Sunday, August 19, 2007

Selena's Snitch Switch

On March 31, 2006, Times columnist Selena Roberts penned the first of three columns on the lacrosse case. She began with an arresting image: “On the front page of Wednesday’s USA Today, there was a photo of a man wearing a T-shirt with a traffic sign and a message for rat finks written in graffiti type: 'Stop Snitching.'”

Her insinuation: the lacrosse players were behaving like gang members engaged in an anti-snitching campaign. “To the dismay of investigators,” she wrote, “none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account [sic]. Maybe the team captains are right. Maybe the allegations are baseless. But why is it so hard to gather the facts? Why is any whisper of a detail akin to snitching?”

Roberts turned to the director of the Women’s Center at John Jay College for a guilt-presuming quote: “The idea of breaking ranks within a team is identified as weak. The bottom line is, your self-esteem is more valuable to you than someone else’s life.”

Of course, as we now know, two of the defense attorneys—Joe Cheshire and Bob Ekstrand—went to Mike Nifong in the days before Roberts penned her column saying their clients were willing to talk with the ex-DA. They did, in short, exactly what Roberts demanded.

Nifong’s response? The players could plead guilty, or identify the “attackers.” But if they wanted to give—to borrow a phrase—a “whisper of a detail” that didn’t support Crystal Mangum’s myriad, mutually contradictory stories, he wasn’t interested in what they had to say.

[Roberts' false suggestion, meanwhile, that “to the dismay of investigators none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account” received a pass from the Times’ milquetoast ex-public editor, Byron Calame, who proclaimed that she “had ample reason for her recent concern about a ‘code of silence.’”]

In her column for today’s Times, however, Roberts takes a far different view of “snitches.” Her commentary deals with the Michael Vick case, and the parade of friends or relatives of the quarterback cooperating with the government—or, in Roberts’ parlance, “snitching.”

How does Roberts describe their behavior?

Vick’s cousin was “the first to fail” him. Then a friend with whom he had a falling out, Tony Taylor, was “the first to flip” on him. And finally, another old friend, Quanis Phillips, who pled guilty to dog-fighting charges on Friday, was “the latest to betray” Vick. [emphasis added in each sentence]

Fail him? Flip on him? Betray him? What happened to Selena Roberts, the arch-crusader for justice, who argued that friends and teammates needed to “come forward to reveal an eyewitness account,” and smash the culture in which “any whisper of a detail [is] akin to snitching?”

Last spring, Roberts described the lacrosse team as “a group of privileged players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings.” How does she describe Vick? As a person of “disarming charm” who “employed friends and housed pals.” He has, she laments, been “abandoned, left to contemplate a plea deal that could imprison him and ruin his N.F.L. career.”

How should the NFL deal with the Vick situation, according to Roberts? “There has to be,” in words that would make the Group of 88 proud, “more dialogue, as in real discussion about race relations and trust.”

No guilt-presuming quotes in this article. Indeed, Roberts goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction. She turns to Cris Carter for the observation that “the league is still run by Caucasian males. What’s engrained is mistrust. So guys hold tight to friends who always had their back.”

Vick’s problems, Roberts implies, are the fault of a racist society. Or maybe, she suggests, Falcons owner Arthur Blank deserves the condemnation, for coddling Vick. And, of course, his friends are to blame (for failing and betraying him).

As a fierce advocate of “diversity” (except for herself), Roberts surely couldn’t be suggesting that people of different races should be held to different standards. So, the question now is: Will Selena come clean on what caused her “snitch switch”?

169 comments:

Michael said...

The timing of the Vick case presents the media with the fundamental problem of fairness. One would think that the media would be ahead of the curve of the average folks out in the world.

Instead, they act like idiots contradicting themselves over and over again. I guess the public gives them a pass, as long as they have the circus to watch.

Anonymous said...

Selena Roberts should be an embarrassment to the New York Times. Under its former editor, Abe Rosenthal, the Times was a very good newspaper. It has slipped dramatically under the stewardship of its current top executive. Apparently, Roberts meets current Times standards. Write to the Times board of directors and let them know what you think. Please be polite.

One Spook said...

KC ... I think I'm on to this ...

Roberts suffers from a severe case of "Wonderland Syndrome."

A person sufferring from this malady would believe thusly:

If you are a priviledged white person and your buddies are charged with a crime, you should tattle on them to law enforcement EVEN IF they committed NO crime; paying particular attention that your "story" closely follows the race, gender, class metanarrative du jour ...

But, if you are a black guy and are charged with a crime, your home boys should NOT tattle on you, especially if you DID commit a crime; particularly if your story does not follow an "approved" metanarrative!"

This upside down reasoning puts Roberts squarely in Wonderland ...

Oh, how hypocrites like Roberts must long for the days when the Times yellowed and decayed and everyone forgot what was written ... you remember, before the days of the "internet that never forgets" ...

One Spook

Anonymous said...

No, it is not about race relations and trust. It is about the law . . . respect for the law. It was about the law in the lacrosse case when many thought nothing of attempting intimidation . . . attempting anyone who might have a different opinion. Intimidating others to manipulate and force the law to carry forward their agenda and preconceived metanarratives of race/class/gender. These metannaratives were put forward regardless of the facts by a Duke administration and faculty knowing nothing of the facts and refusing to know the facts they and the media called on pot-bangers and others to castrate and condemn and pronounced guilt without benefit of the law, fairness or common sense. This hasn't been the situation in the Vick case nor should it be. Pehaps given the changing circumstance of the country (read changing populations) there should be an organization protective of poor whites or working class whites. Very few of them are allowed to go to Duke. Ironically, Vick will have the protection and cover of a number of organizations including the main stream media as all seek to be fair and exhibit no rush to justice. Of course, now all will say innocent until proven guilty . . . er, guilty . . . right.

Anonymous said...

O/T - impatiently awaiting the release of your book KC... how about a few advance copies for...

scratch that.... how about one advance copy just for me??

selfishly,
jmoo

ps - has a signing been scheduled?

Mike Lee said...

Isn't amazing how all those journalists, activists, academics, and others were so quick to condemn the lacrosse players despite a complete lack of evidence. Seems to me those same journalists, activists, and academics have been equally quick to defend Vick despite a mountain of evidence.

I just can't figure out the difference between Vick and Colin, Dave, and Reade. Maybe some DIW readers who are smarter than I am can help me out. I'm just stumped.

What could it be?

Mike Lee

Michael said...

Professor Johnson: another beautiful piece demonstrably
proving the extreme hypocrisy of Selena Roberts.

This proves that Selena Roberts herself is a racist.

Anonymous said...

Is Salena Roberts at all concerned with Vick's relations with his dogs? What has discussing race relations got to do with being "ratted out" by your peers when they think that they are going to prison enough to turn state's evidence. Do you realize the integrity of the lacrosse team under pressure as if it were the Inquisition of a another time only without the "rack," but with the main stream media opining unknown as fact. Maybe Nifon'g puppy ate the Constitution instead of merely chewing his law liscense.

Anonymous said...

The good news is that like the Duffer, Salena is helping to bring down the once mightly NYT. There are no words to describe the evil and harm this dope brings to race relations and justice.

Anonymous said...

the saleny race crowd is all about money and power....vomit

Ralph Phelan said...

"As a fierce advocate of “diversity” (except for herself), Roberts surely couldn’t be suggesting that people of different races should be held to different standards. "

But isn't that the primary means of achieving "diversity" these days?

Carolyn said...

Vick electrocutes dogs, infects a woman with herpes, tries to smuggle marijuana on board a plane, hires thugs who steal watches in airports and flips the bird at fans. Yet because he is black, Selena judges him on the color of his skin, not the content of his character.

The only difference between Selena Roberts and the KKK is the latter hides behind white robes - she hides behind white newsprint.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately true... The media's first interest is race and gender when scribing news or opinion columns. The law and "innocent until proven guilty" aspects only enter the equation if the previous conditions are met...ie, male or whitey is always at fault.

Combine this with the corruption occurring in both the federal and local law enforcement groups and you have the makings of a revolution.

no one said...

Like a lot of Amanda Marcotte's observations at Pandagon there seems to be extreme double standards at work. Until, of course, you realize the "truth"!

All white, heterosexual men are evil conspirators

Once you've accepted that tenet, then Selena Roberts is no longer a hypocrite but a champion of justice complete with halo a of do-gooderism.

Anonymous said...

Racist bigot. Racist bigot. Racist bigot. Who gives a damn what Roberts thinks? And who gives a damn what the NY Slimes prints?

Anonymous said...

KC,

While you were perhaps attracted by the alliterative possibilities of your blog title, do you think you could be consistent in how you refer to adults--many of whom you do not know--in your blog? You are pretty consistent about referring to males by both names or just their family names. You refer to (Professor) Karla Holloway by both names, but not only her first. While this may not be your intention, I find the references to Selena Roberts as "Selena" demeaning and sexist. Could you please be consistent across sex/gender, ie, last names after the first reference with the full name?

Thank you.

mac said...

6:23
I agree: Selena Roberts shouldn't be given the same creditable name as the Selena who actually entertained and uplifted people with her performances, the one who left the planet far too early.

I would suggest Salmonella Roberts, instead.

Anonymous said...

6:38, Yes, Mac, that's extremely adult. It's the kind of attitude that gives this blog site a bad name. Keep it up.

bill anderson said...

If Roberts ever loses her job at the NY Slimes, there always is the Hurled-Scum (unless Boob Ashley completely runs it into the ground, which altogether is possible).

Or, Roberts can be a "visiting professor" of journalism at Duke, and be visiting for decades to come. She even can continue her bigotry in the classroom.

I am about to be on the record as being against the federal investigation and case against Michael Vick, but it has nothing to do with solidarity and the like. Instead, I believe that the RICO statutes and similar federal laws are an affront to everything the law is supposed to be. (The article will appear on Lew Rockwell's site, and I expect lots and lots of hate mail.)

As for Roberts, no doubt if Vick and his friends were "perfect offenders," then whatever the authorities did would not be ruthless enough. Remember that she already had declared the lacrosse players guilty; it was in "court documents" (to use her term), so it HAD to be true. Moreover, she never stopped her rants, accusing the players a year later of having a "misogyny party," whatever the heck that is.

The people at the NW Slimes are wondering why readership and subscriptions are down. It's "Times Select" program is about to be ended because people were not willing to pay money to read Selena Roberts. With rants like hers, why should anyone wonder why that has happened?

Shouting Thomas said...

It is an axiom of liberal dogma that black men are in jail in such large numbers because of white racism.

That black men may, by and large, be commiting the crimes for which they are incarcerated... well, you'd be a racist to say that.

Even KC indulges in this trope. Note how he reflexively insists that Nifong's type of behavior has probably been visited "disproportionately" upon poor blacks. You know, I serious doubt that.

Incarceration is so common among black men that the black community and white liberals really argue that a different standard should be applied to black men, simply so that so many black men do not go to prison. The astonishing rates of incarceration among black men, it is really argued, are so debilitating to the black community that a lot of criminal behavior by black men should be overlooked.

Roberts, as KC notes, doesn't have to live with the results of the violence so commonly perpetrated by black men. She lives in a lilly white suburb and commutes to Manhattan. She leaves dealing with that violence to the backwater residents of the boroughs and Newark. Why not? She gets to wear a halo, and I'll bet she's never set foot in Newark.

Anonymous said...

Is Roberts a Communist?

KC Johnson said...

To the 6.23:

I've employed the first names of men in titles--often for alliterative purposes--as well. (See, for example, this post: "Levicy and Linwood," referring to Linwood Wilson.)

In fact, I've used "Linwood" alone in a blog title four times, more than any other person. I have been, therefore, "consistent across sex/gender."

Anonymous said...

Don't worry about that idiot Roberts -- or, for that matter, the NYT rag -- folks. Soon enough the Wall Street Journal -- a real newspaper "of record" will add a sports section and put the final dagger into the NYT. The NYT has been slowly falling over time, owing principally to their reflexively biased coverage and PC-slant. As such, the market simply will not tolerate such crap for too much longer.

Shouting Thomas said...

I do not really believe that poor blacks are "disproportionately" harmed by prosecutorial misconduct.

I have no evidence for this other than the personal experience of living in Brooklyn and Jersey City (which accounts for more than you might suspect), but I suspect that the opposite is happening. The tide of criminal conduct by black men is so overwhelming that district attorneys routinely plea bargain serious violent felonies to misdemeanors in order to simply cope with the numbers of cases they must manage. This, of course, was the one of the major themes of Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities," which accurately foretold the Duke lacrosse hoax. In "Bonfire," prosecutors become so bored with the tide of black offenders that they deliberate seek out the great white defendant. Of course, they also do this for political gain.

So, I'm of the opinion that the truth is that far more black men would be in jail if the criminal justice system could cope with the numbers of offenders.

Anonymous said...

KC at 8:14, then you have been rude and disrespectful. You might want to stop it in all cases. Just a suggestion.

Anonymous said...

8:49

You might want to take a laxative, or perhaps just have a drink. This is a blog, not a constitutional document. KC was been, I think, the single voice of clarity, sobriety, and propriety...not something you see often on the itnernet.

You come off as a insincere, stodgy whiner with an agenda you are too timid to persue directly. If you are not, there is another solution: quit reading the blog and pestering us with your drivel.

Anonymous said...

8:49

Calling someone by their first name is not disrepectful in my book. Actually it makes sense when their last name is more common than their first ... Wilson/Roberts ...

jim2 said...

KC -

I consider posts such as your one today (and many of the other recent ones) to be vital in the effort to rein in these rogue folk in any future cases. You are helping to make permanent a cohesive document trail for the use or simply reference of others. The entrance of "Nifong" as a verb is such a resut, and possibly due in considerable measure to this site.

Thank you

miramar said...

Lane Williamson said at the end of the disbarment hearing that the entire process was a test of character. He's still right.

Anonymous said...

Her column is entitled "Vick Is Trapped in His Circle of Friends." Does that mean that Vick's buddies are entirely to blame and that he is innocent? Maybe AG Roy Cooper should step in...

Anonymous said...

8:59//KC's fan//I've never been called stodgy, so I think it's funny. Sorry that politeness is now an agenda. Given the level of vitriol that is sustained on this blog, I'm not surprised.

But, point of fact: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The use of particular names indicates respect. I should think that the concept of being consistently respectful--even about people you're criticizing/critiquing--is consistent with serious discourse.

But, if calling names/being rude/using some people's first names and not those of others makes you a happy little camper, by all means, do so.

hman said...

I have the impression that this saga played out the way it did because the bad guys were so often caught out by the peculiar and unprecedented facts of the internet - that nothing one says in public goes away or changes over time, and that it can be looked up and thrown back at you.
Nifong, especially, acted as if every day was some kind of fresh empty canvas as far as how he could characterize this case. "DNA testing will clear the innocent" was just something he said to get the testing done. His stunted, evil imagination apparently never included the prospect of ever having to explain his exact words later on when DNA testing turned around to scupper his case.
"Exact words" may be the key thing here. The easiest, safest way to wiggle out of being caught in a lie is to say, "Not is not what I really said. You mis-understood me." - not "I never said anything like that."
Before the Internet Age, it was always true that a dedicated researcher could scan the achives of newspapers and court documents and TV tapes but it was never very likely to be done for the sake of nailing a minor -basically not worth it loser like Roberts.
Personally, I am enjoying this a lot.

scott said...

6:23 / 8:49 --

Were you a potbanger? Either way, thank you for not waiting to clutter the comments section with your own version of the gender metanarrative by providing such a ridiculous example that a white male was "demeaning and sexist" to a female.

And, given your position, how rude and disrespectful of you not to address the blogmaster as Professor Johnson.

Anonymous said...

9:52 --

Pray tell, what has Selena done in writing about this case that is worthy of respect?

Anonymous said...

6:23/8:49/9:52 -- no one is force-feeding you. Please do the rest of us a favor and turn off your pc, or switch to Yahoo or something.

Anonymous said...

It should be noted that Selena - er, Ms. Roberts - is wrong about who first "betrayed" whom. Check this ESPN article from April 27: (found at sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2851640)

ATLANTA -- Michael Vick blamed family members for taking advantage of his generosity after a police raid found evidence of dog fighting at property he owns in Virginia...
Appearing at a news conference to announce his participation in the NFL Quarterback Challenge, Vick described himself as an unwitting victim of relatives living on his property in Smithfield, Va.
"I'm never at the house," Vick said, according to ajc.com. "I left the house with my family members and my cousin. They just haven't been doing the right thing."

Anonymous said...

10:18,

If Dr. Johnson were the subject of discussion, I might call him Dr. Johnson. I'd be more likely to use the standard KC Johnson at first reference and Johnson in subsequent mentions. When, however, he runs a blog site and does not refer to himself as such, I don't feel obliged to call him that. If he asked me to, I would.

FWIW, I don't expect you to call me Dr/Professor, either, although I am.

You seem to have an issue with politeness. That's fine. Call name. But, you will then understand if you're not taken seriously. You'll also understand why so many people dismiss Dr. Johnson's blog as a site. Metanarrative? White male? I think not. I asked PROFESSOR KC JOHNSON to treat all of his subjects the same way. Many (not all) of the bloggers refuse to be polite.

Anonymous said...

10:53

Insert: as a site inhabited by people who aren't worth taking seriously, because they indulge in name calling and a variety of anti-social behavior.

Anonymous said...

10:18 etc.

How are we to call you by ANY name of professional title. Shall we call you Dr/Professor Anonymous?

You are splitting hairs and trying to instill some bizzare protocol and ceremony in a blog...why? It is not a matter of politeness per se. This is aabout as polite a blog as you are likely to see. The UN it isn't...it is INFORMAL social commentary.

If you do not like the informality (NOT rudeness!), go elsewhee as others have suggested.

Or, please identify yourself by intials and affiliation and let us know what is really on your mind...because nobody here I think believes it is REALLY decorum.

ES Duke (Trinity) 1990
PS You will notice I am not going to make a juvenille request to be called "Dr/Professor"!

Anonymous said...

Re: 6:23/8:49/9:52

It's been said (since the gay '90s, no less), 'politics ain't beanbag'.

If nothing else the prosecutions and defenses, legal and rhetorical, of these 2 cases are pure politics. The permanent campaign is here. Your life may be at stake.

Given the way many of the opposition characterize their positions and villains I see no need to be overly sensitive to the use of their names or portrayal.

The H88, NCNAACP and the Gold Coast Selenas of the world are nothing more than hired guns with disgraceful messages that don't stand up to facts, reasoning or morality.

Aside from some former rogue commenters, largely banned or intercepted by KC, this blog has nothing of which to be ashamed, and much of which to be pleased.

TombZ

Anonymous said...

KC:

"Could you please be consistent across sex/gender, ie, last names after the first reference with the full name?"

Just when I thought the last of the idiots had left the institution, up pops another one.

Ken
Dallas

mac said...

6:23; 8:49; 10:53
(assuming you're the same Miss Manners)

Um...which fork do we use?
I mean, to tell when you're done?
Are you through basting, or is there something that sticks out when the heat's too hot for you?

This is a blog, not a contest in etiquette.

Perhaps you admire the double standards employed by Salmonella Robber? maybe you admire the politesse of Houston "Farm Animal" Baker, who treated Ms. Dowd so graciously?

Perhaps you enjoyed seeing the "castrate" signs, and they somehow fit into your definition of "polite society?"

Go jump another shark, s'il vous plait.

Mike Lee said...

To the 10:53, we'll call you Anon (not Professor) because that's how you're posting. Give it a rest please, this argument is similar to discussing a Dennis Kucinich Presidency. It lacks relevance.

I guess you and 10:54 can't see the irony and hypocrisy of badmouthing a blog as not worthy of being taken seriously as you post comments there. Selena would be proud.

Gary Packwood said...

KC said...

...Roberts turned to the director of the Women’s Center at John Jay College for a guilt-presuming quote: “The idea of breaking ranks within a team is identified as weak. The bottom line is, your self-esteem is more valuable to you than someone else’s life.”
::
Are all Women's Centers @ Universities across the nation linked together with a common anti-male/privilege agenda?

What is the source of funding for these Women's Centers? Do students enroll in Women's Center programs and then pay tuition associated with their programs?

How do Women's Centers measure their outcomes each year? Do they have a plan?

Should we assume that all Women's Centers are linked with journalists across the country as well as staff members of the (EEOC) Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in their States? The EEOC is the agency of the United States Government that enforces the federal employment discrimination laws.

Should we have Men's Centers if we have Women's Centers?

What are the career aspirations for managers of Women's Centers?
::
GP

inman said...

10:53

Good-God-a-Mickey-Mighty ... who annointed you as the arbiter of social discourse and the definition of politeness? Did Amy Vanderbilt pass her authoritative "discriminating" eye to you?

When I was growing up, it was often suggested that one refer to her work to determine proper behavior. Unfortunately, because of the blending of society toward mediocrity of culture and race, it is rare that anyone feels a need to reference such an authoritative source. Frankly, I'd be surprised if 1% of Americans even know or recognize her name or care one iota for her suggestions on making social intercourse "polite."

And I can always tell something about a person's background when they call and say somthing like "I wanted to rsvp for the wedding..." (for example)instead of taking the time to write a note, sent in a stamped envelope saying "Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so accept with pleasure the kind invitation of Dr. and Mrs. Other-person ..." etc. etc.

Your comments also tell me much about your presumptuous, albeit educated, background.

Now, is the salad fork placed on the inside or the ouside of the dinner fork? And is the bread plate on one's left or right? And is it proper for a woman to bow or should she curtsey in the pressence of the Queen?

mac said...

Inman 11:36

The ANON wouldn't answer you, of course: he-she-it would also not answer questions about the total vulgar, stinking, fried-merde personalities of those who would engage in dog-fighing, and those who would murder and torture dogs who were unable to perform satisfactorily.

No, we must be careful not to offend those persons - such as Miss Roberts - who would dance over the issue of dogfighting as if she were merely sidestepping the droppings of a poodle.

To speak offensively is not offensive in the manner of ignoring atrocities: perhaps we are only to speak of dogfighting and Selena Roberts with napkins and finger bowls.

Frankly, if Selena Roberts glosses over the issue of dogfighting, then one hopes she will one day leave the table and the delicacies and participate in one, herself.

j.nc said...

Didn't I read - somewhere - that the team members were told by someone (the school administration? The police?) not to say anything about the allegations - not even to their parents?

Don't the journalists pick up on this as a possible reason there may have been the appearence of "silence"? (not to mention there was nothing to report since nothing happened?)

Just wondering.

Anonymous said...

all of you need to get a life

One Spook said...

Anon @ 10:53 writes:

You'll also understand why so many people dismiss Dr. Johnson's blog as a site. Metanarrative? White male? I think not.

Oh my. There is no doubt that this Blog has its detractors, but before you assert that "many people dismiss Dr. Johnson's blog as a site" (which is a rather bizarre statement on its face given that any Blog is a site, but let that go), please give examples.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that this site has over 15,000 visitors per day, and other sites have reported Blog statisitcs that would be the envy of almost any Blogsite.

Please give examples of the "many people" who dismiss this site.

Oh and ... you can leave off at least 88 names; we realize the truth exposed here has caused them to be "dismissive."

One Spook

Debrah said...

Poor ridiculous Selena.

Her stance on the Vick case is ridiculous and embarrassing. She should peel her duff off her swivel chair, emerge from her cubicle at the NYTimes, and take a walk outside....just to get a whiff of fresh air.

Debrah said...

Hi Spook!

I just saw your "vest" post from the other thread. LOL!!!

You are cruel.

(BTW...I added two photo of 1990's Diva.....to add to the current Diva. LOL!!! Still no dialogue. I'd like to design mine more like yours, but I'm not really "technical" and it would take too much time. Perhaps later.) :>)

Debrah said...

Mac!

So glad you're back.

I was dismayed and chagrined...thinking that perhaps you were missing me so much that you had to leave Wonderland because of excruciating grief.

LIS!!!
LIS!!!

wine country dude said...

Apropos of the anonymous complainer:

The posts by KC are, beyond any doubt, reasonable, thorough and well-enunciated. He has shown all persons involved--even Tara and Nancy (!)(i.e. Nancy "Was it sperm?? Well, I suppose we should all just go and live in Nazi Germany" Grace)--far more respect than they showed any of the players in this controversy.

I wonder about you. If a liberal, do you ever refer to our President as George? As Chimpy McDumbass? As Cheney's silly little puppet? (to pick three of the most commonly used epithets).

If a conservative (but this is doubtful in your case), do you ever refer to Bill Clinton's wife as Hillary?

You are silly.

Anonymous said...

Is that poor biased Selena at 11:55?

scott said...

In an attempt to be "polite" to the Anon. commenter who has attempted to spruce up the image of this "rude" (not to be taken seriously) site, please allow me to suggest that 10:54 was written by the same poster as a clarifying addendum to 10:53.

If not, then it is frightening to think that there is actually more than 1 person engaging in this (lack of) thought process.

/just can't help reverting to my natural state of rude, crude, lewd dude

One Spook said...

Debra @ 12:04 writes:

I just saw your "vest" post from the other thread. LOL!!!

You are cruel.


Gosh ... "cruel" is such a harsh word ... I was just being "clever."

But, along the lines of this subject, the New York Times when they've quoted me, use the formal "Mr." as is their style. They don't even have the common decency to use "Spook." Perhaps they're the quintessential example of style over substance.

One Spook

Debrah said...

!0:53AM offers this bit of Selena-esque news:

You'll also understand why so many people dismiss Dr. Johnson's blog as a site.

Wouldn't that be a nice emotional balm for you?.....if it were even remotely close to being true.

Your crenalines are showing this balmy Sunday!

Anonymous said...

Has the G88 "speciesist" commented on the Vick case yet?

Antaeus Feldspar said...

To 6:23 --

Here is a list of people whom KC has referenced in a headline by their first name:

Linwood Wilson (Linwood Bails on Nifong, Linwood Is Out, Linwood & The Intimidators)

La Shawn Barber (La Shawn on Taylor/Neff Panel, La Shawn on the (Rump) Group of 88)

Serena Sebring (Serena and the Potbangers)

Wahneema Lubiano (Creating Wahneema's World, Group Profile: Wahneema's World)

Duff Wilson (Duff's Spin Machine)

and arguably Steve Monks (Checking In with "Spoiler Steve")

Even if we except Steve Monks, I still count just as many males referred to by first name as females. It seems he is already "consistent across sex/gender", as you have falsely accused of NOT being. An apology on your part would be appropriate.

Debrah said...

12:17PM--

How disrespectful of them.

I got a kick out of 10:53AM making an issue of using a first name.....for lack of anything else to discuss in the face of such embarrassing work from Selena Roberts.

Just think if those types of people were the only ones showing up here? LIS!

Anonymous said...

Let the sun shine in!

Eric

Debrah said...

The dowdy, dubious Selena at work

Anonymous said...

The salad fork is smaller & on the outside. What's your problem, Inman? That comes under duh...

And do I place my knife & fork on my plate at four o'clock or eight o'clock to signal to my server that I have finished eating?

What were your other idiot's ediquette questions?!!! Marjorie Merriweather Post, where are you???

I still think it would be more appropriate to use people's full names on first mention and family names on all subsequent uses.

You don't like it, fair enough. I can consider those of you who insist on using people's first names/calling them names rude and/or infantile.

mac said...

Hi, Debrah!
Hard drive took a dive.
Whadja think - I see nothing wrong with the name Salmonella Robbers, anyway. Do you? I think salmonella would actually be a step up the ladder of creation, frankly, for someone who so poorly uses their emotional/intellectual resources as Miss Robbers: Salmonella, as far as we know, doesn't have a mind enough to discriminate on the basis of race, gender and class; it cannot be blamed.

hman said...

To the Professor of Internet Politeness
Considering the life and death seriousness of so much of what has been discussed on this blog-site, your exclusive focus on the microscopically important subject of how KC shortens the names of his subjects is quite a study in contrast.
Is this because you have given up on the struggle to deny the truth of the main points KC has been presenting these past 15 months? Are you so deluded that you imagine anyone cares whether KC meets your standards as to the respect due to a Selena Roberts? Seriously, don't you ever think of how thin and reedy your points seem here when seen in comparison to the steady hammer-blows KC delivers against the true evil-doers? Are not you embarrassed to be showing up here with nothing more to say about this epic saga than this?
Besides, most people who are really familiar with Selenas crimes would chose labels for her more like "Shameless Self Described Victim Hustler" before anything nice and neutral like "Selena".

Anonymous said...

Inman,

Etiquette requires that I--a non-British citizen--neither bow nor curtsy to the Queen. I shake hands.

My British relatives have other obligations.

Shall I tell you where I would expect to find my dessert fork? How about my fish knife?

Debrah said...

I agree, "mac".

Your humor...along with a slight dose of scatology when the mood strikes.....are the very least we all can do to further illustrate their depravity.

:>) Glad you're back up and running.

(BTW....do you like my new teeny, tiny blog? LOL!)

Anonymous said...

Hmen,

I'm simply asking KC Johnson to employ on his blog the same standards I'd assume he'd employ in academic writing. Maybe, he calls historic figures he's ridiculing ("hammer blows") by their first names to signal distain.

The point here is that maintaining a certain standard--acting like an adult--doesn't hurt discussion. I mean, since Inmann wants to quiz people about Ms. Manners issues when he isn't telling us about his illustrious ancestors, who I don't suspect were deliberately ill-bred, I can't figure out why he's going after my comment.

But feel free to attack, to call names, to be unkind, and nasty. It's such attractive behavior.

wine country dude said...

@anon 12:40

I suppose I could respect your position if I had some grounds to assume you would apply it evenly across the board. I don't know you--so I could be wrong--but I suspect strongly that you reserve your sense of politesse and respect only for certain groups.

I recall that the estimable Professor Houston Baker, formerly of Duke and now of Vanderbilt, referred to the lacrosse players as "farm animals" and "scummy white males". No one in the MSM took him to task for these abhorrent, racist and stupid comments.

Can you IMAGINE the uproar if anyone, including KC, referred to Mr. Vick and his cohorts as "farm animals"? As "scummy black males?" But of course, neither KC, nor I, nor any of the other commenters on this blog will do so.

What people like you do--and I am expressly reserving the possibility that you are that extremely unusual case who truly does apply her concerns evenly across the board--is to create one standard for blacks, women, the disabled, gays, etc. etc., and another for white males. In other words, I believe that your elevated concerns about propriety and respect are really a scam.

Any wonder why we might not address Selena Roberts, and Nancy Grace, and Houston Baker, and Kim Curtis, and Serena Sebring, and Grant Farred ("these men wanted to consume her blackness") with all the detached respect and careful, studied neutrality that someone like you selectively thinks is appropriate?

Get over it.

Anonymous said...

To 1:12. I have an advise for you. Get your own blog. Then you can mainatian any standard you like, and call everyone by their last name, or their first name, or whatever it is you please.

Debrah said...

To 10:53AM--

I can relate to your sense of oneness and your wish that every encounter could be on highground, but my senses tell me that your idea of highground is putting forth an untruthful version of events.

For example, when I was a child it was discovered that I had a talent for singing so I was enrolled in voice classes. All the little girls whose mothers wanted them to be singers got them all dressed up for our recitals and they were ushered out before the audience by their doting and hopeful mothers.

Unfortunately, so many of them were awful...bordering on being tone-deaf, yet their own mothers' fantasies eclipsed what was always sure embarrassment after such performances.

Our voice teacher was either so spinelss or wanted to keep the girls as students for the money that she wouldn't be honest with the parents.

Consequently, in the midst of some talented ones, these screeching performances continued. Everyone who was not an idiot was perplexed by it all.

It is cruel to allow someone to believe they have talent or that they are "in the right" when, in fact, quite the opposite is true.

This analogy applies toward all the apologists and all the enablers from the lacrosse case.....and now those who wish to perpetrate this Michael Vick fairytale.....for the good of everyone.

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

Anonymous said...

1:19/A:

When I am writing anything publicly (this in contrast to an SMS or an e-mail to a friend), I tend to write about people I do not know using both their first and last names, ie, George Bush, not George; Dick Cheney, not Dick; Hilary Clinton, not Hilary...If I were being rude, I might refer to the above by their family names the first time I mentioned them. The exception is Prince. I haven't a clue what his last name is.

I didn't know requests for politeness had been so politicized. Interesting.

1:19/B:

Sure, you mean advice? Well, I have some for you: get a dictionary!!! It's so much fun when someone is trying to be rude & miswrites/misspeaks.

Anonymous said...

Debrah,

I'm 10:53 & while I'm sure you think your story about your childhood voice lessons means something to me, except that you like to talk about yourself, it doesn't. (You are trying to explain the "Diva" to the reader?)

Pls. explain the relevance!!!! Inquiring minds want to know...

Anonymous said...

OMG - Frick and Frack are back. And the board was so nice without all the stupid posting and insults. I am off to vacation and will gladly miss the snipping that goes on, instead of an honest debate of opinions.
KC - Thanks for the Memories.

Anonymous said...

6:23AM and the numerous replies:

Care to comment on the content of Selena Roberts' article defending Michael Vick or will your only contribution to the blog be nitpicking over blog politeness?

Debrah said...

To 1:26PM--

It's very simple.

Egocentricity as an artform.

Consequently, every topic on the planet can be traced back and becomes an analogy to The Diva World if explained to the unwashed masses in the proper way. LIS!

And I know how you are so tethered to everything proper.

I hope this answers your question.

:>)

Anonymous said...

To 1:24. Wow. Who died and appointed you the spelling police?

wine country dude said...

@ myself, 1:19

Lest anyone conclude that I believe that "farm animal" is instrinsically an epithet, some of the nicest animals I have ever encountered are farm animals. [insert obligatory joke about bestiality here]. None of them have done the things to each other that Mr. Vick is alleged to have done to his dogs.

But, in Mr. Vick's case, we will wait: we will wait to see what the prosecutors come up with, we will evaluate it, we will refrain in the interim from presuming Mr. Vick's guilt and we will refrain from organizing marches of protestors, with banners bearing the single word "ELECTROCUTE", to vilify him.

See how easy that was? It's the way the system is supposed to work. And I even called him "Mr. Vick".

Debrah said...

The "wine country dude" has just deposited a most excellent post.

Anonymous said...

1:34//Michael Vick & Dogfighting

I think it is increasingly difficult to defend Michael Vick. It certainly looks as if he is guilty. I'd like to wait for the trial--unless he plea bargains. I think Selena Roberts should probably not go too far out on a limb attacking those who have already plea bargained.

Debrah said...

No doubt, KC is devising the Monday profile.

He said he was concluding with Chafe which will be next Monday.....so.....

.....I am left here to ponder which one will be on the Wonderland skewer at 12 midnight.

Contemplating the strange.

Debrah said...

And Spook, when are you going to be finished with the KC Midnight Rider YouTube?

I have been waiting with bated breath!

inman said...

1:24

When you are referring to "George Bush," are you referring to "Geroge Bush" or the other "George Bush"?

inman said...

oops I meant "George"

Anonymous said...

Inman,

He's not usually the subject of conversation in my house, but we'd usually be referring to the second George Bush. Why?

Anonymous said...

Let me guess, Selena Roberts is an african american.

Debrah said...

Here's what frumpy and libelous Selena wrote about the Duke lacrosse players back in March 2006...with no evidence at all....only the word of Nifong, but she didn't care.

Compare this to her embarrassing twisted-sister-pretzel schtick these days about Michael Vick.


"The season is over, but the paradox lives on in Duke's lacrosse team, a group of privileged players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings.

"Something happened March 13, when a woman, hired to dance at a private party, alleged that three lacrosse players sexually assaulted her in a bathroom for 30 minutes. According to reported court documents, she was raped, robbed, strangled and was the victim of a hate crime. She was also reportedly treated at a hospital for vaginal and anal injuries consistent with sexual assault and rape."

Debrah said...

To 2:36PM--

Please see post 12:39PM.

mac said...

Debrah @ 1:21,

Good analogy. It's too bad that 1:26 is so...incapable of interpreting what you are saying. It's a sign of the times, I guess, that a simple analogy, clearly articulated and well-stated, would be so thoroughly misunderstood. If they cannot reason out and understand understand the intent of your story, what does it say about their ability to discern anything about anything?

The same people then appear aghast when it has to be brought down to the level of doggie poo, since they apparently cannot understand eloquently stated points and analogies. And these are people who think themselves well-educated?

Wine Country Dude @ 1:39
Good points, all: good post.
I expect the critics who think themselves so well-educated and highly-mannered will likewise misunderstand your comment too, since it is too well-stated, too logical, too coherent...too upsetting to their delicate eyes and ears.

Again I ask: and these are people who consider themselves well-educated? They - (particularly ANON 1:26) - couldn't pass Freshman English, at least not when I went to school.

It's a shame that some people understand nothing. Better to poke a stick at a snapping turtle than to waste time with 1:26 - (may be the same concept, after all.)
BTW: poking sticks at snapping turtles is probably fun for the same crowd who drowns, beats and electrocutes dogs.

KC Johnson said...

This thread has been an intriguing one . . .

It's ironic to receive a lecture on treating people with "respect" from someone who--in his/her first comment on this thread--made an anonymous allegation of sexism that proved to be contradicted by the evidence.

That said, I thank the anonymous commenter for his/her advice on appropriate etiquette.

Debrah said...

To "mac"--

Your "poke a stick at a snapping turtle" allusion must have been served up just for Gregory fare in his next KC post.

LOL!

rod allison, detroit said...

There are very few people on the planet Earth who are less capable of having a "real discussion about race relations and trust" than Selena Roberts.

Michael said...

Quote from 7:26 am on 8/19: "It's the kind of attitude
that that gives this blog site a bad name."

This blog site does NOT have a bad name whatsoever.
I have seen this blog site referred to respectfully
(as a source of information and commentary) in
a lot of different places.
Your comment says a lot about you -- I'll just
leave it at that.

Further, mac's comment was not child-like whatsoever.
He was implying in a light-hearted way that Selena
and her writings are poisonous (salmonella poison)
It was actually good political satire.

The fact that you thought mac's comment was akin to a
child-like school-yard taunt says a lot about you
-- I'll just leave it at that :)

Anonymous said...

Speaking of respect-- why is it that many write the word "Black" with an upper case B, and "white" with a lower case w?

I use lower case for both, which drives a lot of people nuts -- they don't have a problem with the lower case w, but they do with the lower case b.

So much for equal treatment from the respect police.

Anonymous said...

Dear Professor Johnson,

I don't think the thread is ironic at all. I think the assertion of sexism stands. Your attitude has been demonstrated in more than just the title & content of this blog. You may believe you're not sexist; I don't.

And, Greek chorus, no, don't challenge me to prove it. I don't have time to do a reading of Johnson's entries for you.

OUTMAN said...

I understand Ms. Roberts's indignation, but she really needs to exercise a little more caution. I am sure that it is the furthest thing from her intention, but too many articles such as the piece in the "Times" might start to give hypocrisy a bad name.

Antaeus Feldspar said...

Well, I think it's clear that our anonymous so-concerned-with-politeness commenter must be one of the Gang of 88. He/she is standing behind the 88's core principles, namely:

* If the basis of your allegation turns out to be false and you are asked to apologize, simply insist instead that your allegation is still true and that you're so important you "don't have time to" back up your assertions with anything but hot air.

* If the basis of your allegation turns out to be false and you are asked to apologize, simply insist that "whatever [he/she/they/it] did was bad enough".

I dunno about you, but even if I don't agree with the anon's request for "KC Johnson to employ on his blog the same standards I'd assume he'd employ in academic writing" (why? it isn't his academic writing; why should he be constrained to the same level of formality?) I could at least respect the anon if not for his/her cowardly refusal to re-evaluate his/her position when his/her facts turned out to be wrong. KC adheres to that standard of academic writing, of backing up one's position instead of merely asserting the proof to be out there in some unspecified form, and that standard is far more important than some pointless "never refer to anyone by their first name" shibboleth.

wine country dude said...

@3:50 anon

Serious question here. Are you, perchance, a resident of Maryland--Baltimore, I believe. Female graduate of Duke in the early 90s?

A person with the same background accused someone of racism on Ben Jones' Housing Bubble Blog about a month and a half ago. In my view, taking into account the very mild provocation, it was a knee jerk reaction.

But the point: when confronted by a lot of people arguing that the comment in question was not racist, the accuser lapsed into a kind of literary sing-song: "Well, you may not think it's racist, but that's my view, and I'm entitled to my view, no matter what you say".

You are absolutely, legally entitled to your own view--no question about it. However, your view is inaccurate and misinformed. And if you can't support your conclusion with careful argument, citing facts that are in the documentary record, what are you doing on a blog?

Indeed, it might take some time to go back through KC's posts in an attempt to prove him sexist. But your a priori conclusion that he is sexist, without more (particularly in light of KC's apt refutation), merits no respect whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Salmonella says, "The idea of breaking ranks within a team is identified as being weak" Well, that explains why the Duke president, administration, and Duke Group88 can't find it in themselves to make an apology for their horrible behavior even as the University has had to make restitution as best it can to the lacrosse players.

Debrah said...

Anonymous 3:50PM might just be that illustrious screamer from Baltimore named Earl Holt.

He wrote a long and rambling diatribe against the lacrosse players that was printed in the H-S.

It made no sense, but hey.....nor does this anonymous and enormously inaccurate poster who has invented a LIE.

KC has used the first names when alluding to subjects throughtout.

That is a fact.....irrespective of the gender of any subject.

Just stop! Stop now!

Debrah said...

Make that throughout

JeffM said...

I thought for a while that this tempest in a teapot would die down, but of course that would be assuming that our commenter on manners had some sense of proportion.

Using someone's first name in a headline is impolite? As in those headlines I see about Hillary?

But I got the clue when I read this: KC's "attitude has been demonstrated in more than just the title ... of this blog." It is sexist, and so impolite by definition, for a man even to refer directly to a book with a title including a feminine name. It demonstrates sexism to anyone with the slightest inkling of what is right and proper. I must admit that I used to make that mistake all the time, but now I refer to certain books the proper way, e.g. Tolstoy's long novel that is not "War and Peace."

Debrah said...

Sorry for posting the entire article, but for the H-S, you guys would have to register in order to read it, and I know that most of you would not wish to do that. LIS!


Governor will have at least 7 choices for DA

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
Aug 19, 2007 : 11:39 am ET

At least seven lawyers are angling for a gubernatorial appointment as Durham's interim district attorney, pending a 2008 election that may finally end months of bureaucratic tumult generated by the Duke lacrosse case.

The person selected will replace Jim Hardin Jr., who took the chief prosecutor's chair in June on a temporary basis after the former occupant -- Mike Nifong -- lost his law license for mishandling the lacrosse incident.

Renee Hoffman, a spokeswoman for Gov. Mike Easley, said Friday there was no word on when the appointment will be made or who will get it.

In a statement last week, Easley indicated the appointee could be someone who wanted the job on a long-term basis and would contend for it at the ballot box next year. Or it could be a "placeholder" who merely would hold down the fort until election day arrived, the statement said.

Hardin was district attorney for a decade until becoming a Superior Court judge in 2005. Easley asked him two months ago to return to his old job until a permanent successor for Nifong is found.

When Hardin took the reins in June, word was his temporary assignment would last only about 60 days.

Since then, widespread speculation has surfaced in legal circles that he might remain on the job much longer, perhaps until the end of next year -- by which time a new district attorney would have been chosen at the ballot box.

But Hardin debunked the rumors in an interview last week. He said he still expected to be gone from the chief prosecutor's slot shortly, although he didn't know precisely when.

He also said he was not playing an active role in the governor's search for an appointee and had not recommended anyone.

"Quite frankly, I would prefer not to make any recommendation about this," he added.

Six of the seven known candidates already have experience as prosecutors. In fact, three are on the district attorney's staff in Durham: Tracey Cline, Mitch Garrell and Brian Wilks.

Cline specializes in sex-offense cases and handles numerous homicides, as does Garrell. It was Garrell who obtained a 2005 conviction against Robert James Petrick for killing his wife -- Durham Symphony cellist Janine Sutphen -- and dumping her body in Falls Lake.

Wilks is a former North Carolina assistant attorney general hired by Nifong early this year to supervise local District Court operations.

Two other candidates, Freda Black and Marvin Waters, were assistant prosecutors here in the past.

Four years ago, Black helped convict novelist Michael Peterson of fatally beating his wife, Nortel Networks executive Kathleen Peterson.

But Nifong dismissed Black shortly after receiving a gubernatorial appointment as district attorney in the spring of 2005.

She then ran unsuccessfully against Nifong in last year's Democratic primary, before the lacrosse case brought Nifong's career crashing down. She is now in private practice.

Waters is general counsel for the state Department of Crime Control and Public Safety -- a position that reportedly gives him access to the governor.

A sixth district attorney candidate, Julian Mack, was a prosecutor in Florida for some 17 years. He moved to Durham in 2003 and has a private practice.

The only contender lacking prosecutorial experience is private lawyer Keith Bishop, who finished third in a May 2006 Democratic primary race with Nifong and Black. Like Black and Mack, he has a private law business.

In Durham legal circles, no one seems to be placing bets on which of the seven will get the gubernatorial nod as district attorney.

"This lineup has a wealth of experience," said John Fitzpatrick, president of the local Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

"I wish I could go out on a limb and endorse someone, but I'm not going to do that," Fitzpatrick added. "They're all well qualified. I trust the governor will make an informed decision."

Anonymous said...

Miss Manners is a troll. Plain and simple.

bill anderson said...

Tracey Cline surely is a LOL candidate. Remember, she was involved up to her eyeballs in the lacrosse case, and either she cannot recognize the difference between a real crime and a lie, or she is thoroughly dishonest.

Actually, I don't much care who is appointed. As for Stevenson's article, Nifong did not lose his license because he "mishandled" the lacrosse case. He lost his license because he lied and lied and lied. Of course, Stevenson enabled Nifong to lie and lie and lie, and still is covering for him.

Stevenson told me a year ago that it was very important for this case to go to trial. Before Nifong became persona non grata, Stevenson was one of his biggest cheerleaders.

bill anderson said...

Salmonella says, "The idea of breaking ranks within a team is identified as being weak" Well, that explains why the Duke president, administration, and Duke Group88 can't find it in themselves to make an apology for their horrible behavior even as the University has had to make restitution as best it can to the lacrosse players.

8/19/07 4:27 PM


That is the BEST commentary of the day. Just who is showing "team solidarity" here? Good point, indeed!

Debrah said...

I have no doubt that at least some members of Duke's Gritty Gang of 88 and a few PC sycophantic mumblers like Selena Roberts thrash about wide awake at night wondering if they will ever be able to escape their much-earned label---scoundrel and fool.......

.......muttering sotto voce in the darkness.......how do you stop?

AF said...

Selena can complain all she wants about the privileged Caucasian class--it has nothing to do with privilege. She can deny all day long that Michael Vick is poor (yeah, right). Selena is playing the race card too. The divide on this case, like the LAX hoax, amounts to race and nothing else. Whitey is bad and Blackie has been shafted. Get over it. Not all whites are bad people and not all blacks are victims. As long as the sniveling left keeps giving to those who have done nothing to deserve it (other than whine and complain about how unfair life has treated them) through the Robin Hood mentality, before long the US will be a welfare country with no one to provide the payments.
At what point will people like Selena take responsibility or acknowledge where the responsibility lies for the actions of some people? Take a reality pill and let's start working for society instead of pandering to a segment of it in which a majority of its members are not willing to improve themselves. Government hand-outs are just that--rewards for doing nothing. We should take care of the elderly and let those who are able bodied get a job. Not everyone can have the job of their dreams--but everyone can have a job. No one owes you that job. You must be willing to work for it. Robin Hood was a tale--not reality. As Americans, we should quit trying to support a fantasy.
The Slimes is going down for the third time and not life preserver can possibly help it. Good riddance to any credibility that it may have had in the past. It must struggle now to have the credibility of the Enquirer or Hustler.

Anonymous said...

to Debrah 4.47

thanks for posting

Debrah said...

To 5:56PM--

De nada.

:>)

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.50:

"Your attitude has been demonstrated in more than just the title & content of this blog."

So: the original evidence--sexism on the basis of today's post title--is now out the window. What's the new evidence? The title of the blog?! Perhaps the blog links: the blog has links to three blogs or sites run by men, and three blogs or sites run by women, with one (Liestoppers) containing both men and women and the eights (Johnsville News) of unknown gender.

Besides the links, it's hard to see what "more" is on the blog other than the title and the content.

That said, as I noted before, I thank you for enriching the discussion.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 3:50 said...
...Dear Professor Johnson,
...I don't have time to do a reading of Johnson's entries for you.
::
Why not teach us how you do 'a reading' of someone's writing?

I haven't seen that attempted for years.

Amazing how many undergraduate students believe in such readings after they enroll in Anger Studies courses.

Tarot Cards anyone? Old Maid?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Re: Selena Roberts' latest. People here should write the NY Times public editor on this.

His email is public@nytimes.com

inman said...

Ok 3:50...

then I think you are a word that rhymes with "rich"...

...misogyny with such perfect targets is truly fun. You deserve to be the subject of aggravated calumny.

inman said...

I just re-read the comments of 3:50. And I owe an apology to the notion of "rich."

Let's call a spade a spade.

Bitch.

Anonymous said...

3:50 PM

Typical sexist cant . . . the kind of accusation of feminist . . . used all the time . . . you are sexist . . . I haven't got time to do a reading . . . you are sexist . . . you just are . . . because I'm not and you are . . . ad infinitum . . . becuase you just are . . . there you go again . . . always used to disrupt a point unless being used to argue a sexist point . . . a feminist point because you are sexist . . . you can't argue with me because you are sexist . . . to the point of cow dropings.

inman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

There was more character shown by the water boy of the lacrosse team than exists with Bonds and Vick and their ilk. The lacrosse team had a party in which no one was raped except the members of the team. Make a list . . . . I know the police are at fault for . . . what, arresting Vick. So much for the character building of professional sports . . .

Anonymous said...

Roberts article reminds me again that I did the right thing cancelling my NYT subscription after my dog died and I therefore had no furthur need for the paper

inman said...

Vick is a thug. Whether or not he is guilty of the charges against him, I would still state: He is a thug.

It is truly unfortunate that our society elevates thugs to star status.

Vivk is a thug. Talented, yes. But still, he is the equivalent of moral pond scum. I don't care whether he is guilty or not.

He would never be welcome at events that I sponsor or attend. (And to rebut the obvious, my wife's adopted brother, who is "of color", would always be welcome.)

But...even more unfortunate is the fact that he is a role model for all too many young people.

People like Vick are nothing less than a societal disease, a virus with no ready cure.

Sickness literally personified.

mac said...

Anon @ 8 pm:

Good points about 3:50:

"Tree-fitty" reminds me of the time when I saw a snapping turtle in a mud hole in a creekbed -
both ends were buried in the mud. I couldn't tell which end was the head and which end was the tail, so I (unwisely) just guessed and grabbed for an end. Thankfully, it was the tail I go ahold of, or I might've been short a few fingers.

I wouldn't suggest trying to discern which end of the "tree-fitty" is writing this stuff, if only because of my experience with the snapper in the mudhole.

mac said...

Dear 3:50,

I don't think you are human at all; I think the assertion of snapping turtleness still stands. Your attitude has been demonstrated in more than just the comments you have offered here at 3:50. You may believe you are human; I don't.

And 3:50, the soto voce of the 88's Chorus:
don't challenge me to prove it. I don't have time to do a reading of comparative anatomy.

PS: (Sorry to misappropriate/plagiarize your words, but I thought I would make them somehow have meaning if I twisted them just a bit.)

no justice, no peace said...

Good Old Days are Now

An interesting look that suggests the progressives, marxists, race/gender/class warfare hustlers can't support their theories based upon things being so terribly wrong.

If you ever have an opportunity to hear Mike Cox speak, he is quite entertaining.

Anonymous said...

What I must chalk up as amusing is the level to which the regular posters here have, predictably, sunk. The personal attacks on Selena Roberts, likewise Nancy Grace, demonstrate this blog has become a forum for personal venting, the nastiness and vulgarity something that demeans the efforts to highlight the wrong doing of others. How else to explain such unconstructive diatribes about a columnist who gives not a darn about what anyone here has to say? It is remarkable how unkind the treatment of those considered on the other side of the Lacrosse case. Nancy Grace, as was so eloquently dismissed, “who cares what she has to say?” Evidently plenty of twits on this board feel threatened enough that she must be unmercifully trashed.

As unwelcome as my remarks are, debrah, iman and mac and the others will weigh in with their own clever brand of nastiness. And why not? Outsiders with a contrary point of view, or those that point out faults among the “insiders” who post here daily, hourly, continuously are met with the same open-mindedness as the Gang of 88 deals with their antagonists.

Honestly, Professor, you had to know they would chase these women down and stomp them to little pieces. Slow day?

no justice, no peace said...

Good Old Days Are Now

try again...

Anonymous said...

9:00

They like to chase certain people away; that's true. One amusing poster was banned from this site, and I think, overall, there are too many personal attacks. But important issues are addressed, so you might as well stick around until site closes.

Anonymous said...

9:00

They like to chase certain people away; that's true. One amusing poster was banned from this site, and I think, overall, there are too many personal attacks. But important issues are addressed, so you might as well stick around until site closes.

Debrah said...

"It is remarkable how unkind the treatment of those considered on the other side of the Lacrosse case."

My heart bleeds.

Illuminating the behavior of libelous and harmful clowns can never get even close to having your youth and the rest of your lives tainted by false charges....

.....to satisfy the depravity of those whom you try to defend as pitiful, put-upon decent people just doing their jobs.

You are really quite hilarious!

inman said...

My dear 9:00,

Thank you for allowing that I have a "clever brand of nastiness." Your hypothesis that I reserve my comments only for the likes of Ms./Mrs. Selena Roberts is amusing. I am a person who belives in equality and I deliver my barbs and calumny to all and anyone who I think is deserving. I believe in equal opportunity nastiness.

Now, you mention point of view. Please provide me with an education on points of view you consider more appropriate. Don't just tell me that my point of view is wrong. The Democratic Party in modern American politics has all to often pursued that tactic. But they, and you, cannot with any clarity tell me what you think should be right. You just say "I'm right. You are wrong." and then stomp your verbal internet feet and demand acquiescense. Well, when and if you provide data to support your hypothesis, I will certainly listen. Frankly, I'd be almost satisfied with a coherent statement of hypothesis, much less the supporting evidence.

Otherwise, and to quote one of the icons of cinema "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

AF said...

6:23 or 7:26 or 8:49 or 9:52 or 10:53 or 11:59 or Emily Post or whatever the devil you want to be called...
All is right when you and the rest of the Klan are pot-banging or toting that "Castrate" sign. As long as you are spewing your vitriol, all is right with your world.
News flash-----your world is screwed up sweetie. Can you honestly live without a man? I think not. Do you think all whites are racists? I think so. Do you still think "something happened" at 610 N. Buchanan on March 13/14? Oh you definitely do. Do you believe that Precious is a victim? Why not--that "story" is as good as any other she's told (if only she could repeat the same story twice she might have an iota of credibility).
As for you, political correctness is not enough. Now you think you have to come in and inject your diversity-correctness into KC's blog. Won't work sweetie.
#1--you are in no way the author KC is
#2--the posters on this blog can out-wit you any day and any time. You have as much chance of winning here as one of Vick's losing dogs had of living.
#3--this blog is not for losers which begs the question-----How did you get here?
#4--lick your wounds, realize that you backed the wrong cause not once, but twice. The LAX 3 were innocent. It gives all indication that there is something about the name Michael that lately screams guilty.

Anonymous said...

to debrah:

Other than some idle blogger in cyber-space, what relationship do you have to Duke University, to the lacrosse players or the families of the accused? Considering the time and energy you devote to this issue, certainly there must be a very personal connection for you. Perhaps an alumna? Are you a parent of a student at Duke, or a parent of one of the lacrosse players? That would explain the extensive postings, although your tone can not begin to approach the civility of those who were actually harmed. You can not possible think that one word you say has any hint of an impact on the individuals about whom you seem so hateful, do you?

While you may consider my remarks hilarious, yours are pathetic.

and iman, I never said you were wrong, just nasty. Gee, you really do get worked up over a little calling out.

Anonymous said...

9:44 Agree completely.

becket03 said...

The anon "KC is impolite" poster is hilarious! Driven steadily into a corner by a mountain of refuting evidence, he/she resorts to the good ol' fallback (widely used on the internet for at least a decade) "I don't have the time to research and document my charges for you beyond a naked assertion, therefore if you're too dumb to see the truth of my position, that's your problem."

Hey but here's the good part. Anon "KC is impolite" represents the state of the opposition to KC's ongoing efforts at DiW. And we see they're now reduced, in the face of all the critical questions that have engaged this blog for over a year concerning race, criminal justice, academia and the media, to bawling about the supposed improper use of first names!

Too funny.

beckett

Debrah said...

To Endlessly Anonymous (9:44PM)--

The day I sit down at a keyboard and answer personal questions from a disgruntled and cowardly little attack-hack......

......is the day that people like you will decide for yourselves to actually begin to stand for something other than gawky navel-gazing.

Like most here, I have reasons for everything.

None of which is the business of anonymous tail sniffers.

Anonymous said...

8/19/07 9:44 PM

You have many questions along w/ a belittling remark. Tell us about yourself.

Can you answer the same questions you pose?

We're not holding our 'collective' breath (get it, collective is to revolution as cultural is to Mao).

That wasn't so hard.

Anonymous said...

Well Inman, as my grandmother always said "It takes one to know one."

inman said...

My dear 9:44

Do you purposefully misspell my name to insult me?

With respect to a "calling out" ... so far you have convinced me that you are an intellectual lightweight. Otherwise, you'd be arguing the facts and lucent logic.

Please, please,...provide some factual and objective basis for your assertions. All here would welcome insight. It is unfortunate that no one (to date) has provided anything other than hyperbolic protest. It's as if unloading a truckload of adjectives and adverbs can mitigate the simple noun and verb.

The Gang of '88 and the Selena Roberts of the world were wrong. In simple declarative sentences:

They were wrong.

They have not apologized.

That is wrong.

I hope I can attain a greater mastery of nasty if that is what it takes for these singularly wrong individuals to apologize and atone.

inman said...

9:56

I am flummoxed. Who or what is known?

Anonymous said...

For the grudge #### - sometimes apology not enough = See how Japanese use to handle these matters.

Steven Horwitz said...

NJNP at 854:

You might also enjoy this webpage of mine. I have updated data for some of it, but just haven't put them on the web yet:

Contemporary Economic Myths

Anonymous said...

to debra and iman:

Isn't it great to sit at your keyboard and bash any one and everything that offends you? If not for the Duke lacrosse case, I am sure you would find some other means to inflate your sense of righteousness and self importance. Particularly in such a manner that requires no personal contact. After all, you are so creative.

inman said...

10:11

Were you refering to me?

Tom Inman

Bob H. said...

Some time back, it was suggested that maybe only a dozen different individuals actually posted here. I am beginning to think that is so.

Anonymous said...

One Spook - I am the other part of the "vest." I thought we were joking. Or at least, I was.

Anonymous said...

iman:

do you prefer to be called tom?

Anonymous said...

I do not know how many post here, the the Kindergarden clique of M, D and I are boring - Certainly need to scroll by them a lot.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Troll,

And you are different how? You show up, spew venom on the blogger and posters (the very same crime you accuse others of), and keep flailing around anonymously all day. The heaps of scorn keep piling up, but you offer no real arguement. I am curious what you are attmepting to do...

1. Police the blog to match your idea of decorum? You first! Try leading by example rather than leading with your supercillious snide remarks. Karla might be impressed, nobody else is.

2. Troll comments from the recurrent posters (Debrah, Iman, etc.)? Good job, if this was your intent.

Otherwise, we just assumed you were a lonely, disenchanted Gang-88'er who was frustrated not with a lack of sex (not ruling it out, though) but rather than NOT being able to win the arguement...and you know it. So, non-specific, anonymous venom must suffice.

Got a point to make? Make it. We understand you like to hack at us from your laptop and then wail when you get smothered in criticism.

Anything else?

ES

inman said...

Steven @ 10:00

I have scanned (but not studied) your "contemporary economic myths."

One question: How does the difference in quality of output affect your argument? I am focused on houses built today versus those that were built several hundred years ago. New homes today have an expected life of 40+/- years, while those built generations ago were intended to last for generations. Does that affect the analysis?

Also, I remember an economic concept that said "A good suit for a man costs an ounce of gold." Could it be that commodities are susceptable to deflation, but that man's work is less so?

Debrah said...

To Bob H--

The how would you account for the thousands of hits this blog gets daily?

Anonymous said...

Debrah,

Clearly the "dozen" (LOL!) of us keep clicking over and over again.

The troll has cloned itself. inevitable, I suppose, genetics being what it is today.

E

inman said...

10:17

If you wish, you can refer to me as 'Tom' for that is the abbreviation of my given name 'Thomas'. If you prefer to remain formal, 'Mr. Inman' will suffice. If you really find me offensive and you wish to convey that thought 'a**hole' or 's***head' may come to mind. All of these could be considered appropriate, in context.

Otherwise, please use the internet equivalent of 'hey you'...whatever that is.

Anonymous said...

Tom

You have my apologies...spelled your name wron in my previous post @ 10:19.

ES

Anonymous said...

ES:

What venom? I simply commented that there was a lot of nasty commentary directed at Selena Roberts and Nancy Grace, comments that went well beyond disagreement with their positions or objecting to their inherent unfairness.

Flailing around all day? Heaping scorn? Not me, I just tuned about an hour ago, and offered my opinion. You are inferring far more than I intended.

inman said...

Re:10:17

I do not know how many post here, the the Kindergarden clique of M, D and I are boring - Certainly need to scroll by them a lot.

Is this English?

Bob H. said...

Hits doesn't necessarily mean posts.

Anonymous said...

10:27,

If true, then the comment was not aimed at you and you have my apologies if that is how you read it.

You get no sympathy from me sticking up for these two, who are ridiculous beyond compare. I do agree, however, that their actions are more than sufficient to ridicule.

Happy Blogging.

ES

Anonymous said...

ES - What you wrote makes little sense. Who are you writing too and where does your sex information come from? Is it your autobiography?

Anonymous said...

That is the problem with anonymous postings. Individuals are confused, and anyone can sign as any one else.

ES

AF said...

from the Karla thread, dragon horse said Professor Holloway is an accomplished woman who holds an endowed chair.

An endowed chair at Duke---and just what is that worth in the world of the sane now????? Only a loon would value an endowed chair in Anger Studies. Or is that a chair in which a circus performer sits while the good professor balances the chair on her nose?????

There is one bit of good news for Duke--Karla FC will be on loan to Hahvud in the spring of 08. Duke's gain is Hahvud's loss.

Anonymous said...

Sigh...

Try reading the rest of the thread for context. I was writing "to" the anon poster who has been non-specifically badgering the posters here all day.

Someone hinted that this person needed to get laid...I was spoofing that idea.

No autobiography...not that self indulgent.

ES

Anonymous said...

steven at 10

Nice you posted those myths--nice to have them all in one place.

I would be interested in the definition of the "poverty Level". Not what it means, but what it includes. I have had students that had more discretionary income than both my college educated kids had about 2 years after they had graduated.

Usually the only thing that is mentioned it the cash recieved, but not cash equivalent of WIC, health benefits, food stamps, bus passes, rent reduction, utilities at a discount, childcare, etc. At a college I taught at many years ago, students below the so called poverty level were given meal cards funded at $7 for breakfast and $10 for lunch (based on their class schedule). How many middle class kids can afford to spend $17 a day for food eaten at school? This is in CA which may be more generous than other states.

Anyway, thanks for info.
cp

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Steven Horwitz said...

Inman,

Considering quality only enhances the argument. You are quite right that many of the goods that are cheaper are also better! And two of the goods that actually cost about the same or more now in terms of labor are cars and housing, both of which have increased enormously in quality over that time.

Another good that's increased in labor time cost is higher education. Whether the quality is better or not might be something we wish to discuss on this blog. ;) But whatever one thinks about the quality, the *value* of a college degree in terms of future income as compared to a high school degree has risen over the post-WW II period.

CP at 1038: "The" poverty level varies if we're talking about means-tested assistance at the state level, so I can't really answer your particular questions. The income level for a family of four that defines the federal poverty level is $20,650. See here.

wine country dude said...

Anon 3:50

On housingbubbleblog.com today, there was an interesting cite to an article in www.commondreams.org, a self-styled center for the "Progressive Community". The article was entitled "Legalized Loan Sharking" and was a not-half-bad article on how credit card companies go in for the kill with add-on fees.

The author was a self-styled "ordinary American living on Long Island with her family, assorted cats, and a tank full of tetras".

Anyway, she stated:

"the credit card companies got a big gift from the Congress ...in 2005. (FYI, Biden voted for it, Edwards, Obama and Kucinich voted against it. Polling data must not have been out in time for Hillary to take a stand)....John Edwards, anti-poverty poster child, are you listening?...Senator Obama, this issue is a sure enough thing that even you could take a position on it! Hillary? Oh, never mind".

Twice, in the same article, the author referred to all the males by their last names and even, in one case, by an honorific ("Senator Obama"). In the same exasperated breath, she referred to Mrs. Clinton only by her first name.

The author is Marney White. She conveniently provides her e-mail address: Marney_White@verizon.net.

Go get her.

Anonymous said...

I hold no brief for Karla. It is true that she has an endowed chair at the #9 undrgraduate school Duke. It is true she will be spending time teaching at Harvard. She can not be all stupid.

Anonymous said...

10:28 Another malt night????

One Spook said...

Anon @ 10:16 writes:

One Spook - I am the other part of the "vest." I thought we were joking. Or at least, I was.

Yes, yes ... I was joking too. Just having fun with your typo ... I make them too ... frequently.

Relax.

One Spook

Michael said...

re: 10:00 PM

I had a look at the page and I think that a fairly important support of the economy, Mortgage Equity Withdrawal hasn't been factored in. This has been a major contributor to the consumer economy during the growth side of the bubble in a virtuous cycle and is scary to contemplate on the downside of the bubble.

I've been a reader of Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin for many years and he warned about the problems with CDOs and CLOs since around 2002.

The current economic problems are interesting from the perspective of college enrollments. Harvard lost quite a bit of money in one of its hedge funds and I'd guess that they're not alone.

Bernanke would like to figure out how to not appease the speculators by bailing them out as Greenspan always did. But
it may not be possible given the problems in the credit markets.

inman said...

11:01

Every night.

'nuff said.