Sunday, May 20, 2007

Sunday Review

This week’s Chronicle featured an excellent column from Jared Mueller, demanding the resignations of City Manager Patrick Baker and (perpetually absent) Police Chief Steve Chalmers. “The lacrosse case,” Mueller noted, “has drawn national attention to the ineptitude of Baker and Chalmers, but Durhamites have suffered under them for years.”

Mueller is savage—if accurate—in his description of Baker: “He dissembles; he shirks responsibility for his numerous failures; and on occasion has been caught in a bald-faced lie.” And he correctly sees Chalmers as a figure who has “spent the twilight of his career taking it easy, disappearing from the office for stretches at a time and delegating his duties to Deputy Chief Ron Hodge.”

Chalmers, of course, is the figure most responsible for keeping on the job Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, who Mueller cleverly describes as “the sort of guy who I imagine goes home at night, pops in ‘Cool Hand Luke’ and roots for the guards. In the fall of 2005 and winter of 2006, Gottlieb threatened to deport several Duke students for minor alcohol offenses, including one who was an American citizen. In that same period, he let a guy with a concealed weapon off with a ticket.”

Using the DPD’s own statistics, Mueller makes the case for Chalmers’ immediate dismissal:

Who would want to tangle with Durham’s drug cartels when you can make a career of throwing 115-pound college girls in jail for giving a 20-year-old a beer? Thanks for keeping us safe from the real criminals, Mark! The worst part: Chalmers confirmed to the N&O that it was DPD policy to arrest Duke students—and tie up Durham’s overburdened justice system—for violations that they would only cite non-students for.

How did the results pay off? The number of violent crimes rose 35 percent (from 678 to 916) from the first half of 2005 to the first six months of 2006, immediately after the DPD’s in loco parentis policy took force. What do you say to a police chief who sacrifices the safety of his constituents in order to arrest college students at parties? Chalmers chose pacifying the affluent residents of Trinity Park over protecting Durham’s most vulnerable citizens. He deserves unemployment and harsh condemnation.

---------

Hodge, it turns out, is one of five finalists in the search to replace Chalmers. That the DPD could even consider hiring an inside candidate after the lacrosse fiasco and the Baker/Chalmers cover-up is beyond me.

WRAL reports that the would-be chiefs will participate in a public forum on June 3. A candidate who knows basic rules of ethics and due process would make a good choice.

---------

The new chief might also want to instruct his or her officers on why they shouldn’t file fraudulent affidavits. Required reading would be an excellent Liestoppers post, which explains why the March 23 non-testimonial was based upon what appears to be a fraudulent summary of the investigative data from Officer Ben Himan.

The source? Ironically, the Baker/Chalmers report, which—no doubt inadvertently—provided “additional reasons to believe that the “evidence” offered in support of the Fake Names Theory was either transparently false or blatantly manufactured.”

In his section of the report, Chalmers admitted what Kim Roberts had confirmed in her March 22, 2006 statement to police: Dan Flannery never used a first-name alias (and, ignored by Chalmers, showed Roberts his ID when she asked). Yet in the March 23 NTO, Himan and Assistant District Attorney David Saacks claimed that Flannery used the name “Adam” at the party. Their evidence for this assertion? None.

As Liestoppers tartly concludes,

It is unclear whether the discrepancy is an indication that the Durham Police Department is having difficulty keeping their stories straight or simply an honest mistake on the part of Himan, Saacks, and/or Chalmers. Alternatively, the discrepancy might indicate that Crystal Mangum attached three fake names (“Adam”..”Matt”..”Dan Flanagan”) to Flannery sometime after the first four lineup attempts on March 16, 2006, and the next two lineup attempts on March 21, 2006, and well before Linwood Wilson produced her December 21, 2006, statement that Dave Evans was “Adam”... “Matt”.. and “Brett.”
The Liestoppers post also reminds readers of another false claim of the March 23 NTO—that the lacrosse players had claimed that they played other sports, or that they were graduate students: “Himan’s handwritten notes from the interview indicate that Ms. Roberts specifically stated ‘lacrosse team’ and offer no indication that a baseball team, a track team, or any other team was mentioned by Roberts.”

Himan, of course, has never explained how he developed this evidence. Perhaps he was planning a “straight-from-memory” addition to his report at a later stage.

---------

Baker also came under criticism this week from Cash Michaels, whose column asked, “Do Mayor Bill Bell and the Durham City Council have any confidence left in City Manager Patrick Baker, especially after a series of damaging fiascos, the latest being the Duke lacrosse case?”

Michaels terms the City Council’s reception to the Baker/Chalmers report “icy cold,” and notes that Baker’s report evaded the question of whether Mike Nifong directed the police investigation, “in an obvious attempt to blur the issue out of fear of probable litigation.”

The column has several interesting quotes from Jim Coleman. “From all appearances,” he correctly observed, “Nifong took over complete control of the case. The police did nothing to indicate they were operating independently of Nifong.”

Coleman also dismissed the report’s attempt to blame on defense attorneys the authorities’ decision to charge three people without probable cause. “If [Nifong] personally was not interested in anything the defense had, no purpose would have been served by going to the police. A reasonable expectation would have been that the police would have used anything given to them (that the DA refused to see) to try to undermine the alibi or to manipulate the accuser’s statement to take into account the evidence. We saw that with the [police intimidation of the] taxi driver, with Sgt. Gottlieb’s typed ex post facto notes, and later with the December 2006 interview of the accuser by the DA’s investigator.”

---------

A fascinating article in last week’s National Law Journal explicates the “Nifong effect,” or what one New Jersey prosecutor calls “a tool and a buzz word for defense attorneys to say, ‘Look what happened at Duke.’”

Reporter Tresa Baldas discovered that “prosecutors across the country are seeing fallout from the Duke case, as defense attorneys use it to discredit other criminal cases and paint them as overzealous prosecutors with something to prove.”

Ohio criminal defense attorney Ian Friedman notes, “Everyone in my firm is well aware that this [Duke] example should be raised—during voir dire, during closing arguments— . . . because this may cause a jury not to rush the judgment.”

---------

University of Iowa law professor Tung Yin has been through a draft of the Yaeger/Pressler book, scheduled for release on June 12, and writes that “you can’t read this book without getting angry.”

Yin notes that when the case first broke, he believed that the players “had probably committed the act,” and that he certainly “did not have an instinctive bias to take the side of the white, supposedly privileged players. That's why following the case and the apparently outrageous steps that Nifong took in leading the investigation and prosecuting/persecuting the players is so angering. When there is evidence of such massive abuse of authority for what seems like pure personal/political gain (the book argues that Nifong made a spectacle out of the case so that he could win election as DA and thereby keep his job, since his main opponent was the second Assistant DA, Freda Black, whom he fired when he was appointed DA by the governor), it's impossible not to be angry.”

Yin especially praises the book for providing “a nice look into former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler’s side of the story . . . [someone who] had nothing to do with the stripper party, and yet, he was—according to Pressler—forced to resign from the institution that he’d spent 16 years at. I didn’t fully appreciate the injustice to Pressler before, and the book does that well.”

The book is scheduled for release on June 12; in addition to summarizing some of the book’s strengths and weaknesses, Yin’s post offers some thoughtful commentary (with which I agree) on the differences in approach between books and blogs.

---------

On Friday, the Houston Rockets fired coach Jeff Van Gundy. The stated reason: in four seasons at the helm, he had failed to take the team past the first round of the playoffs.

But could another reason have existed for the move? Perhaps team owner Les Alexander wanted to punish Van Gundy for setting in motion a chain of events that revealed Yao Ming as “the most profound threat to American empire.”

No word yet on whether the originator of this claim—Group of 88 stalwart Grant Farred—is scurrying the old quotes of Rick Adelman, the frontrunner to succeed Van Gundy, to determine whether Adelman, too, has inadvertently exposed the threats to the American empire.

---------

I attended yesterday's Delbarton-Chaminade lacrosse game, won in overtime by Delbarton, 8-7, before a boisterous crowd. Delbarton and Chaminade have been models of how an academic institution should handle a situation when a former student is subjected to charges from a "rogue prosecutor." Both schools stood by their students without sacrificing any of their ideals.

As for the game itself: I was struck by the exceedingly high quality of assistant coaching for both teams.

---------

In this week’s Durham News, Matt Dees previews Monday’s City Council meeting, which figures to address a number of issues of import. Dees lays them out:

Will the city commission an independent study of the police department’s handling of the Duke lacrosse case?

Will Chief Steven Chalmers, who has yet to speak publicly about the case, be called to answer questions from City Council members?

Will the council formally call for District Attorney Mike Nifong to resign?

The council agenda is filled with dozens of other items as well; it’s anyone’s guess whether the body will exercise its legitimate oversight powers on the police question.

---------

Finally, ABC-11’s Tamara Gibbs is reporting that Reade Seligmann and Dave Evans will attend Mike Nifong’s ethics trial (scheduled for June 12); State Bar prosecutors will decide, Jim Cooney stated, whether Seligmann will testify.

Indeed, apart from Crystal Mangum, it’s entirely possible many of the other key figures in the case—most notably Gottlieb and DA “investigator” Linwood Wilson—will testify. I will be in Raleigh for the entire trial.

141 comments:

wayne fontes said...

KC said:

Hodge, it turns out, is one of five finalists in the search to replace Chalmers. That the DPD could even consider hiring an inside candidate after the lacrosse fiasco and the Baker/Chalmers cover-up is beyond me.

WRAL reports that the would-be chiefs will participate in a public forum on June 3. A candidate who knows basic rules of ethics and due process would make a good choice.


Your setting the bar kind of high for Durham KC. I'll pass on some advice a friend once gave me regarding the Detroit Lions. One year I was projecting how if every thing broke just right the Lions could make the playoffs. The guy looked at me and said "back it down Wayne, your talking about the Lions".

Back it down Kc, your talking about Durham.

Michael said...

Interesting to see Michaels on board and using [innoncent]. Joyner seems to have come around too.

I don't know how Nifong will be able to stand the embarassment of the bar trial. It would be nice if Mrs. Evans were there too.

mac said...

My guess is that Farred would
prefer a "threat to the American
empire," and is all too happy
to see Jeff Van Gundy stay
where he is, exposing the
empire, and exposing the empire
to the deadly fire of Luke
Skywalker.

mac said...

Oops. Jeff Van Gundy is already
out. I forgot.
Better tell Luke to bring
the ships back, Grant.

mac said...

Some predictions:

Gottlieb will head up Homeland
Security under either President
Rudy or President Hillary.

Baker'll operate a major flea
market somewhere in the midwest.

Himan will go to work for the
ATF.

mac said...

Wayne Fontes

No, KC is talking about the "City
of Durh" (the sound that Homer
Simpson makes when he pushes
the wrong button at work) -
but that makes your point even
stronger.

Durh!

Anonymous said...

"Nifong made a spectacle out of the case so that he could win election as DA and thereby keep his job, since his main opponent was the second Assistant DA, Freda Black, whom he fired when he was appointed DA by the governor."

I have always wondered about this event (the firing of Black). As politically oblivious as DA Nifong may be, it's tempting to attribute his first significant act in office as having been orchestrated by the governor's office as part of the deal that got Nifong the appointment in the first place.

Gov. Easley appointed Nifong in April 2005. Had Black already stated her intent to run for the office at that time?

I'd love to see this episode explored eventually.

The other curiosity (in the larger picture) now is whether or not Dowd's team mate/classmate retained his 'F'. I assume this information will surface soon.

RL DU medicine '75

mac said...

10:35
Wonder if the second teammate
is likewise going to sue?

Chicago said...

I want to shift gears for a second and say a HUGE GO DUKE! Today's game against UNC is quite possibly the most important game in the history of Duke Lacrosse. There is truly "more than a game" at stake. For this team to get back to the Final Four after what they have been through will be fantastic. I am so proud of these young men for bouncing back. Get it done boys!

Anonymous said...

Whats sad is, these people are still collecting a paycheck. I dont live in N.C. so at least they are not being paid with my tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

Who would of thought a third rate DA would have such an impact on popular language:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nifonged

Anonymous said...

It's interesting--and I'm sure no coincidence--that the Yaeger/Pressler book is scheduled for release on the day Nifong's bar hearing is to start. That publisher has a good publicity department!

Anonymous said...

KC,

I love this site and I am a huge fan of your work on this case. As a reader, however, I find the continual splicing of quotations to be a bit annoying, here are two examples:

“The lacrosse case,” Mueller noted, “has drawn national attention to the ineptitude of Baker and Chalmers, but Durhamites have suffered under them for years.”

and

“From all appearances,” he correctly observed, “Nifong took over complete control of the case. The police did nothing to indicate they were operating independently of Nifong.”

Try mixing it up a bit!

Anonymous said...

the liberal academic types who sometimes post on these boards are so hopeful, as are the duke adminstrators and trustees, that just ignoring the players will make the scar go away

when one reads the upcoming book on presler, it will outline how a 16 YEAR COACH who did nothing to noone is ostracized and FIRED and BROADROT allegedly saw his firing as JUSTIFIED, BUT NOW THE WORLD WILL REALIZE that this fine white man was terminated only to APPEASE the fear and cowardice in the mind and soul of BROAROT and the Duke board of trustees that rubber stamped his action ?

this is a compelling storyline for a great movie ...this is a compelling storyline for a great book...this is a compelling academic study of the MISUSE of ATHLETICS, this not by the gamblers of the NAISMITH ERA in basketball but by the cowards that gamble on ruining coaches lives by the BROATROT Associateds in the modern era of lacrosse...

show me who stood up in the duke law school, the press, the student bobd and the faculty to defend the COACH ?

OSMAMA BIN LADEN would have had more support among the unattractive students and faculty at DUKE...

duke actions to sacrifice a 16 veteran sports professor who has had more positive influence on DUKE GRADUATES character and ethics than 10000000 african american rascist bitter angry feminazi professors like kim curtis and the dismissive male professors among her ILK at duke

this STORY isnt going away until DUKE `cuts out and excises the cancer called broadrot and replaces with a man of value with the heart mind of someone like knute rockne...

pressler for president

Anonymous said...

Can any verify that Lubiano was not in fact, mixed up and confused with Holloway in the book? I certainly hope not, it will detract terribly from the book if it is.

kayman007

Anonymous said...

Nifong, previously a legend in his own mind , now, an American legend for corruption an deceipt.

Amazing what a clown can do, still keep his job, get a salary and pension!

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

"I have always wondered about this event (the firing of Black)."

I've wondered too. Everything in Durham has been written about ad nauseum - except Freda Black. The governor of the state went out of his way to prevent her from becoming DA but has never explained why. Nifong's first act as DA was to fire her and he's never explained why. Even the Durham papers refuse to speak of her and naturally we can't know why.

My own two cents is that Black is to Durham as Wolfowitz is to the World Bank - i.e., she and he are both persons strong enough to confront corruption. Wolfowitz is being destroyed for trying - Black wasn't even given the chance.

Anonymous said...

If Nifong doesn't go to prison for a very long time, he wins, and society loses.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

I think it is a bad idea for Reade and Dave to attend this hearing.

Anonymous said...

Hope Coach makes millions on the book. This should really anger Thugan...Neal, who's last book was in the 620,000 range at Amazon - the higher the number, the less books sold. Maybe the deal with Black is she is a female. NC is an "old boy network." There may be easier ways to make money than having a best selling book, but I don't know what it is except movies and inventing the hula hoop.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, the Baker/Chalmers report, which—no doubt inadvertently—provided “additional reasons to believe that the “evidence” offered in support of the Fake Names Theory was either transparently false or blatantly manufactured.”

The faking of the fake names by Himan, et al, is particularly egregious in that it spawned much of the atmosphere that resulted in the prejudging of the LAX team and the accused.
1) Multiple faked names implied a conspiracy by the players both to commit and cover up a crime.
2) Fake name theory also allowed Nifong to indict whomever he wanted. Names didn't matter anymore and the accuser's story(ies) no longer needed to match reality.
3) The concocted Fake Name Theory served to reinforced the notion that the players were not cooperating and were hiding behind a blue wall of silence. The perceived lack of cooperation, intentionally fostered by Nifong, made the entire team, not just the 3 players who would eventually be accused, look guilty of something. This had devastating, tangible consequences to the team: the firing of the coach, the cancellation of the season, grade retaliation, and indictment of 3 innocent players.

All the signs of conspiracy, it turns out, point to Nifong and the DPD. There was no coordinated effort by the Duke players to commit a crime or cover one up, but there was such an effort by Nifong to gain the indictment of the three players the the simulataneous supression and manufacturing of evidence.

gs said...

it’s entirely possible many of the other key figures in the case... will testify.

Nifong hands in his license and is a no show. Nifong's lawyer will not allow more sworn testimony that could result in criminal charges against his client.

I suspect the major Hoax players lawyers are calling Nifong's lawyer and saying end this, before it gets worst.

mac said...

gs
It may get worse whether they
like it or not: the (alleged)
willingness of the two students
to appear means that they haven't
yet washed their hands of it all.

Nifong could be well-advised
to hand in his license, anyway,
and perhaps to resign, if only
to show some level of contrition.
That's what a decent person
would do, or one who had
competent counsel.

Hard to say what Nifong will
choose.

The only way these folks can
escape justice is for them to
use their lawyers to engage in
yet another conspiracy - sort
of what you are alluding to -
simply because they are not
capaple of keeping up with
their own lies and the lies of
others added to them.

Whether or not lawyers will agree
to do so depends upon whether
they wish to engage themselves
in RICO-like activity.

Anyone think they'll do that?
I don't. That would risk the
Feds getting involved - and I
suspect (just a hunch) that
there is some activity going
on that won't be acted upon
until all parties reveal their
hands.

As I said, just a hunch.
Might give Gonzo back his
marbles.

Anonymous said...

"Chalmers confirmed to the N&O that it was DPD policy to arrest Duke students—and tie up Durham’s overburdened justice system—for violations that they would only cite non-students for".

So the Chief of Police admits that his department pursued a policy of treating Duke students more harshly than non-students for the same offences, yet Brodhead has to date said nothing publicly on this subject. (To my knowledge.) It is so revealing when he chooses to speak, and when he chooses to stay silent. The same is true of his friends in the Gang of 88, who seem just as selective in picking what to denounce. Evidently systematic police harassment of Duke students isn't among them.

Anonymous said...

"I want to shift gears for a second and say a HUGE GO DUKE! Today's game against UNC is quite possibly the most important game in the history of Duke Lacrosse. There is truly "more than a game" at stake. For this team to get back to the Final Four after what they have been through will be fantastic. I am so proud of these young men for bouncing back. Get it done boys!"

That's what higher education is all about: ability to hurl a little ball about.

Anonymous said...

"duke actions to sacrifice a 16 veteran sports professor who has had more positive influence on DUKE GRADUATES character and ethics".

A "sports professor"?! Is that what they call them? Only in America...

Anonymous said...

"Sports Professor"

I like it. I swam in college, my coach then was (and still is) a very honorable man. He raised 3 kids, ooached swimming for most of his adult life, was elected to the swimming coaches Hall of Fame recently.
He taught me as much about life as did any of my other professors. Mostly, he taught me discipline, dedication, honor, and responsibility. He did this by example mostly. This man would have never done what any of the 88 "Duke Professors" did, EVER. And believe me, we as college age swimmers had our share of stupid acts, myself included. He stood by us in the best and worst of times, and though there were times some of us had to be punished, he did so in a fair, personal, and truthful fashion.
I say all this,becasue, "Sports Professor" seems to be a perfect description for some of the coaches in the country who guide young men & women through life. From what I read and hear about Coach Pressler, he seems to be this kind of a man. For a person like this to lose his job, and 88 others to keep them seems beyond reason to me.
BTW, the swim team had a higher GPA then the University average, graduated high numbers of athletes, and the reason for this was a large part because of the coach. Duke Lacrosse players have similar statistics, and this happens becasue of a head coach that runs a stellar program.

BDay MD
SMU Swim Team (1.4 million years ago)

Jack said...

In as much as everyone is looking for apologies in the case – the Gang of 88, Brodhead, the journalists (none of which will be forthcoming, by the way), have the Duke lacrosse players themselves ever issued an apology, or expressed regrets? To their school, or classmates, or to the community in general? After all, if they never hired those two strippers that night, none of this would have happened.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 1: 34 said...

...3) The concocted Fake Name Theory served to reinforced the notion that the players were not cooperating and were hiding behind a blue wall of silence. The perceived lack of cooperation, intentionally fostered by Nifong, made the entire team, not just the 3 players who would eventually be accused, look guilty of something. This had devastating, tangible consequences to the team: the firing of the coach, the cancellation of the season, grade retaliation, and indictment of 3 innocent players.

...All the signs of conspiracy, it turns out, point to Nifong and the DPD.
::
I'm not so sure about that.
Nifong had a witness and DNA or so everyone thought.
With all the smart people over at Duke, I would have thought that the perceived lack of cooperation by team members would have been dismissed as nothing more than hyperbole...and I would include CrimeStoppers in the group also.
There is a Law School at Duke for goodness sake with real attorneys who could speak to the issue of evidence, truth and the importance of the victim as the primary witness.
There is much more to this conspiracy that meets the eye.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Duke defeats NC .... 17 - 10!

Brilliant!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Woops! Correction ... make that 19 - 10! Apparently I rushed to judgment just a bit ...

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Would the North Carolina Bar still hold a trial even if Nifong turns in his license and offers no defense?

KC Johnson said...

If Nifong turns in his law license, there would be no trial: the Bar cannot impose penalties beyond disbarment, and has no jurisdiction over non-attorneys.

Anonymous said...

Conspiracy theories are fun but of no substance. Certainly not in this event. Nifong did it all by his lonesome. BTW, a new group is coming out with more "conspiracy" about JFK. That must mean the Lax Case is winding down.

Anonymous said...

OMG KC - Nifong is mean enough to turn in his license and deny folk the pleasure of a public hanging.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Jack said at 4:58: "...have the Duke lacrosse players themselves ever issued an apology, or expressed regrets?"

Ohmigod, Jack, where have you BEEN for the entire last year? The LAX players have apologized and expressed regrets, again, again, and again. They have taken full and public responsibility for their stupid act of hiring those strippers over and over again. And again. They have not hid behind stupidly worded hateful statements or silence or tenured position, they have not ignored what they did or pretended it never happened in the first place, or lied about it afterwards, etc. They have stood up in public and loudly, clearly and genuinely admitted their mistake and genuinely, sincerely apologized, apologized, and apologized. And for their apologies and their honesty, they have paid a million times (excuse me, make that $3 million and still counting) more than any sane person could or should ever have paid for one single act of stupidity.

However, as to whether apologies and regret have come from a lying black prostitute or a corrupt DA or an invisible police chief or a spineless university president or illiterate hate-filled professors, etc.? Well, you may well ask.

Gary Packwood said...

Carolyn 6:18 says:

...However, as to whether apologies and regret have come from a lying black prostitute or a corrupt DA or an invisible police chief or a spineless university president or illiterate hate-filled professors, etc.? Well, you may well ask.
::
That is just a perfect paragraph.
I hope KC uses that in the book.
I will sure make use of that in my workshops.
Got to love ...Well, you may well ask!
::
GP

Jack said...

My dear Carolyn @ 6:18

From the tone of your reply, I feel I am the one who should apologize for not being so up to date on everyone’s statements. I did not take note of this web site until late last year, maybe December, and had not followed the case closely at all before that. However, one comment. Unless you know the players personally, are intimately familiar with the thoughts and motives of players, families and their representatives, it is difficult to say with such certainty just how genuine and sincere their regrets really are.

Anonymous said...

To 4:58

You really have no clue do you.

Anonymous said...

Jack,

What more do you want the lax players to do and say? Did you know that it is not illegal in America to hire strippers?

Anonymous said...

the sort of guy who I imagine goes home at night, pops in ‘Cool Hand Luke’ and roots for the guards.

I just have to applaud how great a line that is.

D84

scott said...

Jack at 4:58 PM --

You've made this exact same post previously, and I'm sure others will answer you before I have here, but it is getting tiring to have you keep repeating that no one is going to apologize to the LAXers and then question whether or not the LAXers have ever apologized when you should already know the answer if you've been paying any attention to this case.

In a word, "YES" -- within a couple of days after the party.

Dave Evans and the other captains apologized for having a party that included underage drinking and strippers. They admitted it demonstrated a lack of judgment and that they were sorry for bringing bad publicity to Duke, to the lacrosse team, and to the sport of lacrosse.

Jack said...

to Anonymous @ 7:14, and other respondents:

Yes, I know there is nothing illegal about college athletes hiring strippers to perform at a their university-owned residence. It may be objectionable, distasteful, and, to some, immoral, but not illegal. Not unlike the behavior of Brodhead, or the Gang of 88. So, there seems to be a moral consistency in the behavior of those affiliated with Duke University who are linked to this incident, except that only one group has seen fit to apologize.

Michael said...

re: Jack

The Lacrosse players apologized early on. Whether you think they are sincere or not you have to give them credit for making the apologies. That's more than just about every other player out there.

Of note though is that Nifong did apologize but it wouldn't be too hard to find insincerity with that. Kim Roberts did apologize too though it seemed a bit on the casual side.

Perhaps you could use the time that you like to spend throwing rocks at the lacrosse players learning about the case so that you could appear knowledgeable on what happened and so that you could get a better guage of the character of the players.

Regarding your 7:42 post:
perhaps you need to learn the difference between classes of objects and their magnitudes. If a student has a beer or hires a stripper; is that commensurate with a professional hired in loco parentis to add gasoline to a fire to fry their charges?

Your position on this case is truly bizarre.

Anonymous said...

This is a rewrite from last night on the prior essai. Having worked Felony Detentions for five years, I am rooting for the guards also. These guys are not Paul Newman or choir boys. Gottleib wrote his report four months later, saying, I believe- don't take this seriously. I think he got himself off the deal ASAP. He also got his Superiors to sign off that they had been notified by him, what Nifong was doing with the IDs,etc, Nifong did this by his own bad self and Meeham in my view.

Anonymous said...

Evans needs to apologize to Collin, Reade and their families, He got those boys involved in this mess. Other than born agains, who would care if they hired strippers. Dumb to be sure.

Jack said...

Michael

Moral relativism, certainly not a new concept, and, no doubt one that is readily embraced by many on the faculty of Duke’s College of Arts and Sciences, as well as in the Administration. I am not throwing rocks at just the lacrosse players; there are many people who have behaved badly in this case. But to take a position that there are absolute, undeniable good guys on one side (the lax team), about whom nothing unsympathetic or unsupportive may be said is an equally bizarre position. There is such a thing as contributory negligence, and like it or not, a few of the lacrosse players and not necessarily all three of the indicted players) are responsible for the proximate cause of this entire conflagration. Lax is an appropriate word for many participants – lax morals, lax diligence, lax responsibility, casual indifference, lax vulnerability.

martin said...

Jack, Jack, Jack
In all seriousness: do you have a point? Are you trying to say something everyone doesn't know?

Yes, I know there is nothing illegal about college athletes hiring strippers to perform at a their university-owned residence. It may be objectionable, distasteful, and, to some, immoral, but not illegal. Not unlike the behavior of Brodhead, or the Gang of 88. So, there seems to be a moral consistency in the behavior of those affiliated with Duke University who are linked to this incident, except that only one group has seen fit to apologize.

Or is this your audition to join Karla Holloway and the rapping deconstructionists? I haven't read such a good example since the last time a gang of 88 member attempted to write something. Keep up the good work. And don't forget the pots.

Michael said...

> I am not throwing rocks at just
> the lacrosse players;

If you were to add up the words aimed at the lacrosse players and compared them to the words aimed at the bad actors, what percentage would you say were aimed at the lacrosse players.

On a relative basis, what percentage of the blame of this mess would you place on the lacrosse boys and the rest of the bad actors?

> there are many people who have
> behaved badly in this case. But
> to take a position that there are
> absolute, undeniable good guys on
> one side (the lax team), about
> whom nothing unsympathetic or
> unsupportive may be said is an
> equally bizarre position.

On a relativistic basis, you have no case. Railroading innocents is exponential compared to anything that the lacrosse players did.

> There is such a thing as
> contributory negligence, and like
> it or not, a few of the lacrosse
> players and not necessarily all
> three of the indicted players)
> are responsible for the proximate
> cause of this entire
> onflagration.

You have a bizarre sense of causality. By your definition, the events of Katrina contributed to this mess.

> Lax is an appropriate word for
> many participants – lax morals,
> lax diligence, lax
> responsibility, casual
> indifference, lax vulnerability.

Have you ever driven over the speed limit?

Jack said...

Anonymous @ 8:12

You don’t care if your kids hire strippers? Really? You must not have children, certainly not children in college. I can not prevent my kids from doing a lot of things, and I believe they act with a certain restraint when it comes to things they have been taught are immoral, wrong. Not that they always refrain. Not that I always refrain. Any I know they can and do find themselves in situations not of their making about which they are extremely uncomfortable, and I hope they have the sense to maneuver out of. But I absolutely do not want my children hire strippers – any I am anything but a born again – not that there’s anything wrong with that.

mac said...

Jack,

Sorry, but the "Lax" don't
slide. Maybe try ExLax,
instead.

Coach Pressler - since you are
apparently new to the scene -
did correct the boys, and he
tried to be what anyone could
hope to be for student-athletes.
It's in the report(s) on the team,
reports that the University
itself ordered - one of
the few times that Duke provided
something like moral support
for these great kids.

And they are great kids.

Anonymous said...

Jack - I sure do have children. Two have MBAs from Chicago and a daughter with a PHD from Temple. Even she and her friends hired male strippers for the bridal shower. In the scheme of life events, hiring strippers is dumb, but not a big deal. They should have rented a film for a professional performance. Six months ago, a Doctor student died of alcohol overdose - that is something to worry about.

Anonymous said...

The overdose of alcohol was at Duke.

Anonymous said...

Jack - we are not talking about children but adults.

Jack said...

michael,
I simply inquired, due to my having come to the forum somewhat late, if there had been an apology issued by the lacrosse players. Construe that as throwing stones at the lacrosse players if you wish, but without them, there is no incident. It was you, and others who chose to bring in the relativity of bad behavior during the course of the last year, which, seemingly, requires, remarkably a transition from relativism to absolutism: the boys have been wronged, treated horribly by so many people in positions of trust, responsibility and authority. Let’s forget what they did; after all, they speak so well, they show so well in front of the cameras, with such measured, carefully crafted statements, they make all their cyber buddies so proud! We need to focus 100% of the attention on Nifong, Brodhead, the Gang of 88.

The fact of the matter is I recognize the terrible injustice done to these kids, the corruption of the DA and the Durham Police, the abdication of support by Duke University and the student body, the reprehensible behavior of so many members of the faculty. It is just not that easy for me to forget that of all the participants, just take out the lacrosse players, and you have no Duke Lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

BDay MD
SMU Swim Team--

All you said is well and good. But a university should be above all about cultivation of the intellect and the intellectual virtues. I have nothing against good coaches or sports in higher education, within their proper sphere. But many American colleges and universities take them WAY too far.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jack,

My judgemental, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou friend.

1. Hiring strippers is 100% legal. Men and women hire them all the time.

2. These aren't children. These are adults who vote, who go to war, many of whom are legal to drink alcohol. FOCUS: Adults hiring other adults to do 100.00% legal activities.

Starting to get it? Not yet?

3. Okay then, is the punishment for the "crime" of hiring strippers proportionate? Well respected Head Coach gets fired, a season where they were competing for a national championship is canceled, grade retaliation, full page ads from faculty, Wanted Posters, Castrate Posters, potbanging protests, death threats... and, oh yeah, forgot, having to spend millions of dollars to defend yourself against a corrupt District Attorney and a corrupt police force against completely and totally false charges - all the while the media plastering your face across the country.

4. Yes, as a matter a fact, they did publically apologize. Search through the internet, you'll find it. They did exactly what you, Mr. Wonderful, demanded of them.

5. People like you make me sick.

There now... all clear?

mac said...

Yes, Jack, and without the
complicity of most of the 88,
the University, the Investigators,
a Judge or two, MSM, CGM and
others, none of this would have
happened, either.

If ice formed bottom-up,
then no life would exist on
the planet. So?

Hypotheticals like that are not
worth the effort.

Maybe you think it's worth
pondering whether the universe
will be affected IF a Luna moth
farts upwind of a long-eared bat,
but it's really not worth arguing
the point.

Give it a rest.

Anonymous said...

"You don’t care if your kids hire strippers? Really? You must not have children, certainly not children in college. I can not prevent my kids from doing a lot of things, and I believe they act with a certain restraint when it comes to things they have been taught are immoral, wrong".

Jack...Good point, if you are a 17th century puritan! What is "immoral" about hiring a stripper? You seem to have a strange hang-up about the human body. Kids? They are adults, sexual beings who hired women to strip for them. So what? How is that "immoral"? (Please be specific. I'm interested to know how you know.)

As for the nonsense about "proximate cause"... the less said about such sophistry the better.

If anyone's moral sense is bent out of shape, it is yours.

mac said...

8:48 pm,

Well, collegiate swimmers,
wrestlers, cross country runners
and so forth probably think
you're right: the hours they
spend in training are excessive.

On the other hand, it's a choice
they make, for one reason or
another. Most of them don't
have adoring crowds - unless
they make the Olympics. Many
of them are walk-ons, with no
thought of earning a scholarship.

And yet how is it that these
UNDERSUNG athletes are the ones
with the best grades, even
above the average students GPA?
You're gonna gripe because they're
not better-enough, when they're
already above the average?

Then again, you might remember
the 88s and their ilk, who
criticize the athletes for
actually BEING superior students,
with great prospects for their
futures.

Oh, and this: remember what you
think about sports being over-
emphasized next time you watch
the Olympics and cheer for
our athletes.
If they're there, they earned it.

Stuff the criticism.

Anonymous said...

"It is just not that easy for me to forget that of all the participants, just take out the lacrosse players, and you have no Duke Lacrosse case".

Take away the Jews and no Holocaust!

You're morally perverse.

mac said...

9:00
Darn, you're good!

Jack said...

anonymous @ 8:50

So then why was it necessary for the players to apologize?

Anonymous said...

"And yet how is it that these
UNDERSUNG athletes are the ones
with the best grades, even
above the average students GPA?
You're gonna gripe because they're
not better-enough, when they're
already above the average?"

Tell that to the applicants with HIGHER GPAs and SATs who were rejected to make room for jocks with LOWER GPAs and SATs. I would no more defend such practices than I would defend affirmative action admissions (of which it is an example). I'll leave that to Professor Coleman, who favor the latter.

You seem to misunderstand what a university is supposed to be for: educating MINDS.

"Oh, and this: remember what you
think about sports being over-
emphasized next time you watch
the Olympics and cheer for
our athletes.
If they're there, they earned it".

The Olympics!?! That horrendous monument to greed, nationalism, commercialisation, money, cheating and hypocrisy!? I never watch it. Who cares if USA beats Burundi in the 200 meter breast stroke? What has that got to do with higher education?

Anonymous said...

"So then why was it necessary for the players to apologize?"

It wasn't. They did, but shouldn't have They had nothing to apologise for.

Michael said...

re: Jack

Have you ever driven faster than the speed limit? Is that immoral? It certainly is illegal. Was hiring strippers immoral? If so, why? Was hiring strippers illegal?

I'm trying to figure out what your problem is. If you're a parent and your kid is going to a school which is known for partying, then you may have some expectation that your kid may participate in that. If the parents that send their kids to school are okay with this, then what's your problem?

Of course on the other hand, if there is a problem, then that's something that has to be worked out between the kid and his parents.

Anonymous said...

9"00 Actually that is not true. The Nazi's killed over a million gyspies - homosexuals - union leaders - communist and ten million Russians.

Anonymous said...

That is one problem in America. Most University students are over eighteen and neither children or kids. When do they get to be grown ups?

Anonymous said...

The trolls are trolling. Please ignore them.

Jack said...

What people consider moral or immoral behavior is, obviously, personal, and not at all invalid, although, from the comments here, expressing that perspective runs the risk of derision. My comment was that hiring strippers is many things, and to some people, immoral. Not true? A response indicated only born agains would consider it so, as if they are out of touch and would have no rightful place in this discussion.

Anonymous said...

"Actually that is not true. The Nazi's killed over a million gyspies - homosexuals - union leaders - communist and ten million Russians".

Uh... thanks for the update 9.22. There's always one pedant in the crowd who misses the POINT.

Anonymous said...

"What people consider moral or immoral behavior is, obviously, personal, and not at all invalid, although, from the comments here, expressing that perspective runs the risk of derision. My comment was that hiring strippers is many things, and to some people, immoral. Not true? A response indicated only born agains would consider it so, as if they are out of touch and would have no rightful place in this discussion".

My deluded friend... You need to take Intro to Moral Philosophy. You seem very muddled on all this. You denounced moral relativism. Now it is all just "personal". Please specify what is immoral (if only to you) about hiring a woman (or a man, for that matter) to disrobe and reveal their private parts. How can that be "immoral" if it is consensual?

Anonymous said...

Stop calling them kids! They are adults. It is patronising to call them kids, and worse (Jack!) to treat them like children.

Michael said...

[Not true? A response indicated only born agains would consider it so, as if they are out of touch and would have no rightful place in this discussion.]

Well, I guess a coward would point to some possible other entity that might have a complaint rather than expose their own position which most regular posters here are comfortable doing. We're happy to stick our necks out with our positions understanding that those positions can be attacked. Of course we're willing to defend them. Or change them.

If you're a Born Again Christian, then present your argument. Don't hide behind the skirts of some anonymous group that you may not care one whit about.

mac said...

9:09

Only 88s think that athletes
take slots destined for someone
more deserving. Might be true in
the "money" sports, but not in the
so-called "lower" sports.

The best students I've met were
also athletes - (some were AA
students) - one of whom is a
Pediatric Surgeon. People who
assume that to be an AA or to be
an athlete is to be stupid are
usually lazy fatasses who can't
stand to see other people achieve
both athletically and in
scholarly pursuits. The two
are NOT mutually exclusive,
in spite of what you might
think.

One way that participating in
sports actually contributes
to education is time-management.
Athletes learn how to manage their
time much better than the average
student. I know this to be true
in my own studies - personal,
professional and academic.

I don't care if you like the
Olympics or not, but your
comments about them shows you
to be more in alignment with
the stars of the 88.

Anonymous said...

>>>>"…. of all the participants, just take out the lacrosse players, and you have no Duke Lacrosse case".

I think Jack has a point, so let me make it clearer and stronger so that everyone here can understands it... How about taking out the CGM, no stripper no party, no Duke Lacrosse Case.

More over, some of those who think it is not “immoral” to hire a stripper may not like to get hired as a stripper…and may even think that’s “immoral”.. Prostitution may even be illegal.

Now Jack can even ask all other questions like has GCM ever apologized?

Anonymous said...

"Only 88s think that athletes
take slots destined for someone
more deserving. Might be true in
the "money" sports, but not in the
so-called "lower" sports".

I know how it works. You obviously don't. Some athletes (I don't know the proportion) get extra points in admissions for their prowess at throwing balls and running about with sticks. That gives them a boost over some more academically able students. If you think that this makes no difference, you are simply wrong. Nor does it imply that the athletes are all morons. But I cannot see the justification for giving extra points to people for non-academic abilities, particularly if it may come at the expense of more academically able students. Does this make me an honorary member of the Gang of 88 in your deluded mind?

"People who
assume that to be an AA or to be
an athlete is to be stupid are
usually lazy fatasses who can't
stand to see other people achieve
both athletically and in
scholarly pursuits. The two
are NOT mutually exclusive,
in spite of what you might
think".

I'm sure many think that. What has it got to do with me? I never said (or implied) that. I've taught lots of good students who were athletes, and lots of bad ones too. You are attacking straw men.

" don't care if you like the
Olympics or not, but your
comments about them shows you
to be more in alignment with
the stars of the 88".

This just proves how little you know. The Gang of 88 are irresponsible morons. You just assume that because I don't think much of the industry of college sports, I must be some ranting left-wing ideologues. You need to broaden your palette to include more than black and white.

Jack said...

So, if there is no moral right or wrong, only legal and illegal, why the call for apologies from Brodhead, The Gang of 88 and all the other folks in this event whose behavior so many find objectionable? They have done nothing illegal.

Michael said...

[I know how it works. You obviously don't. Some athletes (I don't know the proportion) get extra points in admissions for their prowess at throwing balls and running about with sticks. That gives them a boost over some more academically able students. If you think that this makes no difference, you are simply wrong. Nor does it imply that the athletes are all morons. But I cannot see the justification for giving extra points to people for non-academic abilities, particularly if it may come at the expense of more academically able students. Does this make me an honorary member of the Gang of 88 in your deluded mind?]

I've done Alumni Admissions work for a big Boston school in the past and there are a variety of factors that go into admissions decisions.

Children of alumni get a few more points. If you donate ten million to the school towards a building, I'd guess that you'd get a few points too. People with accomplishments in the performing arts can get points. And being the child of someone that is very well politically connected may get you a few points.

If you think that it is unfair, then don't play. Or try to change it (good luck).

Michael said...

[So, if there is no moral right or wrong, only legal and illegal,]

Strawman.

[why the call for apologies from Brodhead, The Gang of 88 and all the other folks in this event whose behavior so many find objectionable? They have done nothing illegal.]

Non sequitur.

What I really would like to know is what your position on anything is. You just come in here throwing rocks and positing hypotheticals and pointing fingers all over the place. Yet you never reveal your position or what your problem is or why you don't get it.

Perhaps you do get it and you're just trying to be annoying. Or you really are as clueless as your posts imply.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Gary at 6:33. Why, THANK you! I'm so flattered.

Michael at 10:58: Want to bet 'Jack' is green and talks like Mike Myers?

Durh de Durh Durh!

Anonymous said...

"If you think that it is unfair, then don't play. Or try to change it (good luck)".

Nice to know admissions was in the hands of a real moralist! What an arrogant attitude. It IS unfair. I'm far from alone in thinking so. I oppose all such practices, from affirmative action to legacies to admitting people because they can throw a ball or play the flute. (I have no objection to any of those things, by the way, but don't see their relevance to higher education.) You have the kind of complacency that makes me (and most of my academic colleagues) so ill-disposed towards university bureaucrats... the kind like Brodhead and his minions.

Anonymous said...

having spent my entire career on wall street, i can report that one of the most financially rewarding world industries wall street will HIRE AN ELITE SCHOOL ATHLETE 1000% MORE OFTEN THAN SOME nerd with an AA degree

athletes understand you lose some contests and dont dwell on failure

look at the group 88 they still refuse to admit losing like those who demean athletes on these boards

wall street wont hire your kids liberals...go to france and line up with the losers

Jack said...

Michael that is a very open ended, far reaching question – what my position is on anything. There should not be much ambiguity about my stance on the Duke lacrosse case, I thought my various posts were clear:

1) The lacrosse team was screwed by a malicious District Attorney and a corrupt Durham Police Department. Never any hedging there.

2) There is a portion of Duke’s faculty that has open contempt and disdain for the very students they teach. Can’t mistake any remarks on that account.

3) There is the rest of the Duke faculty, who, by their silence support, at least in concept, the ranting of the Gang of 88. Again, I’ve never been ambiguous about this issue either.

4) The Duke administration, in an effort to distance the university from the actions of the lacrosse team it finds objectionable (at the very least, the public revelation of a sports team hiring strippers is unwelcome) probably gave momentum to the DA, the radical faculty and the media to hang these kids, and allowed for the suspension of presuming innocence. Ditto

5) The student body of the university has put up only a luke warm objection to the treatment of their fellow students. The Chronicle took it’s time to develop any backbone, the petition barely attracted 15% of the undergrads. Sorry, kids, but sometimes life outside the bubble demands your attention. Then again, maybe a 15% show of support is indicative of how they really feel.

6) The players, by acting out in a manner that conveys a sense of insulation, hired strippers and set off a chain of unforeseen events they will be forever linked to. It is this last item that the posters on this board believe should not have been dredged up, apparently given no weight in the overall contributing factors. They said they were sorry, so now let’s move on.

As far as whether I get it or not, well, is there any thing more to this? What underlies much of my commentary is a sense that Duke should have seen this coming for years now, and it’s Duke who doesn’t get it. Not that anybody deserves the injustices that have befallen the three falsely accused players, but the venomous public response, the nasty community relations and harsh attitudes among local residents of Durham, particularly among minorities, should come as no surprise. The statements in the NCCU student newspaper, the prejudicial treatment of the Durham police, the terrible insinuations of racism by Duke’s own faculty members. Duke, in an effort to become an elite University has become elitist. And the community, through many means, it showing it’s resentment. It may not be right, in fact, it is not right, it’s wrong. The local NAACP actually sided with law enforcement – talk about strange bedfellows!

If this board truly rejects the like-think mentality, the coercive treatment of those who don't tow the party line, or conform to the politically correct attitude they find so distasteful among the Gang of 88, it is certainly not evident in the responses to my comments. To Carolyn, and the other anonymous posters, derisive replies to those who do not present black and white perspective is not becoming.

Michael said...

[Nice to know admissions was in the hands of a real moralist! What an arrogant attitude. It IS unfair.]

Real adults know that life is unfair. Real adults take the hand that they are dealt and do the best that they can with it. And they don't whine.

[I'm far from alone in thinking so. I oppose all such practices, from affirmative action to legacies to admitting people because they can throw a ball or play the flute. (I have no objection to any of those things, by the way, but don't see their relevance to higher education.)]

I guess you're blind.

[You have the kind of complacency that makes me (and most of my academic colleagues) so ill-disposed towards university bureaucrats... the kind like Brodhead and his minions.]

You sound as whiney as Brodhead. I'm a pragmatic person. Society rewards who it chooses to reward.

No justice, no peace said...

Jack = moral relativist

He must be from the academy.

Michael said...

re: Jack

Read your last two posts and tell me whether or not they convey the same message.

You've been implying tonight that hiring strippers is congruent to railroading innocents. And then you say it isn't. And then you say it is.

If you have a problem with it, describe your problem and argument.

You are otherwise just throwing rocks.

If you have a moral problem with it, then just say so. If you don't have a moral problem but are just throwing rocks, then please just say so.

If you're a BAC, then have the guts to say so. If you're not a BAC, then have the guts to say so.

It's pretty unclear what your position or point is other than someone might have a problem with something somewhere at some time.

Anonymous said...

dummies are those who refuse to recognize that all elite schools have hidden agendas
...corporate america wants athletes too...

message to the nerds too bad its athletes who make america great...they reflect society while you envious nerdy little men reflect the greed from complaining non producers

Anonymous said...

Am I the only guy who saw today's New York Times article on the Duke lacrosse team?

It might be the worst article yet given what we know now.

Here is one paragraph:
"The rape charges were dropped in December, and last month the North Carolina attorney general declared that the players had been wrongly accused and that all charges had been dropped. Those three athletes are no longer on the team"

By the way, that's exactly the way it was written.

That paper is a disgrace.

Jack said...

I have never equated the hiring of strippers with railroading innocents, never. My point all evening has been that the lacrosse players and the Duke Administration and Gang of 88 both engaged in objectionable behavior, legal nonetheless. The players apologized, something Brodhead and the faculty have not. Please indicate any remarks I have made in which I equate what the players did to what the Distric Attorney and the Durham Police did. I look forward to your citations.

And why should it be necessary to declare if one is a born again Christian? Is the entry fee to this discussion?

Anonymous said...

10:35 inre: calling for Brodhead and Gang of 88 apologies...

An apology from any of them at this point has no meaning. Personally I'd prefer they tender resignations.

It's a question of competency.

Michael said...

re: Jack

Look at your post at 10:35.

[And why should it be necessary to declare if one is a born again Christian? Is the entry fee to this discussion?]

Strawman.

We are trying to figure out what your problem is. You pointed out that BACs might have a problem getting something in edgewise. If you are a BAC, then certainly you could argue the point of morality and then we could argue on the merits. Instead of just talking about morality in the ether.

You continue to dance around this point in very oddball ways.

Michael said...

re: 12:03

Well, I don't recall Bill Gates on the rowing team at Harvard. But somehow he did manage to get in despite not being an athlete. So perhaps intelligence does matter in college admissions.

Anonymous said...

"wall street wont hire your kids liberals...go to france and line up with the losers".

Dear Mr Babbitt--

No wonder the US is in decline, with attitudes like this. Smart businessmen (of which you are obviously not an example) hire liberal arts graduates who know how to THINK! The ability to catch a ball may impress you, but has limited relevance compared to a capacity for critical thinking. Philistinism and anti-intellectualism are alive and well in America. Sinclair Lewis would be amused.

Anonymous said...

"message to the nerds too bad its athletes who make america great...they reflect society while you envious nerdy little men reflect the greed from complaining non producers".

The more people like this say things like this, the more apparent it becomes why so many people HATE JOCKS. It reflects the mentality of the thick-headed schoolyard bully. Sadly, it was written by an "adult".

Anonymous said...

I love the winter olympics - not the summer so much except for the tennis, softball, soccer and baseball. We went to Naganto for the winter olympics - where I discovered the indoor events are terrific. The ouside sports are TV sports. And there they go - and its cold.

Anonymous said...

"You sound as whiney as Brodhead. I'm a pragmatic person. Society rewards who it chooses to reward".

Thanks Nietzsche. So what's wrong with the treatment of the 3 lacrosse players then? There's no such things as injustice, immorality? In which case, screw the lacrosse players. They are weak losers for letting themselves be caught out. You seem to talk out of both sides of your (big) mouth.

You're a disgrace. You said you've done Alumni admissions? Assumig that's true (it's believable, in my experience), you alone are a sufficient reason to oppose ANY Alumni involvement in admissions. You are a living caricature of what the Gang of 88 are opposed to. Complacent, arrogant windbags like you are just grist for their mill.

Anonymous said...

"Real adults know that life is unfair. Real adults take the hand that they are dealt and do the best that they can with it. And they don't whine".

Einstein...so what's all the fuss about these lacrosse players then? What whiners they are! And those blacks! Endlessly whining aobut being enslaved all those years. Babies! And Jews in Europe. Just complainers.

Anonymous said...

"I love the winter olympics - not the summer so much except for the tennis, softball, soccer and baseball. We went to Naganto for the winter olympics - where I discovered the indoor events are terrific. The ouside sports are TV sports. And there they go - and its cold".

Our village idiot...

Anonymous said...

"dummies are those who refuse to recognize that all elite schools have hidden agendas
...corporate america wants athletes too..."

These agendas are not "hidden" any more. Take a look at Daniel Golden's recent expose: "The Price of Admission". The mess that is America's private university admissions is laid bare in all its sordid detail.

If some parts of corporate America want them, they can have them! They want them because they are jocks themselves, and like hires like. I doubt IBM are combing America looking for varsity football players.

Anonymous said...

IBM has outsourced many jobs to INDIA and in typical liberal fashion closed out its american pension fund and hopefully fired your brother at age 50...theyll never hire your son if hes like you

the nerds can be beaten by any smart college athlete...and you hate it...i love to hire athletes and pay them a million so envious like you complain...

Anonymous said...

Mr. Immelt holds a B.A. degree in applied mathematics from Dartmouth College (1978)

he played on the dartmouth FOOTBALL TEAM

you couldnt get past an interview at GE,the only company still listed on the NYSE after 100 years under its original name, with your attitude about athletics if your life depended on it

why not apply for a job at DUKE in building maintance or the aa DEPARTMENT...lately they have been recruiting little men like you

Anonymous said...

2'12 Sorry you mind moves to slowly to grasp the fun points of my post, Keep trying - i am not your anything,

mac said...

10:35 pm

I agree with you: I painted a
B&W picture. However,
there's more to the picture,
and more ways to get points
for college admission.

A local boy - (now a man) - was
rejected from an Ivy League
institution because he did
nothing but study and make grades.
He wasn't a member of a club,
an organization - he participated
in NOTHING. I don't think it
was particularly fair that he
was denied admission.

Denying admission to someone
because he's not social isn't
fair, but it wasn't because he
didn't play sports that he didn't
get in: he didn't PARTICIPATE.

He could have gotten in if he
was a member of a Book Club.

mac said...

My mistake: meant 10:31.

Michael said...

[So what's wrong with the treatment of the 3 lacrosse players then? There's no such things as injustice, immorality? In which case, screw the lacrosse players. They are weak losers for letting themselves be caught out. You seem to talk out of both sides of your (big) mouth.]

Your sense of balance has you off-kilter. You're as bad as Jack equating railroading innocents with preferences for atheletes.

[You're a disgrace. You said you've done Alumni admissions? Assumig that's true (it's believable, in my experience), you alone are a sufficient reason to oppose ANY Alumni involvement in admissions. You are a living caricature of what the Gang of 88 are opposed to. Complacent, arrogant windbags like you are just grist for their mill.]

I'm sorry that you're publically inclined to show your jealousy of athletes.

Michael said...

[Einstein...so what's all the fuss about these lacrosse players then? What whiners they are! And those blacks! Endlessly whining aobut being enslaved all those years. Babies! And Jews in Europe. Just complainers.]

Why are there so many here that can't understand the difference between the vectors (1,1) and (1E6, 1E6)?

Michael said...

[IBM has outsourced many jobs to INDIA and in typical liberal fashion closed out its american pension fund and hopefully fired your brother at age 50...theyll never hire your son if hes like you]

It's not clear to me that outsourcing is a liberal or conservative phenomena. Some companies have done it to compete better against other companies. And others have done it in response to their competitors. Whether it has worked or not depends on your industry and implementation.

[the nerds can be beaten by any smart college athlete...and you hate it...i love to hire athletes and pay them a million so envious like you complain...]

There are athletic nerds too.

Companies do like employees that stay in shape as it keeps their medical costs down.

And athletes do tend to excel in certain ways attractive to companies.

I don't understand the discrimination against athletes that a few on this board espouse.

There are several articles on the web this weekend about IBM's new Power6 architecture which is pretty impressive running at 4.7 Ghz along with a new IEEE datatype for financial applications. I guess the reports were hinted at by the big move up in IBM's stock price on Friday.

Anonymous said...

Sick Post of the Day:


Jack said...
In as much as everyone is looking for apologies in the case – the Gang of 88, Brodhead, the journalists (none of which will be forthcoming, by the way), have the Duke lacrosse players themselves ever issued an apology, or expressed regrets? To their school, or classmates, or to the community in general? After all, if they never hired those two strippers that night, none of this would have happened.

May 20, 2007 4:58:00 PM

Anonymous said...

I rushed to judgment. The SPOTD is this (unless he posts something further that I haven't read yet):


Jack said...
My dear Carolyn @ 6:18

From the tone of your reply, I feel I am the one who should apologize for not being so up to date on everyone’s statements. I did not take note of this web site until late last year, maybe December, and had not followed the case closely at all before that. However, one comment. Unless you know the players personally, are intimately familiar with the thoughts and motives of players, families and their representatives, it is difficult to say with such certainty just how genuine and sincere their regrets really are.

May 20, 2007 6:38:00 PM

Cindy said...

What is so "sick" about either of those posts?

Anonymous said...

cindy,

I'm the one who made the "SPOTD" comments. Let me use an analogy to explain why I find these two posts so sick:

In his first post, Jack is asking for the equivalent of a rape victim "apologizing" for walking alone to her car at night -- after all, isn't she "just asking for trouble"??

In his second post, after he's informed the woman did apologize for walking alone to her car late at night, he questions the sincerity of her apology.

Got it yet?

Cindy said...

I can see how you might be exasperated with Jack for being uninformed about the facts in the case, for not knowing the players had apologized. But you are stretching the point a bit to equate the remarks to blaming a rape victim.

In his second post, perhaps he is being a bit cute, but on the surface, he’s only questioning how someone else can be so certain of the players genuine sincerity. I get his inference, but hardly “sick”.

Michael said...

[In his second post, perhaps he is being a bit cute, but on the surface, he’s only questioning how someone else can be so certain of the players genuine sincerity. I get his inference, but hardly “sick”.]

I don't understand why Jack feels the need to continually throw rocks at the lacrosse players. Even Cash Michaels, who came with a big sackful of rocks, and arguably was heavily biased agasint the lacrosse players has seen the light.

The lacrosse players were the victims of a horrendous crime [not necessarily in the legal sense]. They apologized. Was that apology for them or for the public or for Duke? Was it sincere? Is there reason to believe that it wasn't?

What are the backgrounds of the lacrosse players. Would Jack's high school stand behind him and give him an assistant coaching job if similar charges were levelled at him?

He liks to use surrogates to throw rocks like Born Again Christians. Yet he can't make any morality argument. He thinks there's groupspeak here. The posts in the last 12 hours should easily disprove that.

A few months ago, this group came up with a variety of scriptures arguing against "the men of the cloth". You'd think that this blog was a collection of Born Again Christians given the fluency with scriptures on this board.

Anonymous said...

cindy,

Comparing this case to rape actually trivializes what happened to those boys. Ask any man you know if he'd rather be anally raped or subjected to what happened to those young men in this case. 99% will tell you they're rather be raped.

mac said...

9:23

Yup. I'm a Born Again.
You might not know it from
my posts, which have sometimes
tended toward the vulgar.

However, I haven't used this
forum as a pulpit, because that's
not the point here.

The point is: the City of Durh/
DPD/Nifong/88 used the full weight
of their power against three young
men who did nothing criminal,
and they manufactured evidence,
suppressed evidence, threatened
witnesses (Mr. Elmostafa) and
indulged in grade retaliation,
permitted threats against the
unlawfully accused and threw
them out of school.

You may have noticed that I
didn't blame the students for
what happened to them, nor did
I preach about hiring strippers.
If they were - or claimed to be -
practicing Christians, I might
have a comment, but as it has been
repeatedly pointed out: there is
no law against hiring strippers.

There is a law against
prostitution, however, and it's
obvious that the DPD and Nifong
won't enforce those laws.

So why should Jack complain
about the stripper? And why
should the topic of BACs be
entered into this discussion?

Maybe it's fashionable to make
fun of Christians; maybe it's
permissable. I suspect that
this is perfectly in line with
the directives of the 88, in
any case.

Cindy said...

michael, I do not understand why you hold Jack responsible for introducing the born again Christian angle. He made a comment, the one you objected to, in which he characterized the hiring of a stripper as "It may be objectionable, distasteful, and, to some, immoral, but not illegal. Not unlike the behavior of Brodhead, or the Gang of 88." It was a follow up poster who mentioned the born agains as being the only kind of person that could consider such a thing immoral, not Jack. From that point, it seems to be have been a pile on about Jack and his sense of morality, and whether he is a born again Christian. Someone actually demanded he have the "guts" to admit it! I don’t like when there is this much anger vented toward an individual (who has not made any hostile remarks to others) simply for expressing some opinions which other do not agree with. It is also unfair of individuals to be making more than a few diversionary statements about his intent (like equating the players actions with the DA and police, and saying he is blaming rape victims for just walking in public). The tone of this board should be more constructive; instead it has taken on a pot banger quality.

Michael said...

re: Mac

[The point is: the City of Durh/DPD/Nifong/88 used the full weight of their power against three young men who did nothing criminal, and they manufactured evidence, suppressed evidence, threatened witnesses (Mr. Elmostafa) and indulged in grade retaliation, permitted threats against the unlawfully accused and threw them out of school.]

I think that this should be the gist of the case but there are some that keep bring up the issue of "What they did was bad enough" and there are times when I'd really like to know the particulars of what they mean by that. Vague character assasination can be very effective if it appeals to emotion or gut instincts.

[You may have noticed that I didn't blame the students for what happened to them, nor did I preach about hiring strippers. If they were - or claimed to be - practicing Christians, I might have a comment, but as it has been repeatedly pointed out: there is no law against hiring strippers.]

The "bad enough" folks generally point to hiring strippers and drinking alcohol. Could you point out the prohibitions against drinking alcohol and hiring strippers in the Bible? If a BAC used hiring strippers as a "bad enough" argument, I would expect them to defend that point from a Biblical perspective. But I don't think that Jack is a BAC as a BAC shouldn't have any problem saying plain out that they are a BAC.

[So why should Jack complain about the stripper? And why should the topic of BACs be entered into this discussion?

Maybe it's fashionable to make fun of Christians; maybe it's permissable. I suspect that this is perfectly in line with the directives of the 88, in any case.]

I think that Jack is just using BACs as a convenient whipping boy.

But I would demand of BACs an honest look into the question of morality and throwing stones. I would much rather just concentrate on the wrongs done to the lacrosse players. But it is sometimes good to have a formal answer to the "bad enough" crowd.

Michael said...

re: 10:34

Jack appears to be a skilled troll.
What I ask is specifics on his position. Especially with regards his moral complaints on the lacrosse players. What he's provided in response is pointing at BACs as a convenient whipping boy.

If he can make a case for moral problems with the lacrosse players, then make the case. Don't take the approach of vague character assasination against the boys that aren't here to defend themselves.

mac said...

Michael,

Good points, all: "bad enough" should not be applied to the
students in this case.

Chaucer engaged in didacticism,
though he was admittedly vulger.
Alas, Jack has no point, except to
be a contrarian - even toward
himself.

Knowledge, knowledge everywhere, and not a thought to think!

You are also right: what Duke,
the DA, DPD, the 88, CGM et al
have done is truly "bad enough."
(Actually, what they've done is a
moral outrage, and that can be
found in volumes in Proverbs.)

As far as hiring strippers,
for anyone?

Let's just say that it's a little
like laying in poison ivy in order
to scratch the itch.
(Herod had a little stripper, too,
by the name of Salome)

Drinking?
Well, Jesus didn't change water
into Sunny Delight. I think
the point has something to do
with the word "excess."

Thanks for asking!

Michael said...

[As far as hiring strippers,
for anyone?]

As far as I know, none of the lacrosse players are married.

Were they lusting after strippers? Well, these were pretty smart kids and I think that they were aware of the risks of physical contact. And of course if you remember the famous picture of the party, I think that the general emotion was more of boredom.

[Let's just say that it's a little
like laying in poison ivy in order
to scratch the itch.
(Herod had a little stripper, too,
by the name of Salome)]

If you look through the list of names in Hebrews 11, you'll find some folks that would have been branded as "bad enough" today.

I don't think that Herod made the Hebrews 11 list.

Ralph Phelan said...

If prosecutors are really concerned about the "Nifong Effect," they should be out there publically demanding State or Federal criminal investigation.

If they're not, it looks like they're outraged not by what Nifong did, but by the fact he got caught.

mac said...

Michael,

Frankly, from the appearance
of things, the students in this
case COULDN'T have lusted after
these particular strippers,
not unless they were so drunk
as to defy the laws of gravity
(i.e. "the spins?")

Couple of spins to choose from:
self-spins (intoxication) or the
spins with CGM, as she was
magically levitated.
Lucky Charms comes to mind,
minus the "delicious."

But seriously:
Most people think the Bible is
full of saints, when it is
actually full of deeply-flawed
human beings.
You're right about "bad enough,"
in that sense: even Sampson, no
moralist himself, served God's
ultimate purpose. (He wasn't
listed in Hebrews 11, either.)

Could Nifey be serving a purpose?
God knows!

Michael said...

[You're right about "bad enough,"
in that sense: even Sampson, no
moralist himself, served God's
ultimate purpose. (He wasn't
listed in Hebrews 11, either.)]

I have Samson in verse 32.

It might be worth writing a paper on "bad enough".

Anonymous said...

I am the one who wrote "born agains" in my post - A joke as they do represent themselves as the "morality Judges of Mankind." Not Jack. I did not write Christians. Sadly, the pile on and name calling occurred rather than debate. Keep fighting Jack. Mac - its me.

mac said...

Ooops: BUSTED!
Ouch.

Might be worth a paper.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Rape is about dominance - not lust. Goggle rape and read what the experts write on this subject.

Anonymous said...

That would be back at 8:12

mac said...

12:49

Thanks for the clarification.

Frankly, I have enough to do
to keep myself out of trouble
without judging your morality.

People are also "piling on" Jack
for other reasons, but mostly
for appearing to blame the
players. That's - in a nutshell -
the main area of contention.


Most of the recent posts I've
made have been responses/counter-
responses to Michael, not
Jack (except on another page,
where Jack keeps maintaining
that we shouldn't express opinions
on Duke, nor how to reform it.)

Most of us are in agreement in
some way: Duke needs help/fixing;
the City of Durh needs
help/fixing; the system of (in)-
Justice needs help/fixing.

mac said...

12:51

Hiring a stripper is about
lust, not rape. That's
the point some of us were
trying to make.

And if some like to scratch
their own itch, that's their
problem. My point is that
the strippers-in-question
probably wouldn't generate
much lust.

Michael said...

re: Mac

[Hiring a stripper is about
lust, not rape. That's
the point some of us were
trying to make.]

I don't have my Hebrew and Greek dictionaries with me but it might be interesting in trying to narrow down the meaning of the admonition against lust. I've always referred to lust as wanting something that you can't have; similar to coveting. Romans 7:7 explains the connection.

-----

This is in the context of the tithe that should be saved for God's Festivals, the Feast of Tabernacles in particular:

Deut 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth, after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

--------------------------

Reasonable people can debate the morality issue if they have an issue with it. From a variety of contexts. To state that a BAC can't express a point of view is clearly false. They certainly can express a point of view. But they need to be able to defend it. It appears to me that Jack just wants to throw a rock with the tag: BAC attached to it. Maybe to start a flamewar or to yet again agitate without making a point.

mac said...

Michael,

8:12 has admitted throwing
that particular bomb.
I agree with you that Jack
isn't consistent - (demonstrating
his self-admitted point:
that he's a late-comer and needs
to go back and get a handle on
the issues.)

I agree with your points on
morality - (and lust.)

Anonymous said...

it was not a bonb - just a joke. We need to put this stuff in prespective and not take everything like it is serious or gospel. Leave that for the group sing on other boards.

Anonymous said...

I worked with 22 to 35 year olds for years. We had a strip joint, a few blocks from our firm. Many of the guys would go after work to have a beer and relax. I don/t think it had much to do with lust.i

Michael said...

re: 3:16

I had no problems with your original or subsequent posts. My problem was with how it was nefariously manipulated by another poster.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Michael and I agree about the manipulation. The old when you can't answer the message, attack the messanger.

mac said...

3:16
Was bomb too strong a word?

I'm posting waaaay too much.

Anonymous said...

"I'm posting waaaay too much".

Mac... Finally something you said I can get behind. Same for Michael, two crashing bores. Why not take your private discussion to the telephone and spare the rest of us.

Michael said...

re: 5:11

Your posts account for about 50% of the posts on this thread.

If you don't like the chit-chat, perhaps reading one of the newer topics would better suit you. Personally, I think that "Bad Enough" is quite on-topic.

Jack said...

Any I caught grief for suggesting that there might be only a few real posters here?

mac said...

5:11 is Jack?
Instead of posters, does
that mean the Jack is an
Imposter?