Sorry I've Been Quiet

I just wanted to take in all the Red Lady had to say. Yes, what happened to the members of the Duke Lacrosse team was a travesty of justice. But things like that happen every day. Recently in Atlanta we had a man released from prison after serving 23 years, having been unjustly convicted. Sorry it had to happen, but I think these guys have enough sense and guidence to get over it and make something of themselves.

As for the woman who brought these charges having to repay tax payers money, I really don't even want to go there in light of the legacy of 'special prosecutors' during the Clinton administration. If everyone who defrauded the tax payers was forced to pay them back, life would be a better place. But that doesn't happen.

Both of these incidents happened because of money. The prosecutor, Nifong, was trying to get re-elected in a majority black area. He was doing his best to prove to his constituents that he was on their side. The accursor was (maybe, we really don't know what happened, except there was no penetration) trying to make some money. What is the easiest way to make money in this society? Litigate.

Now I want to make a comment on ' a deep-seeded resentment/envy/hatred of a particular group' (see Thursday, April 12). The Red Lady will comment that my reference to the special prosecutors in the above paragraph is an example of that. But the idea that I'm trying to convey is what is good in one instance should be applied to all instances. This woman defrauded the tax payers with accusing people of wrong doings things that didn't happen. How is that different from Ken Starr accusing the Clinton's of wrong-doings in the WhiteWater case, the TravelGate case, et. al. No wrong doing was proven, and how much taxpayer money was wasted? And this wasn't even about money!

So the point I'm trying to make is if you make a statement, then the same should apply to all instances of that thought, even if you don't agree with the accusor or accusee. Now we know that life isn't that black and white, that there are shades of grey and everything is open to discussion, or at least should be. One example is the concept of pro-life (or Choice) If I'm pro-choice (which I am), by definition I should let everyone choose what to do, then, by extension, I should be pro-gun, (but I believe in stringent gun control). On the opposite side, pro-life, which by term is pretty self-explanatory, should also be anti-gun, because guns can cause death (come on, hunters kill animals, don't they??). Now, having said that, most pro-lifer supporters are also pro-gun on the grounds of Constitutional freedom. But abortion is a legal procedure, so what's the issue?

OK, OK, this may be convoluted Boolean logic, but this is the kind of arguement that I enjoy. Let's both keep open minds and discuss.