Raped, hanged girls committed suicide, Indian police claim

Last May, in "Shitting in fields leads to gang rape, hanging of Indian girls", Walt told you the sad story of two teenage Indian girls found hanging from a mango tree in May, apparently following gang rapes by persons unknown. Like millions of Indians who have no toilet of any kind in or near their homes, the girls had gone to a nearby field to relieve themselves, when they were fallen on and brutally attacked.

Such events are common enough in south Asia. What was unusual about this story was that the girls' families raised enough of a fuss to catch the attention and outrage of the international media. That led to an investigation by India's Central Bureau of Investigation, which has just released its findings.

What did Inspector Singh and his colleagues conclude? Wait for it... The girls, they announced yesterday, were not gang-raped and murdered, but, errr, took their own lives.

But why would they do that? On this point, the investigators were less than clear. Perhaps, it was suggested, they were chagrined at being dalits -- members of the lowest of the Hindu castes, formerly called "untouchables". Or perhaps, as the CBI chief stated, the girls took their own lives "because of family pressure" over their friendship with a villager.

Ah yes, "family pressure". Or we could say "family honour", as in "honour killing". Perhaps it was the girls' own relatives who killed them, "pour encourager les autres", as the French say. [How do the Indians say it? Ed.] The identities of the men standing around in the grainy photo above are unknown, but Walt thinks they are more likely to be relatives than the actual perps.

Sohan Lal, the father of one of the girls, told the BBC, "CBI has tried to fudge the case and save the accused from the very beginning. I am very angry with their decision. The team did not show any promptness while investigating the case."

Further details of the CBI investigation, and how they arrived at their verdict of suicide, were expected to be released today. In just six months, there have been three different theories about how the teenagers died and each theory has raised more questions than it has answered. Indians are now beginning to wonder whether they will ever know the truth of what occurred on the night the two girls died so horribly. All that can be said is, "This is India. Anything could have happened."

Happy Thanksgiving

Walt and Poor Len [and Ed! Ed.] 

would like to wish all our American readers

a Happy Thanksgiving. 

Hope you made it home safely.

If you're already there, count your blessings! 

If you don't think you  have anything to be thankful for,

hey, you could be a turkey!

It's NOT about "black lives"

Walt waited 24 hours to see if the rioting and looting in Ferguson MO would get worse or better [better rioting? better looting? Ed.] but last night was quiet, by comparison with the night before. Al Sharpton appeared. The Prez said (not in so many words, since the words are copyrighted by Bill Clinton) that he felt the pain of "the community", which Walt understood to mean not the entire community of Ferguson, but the black part of it.

And 1000s of people marched, danced and boogied through the streets carrying signs which read "Black lives matter!" There were relatively small and peaceful marches in other US cities and even in Canada's blackest city, Toronto. Marchers in those places carried the same signs. Walt suspects there's a factory somewhere -- probably in China -- that turns them out for sale at dollar stores. [Now there's an entrepreneurial idea! Ed.]

What's wrong with these pictures? Specifically, what's wrong with these signs? Walt will tell you. It's not about black lives or even the life of Michael Brown. It's about a breakdown of law and order in the black community. And it's about that community being a crime-ridden, undisciplined underclass.

How did it get like that? How did they get like that? Walt will tell you that too. For 50 years the majority (read "white") community has been bending over backwards [and forwards! Ed.] to accommodate the "civil rights" of every minority group ever conceived -- not just blacks, but gays, wimmin, non-English speakers, Muslims, refugees, atheists, etc etc and so forth.

Nowadays everyone -- except straight white males -- has not just rights but "entitlements". They are all "entitled", all "owed" everything from food and housing to preferred admission to college, where their education will, of course, be free. The world owes them a living! Well, not the world actually, but the rest of us -- the majority -- as embodied in The Government. After all, it was The Government who (especially around election time) promised all these minorities the sun, moon and stars. And if those who feel entitled have received only the moon, of course The Government is to blame.

Notably absent from the half-century of yammering and promises about "civil rights" has been any talk of civic responsibility, or civic duty. When I took civics in grade school [long, long ago. Ed.], I was taught that a good citizen had certain responsibilities and duties which he owed to his community. For instance, a good citizen should keep his home and neighbourhood clean and tidy. He should get a job and do his best to support himself and his family, so as not to be a burden on the community or the state. (After all, the tax monies used to support those who could not support themselves came from the community.)

A big part of civic duty was promoting and maintaining law and order. In the 19th century, many parts of the country did not have police forces, as we understand them today. Perhaps there was a marshal or sheriff or chief magistrate who, if there were criminals to be dealt with, would swear in a posse of ordinary citizens to do the necessary. And criminals would be brought before the courts to be further dealt with by judges and juries. Serving on a jury was part of one's civic duty. But who wants to do one's "duty" any more?

The Prez, in his mushy and caring plea for calm, said that the black community needs "good policing" -- quite a remarkable statement for him to make, when you think about it. If Michael Brown's lawyers, the "Reverend" Al Sharpton et al. complain that they are getting "bad policing", that the cops a bunch of white racists, could they answer a simple question.

Where are the black police officers? Where are the black National Guards? Why is the black community not able to police itself? Isn't that a part of civic duty -- particularly in Ferguson MO, at this very moment?

Further reading: Walt recommends The Police Officer's Dilemma, a landmark study by Joshua Correll, Bernadette Park, and Charles M. Judd (University of Colorado at Boulder) and Bernd Wittenbrink (University of Chicago) published in 2002. Once you get through the academic jargon -- the subtitle is Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals -- you'll learn that participants in the authors' study "fired at an armed target more quickly if he was African-American than if he was White, and decided to not shoot an unarmed White target more quickly than an unarmed African-American target".

And -- here's the "Wow!" -- a test with actual police officers, conducted give years later, showed that it didn't matter whether the cop was white or black! A black cop was just as likely as a white cop to shoot a young black man. Young black men are much more likely to die of lead poisoning (i.e. gunshot wounds) than young white men. And when you look at all the shooters, not just police, the shooter of a young black man is more likely to be another young black man than a white. And that's a fact.

Still more reading (added 29/11): "Progressive Mythography", by  Andrew C. McCarthy, on the National Review website. Mr. McCarthy explodes the myth that white cops kill black kids.

Last gay toon standing? - Part 1

For over 40 years now, the large and influential gay lobby in the meeja and more liberal "Christian" churches have been trying to convince us that it's OK to be gay. Commendable, even, especially when someone who kept his/her gender preference to him/herself comes out of the closet. What good is being homosexual if you can't flaunt it?

That's why, beginning in 1972, TV shows in western, "Christian" countries have increasingly featured characters who are openly gay. This is especially the case in sitcoms, where it's become almost mandatory to have at least one gay character -- always the cleverest, coolest, funniest one -- to prove that it not just OK, but hip to be gay.

It all started with Peter Panama, a character in the mercifully short-lived sitcom The Corner Bar. [Was that the one with Sam and Woody and Cliff and Norm...all those gay guys? Ed.] NO! That was another corner bar and those guys weren't gay... at least, not all of them! Anyway, Peter Panama, played by Vincent Schiavelli, was "the first continuing portrayal of a gay person on American television".

In 1975 we saw the first gay couple, the lovely George and Gordon, in Hot l Baltimore. You can look it up. Inevitably, gay characters were introduced in cartoons. This was not done to influence impressionable children, of course, because we all know that modern cartoon series are really for adults. I speak of The Simpsons, South Park and Family Guy, which I admit to watching and from which these examples are taken.

South Park's Big Gay Al is a stereotypical homosexual man, known for his flamboyant and positive demeanor. For example, he almost always responds to the greeting "How are you?" with an upbeat "I'm super! Thanks for asking!" In the episode which sticks deepest in Walt's Mind, he took the position of scout master of troop 69, for which he was super-qualified, having been in the scouts since he was nine years old. Was it then that he discovered he was a homosexual? We aren't told...

The kids' parents were uneasy about a gay scout leader, so Big Gay Al was fired. But the boys didn't like the new leader -- a person whose sexual tastes were a lot more threatening -- and rallied to get BGA re-accepted. But Al rejected this, saying the scouts are a private club, and have the right to exclude people if they choose to, just as he has the right to express himself as a gay man.

Big Gay Al last appeared in "The F Word", which originally aired on 4 November 2009. For all his flamboyance (etc etc), he was, on the whole, a sympathetic character, kind of a warm and cuddly...and gay...teddybear. It was hard to dislike him.

But there was a dark side to Big Gay Al. In "Follow That Egg", we find him getting engaged to Mr. Slave (pictured left), who previously was the homosexual lover of Herbert Garrison, the South Park kids' school teacher. (Remember the name "Herbert"; it'll come up again.) Mr. Garrison starts a campaign to ban gay marriage, but fails, and Al and Mr. Slave are united in unholy matrimony. (It's worth noting that South Park is set in Colorado.)

Mr. Slave is far being a benign and cuddly character. His first major role was in "The Death Camp of Tolerance", in which Mr. Garrison learns that he can sue the school board if he is fired for being gay, so he hires Mr. Slave as his "TA" -- "Teacher's Ass". The lessons become increasingly sexual, and degenerate in nature, culminating in Mr. Garrison inserting the class gerbil into Mr. Slave's rectum. Not exactly the sort of behaviour you'd want your kids to emulate, is it. But there was no "Don't try this at home!" warning.

Walt also found offensive Mr. Slave's catchphrase, "Oooh, Jeez Christ!" or "Oh Jesus, Jesus Christ!", always delivered in a quavering lisp. He was rarely heard saying anything else. He last appeared in "201", on 21 April 2010.

Note from Ed.: Walt has the bit firmly between his teeth, but owing to constraints of space (and my patience) I'm going to have to divide "Last gay toon standing?" into two or even three parts. Scroll down to the next post to read about the other Herbert.

Acknowledgment of source: The information about South Park, Big Gay Al, Herbert Garrison and Mr. Slave was taken from South Park Archives. Many thanks.

Last gay toon standing? - Part 2

As detailed in Part 1 (above), South Park has (or had) its pervert named Herbert -- Herbert Garrison, the queer school teacher and sometime homosexual lover of Mr. Slave. Sure enough, Family Guy has one too. That would be John Herbert, US Army (retd) and neighbour to the lovable Griffin family. Well, maybe you don't find the Griffins lovable, but Herbert the Pervert does. Well, not all of them. Just Chris, the stupid teenage son.

"Mr. Herbert" is an elderly pedohebephile (you can look it up) who lives alone with his old, crippled dog, Jesse. He has a high-pitched, very soft, effeminate voice and speaks with a slight whistle lisp -- pretty tricky for the voice actor to do. He is often seen wearing a light blue robe and slippers and gets around with the aid of a zimmer-frame walker.

The old bugger became fixated on Chris in "To Love and Die in Dixie", in which Chris had a newspaper route that included Herbert's house. As he tries to persuade Chris to come inside, he gives his views on women -- "Who needs 'em?" -- revealing himself as a misogynist and/or gay as 18 balloons. When the Griffins returned from the South, Herbert left 113 messages asking what had happened to the nice boy who used to deliver his newspaper.

But that was nothing new, for Herbert frequently makes "inappropriate, sexually-tinged comments" to and about teenage boys. Here's a sample.



After first appearing in "To Love and Die in Dixie", Herbert became a major character, having a part in four to six episodes every season through the end of Season 12 last spring. But so far this season, he has had only a cameo in September's crossover spectacular "The Simpsons Guy".

Walt wonders why the writers didn't go for the obvious gag, and have Herbert develop a crush on Waylon Smithers... or vice versa... a very apposite phrase in this case. Could it be that Seth MacFarlane has finally figured out that pedophilia (or pedohebephilia) really isn't very funny?

Will we ever see Herbert the Pervert again? Stay tuned. As for Smithers, see Part 3, below.

Acknowledgment of source: Much of the information in this post was taken from the Family Guy Wiki. Thanks again!

Last gay toon standing? - Part 3

Having considered three openly gay characters from Family Guy and South Park, we turn now to The Simpsons, the oldest show of the three leading cartoon series, and the only one to have no character who is openly gay. The operative word there is "openly", and the one person that everyone suspects is a homosexual has not yet come out of the closet. Waylon Smithers, Jr., is not "open" about his gender preference. Let's just say he's "ajar".

What? You think this picture -- Smithers is on the right -- contradicts what I just said? Well, you have to see it in context. Smithers is the very willing and eager executive assistant, factotum and self-proclaimed best friend of C. Montgomery Burns, the owner of Springfield's nuclear power plant. That's Mr. Burns on the left.

Smithers worships the radioactive ground on which Mr. Burns walks. He has a picture of his boss as wallpaper on his computer, and even dreams about him flying in through the open bedroom window. Yes, Smithers loves Mr. Burns, but perhaps not in the way a man loves a woman... or a man loves a man... or, errr, you know what I mean!

On the other hand, perhaps Smithers' feelings for Mr. Burns are of a sexual nature. According to The Simpsons Wiki, most of the people of Springfield know that Smithers' is a "closeted gay man". Smithers is a confirmed bachelor, although he was once married to a woman. Sadly, the marriage fell apart when she wanted to have sex with him, and also referred to Mr. Burns as "awful".

Smithers has had a crush on Mr. Burns for as long as he's worked for him, but his love is never requited. The kiss pictured above is from "Lisa the Skeptic", in which, when the people of Springfield believe that the apocalypse is upon them, Smithers takes the opportunity to show Mr. Burns how he really feels. However, when it becomes apparent the "apocalypse" was just a hoax, Burns still remains oblivious to Smithers' feelings.

Ten years ago -- time flies so quickly in the wacky world of TV -- the producers of The Simpsons announced that one of the characters was going to come out of the closet, thus setting set off a firestorm of speculation in every English-speaking country, even the USA. Despite the Irish Independent calling Smithers "too obvious" a choice, 97% of the respondents in an online poll by PlanetOut thought Smithers would be the one to reveal his true colours. Imagine their surprise when it turned out to be Marge's sister, Patty Bouvier.

Unlike Mr. Slave, Herbert Garrison, and John Herbert, Waylon Smithers still appears regularly in The Simpsons -- a sympathetic and popular character. Star News Online named "Smithers' fey way" as one of the four hundred reasons why they loved The Simpsons. And in 2007, Entertainment Weekly named Smithers the sixteenth greatest sidekick of all time. They also described Smithers and Mr. Burns as being "TV's most functional dysfunctional couple".

What lesson do we learn from this, boys and girls? Walt suggests it's the wisdom of the US military's policy on gays in the armed forces -- don't ask, don't tell! Perhaps instead of proudly proclaiming their queerness and demanding to be respected if not, errr, loved, the LGBT crowd would be better advised to just shut up about it! 

Once more into Afghanistan

Walt learned this weekend that volleyball is immensely popular in Afghanistan, so much so that people actually go in large numbers to watch a match. Islamic extremists, however, regard the sport as sinful. Those who participate, or even spectate, deserve to die!

And so it came to pass, yesterday, that a suicide bomber rode a motorcycle into the middle of a stadium while a match was in progress, and sent himself to paradise (where 72 virgins were waiting) along with at least 50 others who weren't so keen to go. Amongst the others were 17 children. At least 60 people were wounded.

Just this morning, a soldier -- nationality so far undisclosed -- died in an attack on a NATO convoy in Kabul. The attacks appear to signal a resumption of hostilities after the Afghan parliament approved security deals allowing NATO and US soldiers to remain after the withdrawal of most foreign troops scheduled for next month.

Readers with longish memories will recall that when he was campaigning for the presidensity in 2008, Barack Hussein Obama promised a war-weary nation that he would end the war in Afghanistan and bring the American boys [and girls. Ed.] home. He made the same promise in 2012.

Americans may now be forgiven for poring over old campaign photos to see if the Nobel Peace Prize laureate had his fingers crossed behind his back. He never meant, he said later, to bring home all the US military personnel. In order to preserve the peace, order and democracy which America had succeeded in establishing there, it would be necessary for a few Americans to remain in Armpitistan. "A few", as in, errr, 9000 or so.

Of course they would only stay on with the consent of the Afghan government. When President Karzai expressed his opposition to the continuing occupation of his country, he was replaced -- after not one but two "free and democratic" elections -- by a more pliant leader. A new bilateral security agreement (BSA) with the USA and status of forces agreement (SOFA) with NATO were duly approved by 152 votes to 5.

The total number of soldiers in the new "peacekeeping" force will be about 12,000. Roughly three-quarters of them will be American. When the just-approved deal was cooked up, we were told that their mission would be training, advising and assisting the Afghan National Army and police.

Now we learn that there will actually be a bit more to it than the Prez was letting on. This week, while almost everyone was distracted by his plan to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the USA, Mr. Obarmy quietly authorized US commanders in Afghanistan to carry out combat operations and provide air cover for Afghan troops.

An administration official told CNN, "The new authorization...enables the deployment of US jets, bombers and drones." And "To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to al-Qaeda, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe.

"The United States may provide combat enabler support to the [Afghan National Security Forces] in limited circumstances to prevent detrimental strategic effects to these Afghan security forces."

Walt will decode the military-speak for you. He meant that Americans and Afghans are going to continue standing shoulder to shoulder in fighting the Islamic extremists, just as they've been doing since, errr, 2001.

Shoulder to shoulder, eh... In this picture, it looks more like a couple of guys leading and a couple of guys following. Which are more likely to be killed -- the leaders or the followers? And which are the Afghans and which are the Americans? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please, to the usual address.

Footnote (and tombstone): Since its start in 2001, the Afghan war has claimed the lives of more than 3400 US and coalition soldiers.

Update and WOW! No sooner had I posted this than Chuck Hegel resigned from his position as US Secretary of Defense. Wouldn't you like to know why? The Prez didn't give any reason. Could it be that Mr. Hegel doesn't want to have his name associated with yet another American campaign that was lost before it started?