Elin is Pookie

A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere -MLK Jr.

Stop ya eye rollin' over that quote and read on.

When Arizona passed their "immigration enforcement" law, SB 1040, people went nuts. They called the law legalized racial profiling. One would have thought that somehow prior to the passage of that bill that actual legalized racial profiling hadn't already been standard op in the country. I had long pointed out that hundreds of thousands of people in NYC, particularly black men are stopped and frisked when they have committed no crimes which is a blatant violation of their 4th Amendment rights. This has been going on for years but it was not seen as a big issue, Why? In my opinion it's the general idea that niggas are criminal and so it's OK. Well having allowed that precedent to go unchallenged we now have Arizona. Hence the reason for the quote regarding a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

So those of us who understand that when an injustice happens to someone "way over there" or "who can afford it", it poses a danger to the rest of us. Thus we have before us the Tiger Woods divorce fiasco.

Black and Bougie posted a piece in regards to "Pookies" that contained this gem:

Yesterday, @CarolynEdgar started discussing Elin Woods' alleged request for $750MM in a divorce from Le Tigre. This sent a bunch of men into apoplectic fits of Twitter rage. Then it was pointed out that for most of them… this wasn't going to be an issue. It was further pointed out that in this day and age when professional women outnumber and out earn men (amongst the African American ranks) chances were that in a lot of divorces, the woman would end up paying the man anyway. This segued into her hilarious rant on why it's a not always a great for an upwardly mobile chick to date Pookie or Ray-Ray:

Apoplectic fits of Twitter rage? really? I love (sarcasm) how certain females love to misstate what men are thinking or doing. Love it. The author trots out the tired line of "well that's not going to apply to them". Really? I refer the reader back to the above discussion of Arizona. The supposedly small and insignificant decision "over there" will in fact affect them should they get married and unfortunately get divorced. And, ahem, that goes for women as well.

Mind you, the piece goes into an excellent discussion of why Pookie is best left alone or at least why he ought to be carefully watched. However; This isn't about defending Pookie, or Woods for that matter. This is about, shall we say, equality.

I was reading the Twitter discussion about Pookies and "Mr Fix it". The discussion could be summed up like this:

Beware of men who have little to offer by way of income or other assets, because after you pull them up and set them up, you may end up divorced in which case you, the high net worth female, will find yourself out of a house or other "marital property" and paying for a man who didn't do much for you. Except perhaps warm the sheets.

Honestly I can't disagree with this statement. But it cuts both ways. Which brings us to the soon to be ex Woods.

It is reported that Elin Wood's is asking, straight faced, for $750 million.

Yes. $3/4 billion. Pause and let that amount sink in for a bit.

These same females who are correctly objecting to Pookie getting a free ride off their hard work actually AGREE that Elin Wood's deserves $3/4 billion.

Sheer hypocracy.

Let's run down Elin's history shall we. She met Tiger Wood's in 2001. At which time Mr. Woods was already winning major tournaments. In fact by the time Wood's married Elin, he was on a record winning streak. What was Elin doing in 2001? She was a Nanny.

A Nanny.

In three years Elin goes from Nanny to the wife of the greatest golfer in the world. That's like Pookie going from parking cars to Oprah's mansion. OK?

And let me ask. What exactly did Elin do to enable Mr. Woods to earn his money? Was she his trainer? Nope. Would anyone argue that Tiger Wood's trainer is perhaps the one person other than Mr. Woods who has had a direct impact on Mr. Woods ability to earn? Has that trainer (or trainers) been paid $750 million for their services? If not, could we not argue straight faced that if anyone actually invested in Tiger Woods in such a manner that actually produced income that it would be Woods' trainers?

Lets be clear here. Elin Woods was not your typical wife. Unlike those women I see everyday. She was not working a full time job to help ends meet. She didn't leave the job to come home and take care of the kids and cook dinner and clean the house like so many women do. No. Lets be honest here. The Woods had a maid or two or three. They likely had in house chefs. They hired grounds keepers to take care of the lawn. Neither Woods probably ever had to worry about a car note or even owned a vehicle long enough for it to break down.

Elin didn't have to clean shit. Elin didn't have to cook shit. Elin didn't have to get up early in the morning to go to some job not paying her what the dude in the next cubicle with less qualifications than her was earning. No, Elin Woods went from Nanny to Escalade, beach front property, 1st class air travel, Shopping at stores I don't even bother looking in the window of. First class all the way. All Elin had to do for all that was show up at tournaments and cock her legs to the side on occasion.

Elin is Pookie. You can't argue that Pookie ought to be avoided cause he'll use your shit and then try to claim more at the divorce hearing and then say that Elin deserves $750 million (greater than the GDP of some nations) when she brought absolutely NOTHING to Wood's earning potential other than white skin and blond hair.

Some will argue that the $750 includes child support. Look, maids and nanny's would have been taking care of Woods' kids anyway. If the judge is so concerned about them being taken care of then that judge ought to award custody to Woods.

Now some idiot will misconstrue this as defending Tiger Woods. I could care less about what Tiger Woods does. What I do care about is the precedent that is set when someone can lay claim to someone's hard earned income, when they had a negligible part in the earning of that income and I don't care what gender they are. Such a precedent is a danger to everyone.


Does Elin deserve a payout? Absolutely. Mr. Woods stepped out on his marriage contract. He should not have. I have no problem with even a multi-million dollar payout for that. Personally I'd cap that at $50 million which I still think is excessive for someone who brought next to nothing to the marriage. I would not agree to her not being able to speak on her relationship. Woods cheated. That's just one of the fallouts. But if she did agree to such a gag, then I would up the award due to the fact that such a gag would impact her earning potential.

So lets be fair. Elin has shown that she is a gold digger period. She knows she hasn't done anything warranting $3/4 billion but she's asking for it anyway. We, well actually the women supporting this bid ought to recognize that she is no different to Pookie and stop defending that demand.

The Problem With Statutory Rape Laws

The recent arrest of LT over his alleged statutory rape of a 16 year old has gotten me to thinking about the issue of statutory rape. For those not familiar with the term, statutory rape is when a minor engages in sexual intercourse. Period. Under the law a minor cannot consent to sexual intercourse. It is an odd law when you really think about it. In fact the law is so odd that in many states (if not all) there are various exceptions. These exceptions generally surround sexual intercourse between minors of similar age. But those exceptions highlight the serious constitutional problem with statutory rape laws. Let me highlight a few of them:

1) Rape by definition requires intent. No one "accidentally" rapes a person. A rapist explicitly does not inquire, care or regard the wishes of his or her victim. A rapist can never say that he or she "didn't know" that the person did not consent. Even in the case of a person who has sex with a person who is knocked out drunk cannot claim ignorance. A passed out person cannot give consent simply because they are physically unable to do so.

Statutory rape, being defined as rape defies this logic because statutory rape laws do not require any intent on the part of the person charged with this crime. which leads us to problem two:


2) Unlike the vast majority of laws (if not all, I'm not a lawyer so I can't make an authoritative statement on that), statutory rape is a charge with no defense. It is the only law I know of that completely bypasses a person's ability to defend his or herself. All the government has to show is that the victim is in fact a minor. That is all. Think about this for a minute is there any other felony that one cannot argue a defense for?

Lets make up an hypothetical situation. You are a baggage handler. A co-worker who is a terrorist hands you a bag full of explosives set to go off while the plane is in the air. You put the bag on the plane. Plane blows up. Hundreds of people die. The bag is identified and video is presented that shows that you put the bag on the plane. Case is closed.

You, the hypothetical baggage handler would immediately argue that:

1) You had no idea the bag was a bomb. If you had known you would not have put the bag in the plane. However if the law was written the way the statutory rape laws are, that would not be a valid defense. The fact that you put the bag on the plane meant that you committed a terrorist act. End of story.

Or

2) The person who handed you the bag represented himself (clothes, demeanor, etc) as an authorized and trusted airport personnel whom you had reasonable expectations to not be trying to get you to commit a crime. Again if the law was written the way the statutory rape laws are, that would also not be a valid defense. That you did not know that the person was not a criminal with criminal intent would not absolve you from the fact that you put the bag on the plane. Furthermore, that you did not inquire, on the spot, for paperwork proving that said co-worker was not a criminal and that you did not open this bag and check it for explosives, would also not a viable defense because again, you put the bag on the plane and therefore you committed a terrorist act.

Clearly no reasonable person would accept such a legal prosecution. Clearly the baggage handler was duped into aiding an actual criminal into committing a crime the handler had no intentions of committing. No prosecutor in his or her right mind would prosecute the baggage handler even though 100's of people are dead.

In reality the baggage handler would be arrested and interrogated. They would tell their story, the person who gave them the bag would be identified, etc. etc. and that person would be sent home. Why would this happen? Because the law has to recognize that people are sometimes duped into abetting or committing criminal offenses they would not have committed. When this is done by law enforcement it is called entrapment. When done by civilians it is referred to as blackmail, fraud, extortion, etc.

This brings us back to LT. According to news reports LT's position was that he asked this girl her age. She told him she was 19 when in fact she was 16. I haven't seen her. Nor do I know how she was dressed, whether she had makeup on, the lighting in the room, etc. I do know that 16 year olds can in fact be mistook for 18-19 year olds and some 18-19 year olds can be mistook for minors.

A lot of people want to make the argument that a "grown man" like LT ought not be fooling around with 19 YO. Maybe so. But that's not illegal. Our personal morality on the matter isn't legally relevant. What is relevant is that in NYS if a minor gives a false statement of his or her age to a would be statutory rapist that is the basis of a valid defense (well if you have a decent lawyer). In LT's case the "victim" made an official statement that she told LT she was 19.

What is bothersome about many of the statements made by people about the case purporting that 16 year olds are incapable of decision making is that if a 16 yo commits murder, the state demands justice. While that 16 yo is tried in juvenile court, there is still an expectation of responsibility on the part of this minor.
Such a thing shows a two facedness about statutory rape laws. How can a 16 year old minor be so unable to consent to sexual intercourse, but can be held responsible for committing a rape themselves or stealing, killing, committing assault, etc.

Some say that we can't expect a 16 year old to tell the truth. That argument doesn't make sense either. 16 year olds can get on the stand and be expected to testify truthfully. They are expected to be truthful and pick out their attackers in a lineup. How then do we suddenly say that in reference to sexual behavior and telling their age they suddenly lack the capacity to tell the truth? Fact is that 16 year olds make decisions about who they will or will not have sex with all the time. They know full well that they can get an STD. They know they can get pregnant. There is little mystery in regards to sex with a 16 year old unless that minor has been locked up in a place with no access to TV, radio or internet.


Let's be honest about what statutory rape laws are for. They are for teachers who start sexual relationships with their students. They are for baby sitters or other adults who know full well the age of their victims but still initiate or accept an invitation for a sexual relationship. They are for pedophiles who are online and seek out minors. They are for pedophiles who stalk school yards and other places where persons known to be minors are in regular attendance. They are for persons who carry out long term relationships with an adult in order to have access to their children. In short statutory rape laws exist to prosecute those who knowingly and willingly engage in sexual intercourse with a known minor. When the law does not take into account that there are a minority of cases where the supposed "rapist" does not know the true age of the victim and it is reasonable that said perpetrator could think that the person is in fact "legal" then that law is very faulty. I dare say that such a law is unconstitutional. Remember that the founders were of the opinion that it is better to let a 100 guilty people go free than to let 1 innocent "man" lose his liberty.

Why does this matter? It matters because once a law is on the books that takes away a defendants right to show that he or she had no intention of participating in a crime, then the door is open for more laws to be written that prosecute people without any viable defense. And we know this has already happened.