Thursday, October 18, 2007

Updates

In a move that could define "gall," Mike Nifong is demanding that the state pay for his civil suit attorneys--even though he's being sued, in part, for behavior that led to his conviction on criminal contempt charges. The Rocky Mount Telegram--among the first papers in the state to editorialize against Nifong's conduct--editorializes that "state taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill in a civil case of someone who already has been found 'guilty' of misconduct and lying, two apparent elements that are key to the players' lawsuit."

[Update, 12.27ET: The AG's office has denied the Nifong request. WRAL reports, "In a letter sent to Nifong Thursday, Chief Deputy Attorney General Grayson Kelley wrote that state law allows the Attorney General's Office to deny legal representation to state officials being sued for actions outside the scope of their official duties or actions that involved fraud, corruption or malice." The N&O has the full letter. Nifong's attorney responded that the DA was disappointed in the decision and noted, extraordinarily, "I don't know why I continue to expect people to do the right thing."]

FIRE's Luke Sheahan: UPI is "one of the great legal books of our time." Read the full review here. A positive review as well from the Providence Journal.

John in Carolina urges Charles Piot to release the videotape of the "Shut Up and Teach" forum. If Piot really believes that Group of 88 members are great teachers, presumably a videotape of five Group members acting as public intellectuals would silence the Group's critics once and for all. So why does Piot continue to suppress the tape?

Lee Hamel ('62) produces a powerful op-ed in the Chronicle.

And Shreya Rao reveals in the Chronicle that DIW has spawned a spoof site.

172 comments:

Ralph Phelan said...

"In a move that could define "gall," Mike Nifong is demanding that the state pay for his civil suit attorneys,,,"
I'm not so sure his claim is groundless: If the state tries to deny payment on the grounds that railroading innocent people is not part of a North Carolina prosecutor's job description, Nifong will be able to cite lots of precedent to the contrary.

Ralph Phelan said...

More (& in my opinion far greater) gal:

Durham in Wonderland. TUESDAY, AUGUST 01, 2006 The Brodhead Files:

Among other things, [Women's center head Donna] Lisker faulted a Rolling Stone article on campus social life for speaking only to students who “believed staunchly in the innocence of the accused men.

Duke Chronicle, 10/17/07
After a one-month search process, Donna Lisker, director of the Women's Center, was named associate dean of undergraduate education Tuesday.

The inmates' takeover of the asylum continues apace.

Looking Glass said...

Suggestion: On days without a regular post, do a blank post as an open thread. Then posters can continue discussions without having to add onto a hundred comment thread.

Your posts have built this site to the point that the comment threads have become valuable in their own right.

mac said...

Instead of insisting that North Korealina pay for his defense, maybe Nifong can get a grant from Melinda Gates?

Anonymous said...

Lee Hamel said:
We should support an independent review of the judgments of the administration and Trustees in the Lacrosse Affair. It is highly likely such a review will provide insights and proposals that would never occur to those who were involved.

In Hamel's call for an independent review, I'm glad to see him focus upon the administration by including the trustees and excluding the faculty. I'm skeptical anything can be done to reform the group of 88 and their successors. I'm optimistic the administration can be brought to a more enlightened approach to running the university - including their handling of the faculty.

Anonymous said...

"If the state tries to deny payment on the grounds that railroading innocent people is not part of a North Carolina prosecutor's job description, Nifong will be able to cite lots of precedent to the contrary."

Nice. But anyway, you can't blame Nifong for asking.

mac said...

Hamel is right - except that many of the 88 consider the Constitution of the United States to be irrelevant, having been written by "dead white men," and have openly stated that the guilt or innocence is not a factor - was not a factor - in whether or not the accused students should be jailed.

How can you reason with this...?

It is like asking a Marine to argue with mud - (a Marine will either build a bridge over it, excavate it or run right over it.) Don't ask him to engage it in conversation.

Anonymous said...

Often, business and organizations are sued and principals in those businesses and organizations are made party to the suit. The business and organization always looks out for it's own interest. If it is apparent that the individuals interest are contrary to the business' interest, then it becomes necessary for the individual to hire some to represent him.

No doubt in this case, the interest of the individual is entirely contrary to the interest of the state (the business). If the state is brought into the lawsuit, it will defend itself. Mr. Nifong however must defend himself because clearly he was acting outside the scope of his job and contrary to the policies and procedures he was hired to follow.

Anonymous said...

Agree with 6:12. I'm a corporate attorney - our employees are sued daily for things which are certainly outside the scope of their jobs if true. As an employer, you have to defend them in order to make sure they don't blame the employer for their conduct. It is, unfortunately, one of the many costs of being an employer.

Ralph Phelan said...

"It is like asking a Marine to argue with mud - (a Marine will either build a bridge over it, excavate it or run right over it.) Don't ask him to engage it in conversation."

That quote didn't go the way I was expecting. I thought you were gonna say you shouldn't ask a Marine to argue with mud because the mud might win. ;-) [Being very glad I'm not posting under my real name.]

xutag77 said...

"John in Carolina urges Charles Piot to release the videotape of the "Shut Up and Teach" forum. If Piot really believes that Group of 88 members are great teachers, presumably a videotape of five Group members acting as public intellectuals would silence the Group's critics once and for all. So why does Piot continue to suppress the tape?"

We already know the answer to this question. We just want additional
proof.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Often, business and organizations are sued and principals in those businesses and organizations are made party to the suit. The business and organization always looks out for it's own interest. If it is apparent that the individuals interest are contrary to the business' interest, then it becomes necessary for the individual to hire some to represent him."

Some employment contracts require the business to supply the individual with representation in such situations.

The law* in this case is:
§ 143‑300.4. Grounds for refusal of defense.

(a) The State shall refuse to provide for the defense of a civil or criminal action or proceeding brought against an employee or former employee if the State determines that:

(1) The act or omission was not within the scope and course of his employment as a State employee; or
(2) The employee or former employee acted or failed to act because of actual fraud, corruption, or actual malice on his part; or
(3) Defense of the action or proceeding by the State would create a conflict of interest between the State and the employee or former employee; or
(4) Defense of the action or proceeding would not be in the best interests of the State.

(b) The determinations required by subsection (a) of this section shall be made by the Attorney General. The Attorney General may delegate his authority to make these determinations to the chief administrative authority of any agency, institution, board, or commission whose employees are to be defended as provided by subdivision (3) or (4) of G.S. 143‑300.5. Approval of the request by an employee or former employee for provision of defense shall raise a presumption that the determination required by this section had been made and that no grounds for refusal to defend were discovered. (1967, c. 1092, s. 1.)


I don't know how this is supposed to work for (a)(1) and (a)(2), where the fact questions determining whether the defense is mandated won't be determined until the end of the trial for which the defense is needed.

But I would guess that the key to it all is the first sentence of subsection (b):
The determinations required by subsection (a) of this section shall be made by the Attorney General.

Thus as a practical matter, whether or not Nifong gets state assistance will come down to a political decision on the part of NCAG Roy Cooper.

I invite anyone who knows NC politics better than I (which is almost anyone at all) to speculate as to which option Cooper will decide best maximizes his chances of reelection.

[*Of course, this being North Carolina, it's probably best not to waste too much time studying the letter of the law - you'll get far better results spending the same amount of time on a judge's reelection campaign.]

Ralph Phelan said...

"Mr. Nifong however must defend himself because clearly he was acting outside the scope of his job and contrary to the policies and procedures he was hired to follow."
It's clear that he was outside the written scope of his job description. It's not nearly so clear that he was outside of standard and customary practice.

The bigger questions are:
If Cooper says "no" how (if at all) can Nifong appeal the decision?
If Nifong does find a way to appeal, will he be lucky enough to have it heard by one of his many good friends on the bench?

John said...

Whether Nifong is entitled to immunity in the LAX players’ suit will be a key issue. It likely would be addressed before the Bevins issue of liability. It may also effect the obligation of the State to pay for his defense. (What does the applicable North Carolina statute say?)

As of 2005 there is a conflict among the federal circuits on the extent of the immunity available to prosecutors for acts performed outside of their strict advocacy function in litigation.

In Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268–69 (1993) only qualified immunity was available to a prosecutor who conspired with police to fabricate evidence during the preliminary investigation of a highly publicized rape and murder. As the Supreme Court concluded, “[The defendants’] mission at that time was entirely investigative in character. A prosecutor neither is, nor should consider himself to be, an advocate before he has probable cause to have anyone arrested.”

The Nifong behavior would seem like a pretty clear Buckley v. Fitzsimmons case because as UPI points out, he took over the police investigation when it was about to be dropped, which could get him into trouble under the immunity analysis.

In Buckley, the Supreme Court acknowledged that even after probable cause has been found, the prosecutor is not necessarily entitled to absolute immunity. It rejected the contention that a prosecutor may shield his investigative misconduct by presenting fabricated evidence to a grand jury or introducing it at trial because “every prosecutor might then shield himself from liability for any constitutional wrong against innocent citizens by ensuring that they go to trial.”

As the Court explained, “Even after that determination . . . a prosecutor may engage in ‘police investigative work’ that is entitled to only qualified immunity.” As UPI suggests, this doctrine offers insight that Nifong wanted to get evidence introduced at trial to try to better his own case for immunity.

But it is still not clear whether absolute or only qualified immunity applies when a prosecutor introduces tainted evidence (as Nifong most likely did at the Grand Jury – although the absence of a record means only Nifong and the grand jurors know), which had previously been dug up (or manufactured) during the investigatory phase of the prosecution.

The Third Circuit has held that absolute immunity applies, and the Second and Ninth Circuits have held that only qualified immunity applies. North Carolina is in the 4th Circuit, a pretty conservative court. I don’t know if the 4th Circuit has a rule on the question.

Also, what effect under Erie v. Tompkins and progeny (federal common law) of any North Carolina precedent on the qualified vs. absolute immunity question?

(Paraphrased liberally in many places from a good article by Margaret Z. Johns, Reconsidering Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (2005).)

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ralph: Why shouldn't the state of NC pay for Nifong's lawyers? Duke paid for the 88's.

Anonymous said...

Slightly OT (or maybe not), but worth a read: Ann Coulter's latest:

http://www.anncoulter.com/

Sweet Thang
p.s. ralph phelan: I was disappointed in your Marine comment - my son is one.

Anonymous said...

KC, from "Phrasefinder." You know you're a hit when they mimic you. Thank GOD it isn't Amy Poehler doing the imitation blog!

IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY - "Usually said ironically when someone tries to gain attention by copying someone else's original ideas. Coined by Charles Caleb Colton in 1820.

Still enjoying your blog! Cheers, cmf

John said...

Posted before I saw the previous on the NC Code section on refusal of a defense.

Thanks.

What does the 4th Circuit say about qualified v. absolute immunity?

Ralph Phelan said...

"Sweet Thang
p.s. ralph phelan: I was disappointed in your Marine comment - my son is one."

Sorry, couldn't resist the joke even though I know the stereotype isn't true.

When I ran into ex-military guys while working in the semiconductor industry what struck me about them wasn't the effects of military discipline. I expected that. It was that even by the standards of an industry that hires physics Ph.D.s by the boat load they were exceptionally sharp.

duke09parent said...

I am neither bothered nor surprised Nifong asked for a defense. I think he is entitled to it. Plus, it is in Durham's financial interest to do so. They need a coordinated defense.

Ralph Phelan said...

"I agree with Ralph: Why shouldn't the state of NC pay for Nifong's lawyers?"
No you don't. Just because I acknowledge the precedent of offically condoned prosecutorial misconduct doesn't mine I like it or want to see it continue.

Just reiterating the point that Nifong is not an abberation.

Gary Packwood said...

duke09parent 10:03 said...

...I am neither bothered nor surprised Nifong asked for a defense. I think he is entitled to it. Plus, it is in Durham's financial interest to do so. They need a coordinated defense.
::
You make a good point. The NC system has no City or County DA which in my view places the burden in this case back to the State to coordinate a defense.

If the citizens of NC don't like that NC State DA system, they should consider changing the system.
::
GP

Gary Packwood said...

Sweet Thang 9:52 said...
...
...p.s. ralph phelan: I was disappointed in your Marine comment - my son is one.
::
I think you misread his comment about the Marines.

When I was in the US Army it was my jobs to help young non-commissioned officers plan together as a team. Sometimes, the only way to get the guys to make up their minds was to suggest that if they didn't do SOMETHING, I would bring in the US Marines to help with the discussions.

That little ploy usually moved my team 'off the dime' in short order.

My regards, best wishes and respect to your son.
::
GP

Richard Aubrey said...

Ralph.
John McCain, speaking at Annapolis, said he'd been interested in the Marines until they found out his parents were married.
This year, although it's like a knife in the heart to do something for a jarhead, I'm going to donate to Toys for Tots.

Marine Mom. Talk like this is why Marine bases and paratrooper bases are kept far apart.

You might ask your son for a few goodies about the guys in a different union. Share them.

You can get a tee shirt which says,
Don't EVEN mess with me. I raised a Marine.

Anonymous said...

...I am neither bothered nor surprised Nifong asked for a defense. I think he is entitled to it. Plus, it is in Durham's financial interest to do so. They need a coordinated defense.
::
You make a good point. The NC system has no City or County DA which in my view places the burden in this case back to the State to coordinate a defense.
--------------
Perhaps this is correct, however,
the defense should NOT be of Nifong's choosing. If the state is paying, the state must decide for whom it will pay. Why would he be allowed his personal choice of attorneys, to be paid for by state, when other defendants requiring 'free' defense attorneys have NO CHOICE as to their representation? (ie public defenders are already on state payroll, why is this not good enough for Nifong?)

Debrah said...

Coulter on Duke and more

Anonymous said...

I think the ACLU should show their support of the rule of law by providing legal defense to Nifong.

becket03 said...

I think I'd wait until Luke Sheahan learned a little something about how to write before I pointed with pride to his endorsement.

But that's just me.

beckett

W. R. Chambers said...

Liestoppers has a link to an interesting analysis of the civil suit. You can find the article here

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20071016_wasserman.html

The author, a law professor, discusses the all but absolute immunity the law affords to prosecutors and describes considerable difficulties the plaintiffs may have if the case goes to trial.

Debrah said...

I just got off the phone to the N&O....trying to find Barry Saunders' editor....to ask why his October 16 column libeling and dissing Pressler cannot be accessed online.

You just get Anne Blythe's brief report about Pressler's suit.

I was all set to talk to Saunders, initially; however, he has this really goofy message on his machine and afterward the voice mail tells you that a message cannot be left because his box is filled.

LOL!!!

What a load. This is same brand of affectation as the fedora which Saunders sports for his mugshots.

Pure artifice.

He doesn't want to answer real questions....so he devises it to look as though his message box is "filled"....because he is so important and in demand. LOL!

What a libelous clown.

His column about Pressler should never have been allowed in a decent paper. The N&O is going back to the same pre-Joe Neff reporting days of the case.

I just skewered his editor and left my number for a reply.

Tick-tock...tick-tock.....

Anonymous said...

I agree that if the State ends up paying for Nifong's defense in the civil suit, then the State has the right to choose the lawyers for Nifong. I suggest they choose an NCCU law grad, or perhaps one of those fine lawyers who wrote the LAX case talking points for NC's NAACP. That's exactly the kind of legal talent a defendant like Nifong deserves.

traveler said...

To Steven Horwitz:

Our professor has given us the assignment to read: The lacrosse affair: call for an independent review, by Lee Hamel.

I admit to usually reading one paragraph, and then skimming articles such as this, but I did read all of this one. It appears Hamel is an attorney, and not an academic, wouldn’t you say? How would you grade Hamel’s article?

Others: When you read your assignment, See: The Chronicle Poll - Current Question:
Do you think the state of North Carolina should pay for former distict attorney Mike Nifong's legal fees?

http://www.dukechronicle.com/poll/index.cfm?event=displayPollResults

Current: Yes 3% No 97%

Anonymous said...

Nifong's choice of private counsel, James Craven III, was on Nifong's list of potential "character witnesses" at his Ethics hearing -- so in my opinion, Craven himself has a conflict of interest, being on record as prepared to perjure himself by claiming that Nifong is ethical, which would precude or conflict with other avenues of defense.

John said...

The article linked to in Liestoppers is somewhat pessimistic on the immunity issue. I think it may prove to be a much closer question, given that Nifong took on the investigative role along with his advocacy duties.

Anonymous said...

WRAL is reporting that NC will NOT defend Mikey. WHOO HOOO!!!!

RRHamilton said...

Debrah said...

Coulter on Duke and more

10/18/07 10:59 AM

First, I think it's great, in light of the latest attacks on Ann, that this article is on Jewish World Review.

No one can turn a phrase the way Ann can. Her description of the Lax case as a "nappyheaded hoax" was a classic. I see that Duke has in the past honored other nappyheaded hoaxers.

It's probably only due to KC that Duke can't give Crystal and honorary degree -- though making AAAS a department is a pretty close substitute.

Anonymous said...

Just announced:
STATE WON'T DEFEND NIFONG IN CIVIL SUIT

Bravo!!

traveler said...

The World is Watching:

EIN News - A service for global professionals

http://www.ipdgroup.com/aboutus.php

The Internet Product Development Group, Inc. (IPD Group) provides Internet data mining and search services to organizations and professional users who need current news about specific topics.

Site spoofs 'Wonderland' blog, lacrosse case 17 Oct 2007 13:15 GMT
... KC Johnson may have competition in the blogosphere. "Bull City-in-Wonderland" went live in ... articles mimicking the style and content of "Durham-in-Wonderland," the blog written by Johnson, who gained…

http://www.einnews.com/search.php?keywords=Durham+in+Wonderland&makesearch=yes&x=39&y=8

EIN New, is a subscription service, but there is a free trial option to read this article.

Anonymous said...

It has been announced that the AG's office will NOT represent Nifong (from WRAL's website).

http://wral.com/news/local/story/1943317/

Debrah said...

I think the DIW spoof site has now been dismantled. I hope so.

And I hope that if KC continues blogging he removes the "Durham" in DIW.

William Jockusch said...

KC thanks for the blog.

Just a comment that lawyers typically use the word "conduct" where you use "behavior".

So, for example, the first sentence of your post could read:

In a move that could define "gall," Mike Nifong is demanding that the state pay for his civil suit attorneys--even though he's being sued, in part, for conduct that led to his conviction on criminal contempt charges.

Anonymous said...

The State REFUSED!!!! Finally, some sanity -- I would resent like He** one penny of my tax money paying for A**holes defense!

Debrah said...

What's gotten into Bob Herbert?

Bill Cosby and Alvin Poussaint must be having an effect on him.

He's never written a column like this before.

We need to send this over to the Gang at Duke and all the rest of the othered.

LarryD said...

Considering that Nifong has already been cashiered for ethical violations, and spent a day in jail for lying to a judge, I don't think he can claim (at least not with any success) immunity for any of those actions. It's pretty clear that those actions are "beyond the pale".

Of course, we're all waiting to see what discovery bring up.

Ralph Phelan said...

"I think the DIW spoof site has now been dismantled." I hope so.

Bull City-in-Wonderland has moved from bullcity-in-wonderland.blogspot.com to bullcityinwonderland.blogspot.com

"I hope so."

Why? It appears to be an attempt to satirize the entire Duke Lacrosse Burning. While a consider satire superfluous to an event this absurd, the fact that they've structured their effort to look like DiW acknowledges DiW 's importance.

In Hollywood having one's movie or TV show satirized by Mad Magazine is considered both a valuable plug and an honor - it means you're worth bothering with. I think this is a similar situation.

Anonymous said...

To: W.R. Chambers
Thanks for posting the link on the difficulties of the civil rights suit - it was an interesting read. Postings like yours are a big reason why I keep returning to this site. So thank you!

Debrah said...

TO RRH--

I agree that Coulter is a brilliant writer...and she is laughing all the way to the bank.

Much of what she says is to stir things up...and she does!

Her comment to Donny Deutsch was deliberately misinterpreted. It's easy to understand her point if that's your real objective.

Deutsch is an overblown loudmouth...although his birthday is the same as mine. LOL!!!

Since I'm pro-choice and a lot of other things she is not, she's a bit too conservative for me; however, on most issues she is dead-on.

Anonymous said...

Well, as my grandmother always said, "If you don't ask, you won't get." Although if she were alive today, she might add: "But sometimes you should just save your breath."

Anonymous said...

Nifong's lawyer is named "Craven"?

How appropriate.

Shouting Thomas said...

"Donna Lisker, director of the Women's Center, was named associate dean of undergraduate education Tuesday."

Somebody please explain to me, again, how this battle is over anything other than who gets their hands on the swag.

Lisker isn't being punished for her role in the lacrosse scandal. She's being rewarded!

Here's the end result for Duke so far: The administration has cynically bought its way out of its malfeasance and announced that it intends to continue doing the same as before.

Duke's administration is giving the world the middle finger. Quite emphatically. Brodhead intends to continue to reward his cronies in the racial and sexual quota scams. Reminds me of the Daley administration and its habit of doling out construction contracts to cronies in Chicago in the 1960s, except that at some point federal prosecutors stepped in.

The underlying issue here is the racial and sexual quota system. KS, I understand why you are trying to limit this "reasonably" to the legal issues revolving around the criminal case. But, you are ignoring the obvious. The corruption of the quota system brought about this madness. That system remains completely intact and unchallenged.

I am mystified by all the rhetoric about "scholarship," "reason," etc. on this blog. The Gang of 88 doesn't care. They've got the swag. They've rigged the game. All the talk of traditional academic values... well, the Gang of 88 has to be getting a laugh out of that.

TruthHurts001 said...

I read a bit of the spoof site.

Either I don't "get it", or it's remarkably unfunny.

Steven Horwitz said...

Traveler asks:

To Steven Horwitz:

Our professor has given us the assignment to read: The lacrosse affair: call for an independent review, by Lee Hamel.

I admit to usually reading one paragraph, and then skimming articles such as this, but I did read all of this one. It appears Hamel is an attorney, and not an academic, wouldn’t you say? How would you grade Hamel’s article?


Grade based on what? The writing? The argumentative style? Whether I agree with it - which is not the same as "grading"?

Not sure what you want.

mac said...

Haven't seen the parody, but the people I see who hate parody most are...88 co-signers.

I'm waiting for Southpark to do an episode on Mikey Nifong and Dickey Brodhead and Miss Wahneema and Crystal.

Debrah said...

OK.

A really nice online editor at the N&O just called to say that the URL on their site was incorrect and that's why the column couldn't be accessed.

He fixed it.

This bile is simply unconscionable:

Saunders on Pressler

Debrah said...

TO 1:00 pm--

It's remarkably unfunny.

Which is why I don't like it.

I want KC to get "Durham" out of DIW.

Too many creeps are contaminating the proceedings.

Anonymous said...

mac@10/18/07 1:04 PM

I'm waiting for Southpark to do an episode on Mikey Nifong and Dickey Brodhead and Miss Wahneema and Crystal.

I'd like to see Team America Goes to Duke. Maybe without the naughty puppet bits.

Debrah said...

Regarding KC's update....sorry Mikey.

No cigar.

LIS!!!

Ralph Phelan said...

Duke Prof -
Another sausage-making question-

When AAAS was upgraded to department status, did that dilute the influence of other departments within Arts & Sciences? If so, did they have any say?

When AAAS was upgraded to department status, did its budget increase? If so where, is the extra money coming from? A grant from Uncle Sam, Duke general funds, targeted donations?

Who pays the salary of the AAAS faculty? Endowed chairs (If so endowed by whom?) Grant money (if so from whom?) Duke general funds (if so who signs off on it?)

Ralph Phelan said...

debrah 1:28

I agree about the quality of the parody - when I said it was the same sort of honor as being satirized by Mad, I certainly didn't mean that it was anywhere near as big of one.

traveler said...

I just read Bull City-in-Wonderland at: http://bullcityinwonderland.blogspot.com/

The Johnsville News:

And Shreya Rao reveals in the Chronicle that DIW has spawned a spoof site.

comment: Mel and Al must have heard that some of us were having a hard time finding their new blog. So they kindly put a message up on their old site. Their Durham-in-Wonderland spoof-site,

Bull City-in-Wonderland, moved from bullcity-in-wonderland.blogspot.com to

bullcityinwonderland.blogspot.com. They've been added to the TJN lax links now that we know where they are.

Useless information: Or, why do we care where they are located?

Jim in San Diego said...

Anyone familiar with my blogging on the issue of Nifong's unethical and even criminal misbehavior knows where I stand on that issue.

However, whether the State should pay for his defense is another issue.

Because "good cases make bad law", we should consider general principles, not decide what Nifong really deserves and stop there.

A civil suit is financialy punitive, whatever the merits, and whatever the outcome. DA's and police are always, in every instance, vulnerable to the punitive costs of defending civil suits.

Note, the actual legal merits of the Lacrosse victims' claims have yet to be tested. A recent article, posted here, suggests significant obstacles under the Civil Rights laws.

It is probably best policy that the State pay the costs of defense when a DA is named in a civil suit. Otherwise, DA's everywhere are vulnerable to punitive civil lawsuits.

Punishment of a wayward DA should come elsewhere. Termination of employment; disbarment; disgrace. There may be a case for the State to seek indemnity, later, under certain circumstances.

Thus, with clenched teeth, and in an attempt to hold down my breakfast, it is my opinion that yes, the State should pay the defense costs for Mr. Nifong.

It is at the gut level, which I am not proud of, that I am glad to hear the State of North Carolina has declined to defend Nifong.

Anonymous said...

anonymous said...

I'd like to see Team America Goes to Duke. Maybe without the naughty puppet bits.

10/18/07 1:31 PM


There's no way to do a movie about the nappyheaded hoax without the "naughty puppet bits" :)

Lots of them, come to think of it.

Debrah said...

TO Ralph @ 1:38 PM--

I know.

To me, this case hasn't really been entertainment...except for the 88 and some of the exchanges that we often have.

The blog itself concerns a serious topic.

I just don't like spoofs of such things.

Actors, politicians, etc.....entertainment topics which MAD spoofs are hilarious.

I might change my mind; however, I don't like the idea of spoofing DIW....and I have my doubts about the kinds of clowns who would do so.

As well as their agenda.

John said...

re Larryd's of 12:29 - If only a qualified immunity applies, you should be 100% right, it seems like a pretty tough case for the defense, even with the Bivens requirements (I imagine "we're fu**ed" should meet the knew or should have known rules for Constitutional rights violations) And, it's Nifong's burden to demonstrate his entitlement to immunity. But absolute immunity means just that, and a grab bag of policy reasons have been cited to grant immunity in some pretty egregious past cases (e.g., other remedies exist, chilling effect, and blah, blah, blah). IMO, it likely will turn on how far outside his prosecutor's role Nifong can be shown to have stepped, not how poorly he performed his core duties.

Anonymous said...

"Suppress the tape?"

Got a big laff on that one -- Piot is a brilliant professor and extremely popular among (drum roll) Duke students.

He's not accountable to that PJ blogger or to you, Mr. Suinshine -- THANK THE GODDESS!

Florida Gator said...

Deputy
AG Grayson Kelley's letter to Nifong.

Request Denied!

Ralph Phelan said...

Jim in San Diego said...
"It is probably best policy that the State pay the costs of defense when a DA is named in a civil suit. Otherwise, DA's everywhere are vulnerable to punitive civil lawsuits."

My impression is that currently DAs getting away with abusing people is a far, far larger problem than DAs being afraid to pursue legitimate cases. Under the current system they have a career and thus financial incentive to put away as many people as possible, guilty or innocent, by whatever means necessary. Giving them a financial incentive not to blatantly obviously overstep the bounds of their employment for fear of being bankrupted strikes me as only a small step in the right direction.

Also, the legal system doesn't seem to consider it a problem when innocent people get bankrupted successfully defending themselves, so my sympathy for prosecutors in similar straits is quite limited.

"Punishment of a wayward DA should come elsewhere. Termination of employment; disbarment; disgrace."

When that starts happening on a routine basis, I'll reconsider my opinion above.

"There may be a case for the State to seek indemnity, later, under certain circumstances."

And how would they get it out of Nifong, who's already broke?

Anonymous said...

I view this as a win-win situation. If Cooper decides NOT to provide counsel for Nifong. He gets to keep his job and Nifong has a problem. If on the other hand Cooper (or some corrupt Judge) PROVIDES counsel for Nifong at public expense, the sorry taxpayers of North Carolina who elected this cadre of corrupt miscreants have to foot the bill, and Nifong likely still looses along with Cooper et. al. Nothing could be more just than that. North Carolina is just one of a growing list of states where decent people should not live ( behind New Jersey, Louisiana, New York, and most of the rest of New England). And as an aside, where are the two NC Senators? Hiding under their desks? Haven't heard a word from either of them. I guess they figure it won't stink if they don't step in it.

traveler said...

To Steven Horwitz: I am sorry I asked such a vague question.

Our discussion started when KC’s book was being discussed as popular writing style, but not scholarly.

You were helping me understand how scholarly writing differs from regular journalism. Which I very much appreciated, I might add.

I thought Lee Hamel's article was very good. He seemed very will qualified to make the points he made.

“Lee Hamel, Duke '62, is a former federal prosecutor and has been a trial lawyer specializing in white-collar crime litigation for 36 years.”

His statement:
"All of us are at potential risk from a criminal investigation or charges-inconceivable as that seems. Why? Because putative victims do lie. They are human."

Had he sourced how he came to that conclusion, would that have taken this into the realm of more scholarly writing?

Am I even starting to understand scholarly writing?

By the way, do you realize we started this discussion some 400 posts ago? Unbelievable!

Anonymous said...

I completely agree that he should be defended for what he properly did within the scope of DA. However, he's being sued for the things he did outside the proper scope of his former job, and that's the reason I agree with Roy Cooper.

Be interesting to see what Dan Boyce has to say--he originally ran against Roy but has been a talking head on some of the news shows about issues related to the Duke case.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody else think this is just a pacifier to deflect attention from the states refusal to call for Federal Intervention?
I don't see any actions as being for the cause of justice. Too close to election time, and makes me wonder the real intent.
Rhonda Fleming
Sister of unsolved Durham resident, still fighting for truth

Anonymous said...

Oh, the irony!

Debrah said...

I have an excellent idea.

So delicious in its genius that I could go Crazy! right at this very moment just thinking about it.

Since producing a blog takes so much work and time, I think KC should modify this one and a fee should be charged (a...la...the NYTimes Select) for those who want to be a part of it.

Outside commenting urchins could have a limited access until they have to pay a fee as well.

It's only fair.

Nothing in life is free.

I had thought about starting a real blog--not the little superfluous one I now use just to maintain an ID to post--but I think this one is the best going.

Why change?

Gary Packwood said...

Jim in San Diego 1:49 said...

...
...Thus, with clenched teeth, and in an attempt to hold down my breakfast, it is my opinion that yes, the State should pay the defense costs for Mr. Nifong.
..It is at the gut level, which I am not proud of, that I am glad to hear the State of North Carolina has declined to defend Nifong.
::
My concern is a bit simpler.

I just don't want to hear again - ever - that some bureaucrat is being dumped on by a group of rich white boys from the east coast.

And that is exactly what Nifong is going to say when the verdict or settlement does not go his way.
::
GP

Ralph Phelan said...

"The blog itself concerns a serious topic.
I just don't like spoofs of such things."

I do, when well done. So far it hasn't been.

I would have stayed away from this project not because the subject is too serious for humor, but because the actual facts are already beyond parody.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 2:43 said...

...Oh, the irony!
::
Interesting that you bring up Irony as I was thinking about that this morning.

A year ago the Anger Studies students and their faculty at Duke were spewing forth their observation of irony or sweet irony or isn't it just sooo ooooo ooo ironic that ...privileged white boys from the east coast would ____ and ____ and ____ etc etc.

I think Duke attorneys finally pointed out to those faculty and students that they were allowed to OBSERVE irony but not ...CAUSE irony.

When did irony become the union card for people to think they are smart/clever?
::
GP

Steven Horwitz said...

Traveler asks:

His statement:
"All of us are at potential risk from a criminal investigation or charges-inconceivable as that seems. Why? Because putative victims do lie. They are human."

Had he sourced how he came to that conclusion, would that have taken this into the realm of more scholarly writing?

Am I even starting to understand scholarly writing?


It's an opinion/letter to the editor piece. There's nothing he can do to make that piece "scholarly."

It's an interesting question as to what makes something "scholarly." A few thoughts:

1. It addresses a topic that scholars have addressed. I know that sounds circular, but it will have to do.

2. It demonstrates cited familiarity with the work of others in the area being investigated.

3. It takes other views seriously, avoids ad hominems, and attempts to demonstrate their shortcomings.

4. It makes use of scholarly conventions such as citations, footnotes, etc..

5. It often makes use of specialized language, ideas, or terminology. Its audience is other experts, not the general public.

You know maybe a better way is by example. Here's a popular piece of mine:

Capitalism and the Family

and here's an (unpublished) scholarly piece that covers similar ground:

Markets and Maslow

I think those illustrate the differences, even if I can't articulate all of them.

inman said...

Florida Gator @ 2:18 et al

To what extent has the AG of NC basically provided an opinion that could adversely affect any immunity defense for Nifong?

inman said...

NEWSFLASH:

It was reported that the Group of '88 has tendered a written apology, only it was in another location and could take a while to get here.

Anonymous said...

Oh wait, I just noticed the time of the last published comment (2:43 PM). It may be that my comment is still "in the queue". If so, please ignore what I said a minute ago.

RRH

Anonymous said...

The State fears that if they undertake to defend Knifing, it will be an implied (if not a legal) admssion that his wrongdoings were as agents of the State, which in turn will later support the argument that they have to indemify him (i.e. PAY the judgment) for any verdict that goes against him.

I'm not saying that is necessarily what the law will require; I'm saying, that's the road they are making sure they do NOT go down, if they can help it.

Steven Horwitz said...

Debrah,

The problem with your crazy idea is that the NYT Select went free a few weeks ago, precisely because they weren't getting enough folks to pay for that content and were pissing off their long-time readers in the process.

I suspect were DIW to go that direction the same result would occur.

Anonymous said...

"Suppress the tape?"

Got a big laff on that one -- Piot is a brilliant professor and extremely popular among (drum roll) Duke students.

He's not accountable to that PJ blogger or to you, Mr. Suinshine -- THANK THE GODDESS!

.....

You never answered the question. Why not release the tape? If he is truly brilliant then we could learn from him. All that I know is that his paper on KC was a joke starting with the theory that the ad wasn’t about he lacrosse incident.

How can a brilliant professor make such a big mistake in a peer-reviewed article? Did he forget about the WL email? You know the one that went:

"African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident."

Did his peer reviewers forget about the email? Did they know about the WL email and in essence try to rewrite history to cast a better light on things? If he is brilliant is he also intellectually dishonest?

Anonymous said...

I agree that Coulter is great. I don't know why she bothers going on shows like Donny D. Her books are always best-sellers without the help of the MSM or NYT.

We live in such a PC world, that you cannot really say what you mean. You just wink and people understand. Every Easter we attended services that commemorate the death of Christ. Who killed Him? The Jews. But don't say it out loud. The whole question Donny asked was stupid.

If I observe the Jewish faith, I must beleive it's right or why would I believe in it? The whole thing with Christianity is that if you want to go to heaven, you must believe in Jesus Christ. If I don't believe in that, why would I be offended if you told me I was not going to heaven?

If you don't believe in God, why do you care if someone says you're not going to heaven?

Jews are still waiting, I'm okay with that.

We saw some of the terrorist stated that they would get 100 (or whatever the number was) virgins. Now if one of them told me I would not get any if I even got to heaven, I would not be offended, 'cause I think that promise is bull.

Off topic - Bill Clinton's publishers did a first printing of 750,000 of his book and after weeks so far less that 10% has sold. And the number sold gets smaller every week. People would rather read Ann??

Debrah said...

".......because the actual facts are already beyond parody."

Yeah, that's a good point and is one that is analogous to the infamous "Faculty" letter.

The Gang of 88 are already a parody of themselves....and unless careful scrutiny is employed, there is almost no difference between the parody and the so-called real thing.

To me, it's a wasted effort. The whole saga is crazy enough on its own.

Anonymous said...

Nifong's liar, Mr. Craven, has announced that he will appeal the State's refusal to pay for Nifong's defense:

http://www.newsobserver.com/1534/story/741069.html

The funniest part of the article is the quote attributed to Nifong by Mr. Craven:

"I don't know why I continue to expect people to do the right thing."

What a riot! Especially when you consider that Mike himself lives only for Mike, and has not been known to do anything right, moral or decent from the first moment he decided to run for District Attorney.

Ralph Phelan said...

GP sez:

"I just don't want to hear again - ever - that some bureaucrat is being dumped on by a group of rich white boys from the east coast."

Well you will. Guaranteed. No matter what defense Nifong is or is not given, no matter how high piled the evidence that that is not the case, people who want to believe it will continue to believe it and continue to say it.

Don't waste your time caring about the opinions of those impervious to reason.

Debrah said...

OK.

Even though it's three hours away from KC, my favorite former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto just survived a blast in Pakistan.

The Middle East is always a mine field and KC is in one of the most dangerous places.

KC, be careful!

Forgive me when I got upset with you!

I'd be devastated if something happened and there was any kind of bad blood.

I kiss the ring of our blog Don.

:>)

Anonymous said...

"blog Don"

that's kinda funny. 'you do me a favor of linking my blog and I do you a favor of posting your blog; everybody's happy.'

Debrah said...

Forget what religion you observe. Just the idea that someone is FORCED to believe something is mad.

"The whole thing with Christianity is that if you want to go to heaven, you must believe in Jesus Christ."

I am a spiritual person and believe in a higher being.

But this heaven and hell thing is a bit much.

This is it, baby. You're living it right now.

The afterlife is for those who didn't quite do very much here. They console themselves with a security blanket that there is some grand prize awaiting them.

One Spook said...

beckett03 @ 11:18 AM writes:

"I think I'd wait until Luke Sheahan learned a little something about how to write before I pointed with pride to his endorsement.

But that's just me."


Me too ... that was not a well-written piece, regardless of how much I sympathize with the main points.

One Spook

Ralph Phelan said...

Steven Horwitz said...
"Debrah,

The problem with your crazy idea is that the NYT Select went free a few weeks ago, precisely because they weren't getting enough folks to pay for that content and were pissing off their long-time readers in the process."

If I understand her correctly, what Debra is suggesting is not to charge for the ability to read DiW, but to charge for the ability to comment.

It's an interesting new web-business model that I haven't heard of before (not that my knowledge is that wide ranging). I'm amused by the idea of taking the whole "web 2.0" thing one step further and turning the traditional publishing model perfectly upside down ... don't just let your customers create your content, but *charge them for doing so*.

If the web is making the attention of others ever more valuable at the same time it's making content ever cheaper, the idea makes a wierd kind of sense. And charging people for the opportunity to be seen is very "diva"-ish idea.

LarryD said...

Re John @ 2:03PM

Since Nifong has been disbarred for actions that the civil suit is about, I can see no policy arguments for absolute immunity for anything covered in his Ethics Hearing.

But I'm glad the civil case is proceeding if only for what I hope the discovery will reveal, Durham needs a lot of sunlight.

It's not just about Nifong, it's about exposing his accessories; those who actively helped him, and those whose duty it was to stop him yet turned a blind eye.

Steven Horwitz said...

415 recycles Coulter's offenses with:

Every Easter we attended services that commemorate the death of Christ. Who killed Him? The Jews. But don't say it out loud.

Debrah, would you like to name it for what it is, or shall I?

If I observe the Jewish faith, I must beleive it's right or why would I believe in it? The whole thing with Christianity is that if you want to go to heaven, you must believe in Jesus Christ.

Actually, 415, Jews believe that Christians can find God's grace just as Jews can if they live by the 7 laws of Noah. Christianity requires faith in Jesus as the Son of God, so excludes practicing Jews from heaven by definition. Judaism does not preclude practicing Christians in the same manner. So trying to draw your analogy doesn't work because of the differences between the two belief systems.

The offensive-across-many-dimensions Ms. Coulter was apparently ignorant of that as well, which is part of the reason Jews were rightly offended by her comments, and should be by yours. This Jew is anyway. Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.

Ann Coulter is the walking embodiment of an ankle-biter.

Debrah said...

Hmmmmm....the Times Select is now free.

Perhaps that's why I accessed the Bob Herbert column so easily this time.

LOL!!!

I know for sure that they miss all of us showing up on the political fora there. So many, including myself, just stopped showing up and rather read the columns in local papers.

I still think KC deserves to be compensated by us for his work....in some way.

Don in New Orleans said...

For some reason, Nifong's lawyer, Craven, expressing his disagreement with the State's denial of a defense of Nifong in the civil suit, has quoted Nifong as saying to him, "I don't know why I continue to expect people to do the right thing." Although Nifong's self-delusion is apparent, I can't imagine why his lawyer would include this quote.

John said...

Re Inman's on effect of AG refusal to defend

It�s a nice bootstrap, and I am sure Williams & Connolly will use it. But, the AG�s letter is quite narrowly written, it does not specify the statutory grounds but states only that one or more of the listed grounds have been found to justify refusing a defense. So I do not think it is clear.

Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from suit under the Civil Rights laws for acts �intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process� such as initiating a prosecution and presenting the State�s case to a Grand Jury.

But, a prosecutor�s administrative duties and any investigative functions he performs that do not relate to his preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity.

Confused? I am?

It seems that whether Nifong will be entitled to absolute immunity for ordering the line-up and DNA misconduct (the second of which he participated in) depends on whether he can establish that he was functioning as the state�s advocate � as opposed to its investigator or administrator � at the time.

On the other hand, it is clear that press statements only get a qualified immunity.

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons is very peculiar � viz.

� an out-of-court "effort to control the presentation of [a] witness' testimony" was entitled to absolute immunity [sounds like the Magnum interviews, doesn't it], because it was "fairly within [the prosecutor's] function as an advocate."

Acts entitled to the protections of absolute immunity must include the professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police and appropriate preparation for its presentation at trial or before a grand jury after a decision to seek an indictment has been made.

Nifong's conduct is at the intersection fo the advocate's role in evaluating evidence and interviewing witnesses as he prepares for trial, on the one hand, and the detective's role in searching for the clues and corroboration that might give him probable cause to recommend that a suspect be arrested, on the other hand.

What the LAX players will have to argue is that Nifong performed administrative or investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer.

Then, Buckley states it is "neither appropriate nor justifiable that, for the same act, immunity should protect the one and not the other."

The AG letter does not say but only implies that Nifong was not acting as an advocate for the State in his "outside the scope" conduct. Thus, the ruling IMO will only be of some weight, but not dispositive.

John said...

Gee whiz, Anonymous at 4:15, how the heck are Ann Coulter and your interpretation of Easter sermons about a 2000 year-old legal case where a Jew, leading a Jewish sect, whose followers were Jews in a city where nearly everyone was Jewish, was sentenced to death.

Gospel writers de-emphasized Roman responsibility for the crucifixion to placate the authorities and the whole story was written to tie Jesus to messianic prophecies from the Old Testament. (See James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, (Houghton Mifflin, 2001).)

What twaddle ...

One Spook said...

debrah @ 2:52 PM writes:

"Since producing a blog takes so much work and time, I think KC should modify this one and a fee should be charged (a...la...the NYTimes Select) for those who want to be a part of it.

Outside commenting urchins could have a limited access until they have to pay a fee as well.

It's only fair.

Nothing in life is free."


I won't call your idea "crazy" like that old meanie, Dr. Horwitz, did, but your idea flies directly in the face of what KC intended to do with his Blog.

KC wanted it to be free, from the start (note it doesn't even have ads and believe me he could get them with the traffic the Blog has), and he opted for "Anon" commentors believing that people who would have something valuable to contribute and definitely needed anonimity, could do so. We've seen a lot of that type of valuable comment, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Naturally, that means ankle biters, bigoted commentors, and the mild to severly deranged among us could comment as well. It also meant, as I'm sure KC knew, that he would have to spend a lot of time monitoring those comments. He has deleted relatively few comments, considering, and that is quite remarkable.

Making this Blog "Select" would defeat its very beautiful and useful purpose, IMHO.

One Spook

John said...

Re LarryD re John @ 2:03PM

No kidding, the Supreme Court can seem pretty out of touch with the real world sometimes.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Here is another column on the case from a website I don't think I have ever heard of before:

Duke President Richard Broadhead and the Rot at Our Universities

The author makes very nice comments on Professor Johnson and Mr. Taylor's book:

Until Proven Innocent is one of the great legal books of our time, while meticulously researched, it reads like a crime thriller. Read it to understand the rot infecting the human heart and read it to understand the rot permeating our universities.

And at the end of the column suggests that like "Nifong" Brodhead should enter the English as a new term:

Broadhead – (noun) (‘brȯd-hed)1: a: An authority figure who is easily intimidated, especially a high ranking university administrator. b: Politically correct chump who uses authority to disparage innocent students to score cheap popularity points with media and radical professors. “The Provost said what about me? What a Broadhead.” 2: a: Coward. b: person lacking in testicular fortitude. “Just do it you Broadhead!” Broadheaded – (transitive verb): to lose one’s nerve; inability to withstand public pressure due to lack of character. “The faculty’s public objection Broadheaded the university president and he quickly relented, tucking his proverbial tail between his legs and running for cover.”

John said...

too lazy to use preview, I meant how are 4:15's comments "germaine?"

Debrah said...

TO 4:41 Ralph--

LIS!

You got it right. Only those who pay the fee could actually comment.

Otherwise, you are in the peanut gallery.

AMac said...

Anon 4:03pm wrote --

> Did [Piot's] peer reviewers forget about the email?

I asked an editor of Transforming Anthropology about the journal's review policy. The response was that while "Research Articles" are peer-reviewed, "Short Commentaries" such as "KC's World" are not.

One Spook said...

debrah @ 4:47 PM writes:

"I still think KC deserves to be compensated by us for his work....in some way.

(Warning: Factual satire ahead ...)

1. "Compensated?" Why?
2. KC has never even had a driver's license, let alone an automobile expense.
3. KC has no children that we know of to support.
4. KC has no wife with expensive tastes to support.
5. KC lives like a monk in a small apartment filled with books (Think: Edward Hopper painting) in Brooklyn.
6. KC does not drink, smoke, and hardly ever utters an expletive in public or private, except perhaps in the solitude of his room when an error in his two-fingered typing on his laptop causes him to say "darn!"
7. Many faithful readers of DIW have bought multiple copies of his book for their families, friends, co-workers, Tarot card readers, and letter carriers.
8. KC is known worldwide in all member-countries of the UN including such exotic places as Nepal, Fiji, Anguilla, Saint Kitts & Nevitts, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, Northern Mariana Islands, Yemen, Qatar, Mali, Mongolia, Laos, Malawi, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Senegal, Djibouti, Malta, Kyrgyzstan, Zambia, Vanuatu, Antilles, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Montenegro, Bahrain, Palau, Kazakhstan, Brunei, Dominica, Cote D’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, and Gambia. Those of us who are "compensated" cannot even locate these places on a map, let alone hope to ever be "known" there.
9. KC is a self-admitted "liberal" who, by his own admission has NEVER voted for a Republican; how odd it would be that such a person could be even remotely concerned with such a pedestrian concept as "compensation."
10. In the end, *we* could compensate KC, but there is no amount of compensation that could repay him for the gift he has given to all of us.

One Spook

gs said...

That conviction for lying to the court is the deciding factor in the state not paying for Nifong's defense.

No way Nifong can claim that part of his "official duties" was to lie to the court.

Steven Horwitz said...

Spook:

Geez, I guess I should have put it in quotes so it was clear I was referring to her own use of "crazy" in how she was going "crazy" thinking about it.

Sigh.

traveler said...

TO: One Spook - You wrote:

One Spook said...
debrah @ 2:52 PM writes:

“KC wanted it to be free, from the start (note it doesn't even have ads and believe me he could get them with the traffic the Blog has), and he opted for "Anon" commentors believing that people who would have something valuable to contribute and definitely needed anonimity, could do so. We've seen a lot of that type of valuable comment, as I'm sure you'll agree.”
=================

Thank you for your comments, they made me stop and think, and you are right about anonymity. I was fed up with anonymous writers yesterday. In an emotional snit, I wrote a comment that was banned, as it should have been. No bad words you understand, but harsh, way too harsh.

Do you think that anonymous writers should at least get an anonymous blog name? Some of the best comments are from them, but we can’t follow a favorite. An “Anon.” can be the best comment of the day, or a nutcase popping off four times in a row.

I think we are sensing, that when this blog ends, something special will be lost.

Anonymous said...

Ankle-biter
Angry Studies
Correctology
Piot Principle
Prowess Envy

Nifong
(the verb, "to nifong," cf. "to railroad"; anyone seen usage as a noun?)

10:18 5:30PM introduces:

Broadhead (noun, "What a Broadhead," cf. "weak sister," "gutless wonder,"; intransitive verb, "He promised to call me after the date, but I guess he broadheaded." cf. "failure of nerve," "beat a hasty retreat"; transitive verb, "He promised to take a stand, but the faculty broadheaded him and he kept silent." cf. "to be intimated by," "to have one's utter lack of character exposed by.")

I'm watching this stuff, but could someone persuade Mr. MOO! Gregory to take over as lexicographer?

Anonymous said...

Maybe - Nifong can get Nancy Grace to do some pro bono!

Anonymous said...

Man, its good to see stupid quotes from Mike again. I've missed his unique perspective.

Anonymous said...

CHRIS DAVIS, HARVARD '73, NOT A DUKE PARENT

Now, Monsieur Nifong will get his first real taste of how the American criminal justice system works: the state, in its infinite wisdom with its infinite resources decides to indict/try/convict the accused, who usually doesn't have access to equivalent resources("right to a fair trial").
It will be a sentimental education as we mortgage the house, lose the wife, pets & kids, fall behind in all our payments, etc. Important to never forget, Mike, you're in the land of the free, just ask Peter Paul. As we now have all learned from the LAX case, when an American prosecutor has you in his sights and you don't have Brendan Sullivan on your team, you're dead.

hman said...

I need to be brief. I went to a skanky bar with some wrong-type friends and Tomorrow will be long. Anyway:
1. The AG said no more than what was obvious: "We did not hire you to break the laws and there is no question that you did so." So, it is not complicated
2. Ann Coulters remarks re the Jews represent no more (or less) anti-semitism than what exists in evangelical christianity in general. Decent people can disagree about how much is there; but Evangelicals have been saying the same as A. Coulter for about 500 years. So, in a way, it was a non-event.
3. In the Episcopal Church (about a third of American Presidents out of 1% of the population) Easter Services include a loud affirmation that "We" are responsible for the death of the son of g-d, no projections allowed. And you can be sure that the daily "Prayers of the People" include prayers for the benefit of all elected officials whether Gentile or Jew.
I really love this country when it is acting according to its best instincts.

Anonymous said...

KC - I must comment on the ingratidue many - a few - some -posters have shown toward you, Brad Bannon and Joan Foster. Who are these folk coming out of the wood work to criticize the work of people who are heros of the hoax?

SULAX 88 said...

OneSpook...

"the mild to severly deranged among us could comment as well."

Leave me out of this OneSpook!!!

LOL

KC Johnson said...

For the record--

Comments about Ann Coulter's opinions on religion are off topic; I'm not clearing them.

Anonymous said...

Who are Williams
and Connolly representing?

mac said...

Making a wish upon a star...

I wish Nurse Levity would go to law school, and could be here to defend Mikey - as a Lawyer-in-Training.

I wish the tape of Piot et al ("Shut Up and Teach" forum) would be released, but I probably don't have to make that wish: it's likely a part of the remaining Lacrosse players' discovery-files. (If the attorneys for the young men are awake, that is.) Probably not being made public because of the lawsuit? Is it an approximate cause of the lawsuit?

I wish the half-Piots with Piot- Envy would get voice lessons: the sound of their screeching when they post sounds like the old "long-tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs."

I wish Mr. Nifong would lend his legal defense team the 30 K he allegedly lent his campaign for his election. Mikey, I think they call it a "reverse mortgage."

mac said...

Addendum to my 5:11

Attorney-in-Training Levity could defend Nifey, claiming:

"I never met a prosecutor who lied."

mac said...

Attorney-in-Training Levity could also defend Gottlieb, claiming:

"I never met a police officer who lied."

Another wish-upon-a-star: Levity would represent the City of Duhh.

And that she would put on a production of the perpetually-forthcoming "Piot Monologues."

Stu Daddy said...

A bulletin at Duke Students for an Ethical Duke reports that Stuart Taylor will be speaking at Duke on November 2nd, details TBA.

There's a very good chance that Taylor will be introduced by Duke student Ken Larrey.

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school?

Ralph Phelan said...

Anonymous 10/19/07 8:23 AM said...
"Is Duke a state school?"
No, if it was it would probably be saner.
"Elite" research universities are the primary reservoir of PC infection.

paul a'barge said...

UPI is "one of the great legal books of our time."

What the heck is UPI?

Anonymous said...

Good to see our sniping-

Is Duke a State school?

AND

Is _____ a Communist?

poster has returned. Things just weren't the same when you weren't adding your thoughts. Everytime I read your work it reminds me of the genius of the 88. Please keep comin back!!

Debrah said...

TO Stu Daddy--

Thanks for the info!

Debrah said...

Regarding the 7:22 PM--

This "prowess envy" idea....emerging from the whipped-up fantasies of some in the Gang of 88 is one of my all-time favorites.

Isn't this a Grant Farred invention?

inman said...

9:47

Its the opposite of DOWNI.

Debrah said...

From the H-S.

These woe-is-me pontificators seem to have learned nothing from the lacrosse case. Nor did they wish to.

Everything is always about them. No altruistic or objective view of the world around them....ever.
******************************************

Racism, law discussed in N.C. Central panel

By Dawn Baumgartner Vaughan : The Herald-Sun

DURHAM -- Racism in the Jena Six case is both institutional and individual, lawyer Louis Scott said Thursday at N.C. Central University.

Scott was in town for a panel discussion with state NAACP president the Rev. William Barber at the NCCU School of Law and will take part in this weekend's civil rights conference sponsored by area law schools.

Scott represents Mychal Bell, one of six black students in the small town of Jena, La., accused of beating a white student.

Trouble began a year ago, when nooses were hung from a tree at Jena High School and culminated with a fight between the so-called Jena Six black students and a white student. The white student was treated at a hospital and released. Initially charged with attempted murder, Bell was the first to go to trial and was convicted of the beating as an adult although he was 16 at the time of the incident. The charges were later dismissed, but Bell is back in prison -- this time a juvenile facility -- for a previous probation violation. His next court date is Nov. 8.

News of what many consider evidence of racial discrimination in the Louisiana judicial system brought more than 20,000 marchers to Jena last month, many from Durham and NCCU.

Scott said the case has become so public that he would like to have Bell's future juvenile hearings open to the media so the public can get the full story. Scott said that beyond Bell's case, the incidents have created a larger dialogue related to civil rights issues as well as how far a district attorney should be allowed to go.

Third year NCCU law student Stan Lee was one of the marchers in Jena last month.

"I decided to go because this is a movement. It symbolized a movement for justice for young black men, which I once was, so it hit home," said Lee, 31. "I didn't know what to expect. It was exhilarating. There was a feeling in the air that we were making a difference," he said.

Lee plans to pursue civil rights law -- any kind of law that addresses the disparity of treatment within the system, especially regarding race, he said. He thinks the Jena Six case began with inadequate oversight that snowballed.

He added that district attorneys have too much power.

"One of the lessons of the Duke case was for DAs to recognize power and wield it wisely. It seems this DA didn't get the lesson, and the judge, too," Lee said. "It shows where their mind is."

The students who hung the nooses in Jena were disciplined by the school, but not charged with any crimes by the local district attorney. This week the U.S. attorney for the western district of Louisiana, Donald Washington, told the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee that while a hanging noose is a symbol of hate and racially motivated violence that could be the basis of prosecution, he did not pursue charges because the students were juveniles.

Scott doesn't think the noose hangers should have been treated as adults, but racism, he said, "Is so ingrained and institutionalized until even African-Americans like Donald Washington don't realize that what he's doing is racist."

Barber brought another case of prosecutorial racial disparity to the attention of law students and others gathered in the school's moot court room for the discussion -- that of James Johnson of Wilson, a young black man held for more than three years on murder charges without evidence. Also at the discussion was Mike Klinkosum, attorney for Floyd Brown, a mentally retarded man who was held for 14 years on a murder charge that was dismissed last week.

During a question-and-answer session, NCCU law student Denaro Allen said that learning of incidents of racial discrimination in the court system make his blood boil.

"This generation needs to wake up," Allen said.

Institutional racism is a problem and a threat to their freedom, he said.

"A lot of times we're afraid to talk about it. I'm not afraid anymore," he said. "I encourage you to wake up. We're -- at the law school -- in a position where we can strategically fight in the courtroom and in the system. That's what we have to do. This is serious."

Scott encouraged Allen to get up day after day after day to work for what he believes. Barber said there is work to be done right here in the community. There's no need for a national spotlight to make something an injustice, he said.

"Right here in this state there's so much work to be done," Barber said. "The hard work of this stuff ain't pretty, ain't fabulous, ain't on TV. It's grunt work."

He encouraged students to volunteer now for the NAACP and pursue ways to work within the system for change.

Barber said he believes in his heart that JENA can become an acronym for Justice Everywhere Now Always.

Debrah said...

When checking out the Herald-Sun website just now, I realized that there is virtually nothing there to read.

At all.

If not for checking information and inane comments about the lacrosse case, there would be no reason to go there for anything.

Anonymous said...

This is sort of off the topic, but wondered if any of the attorneys that read this blog could help me not become a victim as the 3 young men were.

I was appalled at the way Judge Stevens acted in the courtroom.
I think respect and orderly conduct is appropriate, but I think "our courts" not his, should also not be intimidating etc.

One of my fears has come to pass, I have been nabbed for jury duty again. The last time I was nabbed for this (my name comes up like clockwork) I was concerned about the questions I was asked in court.
I felt in these times of concerns about privacy, the courts don't seem to care about the juror. I dont' feel I should have to answer publicly where I work, etc.
Can anyone tell us what rights we have as jurors?

Gary Packwood said...

paul a'barge 9:47 said...

...UPI is "one of the great legal books of our time."
...What the heck is UPI?
::
Until Proven Innocent (UPI).

The owner of this blog KC Johnson and his colleague, Stuart Taylor wrote the book UPI about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax and political correctioness.

See the front page of this blog for more information or check amazon.com

UPI is an important read. I highly recommend.
::
GP

duke09parent said...

In response to someone's question above, Williams & Connelly (lead counsel Brendan Sullivan) represent Dave and Collin.

Debrah said...

TO "mac"--

Very humorous posts!

The name "Piot" lends itself to so many possibilities.

:>)

traveler said...

While we await our next KC posting:

Apropos of nothing: But it might explain one way Duke hopes to help pay for all the lawsuits.

Duke magazine: Volume 93, No.5, September-October -Forum

“Duke is adding further credence to the popular notion that it is a snobbish, elitist club to which ordinary human beings need not apply for membership.”

-A High Price to Pay-
The news that Duke charges $25,000 to scatter one's ashes in the Sarah P. Duke Gardens [Quad Quotes, May-June 2007] would be laughable if it were not an obscene profanity against those who would want to maintain
"contact" with Duke even after death.

By attempting such extortion from those on the way to the grave, Duke is adding further credence to the popular notion that it is a snobbish, elitist club to which ordinary human beings need not apply for membership.

William R. McHugh III '68
Bush, Louisiana
http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/091007/depfor.html

This forum also discusses the lacrosse case, the demise of newspaper journalism, and Wahneema Lubiano requests a correction.
=======================
Nothing is Sacred:
Sports Illustrated
(Nice Picture of students)

Campus Chronicles
Buried at Duke, Illinois mascot in trouble and more
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/sioncampus/01/24/campus.chronicles/index.html

Anonymous said...

The Word List I Have:

Angry Studies
ankle-biter
broadhead
(verb and noun)
Correctology
nifong
(verb and noun?)
Piot Envy
Piot Principle
Prowess Envy


Wondering if by-words should be added (e.g., "Does the bear sleep in the woods?" "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" "Carthago delenda est"), to include such perennial favorties as:

Is Duke a State university? and
Is ______________ a Communist?

From their frequent usage on this site, both have soared way beyond Empson's Seven Levels of Ambiguity and are freighted with irony. They'd make excellent punctuation remarks for any conversation, implying either assent or disagreement (or both) with a previous remark, depending entirely on the content and inflections of the speaker. Example:

Farmer #1: Think it will rain today?

Farmer #2: Is Duke a State university?

Farmer #2 could mean either "wish it would rain today" (i.e., if Duke isn't a state university, it needs to be before it becomes a hazard to folk besides them lacrosse fellers) or "'course it ain't gonna rain, ya dang fool," (i.e., Duke will never be a state university, NC has too many problems already) which can also be said with undertones of the first meaning.

There is rich, rich stuff on this blog, folks. Cherish it.

Debrah said...

Spook to the rescue!

When you arrive inside Wonderland, please be advised that "god" has visited The Diva World.

Analysis, please.

(BTW, I'm still waiting for the "Midnight Rider" YouTube.)

Tick-tock.......tick-tock.

If you don't have the time, it's ok.....for I have moved on to another KC appellation.

Although, when he was on East Coast U.S. time and posting at midnight, that was an ingenious idea from the ever-creative Diva!

Debrah said...

BTW, I don't remember KC telling us when he left for Tel Aviv.

All of a sudden, he was just there.

Stu Daddy said...

To paul a'barge @ 10/19 9:47 AM...

UPI is shorthand for the bestselling book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

Anonymous said...

IN DEFENSE OF SATIRE

There has been a tide of nasty anti-satirism sweeping across this board. It seems that the parody troopers want to clean up this site, leaving only pure intellectual arguments to survive. I say that I will not go quietly into that good night!

The anti-satirists have, as their best argument, the following (paraphrased): “The actions of Mike Nifong and the Gang of 88 are so bewilderingly stupid or evil or shortsighted that they are essentially parody-proof.”

That is, in fact, a damn good argument. For example, when I wrote the “Gang of 88 Pledge,” I did not realize how close to the mark it had come. The Pledge read (and still does read) like this:


GANG OF 88 PLEDGE *

I Pledge Allegiance,
to the cause,
of the destruction of the United States of America,
and to the hatred,
of rich mankind,
one agenda,
underhanded,
with hostility and vitriol for all.

* Not real pledge

How was I to know that the only inaccurate portion of that quote was the “*not real pledge” part? As we can see with the new “Alternative Political Imaginaries” battlecry, the Gang of 88 is well beyond the “Pledge” stage, and is ready to put their dogma into action, funding their soldiers with endowments, fellowships and equipping them with time, a battle plan and some interesting new words.

So, yes, you anti-satirists are right. The Mike Nifongs and the Gangs of 88 of this world are beyond parody, but there is still a need for parody and comedy on this board. Take for example, today’s Anonymous @ 11:58 AM. The following is killer stuff:

Farmer #1: Think it will rain today?

Farmer #2: Is Duke a State university?

So, before you exterminate all of us Swift-, Voltaire- and, to a lesser extent, Belushi-wannabes, keep in mind that we can offer a little insight into some of the small problems we all face dealing with the Hoax. Plus, I would miss mac. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school?

10/19/07 8:23 AM


Let's withdraw all government funding and find out.

Anonymous said...

parody alert
with homage to chuck n.
to debrah 12:10

kc has become so powerful that when he had to go to tel aviv,
tel aviv came to him

mac said...

Debrah,
"Prowess Envy" comes from Farred's comment about the alleged "arrogant sexual prowess" of white male athletes. Old thread. (Not sure if I was the first to use it or not to describe Farred's fantasy.)

MOO Gregory: Thank you! I would miss your most excellent satire, too! I think you are probably DIW's "Satirist-in-Chief," even admitting that there have been a lot of good pieces written by others, too.

I think that's what galls the 88er and their offspring most: the lampooning. (Imagine what National Lampoon would do with the crew of 88! Anyone remember "penis pity?" "Doggy Wogs?" "Senior Vittles?")

Ah, for a National Lampoon Special Sedition!

rrhamilton said...

The most striking similarity between Duke and Jena is that both hoaxes began with a black-on-white crime: at Duke with the filing of false legal charges by a black against innocent white students, and at Jena with a racist assault and gang-beating of an innocent white student, Justin Barker.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/jena6.asp

One Spook said...

traveler @ 7:21 PM writes:

"Do you think that anonymous writers should at least get an anonymous blog name? Some of the best comments are from them, but we can’t follow a favorite. An “Anon.” can be the best comment of the day, or a nutcase popping off four times in a row."

I think it is a good idea to get a Blogger name, as many have done here. This not only adds continuity to one's comments, but it protects a commenter from being impersonated by a rogue commentor who could easily post and pose as "Anon @ 7:57," for example.


debrah @ 12:08 PM writes:

"(BTW, I'm still waiting for the "Midnight Rider" YouTube.)

Tick-tock.......tick-tock.

If you don't have the time ... "


I PROMISE to finish it, dear ... then I'll get the back porch screendoor fixed and then replace the rotten boards in the deck ...

Sulax88 @ 1:10 AM writes:

"OneSpook...

"the mild to severly deranged among us could comment as well."

Leave me out of this OneSpook!!!"


Very well ... I had to leave myself out of that one, too ... heh ...


One Spook

Stu Daddy said...

Headline from today's Chronicle...

Brodhead Delivers Faculty Talk

As reported by Andrew Beach, Brodhead presented the Annual Report of the President as part of the annual meeting of Duke's faculty. The meeting ended with an address by Paula McClain, chair of the Academic Council and professor of political science, just before the council's meeting convened in the same location at the Divinity School.

88er McLain is quoted in the article:

Following the president's report, McClain spoke about the council's commitment to ensuring that the views of faculty members remain consequential on campus.

"Each of us is essential to Duke's excellence," she said.

McClain said recent events on campus have challenged the values of the faculty, and added that the academic community must work to rebuild a sense of unity.

"'The time for healing of the wounds has come.... The time to rebuild is upon us.'" McClain said, quoting Nelson Mandela.


Commenters on Beach's article already have cited KC Johnson's incisive analysis of McLain and the Duke faculty who narrowly elected her to chair the council.

Anonymous said...

Re: Stuart Taylor speaking at Duke on November 2nd.

That is the start of parent's weekend, and consequently I am delighted I will be there that day. I also hope there will be a lot of publicity about it. Unless a parent is a Duke alum, they probably have little idea of the dismaying lack of scholarship standards among certain departments in the Hunmanities and the actual animus certain faculty have toward Duke students who don't don't fall into their select groups of "othered" victims.

Dukex4

Anonymous said...

debrah said at 10:46: "Everything is always about them. No altruistic or objective view of the world around them....ever."

The irony to be found in North Carolina is not limited to the city limits of Durham.

Anonymous said...

Re the Chronicle article at 3:44: ""'The time for healing of the wounds has come.... The time to rebuild is upon us.'" McClain said, quoting Nelson Mandela."

Query whether Mandela said that before or after South Africa's Truth and Reconcilation Commission had done its work?

Ken Duke
Durham, NC

Gary Packwood said...

Debrah 12:10 said...
...BTW, I don't remember KC telling us when he left for Tel Aviv.
...All of a sudden, he was just there.
::
He probably doesn't have a choice anymore since he has an extended family now of several thousand people who will offer him free advise about most any subject imaginable.

He probably wears sun glasses and a prayer shawl as he moves around in public.

Always on the lookout for one of us who will call out to him ....KCccccccccc, I have a thought about Precious, bless her heart!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

"parody alert
with homage to chuck n.
to debrah 12:10

kc has become so powerful that when he had to go to tel aviv,
tel aviv came to him"

That. Was. Awesome! Very http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

Here's some (borrowing from Chuck Norris):

KC Johnson does not sleep. He waits poised at his computer to shine more light on the hoax.

OR

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks under his bed for a new DIW post from KC Johnson.

OR

There is no neck behind KC's bowtie. There is only another stinging DIW post.

OR

Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching KC win his tenure battle.

OR, my favorite,

There is no theory of evolution; just a list of creatures KC Johnson allows to live by not eviscerating them with a post on DIW.

Anonymous said...

On Brodhead's Faculty Talk, from the Duke Chronicle:

"Currently, no single country has a monopoly on significant researchers or intellectuals, he added."

Is that not pure brilliance? Before reading the article, I thought that France had a monopoly on intellectuals, and all "significant researchers" lived in Moldova. Now I know that other countries have them too!

Anti-Leftist Liberal

inman said...

What happened to the Piot critique?

Ralph Phelan said...

Dukex4 sez:
"Re: Stuart Taylor speaking at Duke on November 2nd.

That is the start of parent's weekend..."

BWaaaahahahahahaaaa!

I hope there's gonna be *lots* of publicity!

Anonymous said...

What was said for public consumption:

"Each of us is essential to Duke's excellence," said G88er Paula McClain.

What they actually say for private consumption:

". . . except those who defend reason and the superiority of western Civilization."

". . . except those who believe that gender/race/class is propaganda disguised as education."

". . . except for those who believe that the free market and capitalists are beneficial to human survival."

". . . except for those who believe that professors should teach and not proseltyze."

". . . except for those who believe that faculty should be hired, courses and departments designed, students admitted -- on the basis of ability, and not on the basis of deterministic traits such as skin color and sex."

". . . except for those who believe that Lady Justice is blind and that all individuals (including lacrosse players) are innocent until proven guilty."

etc., etc., ad nauseum.

What was said for public consumption:

"'The time for healing of the wounds has come.... The time to rebuild is upon us.'" McClain said, quoting Nelson Mandela.

Translated:

Please, oh please, stop shining the light on us. Don't you know that cockroaches like the dark.

Duke Prof

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "...I felt in these times of concerns about privacy, the courts don't seem to care about the juror. I dont' feel I should have to answer publicly where I work, etc..."

A very interesting comment...

Recently some jurors who asked and were excused from sitting for the current terror funding trial in Dallas. The current jury has been out for several days and came to a decision that was not announced. It will be revealed on Monday. I suspect this may be due to safety concerns.

In addition, in an electronic world the issues related to privacy and who owns your profile will become a much bigger deal, for many reasons.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "...The news that Duke charges $25,000 to scatter one's ashes..."

Goodness.

And the administrators and faculty get upset when one urinates in the bushes?

no justice, no peace said...

Sex on a Saturday Night at Princeton

"...Sex on a Saturday Night,” a mandatory event for freshmen in their first week on campus. Since attendance is compulsory and only one point of view is expressed, some (including not only students, but also parents of new freshmen, and even several members of Princeton’s faculty) have described the program as “coercive,” “indoctrination,” “sensitivity training,” or worse..."


CCI?

$46,000.00 per year?

It's time to take back the night.

Anonymous said...

IN DEFENSE OF THE DEFENSE OF SATIRE

Some may have seen my recent post entitled “In Defense of Satire” as more of a capitulation than a defense. I would suggest that it was less a surrender than an acknowledgement that there appears to be no depths too low to plumb for the Mike Nifongs and Gangs of 88 of this world. It was, in response to this knowledge, a call to arms to all bloggers to parodize a little harder, satirize a little deeper.

For those who are dead-set against parody on this blog, I would like to show, with an example, how it can be helpful. This particular example involves a “warning” parody contained on K.C. Johnson’s previous thread. It provided:


WARNING: This is a parody. If parody persists for 4 or more hours, call a doctor.
________________

ALARMA: Este es una parodia. Mi gato es gordo e feo. Mi gato comida quatro medicos.
________________

This parody of a warning was meant to accomplish a number of things:

1. It dovetailed nicely into the argument I wanted to make about the adoption of a national language, except for California, Texas and Minnesota.

2. It mocked the two-language research elitist who was ankle-biting K.C. Johnson.

- Two languages aren’t so hard.

- Working in two languages doesn’t mean you are making sense in EITHER language. To wit, the rough Spanish translation of the second parody warning is this: “WARNING: This is a parody. My cat is fat and ugly. My cat eats 4 doctors.”

- So, the subtle argument is that garbage is garbage whether it is garbage or basura, ordures, desperdicio, gomi, zanpan, απορρίμματα or, of course, porquería.

3. It was supposed to be funny, and Debrah might appreciate a cat post. MOO! Gregory

inman said...

Gregory @ 9:53

OK. Now you've got me started ...

so..yaw'll fellas (and gals too) betta be gettin' yo hine-quarders in a huff,... and dang it, like a duck on a fat June bug, you best be satiratizin' most ever thin' yaw'll knows to be in-damn-justice. Yaw'll know what I mean? Good god-a-mickey-mighty, you need a whack upside da head or sumptin'? Gawl durn it.

Anonymous said...

In solidarity with Mr. MOO! Gregory’s ringing Defense of Satire and Parody on Serious Websites (@10/19 1:25 PM, 9:53 PM above), I humbly submit the following addition to the newly-renamed List of Satirical Words To Be Used for Serious Purposes (@10/19 11:58 AM above), courtesy of Mr. RRH (@10/19 2:45 PM “Reflections on the Piot Principles” thread). RRH’s brilliant formulation of the plural for "anonymous" is:

anonymice

Yes, anonymice. This useful neologism ought to serve as a handy bludgeon for anyone distressed at the proliferation of anonymous snipe-and-run comments whenever KC has vivisected one of the Duke faculty or administration. Especially the faculty.

a•nony•mice: small-brained, squealing rodents who frantically swarm the comments thread whenever KC Johnson dissects one of them alive. see also, ankle-biters. (Earlier, longer definition posted @10/19 11:57 PM “Update: The Group’s Openly Political Agenda” thread. This is better.)

I believe this one will do for evil anonymous posters (not us benign anonymous posters) what “Angry Studies” did for race/class/gender imaginaries. We may have to revise the orthography of the singular noun to conform, i.e., anonymouse. And if it’s a particularly feeble anonymous attack (which one isn’t?), a ninny mouse. I can’t believe I let myself write that. And I would request that one of our attorney-commentators issue a copyright clearance report verifying fair use of the preceding to keep Disney off our backs.

Satirists of the world, Unite! You have nothing but to lose your shame!”

Debrah said...

TO (9:53 PM) Gregory--

Say what?

Your posts are a trip....along with the humor, there's usually real information.

I didn't realize that I'm not wild about satire until I read so much of the Gang of 88's actual "scholarly" offerings.

Talk about torture.

Now I'm always on guard.....never just skimming....when I read something that looks as though one of them has written it.

Kind of kills the fun.

Just don't send it to the Chronicle! LOL!!!

Thanks for the cat allusion. Kitty Diva is most gratified.

:>)

Debrah said...

TO Spook--

Let me try this again.....by just saying it.

I don't like your satire. However, I realize a huge portion of the population does get off on this particular literary tool, so I always acquiesce.

The trouble I have with most satire?

The author can get by with insults....while making it appear that clever repartee is his/her game.

As you already know, I prefer my dialogue straight-up.

Check out the soft animous of the poster @ 4:29 PM. This insult is easily accepted. Yet a straight-up comment and/or reply might not be.

Again, some might call this clever......but it takes no semblance of writing genius.

I call it cowardice.

This is why I don't like your KC satire above. The high praise in the closing comment does not mitigate it for me.

Anonymous said...

Off topic

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8509.html

Above link to article about settlement of Jason Antebi's lawsuit against Occidental. Occidental seems to have gone totally Duke on Antebi.

Debrah said...

TO Gregory--

Here's a cute joke for you when you arrive inside Wonderland.

Just don't use it on your wife.

LIS!


A husband walks into Victoria 's Secret to purchase a sheer negligee for his wife. He is shown several possibilities that range from $250 to $500 in price, the more sheer, the higher the price.

Naturally, he opts for the most sheer item, pays the $500, and takes it home. He presents it to his wife and asks her to go upstairs, put it on, and model it for him.

Upstairs, the wife thinks, "I have an idea. It's so sheer that it might as well be nothing. I won't put it on, but I'll do the modeling naked, return it tomorrow, and keep the $500 refund for myself."

She appears naked on the balcony and strikes a pose.

The husband says," Good Grief! You'd think for $500, they'd at least iron it!"

He never heard the shot. Funeral on THURSDAY at Noon. Closed coffin.



:>)

One Spook said...

debrah @ 11:50 AM writes:

"I don't like your satire. However, I realize a huge portion of the population does get off on this particular literary tool, so I always acquiesce.

The trouble I have with most satire?

The author can get by with insults....while making it appear that clever repartee is his/her game."


The doctor is [ IN ]

Eh ... I wasn't insulting anyone.

This will come as a shock to you, but folks who post here aren't too concerned whether or not you'll like what they post, Debrah. In fact, we all take the chance that any random person might not like it. Since I'm a white male who played "helmet sports," I'll take that chance, too.

And you take the same chance of not liking some postings. Learn to accept that, then you'll have no reason to "acquiesce."

If you do indeed prefer your dialogue "straight up" (say as opposed to using a keyboard), I might caution you on the use of the term "cowardice." In person, some folks will knock you on your ass before the "-ice" part comes out of your mouth.

As an aside, I prefer an attempt at clever repartee rather than your 4:37 PM offerring of copying a poor, stale joke that has been circulated around the internet for 12 years, at least.

$50.00. NEXT!

The doctor is [ OUT ]

One Spook

inman said...

4:37

Debrah, that is a hoot!

inman said...

One Spook @ 5:29

OK... So I am 12 years behind the times. That means I'm 3 years ahead of where I thought I was.

Yippeeeee!

Thankyouverymuch!

Debrah said...

TO (5:29 PM)--

())))))))))))))))) YAWN ((((((((((((((((((()

Whatever.

I think I'll keep possession of my own critique of the matter.

There is certainly no hesitancy to express myself in any way I desire--on or off the computer. And I hope everyone else feels the same.

My circle of friends and acquaintances---small, by design, as it is---does not consist of people who would "knock anyone on their ass" for voicing an opinion.

I'm sure we all appreciate the machismo schtick, however.

Most men I know wish to live a bit longer.

Debrah said...

TO (5:54 PM)--

Yes, I think it's hilarious.

The woman who cooks for me sometimes sent it in an e-mail.....even though she just lives down the street.

It's an annoying habit that she has.

I would have no idea about its origin since I am not on anyone's "joke forwarding list" and don't spend time collecting them.

LIS!

Debrah said...

I'm on my way to the Apple Store.....as I scrutinize Barnes & Noble along the way.

Hope I don't encounter any negative external factors.

And, coincidentally, I will also be going to Victoria's Secret to pick up a few cotton sleep shirts.

(No sheer lingerie.)

LOL!!!

I hope KC keeps the gates of Wonderland open later today....'til I get back.

Ralph Phelan said...

Debrah said...
"I'm on my way to the Apple Store...."

Whenever the anklebiters are chasing your well-turned targets, this example of good taste and judgement will be to your credit.

My stock portfolio thanks you.