Journal-Constitution: The problem wasn’t the deputy’s sex, but her age

Clark Coleman points out something I missed in the liberal media’s coverage of the Brian Nichols rampage:

Here is the opening of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution article that you posted in its entirety a couple of days ago:

On Wednesday, when Brian G. Nichols returned to jail from his rape trial, sheriff’s deputies found a pair of crude weapons in his socks.

On Thursday, a judge, prosecutors and even his own lawyer sought additional security for Nichols’ trial.

Still, on Friday, the former football linebacker, his handcuffs removed, ended up alone in a room with a deputy almost 20 years his senior.

Now we see the problem! The deputy was almost 20 years older than the prisoner! She probably doesn’t have the same reflexes down at the boxing gym that she did when she was younger. Why, if this had all happened when she was 20 years younger, she would have whipped his tail so badly, he would have been crying like a baby!

Also, note the following about prisoner transfers: When a prisoner changes clothes, he or she must strip down to underwear. A female prisoner, you can be sure, is not forced to do this in front of a male deputy. Special arrangements are made to have a female deputy handle such cases. A male prisoner strips to his underwear in front of a randomly assigned deputy, who might be male or might be female.

This is the essence of liberalism: We are all equal, except some of us are more equal than others. Males in general, like whites, Christians, the rich, etc., are in the oppressor class and can be treated in any humiliating manner of the state’s choosing. Females——-even female criminals——-are in the oppressed/underdog class, deserving of consideration.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 14, 2005 09:45 AM | Send