Proud Moment for Lawyers Everywhere

Sometimes I think that if Drudgebart.tv.com disappeared, I would have no idea what was going on in the outside world. Even though Fark is a much better site (and the source of a lot of Drudgebart's fourth-hand crap), I have developed a reflexive habit of checking Drudgebart as soon as I turn on my PC. It could be worse. I could be reading Instapundit, which is like admitting you're too stupid to choose your own blogs or operate Bloglines. It amazes me that anyone reads that site. If you go to LGF, you get information on the Middle East, plus a hearty dose of comforting racism from the commenters. If you go to Malkin's site, you get very interesting information about sensational stories, plus a little borderline hysteria. But if you go to Instapundit, you get boring links reflecting the boring personality of the person who chose them, plus desperate links intended to prop up Pajamas Media. And my God, those horrible photos. It's the photographic equivalent of nihilism.

There's a Walter Sobchak joke in there somewhere.

Am I wrong, or is The Big Lebowski one long, drawn-out Polish joke?

You can read Instapundit all year, never see an original or interesting thought, never laugh, and never learn anything about the man's feelings. It's like reading the instructions for a toaster. "TOM MAGUIRE SAYS to use the left slot when toasting only one slice of bread. More here." I still have no idea who Tom Maguire is. I don't know if he still gets links. I can't remember the last time I read Instapundit without being prompted by somebody else.

LGF makes me reflect on my own blogging. I criticize mainstream Islam a lot, and I have referred to it as a cult, which is fair, because Islam's treatment of unbelievers and transgressing Muslims is brutal and primitive. But I don't want to be lumped in with the nuts who joke about vaporizing the Gaza Strip or exterminating all Muslims. I would be satisfied if Muslims would just accept the existence of unbelievers, lay off the dhimmi and jihad nonsense, and ease off on things like slavery, wife-beating, and needless cruelty, which are endemic to much of the Muslim world. As I understand it, a lot of the things Muslims do to cause trouble aren't mandated by their religion; they haven't always done everything they do now, and they have a choice, within the framework of Islam. If that's true--even if it's not--they have no excuse for not making themselves more tolerant and humane. Regardless of what your religion tells you, it's futile to try to control the actions of billions of armed people in far-off countries, and it can only lead to bloodshed. So far most of the blood shed has come from Muslims, and that will continue to be the case, even if they manage to use nuclear weapons. What's the point? Better to say, "Sorry, Allah, we just couldn't convert everybody." Does any man really need 72 virgins? I'd be amazed if I landed ONE.

Imagine how different the world would be, if Muslims would accept the existence of Israel and abandon religious violence. They'd get more of the American tit and less of the fist. We'd probably give them better treatment than Israel. And let's be really honest. We'd let them keep beating women and stoning rape victims and carving up shoplifters and enslaving children. Because we are mainly interested in their bad behavior as it applies to the rest of us. We let Hussein kill hundreds of thousands of people before we went in, slaughtered his sons, and let his enemies hang him. We'd take the same attitude in the future, just as we do in Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, China, and similar places, as long as we expected to be left alone.

Kuwait was an exception; we were obligated by alliances, and there was an immediate threat to world peace and prosperity. And when it was over, we left that idiot Hussein in power, figuring we had no obligation to save his own people from him.

Anyway, yesterday while reading Drudgebart, I found the story about Mike Nifong's bankruptcy. He lists $300,000 in assets and $180,000,000 in liabilities, because he's being sued by so many people. I actually felt sorry for him. And that's ridiculous. Sure, he has no job, he has no profession, he's a laughingstock all over the US, and he may live in poverty for the rest of his life. But think what he was willing inflict on his victims. What he DID inflict on them is a horror in and of itself, but what if he had succeeded? Three young men, jailed for years, surrounded by violent criminals they couldn't hope to deal with. Barring "country club" prisons or solitary confinement, which is inhumane even when applied as a protective measure, they would have been beaten and raped over and over, especially by black inmates trying to "get even."

I had no business feeling sorry for Mike Nifong. He's a rotten, evil bastard. He knew exactly what he was doing, he had legal, moral, and professional obligations to protect the defendants, he refused to make things right even after his dishonesty was exposed, and what he's getting doesn't begin to compare with the unjust suffering he was working hard to inflict. I only wish the accuser could suffer as much. She should have to do the time her victims could have ended up doing.

People are surprised when I say I no longer support the death penalty. Here is my explanation: Mike Nifong.

Look at what he did, and then tell me you're positive every inmate on death row is guilty. How many Nifongs have succeeded where this one failed? Now that we have the ability to replicate and analyze DNA, we have disturbing evidence that the number may be very high.

I keep thinking about The Count of Monte Cristo, and how bad I felt for Edmond Dantes.