Graceless Nancy

Unless you've been living in a cave on the island near where Chuck Nolan's FedEx plane crashed, you probably know who Nancy Grace is.

"An outspoken, tireless advocate for victims' rights and one of television's most respected legal analysts, Nancy Grace is the powerful force behind Headline News' (HLN) top-rated Nancy Grace," proclaims CNN's Web site.

Well, she certainly is outspoken. Can't dispute her credentials as a "tireless advocate for victims' rights," either. The problem is, Nancy decides who the victim is in a particular case, irrespective of any facts to the contrary. Hers are not necessarily victims of crimes, but always of affronts to her agenda.

Nancy is the white female version of the "Reverend" Al Sharpton. Remember Tawana Bradley? Google the name if you want the case history; I'm not going to waste valuable--dare I say precious?--space here rehashing that sorry episode. Suffice it to say that the "Reverend" Al held Tawana up as a case study of everything he wanted us to believe was wrong with white society, and of white injustice against blacks. After her story as told by the "Reverend" Al was exposed as a sham, the only question was how much was he duped by it and how much did he himself concoct. One must always ask that question of Nancy's stories as well.

Nancy's touted image as a "respected legal analyst" was exposed as a fraud by her rants during the Duke lacrosse scandal. That was the case where an opportunistic district attorney seeking reelection, a corrupt police officer willing to abet him, a newspaper editor trying to advance his leftist agenda, and a university president wanting to belie his institution's elitist image and placate certain fringe faculty members all conspired in an attempt to lynch three athletes who had been charged with rape by a drug-crazed stripper/hooker.

The case began unraveling almost at its beginning. Yet there was Nancy, never one to be confused with evidence, applying bubble gum and spit, duct tape and baling wire to hold it together and using her show to incite the lynch mob.

"They may not have been guilty of what they were accused," she seemed to have rationalized, "but they had to have been guilty of something."

Examples abound of how Nancy covered her ears and made that blathering noise with her tongue when someone would point out obvious fallacies in the investigation. She reported, for instance, that the lacrosse players had refused to provide DNA samples, a blatant and outrageous falsehood.

"There's really no good reason why, if you're innocent, you won't go forward and go, 'Hey, you want my DNA? Take it, I insist'," she pontificated.

The players had, in fact, begged authorities to take their DNA. After the tests came back negative, an unrepentant Nancy started "making up these wild schemes and making up ways that it could have happened, explaining away the science with pure subjective irrational thought, instead of saying, 'My gosh, they were telling the truth'," said one of the accused.

Her egregiously shameful pursuit of the real victims in this case, the three accused lacrosse players, revealed her as devoid of any credibility.

You would think that would have ended her CNN career, wouldn't you? Well, you would be wrong, Johnnie Cochran-breath.

Why, just lately Nancy jumped into the ring on the Trayvon Martin case. And guess who the other half of her tag-team is? If you said the "Reverend" Al, take an A.

"Evidence? I don't need no stinking evidence!" No, Nancy. You just need ratings. The tragedy is that you feel you have license to obfuscate, fabricate and prevaricate to get them, and that CNN gives you free rein to do it.