Saturday, September 22, 2007

No Information Available

There's just no info about this "Jena 6" thing anywhere. Well, there is an entry on Wikipedia, but it only has 43 references. Google™ News? "About 8,261" for Jena, "about 1,840 " for Jena 6. Yahoo!™ News? "About 5,331" for Jena, "about 1,429" for Jena 6. Where, oh where, can one find information about this case? Quoth Megan McArdle: "As everyone notes, it's hard to get information on the case, which is trickling out..." Quoth Andrew Sullivan, also of The Atlantic's "Voices":

What The Hell Happened in Jena?

I haven't commented because, frankly, I am still unsure of all the details of the case, some of which may never be known.
I've no idea what "details" may never be known (other than who started the fire that burned down the high school) but the legal case in question, of the "Jena 6" (there've been other incidents, and certainly the impression of pervasive racism in the high school & the town as well) is pretty damn clear, & I'll go on record that the charges of attempted murder against the six, especially when compared to the wrist-slaps handed out to white people in earlier incidents, are ridiculously overblown. Especially when the beatee is up & attending a fuction the same evening, not lying in a coma. Not that hitting a guy from behind, knocking him down, and kicking him when he's down shouldn't be punished (no matter what the victim was saying or calling the attackers) but calling an athletic shoe a "deadly weapon" in order to bring charges of attempted murder is, in this case (and in this David Duke-voting parish) racially motivated. So there. Wasn't that hard, was it, intellectual lazyboneses?

Enough w/ serious commentary on the sad state of America today. Let's talk about how lazy Andrew Sullivan really is. I've long suspected that much of his "web log" is intern (or perhaps well paid flunky) powered. Or he's just lucked into a gig where he need only wander the Internet all day long & link to whatever, and while Glenn ("Ai kn b robut?") Reynolds has a paying gig outside of Instapunditry, Sullivan, w/ no fall-back, works hard enough for the money to wrap more text around his links, & often provides a "money quote."

My first clue that Mr. Sullivan might be the tip of an editorial iceberg (Other than sheer volume: Today is Saturday, he has 16 items & "The View From Your Window" available for your reading pleasure. Yesterday it was 26 + TVFYW.) was when he moved to The Atlantic from TIME & his portrait changed a bit:
Note that @ The Atlantic, on the right, the dog is no longer giving him the fisheye, but the woman in the background is. As I wrote then (a mere 223 days ago, in my first Internet appearance as more than a commenter): "4) Atlantic provides googly eyed staffer/intern (to replace no longer googly eyed dog at Time?)"

On to Althouse, who agrees w/ Sully that there's just no information. A modest proposal: Look at some of the references from the Wikipedia entry. Here's one from NPR. From 30 July of this year!!

Divine Ms. A., you're an attorney & a law professor. Can't you even make a statement to the effect of: "I'm unable to determine the merest facts in these events, because there's been absolutely nothing on it in the mainstream media, but It Seems To Me™ that attempted murder charges might be a little excessive in this case." Would that be too damn much?
Crap on a crutch. Fire everybody, & let's start over from the Big Bang!

Accuracy in Media:
"(Psst! Ann: It's McArdle not McCardle.) 10:26 AM"
Remains uncorrected.

Clem & brad have been pulled into the Alt-Vortex, demands for abject apologies have been issued. Life goes on.


Adam Eli Clem said...

MB, in the Time illo, what are the three dots about Sullivan's poised finger? "Magic Touch" pixies? He lost them en route to Teh Atlantic.

No, wait, they got into the dog's fur, hence the scratching. Got it.

M. Bouffant said...

Excellent question, & I haven't the foggiest. Indeed, I just noticed them today when I grabbed the image from HuffPo. (If you read the Huff thing, you'll have seen that I missed a couple of other changes as well, including the blindingly obvious flip-flop, so I may not be the best person to ask.) Though on my monitor, there are four dots. The artist's bizarre idea of motion lines is the only thing I can conceive of, although you may be right. Certainly a "bear" could give a dog fleas. And those are "bear" sized fleas!! Saw Randy Andy's new hubby on the tube this evening, he's a "bear" too. Almost a twin of Andy.

Anonymous said...

"I'll go on record that the charges of attempted murder against the six, especially when compared to the wrist-slaps handed out to white people in earlier incidents, are ridiculously overblown."

You are misinformed. The Jena 6 were never actually charged with attempted murder. That was a preliminary charge. When it actually went to trial, the charge was 2nd degree aggravated assualt, which seems just for the crime of 6 people stomping someone on the ground while they are unconcious.