Duke Non-Rape: The Fall-Out Continues--UPDATED

It's over. Kinda.

Nifong is sweating now. Which is good. Professors feel harrassed and protest perceived persecution. Which is ironic. More developments daily over at KC Johnson's place.

I predicted willful ignorance and continued blatantly false assertions against the Duke players because Leftists Are Never Wrong--Especially If They're In The Press. John Feinstein proves the point I made in the wake of the AG's announcement:

My point wasn't to get side-tracked by some predictably incoherent rant by a member of the academy. My point was to demonstrate that the Ms. Potters of the world will continue to malign three guys who are wholly innocent of crimes. Even exoneration won't stop them. The real criminals turn out to be the accuser and Mike Nifong, but the soundbite will be "Duke Rape", "Duke Lacrosse".

Is there a penalty powerful enough to expunge this episode from the public's mind? No. The only possibility for justice is that those involved in this shameful prosecution pay and pay dearly as a deterrent to other would-be innocence assasains. Guys like Feinstein, the Duke professors and others still attached to their own rightness will fire again unless they feel some personal legal pain. It won't change their warped beliefs but at least it might change their behavior.

UPDATE: Speaking of warped beliefs, I just read this FrontPage article pointing out the actual statistics of white on black rape. What are the chances that a black woman must fear for her personal safety in the company of a white man? She's pretty safe--like she has nearly a zero chance of being raped. How about a white woman?

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.

And how does the press portray this very real problem?

Meanwhile, in the real America, week after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by black men—though, of course, without ever once using the words, "a white woman was raped by black man." Just last week in the New York Post there was a story about a serial black rapist who invaded women's apartments on Manhattan's Upper West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks occurred. But even when news media's reports of black on white rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention of the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists. In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist. [emphasis added, -ed.]

I'll admit it. I wince a little when another news story shows another black man doing another crime. It gives the impression that all black men are dangerous and that's not true. The real truth is that far too many black men are dangerous--mostly to their own racial community but to society at large, too. See this:

In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white.

Blacks account for less than 15% of the population, but over 30% of raped women are black. And they are raped by black men. A very small segment of the population (when you consider that most blacks are law abiding citizens) is doing a tremendous amount of damage. And this problem does need to be addressed. Freud said that once the patient named the problem, they were cured. I'm not that optimistic, but naming the problem would be a good start.

UPDATE AGAIN: The statistical analysis used for this article turns out to be faulty. I am no statistician myself, but do know that statistics can be manipulated to prove almost any point of view. A closer approximation to the truth is that there is a greater proportional likelihood that a white woman will be attacked by a black man than a black woman will be attacked by a white man. A black woman's chances of being attacked by a white man are not zero.

In addition, the man, Lawrence Auster, doing the statistical analysis is viewed by some as a racist. Read this post of his to understand why. But even the man criticizing him at Undercover Black Man notes this:

I like to read Larry Auster’s blog because he is undeniably intelligent, he has the courage of his convictions, and he posts like Lou Gehrig and Cal Ripken put together. The man lives to spread his opinions on the Internet. I have no idea how he makes a living.

Yes, Auster is definitely on the far, far fringes of right-wing thought, but I have a soft spot for fringe-dwellers of all sorts. I even donated money when he passed the hat on his blog to raise completion funds for his next anti-immigration tract. I agree with him on almost nothing, but I’m interested in the quality of his thinking on subjects that mainstream essayists tend to avoid altogether… particularly his critiques of Islam, feminism and gay rights.

So Undercover Black Man believes in freedom of speech, as do I, and in the power of more communication to solve a problem. Well, I don't like statistical manipulation at all. Numbers should be used accurately, otherwise the whole argument is undermined. And even after reading a different statistical analysis, the numbers are alarming.

We have a societal problem that is not going away. I watched Chris Rock being interviewed and he was talking about how special and lucky he felt, and he felt this way from a young age, because he had a father, but he refused to go the next step and state the obvious: that all children deserve to have a father in their lives. To say this would be more politically incorrect than to use the word that I absolutely abhor: the N-word. And yet, what is the cause of the pervasive self-loathing where a person would even refer to himself this way? Fatherlessness means being rudderless in this world. Words have meaning. But derogetory words are reinforced by negative actions.

The criminal cancer that has spread through the fatherless black community cannot be ignored. It is disheartening to read black writers who focus on conflated statistics rather than the truth underneath. And the truth is that another generation of people is being destroyed. The message that race is keeping them down, further oppresses them--the villian is without and what control does one have over those external villians? There will always be racism. There will always be adversity. Life can be complete hell sometimes--my own life is evidence of that. Focusing externally just creates even more hopelessness among the victims.

What can be done? Well, just like so many problems, hearts and minds must change. The government has been wholly ineffective in helping overcome this problem. Turning to God and the individual is the only choice. Living a moral life--no premarital sex, no adultery, no stealing, etc. goes a long way to living an economically stable life. It's a healthier life. Loving God and your fellow man imbues life with purpose. It's a spirit-filled life. It's a meaningful life.

God, love, is the answer. Simple, not easy.