… especially considering they’ve got a few corruption scandals of their own going, as Brian at Iowa Voice points out.
Here’s the Washington Times piece, explaining their newfound reluctance to use the term as often as they used to.
The Raleigh News and Observer has the very latest:
In examining the files Nifong has produced in the case, The News & Observer found that the accuser gave at least five different versions of the alleged assault to different police and medical interviewers and made shaky identifications of suspects. To get warrants, police made statements that weren’t supported by information in their files.
The district attorney commented publicly about the strength of the medical evidence before he had seen it. He promised DNA evidence that has not materialized. He suggested that police conduct lineups in a way that conflicted with department policy.
The details are contained in the article itself. Make sure to read it all.
What’s becoming more and more evident, if what’s being reported is to be believed, is that there is no ‘case’ against any of the lacrosse players. Nifong has little to nothing to go on in the way of concrete evidence against any of the accused players, and the accuser in the case has zero credibility, thanks to her own varying stories on the alleged incident, as well as statements from others who contradict what she alleges happened.
This is frustrating on multiple levels, one of them being the needless waste of time, money, and manpower for local law enforcement and our judicial system in general. The other frustration level, much higher, has to do with the racial divisions this case has stirred up not just in North Carolina, but all over the country as well. It’s bad in and of itself to falsely accuse someone of rape, because if the accuser is exposed as a fraud, it casts the shadow of doubt on other more legitimate claims of rape happening. But when race is also at play in the false accusations, that makes it worse on a different level because it opens old wounds best left alone.
Remember Susan Smith, the South Carolina mother who drove to John D. Long Lake in South Carolina, put her car in drive, got out of it while leaving her kids strapped in the backseat, and watched it roll into the lake, where the kids drowned? Before she confesssed to what happened, she described the person who ‘carjacked’ her and ‘kidnapped’ her children as a shady looking black male. Once it was revealed that she confessed to the crime of murdering her children, of course there was outrage over it but the level of rage at her falsely accusing a black man who didn’t exist of the crime was almost the same as the rage directed towards her for killing her kids. Here she was, a Southern white woman, accusing a black man of a crime he didn’t commit.
Will we see a similar degree of outrage if it’s proven in a court of law that this racially-tinged case has no legs to stand on? I won’t hold my breath.
John Hawkins posts the details on who selected bloggers who were polled this weekend (including yours truly) picked as their favorites.
Want a little hint as to who my top choice was? Check the quote I have at the top of this page
… you get excited about pre-season games.
The Raiders beat the Eagles last night 16-10. It wasn’t one of the most well-played games ever, that’s for sure, but hey – it was football
The Panthers first pre-season game will be Saturday here vs. Buffalo. Game time is 7:30.
More: Speaking of sports, lady readers of this blog should enjoy this link to Fox Sports’ Top 10 pretty boys list – I will say that I’m highly disappointed, though, that they didn’t include pix of each one. Oh, and how the heck did Tom Brady only make it to the ten slot? Should have been ranked at least in the top five, IMO …
One guy I would have added to the list, even though there’s no way he could have been considered ‘pretty’ or ‘metrosexual’ enough to be on it: Denver QB Jake Plummer – with the beard and mustache, of course. This is a good shot of him, but the beard needs to be trimmed up a bit.
Malkin’s all over this developing story, and YNet News has details and photos, and points to another possible photo manipulation, this time by using two different photos of what appears to be the same timeframe in Beirut and describing them both as being from different timeframes and thus supposedly two ‘different’ Israeli attacks.
As Drudge would say, developing ….
(Hat tip: LGF)
The Waterbury Connecticut Republican American paper nails it, and points out the media’s role in shaping Joe Lieberman’s moderacy in 2000 as a good thing, while now it’s a bad thing:
In his first 17 years in Congress, Sen. Lieberman benefited from constant kneepad journalism. Reporters covered his “Cup of Joe” gatherings as if they weren’t publicity stunts. In crises, they sought him out because he was, in their view, one of a select few on Capitol Hill with faith and wisdom. They exalted him for his principled excoriation of Bill Clinton’s adultery. Journalists portrayed him as the voice of moderation when he joined Al Gore atop the national ticket in 2000.
This calculated media campaign was meant to portray Joe Lieberman as a Democratic horse, a proposition irrefutably supported by his voting record and party loyalty. But then a one-trick pony from the loony-left stable rode into town, and instantly, Joe Lieberman was transformed into a traitorous, warmongering Bush administration sophist.
Suddenly, the media were bashing him for “personal attacks” against Ned Lamont. His statements and positions got the sort of scrutiny and skepticism usually reserved for conservative Republicans while Mr. Lamont was given rhetorical free rein. National journalists parachuted in to give Sen. Lieberman a good bashing and place Mr. Lamont on the pedestal once occupied by Good Ol’ Joe. And while some of the senator’s political pals were denying him their support, America’s loopiest lefties were bankrolling Negative Ned’s campaign.
All because Sen. Lieberman believes America must win the Iraq war, a position that predates the senatorial race by three years. He realizes if America doesn’t fight the war against terrorism on Islamic turf, the terrorists will fight it on ours. For this principled position — his lone major variance from the left-wing agenda — his party’s most radical elements would toss him to the curb in favor of a millionaire trying to do what Democrats used to abhor: buy his way into Congress.