Racism still rules at the National Review. Today at the Corner, Stanley Kurtz approvingly quotes a review from the Economist of Until Proven Innocent., commenting on the Duke rape case -
"Duke's politically-correct faculty... produced a mirror image of the worst racism of the South in the 1950s..."
To be fair, the entire sentence as written concluded "..when people were pronounced guilty - and denied their legal rights - solely because they were black."
Kurtz would seem to unaware that none of the Duke kids was lynched. In fact, all three are alive and well. The time period between their indictment and the declaration of their innocence was less than one year. The white boys were denied no legal rights. The rogue prosecutor was white, as well as the first in the history of the state of North Carolina to be disbarred. Not a single prosecutor who falsely indicted a black man for a crime has ever faced any sort of punishment.
In the Duke case the prosecutor, and the overzealous cop were of the same race as those unfairly accused. Unlike a jury of the '50's, this one was multi-racial.
While the three may well have been innocent of the crimes of which they were accused, the fact is that some white members of the lacrosse team did illegally drink and illegally hire a really troubled young black woman to come to their house and at the least strip. When she answered that she had not brought sex toys to aid in her performance, they suggested that she use a broomstick. The woman, who right wing pundits have been so fond as denigrating as a hooker, had a history of mental illness and drug problems. They called her a nigger, and insultingly 'thanked' her grandfather for being a slave who picked the cotton for their shirts. This is not an innocent group of boys.
One of three boys transferred to Brown University, and after the brief interruption, the other two have also moved on with their lives. They have all received a financial settlement from Duke. They are currently suing the city of Durham for $30 million.
Kurtz consistently distorts facts on race in order to appeal to NASCAR Dads - guys who he says possess "'inviduous' racial attitudes." Despite historical truth, in his twisted telling, they have such attitudes because of liberal support for affirmative action.
He seems to think that their racism will make them vote Republican. It seems unbelievable to me that these NASCAR Dads would vote for a guy who doesn't drive, a dad whose kids don't speak to him, let alone support him, and a dad who is married to a mom whose daughter has gone to court to have that mom removed as her custodian - namely the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani. But if there really are a bunch of dads out there like that, I'm not disappointed if the Democratic party does not appeal to them.
h/t memeorandum
Comments