Just Let Me -- G -- Indoctrinate You!

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Dear America,

how else can I piss you off today?

And right now, I wish a lot of you would just STFU -- no, scratch that, make that just one of you.

Yes,  I did.
Three days in a row.
Try to keep up as it is Hat Trick Wednesday -- featuring the same beat but to a different drum.  And today, we start with Ben, as in Ben Stein:


1.) If he is such a womanizer and violent guy with women, why didn't he ever get charged until now? If he has a long history of sexual abuse, how can it have remained no more than gossip this long? France is a nation of vicious political rivalries. Why didn't his opponents get him years ago?

Using the old, well he couldn't have done this because he has never been caught doing it before; it would be one thing if the guy had a history of such behavior -- but this one time thing out of the blue -- pulleezey sleezy. Interesting approach.

2.) In life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.
Taking the common man approach --  show me a typical economist (feel free to substitute with doctor, accountant, priest, or countryman) and I'll show you an innocent man; like, "economists" don't commit rape!  ahhh seriously, Ben?

3.) The prosecutors say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn "forced" the complainant to have oral and other sex with him. How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He's a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it's anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?

Ben, really, shut up.  Because HE was unarmed?  Just a short fat old man? And you seem to have left out "naked" by the way.  What?  So she didn't say "no" loud and clear enough?   Was it in Spanish perhaps?  No means no all over the world, doncha know; as it is a universal language easily recognized and understood.

4.) Did the prosecutors really convince a judge that he was a flight risk when he was getting on a flight he had booked long beforehand? What kind of high-pressure escape plan is that? How is it a sudden flight move to get on a flight booked maybe months ago?

Okay, so because his secretary booked the flight in advance -- oh, looky there, lucky for me I am leaving the country in a matter of hours -- perhaps I could squeeze in a little bad behavior before I go?  Hmmm now what to do, what to do...  But even if the alleged crime wasn't pre-meditated, but just the spontaneous combustion upon the immediate reaction of a woman walking into his room -- somehow, applying Ben's logic, the flight risk argument evaporates into thin air because he was planning on it?  The guy is wealthy, has lots of friends, and one of them is bound to have a personal jet just hanging around -- if there was ever a guy with a flight risk...he foots the bill.

5.) Mr. Strauss-Kahn had surrendered his passport. He had offered to stay in New York City. He is one of the most recognizable people on the planet. Did he really have to be put in Riker's Island? Couldn't he have been given home detention with a guard? This is a man with a lifetime of public service, on a distinguished level, to put it mildly. Was Riker's Island really the place to put him on the allegations of one human being? Hadn't he earned slightly better treatment than that? Any why compare him with a certain pedophile from France long ago? That man had confessed to his crime. Mr. Strauss-Kahn has not confessed to anything.

  ...love the part  "based on allegations of one human being."  Guessing before he's done we should be lucky Stein is actually referring to her as human.  Discrediting the victim coming right up...

6.) People accuse other people of crimes all of the time. What do we know about the complainant besides that she is a hotel maid? I love and admire hotel maids. They have incredibly hard jobs and they do them uncomplainingly. I am sure she is a fine woman. On the other hand, I have had hotel maids that were complete lunatics, stealing airline tickets from me, stealing money from me, throwing away important papers, stealing medications from me. How do we know that this woman's word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail? Putting a man in Riker's is serious business. Maybe more than a few minutes of investigation is merited before it's done.

"love and admire hotel maids" to "on the other hand...complete lunatics, stealing...stealing...and more stealing..."

7.) In this country, we have the presumption of innocence for the accused. Yet there's my old pal from the Ron Ziegler/ Richard Nixon days, Diane Sawyer, anchor of the ABC Nightly News, assuming that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty. Right off the bat she leads the Monday news by saying that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is in Riker's... "because one woman stood her ground..." That assumes she's telling the truth and he's guilty. No such thing has been proved and it's unfortunate for ABC to simply assume that an accusation is the same as a conviction. Maybe he's in jail because one person didn't tell the truth. I don't know one way or the other, but I sure know that there has been no conviction yet.

presumption of innocence -- unless you happen to be this hotel maid.  I mean, "I don't know one way or the other" -- so why, then, is your mouth moving?

 8.) In what possible way is the price of the hotel room relevant except in every way: this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that's what it's all about. A man pays $3,000 a night for a hotel room? He's got to be guilty of something. Bring out the guillotine.

Exactly -- because he IS a man with means (funny, just like you Ben); men with means have been known to weasel out of all kinds of things -- pay people off, escape a country, send in the big guns, orchestrate a coup.  It happens every day; it is may be a minor detail to you, Ben, but to the rest of us it is duly noted and considered as just part of the character building of a man I am guessing nobody really knows -- unless you are Strauss-Kahn.

Just before parting the blogosphere you add: "But, so far, he's innocent, and he's being treated shamefully."

Shamefully?  Earth to Ben, the guy is just being booked and jailed on suspicion of raping a woman just like every other low life in New York City.  Kudos to the police chief and the entire band of civil servants looking out for those of us of questionable means,  protecting the common, ordinary people -- like the maid, for one.

Making eight unbelievable declarations -- making oh so certain that the good old boy bias is alive and well -- for a man he admits he does not even know.  That is simply astounding. Now, on many things money related, I think Ben is swell; but if I may give up my last two cents -- cause that's about all I got -- it might behoove you, BennyBoy, to shut your mouth now.  and I will do the same.

white, straight, republican, male  -- and this one not very bright today -- what a big fat disappointment and a disgrace.

Make it a Good Day, G

No comments:

Post a Comment