Say what? Have I lost my mind?
No, and I’ll show you. Radley Balko links to a video clip of a recent O’Reilly episode concerning the prosecution of Mantra Films, Inc. and founder Joseph Francis, producers of the Girls Gone Wild video series, which is essentially a soft-core, voyeur series that films "girls going wild" (basically: getting blasted and showing their nubile tits and other accouterments to the cameras during Spring Break and other such gatherings).
<rant>Jesus, Christ: have we ever effing come a long way from kids getting stoned, listening to the likes of Carlos Santana, and romping naked in Woodstock, NY, in effing 1969 — 37 effing years ago — for eff’s sake? Fuck; how I ever loath all of you muther-fucking fundamentalist Puritans. Die (hard). And go to hell.</rant>
We’re talking about tits.
And it merits a whole "complete investigation" and all other whatnot and so forth, and in the end, it goes away for the $2.1 million that Mantra and Francis could no doubt afford (big surprise). So, in the end, the AG gets a cut of the video profits and all’s fine. Oh, just don’t forget the paperwork next time.
(Side note: I attended a conference in Vegas last week, a large part having to do with a particular industry’s "regulation." As such, I sat and listened to hired lobbyists, and representatives from AG offices around the country. Guess what. Even they admit, in weak moments of candor, that it’s all about the money, unabashedly so…e.g., comments like: "we eat what we kill," which, if you don’t know, means their "enforcement budget is the fines they generate and collect. That, and whatever else ("if it lands on my desk, it’s $10,000, minimum"), got lots of laughs, and of course I was quite stoic wondering what dimension of reality I’d been transported to. In a better time, I’d have been able to lend a hand in hanging them all from the rafters.)
It’s instructive to note that in all the news stories I’ve seen on the matter, not a one mentions an actual "underage" plaintiff or complainant. You see, the prosecution was not over actually filming "underage" girls (like: 17 3/4 vs. 18). It was the documentation to substantiate that subjects were of "sufficient age" that was at issue. It’s a "new law," you see. I guess that since no one was actually coming forward to complain, the legislature had to come up with more creative ways to
protect the girls steal the company’s money. In other words, they were prosecuted and paid $2.1 million because they were unable to prove, with scratchings on paper, that they were innocent under the law.
Well, no (in case you were going to ask). Principles such as presumption of innocence don’t apply to businesses. They don’t need it. They’ve got money, so where sound principles of justice don’t apply, it’s by design. After all, the AG can’t carpet his office, buy new furniture, and whatever else, on reasonable principles of justice.
So I guess I’m getting off track. Anyway, here’s the video of the segment. In a twist of what sure seems like irony to me, Bill faces off with two gals who seem pretty wild. Kristen Powers wants to throw people in jail because they meet her standard of "sleazy." Michelle Malkin can’t say "it’s the law" often enough. Bill has all the facts, reason, and integrated context on his side.
It’s a hands down slaughter. Powers comes off like a typical commie. She doesn’t like the girls or the producers; they’re all far more interesting than her. Prosecute them. Why? Other than they’re sleazy, "there must be some law they can be prosecuted under." There just must be (seriously, that’s her argument).
Malkin, on the other hand, sticks straight to principle and never waivers. Yes, the principle (it’s the law) is arbitrary (think: slavery), but she sticks to it.
Bill snatches defeat from the jaws of victory and capitulates to Malkin. Amazing. Some sort of principle is always going to win out. The question is who has the greater conviction. Know your facts, know the reason, the logic, the argument, and wrap it up in a principle with conviction.