Monday, April 24: Comments closed on this post. A defense lawyer wants to see the evidence. Read and discuss the latest news.

Update (4/23): Read Newsweek’s latest story about this case. It’s long and detailed enough to cover almost everything we know so far.

The emerging images pop right out at you: two strippers start dancing, the players get rowdy, the strippers get angry and start to leave, the players get angry and call them names as they head out, one of the strippers returns the taunts, the drunk accuser-stripper goes back in to retrieve her shoe (but may not have found it), second stripper is angry at the players and the drunk stripper, calls 911 to report name-calling, has someone else call 911 to report drunk woman in her car, cop arrives and sees drunk woman passed out, drunk woman is taken to a “substance abuse” center, realizes she may be in big trouble because of her past drunken criminal behavior (leading police on a car chase and trying to run down an officer), claims rape, is sent to hospital where exam reveals injuries “consistent” with rape, points the finger at three men at the party, media and black “leaders” go crazy and play up race angle, DA – in a fight for political survival – takes the race bait and vilifies 46 men, some of whom weren’t at the party, tests all but the black player, and despite no evidence charges two men with rape.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

And this is highly unlikely to have happened: “She [the stripper] identified Reade Seligmann, 20, with 100-percent certainty as the man who forced her to perform oral sex on him.”

Yet no DNA connected Seligmann or Finnerty to the accuser; no DNA under her nails from trying to fight them off. No connection also means their DNA wasn’t found on her, either. Don’t mean to be graphic, but if someone had forced me to…let’s just say the lab techs would have a sufficent sample of blood evidence to work with.

Also see this must-read comment.
—————————————————————————————————————————

Update (5:05 p.m.): This case is burning up the search engines, too. In the last hour, I’ve had over 800 unique visitors looking for information about this case. To give you some perspective, an “Insta-lanche” may generate about 500 visits per hour, depending on the time of day and how Glenn describes the post.

By the way, the wonderful e-mail I’m getting greatly outweighs the troll droppings and hate e-mail. Thank you.
—————————————————————————————————————————

First-time visitors: Please read the entire post before you comment. There’s a special message for you at the end.

Vulgarity and Hypocrisy

The usually acerbic Ann Coulter takes a gentler turn in her latest column, Lie Down With Strippers, Wake Up With Pleas. (If you’ve never read Coulter’s work before, let me assure that this column is gentle.) She writes about a concept as old as time, one based on reality (not to mention physics) but frowned upon in PC America: the connection between behavior and consequences:

However the Duke lacrosse rape case turns out, one lesson that absolutely will not be learned is this: You can severely reduce your chances of having a false accusation of rape leveled against you if you don’t hire strange women to come to your house and take their clothes off for money.

Also, you can severely reduce your chances of being raped if you do not go to strange men’s houses and take your clothes off for money. (Does anyone else detect a common thread here?)
…
Whenever a gun is used in a crime, there are never-ending news stories about how dangerous guns are. But these girls go out alone, late at night, drunk off their butts, and there’s nary a peep about the dangers of drunk women on their own in public. It’s their “right.”

Coulter writes about the old days when people were not afraid to call a thing by its name. Calling someone’s behavior vulgar or stupid is “judgmental,” which is used pejoratively. For the record, let me exercise my judgment: Throwing drunken parties is vulgar behavior. Taking off your clothes in front of a group of men — for free or for cash — is vulgar behavior. Being a fall-down drunk is vulgar behavior, something that I, unfortunately, have experienced.

Some haters (who still read this blog) tell me that I have no business judging people because I was once a “drunken slut.” Coulter writes:

In no area except morality would a sane person believe he can’t criticize something stupid because he’s done it. How about: If you’ve ever forgotten to fill up your car and run out of gas, you must forevermore defend a person’s right to ignore the gas gauge. Or if you’ve ever forgotten to wear a coat in cold weather and caught a cold, henceforth you are obliged to encourage others not to dress appropriately in the winter.

And God says:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

The Enemy and his minions will try anything to tear down God’s own. I’m here on this blog every day because God makes it so. And only he has the power to stop me, not my enemies. My Savior has assured me: “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”

Coulter continues: “But we’re all rotten sinners, incapable of redemption on our own. The liberal answer to sin is to say: I can never pay this back, so my argument will be I didn’t do anything wrong…The Christian answer is: I can never pay this back, but luckily that Christ fellow has already paid my debt.”

Amen, indeed!

Dirty Double Standards

A MURDERER in Durham gets a $50,000 bond, while accused rapists get a $400,000 bond. The DA would argue that the “wealthy” rapists were a flight risk and the teenaged murderer was not. Still, it stinks of the DA’s political motivations.

Gateway Pundit blogs about a heinous act and more double standards. Sickening!

The national media, mostly left-leaning, are on a mission to keep the smoldering embers of racial tension hot, overplaying white-on-black crime while underplaying black-on-white crime. Don’t take out your frustration on me; I didn’t start the fire.

Myths

In Fact and myth Duke it out, Kathleen Parker writes:

If [Jesse] Jackson were an honest dealer in the race card game, he’d have to mention that those ancient fears, though perhaps once justified, are no longer factually relevant. The U.S. Department of Justice’s 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey, which breaks down crime victims and perpetrators by race, indicates that the vast majority of violent crimes, including rape, are intra-racial. Blacks tend to attack blacks, and whites tend to attack whites.

There is no current trend of white men raping black women, in other words. In fact, though sample sizes are considered too small to draw any solid conclusions, the most recent figures show that among white rape victims, 15.5 percent of those rapes were perpetrated by blacks, while 0.0 percent of black victims were raped by white males. (Zero in this case is a rounded figure meaning that the total number of black women raped by white men is between 0 and half of 1 percent of the total.)

Not that anyone’s counting. But if we’re going to talk about race and crime, we may as well rely on facts rather than ancient memories that serve only to sensationalize and emotionalize what is already a painful episode in Southern history.

[Note (9:58 a.m.): Someone just e-mailed and said Parker is biased and the stats she cites have nothing to do with the Duke rape case. Neither do race and class, but they're headlining nonetheless. Dirty double standards. Besides, Parker was responding to Jackson's comments.]

Money

Jesse Jackson’s not the only one rutting for cash. Kim Roberts, the second stripper, wants to get hers, too: She contacted a PR firm via e-mail: “I’m worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage.”

Roberts likes money. So do I, but not enough to steal it. By the way, she says one of the men called her a “damn nigger.” If she does end up cashing in on this sordid mess, perhaps it will ease her pain.

New Evidence

Remember the fake fingernails the stripper broke fighting off her “attackers?” According to FOX News, a photo confirms that the nails were missing before the attack. But who cares about evidence? It’s irrelevant. This is a case about covetousness, greed, and class envy, not facts.

These are the photos released so far.

Meanwhile, a cab driver’s account of that night appears to match the timeline recreated by the accused.

Listen to MP3s of the first and second 911 calls. (Via Talk Left)

Search warrant released.

This isn’t new, but I wanted to remind you of ABC’s photo notes.

Idiots and Fools

Well, well, well. “Racist” white lacrosse players and Black Entertainment Television aren’t the only ones buying into and perpetuating stereotypes about “oversexed” black women. A troll with an unhealthy fixation on me using the real or phony name “Steve Fair” (or “Steve Vaughn”) who says he’s black, married and a father (!), left this troll dropping last night:

Name: Steve F. | E-mail: X@aol.com | URI: | IP: 205.188.116.199

One thing that comes through loud and clear about you LaShawn is that you DESPISE black men.

Have you found any white boys willing to take you any place but a roadside motel?

Have you met their parents?

For the record, he knows nothing about my personal life. I really hate to give him the attention he pants for, but I wanted to show you the kind of thing I sometimes wake up to. This idiot was banned from commenting last year, but his obsession seems to be growing. He tries to comment during the day from this IP: 67.151.138.118. Info:

CustName: PaeTec Communications
Address: 600 Willowbrook Office Park
City: Fairport
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 14450
Country: US
RegDate: 2005-04-05
Updated: 2005-04-05

I need a reader-sleuth, VIA E-MAIL, not the comment section, to tell me if it’s possible to pinpoint an exact location based on this information, and how. If you need the full e-mail address, let me know.

Message to New Readers

If you’re wondering why I am biased against the accuser, wonder no more. I’ve stated in various Duke rape-related posts that if anything happened to the accuser, it happened before she arrived at the lacrosse party. Based on injuries found during a medical exam, I believe she was either raped earlier or engaged in, let’s say…aggressive acts. While no one knows what the DA has, although I suspect it’s nothing strong, the evidence I know about so far tends to support the players’ stories. Suspending judgment until all evidence is revealed is noble, especially if you’re a juror. I’m in the court of public opinion, however, and I’m allowed to express my opinion.

If the accused made up this whole thing, particularly with the intent to use the race angle to her advantage, she is perpetuating racial animosity. And false accusations of rape hurt all women. I’m angry, and on this blog, I will express that anger as often as I need to. If it turns out I’m wrong, I will say I’m wrong. I’ll even apologize to accuser in an open letter for doubting her story. If the allegations are true, it’s certainly not her fault the media and media-hungry grievance-shoppers turned her plight into a circus.

But I won’t delete or retract the opinions I formed based on what I knew at the time or on what I’ve learned about human nature.

I recommend that first-time visitors read the previous posts before commenting on this one. Reading a few pages of the archives wouldn’t hurt, either.

Related posts:

• Is Duke Stripper Channeling Tawana Brawley?
• Fake Rape at Duke: Next Steps
• The ‘Black’ Helen of Troy?
• No (Public) Indictment in Duke Rape Case…

Hackers are attacking Michelle Malkin’s servers (site was down for most of the morning) — probably because she posted a lot of Danish-Muhammad cartoons on her site in defiance of haters and their goal to shut down dissent by any means necessary. Defy on, Michelle! (She’s sicced the FBI on the idiots.)

Until her site is up completely, Michelle is blogging at Pajamas Media.

When people have no argument, no leg to stand on, and severely limited reasoning ability, the impulse is to attack personally and peripherally. I’ve been and will continue to be the target of similar irrational impulses. Dissenters and haters won’t silence Michelle, they won’t silence me, and I hope you won’t let them silence you!

(Hat tip: Debbie Schlussel)

Others blogging: Bryan Preston, Sister Toldjah, Bruce Armstrong…

Update:

1) From The Brussels Journal:

In Europe a secularized post-Christian culture is facing a Muslim one. The secularized culture is hedonist and values only its present life, because it does not believe in an afterlife. This is why it will surrender when threatened with death because life is the only thing it has to lose. This is why it will accept submission without fighting for its freedom. Nobody fights for the flag of hedonism, not even the hedonists themselves.

2) A liberal and a conservative find common ground.

Hesperophobia, Part I and Part II

***2/15/06 — Scroll down for updates***
——————————————————————–

One of the many reasons I don’t like the term “African American” is that I’m not African, and I doubt any African — black or white — would claim me as such.

Being of African descent doesn’t make one African. It’s strange that we use the word “African” as a nationality when I suspect that true Africans refer to their countries when referring to their nationality, and not the continent.

I read this article about black American bias toward black Africans. Zedueh Doerue, an African immigrant who came to America four years ago, says he’s harrassed by black American thugs because he’s African. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out why:

“As a general trend, the two groups are having tensions,” said Jacqueline Copeland-Carson, a scholar with the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and author of the book, “Creating Africa in America.”

The tensions can be especially raw and violent in urban communities struggling with poverty, she said, as black Americans who feel economically trapped clash culturally with immigrant Africans who have escaped turmoil worse than Hurricane Katrina and may have stereotypical views of black Americans as being lazy or glorifiers of gangster life.

Regarding the lazy and gangster life stereotype, Africans are being rational. In fact, we all use the same reasoning when looking for a place to live or deciding whether to walk down a certain street at night. All people of all colors do it for the same reason: based on stereotypes of urban cities, we know it’s in our best interests to move to neighborhoods with lower crime rates. In America’s “urban communities,” most of the stereotypes hold true. Stereotypes aren’t the same as myths or urban legends, by the way; they’re based on facts.

There are other barriers that create problems, too, said Ms. Copeland-Carson, who studies contemporary immigration issues…These include widespread ignorance about the history of ethnic groups and nationalities and not understanding how others define their identities.

It’s the successful African immigrant v. the underclass black thing. Too bad the disgruntled and envious spend so much time being disgruntled and envious. They could put time and energy to more efficient use by trying to improve their own lives instead of begrudging others. But it’s easier to cry than to try. It’s boring, really.

This black African v. black American thing reaches beyond “poor” blacks. Henry Louis Gates (who just learned that he’s “half-European”) and Lani Guinier are up in arms because Africans outnumber American blacks at Harvard. Clarence Page has a simple explanation for that. Again, no rocket surgeon degree necessary. It’s embarrassing that people born and raised in the greatest country on the planet, with such a dynamic and inviting economic system, lag behind people who fled actual poverty and oppression.

Americans in general, I suspect, don’t know much about Africa and don’t want to know. On second thought, a lot of people may know about Africa and still form negative opinions. I’m looking for a link to a story by a black liberal journalist who’s since changed his mind about Africa after a visit. (Later…found the link and more. Scroll down to Update.)

Even when I was a liberal and in undergrad, I’d laugh at students talking about Africa as though it were paradise and wearing Kente cloth, as if they had any idea what they were talking about. I can only imagine what the African students were saying behind their backs. Also embarrassing is what passes for scholarship among certain people. I’m glad my skin is brown so the flush doesn’t show.

Have you been to Africa? Tell us what it’s like. Since I have no desire to ever go…

I think the most workable plan for Mr. Doerue would be to get his precious progeny out of the ‘hood post-haste and move to better area. He may still face resentment from other blacks, but at least he won’t have to come home to them.

Related posts:

• Hard Work and the American Dream (another Tannette Johnson-Elie link)
• The Gospel of Oppression
• Black Immigrants “Work Harder”
• Africans and Black Americans
• Slavery Reparations

Update: Keith Richburg is a black journalist who spent five years in Africa and wrote Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa.

Read Part I and Part II of Richburg’s “American in Africa.”

Also see No illusions on next African trip, Black Like Me, African-American Journalist Finds Flawed Africa, and A black writer explores Africa’s murderous depths.

Read his “debate” (debates require cross-examination) with Salih Booker, Executive Director of a non-profit called Africa Action. Booker concedes to Richburg on almost every point.

Bob Bixby (breaks added for easier reading):

I spent the first 14 years of my life in Central African Republic. I ate “bobos” (flying ants), traveled with my father into the “bush,” and squatted on the floor in mud huts with thatched roofs so often that it was a part of normal life for me. I know from experience what it is like to have grown African men talk to a mere boy only ten years old (me) as if I were a seasoned economist about the inconceivable (to them) world where one could work for a living, be compensated, and feel no tribal pressure to distribute his hard-earned pay around the village per the whim of the tribal powers.

I remember one valiant soul that worked for my father who literally pleaded with my Dad to keep his pay in our family safe. Week after week Dad would put the worker’s money in our safe and whenever the man wanted to purchase something he would come to our home and request whatever amount he needed. This was not because he could not save. It was because he lived in a culture that did not respect the entrepreneurial spirit and private property of the individual worker. They were aghast at the possibility that anyone should have more money than his superiors in age or tribal authority. Thus, parents and tribal leaders bilked the free spirits who wanted to work of a living and squelched their hope for release from the grip of poverty that has enslaved that region for centuries.

Men, grown men, dreamed of the real paradise, the US of A, and respectfully listened to an ignorant white kid from America as he told about all that he had seen and heard on his trips to that wonderful place. Even the ignorant ten-year-old knew that at the root of American possibilities was a culture of freedom and an old-fashioned work ethic innate with those who take responsibility for their own lives. The ten-year-old knew it. And the grown toothless men in ragged clothes that had been discarded from someplace in the West knew it as well. With as little education as they had, the ten-year-old and the poor villagers who had never seen carpet or running water would have laughed the “African-American” fantasy to scorn.

What’s that “old” saying? Give me liberty or give me death. Yeah, that’s the one.

Update II (2/15): Unbelievable, but there it is. There’s nothing wrong with teaching African and black American history, but the idea that it will close the achievement gap is ludicrious. If “educators” want to make headway on that issue, they need to get back to basics and demand accountability from parents.

But what do I know?

Revenge can be sweet.

I sometimes daydream about exposing and embarrassing blog trolls, e-mail idiots, and cyber-stalkers, but attention and acknowledgement are exactly what they crave. Besides, what law enforcement agency would arrest a troll, for crying out loud? Well, my daydreams may turn into reality.

The Communications Act of 1934 criminalizes anonymous harassment by a telecommunications device. Congress recently amended the law to criminalize anonymous harassment via the Internet (PDF copy of bill).

Some argue that the law curtails freedom of speech. Perhaps. If someone is blogging or commenting anonymously about a private citizen in an “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent” manner ” with intent to “annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass,” it is actionable, according to the new law. But should someone have the freedom to do that? Apparently Congress doesn’t think so. What do you think?

Of course, words like obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, and indecent are terms of art in our post-modern society. One man’s “indecent” comment is another man’s “no big deal.”

Disagreeing with a post is not trolling. My definition of a troll is someone who disagrees with a post but attacks me personally in his response. (If you think I’m being too sensitive about that, ask yourselves if you’d put up with ad hominem for its own sake, especially from anonymous cowards).

Challenging assertions, offering contrary evidence, etc., is not trolling, but when the commenter/e-mailer writes something gratuitous and inflammatory about me or other commenters, that’s trolling. Additionally, if I ask someone not to comment on the blog anymore and they continue to try, that’s trolling.

Some bloggers are much less sensitive than I am and not offended by personal attacks. I just won’t have it on my blog. This is my forum, and no one has the “freedom” to insult me on it. If that’s what you live to do, if that’s what gets you off, knock yourselves out.

Before you anonymous haters wet your pants for fear that I’ll call the law on you, read this post by friend, fellow blogger, and lawyer at Counseling Kevin:

I doubt that federal prosecutors are going to be going overboard on this. Nevertheless, it’s nice to know that a blog owner will have additional legal recourse, especially for egregious cases. He or she will also have grounds to advise a troll’s ISP that one of their users is violating federal law, which may very well spur some action on the ISP’s part to stop the troll.

I was so elated when one of Michelle Malkin’s e-mail trolls was fired for harassing her. And after I threatened to send a cyberstalker’s e-mails to his boss (The Dodo bird was using his work computer!), the e-mails abruptly stopped. As unbelievable as this sounds, one of my haters sent me a Christmas card!

I’ve outlasted the worst of the trolls, and every now and then a couple of bored-at-work people emerge from the dank recesses of the Internet to comment on a post and say things they’d never say to my face. No need to make a federal case out of it, though. I’m satisfied with mental images of emasculated, effete, ineffectual, over- or underweight, and impotent men too afraid of my wrath to use their own names (Sorry, guys, but I suspect most anonymous trollers are men) and stand behind what they post on this blog.

That they feel it’s necessary to “challenge” me behind a facade with their tails between their unmanly legs is vengeance enough for me.

Related post and other links:

• Lord of the Blogs
• Concurring Opinions
• Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

Addendum: I like this definition of a troll:

[R]egularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand – they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net…

(Hat tip: Via Sister Toldjah!)

As you can tell, I’ve been enjoying my guest stint here at La Shawn’s in part because it has given me a chance to flag some opinions that often lead to copious complaintage over at blogs4God.com. Especially when I poke fun at the hypocrisy of the main stream media. Of course, some times the MSM does the work for me … like today …

In the interest of love and tolerance the University of Connecticut chapter of Students Against Hate, lead by journalism and social welfare major Eric Knudsen, shouted-down Ann Coulter while she gave a speech on the UConn campus.

The WaPo is reporting that Saddam’s trial is proceeding as scheduled after a one day delay due to a Harry Ried-like boycott – because of an unjust trial. Gee, wonder where Hussein got that Ramsey Clark-ish idea? What’s next, a Howard Dean meme that Saddam was just minding his own business, that Bush should be on trial? Please refer to the larger/legible version on the magazine cover to the right for a ‘clearer picture.’

David Broder opines not so poetically about the good old days, like you know, when speaker Tom Foley was in charge during the House post office scandal and the gifts-for-trips improprieties in the early 1990s. Perhaps Mr. Broder is just grumpy because last night’s tax relief legislation didn’t include casinos, country clubs, hot tub facilities, liquor stores, massage parlors, golf courses, racetracks and tanning salons?

In a rail about "Truth for the Troops," Post writer Richard Cohen pushes the boundaries of his own credibility with hedging verbiage such as "Cheney was not strictly truthful" and "Cheney once again implied …" Of course the punch line for me was when Cohen capped his own speculative tirade of passion with "Cheney and others should avoid emotionally compelling, but intellectually fatuous, arguments …" And here I thought Broder was the pot calling the kettle black.

Anne Applebaum provides a redefinition of winning that only a Potomac River academe could love – and then blows her own point out of the water by using the Korean war as the basis of her argument. BTW, if you don’t get it, then you don’t get it.

"Shooting Is Defended But Gets Mixed Reviews" … real-world headlines like this save me the time of having to pen my own parodies.  UPDATE : Katie Couric wonders aloud if ‘air marshalls should shoot to kill.” (hat tip CCC)

Speaking of life being stranger than fiction – George Will writes of something I would have otherwise attributed to Scott Ott "The Senate has passed — and so has the House, with differences — an entitlement to digital television."

Need More? One word: ScrappleFace … well okay, that’s two words squished together, but you know what I mean …

Hube here again. I posted this late yesterday over at my home site, The Colossus of Rhodey with the updates from this morning:

Breaking news: a 44 year old American was shot and killed by air marshals at Miami Airport earlier today:

A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday on a jetway connected to an American Airlines plane that had just arrived at Miami International Airport from Colombia, officials said.

Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said after the plane had parked at the gate, a passenger indicated there was a bomb in the passenger’s carryon bag. The passenger was confronted by air marshals but ran off the plane.

A team of air marshals pursued and ordered the passenger to get on the ground. The passenger did not comply and was shot when apparently reaching into a bag, Doyle said. He said this is the first time an air marshal has shot at a passenger or suspect.

I’m willing to bet one or more of the following will happen shortly:

• The family of the man will sue the air mashal(s), the airport, the airline and/or the US government for “excessive force” and “negligence,” claiming that the marshals acted too hastily with deadly force, and that they didn’t make sure the man actually had a bomb. The airport and airline are “responsible” for “allowing” the man to get free from the marshals.
• Ramsey Clark will represent the man’s family in a civil suit against the US government, claiming the man was driven to hysteria because of President Bush’s policy in Iraq.
• Howard Dean will call on Congress to investigate the incident based on Clark’s “case;” congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will demand intel from the White House on the growing phenomenon known as “Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome.”
• Charles Rangel and other Congressional Black Caucus members will decry how minorities are “disproportionately affected” by “Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome,” now known as IPABS.
• Congressman John Murtha will claim that the current crop of air marshals in the United States “is broken” and “worn out,” and will call for an immediate redeployment of all air marshals.
• Massachusetts Senator John Kerry will claim that “there’s no reason for air marshals … to be terrorizing passengers … terrorizing kids and women, breaking sort of the customs of … proper air travel.”

And so on.

UPDATE (12/8 at 7:49am): Sadly, it appears the man in question was a manic-depressive who apparently forgot his medication. And, striking home for me, he was a naturalized US citizen from … Costa Rica.

UPDATE 2 (7:52am): See? SEE? I was tongue-in-cheek, obviously, in my original commentary, but crap like this makes the truth stranger than fiction, I tell ‘ya. So, I certainly won’t be surprised in the least if my [fairly serious] first prediction holds water.

UPDATE 3 (8:05am): I TOLD you! Here’s what’s on America Online’s “Welcome” screen right now:

UPDATE 4 (3:47pm): ABC News has a poll up asking the public if they believe the air marshals’ action was justified.

MSNBC has this headline: Marshals defend Miami airport shooting; Officials say man claimed to have bomb; friends say he was a ‘nice guy.’

The NY Times includes the following bits: “An analysis this year by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit group in Virginia, found that mentally ill people were four times more likely than members of the general public to be killed by the police.” They also quote a widow who knew the man — she called the shooting “a huge mistake.”

Hey peeps! Hube here again. Check this out:

Perpetual racial huckster Al Sharpton has a new gig: pitchman for car title loans.

In commercials airing locally, the ever-colorful Sharpton stands on a stage with an American flag and happily declares, “Finally, there’s someone in Virginia who will loan money to people the big guys won’t loan to.”

Car title lenders give cash to those who own their cars free and clear, with interest rates that can approach 300 percent annually. The lender can repossess and sell the car if the short-term loan is not repaid on time. The controversial practice is permitted in about half the states, and consumer groups are pushing hard for more regulation. “These are predatory small loans,” said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America.

Al doesn’t feel any problem with the ads:

“If I felt this is in any way abusive, I would stop doing the ads,” Sharpton said yesterday. He filmed three commercials for LoanMax, a Georgia-based company with 150 offices across the country, and said he considers these loans different from predatory ones because the borrowers have assets (the car) but not the credit rating to get bank loans.

To virtually no one’s surprise, Al’s like-minded political brethren have felt differently about “predatory” lending. “Predatory Lending is the civil rights issue for this century,” says Congressional Black Caucus member Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) who refers to the matter as a “civil rights issue.”

But this is Al Sharpton, folks. With a list of questionable activities as long as a Fidel Castro speech, Al will nevertheless get a pass on this, too. Besides, according to LoanMax president Rod Aycox, “People just love Reverend Sharpton.”

Speak for yourself, Rod.

Looks like the anonymous anti-La Shawn person decided to give up “the fight.”

I discovered the blog last year and realized it was operated by someone I’d kicked off my blog. This person dedicated time and energy to “debunking” my posts. So compelled was he (I’m almost certain it was a man) to have his say about thoughts that came out of my head, he’d follow trackbacks on LBC to other blogs and leave comments and his URL. It was hilarious.

I’ll quote myself: “If you people couldn’t handle me in 2004, I think 2005 will be quite a miserable year for you.”

Whoever you are, I hope you’ve finally found something (anything!) worthwhile to do.

I call myself “queen” every now and then mostly because it irritates the haters. But sometimes I like to act like one, too. I wrote a post back in 2004 called Queen of My Domain. It was a message to people I allow to comment on my blog, but who trash me on discussion boards and other people’s blogs.

The policy is still in effect. Although I appreciate being respected in my “house,” I don’t want to be disrespected elsewhere, either, especially when untrue and unfair accusations are leveled. Since I am queen of this domain, if and when I find such “behind my back” comments, you won’t be allowed to comment here anymore. Why would I do that? Because I can. And because actions have consequences. Don’t blame me. I didn’t make that rule.

If you wonder why your comments aren’t getting through, there’s your answer.

After receiving one hate e-mail too many, I’ve decided to curtail the activity by threatening to e-mail the rancid missives to the perpetrator’s boss. So far it’s done the trick, and the bored hater got the message.

One of Michelle Malkin’s haters wasn’t so fortunate. She writes:

And Patrick Mitchell, who works [Update: he has been canned. Please don't bother the company anymore. Thanks] at the Los Angeles office of Ogletree and Deakins, writes from work:

Read what the now-fired idiot wrote. About a month ago I was getting one hate e-mail after another from one person who used different Yahoo! accounts (he thought he was shielded) from his work computer. After I threatened to forward all of them to his boss and Cc the IT department, the e-mails suddenly stopped. Earlier today I had to threaten two trolls; the harassing comments ceased.

Sometimes you’ve got to play hard ball. Actions have consequences, and I’m more than willing to help you understand the concept.

Update (4/5): I will not answer your e-mail on this topic unless you cite Scripture to support your assertions and arguments. Demonstrating some knowledge of the Bible would also encourage me to respond.

Update II (4:36 p.m.): I hope I didn’t give the impression that all the e-mail I’m getting from Catholic readers is vitriolic. Some of you have been reasonable and evenhanded. I appreciate the love, kindness and support as well.
———————————————————————————————————————————–

I’ve been the object of scorn since I started writing political columns back in late 2002. I’m quite used to the sometimes vile and often gutless and cowardly attacks from the left. My detractors are usually disgruntled liberals of all colors and proclivities, perverse and otherwise. I can deal with them. I even accept chastisement from fellow Christians, especially those who have my best interests at heart. I can always tell.

I blog about politics most of the time, and being a conservative doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a Christian. Rarely do the political discussions lead to theological debates. I don’t know if that’s a good thing, but it keeps the peace, relatively speaking. One thing that divides, however, is truth, biblical truth. Since I blogged about the death of the Pope, the e-mails have not ceased. Responses come from fellow Reformers and non-Reformers who send prayers and words of encouragement, lauding me for the sensitive way in which I’ve approached the subject. The responses I’ve gotten from Catholic readers are varied.

I’m the first to admit my timing may have been off, knowing how sensitive people can be. Emotions are running high at a time like this. But that’s all I’ll concede. What I wrote about salvation needs to be said all the time, and that was my focus. I’ve attacked no one.

What’s most disappointing is that some of the hostile folks are bloggers who’ve wholeheartedly endorsed my political views. Together we’ve ranted against liberalism. As long as I wrote what was agreeable to them, all was well. But after just one post, a mere comment on the death of the Pope, some of these same bloggers have expended the energy to e-mail their intent to de-link my site from their blog rolls.

Just like that, they’ve severed the relationship. All these months of writing in tandem on political topics, and suddenly they want nothing to do with LBC. Let me tell you something, people, my comment was mild compared to what needs to be said!

If you’ve been reading this blog long enough, you know I’m not bothered by self-important announcements about why you won’t be reading or linking anymore. In theory. I’m bothered that you’ve turned so quickly. It’s almost stunning.

I do believe God is trying to tell me something. Uncharacteristically, this whole episode has disturbed me. True to form, however, I’m fueled by it and motivated to defend my faith! It’s funny how people don’t seem to care about offending me by what they believe, but then cry like banshees when I express my faith.

Believe me when I tell you, without puffed-up pride, that while you may try to ignore me, I suspect you’ll be hearing from me. How do I know? Because I have a mission. It’s called the Great Commission:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28: 16-20)

When I first read that verse, tears flowed. The God of Creation said he’d be with me, always. And he’s here with me right now. When we follow God’s commands rather than the traditions of men, we can rest assured in the Apostle Paul’s declaration:

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2: 1-5)

All praises belong to the Father in Christ Jesus, who is our Intercessor and Redeemer before the Father. There exists no other intercessor or redeemer between God and men, and I’m eternally grateful that my salvation depends on no man or work or tradition, but only on Christ’s unending grace and unspeakable mercy.

One last word to my new detractors. You once admired my courage to speak boldly for conservative values. The same courage allows me to speak boldly for the biblical view of the Gospel. If I’ve lost favor with you, so be it. The courage is still the same, and it will cease for no man.

Update V (1/3/05): OK. I’m now convinced there’s no such thing as “bad publicity.” Thanks, liberals. Link, link, link!
——————————————————————————–

More blog envy from the left. A bored person who hides behind various and corny pseudonyms has spent his/her precious time running a blog devoted to me: lashawnbarberexposed.blogspot.com (Sorry, dude/dudette; no link from me.).

I kicked this disgruntled pest off my blog, so he/she started one to “comment” on my posts. I’ve known about this site for a couple of months, and I’m writing about it now because I hope other disgruntled liberals link to it, and link liberally. It’s fuel to my fire.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the seething rage (and vulgarity) of certain unnamed and unlinked-to leftists (there are many others) caused their latent lunacy to spring to life. I’m nobody, people. Find something better to do. Contribute something to the world besides anti-La Shawn rage. I assure you I’m not worth it.

As you may know, there are several anti-Ann Coulter sites around the web:

• Slander: Liberally Lying About the American Right
• AntiCoulter
• The Anti-Ann Coulter Site
• CoulterWatch

I haven’t even written a book yet. I haven’t been on FOX News. I’ve achieved only marginal success as a small-time op-ed writer. I get only modest traffic and attention as a blogger. But these people spend their days trying to come up with clever (or crude) posts and turns-of-phrase to hurt my feelings. FYI, it hasn’t worked.

If you people couldn’t handle me in 2004, I think 2005 will be quite a miserable year for you.

Update: Michelle Malkin, whose six-month blogiversary is this month, says to the player-haters: “Y’all come back now. 2005 will be even hotter.”

Too cool.

Update II: Oh my goodness.

Update III: Commenter Janette says: “It’s probably not so much hate as it is envy.”

As far as the above-mentioned blog is concerned, I’d agree. More envy than hatred. But there are several liberal bloggers out there (who’ll never get mentioned or linked to on this site) who do hate me. It’s irrational.

We’re all envious of others at some point or another. I recently channeled my envy-energy into a constructive and creative activity. Others come up with ridiculous “anti” sites.

It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on. — W. Shakespeare, Othello, Act iii. Sc. 3

Update IV (1/1/05): Joe Gandelman comments on conversational blogging, based on a post on PressThink. Joe Carter offers advice on how to start a blog. Part II.

Paul’s (of Wizbang) wish comes true. Sort of. (Via Unabrewer)

This morning I wondered what I’d blog about. Before I read the news I always check the blog first to delete the inevitable troll trackbacks and comments. On my first day back from hiatus, I’ve had to delete quite a few.

But the contention has reached a new level. A few black liberal bloggers who hate me have given up all attempts to rebut my arguments, if they ever did so at all. Reasoned discussion be damned. In the beginning they at least feigned interest in my arguments; now they just don’t care anymore. They’re focused on me.

I’ve never named or linked to these people because what they want desperately is my attention, for reasons unknown to me. What a sad world they must inhabit to constantly seek out those who want nothing to do with them. I’m embarrassed for them.

I checked my site meter this morning to find hits coming from a site run by a popular black liberal blogger. I’m sure some of you can figure out who the person is. Apparently he didn’t know who I was before yesterday.

I refuse to get into a flame war with another blogger so my policy of not naming or linking to those prone to such things is in effect. Without offering a biblical argument or even one that makes sense, he wrote:

Via *****, we find this idiotic post from La Shawn Barber. La Shawn is apparently black, female, and right-wing. And now she’s advocating the idea that Christians can’t be liberals.

Just when you think a group of people can’t get dumber…they do. I may not personally be religious, but the idea of just deciding who does and doesn’t get to be a Christian based on their political philosophy is asinine. Somehow I don’t think God is checking your voter registration card.

As ***** says:

Just one simple question, do you really believe this crap, or is the pay that good?

You know, I’ve thought many times just how much bank I could make as a “black conservative”. I could get the Heritage Foundation to pay me big bucks to write asinine columns for Townhall.com, go to parties with Michelle Malkin and JC Watts, and write books like “Slavery: Not So Bad”.

But I like having a soul.

The person who provided the “hat tip” is sad enough in his own right and seems to have developed an obsession with me. This morning I deleted his fourth or fifth trackback. There aren’t enough hours in the day for me as it is, and I’ve made it my business not to go after any blogger for any reason. I write about news and offer my commentary on it. Apparently others follow a different course. Whatever suits them.

Being attacked by a high-profile liberal is new. All the others are low-traffic gnats buzzing around my head. Interesting. As I said, no flame wars for me. My words speak for themselves and if one, just one, of my detractors opened the Bible and read it, perhaps we’d have something to discuss. Until then, thanks for making my hit counter rise. God could be using their vitriol to bring some of their readers to salvation. What my critics meant for evil, God meant for good.

If I know nothing else in this world, I know this: My prayers have been answered. God has me right where he wants me to be.

Addendum: A white liberal wants you to know they hate me, too. Also see Update II of the controversial post.

Update: Memo to White Conservatives: Where’s My Check?

My traffic has been picking up, and I may have a few new readers and potential commenters who don’t know me and haven’t read my blog or column archives. I want to re-post an entry from July 9, 2004, “Totally Gratuitous, Self-centered, Blowing-Off-Steam-On-A-Friday Post.” It was a reaction that had built up from reading other blogs and comments.

It might be helpful to some here today. I don’t know. Whatever. Here it is:

July 9, 2004

“Before I get started, I want to apologize to first time visitors or friends visiting in response to my morning e-mail. This rant is brought on by some of the derogatory and disparaging comments I’ve been reading about myself on other blogs and from those who e-mail me or come onto my blog to insult me. Pardon this post, and thank you for your kind words of support.

At least once a year, I think I’m going to publicly blow off steam and address liberals who seem to resent my very existence. First of all, this blog is a not a democracy; it’s a dictatorship and I’m a benevolent dictator. Absolute freedom of speech doesn’t exist anywhere, except maybe on a deserted island, and freedom of speech in the constitutional sense doesn’t exist on this blog for anyone but me.

It takes a lot for me to lose my temper. Surrounded by liberals, I’ve had little choice but to develop a thick skin. I take the ad hominem for what it’s worth, and I welcome civil dialogue with all.

I know what liberals say about me. Sometimes the bloggers link to a specific post and end up in my referrer’s list, sometimes they don’t link at all. I find these by googling myself from time to time. Some of the posts are laden with emotion and boiling over with intense dislike for me and what I have to say; others respectfully disagree. As I am free to write what I want, they are free to criticize.

A few times I found outright lies. One person in particular roams through the blogosphere operating under at least three different aliases and has at least three different blogs. A frequent blog commenter, the person’s writing style is unique. I know it’s coming from the same mind. The individual has been banned from my site and many others for personal attacks, outrageous accusations and lies.

Mama said there’d be days like this. Since starting my column, I’ve experienced what I’d been warned would happen: venom. For a long time, it’s been taboo in the black community to talk/write publicly about what ails us.

I’ve read/heard what liberals of any color have to say about Ward Connerly, Justice Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice. Just yesterday, I found out about a disgusting cartoon put out by Ted Rall. According to Rall, who is a white liberal, Rice is a “House Nigga.” I’ll let Baldilocks, Michael and Molotov fill you in on the details.

I’m not above criticism and I don’t abhor dissent. I have commenters on this blog right now whose sole purpose is to disagree with everything I have to say. As long as they don’t call me names or insult me, I put up with it because they sometimes have valid arguments.

So if anyone out there is compelled to trash me, please read my blog and column archives. It may help you understand where I’m coming from or it may not, I don’t know. Do what you want.

If you see inaccuracies in my writing or flaws in my argument, tell me about it. Besides making you feel better, calling me names advances nothing. If you don’t have your own blog, start one. They’re free! You can hang up your shingle today, this very minute, and rant about whatever you want (but be mindful of laws against defamation).

If you can’t deal with me now, you better stop reading this blog and my articles, because as long as liberalism continues to erode society, my voice will only get louder. This a free country. Go read someone else’s blog and don’t even think of trying to comment on this one unless you’re willing to treat me and my commenters with respect.

I have my own mind, my own beliefs and my own opinions. My skin color does not require me to abide by an unwritten code of conduct. Blacks are not a homogeneous entity moving in lockstep toward some phantom destination.

We are a sub-culture of the American culture with diverse interests and opinions. Some of us even express those opinions publicly. Blacks are not special in the sense that we are above comment, criticism or chastisement. We are not required to refrain from speaking out against someone just because they or we are black. We have the same rights as any other American, and it is a privilege to be able to hold different views and freely share them as we see fit.

I will exercise that right as long as God sees fit to let me live.”

One of the great things about having a blog is that you get to control it. You can run it any way you want. Some bloggers are liberal and open hosts, allowing commenters free reign to insult other commenters and even themselves without being deleted or banned.

Others tolerate no dissent whatsoever. If your views stray in any way from the host’s, you’re banned.

I’m in the middle. I allow dissent and discussion, but I won’t tolerate personal attacks on myself or other commenters. As long as folks are civil, I don’t interfere. Usually.

I am Queen of My Domain and no one else’s. But what if someone insults me in a different kingdom? What control do I have over that? Keep reading.

I don’t usually visit so-called discussion boards because some are a bit too uncontrolled. Even if there’s a moderator, you often find vile and vicious words strewn throughout the “discussion.”

I found myself in one such board because someone had posted a link to my blog and it showed up in my referrers log. Against my better judgment, I decided to take a look. It was an anti-black conservatives thread, and the person who posted the link occasionally comments on my blog. I read several posts by someone who had to be in his teens or early twenties, at the most. Needless to say, this ranter hates black conservatives. Fine. Whatever. Free country.

The purpose of this post: While I can’t control anyone else’s blog or “discussion” board (and don’t want to), I want it widely known that if a commenter on my blog posts anything insulting or offensive or false about me on another blog or board and I find out about it, they will be banished from my territory. Under my rulership, the person can’t even access my site.

Unfortunately, the resourceful and determined can find ways around banning. That goes with the terrority of public web sites. Someone I banned months ago occasionally rears his ugly head, but as soon as I spot him, he’s gone until the next time.

The person who posted the link is quite civil and even-handed on my blog, which I appreciate. But I don’t understand why he/she would want to incite the anger of young, anonymous, unaccountable (and sometimes unstable) discussion board groupies against me. I don’t have the time or the inclination to figure it out. And I don’t want to.

Here’s some advice: If you want to trash me on another site and you want to continue commenting on my domain, don’t link to my URL, OK? Your discussion URL shows up on my referrers list.

Side note: A HaloScan user informed me that she gets error messages when trying to trackback to my posts. If you are a HaloScan user, please let me know if you’re having similar problems.

Rest easy, everybody!