Thursday, March 6, 2008

Stop The Madness...

Great Zeus, people!

From the uproar this snippet of dubious film-making has incurred, one would suppose that this was the first time an American ever killed a dog.


If in fact, a real canine was killed in the making of this video, it's nothing compared to the 2.7 MILLION dogs killed on an annual basis by the inaptly named American Humane Society... Oh, no, you say? There's a big difference between being dashed against a rock, and being suffocated as deadly gases enter your lungs, or a cocktail of drugs induces a heart attack?

The former is "mean, just mean", while the latter is quick and painless, and, oh, wait. No it's not...

The courts have recently suspended the use of such techniques on humans, ruling that death comes neither swiftly nor painlessly. And at any rate, dead is dead. And film is film. And last time I checked, you can't believe everything you see on film; or should we arrest director Zack Snyder ("300") for mass murder?

"...but, this, this is madness!"
"NO! This is SPARTA!"

Ummm, sorry Zack, that appears to be the gory death of a few hundred Greeks and a few thousand Persians. We'll have to ask you to come with us... any rate, supposing there were anything inherently wrong with killing any creature weaker than oneself (if it's OK to kill a cockroach, or dissect a frog, eat a cow, or slaughter fish, fowl, and game for sport, why not kill a dog? Why not kill a person, if, for example, you're a Blackwater employee and know that you can't be charged?) - but in any case IF there were anything wrong with this, aren't Americans still considered guilty until proven innocent?

Not if they're US Marines or Duke University lacrosse players, they're not.

The rape charge against the Marine on Okinawa? Dropped. No sign of sexual activity. The oaf was a pervert, but not a rapist. The suspected killer of the unfortunate Lance Corporal Lauterbach? Still at large, and while circumstantial evidence is strong, well, it was strong with OJ, too.

If you can believe the numbers, about 800 women are raped, 50 people are murdered, and 3700 dogs are killed EVERY DAY in the United States. Considering that Marines make up about 1/10th of 1 percent of the entire population, your chances of falling victim to one of these rascals, whether you're a dog, or a potential murder/rape victim, are considerably lower than the chances that you'll get your unhappy ending courtesy of a family member, a friendly veterinarian, a guy you know, or just some wierdo off the street.

But every once in a while, when a Marine is merely ACCUSED of doing something bad (and by "bad", I don't mean shooting, dismembering or burning another human being to death, that's generally part of the job description) - it's big news, everyone starts gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair, and the powers-that-be in the Marine Corps, instead of saying "They're trained killers, we deliberately break down their natural conditioning against homicidal and psychopathic impulses, what the f*@k did you expect?" instead bows and scrapes, and puts the 99.99% of the Corps that did nothing wrong on lockdown.

Which only really serves to protect the Marines, because statistically speaking, the average Marine is in much greater danger of being murdered or raped by their fellow Americans; and with about 4.5 million dog bites reported annually in the US, it would probably be a good idea to keep Marines away from dogs in general.

Not for the dogs sake, but for the Marines.


Diodotus said...

You write: "The rape charge against the Marine on Okinawa? Dropped. No sign of sexual activity. The oaf was a pervert, but not a rapist."

Actually we'll never know - the charges were dropped because the press and blogs began blaming the alleged victim and she and her family withdrew the charges to avoid the humiliation of a trial in a system that requires the victim to testify in open court against her attacker. It's true we shouldn't assume guilt in the absence of a trial, but nor should we assume innocence on the absence of formal charges, when the formal system puts obstacles in the way of justice. Plus, this certainly isn't the first such case on Okinawa.

P.S. Your other points about dogs and such are well taken.

Cleitus the Black said...

My good doctor. The charges were in fact withdrawn because a medical examination showed no evidence of intercourse. And the victim's family, of course, had already received the hundreds of thousands of yen in "gomen" money paid by the US government as an "apology" for the conduct of the alleged assailant.

And based on your closing sentences, I suppose we must rewrite much of the lawbooks to reflect that a suspect is "guilty by accusation and not on the basis of formal charges or a conviction, especially if small formalities such as of the right of an accused to face his or her accuser are couched as an obstacle to justice..."

One sees that the madness has transcended the roar of the puppy-loving mob and infected even academia...

Diodotus said...


There is no madness in my statement, which you've misconstrued. I'm not saying the law should consider him guilty w/o evidence; I'm responding to your claim that since the charges were dropped he must have done nothing. We know that doesn't necessarily follow. Plenty of guilty people get off scot free, which is precisely how the law is supposed to work. I'm not saying he's guilty, just that we should recognize we'll never know.

I haven't seen a news article that provides the results of her medical exam. Such exams are generally unreliable unless they take place in the immediate aftermath of an assault, so using them as evidence of what happened is contingent on the timing. Please post a link to documents laying out the facts as you understand them, it would assist in having a reasoned discussion.

And for what it's worth, a 38-year-old man holding a 14-year-old girl down and forcibly kissing her - to which he's admitted - is sexual assault, even if it's not rape.

So there.

"; urchinTracker();