Hello, friends! In case you're having trouble deciphering Ben Stein's extremely erudite American Spectator editorial defending Dominique Strauss-Kahn, allow me to interpret his words for you:

1.) If he is such a womanizer and violent guy with women, why didn't he ever get charged until now? If he has a long history of sexual abuse, how can it have remained no more than gossip this long? France is a nation of vicious political rivalries. Why didn't his opponents get him years ago?

"He never got caught before! That means he is definitely innocent. Real criminals always get caught for crimes at least once before the first time they are caught for a crime. It's logic! I went to college."

2.) In life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

"But...but he's a rich white man! We can't start putting THOSE in prison—where would we keep all the blacks? Think, people. Think of the blacks."

3.) The prosecutors say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn "forced" the complainant to have oral and other sex with him. How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He's a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it's anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?

"Now, I wasn't there in that hotel room, but I know from experience that every time I try to rape a woman, she immediately overpowers me and runs off like a rascally barn cat. Curse these flabby, withered chicken wings of mine!"

4.) Did the prosecutors really convince a judge that he was a flight risk when he was getting on a flight he had booked long beforehand? What kind of high-pressure escape plan is that? How is it a sudden flight move to get on a flight booked maybe months ago?

"So you expect me to believe that this guy booked this flight maybe months ago, then with laser precision executed his alleged rape, then made it to said flight with plenty of time to stow his baggage in the overhead compartment!? Hoookay! Whatever you say, prosecutors! But that would be like the Ocean's 11 of raping. Maybe he faked the moon landing too!"

5.) Mr. Strauss-Kahn had surrendered his passport. He had offered to stay in New York City. He is one of the most recognizable people on the planet. Did he really have to be put in Riker's Island? Couldn't he have been given home detention with a guard? This is a man with a lifetime of public service, on a distinguished level, to put it mildly. Was Riker's Island really the place to put him on the allegations of one human being? Hadn't he earned slightly better treatment than that? Any why compare him with a certain pedophile from France long ago? That man had confessed to his crime. Mr. Strauss-Kahn has not confessed to anything.

"Some people are whiter richer better than other people! You should not put these people in bad places like prison. Prison is for shitty people. Like dirty, dishonest women who run away when upstanding white economists are just trying to masturbate into their purse."

6.) People accuse other people of crimes all of the time. What do we know about the complainant besides that she is a hotel maid? I love and admire hotel maids. They have incredibly hard jobs and they do them uncomplainingly. I am sure she is a fine woman. On the other hand, I have had hotel maids that were complete lunatics, stealing airline tickets from me, stealing money from me, throwing away important papers, stealing medications from me. How do we know that this woman's word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail? Putting a man in Riker's is serious business. Maybe more than a few minutes of investigation is merited before it's done.

"All you Mexicans who clean up after me have been on top for too long (except for you, Inez, you're one of the good ones)! I'm so sick and tired of minorities keeping rich, white international diplomats and businessmen down and imprisoning them unjustly. Except for you, Inez. (Inez lets me masturbate wherever!)"

7.) In this country, we have the presumption of innocence for the accused. Yet there's my old pal from the Ron Ziegler/ Richard Nixon days, Diane Sawyer, anchor of the ABC Nightly News, assuming that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty. Right off the bat she leads the Monday news by saying that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is in Riker's... "because one woman stood her ground..." That assumes she's telling the truth and he's guilty. No such thing has been proved and it's unfortunate for ABC to simply assume that an accusation is the same as a conviction. Maybe he's in jail because one person didn't tell the truth. I don't know one way or the other, but I sure know that there has been no conviction yet.

"I am one million years old."

8.) In what possible way is the price of the hotel room relevant except in every way: this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that's what it's all about. A man pays $3,000 a night for a hotel room? He's got to be guilty of something. Bring out the guillotine.

"Fuck the poor."