Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Updates

The Chronicle reports that Dean of Undergraduate Education Steve Nowicki has named a special committee to look into the due process-unfriendly student judicial system. The committee membership suggests that the group could produce meaningful change--it includes Jim Coleman, Craig Henriquez, and Thomas Nechyba. No member of the Group of 88--professors who, if nothing else, distinguished themselves for their disdain for due process--was appointed to the committee.

Remarkably, another publication (Sports Illustrated) has hired Selena Roberts, who embarrassed her profession with her performance on the Duke case.

On the Liestoppers board, Michael Gaynor continues his peculiar defense of Dr. Brian Meehan, whose failure to produce a report that listed all his test results (as he was required to do under both North Carolina law and his own lab's protocols) was concealed for seven months. Writes Gaynor, "I see a scientist who had not been prepared by a lawyer or a legal team to testify being precise and a lawyer proceeding with his questions in a clever, but hardly straightforward, way." What I saw, in the courtroom on Dec. 15, was an arrogant scientist (at least for the first 15 minutes or so of the questioning, after which he increasingly slumped forward and desperately looked at Nifong to object) attempting to bluff his way through an examination without revealing what he had done; and a defense team that--even though they had not expected Meehan to appear for the hearing--eventually obtaining from the lab director an admission of the full scope of the results and of what he had agreed with Nifong not to report.

Meanwhile, Liestoppers has "discovered" the Gottlieb dry eraser board from April 10, 2006.

135 comments:

Anonymous said...

KC:

=>another publication (Sports Illustrated) has hired Selena Roberts<=

That is just one more publication I don't need to bother about purchasing.

I don't get it though. We are supposed to be a capitalistic society. You hire people to generate more profits. This hire will generate more profits for Sports Illustrated?

Ken
Dallas

Anonymous said...

I think it's great that Selena Roberts has a job at Sport Illustrated. I just don't know how you're going to get your work done, Prof. KC Johnson with all the babysitting you feel obliged to do: Durham, Duke, Delaware, and now Sports Illustrated. So now we see what a distinguished Fulbright Professor in Israel does...he try to make life miserable for all those he thinks have wronged his LAX3 or committed other sins in your eyes.

Anonymous said...

Selena Roberts? Why not go all the way and hire Duff Wilson (or, for that matter, Jayson Blair)?

Ralph Phelan said...

re anonymous 11/20/07 12:08 PM:

Dang KC, what did you do?
You haven't just touched a nerve, you must have stomped on one!

Anonymous said...

12:08-don't you have some students to indoctrinate or grades to manipulate?

oh yea, it's Thanksgiving break. head out and celebrate the White European dominance of America.

Shouting Thomas said...

Selena Roberts is a beneficiary of the quota system.

She has a job because every sports publication, like every corporate entity, is attempting to add a woman writer so as to create "diversity." And, in the grand tradition of diversity, women who don't toe the party line of radical feminism, gay activism and black nationalism are not wanted.

Sports Illustrated could have hired a traditional, church-going woman for their staff. They chose not to because a traditional woman is not really a woman, in the eyes of the diversicrats. Quota recipients are required to be angry proponents of radical social change.

SI sought out Roberts precisely because of her radical views and her willingness to slander those who do not subscribe to her radical views. Roberts is what the quota system produces and promotes... incompetent ideologues.

Anonymous said...

Hey 12:08, at least your getting paid to troll here. Just for your info, there are alot more of us not getting paid that do care about what duke has done here along with durham........

Anonymous said...

I'm glad I let my subscription to SI expire last year, Roberts is without question the worst sportswriter in the U.S. (even before the Duke articles).

She hates men, she hates sports, and she's just left of Fidel Castro. So naturally she becomes a sportswriter...and the big media actually think people want to read her drivel.

Anonymous said...

SI is another publication, I will not be buying, due to the hire of Selena. Did the NYT get rid of her? Could the Duffer be far behind? How about the rest of the sports writers who burned the team?12:08 Think you are off beam with your post. You folk must really be mad about the Fulbright - and I quess the book.

mac said...

Salmonella Roberts? Sports Illustrated?

I guess she'll be in charge of the Lacrosse Special Execution - er Edition. Maybe she's gonna be involved with the new swimsuit edition for women?

Ooops. Apparently, there already is...

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Selena Roberts should indeed work for a living, but after her Duke performance it should be in another field than providing the public with news or opinions. Perhaps she'd do well on a humanitarian mission such as clearing mines in Africa.

Cheers to Steve Nowicki for the scrutiny of the student 'judicial' system at Duke. A series of articles by Elliot Wolf in the Chronicle pointed out that one by one, the due process rights have been removed from any student who might be accused of a transgression. This would leave the student at the mercy of whatever administrator heard the 'case', who could rule by political correctitude instead of a normal legal system.

Wolf's 'judicial' series provided far better documentation than yesterday's letter attacking Ken Larrey and Duke Students for an Ethical Duke. That seemed more to be part of an orchestrated series of puff-the-Administration and slag-its-critics currently running in the Chronicle. Mr. Wolf can expect to furnish a defense of that letter, or apologize to Ken Larrey if he can't support his cranky allegations.

The problem with both Wolf and Larrey is that neither writes clearly enough to convince anyone without wading through some pretty tortured prose.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if anon @11/20 12:08 PM is aware that her comment is completely self-contradictory. She criticizes Prof. KC Johnson for taking time to comment on Durham, Duke, Delaware, et. al., while she uses her time to comment on Prof. KC Johnson commenting, etc., as she's done repeatedly with the same witless, unvarying criticism.

I don't know how KC maintains his astonishingly prodigious output, either, but it's evident that he does, and at a very high level. The quality of his Haaretz blogging, for example, is outstanding.

And, for what it's worth, Selena Roberts' hiring aside, Sports Illustrated is about to become to sports coverage what the New York Times has become to political coverage, and to news generally– marginal, if not extinct.

dave

Anonymous said...

Sports Illustrated has gone downhill for years. It is being pressured by ESPN mag which has gone for hip-hop covers of athletes with attitude with articles about "I play sports but I still have attitude." So SI has become the NPR of sports magazines. Selena will be able to mail it in.

stephen said...

12:08 - I, for one, am very glad to know where those who enabled and perpetuated this hoax are drifting off to. I, for one, would prefer NOT to be treated by nurse Levicy (I am a white male) or nurse Mangum (who knows what she might be on or what on earth I would contract). I can now cancel my subscription to S.I., knowing what they consider to be acceptable sports journalism. I can much better guide and advise my children on their pursuit of higher education knowing where the "88'ers" are winding up and having my eyes opened to the rampant disease of political correctness infecting our universities. Professor Johnson has done America an invaluable service by exposing the fraud and decay and by updating relevant events. I can hope that others who enabled and perpetuated will be drifting off to jail. I also notice that you choose the "anonymous" tag - how typical. "he try"---- LOL

Gary Packwood said...

Before Duke's pulls the plug on their little North Korea judicial system, I would like to see it suffer some at the hands of the students.

And Duke needs to be cautious, there are several people on the committee who seem to bask in the glow of disaster.

A good operational approach for the committee might be to remember that the rule of law is not situational specific; facts don't change and they really do ...matter.

But what the heck, the committee is not another Office of Student Affairs committee of the politically correct. Real faculty members are going to run the show and hopefully they will limit the number of set-your-hair-on-fire issues that seem to be so popular with the undergraduate program administrators at Duke.

Suppose an untalented interpretative dancer will flail about as they cobble together the paragraphs of their final committee report?
::
GP

Ralph Phelan said...

Stephen-
While I don't have the immediate practical concerns you do, I'm interested in using the careers of the worst offenders as the equivalent of the radioactive tracer dyes used in medecine.

It's illuminating to watch the flow: who goes up and who goes down, which institutions punish failure and which reward it.

Ralph Phelan said...

KC - I disagree that Selena Roberts embarrassed her profession.

Her profession is columnist, as such her job is to be controversial and attract readers. Much like Howard Stern.

Consider John Dvorak, the PC Magazine columnist who wrote an article about the first iMac saying it was a stinker and would drive Apple into bankruptcy. Two years later he said the same thing about the first iBook.

Clearly, being consistently and/or spectacularly wrong is no impediment to success as a columnist. Your real job is to be entertaining.

Anonymous said...

Gaynor could not be more wrong about Meehan. This guy was not some novice witness who had never been in a court room before the LAX hearing. He had previously qualified to testify as an expert in several states (at least, that's what he claimed on his C.V.). Meehan knew exactly what his obligations were in the LAX case(both as a scientist analyzing the DNA material, and as an expert witness testifying in court), and he made a conscious and deliberate choice not to fulfill those obligations. There is no excuse for Meehan's behavior, Gaynor's bizarre rationalizations notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

Stephen, by the time your children are old enough to go to college, they should be old enough not to need you to guide them in their educational choices. But, by all means, tell them not to apply to Cal, Chicago, Duke, Columbia, Cornell, Swarthmore...the list is long of respected universities that have been attacked on this blog. There are certainly other students who would like to attend these universities and don't fear being brainwashed or whatever it is that frightens you. These schools must being doing something right. Look at the number of their students who have just gotten Rhodes scholarships...

Topher said...

It's fitting that she goes to SI. Their standards for fair coverage seem to be thin.

SI was sued for defamation in 2003/2004 and settled (forget exactly when). Alabama football coach Mike Price was dismissed in spring 2003 after allegations a stripped used his company credit card to buy $1000 of food while he golfed at a pro-am in Florida.

But his reputation and ability to get another job were strongly harmed by a sensationalistic SI story claiming he had sex with two strippers and shouted "roll tide!" among other things.

Problem is there was only one stripper; the other was lying. SI had simply run a story clipping out the contradictory parts of their stories.

Further, he couldn't have had sex with the _one_ that had stayed over in his room, because - as a friend of mine learned from reading the court documents - Price needed Viagra, which he didn't have with him on the trip.

SI didn't care. They had magazines to sell. So it sounds like Roberts and SI are a perfect fit. I haven't bought the magazine since.

stephen said...

Mr. Phelan: Excellent point and another wonderful service provided by this blog. Sadly, we have witnessed far to much rewarding and far too little punishing. I also agree with "entertaining". It is always about what sells.

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan, Fulbrights are supported in part by tax payer money. Some of you don't want your taxes going to universities with professors you disagree with, etc., I don't want my money going to someone who spends all his time obsessing over this dead issue.

So, wrong, boy-o, not a nerve. I am amused when someone or something, in this case SI, does something to that gets KC Johnson's attention and he goes on the attack. It's amusing when he rouses rabble. And based on many of the comments posted here, rabble is what I consider many of the posters.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Ralph Phelan praises Selena Roberts with "Her profession is columnist, as such her job is to be controversial and attract readers."

BUT: she is touted as legally knowlegeable, and readers take her as an authority. Those who do should be able to rely on her pronunciamentos as being plausible and founded on fact.

We learned from DIW that her one-sided sneerings were less founded on fact than on PC prejudices. If she still has any legal credentials, she is a major disgrace to her profession.

Those who do rely on her bigoted and mendacious commentaries are no more than played for suckers. She's a legal fraud, and any employer who enjoys additional readers due to her 'controversial' spewing is likewise participating in the fraud. Sports Illustrated is climbing down into the muck to wrestle with pigs.

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.17:

Fulbright guidelines are on the web, at state.gov. I invite you to point readers to the section that states that Fulbright recipients are prohibited or restricted in any way from blogging.

Meanwhile, if you have any concerns with my specific award, I invite you to submit them to the U.S.-Israeli Fulbright Foundation. I believe, however, you'd have to supply your name to the complaint.

Ralph Phelan said...

Anonymous 11/20/07 3:17 PM said...
Ralph Phelan.... It's amusing when he [KC] rouses rabble ...rabble is what I consider many of the posters.

Myself included, I should hope.
So, I amuse you and you amuse me.
Sounds like a win-win.

Ralph Phelan said...

BUT: she is touted as legally knowlegeable, and readers take her as an authority.

Always a big mistake with the MSM.

I'm not saying I don't wish they cared about accuracy, just that I long ago stopped expecting it.

Anonymous said...

There wouldn't be any Fulbright rules against blogging, Professor Johnson. I am sure you would agree, however, that I am allowed to prefer that my tax money did not go to support someone who is doing what you are. I'm aware that I could complain anonymously or otherwise about you to Fulbright if I wished. But thank you so much for giving me information I already have. I appreciate your concern.

bill anderson said...

I think it's great that Selena Roberts has a job at Sport Illustrated. I just don't know how you're going to get your work done, Prof. KC Johnson with all the babysitting you feel obliged to do: Durham, Duke, Delaware, and now Sports Illustrated. So now we see what a distinguished Fulbright Professor in Israel does...he try to make life miserable for all those he thinks have wronged his LAX3 or committed other sins in your eyes.

11/20/07 12:08 PM


Actually, what we have here is someone who is angry because Nifong and the police were not able to frame the lax players. Please don't tell me that the people in Durham did not know it was a frame; they knew, and encouraged it.

My guess is that we have another Duke professor who simply does not know how to spell his or her name.

Michael Sheehan said...

Hey, 12:08, 3:00 and 3:17!

If you despise us 'rabble' so much, why do continue to return to the scene so often?

Get a frappin' life, why doncha!

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.36:

You're very welcome.

I'm sure that the Fulbright personnel will give any complaint that you file all the attention that it deserves. Again, the program website is at state.gov.

I agree completely that you have every right to oppose your tax dollars being used for the Fulbright program--just as many people have a similar right to oppose their tax dollars being used for Title VI "Middle East Studies" programs. Intriguingly, however, the AAUP has deemed the latter protests a threat to academic freedom. If you're in the academy, perhaps you might want to consult with your local AAUP rep. to determine how you can make your complaint consistent with the organization's flexible standards on academic freedom. I'm sure the rep. will give you the guidance that you need.

anon said...

I, for one truly appreciate knowing where the various villains of the LAX Hoax go in their "professional wanderings" and I thank KC for keeping us posted. I can also understand the rage this kind of monitoring brings out in the villains themselves. Too bad. They are so accustomed to to anonymity shielding them so they might continue to perpetrate their vial, dishonest P C world view on unsuspecting new victims. For-warned is for-armed. They have been reduced to the sidelines, sniping at KC for his vigilance. What a riot!

Anonymous said...

"So now we see what a distinguished Fulbright Professor in Israel does...he try to make life miserable for all those he thinks have wronged his LAX3 or committed other sins in your eyes."

I can understand that there are reasons why you, personally, would feel much more comfortable and safe if no one was ever held accountable when they abused the public trust by promising to tell them truth and news and spewing out lies and bigotry instead. However, some of us kind of like the old social contract better, and we will continue to hold the wrongdoers responsible.

Were you out banging the pots outside 610 North Buchanan? Isn't that what you thought you were doing -- holding those who had done wrong accountable? The difference is that our actions don't violate laws against harassment, and they are targeted only at those whose wrongdoing is known, not just alleged and gossiped.

Anonymous said...

I have read a lot of stuff over the years that I did not agree with at all. I never stopped reading the paper, magazine, etc because of that. The unfairness and obvious bias of the writers against the team is what upset me. That is why, I no longer buy the papers, etc that put out the articles. These folk really thought we were that stupid to believe their lies.

Stephen said...

3:00 - Don't know what kind of relationship you have with your children but mine actually listen to what I have to say. Don't always agree but they do listen. I would prefer that they attend a university where we would not have to worry that the administration would throw them under the bus at the first whiff of possible trouble. One that, if trouble should occur, would at least meet with us and would not advise our children to NOT call us. One where they would not be required to attend residential meetings where they were told that all whites are racist. One that did not have an agreement with the local police department to unfairly target students. One that had a policy against and punishment for, punitive grade manipulation. The choice will ultimately be up to them but at least I will have done some research and they will make an informed decision. The responsibility of any parent is the safety and well being of their children and I take that responsibility very seriously. There are many very good schools out there other than those you mentioned. I will do my very best to research and discover them. Whatever school my children select, it will be with eyes wide open.

mac said...

Bill Anderson,

You are absolutely correct: how many times did we hear that the guilt or innocence of the accused players really didn't matter, only that past injustices were repaid?

I wish KC would do a reprint of those from the various NCCU and Duke sources, and from the denizens of Duhh!

Consider the source: the KKK - (Kommunist Korrectologist Klan.)

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 12:08

You must be a communist.

Anonymous said...

Is Roberts a Communist?

Anonymous said...

KC at 3:45, it is not the Fulbright program I object to. It's Fulbright tax dollars going to you. V. specific.

Anonymous said...

3:45--It's enough for me that you know that I think you're abusing your Fulbright. I am not sure why you mentioned Title VI "Middle East Studies." OT?

hman said...

To 3:17
When you refer to the Lax case as "dead" you must not have heard about the civil suits. In terms of disclosure of wrong doing on the part of Duke and Durham, the best is yet to come.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 3:36 writes:

"I am sure you would agree, however, that I am allowed to prefer that my tax money did not go to support someone who is doing what you are."

My, my my ... this is the same marginalized little waif who has commented here before and whose reply to me was copied in part by KC in his November 18 The Academic "Street" posting.

Her whining, ankle-biting style is as predictable as her lack of any cogent argument.

The poor thing is pathologically consumed with fear of any light being shown in her anger studies field. Her terribly bitter comments show just how fearful this crowd is ... unable to even defend their opinions and marginalized by most in the academy. What a sad life that must be.

In truth, I feel as sorry for her as the example KC gave us here of the pathetic white female angry studies professor who lamented that she was a white female and therefore couldn't be as "oppressed" as her black female peers. These are people with deep-seated psychological problems and they deserve our pity.

And to think that my tax money goes to support her angry studies ... why ... the humanity ... the horror!

One Spook

Ralph Phelan said...

re: kc johnson's 11/20/07 3:45 PM post-

I once believed I was good at sarcasm. I bow down before your mastery of the art.

"I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!"

Anonymous said...

Michael,

Give anony-troll a break. She/He's been keeping himself "amused" here for 3-1/2 hours, just today!

Apparently, this is his/her frappin' life.

-RD

Debrah said...

Listen everyone:

This is war.

A number of Hoax enablers are now staging a vicious and cowardly démarche against anyone who refuses to "move on" and allow their behavior to be swept under the rug.

Demanding change will be an ongoing effort; however, one that the seasoned and spirited Wonderland crew can certainly handle.

If you recall on a previous thread, there were anonymous comments....along with posters with whom we are familiar.....still talking about Reade, Collin, and David as though bringing up their names will keep everyone "in line".

As has been stated, the issues NOW are the state of the academy and the civil suits.

Do not be swayed. Do not allow these most significant topics to be thwarted by the cowards in our midst who behave like scum in the night.

There is a sleazy campaign to use some of the names of KC's crew to post negative comments.

This is the only way these declasse clowns know how to operate.

They do not have the courage nor the intellect to show up here and debate KC mano a mano.

Join me in being vigilant against these tactics.

Anytime you see an "off" comment under the assumed name of a KC supporter, let someone know.

Report it immediately.

If this tactic--essentially cyber identity theft--continues, I intend to obtain the e-mail addresses and ISP's of these people from the Chronicle.

Then we will see what can be done with them legally.

No one....and I mean NO ONE....is going to continue using my name and alluding to all that goes on inside Wonderland...pretending to be me while they post negative comments about things of which I am most supportive.

The same thing has happened to the poster "AMac".

This must be fought.

If they want a battle, they will get a war.

Debrah said...

Moving on to a more uplifting topic.....

....I hope everyone is preparing for a most fabulous Thanksgiving celebration.....however....you must not forget to keep tabs on Wonderland.

Anonymous said...

Happy thanksgiving everyone - I have been paying taxes for a fifty years and am happy to pay for the Fulbright. I suspect the committee will give the same attention to a complaint as did the NCBON. No further action will be taken.

Anonymous said...

Meehan was pretty much left alone by bloggers after the 12/15. It is only recently, when named in the suit, that he started gaining attention. Many of the rabid bloggers were concentrating their efforts on Nurse Levicy, who escaped the noose. Talk about not keeping priorities in check.

John said...

Selena Roberts is weird ... she had a column after the Red Sox came back to beat the Indians and went up 2-0 in the World Series titled something like "Teflon Sox."

It insinuated that since the the Red Sox were good, since no one on the team had ever been connected to steroids, and since the Mitchell report on steroids in baseball was delayed until December, that maybe, just maybe the report would disclose that Sox stars were among the steroid users.

No facts, no nothing.

I have seen her on ESPN, and she's just awful, cloying, and supercilious.

Useless.

SI hired her cause they need another woman, IMO, and on the East Coast the only other woman I know of is the Washington Post's Sally Jenkins - who is only marginally better.

Besides, SI's stable of columnists is pretty uneven anyway - I don't know anyone who thinks Peter King on football is all that great for example. Tho, the swimsuit issue is pretty good! :-)

It's a step down for her, IMO, cause they're not really journalist's at SI anyway.

AMac said...

Anon 12:08pm/3:00pm/3:17pm/3:36pm amuses the rabble with this line (from her 3:17):

"[Duke and similar] schools must being doing something right. Look at the number of their students who have just gotten Rhodes scholarships..."

Can you spot the preening about a scholarship endowed by an unapologetically patriarchal, imperialistic, and White-Man's-Burden-embracing explorer/statesman/entrepreneur? Get out the smelling salts before 3:17 swoons on discovering who Cecil really was!

Nicole said...

To all the "anonymous" @ 12.08,3.17,3.36pm:
Why are you so afraid to use your names?
Such cowards!

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson said...
To the 3.17:

Fulbright guidelines are on the web, at state.gov. I invite you to point readers to the section that states that Fulbright recipients are prohibited or restricted in any way from blogging.

Meanwhile, if you have any concerns with my specific award, I invite you to submit them to the U.S.-Israeli Fulbright Foundation. I believe, however, you'd have to supply your name to the complaint.
___________________

Wow, zinged by K.C. himself! It seems that the PC crowd will try anything to "chill" free speech.
____________________

I find it very interesting that there has been little effort by the PC crowd at other universities to "get the back" of their fallen comrades in the Gang of 88. This is very telling, as these professional protestors will protest anything. Where is all the love for the Gang of 88 from Berkley or Stanford or Columbia or etc...?
_____________________

Gaynor is still arguing "non-probative." This is quite possibly the lamest legal argument I have ever seen. I guess he did get to plug his discovery of the "hidden evidence."
______________________

Go Illini beat Duke! MOO! Gregory

Michael said...

A paraphrase of 3:45 PM:

Go ahead, make my day.

Anonymous said...

Not only were none of the Gang of 88, who are so concerned about student culture, appointed to the committee that will examine the student judicial system, neither were Larry "water buffalo" Monetta and Dean "don't tell your Mom" Sue, two administrators who work directly with students. Were these intentional exclusions?

inman said...

KC @ 3:45

I appreciate your agnostic response to threats of authority.

Anonymous said...

Come on Dr. Anderson;

“My guess is that we have another Duke professor who simply does not know how to spell his or her name.”

You know this not to be true! Why such distinguished professors in the 88 club are so important they do not have to put their name on anything, everyone should know who they are by their great discourse! In fact the only reason that had to sign that little letter to the Duke students was to give credibility to the people they were listening too.

So please check for holes in you tinfoil hat :>

Tom E.

RighteousThug said...

Bill Anderson recently posted on LS re: a lunch he had with Gaynor, et al in NYC. Bill could not have told the whole truth, because he never mentioned giving Gaynor a swirly.

Bill, please tell us that you put that little punk wannabe's head in the toilet and flushed twice.

Anonymous said...

3:36,

"I am allowed to prefer that my tax money did not go to support someone who is doing what you are".

I would prefer my tax monies not support angry studies or sponsor "scholarship" from the likes of KFC, Grant "secret" Far-red Whaneema, or "farm animal" Baker.

How do I stop this, 3:36? Don't we have enough angry studies graduates asking their most profound question already;

"would you like to super-size that?"

Anonymous said...

K.C., and all who frequent here, have a blessed day of Thanks and Giving.

TexasMom

CtHusky said...

* Duke "closers" --- many readers here are well versed on many aspects of the damages done by you and your administration. Talking about sports - what about Gail Goestenkors departure - (do you even know who she is, and what she was for Duke?) - why did she leave? ...........

Anonymous said...

5:49 and 5:56: Let's not use the term "noos*".....just too much PC in that one. Let's say "1asso" and there are a lot of lassoes out there just waiting for that hateful woman Levicy. I refuse to refer to her as "nurse".

scott said...

Many of the comments to the story linked about Roberts' being hired by SI mentioned her atrocious columns about the Hoax/Frame. Several said they were canceling their subscriptions as a result.

I'd cancel my subscription too if I hadn't already done so a few years ago because of the suffocating PC-style that started creeping into its pages back in the 80's and just kept getting worse until I could stand it no longer.

I didn't believe it was possible to get more-PC as a sports columnist in a national magazine than Rick Reilly. SI just proved me wrong.

Debrah said...

H-S editorial:


Duke's impressive plan

The Herald-Sun
Nov 21, 2007

A quick look at the numbers shows Duke University Medical Center's proposed expansion is mighty impressive:

-- The planned building will be seven stories tall with 548,420 square feet.

-- It will cost $596 million to build -- that's six-tenths of a billion dollars.

-- It will contain 16 operating rooms, four 24-bed intensive care units and two 32-bed intermediate care units.

-- The new facility is expected to create 1,000 new jobs in Durham.

This major addition will be built between the main poles of the Medical Center's Durham campus -- the hospital at Duke North and the clinics at Duke South -- on the site of the aging Bell Medical Research Building, whose functions will be relocated. The new facility is expected to be finished in 2013.

All of the above is contingent on an approval from the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. As required, the Duke University Health System filed a certificate of need application with the DHHS last week.

In the health care world, most proposed expansions and additions have to demonstrate they will fill a need and not duplicate services. Duke shouldn't have a problem on that score. Currently, Duke's hospital beds average 91 percent occupancy, which means that beds are often in short supply. And planners expect an 11.8 percent increase in patients by 2015.

In a town that has been called "The City of Medicine," the expansion of medical facilities is nothing but good news. Duke is one of the top regional medical centers in the world, drawing most patients from a 150-mile radius, but also reaching far beyond that. Patients and families come from all over the nation and the world for treatment at Duke. Residents of Durham and the rest of the Triangle are truly fortunate to have such world-class facilities in their back yard.

Duke planners also recognize that first-rate facilities will draw not only patients. They will also help bright the best doctors, researchers and administrators.

We hope officials recognize the need and benefit of Duke's proposal and quickly give it the green light.

Debrah said...

H-S letter which ties in somewhat with the a few Gang of 88 pressing issues.

BTW, I hope that sometime in the near future--perhaps during next month's holiday season--we can revisit several 88 topics like "floating phalluses", pheromones, and how the life of an orchid mirrors the exciting experiences of a vulva.

Great holiday topics...and some you can use as chit-chat at your own holiday parties!

LOL!!!
**************************************

Hillary misspoke

During last week's Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton used the work gender, as in "she was being attacked because of her gender." This coming from one of the smartest women in the world caused a sudden jolt to my grammatical sensitivity. In fact I find that the term gender has almost completely replaced the correct grammatical term -- sex. Back when I went to school, before the hippies took over our culture, gender was a grammatical term as in male, female and neuter.

Sex was used to distinguish between male and female as to their reproductive classification. Sex seems to now be reserved for the sexual act, which is correctly termed coitus, or sexual intercourse.

When did you last hear a commentator use the term gender when he/she really meant sex? The dumbing down of our culture knows no boundaries. Or did Hillary really use gender to obfuscate her sex?

D. Berendsen
Durham
November 21, 2007

traveler said...

College Education and Technology

Will technology cause the traditional college classroom education to become obsolete? Here's a satirical vision of future education.

The Museum of College Education offers a fascinating display of obsolete educational technology from the early 21st century. Visitors can sit in bizarre sitting devices called "desks" and experience first hand what it felt like to listen to a professor and write down comments in a "notebook."

Other archaic equipment on display include a public speaking device called a "podium" and a shockingly inefficient data collection device called a 'textbook."

The museum focuses on the early 21th century because of the dramatic educational changes that began in this era. Online education was brand new, and educators with vision knew it would soon replace the ancient classroom model.

Many educators were reluctant to let go of the teaching model that included a professor actually standing in front of a room full of students and verbally providing them with information.

As technology developed, however, educators quickly realized the inefficiency of this information system, and by 2020 almost all classrooms in the United States were no longer in use.

http://collegeuniversity.suite101.com/article.cfm/college_education_and_technology

Gary Packwood said...

So we now have the Nowicki committee to look into the due process-unfriendly student judicial system.

I wonder how many of the named endowments at Duke revert back to the donor should Duke be found guilty of wrong doing or violating the law in a proper court of law because of that student judicial system.

Is the Norwicki committee part of a negotiated settlement with several groups including donors?

Coleman had best start the committee deliberations with a definition of the Rule of Law including especially the actual meaning of ...due process.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

re: "You know this not to be true! Why such distinguished professors in the 88 club are so important they do not have to put their name on anything, everyone should know who they are by their great discourse! In fact the only reason that had to sign that little letter to the Duke students was to give credibility to the people they were listening too.

So please check for holes in you tinfoil hat."

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

What in the hell are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

8:13 I wonder if Nurse Levicy is "sleepless in NH" because you refuse to call her a nurse.

Anonymous said...

"-- The new facility is expected to create 1,000 new jobs in Durham."

How many Durhamites are qualified for these 1,000 new jobs? Will new residents who come in from outside Durham to fill these positions find that their presence causes more happiness due to the money they spend in the local economy? or more class resentment?

traveler said...

CtHusky said...
* Duke "closers" --- many readers here are well versed on many aspects of the damages done by you and your administration. Talking about sports - what about Gail Goestenkors departure - (do you even know who she is, and what she was for Duke?) - why did she leave? ...........
11/21/07 7:55 AM
-------------------------------
“While Goestenkors' salary at Duke is not a public record, it was believed the private school wasn't likely to match a high offer from the Longhorns, which is expected to be upwards of $800,000.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/WireStory?id=3006136&page=2

inman said...

Gregory @ 9:22PM

Good morning Gregory ...

May I quote your misplaced statement from yesterday: "Go Illini beat Duke! MOO! Gregory".

When I saw you statement I decided it was simply misplaced satire, focused on the resurrection of the Illiniwek Indians, the use of the term "Duke" to refer to the Gang of '88, with a request that the "Illini" use their skill and cunning to force conservatism on the Gang of '88.

Is that what you meant?

___________________________________

In the alternative:

Game recap: Duke 79 -- Illini 66 ----HA!
___________________________________

And to all, have a Happy Thanksgiving -- we have much for which we can be thankful!

(like last night's game score)

Anonymous said...

A family member sent this to me today and it made me think of the PC trolls, the K-88, and others like them:


A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two
owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many
German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our
attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the
return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was
one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the
majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew
it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world
had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration
camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that
Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majorit y of Muslims
just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely
irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to
somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe
in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this
moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march.
It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.
It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal
groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill.
It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.
It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of
rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the
"silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in
peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about
20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China's huge population, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a
warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way
across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the
systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by
sword, shovel and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it
not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all
our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated
of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up,
because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and
find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have
begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and
many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up
until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only
group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "Updates," KC, why not switch out that 2007 weblog awards finalist logo on the DIW homepage for a 2007 weblog awards winner logo? You won already.

river rat said...

To ALL who think adult family members shouldn't guide relatives AWAY from schools demonstrating an unacceptable level of incompetence, ignorance or extraordinary pandering to radical ideology of ANY shade --- SHAME ON YOU...

Any faculty which includes as many as 88 anti-Constitutional, racist bigots, who to this day have been undisciplined and spared the consequences of their unconscionable behavior -- fails the test..

Family members should NOT be surrendered to the radical indoctrination that is prevalent at too many "schools" today..

My sainted wife, has notified all grandchildren that "granny dollars" will NOT be available to those family members who choose carelessly their University...

Denial of "granny dollars" can have a VERY significant impact on the quality of life of any undergraduate.....
VERY significant...

Duke was added to the list of "unacceptable" choices until such time in the future it can be shown that sufficient "corrective actions" have been taken..

traveler said...

'BIAS' IN KID QUIZ
The sheet asks, in caps:
ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN?
IS YOUR CLASS LIBERAL, MODERATE, OR CONSERVATIVE?
ANSWER THIS TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONNAIRE AND FIND OUT!
The questions that followed were eye-popping:
1. The United States was right to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power in 2003 (True/False).
2. Gay couples should not legally be allowed to marry (True/False).
3. Every law-abiding American should have the right to own a gun (True/False).
4. A woman should not have the right to have an abortion to end her pregnancy (True/False).
5. A convicted murderer should receive the death penalty (True/False).

Even liberal-minded parents questioned the assignment.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11192007/news/columnists/bias_in_kid_quiz_500822.htm

bill anderson said...

Come on Dr. Anderson;

“My guess is that we have another Duke professor who simply does not know how to spell his or her name.”

You know this not to be true! Why such distinguished professors in the 88 club are so important they do not have to put their name on anything, everyone should know who they are by their great discourse! In fact the only reason that had to sign that little letter to the Duke students was to give credibility to the people they were listening too.

So please check for holes in you tinfoil hat :>

Tom E.

11/20/07 10:44 PM


Yes, I stand corrected! You are correct. By simply permitting their names to be on a document, they were doing a Great Honor to Duke and to everyone who read it.

I had forgotten how privileged we are to be even in the same universe with such distinguished and honored people!! I will have to poke a few more holes in that hat!

Anonymous said...

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!

I cannot help but think back to how tense we were for last year's Thanksgiving, racing back and forth to DIW and LS in between basting the turkey, preparing the vegetables, setting the table, attending to kids and guests. It was not at all clear then that resolution was really at hand.

OT--I am in the middle of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel." If you haven't read it, go get it right away. She may be the Muslim Martin Luther. Her story is a must read for a number of reasons, including her powerful example of the intellectual and moral rigor required to resist the overwhelming power of groupthink in any form.

Observer

darby said...

I would think the Klan 88 types would want to use their names when posting to DIW.

It might add some lustre to their C.V. to actually be "published".

Stephen said...

Professor Johnson: They probably do not celebrate Thanksgiving in Israel, but perhaps you could start something over there. You sure the hell started something over here!! Best Wishes----

Anonymous said...

The members of the DukeGroup88 are masters of deceit. When faced with facts they respond by saying words to the effect that the case is going "backwards" on them. If someone puts forward the true facts of the situation they are called racist. If someone argues the horrific behavior of a district attorney they are called racist. If someone argues against obvious misbehavior of a distric attorney they are racist. In a reality that has become all too common members of the DukeGroup88 justify their own racist behavior by calling everyone who disagrees with them racist. They can not apologize. They do not apologize. Apologize.

Anonymous said...

inman said...
Gregory @ 9:22PM

Good morning Gregory ...

May I quote your misplaced statement from yesterday: "Go Illini beat Duke! MOO! Gregory".
....

_____________

I won't quote any more of Tom Inman's post, as it brutally slayed me for a stupid, fact-less prediction, the equivalent of a basketball rush to judgment. I see now why the Gang of 88 fear this site. Instead of a direct assault on K.C. Johnson, they have to take baby steps and go after Duke Students for an Ethical Duke. MOO! Gregory

river rat said...

It must REALLY suck to be an Anger Studies "88"er...

KNOWING their ignorance, racism, hate and obvious self loathing have been exposed to the outside world......must be ego deflating.

These clowns have taken the opportunities afforded them by predominately white societies throughout the world, and used the provided books as missiles to hurl at their most charitable benefactors.

Anonymous said...

Do the G88 get medicated for the holidays?

Joe T. said...

True, river rat. Biting the hands that feed them.

Anonymous said...

10:57 - I agree with what you write about silence in the face of fanatics. I think a large part of this blog is to fashion a forum in which to respond to those fanatics. Judging by their postings here, they do not like the collective noise they are hearing from the resistance. It is clear to me they do not like exposure and they truly fear being revealed as frauds. About Time !!

Anonymous said...

Stephan @ 2:18 PM

HA! Brought a tear to me eye, it did! Might even have awakened my neighbor (the one who's a half-mile West).

OldUS

Nicole said...

Happy Thanksgiving, KC and the rest of our group. For me, an immigrant and 39 years here, this is a very special occasion to give thanks for living in this blessed country. Spending all my adolescence under communist rule, I sometimes am very troubled by what I read about "mandatory indoctrination", diguised forms of "class struggle", resurrection of marxism and the fear to speak out lest one jeopardizes his/her position in academia. The groupthink I was subjected to, as well as the continuous intimidation by this group have marked me and it took many years to consciously get rid of this baggage. I am now very cautious when faced with political corectness, another name for indoctrination.

Matthew said...

* Duke "closers" --- many readers here are well versed on many aspects of the damages done by you and your administration. Talking about sports - what about Gail Goestenkors departure - (do you even know who she is, and what she was for Duke?) - why did she leave? ...........

“While Goestenkors' salary at Duke is not a public record, it was believed the private school wasn't likely to match a high offer from the Longhorns, which is expected to be upwards of $800,000.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/WireStory?id=3006136&page=2

Guys, please give it up with Coach K and Coach G. Coach G was reportedly offered a million to stay at Duke. She left because she was not happy with the treatment and lack of support for her assistants.

Anonymous said...

And based on many of the comments posted here, rabble is what I consider many of the posters.

Who do I contact at Dook to receive credit for having read this valuable K88 insight?

Btw, even before the LAX torch job, Selena Roberts was known for her factually-challenged articles on how Michael Jordan wasn't really as good as his reputation. Even by the NYT's poor standards this was incredibly daft. Bye-bye SI.

Happy Thanksgiving to all the non-88ers here.

Anonymous said...

3:45--It's enough for me that you know that I think you're abusing your Fulbright. I am not sure why you mentioned Title VI "Middle East Studies." OT?

"11/20/07 4:04 PM"

Then put up or shut up. If you want to charge KC with abusing his Fulbright - then man up and file an official complaint. Potbanging and threats don't work here and your pathetic attempts to intimidate KC will not work either. If you think you can back this man down you have sorely underestimated him. But from your recent posts, I suspect you have already found that out in another venue.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson attacked Joe Scarborough in "Until Proven Innocent" and in his Washington Post column this past September.

I recall KC Johnson calling Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe in September and discussing his charges.

Does anyone remember what was said?

Anonymous said...

BIAS-IN-GROUPTHINK:

o The annual payroll of the Iraqi Army was what? a)$200m p.a. b)$2.0bn p.a., c)$20.0bn p.a.?

o OK, it was $200m. Now can you divide total cost of war to date by number of former Iraqi soldiers?
If you can, you are the next Marcus Aurelius!!

o Of all the OECD countries, which has the lowest classical record sales per capita?

o Of all the OECD countries who has the most people in prison per capita?

o Mortimer Zuckerman recently predicted losses on $2.5tn of subprime paper would be: a)$60bn, b)$600bn??

o What is annual cost all US armed forces in the Mideast?

o Which is only OECD country where religious issues are substituted for substantitive policy debate?

o And finally, how much TV per day does the AVERAGE American watch? a)70 minutes, b)7 hours?

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.41:

"I recall KC Johnson calling Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe in September and discussing his charges."

You do?

I never have called Joe Scarborough, or appeared on his program. I fear your recollection is inaccurate.

Debrah said...

For those who were asking whether Israel celebrates Thanksgiving, the answer is no.

"The U.S. Thanksgiving holiday stems from the Jewish agricultural holiday of Succot. Calvinists studied Torah in Hebrew with Jews in the Netherlands and participated in Jewish holidays. They arrived in the U.S. as the Puritans and instigated the agricultural holiday of Thanksgiving which coincides with the Jewish holiday of Succot. All Jewish holidays are associated with agriculture as well as with religious holy days."

Anonymous said...

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE IMPROBABLY IMPROBABLE: Or, Why Michael Gaynor Is Out to Make Lawyers Look Bad, Or He Has Some Other Strange Agenda, Or One of the TalkLeft Sock-Puppets Has Hijacked His Computer and Is Using His Name to Write Unexplainable Drivel -- Coda

Part B of 4

At some point, the improbably improbable becomes so indistinguishable from the impossible that there is no significant distinction. They become one and the same because, really, whatever. Let’s take, as an example, the conduct of Brian Meehan. How probable is it that he was not actively conspiring with Mike Nifong?

1. Meehan issued a report that was unique for his laboratory. If Meehan and his laboratory had done thousands of reports, then the Duke Lax report was highly improbable.

2. Meehan’s report, as issued, violated North Carolina law and his own laboratory’s protocol. It did not contain all the test results, and the results it did not contain included evidence exculpatory to the defendants. What are the chances this was a simple mistake? Not at all likely.

3. Meehan requested that the court consider privacy concerns before requiring the divulgence of underlying data. What is the likelihood that he was concerned about the privacy of unknown individuals? Not very probable.

4. Meehan told the court during sworn testimony that Mike Nifong and he agreed to leave out the exculpatory DNA evidence. What is the likelihood that Brian Meehan, holder of an advanced degree, actually did not reach such an agreement, but, instead, had mistakenly blurted out the word “Yes” when asked about such a conspiratorial agreement? That has to be at least highly improbable.

5. What is the probability that Brian Meehan would accidentally admit a conspiracy by blurting out the word “Yes,” then not, immediately, in the next sentence, correct himself? That also has to be at least highly improbable.

6. Brian Meehan left out obviously exculpatory DNA evidence from his report. What is the likelihood that a trained forensic scientist, specializing in DNA work, would not realize that such evidence might be relevant in a criminal rape case? That would have to be highly improbable.

7. In even the most charitable interpretation according to Brian Meehan, he claimed that the exculpatory DNA evidence was “non-probative.” What is the likelihood that an expert witness, who had been qualified to provide expert opinions on DNA testing in courtrooms in multiple states did not know the definition of “non-probative”? Not bloody likely.

8. Brian Meehan apparently did not hear ANY news coverage about the release of the DNA report, because if he did, he would have noticed that there was no mention of possible exculpatory "non-probative" DNA evidence. What is the statistical probability that Brian Meehan did not read or listen to any newspaper, magazine, radio, television or other media coverage about a Duke Hoax report his lab had prepared? This would have to be at least improbably improbable.

9. Meehan and Mike Nifong eventually came up with a number of excuses for the absence of the exculpatory DNA evidence in the report. What is the likelihood that they would come up with different, sometimes mutually exclusive, excuses for what happened if there was an innocent explanation? This would be highly improbable.

10. Brian Meehan called his May report an “Interim Report,” but he acknowledged that he had never used that type of designation before. What is the likelihood that, after doing thousands of these reports, he came up with a new type of report specially for the Duke case? Highly improbable.

11. What is the likelihood of Meehan coming up with this new type of “Interim Report” exactly at a time in his professional career when he needed something like it to explain away a possible indiscretion? Very unlikely.

12. Meehan wrote a letter to Mike Nifong explaining about privacy and cost concerns that would hinder the divulgence of the underlying data, including the exculpatory DNA evidence. What is the likelihood that Brian Meehan didn’t know that Mike Nifong needed just such a letter to keep the exculpatory DNA evidence out of defense hands to cover up Nifong’s (but not Meehan’s) intentional wrongdoing? Again, not bloody likely.

12. When asked during sworn in-court testimony about multiple unexplained DNA profiles found on Mangum’s stuff, Meehan avoided the question. What is the likelihood he would do that with nothing to hide and no guilty conscious? That is highly improbable.

13. What is the likelihood that two police officers, who frequently have to testify about events months after their occurrence, had no memory of a discussion of exculpatory evidence at a meeting with Meehan? What is the likelihood that Mike Nifong would completely forget that meeting, especially since it might, coincidently, implicate him in a conspiracy?

CODA

At some point in a statistical continuum, the improbable becomes the highly improbable and then, in turn, the improbably improbable, and at this point, our brains, as under-developed as they are, simply cannot distinguish this barest scintilla of statistical probability from actual impossibility. Michael Gaynor’s arguments about Brian Meehan exist solely in this theoretical realm of improbable improbability. Or, is it impossibility? Whatever. These are most probably my opinions. MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

TO Spook--

I got back home very late and when I checked my e-mail, there were at least ten from you--all the same!

You did a good job putting the greeting together; however, I was really expecting an elaborate Happy Birthday message...or at least one of my really hot Diva pics placed strategically on that pristine little bridge.

But alas, all ten were of the same bridge.

Thanksgiving only falls on the 22nd every several years.....the last time was 2001.

It's fun to know that as all of the ankle-biters and detractors sit down today to give thanks and pig out, they are also giving thanks for the Diva.

(Keep the tums on hand, guys.) GIS!!!

I'm having a champagne toast in the late afternoon and have to decorate some--roses, mums, and ribbons.

Like most people, I'm grateful for many things.

It was a year ago, exactly, that I first came inside the Wonderland gates......and I never imagined the adventure ahead.

I am very grateful for KC and what he has meant to so many people this past year.

But the best adventure is yet to come!

Anonymous said...

Over at Liestoppers, there is a silly debate about Brian Meehan. I have read through it carefully, and it seems to me that Michael Gaynor is willing to risk the last molecule of his credibility just for the outside chance he can impugn, even in the tiniest bit, the actions of Brad Bannon in the Hoax.

For example, Gaynor makes the outlandish claim that Brad Bannon “mischaracterized” a letter sent by Meehan to Nifong as a “letter of objection.” The problem with Gaynor’s argument is that it was a letter of objection. Here is why:

1. Nifong’s in-court OBJECTION to providing the exculpatory evidence to the defense was based upon the LETTER. It was “evidence” of his objection. Nifong had nothing else.

2. The letter raised the issue of additional expenditures for providing the underlying DNA testing. Anyone who has practiced before a county judge who has to adhere to a county budget knows that such an argument can be persuasive.

3. Finally, it was a letter of objection. Read it. Pay special attention to the words: “should be considered.”

If Meehan did not object to immediately turning over the documents, he could have said that, and only that. If Meehan just wanted to make sure he got paid, he could have said that, and only that. Instead, Meehan said that BEFORE turning over the evidence, the court should CONSIDER privacy arguments. These are Meehan’s actual words:

"A blanket discovery of the entire case file, including all records and related materials, could jeopardize the privacy of these same individuals. We at DSI feel that this matter SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.”

The standard objection in court is a request to a judge to consider excluding certain evidence from being divulged at trial because of a certain reason. In this case, Meehan has suggested that the judge consider excluding certain evidence from being divulged for a certain reason.

But what really gets my goat and what makes lawyers look like crap is when they make arguments like Mike Gaynor did on Liestoppers:

“I assume MikeZPU is not familiar with a letter of objection.”

It appears to me as if Gaynor is looking down his nose on a non-lawyer, saying you don’t know something, and he has given this something an official, legal sounding name (i.e. “letter of objection”), as if there is such a term of art or special procedure in law called the “letter of objection.” This argument is either a bad parody or it is an ironic coincidence, because it is exactly the kind of thing BRIAN MEEHAN WOULD DO.

_______________________

On a lighter note, Happy Thanksgiving and wishes of safe travel to everyone. To celebrate, here is a new batch of “Johnsonisms”:

All children‘s books now end the same way: "... and they lived happily ever after, if, when, and to the extent K.C. Johnson says so. The End.”

As soon as K.C. Johnson entered the Matrix, Morpheus immediately realized he may have been a little hasty in choosing "the chosen one."

K.C. Johnson‘s biceps, named "Fear" and "Pain," are so big they won't even fit into a sweatervest. His shirts have to be sewn onto him every morning.

All Nautilus workout equipment comes with a special warning: "Use by K.C. Johnson or any member of his family immediately voids warranty."

To test his courage and inventiveness, Professor Johnson jumped out of a plane at altitude without a parachute. Other kids usually go to Chucky Cheese or have a sleepover when they turn 7.

At age 10, the monk said to him, "John-san, If you can ...," but didn't get any further because K.C. had already snatched the pebble from the monk's hand AND destroyed the temple.

These are my opinions only. MOO! Gregory

mac said...

MOO Gregory,

And what is the probability that the blue dirt got where the red dirt should have been, had the charges been true?

If Dr. Meehan didn't know anything about the case, he would have made the perfect OJ juror, (along with Bigas.) Space aliens likely killed the couple. The kind with four fingers.

I think the word for Gaynor's view of Meehan is "sequestered from reality."

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

mac said...

Off topic but...last year, a Seattle school district "removed from its web site a definition of racism that claimed planning ahead and individualism were examples of cultural racism."

Hmmm. Don't plan when you cook the turkey. Just hope that it shows up and throws itself into your oven. Or if you are the veggie-type: perhaps your tofu turkey will assemble itself spontaneously.

Otherwise, it might be considered racism.

Anonymous said...

Remembering John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the anniversity of his assissination. Rest In Peace.

Anonymous said...

Happy Thanksgiving, KC. Rest some. You are much loved here.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers attending the Cheshire, etc seminar in Raleigh will receive three hours of Continuing Education Credit and a half an hour for ethics,

Anonymous said...

KC - like others, I followed the testimony of Meehan during the hearing. Your description of his testimony is accurate. I believe the transcript bears out your analysis of his demeaner.

Anonymous said...

First, uncollegiality.

And now, Fulbright abuse.

Oh, the Humanity.

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.27:

Indeed. I was sitting in the back row at the hearing, and so I spoke to several people who were sitting in the jury box to ask them. They had the same reaction to him that I did.

I don't recall seeing Michael Gaynor at the hearing, but perhaps he came in late.

Anonymous said...

6:50AM Barry Scheck conviced me of OJ's innocence. He was the best lawyer in the courtroom and part of the dream team.

Anonymous said...

Oops - should have written that Barry conviced me of "reasonable doubt." He was, after all, the DNA expert witness.

TC said...

KC,

re: Joe Scarborough

I thought someone, perhaps Stuart Taylor, called in to Joe Scarborough? For some reason I recall Joe's anger about being mentioned in the WaPo article being assuaged.

Or do you still stand behind your attacks on Joe in your book and in the WaPo article?

(Not trying to attack you here -- I love this blog and your book and just recently gave it 5-stars on Amazon. I also enjoy Morning Joe on MSNBC and am disappointed that Scarborough was as partisan as anyone else during the whole saga.)

Happy Thanksgiving!

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.41:

You'd have to check with Stuart about his schedule. Apart from our appearance on GMA, we didn't appear together.

Corrections to the book are at the head of the notes.

Anonymous said...

In reference to some comments above about avoiding Duke:

We need a list of schools to avoid.

Some information about one important issue (speech codes) can be gotten from the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (Its rating of Duke's speech code is
"green", but it gives links to media coverage of the Lacrosse Hoax, and also a case involving politcal censorship of a faculty member's website.)

But speech codes are only one aspect. People are assembling private lists of schools to avoid, but this is a very hit or miss business. We need systematic political correctness ratings of colleges.

Anonymous said...

3:25 In the real world, most parents send their adolescents to the best school they can gain admittance, and work five jobs to pay the tuition, etc. I spent a half a million dollars for mine to get a Bachleors and Masters in the eighties and early nineties. Never did one complaine about the political correctness of a school. Unless you are a AA or WS student, no one cares about major. My youngest had his fraternity put on probation for spraying the "Take Back the Night" march with garden hoses.

TC said...

KC -- Thanks for the link to the source notes. I see that Stuart Taylor did apologize to Joe Scarborough. I may remember Joe Scarborough reading this:

p. 184: The guest host of the Scarborough Country program mentioned on this page was Pat Buchanan. Stuart Taylor also adds the following: "I wish to apologize to MSNBC talk-show host Joe Scarborough for the cutting description of Mr. Scarborough. I wrote that description based on transcripts of “Scarborough Country” programs early in the Duke case. Now my attention has been drawn to transcripts of several subsequent programs, and I realize that Mr. Scarborough was one of the handful of journalists who deserves credit for calling attention early in the case to the emerging evidence of innocence. I am very sorry that due to insufficient research, the text suggested otherwise."

Also, I've updated my book review to reflect that:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2OEMAFGM5M0TQ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

One Spook said...

KC writes @ 3:24 AM:

To the 10.41:

"I recall KC Johnson calling Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe in September and discussing his charges."

You do?

I never have called Joe Scarborough, or appeared on his program. I fear your recollection is inaccurate.



KC, I think this commenter is confused. Maybe this person meant to say that you once drank Joe at Scarborough ...

One Spook

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 11/22/07 5:11 PM said...

...My youngest had his fraternity put on probation for spraying the "Take Back the Night" march with garden hoses.
::
There is a God!

Save the pictures and the hose if possible.

We have proof now that not all undergraduate students are as goofy as their professors.

The formal notice of probation should be framed.
::
GP

inman said...

Gregory @ 5:25 AM

One addition to your "Johnsonisms":

KC Johnson appeared in a triangular nanosecond immediately before and at the center of the singularity known as the "Big Bang". (Nobel Committee discussion of contributions to humanity, peace and justice, 2013)

Anonymous said...

3:25pm:
I also support FIRE. You are quite right: A blog is needed to identify and tabulate the Academy's pernicious, oppressive, and doctrinaire faculties that have mutated the classical liberal arts education into a monstrosity.

Perhaps you know how to start a blog. Wish I did. I'll support yours!
Tom

Debrah said...

Thanks, One Spook!

Debrah said...

H-S:

Duke gets more music warnings

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun

DURHAM -- Duke University has been hit with yet another batch of warning letters from a recording-industry trade group that contends students are illegally sharing music files.

The 27 letters warn that the Recording Industry Association of America intends to pursue copyright-infringement lawsuits, and urges the prospective targets to take an out-of-court settlement.

Such settlement offers at other universities have been said to demand payment of thousands of dollars each.

Other schools have fought the group's demands, but Duke has taken a hands-off attitude. It relayed the letters to 26 students, holding back only one because it couldn't identify the prospective target.

Duke officials add "a cover letter from [the administration] explaining how we're notified and encouraging them to get their own legal advice," Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta said.

This month's batch of letters was at least the third Duke officials have received from the RIAA this year. Each time, the group alleged consultants were able to download copyrighted recordings from computers on Duke's network.

A batch of warning letters in the spring led to court action when a group of record companies sought to have subpoenas served on 28 people affiliated with the university.

Court records suggest one person may have settled, but last month the companies dropped the other 27 cases.

Duke officials have said they only retain logs of on-campus computer usage for two weeks, a policy that means in many cases they can't identify anyone involved in the allegations.

The second batch of letters this year came out in the summer. They, too, led to court action and the issuance of another 28 subpoenas. Moneta said the university was able to relay the warning to only one of the intended targets because its computer-use logs didn't retain information on the others.

Moneta added that Duke officials are monitoring what's happening with copyright cases in other jurisdictions.

"This is a subject we'll revisit with regularity," he said. "If we see a pronounced increase in the number of settlement letters by the RIAA or the [Motion Picture Association of America], we'll revisit our decisions and see if they're still appropriate."

But when asked whether that means Duke would fight if the RIAA steps up its campaign, Moneta hedged.

"I don't want to suggest that just volume would be a reason for us to change our practices," he said. "The right thing for us to do is regularly review what our peers are doing and what our legal counsel suggests. At the moment, our sense is to maintain what we're currently doing."

The latest school to attempt to fight off RIAA subpoenas is the University of Oregon. That state's attorney general filed a motion last month to block one such effort.

The Oregon brief contends the university would have to violate federal student-privacy rules to comply with a subpoena, and that it's impossible at the school to tie any specific Internet address to a specific student. The attorney general and his staff also demanded the right to inspect RIAA documents and question the group's consultants to find out how they're looking for downloaders.

The only other North Carolina school to receive RIAA warnings recently has been N.C. State University in Raleigh. The school got warning letters in the summer and again this month.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous 11/22/07 5:11 PM said...

...My youngest had his fraternity put on probation for spraying the "Take Back the Night" march with garden hoses.
::
There is a God!

Save the pictures and the hose if possible.

We have proof now that not all undergraduate students are as goofy as their professors.

The formal notice of probation should be framed.
::
GP

11/22/07 8:22 PM"

What on earth is supposedly admirable about disrupting through physical harassment a peaceful protest for a social cause? Even if the free speech you are disrupting is for a cause you do not agree with, you are still disrupting someone else's free speech. Isn't that the behavior for which Diane Nelson earned this board's ire -- for trying to disrupt the speech of David Horowitz?

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 9:26 AM

Re: The Garden Hose

....What on earth is supposedly admirable about disrupting through physical harassment a peaceful protest for a social cause? Even if the free speech you are disrupting is for a cause you do not agree with, you are still disrupting someone else's free speech. Isn't that the behavior for which Diane Nelson earned this board's ire -- for trying to disrupt the speech of David Horowitz?
::
If Donna Lister won't pull the plug on a campus Castrate march tradition which was organized by a bunch of delusional air heads and the police won't, then I think a group of Frat boys with a garden hose seems the next best alternative.

And besides, how many smarts does it take to walk out of range of a garden hose?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

"If Donna Lister won't pull the plug on a campus Castrate march tradition which was organized by a bunch of delusional air heads and the police won't, then I think a group of Frat boys with a garden hose seems the next best alternative.

And besides, how many smarts does it take to walk out of range of a garden hose?"

a) 11/22/07 5:11 PM never said that his youngest attended Duke, so your claim that "Donna Lister" [sic] would have had anything to do with the "Take Back the Night" march which the fraternity disrupted appears to be a figment of your own careless reading.

b) Not all "Take Back the Night" marches are "campus Castrate march[es]". If you believe they are, that only demonstrates to the world the depth of your prejudice.

c) Not all "Take Back the Night" marches are "organized by a bunch of delusional air heads". If you believe they are, that only demonstrates to the world the depth of your prejudice.

d) So now you're suggesting that the police should be given authority to "pull the plug" on free speech that they disapprove of? Tell me, would you approve of giving this power to the Durham police -- the employer of Gottlieb, of Addison, of Clayton? Would you trust them to decide which free speech 'should be' silenced through harassment?

e) If you wouldn't give that power to the Durham police, why approve of it when used in a vigilante fashion by self-selected college students? If you approve of frat boys taking it into their own hands to "pull the plug" on speech they find distasteful, then you are also asserting that it would be all right for Duke potbangers to hose down anyone who uttered the so-obviously-vile-and-wrong possibility that maybe the players were innocent. You can't say that it's all right for people on one side to take matters into their own hands, but only for that one side.

f) How many smarts did it take for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus? Or are you going to degrade yourself further and assert that Rosa Parks, too, was someone who should have been "smarter" than to go where white men in power didn't want her to go, and say what white men in power didn't want her to say?

Anonymous said...

Good laugh GP

Anonymous said...

Rosa Parks is just about everyone's heroine. Comparing her actions to a prank of spraying water on a group of "Take Back the Night" marches is unbelieveable. WTF???????? Ms Rosa freed this country from the burden of segregation.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Rosa Parks is just about everyone's heroine. Comparing her actions to a prank of spraying water on a group of "Take Back the Night" marches is unbelieveable. WTF???????? Ms Rosa freed this country from the burden of segregation.

11/23/07 5:41 PM"

You're very correct -- there is no comparing the actions of Rosa Parks to the actions of the frat boys who decided to spray peaceful marchers.

The parties who were actually being compared were Gary Packwood, compared to those who would have tried to stop Rosa Parks -- jeering at her, calling her "delusional", an "air-head", perhaps looking to the police to "pull the plug" on Rosa Parks' protest, and if no police stepped up to illegally suppress her exercise of her Constitutional rights, then to approve vigilante actions aimed at silencing her.

Now of course I don't have any direct information indicating that the frat boys had such an intent. For all I knew, they were just simply drunk and unaware that the people they were spraying with a garden hose were gathered for a purpose, a purpose they could be construed as opposing.

However, Gary Packwood certainly made the assumption that their action was aimed at suppressing the "Take Back the Night" protest, and actually expressed his approval of silencing in this manner free expression that doesn't match his views.

Anonymous said...

There are a number of differences that ruin your "Take back the Night"/David Horowitz analogy, oh 88er.

First, GP was undoubtedly just being funny. I'm sure he wouldn't do it himself. Perhaps, you are one of those 88ers without a sense of humor?

Second, the action of the "frat boys" did not stop or disrupt the march. Yelling and whistling at a speech disrupts or stops it. A garden hose, although a strange vehicle for first amendment expression, does not stop the marchers from marching or the yellers from yelling into their megaphones or the chanters from chanting their "poetry."

Third, Professors at Duke University might be held to a slightly higher standard of behavior than 18-year-old "frat boys," no?

Diversity is a smiling baby!

Anonymous said...

Carrying a banner that urges harm on someone sounds very akin to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. This was not a "peaceful" march. A garden hose might have come in handy as not only a cooling off tool, but a way for the frat kids to express their opinion.

mac said...

Give GP a break:
I think the garden hose was meant to be an example of performance art. Like the Star A. Simpson from MIT, who strapped a bomb-look-a-like to her chest at Logan International Airport. She also had a wad of clay in another hand (plastique, anyone?) This was MIT? The second question is: this was Art? What are they teeching (spelling intentional) thur students at MIT these days?

As for suppressing free speech:
compare a garden-hose prank to indoctrination at Delaware, and you can see whose opinons and right to free speech are actually suppressed! Especially since Take Back the Nighters would likely approve of the Delaware agenda.

I think the young men made a mistake, and should have done a parody march, instead, calling it:

"Take Back the Nighties."

(I think they used to call them "panty raids.")
::::::::::::::::

When Performance Art, Academia and Vocational Training Morph:

Fluke University Professor Diane M. Nelson's idea to merge the University with real-world-job-training is a great idea! It could be a three-way: Vocational Training, Performance Art and Academic Initiative!

Remember Nelson's plan? To expose the student body (so-to-speak) in order to disrupt Horowitz when he spoke at Fluke?

Nelson was merely preparing women for careers in fine eateries such as Hooters (Vocational,) or to take their first steps as Pole Dancers (Performance Art) while engaged in a supposedly academic pursuit. It didn't work, anyway: the students preferred to keep their breasts, um, sequestered. *(hey, I used a semi-legal term, too! can I be a law professor at Fluke?)

But that's another thread.

Anonymous said...

If GP was trying to be funny, he should probably practice first in the privacy of his home until he actually manages to be funny, and only then unveil his "wit" in a venue where other people must try to divine his intent.

"Second, the action of the "frat boys" did not stop or disrupt the march. Yelling and whistling at a speech disrupts or stops it. A garden hose, although a strange vehicle for first amendment expression, does not stop the marchers from marching or the yellers from yelling into their megaphones or the chanters from chanting their "poetry.""

Oh please. I don't think even you believe that. "Spraying a march with garden hoses isn't an attempt to disrupt it" is about as plausible as Wahneema Lubiano's "When we talked about 'what happened to this young woman' we weren't presuming a rape; we meant 'drunkenness happened'". No, I'm not an 88'er, as you would have already noticed if you could get over your delusion that the only people who would ever criticize a DiW commenter are the Gang of 88. As for holding university professors to a higher standard than 18-year-old frat boys, I think everyone should be held to a standard of respecting others' free expression and not trying to disrupt it -- not with garden hoses, not with drowning it out, not with doffing shirts. If you can't answer it, that doesn't give you the right to silence it.

"Carrying a banner that urges harm on someone sounds very akin to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. This was not a "peaceful" march."

Go back and read carefully and then come back when you have your facts straight. This was not a Duke University march. Even if the "Castrate" banner was judged directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (the current standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio, as opposed to the older overturned Schenck standard that "fire in a crowded theater" refers to) -- the march we are referring to is not the Duke University march where that banner appeared.

"compare a garden-hose prank to indoctrination at Delaware, and you can see whose opinons and right to free speech are actually suppressed! Especially since Take Back the Nighters would likely approve of the Delaware agenda."

Riiiiiiiight. That's perfectly logical. Oh, and hey, guess what! Diane Nelson trying to shout down David Horwitz, that's not suppressing free speech, because if you look at how severely the military junta ruling Myanmar (all the way over on the other side of the globe) punishes expression of political opinion, you can see whose opinions and rights are actually suppressed! That is a perfectly logical and not at all fallacious argument!

(Translation for the sarcasm impaired: You can't justify wrong actions by pointing out that someone, somewhere, has taken a wrong action that is even worse. It's an argument form called tu quoque and it's a fallacy even when the "someone" whose wrong action you are pointing out is the object of your wrong action. It's even more lame when the wrong action you are holding up for comparison is unconnected.)

mb said...

Anonymous 11/22/07 5:11 PM and Gary Packwood: Thanks for the great story re. the garden hose. Were the Take Back The Night girls to get as good as they give.

Re. Take Back The Night at my Alma Mater:

Ah yes, those peaceful, fun-loving anti-violence feminists who back when I was in grad school beat the living sh*t out of a would-be fellow marcher because they thought she/he/it was a man. You see, back then, at least on my campus, not only were men not welcome to join in the march, they were strictly forbidden and physically, ahem, 'restrained' from doing so. Now men are allowed to march but are vigorously discouraged from doing so. You know, in the name of "diversity" and all.

What happened was a woman-to-man ("WTM" for the LGBTQ-challenged among us) tranny decided she/he/it wanted to join the march but since she/he/it appeared to be a man the angrier feminists in the crowd (presumably women's and other Angry Studies majors) decided to beat the person senseless and ask questions later. As usual, in the spirit of PC, the news media buried the story so deep it the only place it probably was aired was in Bejing, but by a lucky fluke one of the GLBTQ media entities in town ran the story, however, only once - it was immediately embargoed after that. Can't have people getting the wrong idea about those peaceful, upstanding Rosa Parks-like social justice workers can we?

From my personal experience the Take Back The Night Nazis make the frat boys with the garden hose look like Boy Scouts in comparison.

Gary Packwood said...

mb 1:29 PM said...

...From my personal experience the Take Back The Night Nazis make the frat boys with the garden hose look like Boy Scouts in comparison.
::
The comments from Comrade Anonymous 11:51 AM are really quite useful if blog readers are interested in what really happens on a university campus to a faculty member who might just disagree with their agenda.

Five or six INDIVIDUAL visits from Comrade Anonymous 11:51 and his/her friends in your office over a period of three days is nearly a perfect example of being stunned into silence.

Because the Comrades made private individual visits to your office there are no witnesses to the terrorizing which of course is the idea!

If bloggers are wondering what was said in one of those visits... now you know!

And you know why the Duke faculty is so silent even when Comrade Anonymous tell you the Castrate march had nothing to do with the Office of Student Affairs at Duke...when in fact it originated on the campus of Duke.

The Comrades are pleased of course that I was not the President of Duke in March '06 as those folks would have been without jobs the following morning after the Castrate banner was unleashed on our Duke kids...and we are in the kid business at Duke don't you know!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

8:03 Obviously, lack of information is not stopping you from posting.

Anonymous said...

The real story behind Take Back the Night and the David Horowitz speech is that, again, the kids had the book thrown at them, and the people who are older, in positions of authority, and who should be setting an example, get off scott free. It's the Duke way!

I'm so glad that our comrade has such minimal expectations of her/his professors or colleagues. After seeing how a faction of the Duke Professoriate operates, though, I guess you cannot expect them to act any better than drunk frat boys. So, you got me there.

Diversity is a playful kitty!

Anonymous said...

y'ALL... has everybody totally lost their collective senses of humor????

Back in the 60's in my VERY conservative Southern college, panty raids used to be a regular prank. So was the "blanketing" of a guy who just got engaged.

That consisted of some dorm-mates of the guy catching him in the shower, wrapping him in a blanket, carrying him on their shoulders to UNDER the window of the gal he got engaged to, and then bouncing him on the blanket, in the nude, under her ( and all the other women in the dorm) window.

It was fun, harmless, humorous, and the administration turned their heads at the mischief. Nobody ever got hurt. Nobody carried placards, accused anybody of racism or sexism and everybody had a few fond memories of youthful mischief.

We have totally lost our cotton picking minds.

CASTRATE placards are NOT mischief. They are cruel.

And it is decidedly better to "hose off" your opponent or enemy than to shoot them.

We have just gotten to the point that we take ourselves too seriously and have no humor at all.

Now don't go reacting to this as if I am saying that the willful, intentional FRAMING of innocent people for a crime they did not commit is in the same category.

I am just saying that we gotta quit lumping everything in to the "deadly serious" category.

AMac said...

The day after Thanksgiving, I was walking up 5th Avenue, taking in the unofficial start of the Christmas season in Manhattan. At the corner of 52nd Street, a ruckus erupted, with angry shouts and expletives being traded. We looked at one another and shrugged--after all, it was New York we were visiting.

When it happened again at 53rd Street, we figured out what was going on. A dozen or so black-clad activists from PETA or the Animal Liberation Front would spot a fur-wearing pedestrian, surround him or her, and start in-your-face cursing and taunting--"Torturer! Murderer! F**k You!" This street theater needed an angry response to be complete, and--this being NYC--they got it.

As my alarmed wife and I walked past the group, I could read the same haughteur and arrogance on each PETA face. The strategy of this self-appointed Manhattan Taliban was clear: use Freedom of Speech to draw fur-wearing New Yorkers into a spectacle pour encourager les autres. Win a victory for the (righteous) cause not on the strength of arguments, but by striking fear into the hearts of potential victims--"next time, they might choose me as the focus of their spittle-flecked rage."

Which brings me to the comment left on 11/22/07 at 5:11pm.

"My youngest had his fraternity put on probation for spraying the 'Take Back the Night' march with garden hoses."

I wish failure is visited on people who pollute public discourse by choosing intimidation as their weapon of choice for promoting their (righteous) ideals.

Whether their activity is abusing fur-wearers or dousing anti-rape activists.

Thanks to Anonymous at 11/23/07 9:26am / 4:55am and 11/24/07 11:51am for laying out reasoning that should have been unnecessary due to its obviousness.

How disheartening that some regular commenters on a blog about the Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame would approve of thuggery on the basis of the victims' politics.

No. It's the abusive conduct that is wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Gary Packwood said...

The comments from Comrade Anonymous 11:51 AM are really quite useful if blog readers are interested in what really happens on a university campus to a faculty member who might just disagree with their agenda.

Five or six INDIVIDUAL visits from Comrade Anonymous 11:51 and his/her friends in your office over a period of three days is nearly a perfect example of being stunned into silence.

Because the Comrades made private individual visits to your office there are no witnesses to the terrorizing which of course is the idea!

If bloggers are wondering what was said in one of those visits... now you know!"

Gary, what the fuck are you talking about now? Seriously? I have no idea what on earth you're trying to refer to with your "five or six INDIVIDUAL visits" -- unless, unless, and you know, I hesitate to think that you actually mean this, because it would mean that you are just about the whiniest little puke I have ever met -- unless you are actually trying to say that for me to criticize your public statements here on the board (i.e., PUBLICLY, with PLENTY OF WITNESSES) is somehow equal to having a cluster of faculty members occupy your office and harangue you in a meeting which you specify as being WITHOUT WITNESSES.

I mean, is that actually it? Are you telling us you're that feeble, and frail, and vulnerable, that for anyone to actually disagree with your offered opinions is "terrorizing" you, "stunn[ing] you into silence"? Here's a suggestion: put on your big boy pants and deal with it. If you can't stand the thought that you might be criticized when you express approval for the harassment of citizens exercising their right to free assembly, then don't express it in a forum where you have to fear anyone listening to you.

"And you know why the Duke faculty is so silent even when Comrade Anonymous tell you the Castrate march had nothing to do with the Office of Student Affairs at Duke...when in fact it originated on the campus of Duke."

Either your reading comprehension or your integrity is sorely inadequate, Gary, I've already clarified this. I did not say that the "Castrate" march had nothing to do with the Office of Student Affairs at Duke -- I said that the Take Back the Night march which was disrupted with garden hoses was not at Duke. All we know about that march was that it was at some college that has fraternities, somewhere, at some time. And if it had been at Duke, the chances that we wouldn't have heard about that by now as a reflection of the "sexism" at Duke are nil.

"The Comrades are pleased of course that I was not the President of Duke in March '06 as those folks would have been without jobs the following morning after the Castrate banner was unleashed on our Duke kids...and we are in the kid business at Duke don't you know!"

I'm not in any way connected with Duke, but I'm still pleased that you are not the President of Duke, because I'd hate to think of any college being saddled with a President even more lacking in integrity than Richard Brodhead.

"mb said:

...

What happened was a woman-to-man ("WTM" for the LGBTQ-challenged among us) tranny decided she/he/it wanted to join the march but since she/he/it appeared to be a man the angrier feminists in the crowd (presumably women's and other Angry Studies majors) decided to beat the person senseless and ask questions later."

There's no excuse for that shit. If I were in charge, I would kick anyone caught doing that out of the school, and if the evidence showed that those who beat the transsexual did so because they perceived em as a man, I would have the attackers brought up on charges of committing a hate crime. Just as there isn't an excuse for trying to spray peaceful marchers with a hose ("drunk" and "really dumb idea of what constitutes a prank" are explanations but not excuses) there is no excuse for violently attacking someone who's trying to join a peaceful march. And if those who committed the violent act tried to cite "E looked like a member of the dominant gender/race/class" as an excuse, that just makes their offense worse.

But there's also no excuse for taking an incident that happened at one Take Back the Night march and trying to justify the attempted disruption of a different Take Back the Night march. You wouldn't say that what the Jena 6 did to Justin Barker was justified by what Justin Barker had purportedly done to them on a previous occasion -- you certainly wouldn't say that it was justified by what some other white person had done to them on a previous occasion, and certainly not by what some other white person had done to some other black people!

mac said...

In a post that KC chose not to include (and I understand why, as it was rambling and incoherent etc, as well as containing material even lower than my usual stuff and the obvious lack of taste and clarity.)

In it, I suggested that spraying Take Back the Nighters with a garden hose could be considered assault. Not on the same order as an assault of marchers, with the authorities using firehoses, but conceivably defined as assault.

Whether or not charges would be pursued would depend upon the circumstances and locale.

Threats agains the accused students by the NBBP and sign-holders (who indicated the desire to castrate the young men) have not been determined by the Dee Pee Dee nor the Duhh DA as criminal offenses. It's kinda hard to fathom, but...

on the other hand...
If my kid was a trick'r treater, I would not be favorably disposed to having them sprayed with a water hose, or having water balloons thrown at them. I might even press charges, if the perpetrators were old enough to vote.

I would put the Take Back the Nighters in the category of Trick'r Treaters, and might have considered pressing charges.

Egging a house is a felony (throwing "a missile at an occupied dwelling.") But officer, it was an egg, not a missile! Duhh. Missile, projectile, whatever.

We will begin to see lawsuits against PETA, just like the (successful) lawsuit against the "church" which protests at military funerals. While I agree with a lot of PETA's ideas (not all of them) I don't like the harrassment tactics.

Recently, I had a bottle thrown at my head by a kid who called me a "white m'f'er." That was a criminal act. It was a racial hate-crime, IMO, and it was assault, perhaps assault with a deadly weapon.

Not the same as being sprayed with a garden hose.

Just to clarify.