Lacrosse team played 2 games after the allegations were made. The school President finally banned the team from playing anymore games while the investigation was ongoing, yet the team still held regular practices for weeks until yesterday. Yesterday the Lacrosse coach resigned and the team was suspended for the rest of the year; weeks after the sexual assault claims were made. And the DNA results haven’t been made public yet.
We’ll see how things pan out.
-Maelstrom
PS: here’s a website with an article about Susan Smith:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/06/smith.yates/
So here’s the skinny: A college student that works part-time as an exotic dancer (i.e. stripper) was performing at a house party that several Duke University Lacrosse players attended. Sometime during the night she claims to have been taken to a bathroom by a handful of the players and sexually assaulted there.
Tragic as this situation is, whether the allegations are true or false, what has really caught the attention of the media with this case is our good old friend, Race. After the incident came to light, the police obtained DNA from all but one player on the team. The one player that wasn’t tested was not tested because he is the only Black player on the team, and the victim said that her assailants were White. So, I won’t get into the allegations, but I will discuss some of the racial things I’ve heard since the story first broke.
If you’ve never been to the South of the USA, you might not know that there is yet much racial tension that exists in many areas. Durham, North Carolina is certainly one of those places. So much so that Duke University is sometimes referred to as “the Plantation.” Many affluent and opulent (largely White) college students feed their money into the private institution, which serves to bolster Duke’s image. Yet the city that houses Duke is home to many who cannot afford to attend Duke, but needs Duke in order to function. And of course, many of the Durham residents that cannot take advantage of the education that Duke has to offer are Black.
That causes problems…racial problems!
As an avid news junkie, I caught an argument made by MSNBC’s Dan Abrams (a lawyer that I have a great deal of respect for, and often agree with). Abrams was calling the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to task because there hasn’t been an outcry by the organization over the blanket DNA testing of the White Lacrosse Players.
The ACLU often raises a big stink about police departments and Courthouses that screen accused groups of people because such screenings are often only based on race, and the race of people screened is determined by the person who (sometimes falsely) made the accusation. Essentially, many innocent people are hassled by law enforcement officials because of their race and a false accusation.
Why does the ACLU care? Because the racial targets of such screenings have historically been minorities; primarily Black people.
Abrams point is that if the ACLU has a problem with blanket DNA testing based on race, then why don’t they cause a fuss over the Duke players being tested, minus the one Black player. Idealistically, I agree with him. Unfortunately we don’t live in an idealistic world, and the idealistic view ignores hundreds of years of history.
Anyone that watched Michael Moore’s (the leftist film director) movie Bowling for Columbine may remember that he did a section on America’s guilty group of people; Black men. He cited several examples in 1990’s America. I myself can immediately think of 2 examples where White women falsely made claims that Black men committed crimes against them.
One instance, from 1920’s Rosewood, Florida, led to the lynchings of dozens (some reports hundreds) of Black people in less than a week’s time because a White lady claimed she’d been raped by a Black man (to explain away bruises on her body) when she had really been cheating on her husband with another White man. The other instance that comes to mind was in the mid-1990’s when a white lady named Susan Smith drowned her children by strapping them into their seats in her car, and then driving the car into a lake. She falsely claimed that a Black man made her do it in a carjacking attempt. (A notion that I just laugh at because clearly she planned to kill her kids, and that’s the best alibi she could come up with. Unfortunately America believed her in the initial moments after she made the claim, until she confessed to killing them.)
These days I often don’t agree with the cases that the ACLU takes on. And in this instance I think Abrams has a good point. However, I don’t think he’s fully considered the breadth and depth of history that might afford the ACLU a pass because the tables have been turned (accused White assailants, Black victim).
To finish, I’d just like to point out that the Lacrosse team played 2 games after the allegations were made. The school President finally banned the team from playing anymore games while the investigation was ongoing, yet the team still held regular practices for weeks until yesterday. Yesterday the Lacrosse coach resigned and the team was suspended for the rest of the year; weeks after the sexual assault claims were made. And the DNA results haven’t been made public yet.
We’ll see how things pan out.
-Maelstrom
PS: here’s a website with an article about Susan Smith:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/06/smith.yates/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)