Sunday, April 08, 2007

Sunday News

One obstacle to Mike Nifong’s efforts to retain his law license is his difficulty in offering consistent defenses for his actions. He or his attorneys have provided no fewer than 11 different explanations for his decision to intentionally enter into an agreement with Dr. Brian Meehan to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence.

He and his attorneys also have struggled to come up with a consistent line to explain his improper public statements. In a July 28 press conference, he described the “first message” of his pre-primary publicity barrage as affirming that “the community was in good hands with respect to this case, and they did not need to worry about it.” Nifong never explained why this role could not have been fulfilled by people not covered by the Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, such as the mayor, or town manager, or the Police Department, as occurs in every other case.

Anyhow, Rule 3.8 of the Code of Conduct contains no “good hands” waiver, and this line of defense has now vanished from the Nifong repertoire. In his “Today” show appearance, David Freedman, Nifong’s attorney, relied on what the Bar has termed Nifong’s “hair-splitting” strategy, rationalizing the statements on the grounds that they “didn’t go particularly to any of the defendants themselves.” In his July 28 defense of his statements, Nifong didn’t raise this line of argument at all. If, in fact, the new rationalization explained Nifong's motivations all along, I wonder why the DA forgot to mention it on July 28?

---------

An important post from John in Carolina on the origins and funding of the Group of 88’s “listening statement.” Given the seemingly irregular nature in which departmental approval was (or wasn’t) obtained from four departments, JinC wanted to know

how did it happen that Duke faculty in 15 departments and programs didn't know they were being listed on a full-page Chronicle ad that thanked people who harassed and endangered Duke students by, among other odious acts, cheering a “CASTRATE” banner and distributing “Vigilante” posters within sight of Duke President Richard H. Brodhead’s office?

JinC closes with some provocative questions:

Who paid for the ad?
Did individual faculty members pay for it with their personal funds?

Or were department funds used?

And if department funds were used, which department or departments paid out the money? Who authorized departmental payout(s)?

Or did the money come from one of the many “discretionary funds” which various Duke administrators and senior faculty can access?

If that’s the case, who was the administrator or faculty member accessing a fund and which discretionary fund was accessed?
All questions that deserve responses.

----------

Amanda Marcotte, John Edwards’ former campaign blogger, continues her efforts at revising the past. In mid-February, she described her departure from the campaign as sending a message “to young feminist women . . . that campaigning for Democratic candidates, and particularly doing so in positions that would help the candidate connect with young feminist communities like the one that thrives in the blogosphere, is a scary, risky prospect” and representing “just the first sign that the established media and political circles will not be letting the blog-writing rabble into the circle without a fight.”

Of course, some might have attributed Marcotte’s departure to the difficulties of a presidential campaign keeping on staff a figure who regularly employed vile language and who had presumed guilt in a high-profile state from his home state.

Last week, Marcotte went even further, remembering “the railroading of me and Melissa off Edwards’ staff.” “Railroading”? Is Marcotte now claiming that she didn’t write the posts that caused so much controversy, or that people misquoted her?

---------

An amusing cartoon speculating on why City Manager Patrick Baker might actually like all the negative press attention that Mike Nifong has received.

---------

At the University of Minnesota, three African-American football players were arrested last week on allegations of rape. The football coach suspended them from the team.

The issue, however, attracted quite different national media attention than did the Duke case. The AP story did not mention the race of either the accuser or the accused. No jeremiads from Selena Roberts or Harvey Araton are likely to appear. University officials have given no inclination that they plan to cancel the team’s season or even cancel one spring practice. And those awaiting the University of Minnesota faculty equivalent of the Group of 88 to issue a denunciatory statement will, I suspect, be waiting a long time.

---------

Another sign of Mike Nifong’s diminished power came last week, when Durham’s senior resident Superior Court judge, Orlando Hudson, granted a motion filed by Freda Black and set the stage for the release of Raymond Lee Parker. Parker was convicted of robbery (which netted $173) 27 years ago in a case prosecuted by then-ADA Mike Nifong.

The victim has died, and Parker remains in jail, even though under current North Carolina law, his maximum sentence would be under 14 years. The N&O’s Anne Blythe: “Nifong could not be reached for comment Thursday.” That line has become quite familiar in recent weeks.

Liestoppers also observes that having a disgraced DA makes it difficult to negotiate with the state legislature to obtain increased funding. The post notes that Nifong appears to be double dipping in his appeals, asking for more state funds on the grounds that he can't rely on county support and requesting more county support on the grounds he can't rely on state support.

More generally: how, possibly, could a state legislator vote more funds for an office headed by a figure that the state Bar has contended violated three North Carolina laws and the U.S. Constitution?

---------

Group of 88 leader Karla Holloway penned a column last week for the Chronicle on the shortcomings of current Duke “diversity” efforts. Apparently reacting to comments from student critics of the Campus Culture Initiative, Holloway argued that “institutionally produced, racially assigned programming does not quite match the vision of inclusiveness we broadcast as our desire,” and therefore the administration should avoid student-led racially restrictive recruitment efforts. Instead, she argued, the administration should aim to be more inclusive in all such initiatives, seeking to bring people together rather than segregate them by race or ethnicity.

Economics professor E. Roy Weintraub appropriately responded, “Karla Holloway’s thoughtful and cogent message encourages us all to move away from the past's strategies to foster diversity at our university, and to recognize new ways that Duke may again show leadership in developing a more inclusive university community. Her intervention in this discussion is most appreciated.” Michael Gustafson agreed,

To me, this article speaks to what valuing diversity really should mean for the university as opposed to our merely claiming a diversity in metrics. Involving a broader base of students as well as of staff and faculty in the recruiting experiences will both demonstrate Duke's commitment to engaging difference and in the process will serve to open the lines of communication whence inclusive communities come. Examining how the criteria of various scholarship programs may lead to a greater diversity metric for the university, but with a catastrophic side-effect of more highly segregated sub-communities of scholars, is an important task for a university that desires a greater breadth of experiences to form the intellectual “collision spaces” our programs provide.

Holloway’s column is a further, welcome indication that the ultra-politically correct recommendations of the Campus Culture Initiative (of which she served as race subgroup chair) have little chance of adoption. Hopefully, the column also represents an indication that Duke might reconsider its “diversity” agenda in faculty hiring as well.

Hat tips: J.M., A.A., K.E.

76 comments:

Anonymous said...

So now Holloway is changing her tune? Can the rest of the "Group" be far behind? But why now? I would guess she has come to believe in what that great philosopher, Meat Loaf said, "In the land of the pig,the butcher is king!" For Holloway, for the "Group", for Nifong and friends, the slaughter is about to commence.

gwallan said...

Meanwhile in Australia
Innocent boy's jail nightmare
DNA results took months and then weren't analysed properly. Innocent fifteen year old rots in jail for twelve months on girls say so.
Isn't it great living in a world where a womans word caries more weight than not only a man's but also ALL the evidence.

GED said...

Dr Holloway is complaining that Duke students acted as hosts and hostess for some prospective minority freshmen and freshwomen. Dr Holloway wants all prospective students to be entertained in future by highly qualified Duke professors like herself. And if she can't be there she'll pick an appropriate stand in.

The Duke community sent a dozen roses to her dressing room.

Anonymous said...

"At the University of Minnesota, three African-American football players were arrested last week on allegations of rape".

The intriguing question is: how would the institution have reacted if the accused were white? Impossible to say, but the very fact that so many people will ask themselves that question says a great deal about the grotesque double standards that exist in the US today on matters of race (and gender).

Anonymous said...

"Meanwhile in Australia
Innocent boy's jail nightmare
DNA results took months and then weren't analysed properly. Innocent fifteen year old rots in jail for twelve months on girls say so.
Isn't it great living in a world where a womans word caries more weight than not only a man's but also ALL the evidence".

Both UK and Canada have been seriously considering changes to their laws to reverse the traditional burden of proof in rape cases from the prosecution to the defence in order to increase conviction rates. (It certainly will do that! A LOT of innocent men will go to prison, which will push convictions rates up.) Under such a change, the accused would be required to prove he did NOT rape someone. Obviously, in Australia no such change to the law is necessary, as reverse onus seems to be de facto the case already.

Anonymous said...

I think that the lax case and the second duke rape case have taught us all we need to know about diversity. Diversity puts white men in jeopardy of false charges and white women in jeopardy of sexual violence.

I'm afraid that KC will edit or scrub this post because at the end of the day, he has bought into the "diversity" propaganda at its must fundamental level. Since I disagree with this and many will view it as racist, he'll probably scrub the post, but those of you who read this before he does so should spend some time thinking about what a healthy dose of racism would have done for the lax boys and the second duke rape case. Neither would have happened.

WINDBAG

Anonymous said...

My third child has decided not to follow her siblings to this cesspit of pc.

Anonymous said...

When Holloway quit the CCI these ideas disappeared from its report. The Chronicle has the original drafts. KC is wrong on the "apparent" source of her opinion. Fact checking seems in order. The question might be why the report dropped these recommendations after her dramatic departure.

rod allison, detroit said...

Yesterday, there was a short, one paragraph article about the Minnesota arrests in Sports Briefs on page D3 of the Ann Arbor News, and no mention at all in the Detroit Free Press. And these papers serve another Big 10 locality.

As for the paper of record? I don't think we'll be hearing from the Westport Wonder or crack investigative reporter Fluff Wilson on this one.

Anonymous said...

Hope everyone has had a hot bunny weekend!

Had dinner last evening with a few relatives from Seattle who are spending a few months of fun traveling the East Coast.

And of course, everyone was talking about the Duke lacrosse case.

My relatives are very liberal in most ways and living in Starbucks Latte La...La...Land has honed that diehard mindset; however, they, like most of us, are appalled at what has been sanctioned in NC by those who profess a commitment to civil rights in this country.

During our session of holding court on this case---while enjoying magnifico Italian fare---someone suggested that the South seems to be over-reacting to its past.

Too many people in positions of power want to prove how "progressive" they are. Consequently, they make insane decisions in favor of the black community....as the black community laughs all the way to the bank.....and all the way down the road to largesse in almost every other arena.

Including getting by with ruining the lives of three innocent men.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Since this is Sunday News with a mixture of topics, the column below about Thomas Sowell is well worth reading.

He's an example of what a true scholar should be.

Heart and Sowell

Debrah

Anonymous said...

I know that none of you is going to believe this, but I have never seen a photo of KC until this morning!

For some reason, I thought that he was an older man who had been teaching as long as most of the professors of the Gang of 88.

I just put him in the same perceptional screen as they.....and thought that he had taken them on precisely because they were from the same era.

Ha!

Just came upon this article from February and read it. Where have I been? Did someone post this and I just missed it?

Oh, well.....like most, I have been concerned with this case and don't get into googling people....so....I am just today finding out who KC really is.

He's very cute, don't you think?

KC

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Don't forget to scroll down for the real photo.

The top is just a caricature.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Debrah's got a boyfriend!

Don't go all giddy on us, girl - we need you to remain seiously focused.

KC is modest in that interview - I think that in time things would not have come to light. We needed him to root out these vermin, and I for one, am glad his bow-tied self is on the job.

Anonymous said...

TO 10:01AM--

Yes, it was a very good interview.

I intend to forward it to a few people because I think that he articulates perfectly how many feel, and he describes the shock we all have experienced from the gross and unapologetic double standards of this case.

Debrah

Nifong's hat trick said...

"...the administration should aim to be more inclusive in all such initiatives, seeking to bring people together rather than segregate them by race or ethnicity."

Karla Holloway & the rest of the G88 are the first to segregate by race and ethnicity.

According to Holloway, Duke's change in 2003 to a "diversity" initiative is when "blacks fell of the radar." Karla, are you suggesting that the focus should have remained on blacks? Wouldn't that be considered segregating by race, Karla?

Holloway along with Mark Anthony Neal & his "thugniggaintellectual" theory are the first to segregate themselves from all that is not black and in the process attempt to lead other blacks to do the same...segregate by race.

Who do they think they are kidding?

jamil hussein said...

Both UK and Canada have been seriously considering changes to their laws to reverse the traditional burden of proof in rape cases from the prosecution to the defence in order to increase conviction rates.

Unfortunately, new congress is busy drafting similar bills in the US. Hillary is pushing universal speech codes (speech defined offending by Gang88 and their ilk - such as christian views - is hate speech and offenders will be thrown to jail.

John Conyers introduced orwellian thought police bill:
Conyers' 'Hate Grandma' bill introduced in House
One special hate group has been identified (christians).

Actions are irrelevant, it is the thought that matters.

For example, these "hate speech mongerers" are 75-year old ladies (
who committed the hate crime of sharing the Gospel on the public sidewalk in Philadelphia so they were hauled her off to jail. This is not enough for congressional Gang88 caucus.

Conyers wanted Junior Thought Police trained to roam the school hallways looking for verbal "offenses." Not sure if they were issued brown shirts. Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno..spearheaded a program of training students to police the halls for "violators" in Maine, Massachusetts and West Virginia..

Well, elections have consequenses. I'm afraid but Gang88, Marcotte and Black Panthers have won this war.

jamil hussein said...

here is the polished version:
Both UK and Canada have been seriously considering changes to their laws to reverse the traditional burden of proof in rape cases

Unfortunately, new congress is busy drafting similar bills in the US. Hillary is pushing universal speech codes (speech defined offending by Gang88 and their ilk - such as christian views - is hate speech and offenders will be thrown to jail.

John Conyers introduced orwellian thought police bill:
Conyers' 'Hate Grandma' bill introduced in House
One special hate group has been identified (christians).

Actions are irrelevant, it is the thought that matters.

For example, these "hate speech mongerers" are 75-year old ladies
who committed the hate crime of sharing the Gospel on the public sidewalk in Philadelphia so they were hauled her off to jail. This is not enough for congressional Gang88 caucus.

Conyers wanted Junior Thought Police trained to roam the school hallways looking for verbal "offenses." Not sure if they were issued brown shirts. Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno..spearheaded a program of training students to police the halls for "violators" in Maine, Massachusetts and West Virginia..

Well, elections have consequenses. I'm afraid but Gang88, Marcotte and Black Panthers have won this war.

Anonymous said...

Big Karla is just trying to backtrack a little now that the spotlight is on the Gang of 88--brought on, by the way, by their own odious behavior.

In reality, big Karla is incapable of truly toning anything down. Analogous to this point is the way she wears her jewelry.

No doubt, her six figure salary can support an armoire full of reasonably expensive jewelry; however, her gawdy way of wearing it....as though she has stacked together every piece she owns.....wearing them all together at the same time.

Very tacky.

Overkill.

Loud.

Similar to the way she comes off in all other areas of her existence.


Debrah

Georgia Girl said...

Debra, I enjoyed reading the recap of your weekend with the relatives. It's rare to anyone comment share personal tidbits about their everyday lives.

Yes, KC is adorable, and so Young! I'll have to read the whole interview later. I wonder if he was "ever" a liberal (being a Harvard graduate?).

Georgia Girl said...

glad anon's not here to see how I screwed up that first paragraph HA

...you knew what I meant tho

another.anon said...

Hi KC,

Since Sunday seems to be your day for odds 'n' ends, I thought this request wouldn't be off-topic.

How about some posts on the book? I'm thinking more from the point of view of putting a book together: choosing the length, number of chapters, arranging material, choosing illustrations, etc, *not* sneak previews at the content.

In your spare time, of course :-)

Anonymous said...

GG--Yes, supposedly KC is still a Liberal. He's just an authentic one.

Read some history.

RFK would be considered a real Liberal. He, like most of us, wanted people who are truly in need to be helped.

Civil rights and fairness for all.

Those ideas have been bastardized and this current insanity was cultivated by those who were adults in the 60's.

Liberalism today is anarchy.

Leftist facism.

This case and KC's book will help others to see what has happened....and hopefully will assist in putting a stop to the madness.

Debrah

Georgia Girl said...

I hear a good way to put a book together is to use a stack of 3x5 cards in the initial stages. Write down every thought, then at some point, arrange the cards in order. This method is supposed to provide a good base.

Georgia Girl said...

Debrah, do you have the same opinion of the pioneers of anti sex discrimination (60s). For instance, Bernice Sandler, a major player in getting Title IX passed?

Anonymous said...

One of the most important questions in this whole mess has yet to be answered. Who paid for the listening statement ad? I cannot believe that Duke students alumni, Professors, and parents have not been given the answer.

KC, JinC, and everyone associated with this debacle need that questions answered. If (as others have opined) money paid by the parents of the lacrosse team, and in particular the 3 charged players, went to pay for this ad, someone's head should be on the chopping block.

As Mr. Anderson so nicely puts it, the administration continues to give their own students, parents, and alumni the finger.

Anonymous said...

GG---

I don't know exactly how I feel about the sex discrimination issue.

Honestly, this case and others have produced a healthy dose of skepticism in me.

Of course there has been discrimination and abuse of women.

Of course there has been racial discrimination.

I just believe that those circumstances are a lot less frequent and real than this country has been indoctrinated into believing.

It's called "institutional extortion".

Debrah

Georgia Girl said...

"Civil rights and fairness for all", was by no means a popular ideology in the 60s. RFK won his first election by the skin of his nose ... (after a TV debate that proved devastating for Nixon). RFK barely made it narrowly by the delegates ... not the popular vote.

Anonymous said...

GG---

I was talking about what RFK stood for.

Not votes.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

TO 10:58AM--

Has Bill Anderson done a column on the funding of the Gang 88 ad yet?

Debrah

Georgia Girl said...

Yep, it was all encompassing ... gender discrimination regarding equal pay for women; their right to having a "credit card" issued in their names ..... even access to the floor of the NY stock exchange!

Georgia Girl said...

We both meant JFK (not RFK)

Anonymous said...

So...who was the DNA from?
That may be the Big Question.

Mac Attack

Anonymous said...

Or rather: does someone in the
cast of the Hoax have a certain..penchant...for scuzzy
part-time..."dancers?"

Mac Attack

Georgia Girl said...

JFK had no idea his ideology would escalate into leftist fascism, and do you realize that most voters in the 60s viewed him as such?

Anonymous said...

Georgia Girl---

Let me make it clear to you.

I most certainly meant Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy.

IMO, he was the only Kennedy worthy of being president.

A true believer.

He never would have stood for the excrement that is passed off as Liberalism today.

You irritate the h/ll out of me because you seem to always be bouncing off the walls.

Follow what is being said or shut the h/ll up.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Make that Robert Francis Kennedy.

Ok, then.

Debrah

Georgia Girl said...

ok sorry, debrah.
When I went into the narrow electoral vote and the lack of the popular vote, you replied that you were "not referring to the vote", so I just assumed you meant JFK.

Anonymous said...

GG---

Robert Kennedy won the California primary when he was shot by Sirhan Sirhan--another Muslim contribution to America--and would have certainly won the presidency.

I've done a lot of reading on RFK.

He's a November baby as I am.....so I had much curiosity.

Debrah

Georgia Girl said...

Seems I really catch hell for having a different slant on various issues. Bashing is uncalled for.

BTW, were not RFK's ideologies identical to those of JFK, who launched the civil rights movement? I'm not sure I understand what you meant by saying "RFK" was the only kennedy worth the presidency.

Debrah, you're the one who brought up the Kennedys.

Anonymous said...

Georgia Girl,

You are not worth the effort.

Regards,

Your best bud, Anonymous.

P. Rich said...

KC. Bowtie. Cool.

"...struggled to come up with a consistent line to explain..."

That's pretty much what defense attorneys do for a living, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

re Holloway's jewelry

A huge beneficiary of race norming, Karla Holloway and her jewelry can be looked at as pure, unadulterated welfare-sucking puke.

Georgia Girl said...

What you really mean by "not worth the effort" is that you haven't done enough research to intelligently compare the similarities of the sixties era to the current era of so-called fascism.

And when I respond to issues "you" initiate (60s, kennedys, etc.), you claim I'm bouncing off the walls, when in fact I'm only bouncing off your threads".

Anonymous said...

Well, it's not nice
to be nasty, is it?
Leave that to the
"Crazy 88s."
The interesting comparison -
(to me, anyway) - is that
both JFK and RFK were tied
to a certain woman who had
lots of...experience.
Nothing to do with their
politics, but there's lots
of speculation about whether
one MM might have been a
CGM? That is, a "fleshmailer?"

Mac

Anonymous said...

Georgia Girl---

Please do not confuse me with the posts of your "anonymous" friend.

He is the one who said you are "not worth the effort".

However, the fact that you are lumping posts that you read together to have a way to fume tells me that you are too bothersome and flakey for me to worry with.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

K.C.

And back to the original post...
Liefong's got how many different
explanations? Where is the good
Dr. Meehan these days, anyway?

Mac

Anonymous said...

There's a quote from Proverbs
(some of you might not appreciate
this...) but is says in 24:17-18:
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and
let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth,
Lest the Lord see it and turn
away his wrath from him."

Be careful. This is how Bill
Clinton avoided the real issues
(not "Fornigate," which was a red
herring.) Don't rejoice just
yet...

Mac

Anonymous said...

I just went to the Australian story linked in post number 2 today. In this miscarriage of justice the girl admitted to police that she made a false accusation against a boy who spent a year in jail. Still the WA (Western Australia) government went ahead with a trial. And even with DNA evidence clearing the boy and the false accusers confession - the message boards have people on it claiming "something happened"

Unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Where is outrage from community on attacks?

Such an excellent letter from a man living in Durham.


Debrah

Anonymous said...

Debrah, when you can't beat'em, you just insult them - right? Sometimes your mouth gets ahead of your brain. It is not necessary for you to always confront those with whom you disagree and fill up the thread with theories that are not relevant. This is about the Duke case, not the sleezeball Kennedys!

Anonymous said...

TO 4:20PM---

Post your name. Then dictate and inject yourself into an old conversation.

Like many posters who come here, you are a cowardly flamer who shows up to "right past wrongs" with someone who might have posted something contrary to the views of one such as you who takes up space in an obviously banal corner of the world.

This blog is concerned with and entertains all aspects and dimensions of what has engendered, cultivated, and continues to support the injustices we see in the lacrosse case.

If you had the ability to think outside your sphincter muscle, you'd see that the conversation was about Liberalism and how the definition of the word has been altered.

We were also discussing KC's brand of Liberalism.

All aspects directly relate to this case and how various groups have reacted to it. Try reading the interview with KC that I linked above.

Now MR./MS. Anonymous......try to get another cowardly barb in once again.....on the sly.

Name yourself....or are you just here to blow smoke from your dark hole?

Debrah

Anonymous said...

when you can't beat'em

What a fool.

Who the heck is trying to beat anything?

Sounds like a refugee from Duke Gang of 88.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

KC, please help. "Georgia Girl" and "Debrah" have apparently hijacked this thread. No one else wants to hear their silly arguments with each other.

Anonymous said...

Debrah, I have read the interview with KC, in fact, I did not have to run accross it accidentally as some have done so well. You are a loud mouth with no respect for the opinions of others on this thread. Your barbs are those of a fool and apparently you enjoy being a "hoax groupie" rather than having opinions that are rooted in facts and reality. This site is not the place to discuss liberalism, your kind or anyone else's. This site was dedicated to the three accused lacrosse players and their ultimate exoneration. Get it?

Anonymous said...

7:33
It appears that you've got a personal bone to pick. Why don't you move on? The trouble you are trying to create doesn't exist.
That is, until you tried to rehash an old meaningless argument. Don't you have anything to add but attacks on Debrah?
The interview with KC Johnson and his views on liberlaism are very germane. You're just jealous of Debrah.

Anonymous said...

7:33
It appears that you've got a personal bone to pick. Why don't you move on? The trouble you are trying to create doesn't exist.
That is, until you tried to rehash an old meaningless argument. Don't you have anything to add but attacks on Debrah?
The interview with KC Johnson and his views on liberlaism are very germane. You're just jealous of Debrah.

Art Deco said...

Sirhan Sirhan--another Muslim contribution to America--

If I recall correctly, Sirhan Sirhan and his family were immigrants from Jordan (and presumably lived in mandatory Palestine prior to that) and were out of the small Christian minority in that country.

Anonymous said...

7:54
Sirhan was an Arab who had emigrated to the US in the 1950s.
He was reportedly disturbed by Kennedy's pro-Israel positions.
He might have called himself many things, but "Christian" was likely window dressing in order to get into this country easier.

Anonymous said...

I think we all should form a group, KC's Brigade, and meet Mikey at the courthouse on Friday 13th.
Scare the bejeesus out of the bathrobed one.

Anonymous said...

(9:38am)
I sure have had a hot bunny weekend. ;-)

Anonymous said...

On the subject of false liberals,
leftwingers etc:
it's not a "hijack" of this
particular thread.
It's relevant because professors
with the IQ of Rosie O'Donnell
have hijacked the system,
pretending to represent the
"little people." (A good
course-study - if we were studying
these professors as a topic themselves - might be Tom Wolfe's
"Radical Chic" and "Mau-Mauing
the Flak Catchers.")
It's too bad Wolfe joined in
with a condemnation of Lacrosse
players in general, almost making
his earlier works...obsolete.

It is amazing how many people -
(of all varieties) - are offended
by Nifong's tactics. It's
interesting that the "Angry
Studies" folks are NOT what
anyone could call "liberal"
in the best sense of the word,
though they would choose the
tag for themselves, ruining
it for others.

Totalitarian/Authoritarian -
doesn't matter which best
describes the way the system
failed: the fact is, freedom
seems to be winning.

For the moment.

Mac

Anonymous said...

Mac

Good work. Maybe (anonymous 7:33) will read your lucid words and wise up. He seems to be troubled by something. ;-)

MTU'76 said...

re Debrah @ 10:26

...In reality, big Karla is incapable of truly toning anything down. Analogous to this point is the way she wears her jewelry...

At last, a fashion statement we can both agree on.

MTU'76 said...

John in Carolina, cerebral, gentlemanly, the site for learned debate not untutored feelings. I read on his site that Peter Lange is the 'go to guy' regarding issues between departments and JinC plans to try and contact him on Monday. At issue is that faculty in 15 departments and programs did not know they were being inducted into the g88 'listening statement.' I know JinC will follow the money.

His Churchill Series is bonus.

MTU'76 said...

His Churchill Series is a bonus.

Anonymous said...

mtu'76
Yea, but KC is the cute one according to some. ;-)

Anonymous said...

It's all over when they find out who funded that ad. When this is known the details should be published in every paper in the country.

Anonymous said...

Mac,

You are obviously welcome to interpret Tom Wolfe's fiction any way you care to. I saw Mr. Wolfe speak at Duke last year and the 90 minutes that he spoke he said many things, including, and I am paraphrasing here, that his work is fiction and not to be taken as anything more than that. The Charlotte Simmons book about a southern university with a misbehaving lacrosse team and Bonfire of the Vanities, about an overzealous prosecutor, were just books - commentaries on the times in which we live.

I don't wish to speak for him - he has done just fine on his own - but based on reading much of his work, I don't get the sense that he would endorse wrongly prosecuting innocent people. That just doesn't seem to be something he would be in favor of, regardless of where his personal politics fall on the liberal/conservative scale.

Anonymous said...

He's a conservative.

Anonymous said...

Re: Sunday News
Here's an interesting tidbit.
I read in a publication today that a black doctor named Ian Smith says that 80% of black women and 70% of black men are overweight.
He is on a crusade to get them off the couch and to adopt better eating habits.
No wonder people living in other countries laugh at the whining by black people here about being oppressed and in need.
In need, alright. In need of some physical exertion.

Anonymous said...

10:30 pm.

You probably got a better insight
on what Wolfe's thinking is, having
heard him for 90 minutes: I just
remember hearing him interviewed -
(can't remember where nor by whom)-
and him saying some very derogatory
things about Lacrosse Players in
general. This was while the
Lacrosse Players were being
thrown down by nearly everyone,
before the tide turned.

I agree that he would be unlikely
to support Nifong and his brownshirts.
He just lost me on the Lacrosse comments.

Anonymous said...

In the interview - which I can't
find - Wolfe basically agrees with
his "herpes pustule" comment
from his own book.
Darn poor memory, though -
and poor skills locating the quote.
I see lots of reviews where he
says he's not writing about
Duke, but in the interview...
it seemed otherwise.
Sorry to not have the
exact quote/source of interview
etc.

Anonymous said...

Not to take this thread further down the primrose path, but Mr. Wolfe does not seem to like boorish behavior, wherever he finds it. Was the lacrosse team in "I Am Charlotte Simmons" based on the Duke lacrosse team? Might be - his daughter went to Duke. He was on campus during a time before the hoax when the team was behaving pretty badly.

By the time I saw him speak the momentum in the case had started to shift - the drugged up prostitute, I mean grad student and choir member, was having trouble remembering which story to tell and Nifong was throwing matches around the puddles of gasoline, so it was as if the plots of two of his works of fiction were being played out in real life. Life immitating art.

In any case, it was good to hear him, and when KC comes to Duke on his book tour, I want to be there for that, too. It would be fun to provide security. Kidding... that's a job for trained professionals like the DPD. Ok, now I really am kidding!

Anonymous said...

re Wolfe and Duke lacrosse

While I support the accused in this fiasco, I'm not blind to the idea that a lot of lacrosse jocks are douche bags. Banning Division I sports at Duke would certainly raise the collective IQ at Duke.

The subtext in a lot of Wolfe's writing on race is the failure of integration, which is 1 theme of the lacrosse scandal. The AA element in the g88 should never have been hired in the first place. Will KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor have the courage to address this? I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

11:18,

Well, if you think a 3.5 average
for the Lacrosse Team somehow
diminishes the collective IQ at Duke, you are welcome to do so.
Maybe you mean Swimming?
Swimmers have some of the best
averages of college athletes.
Which sport did you have in
mind? Do you have facts to
back you up about student-athlete
grades, or are you just "Imus-ing?"

Mac