Thursday, April 16, 2009

Up & Down

Sometimes doing the right thing is rewarded.

A PPP poll shows that Roy Cooper, one of the heroes of the lacrosse case, continues to lead incumbent Senator Richard ("Silent Dick") Burr in what appears to be an increasingly likely Senate bid.

And who doesn't like Cooper? The Nifong true believers. I'm sure that Senator Burr, most recently seen making bizarre comments on his personal response to the financial meltdown, will be reassured by their support.

By the way, the ethically challenged new Durham DA, Tracey Cline, was on the witness stand yesterday--showing that she's following in the footsteps of her ethically challenged former boss.


Anonymous said...

Considering that Richard Burr had nothing at all to say while Scottsboro II was in progress, I wonder if anyone will ask him now about the reasons for his silence...

And what thoughts, if any, he has on the responses of Duke, the Duke faculty and admin, the city, local civic leaders, etc.

Anonymous said...

Cooper acted in a totally unprofessional manner throughout the investigation. From his little photo-op to his choice of witnesses to interview to a declaration of innocent that he had no authority to make and to a one-sided "summary" of the sham investigation that he has never made the details public, he took this investigation as a chance to advance his political aspirations. He now uses this case as his one shining moment.
He has hired some of the worst former prosecutors possible and gave them an opportunity to whitewash their sullied history by coming down hard on Mr. Nifong. He shopped the country for a Federal AG that would be willing to help in his hopes for further punishment of Nifong, and he shamelessly used CGM's unreleased medical history to cast vague aspersions of mental problems on her testimony. He made fun of her statements all the while professing that he felt so sorry for her that he would not charge her with making a false accusation out of the goodness of his heart.
Cooper is no hero.

Anonymous said...

Is Burr a Communist?

Debrah said...

Cline in court

Debrah said...

The N&O on Burr

Debrah said...

Let's see if those "reforms" ever take place.

roper said...

The is a story in this morning's Wall St. Journal, page A11, on prosecutorial misconduct, featuring a photo of disgraced former Durham DA Mike Nifong.

It is good that Nifong should be the national "poster boy" of choice when it comes to portraying prosecutorial misconduct.

halides1 said...


The Wilmington Journal endorsed Cooper's opponent in the AG race last year. Cash Michaels had implied that there would not be political retaliation if Cooper investigated the Duke case fairly, but the WJ's actions belied their words. Let's see what they do in the senate race.


No justice, no peace said...

The following aptly describes not only the legal system in Durham, but also the "free speech/hate speech" oppression on campuses.

"When it (the law) has exceeded its proper function, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to it own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective; It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense." - "The Law", Frederic Bastia, (via "Liberty and Tyranny", page 48)

A Duke Dad said...

to Anonymous 6:57 AM -

Hey dude ! Ad hominem attacks are so out of style. Shows you have no facts and no logic, and are reduced to throwing mud.

Be a Smarty; Join the Party.

1) You say AG Cooper conducted an unprofessional investigation? Specifics please... did he stage a lineup without fillers ? did he avoid interviewing Mangum for half a year ? did he hide evidence ?

2) You say AG Cooper had no authority to declare the three lax guys innocent of a crime that never happened ? Kindly cite the basis of that lack of authority.

3) Mangum's medical history was not released by order of the trial judge. Cooper merely said that justice would not be served by charging Precious ... She got a pass for her perjury and filing of a false crime report. Crystal's mental problems are more than evident by her actual testimony ... being suspended in air, constantly changing story, constantly changing number of supposed attackers.

4) The FACT is, Cooper did not 'come down hard on Nifong' at all. The trial judge slapped his wrist for lying to the court. The NC Bar disbarred him. That wasn't Cooper.

5) You fail to mention ANY shortcomings of Cooper's staff. Since the AG did not prosecute Nifong... there was no opportunity for his staff to do anything to the former Durham DA.

6) "Shopped the country for a Federal AG" .... but, but, but, the Dept of Justice had NO involvement with the Duke LAX Hoax case. Are you SURE you are talking about the same case... doesn't sound like it.

So, in summary, your zero-fact rant is nothing more than a third grade schoolyard hissy-fit.

Where are the FACTS, dude ?

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:57

And your point is? Obviously you feel that Nifong was correct in his actions and that Cooper is the great villain (second only to RCD)in the lacrosse hoax. Cooper was within his authority to declare the three players innocent because despite Mangums's bizarre ramblings and Nifong's assertion that something "must have happened" the fact is NOTHING DID.

Anonymous said...

After reading Anonymous Cooper hater at 6:57 a.m., see if you can complete this sentence:

"The enemy of my enemy is my _______."


To Halides1:

Cash Michael's editorial was ominously entitled, "Were Watching You, Mr. Cooper," and it contained numerous implicit and explicit threats, including the following:

"After all, as a Democrat, just like Mike Nifong, you need the Black vote for any future political aspirations.
Rumors are you want to dump this case faster than you can say Joe Cheshires [sic] nose, but you cant [sic] do it too fast or else the colored folks will get mad and hold it against you."

Of course, there was also the fact that Michaels had bet what little credibility and reputation he had on the lying Crystal Mangum, so he was quite an interested party to the outcome of the Attorney General's report.


Then, of course, you've got the NCNAACP, which had to hold a press conference the minute the case was given to AG Cooper. During that press conference, Reverend Barber stressed, among other things, the need for,

"* Denouncing any 'code of silence' that would inhibit a gathering of the facts.

* Urging deep compassion for the accuser and concern for any attempts to demean or destroy her 'rather than to seek and ascertain the truth.'"

Of course, at the same press conference, NAACP case monitor Al McSurely, who had probably written the infaous 82 crimes and torts bulletin on the NCNAACP webpage, went after the defense attorneys:

"McSurely, who attended the news conference, has criticized media coverage of the case. He asserted that defense attorneys were trying to sway public opinion in favor of the accused by using a two-pronged attack -- on the character of the accuser and Nifong."


Out of pure selfishness, the most interesting tidbit I would like to see come out of discovery in the civil case is to find out what pseudonym or pseudonyms Mike Nifong has been writing under on the blogs dealing with this case. I imagine he'll try to hide that evidence too, but if it is found, that would be a barrel of laughs.


MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

6:57 - Unsubstantiated rambling is not a very persuasive argument. Were you over at UNC Tuesday night as well?

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson:

From your comments and postings about Senator Burr, I take it you feel the need to inject yourself into the N. Carolina senatorial race.

I believe you would be better served by paying attention to the senators in your own state. Senator Burr did not cause an actual run on a bank as Senator Schumer did. Perhaps you missed that little tidbit. I wonder why?

Having grown up in New York State, I think I can safely say the Democrat agenda has not produced the nirvana that they promised. They did, however, follow through on raising the taxes.

Championing socialist candidates is foolish. Your eloquent speaker with the portable teleprompter has quite visibly turned out to be an empty suit.


jamil hussein said...

i haven't really followed Cooper's career or background, other than he was one the very few in NC who did his job honestly - as public officials should do.

I suppose in today's world this is rare, so thumbs up for Cooper, but doing his job honestly should be the minimum requirement, not ultimate merit, for public office.
Cooper, if elected, is still likely to vote party line for narrative based Klan 88 policies (ie hate speech, race quotas, Title ix etc). So, I'm not sure if electing Cooper helps anything wrt fighting Klan88 ideas. If Cooper would publicly promise to end that narrative based crap, I would love to support him.

I guess the reason why Dole/Burr did not get involved was the fear of race hustlers (ie accusations that they are racist). This is sad state of affairs, but still, they were cowards (of "nation of cowards"). Otoh, I don't remember democrats calling for an investigation either (i think one dem and 2 gop congressman did that). Obama made low-profile comment too, but his support in black hate community was assured anyway.

Anonymous said...

To 6:57: What planet do you live on? By all means, you should mount a campaign against Attorney General Roy Cooper. I think the ludicrous reasons you list for opposing Cooper, if he decides to run against Senator Burr, should generate support from about 88 whiners(87 counting yourself). Mikey Nifong will play his guitar at the "rally" accompanied by "banging pots".

This has to be a joke. If it isn't, its author certainly is.

bill anderson said...

One of the reasons I stay involved in this case is the fact that Nifong's supporters are going to lie and lie some more in order to get people in the future to think that Cooper actually covered up a rape. There always needs to be a voice telling the truth, since a lot of people in Durham seem incapable of doing that.

The charges were transparently false, and Nifong and his supporters knew that all along. Al McSurely and William Barber refused to meet with Kirk Osborn, who wanted to show them the case file in order to demonstrate Reade's innocence. However, since Barber and McSurely are not people of integrity, they decided that pushing the Big Lie would better benefit them.

One Spook said...

Despite the relatively long amount of time to the 2010 Senate election, and my previous assertion that other issues than the Duke lacrosse case will ultimately be more important in that race, Cooper's tactic in highlighting his role in the Duke case is quite wise and effective.

Think about it.

This is a statewide race, not simply Durham County where the "True Believers" hold more sway with voters. As such, Cooper's position on the Duke case will appeal to a wide variety of both Republican and Independent (or "undecided") statewide voters who are far more likely to agree with Cooper's very heroic and appropriate actions.

This is precisely why (along with "Obama star quality") Cooper gained more votes than any other statewide candidate last November.

Cooper knows that he will get the Democrat voters anyway ... it's highly unlikely that hard core NC Democrats, including blacks, will vote for any Republican candidate, regardless of Cooper's actions in the Duke case or any editorials in the laughable Wilmington Journal, or regardless of how many "True Believers" and Kool-Aide drinkers there are in Durham County.

Although the numbers are available I'm too busy to go search them, but I'd guess that Cooper carried Durham County last fall and whatever County the Wilmington Journal covers, as well.

I'd also assert that, similarly, not one of the Group of 88 voted for Cooper's Republican opponent last fall ... remember, to radicals like these, party power politics are everything and just because Cooper took the actions he did would not cause those looney bin professors to vote for a Republican.

Put another way, if he lived in Durham, KC Johnson, who according to an interview, "has never voted for a Republican in his life" would have voted for precisely the same candidates as did the Group of 88, and as did others who comment here and strongly support the position of the Blog owner.

And there's nothing wrong with that, but we mustn't forget that politics make for strange bedfellows, folks. Our problem here is not who folks vote for but rather, that some people have no regard for due process, a presumption of innocence, and a dispassionate examination of facts on important issues. Those are American values and not the exclusive domain of any political party.

Cooper's very visible message about his actions in the Duke case is meant to appeal to Republican and independent voters, period.

That said, I believe by 2010, Cooper's position on the Duke case will have little, if any, impact on the decision of NC voters at that time.

One Spook

One Spook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

This post is an unnecessary partisan attack unworthy of you, KC, or of this blog.

One of the scariest things about the Democrat Party* is that people like KC are the smart members. For example, KC cites this Washington Monthly's clown's report to support his characterization of Sen. Burr's "bizarre" comments.

Contra KC, Burr's comments made perfect sense: As a senator, he was in a position to know that there might be a temporary disruption of normal banking operations during the "meltdown" last Fall. Worried that his wife might could have difficulty for a few days paying bills with checks or bank cards, he told her to accumulate several hundred dollars in cash as a precaution. Somehow KC and other Democrats have interpreted Burr's advising his wife -- on the cusp of a banking crisis -- to gather several hundred dollars in cash as "encouraging a run on the bank" and have even used words like "economic treason!"

In the article that KC saw fit to support his views, the author -- Steve Benen, a clown's name is worth remembering -- in the throes of delusions of rabid partisanship, actually makes two diametrically opposite claims about the effects of Burr's comments. First he claims,

"Burr's comments don't make any sense. Since the advent of FDIC, Burr's family money was safe, right where it was."Then he claims the opposite, that Burr's family money was not safe:

"Burr's effort to whip people into a panic could lead to runs and bank failures."So which is it? Were the senator's words (1) "silly because the money in banks is safe" or (2) "dangerous because the money in banks is not safe"?

(There is a reason why the term 'cognitive dissonance' was invented for Democrats, in order to explain how they can believe, as gospel, that both of two diametrically opposing things are true.)

The answer is "Neither, because contrary to everything the Democrats would have you believe, Sen. Burr wasn't telling his wife to take every dime out of the bank but instead only to have enough cash on hand to weather a 'bank holiday' or other interruption of normal bank services for a few days."

As far as KC's obsession with North Carolina's two Republican U.S. senators who did not speak out against the Lacrosse Hoax (which was a state, not a federal action), I would remind him that there are more than 1,000 members of his own profession at Duke who were far closer to the events and issues and who said no more than did the senators KC excoriates. Maybe we should start naming those "silent ones" as well?


*I was a Democrat until I was 19, when I figured out that I could not be a thinking person and a Democrat at the same time. I have never been a Republican (they have their own cognitive dissonance problems, though I have found them more amenable to appeals to reason) and am a registered "Independent".

P.S. Hat tip to fellow Texan "Ken in Dallas" for pointing out that New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer actually did cause a run on a bank. Not that you read anything about it from the MSM or other organs of "elite" opinion.

Anonymous said...

In this case, who was the AG's office representing?

Was it the people or was it the DA? If it was the DA, was the AG's office obligated to represent her?

And if the DA did something that appears to be unethical, would it be unethical as well to argue its effect was not sufficient for the court to grant some relief to the defense?

One Spook said...

KC writes:

"By the way, the ethically challenged new Durham DA, Tracey Cline, was on the witness stand yesterday--showing that she's following in the footsteps of her ethically challenged former boss."But, speaking of "Up and Down," on a closer examination of the linked ”N & O report”, we find that Cooper’s office supported Tracey Cline’s position as well, to wit:

“The state Attorney General's Office sent over two prosecutors to Durham to argue against dismissal of the murder case.

Jim Coman, a special prosecutor who investigated the Duke lacrosse case after former District Attorney Mike Nifong relinquished his oversight of it, argued that although the statement was sealed the gist of the information was provided to the defense.”
Although I'm no fan of Cline, I'm not convinced this is an example of her "following in the footsteps of her ethically challenged former boss." and it's obvious that Cooper's AG Office apparently did not believe so either.

One Spook

Debrah said...

TO (3:31 PM)--


That presumptuous and longwinded comment should have been deleted.

I don't think many people give an enormous EFF what you're convinced of.

You know nothing about ANYTHING except what KC has researched and written and what the rest of us experience from living in the Triangle.

I'm sure all those shifty verbal gymnastics make you feel "grown up" again, but you are still the strange---(and literally very ugly man)---person who asked me, a total stranger, for a favor once and I was kind enough to get KC to sign a book for you.

I find you to be mentally unstable.

When a stupid piece of shIt tries to demean any woman he has never met and does not know---(I know many of the Gang of 88 better than I know you and have met many of those creeps!)----simply because she grew tired of getting emails from a stranger---especially one particular email that stated you would "like my legs around your head"---(whatever porn flick that must have come from....?????) must understand how much discipline it took not to tell everyone inside Wonderland what a mentally unstable loon you are.

So tread lightly on all the other fora.

I won't just "move on" the way KC does.

Debrah said...

Off topic--kind of, but here's the official UNC-CH reply concerning the incident on their campus:

Dear Carolina alumni and friends,

Many of you have heard or read about a protest on campus Monday night, and I'm writing to share with you the message I sent yesterday to our campus community. I think you will find that the message speaks for itself. But if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.


Holden Thorp, Chancellor


Message from the Chancellor: Free Speech at Carolina (April 15, 2009)

Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:

I want to express how disappointed I am in what happened last night when former Congressman Tom Tancredo wasn't able to speak when a protest got out of hand, and our Department of Public Safety had to take action. Congressman Tancredo felt threatened and left without making his remarks.

Mr. Tancredo was scheduled to speak about immigration. We expect protests about controversial subjects at Carolina. That's part of our culture. But we also pride ourselves on being a place where all points of view can be expressed and heard. There's a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that's often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say. That didn't happen last night.

On behalf of our University community, I called Mr. Tancredo today to apologize for how he was treated. In addition, our Department of Public Safety is investigating this incident. They will pursue criminal charges if any are warranted. Our Division of Student Affairs is also investigating student involvement in the protest. If that investigation determines sufficient evidence, participating students could face Honor Court proceedings.

Carolina's tradition of free speech is a fundamental part of what has made this place special for more than 200 years. Let's recommit ourselves to that ideal.


Holden Thorp

jamil hussein said...

Shutting down Tancredo event was a disgrace and nothing short of expelling the students who were responsible would fix that.

As Indoctrinate U shows, these are the new brownshorts. Instead of burning books, they shut down people who have different opinions. They are dangerous lunatics and they are now in charge. I'm afraid that Cooper, if elected would vote strictly party-line and enable these actions.

Debrah said...

Many people love the word "nuance".

It conjures up a deep and layered atmosphere of intellectualism.

Well, there's a mountain of nuance in the way Roy Cooper handled the Lacrosse Hoax.

I don't like to use the word "hero" very often simply because people use it so promiscuously these days.

A kid shows up for classes every day and he's a hero!

And on and on.....

But Roy Cooper was, in this case, a hero.

He could have dismissed the charges because there was absolutely no evidence of a rape, and be done with it.

But he went one very dramatic step further and proclaimed them completely innocent.

That was the heroic part.

He left no doubt in the minds of the public---save those who've taken up residence inside a padded room---that there was no crime.

Contrary to previous comments on this thread, doing that really could have cost him politically.

He left the enablers from the Far Left, the Gang of 88 and their ilk, the Duke community, and almost all of Durham with nowhere to go.

Everything they helped concoct and sustain had been negated with that one word.

So Roy Cooper's performance really was heroic in this instance.

There was no way to know if the number of LIberals who decided against supporting him as a result would outweigh the number of Independents and Republicans---or anyone for whom due process is a good thing!---who showed up to support him.

And the same is true for any of Cooper's future political ambitions.

You can diss KC all you want about anything you wish, but my memory of the last 3 years is too clear.

The way he showed up every day with unbelievable dramatic coverage and analysis of this horrific case still electrifies.

Who could ever give a damn about his politics?

halides1 said...


I agree that the January 2007 editorial (unsigned?) in the Wilmington Journal seemed to have threatened Mr. Cooper, and this was discussed in UPI. However, Cash Michaels' September 2007 review of UPI (entitled "Until Proven Incorrect...") flatly stated that KC and Stuart were wrong to infer such a threat and quoted a sentence from the editorial which seemed to (emphasis on seemed) support him. However, the Wilmington Journal endorsed Cooper's opponent in October of 2008 and cited his handling of the lacrosse case. At the risk of being accused of shameless self-promotion, I dealt with this in my first post ever:

Best regards,


Debrah said...

"One of the scariest things about the Democrat Party* is that people like KC are the smart members."An even scarier reality is that people like you, Spooky, and all the many regular commenters who are conservatives have bathed inside the atmosphere of Wonderland for a long time now.

Wonder why the myriad conservative blogs could never quite measure up to Wonderland's 100,000 visitors a week during the peak of the Hoax and its current 15,000 visitors a week......and a following that will endure?

Must be something lacking in the "smart" department on all those other blogs.

Anonymous said...

I read the questionnaire and thought it was strange that the questions preceding the Senate trial ballot were favorability ratings for the two Democrats but a job approval rating for Burr. As prior questions can bias a trial ballot question, I would think ratings questions should be comparable for all candidates tested (if possible).

At the same time, the demographics section showed that the sample closely matched known registered voter parameters for the State of NC. They either pulled a very good sample or weighed the data to match known parameters.

PPP is a Democratic pollster and I wonder about their choice of the first few questions but, if I were Burr, I would think I have lots of work to do. I expect "nonpartisan" polls offered by the N&O or Observer would show similar results.

Aside from that, the election will have little to do with the lacrosse case. It will hinge on the state of the economy and perceptions of the administration. If Obama is riding high, he will pull Cooper in (like the did for Bev Perdue). If Obama is in the toilet, NC will revert to being an R state in federal elections.

I don't think this Senate race can be viewed through the prism of Duke lacrosse. But, if Cooper gets elected, and it pisses off lots of Hoax Moonies, fine by me.

Gary Packwood said...

Re: The News Observer Article

...State law governing the protective orders does not address what should be done in cases when the witness's statement includes information that would help the defense, Hudson said.

"That's a problem," Hudson said.
The Justice Project Report that KC provided several days ago has this quote that speaks to the issue I belief of protective orders, State Law and Justice. District Attorney Tracey Cline is just gaming the system as we saw Nifong do over and over.
“Your job as assistant U.S. attorneys is not to convict people. Your job is not to win cases. Your job is to do justice…Anybody who asks you to do something other than that is to be ignored.”

Eric Holder, United States Attorney General

Anonymous said...

I disagree that with RRH's comment that the following constitues cognitive dissonance:

"Burr's comments don't make any sense. Since the advent of FDIC, Burr's family money was safe, right where it was."Then he claims the opposite, that Burr's family money was not safe:

"Burr's effort to whip people into a panic could lead to runs and bank failures."So which is it? Were the senator's words (1) "silly because the money in banks is safe" or (2) "dangerous because the money in banks is not safe"?

What if EVERYONE who had an account at that bank had run down to the ATM and withdrawn the maximum amount that weekend? When all the machines gave out of money, the press would have done stories on it, and by Monday there would have been people lined up at the bank asking for ALL of their money, and the bank would have failed.

Even though the customer's money would have been safe up to the FDIC limit (true fact number 1), the failure of the bank would have been a separate harm, costing the FDIC and harming confidence in the banking system (equally true, and not inconsistent, fact number 2)


Re: The following from the letter from Holden Thorp (posted by Debra):

"Carolina's tradition of free speech is a fundamental part of what has made this place special for more than 200 years. Let's recommit ourselves to that ideal."

Those who are not familiar with North Carolina history may not have heard of the controversial "speaker's ban" that was in effect in NC back in the fifties or thereabouts. The law was that Communists could speak at a public university. I am aware of this mainly because my own college (Wake Forest), likes to remind people of Wake's commitment to free speech in that when the head of the Communist party was prohibited from speaking at Carolina, Wake had him speak there instead.

I guess some people still want the speaker's ban, but instead of silencing radicals, they want to silence reactionaries.

Ken Duke

Debrah said...

There are countless reasons why the Duke Lacrosse Hoax will endure.

The fundamental ones, of course, have been presented here in Wonderland; however, since the Hoax had so many facets---(political, social, cultural, academic, race/class/gender, judiciary)---the topic of the Hoax surfaces in many situations.

I like to do my part with a six degrees of Kevin Bacon version and that, somehow, you can always relate it, or an element of it, to other topics and situations.

This has often driven some people crazy. And there are many---even those who believe in due process!---who simply hate being reminded of the outrageousness of it and the people involved.

For example, months ago when the N&O was doing reports on the John Edwards meltdown I mentioned how he sat back and did nothing to promote justice during the Hoax which happened just miles from his home.

A commenter became irritable and critical saying that there was no relationship with the Hoax.

Then I brought up an article which said that Elizabeth Edwards' father had been an All-American in lacrosse at the U.S. Naval Academy.


In a recent column, Barry Saunders wrote about Alan Keys.

Saunders thinks he's (Keys) crazy....and who knows?

Keys is intelligent and is an eloquent speaker, but he is way off to the right so far that he's touching Cindy Sheehan.

I then had to mention that Keys isn't half as loony as Duke's Gang of 88 and how they express themselves as well as their wild and loony ideas.

Why does Keys' radicalism make him crazy, but the radicalism of someone like Karla Holloway or Eduardo Bonilla-Silva makes them "scholars"?

Another Hoax element brought to the conversation!

And this happens all the time.

Sometimes by accident and sometimes because every facet of the nightmare can be used to show the hypocrisy of someone or some thing......and it's a natural six degrees of.........and it drives the enablers crazy!

Anonymous said...

"Championing socialist candidates is foolish. Your eloquent speaker with the portable teleprompter has quite visibly turned out to be an empty suit.


In judging Presidents, isn't 3 months basically a Rush to Judgment? And when you try to use the "socialist" as an ad hominem, I have to laugh. Tell that to GWB or his empty baseball cap. When people cannot stand to have one Democrat praised for doing their duty, that tells me there might be too much political bias. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

I think I recognize the lies and lunacy in the post at 6:57 looks like the reharmonizer in disguise..

becket03 said...

2010 will not be a good year to run as a Democrat in the south. Buyer's remorse has already become quite pronounced regarding Obama, especially in the south, as reflected in falling poll numbers, and that trend will continue and intensify throughout 2009 and 2010.

Burr hasn't hurt himself badly enough to lose the incumbent advantage. He's been around NC politics a long time, and voters are very likely to give him a second term in the Senate.


Debrah said...

Another conference?

Do such people ever live life without feeding off tales of long past?

Do such people ever produce anything?

Their entire lives seem to consist of detailing every aspect of the past which, without a doubt, has been enhanced and embellished as much as possible to serve their own well-worn narratives.

Perhaps Timothy Tyson has taken a short break and Darity is filling in.

William Darity Jr.: Erasing and race-ing our memories

: Guest Columnist
The Herald-Sun
Apr 14, 2009

Charles Brantley Aycock is revered as North Carolina's "education governor," the great advocate and architect of public provision of schooling at all levels. His legacy has been cemented by his untimely collapse and death from a heart attack in April 1912 while speaking before the Alabama Education Association. A statue of Aycock stands in the U.S. Capitol, and the Democratic Party's annual Vance-Aycock dinner commemorates him.

But there is another image of Aycock that is far less salutary. On November 10, 1898, the white citizens of Goldsboro were among those receiving telegrams requesting that they come to Wilmington to support the white riot. White rioters were determined to overthrow the duly elected municipal government in Wilmington.

Aycock later wrote, "In less than half an hour there were five hundred men at the depot with guns on their shoulders waiting for the train and I was one of them." He was one of those ready to go to contribute to the massacre of black Wilmingtonians and the destruction of their property.

Before they boarded the train, however, another telegram came informing them that whites were in control of the city and the Goldsboro volunteers would not be needed.

Aycock's willingness to join the armed mob in Wilmington is reflective of his deep commitment to the premises of white supremacy. He was, after all, the leader of the state's Democratic Party at the point where it had chosen a campaign of terror to end Fusion politics and come to power. His close ally in the Party, Furnifold Simmons, had said on the eve of the state elections, a mere seven days before the Wilmington riot, "North Carolina is a WHITE MAN'S state, and WHITE MEN will rule it..."

Aycock's own speech at the Negro State Fair in 1901, while he was governor, integrated equal doses of paternalism and white superiority, and Aycock was instrumental in the development and enactment of the "grandfather clause" which effectively disenfranchised black North Carolinians. Most ironic, it was the Reconstruction legislature, heavily influenced by the desires and vision of the ex-slaves, that had first given the state universal free public schooling for all -- the same legislature that Aycock excoriated as "Negro rule to ruin" on the campaign stump.

Which memory of Aycock prevails and why? What are the consequences of how we remember him in the context of the state's and nation's racial remembrance? Do we even need to carry the memory of a white supremacy campaign at the end of the 19th century into a seemingly transracial 21st century? Should he be memorialized as a heroic supporter of public education at all?

These are the types of questions that will be explored during a week of activities during a conference to be held this week at Duke University, "Monuments and Memory: Race and History". The conference will examine critically collective racial memories in the United States, the Caribbean and West Africa. These memories chart our shared history, our common historical record. The shared history of race shapes our perspectives and the types of social policies we favor or dislike, ranging from our attitudes toward welfare programs to affirmative action to parental choice initiatives for schooling to wealth redistribution measures.

Collective memory is embedded in our social spaces -- names of roads, buildings, parks, colleges and universities. Those social spaces sometimes are openly politically contested. The contestation ultimately is a conflict over which memories dominate the stage, what we officially recall and what we officially forget. That conflict will be a central theme of the conference.

The conference will start with hip-hop novelist Sofia Quintero's reading at Duke's Mary Lou Williams Center today at 7:30 p.m. Quintero's reading will include excerpts from her novel "Picture Me Rollin'," which is a meditation on remembrance of the urban political struggles of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

On Thursday, the conference will open in the morning at the Terry Sanford Institute with a keynote address by African diaspora scholar Ronald Bailey, followed by panel sessions on memories of the slave trade and slavery in West Africa and in the Caribbean, as well as memories of the Jim Crow era and memories of the racial narratives of America's colleges and universities. Thursday will close with a 7:30 p.m. showing of the Charles Burnett film "Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property" followed by a discussion led by historian Peter Wood.

Finally, on Friday, the day will begin with a keynote address by philosopher/historian Karen Fields, followed by panel sessions on memories of slavery and the plantation, of the color line and the Civil Rights movement as well as "recent" memories of Hurricane Katrina and eugenic sterilization in North Carolina. The conference will close Friday at 7:30 p.m. with a reading by novelist John Edgar Wideman from his most recent books, "Fanon" and "Martinique," where he explores the memory of Frantz Fanon, a major thinker of the anti-colonial movement. American Studies scholar Jay Garcia, from UNC Chapel Hill, will moderate the question-and answer-period with Wideman.

The conference is sponsored by the Research Network on Racial and Ethnic Economic Inequality, the Sanford Institute of Public Policy, the Arts and Sciences Council, the Department of African and African American Studies, and the Mary Lou Williams Center at Duke, the Institute of Arts and Humanities at UNC Chapel Hill, and North Carolina Central University. It is free and open to the public.

William Darity Jr. is Arts and Sciences Professor of Public Policy Studies, African and African American Studies, and Economics at Duke University

bobo1949 said...

The Benen article was published April 15, 2009. The speech was made, apparently, on Monday April 13, 2009. The bank crises happened in the 4th quarter of 2008 and the 1st quarter of 2009. Burr's public comments were made long after Senator Schumer started a bank run on Citibank with his ill considered remarks about nationalizing that bank.

In addition, we don't know how many times Senator Burr made these comments. This lack causes me to question the validity of the statement "Burr's efforts to whip people into a panic...".

Benen's article fails to mention to whom these comments were made. If he made these statements to a North Carolina Rotary Club meeting I would expect a somewhat different reaction from the participants than if the remarks were made at an American Banker's Association meeting. Without context it is difficult to judge what reaction the statements were intended to generate.

Finally, do not forget Jesse Helms. Although excoriated by the national news media, Senator Helms served in office for 30 years. Harvey Ganntt, a prominent liberal mainstream Democrat was soundly defeated twice by Helms during the 1990's. North Carolinians have a tendency to do that which they believe benefits them; not necessarily what national commentators suggest. As evidenced by the continued electorial success of John P. Murtha from Pennsylvania, this trait is not limited to North Carolina alone.

Anonymous said...

I still don't understand why KC wants to inject his Durham in Wonderland blog having to do with the LAX hoax/frame into NC politics. It is just plain wrong. I do agree with Bill Anderson that we still need to support what Cooper's findings were but his findings were not any different than any common person here knew to be true. It was that he, Cooper, alone had the authority to proclaim innocence. I am wondering if Cooper just dismissed the case whether KC would be keeping the board updated about silly polls, especially polls with no announced candidates. Ib et he would. I am proud to say that the people of North Carolina are less concerned about Cooper's response to the LaX case than KC is. Electing a Senator is actually more important than one issue. If KC is so disappointed with elected officials that did not support the Lacrosse guys then why did KC not endorse Lawson the republican over Price the silent democratic representative. Even though KC has been accurate and fair in his promoting fairness in the LAX case his politics are not as enlightening. Although he did criticize Price for not responding to the LAX case he supported the Price victory. KC opinion is quite the opposite with Burr. Maybe KC needs to start a North Carolina In Wonderland blog to support his political inconsistencies.

Anonymous said...

Debrah wrote:
"An even scarier reality is that people like you, Spooky, and all the many regular commentators who are conservatives 'bathed' inside the atmosphere of Wonderland for a long time now.
Wonder why the myriad conservative blogs could never quite measure up to the Wonderland's 100,000 visitors a week during the peak of the Hoax and its current 15,000 visitors a week....and a following that will endure?
Must be something lacking in the 'smart' department on all those other blogs."

I was more than a little disappointed in your comment, Debrah. The Hoax was never a Republican-Democrat issue(though I might point out that it was a Democrat, Nifong, who was at the center of the case and that one can assue that many, if not all, of the Gang of 88 would rather cut off their right arm and sacrifice their first born then cast a vote for a Republican). Rather, it was an issue of the blatant disregard of three young men's rights by the legal authorities and the civil authorities which, but for the dogged work of the defendants' attorneys, the firm resoluteness of the parents' of the young men who would spend their last farthing to see their sons' vindicated,and the persistent efforts of many bloggers who would not stand by silently that their innocence was declared.
To state that conservative commentators to this site "bathed" (what, may I ask did liberals do?) only divides those who were and continue to be concerned about the underlying issues in this case. It has never been nor should it be an issue of where one stands politically. Whether KC or anyone else who contributes to this forum is a Democrat or a Republican is really of little interest. While the political fallout of the case (the Cooper candidacy is a case in point) may very well be of interest to some (those residing in NC would primarily be concerned), I daresay that there are many who contribute to this blog (myself included) who are from different states and therefore have much less at stake (from a local standpoint) as to whom the denizens of NC elect.

Anonymous said...

Oops. In my post at 11:08, I should have said "The law was that Communists could NOT speak at a public university."

Sorry about that.

Ken Duke

Debrah said...

TO "cks"---

I agree with most of your sentiments and have great respect for you as a commenter.

You have always been positive and thoughtful, and have brought authenticity to the Wonderland commentariate.

However, there are a few who are trigger-ready to bring partisan politics into the fray.

Even as KC has taken great pains to report on the Hoax for years and has, almost to a fault, avoided partisanship.

If KC chooses to do a few posts with his point of view on political matters, what is the big deal?

Everyone knows that the NC Democrat Left is responsible for creating and sustaining Mangum's lies; however, the Republican politicians, except for Walter Jones, were silent as well.

Since the Repubs will never receive strong support from the black community anyway, IMO, some of them should have come out strongly in the media about what was going on in Durham.

I am the last person who will ever make excuses for the Far Left; however, on occasion a few regular commenters on the other side behave the same way for their own personal reasons.

I apologize if you felt I would ever include someone such as you in my comments.

By "bathed", I mean to say that everyone---including the regulars who are conservative---had the benefit of this blog and were allowed their say on most anything.

Everyone has enjoyed Wonderland.

Yet they cannot allow KC to veer off the course they see as being the right course without insults.

I suppose lately I have been disappointed to have found such back-biting people among us.

bill anderson said...

There is something here that should be discussed, and that is the fact that when Cooper was doing his review of the LAX case, a lot of people believed that he would damage his election chances in North Carolina if he strayed from what seemed to be the Democratic/Liberal line that "something happened," and that race and class should be at the forefront, not the actual facts of the case. During and after the affair, we find that the people who acted properly in this case and spoke out against the injustice did better than those who were silent.

For example, Walter Jones did not lose, and David Price, who was a moral coward, had more competition than one might think he would have had in a district that overwhelmingly supported Obama. Despite the state's number one "black" newspaper coming out against Cooper because he did not pursue the Big Lie to trial, Cooper won a landslide victory.

On the other hand, Neither Burr nor Liddy Dole spoke out at all and took the David Price way out. Dole now is a former senator and Burr trails Cooper. I believe that the old saw that standing up for justice here was a political loser has been discredited, and from what I can tell, that is the main message K.C. is sending.

As I have said before, this has not been a partisan blog. I really don't care about K.C.'s political affiliations; I do care about his integrity, and I think he has shown a lot during this case, and he has demanded a lot from people he believes should have been setting good examples, i.e. members of the Duke faculty.

unbekannte said...

Anonymous from 6:57 AM is probably kilgo who regularly posts on the justice4nifonggangof3 blog that he is the individual most knowledgeable about the cgm case. He regularly asserts that Professor Johnson is withholding information about the case. When challenged what he knows about the case, his response is nifongish - he accuses whoever challenges him with misdeeds which he does not prove, unleashes a stream of invective, and declares them guilty.

It is so painfully obvious kilgo knows absolutely nothing. I have called silly chicken killy because he has shown himself lacking the courage to back up his allegations

Anonymous said...


I would agree that there do seem to be some back-biters among those who publish on this site - I suppose, though disappointing it may be - that it is not to be unexpected as politics is one of those topics that tend to rile people to the point that they can easily forget their manners (it can happen to the best of us).
I have always held the belief that the "owner" (for lack of a better term) of a website is free to post whatever political views that he or she chooses and though as a contributor, I may be of an opposite persuasion, I should be respectful of that right.
Thank you for your kind comments. I have found (and continue to find) many of the contributors to this site to be thought-provoking in their postings. The free exchange of ideas that KC encourages at DIW shows that discourse can be witty, thought-provoking, (at times discouraging), and at many times uplifting. The hearty give and take that occurs challenges one to think through one's thoughts but also to be open to viewing subjects through the lens of others - a worthwhile endeavor if one is really intent upon understanding why it is the Duke Hoax continues to resonate with so many.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I disagree that with RRH's comment that the following constitues cognitive dissonance....

What if EVERYONE who had an account at that bank had run down to the ATM and withdrawn the maximum amount that weekend? When all the machines gave out of money, the press would have done stories on it, and by Monday there would have been people lined up at the bank asking for ALL of their money, and the bank would have failed.
Good point. But it would be a much better point if Burr had called a press conference (as Schumer did) rather than just his wife.


Anonymous said...

If love is the delusion that one woman differs from another (H L Mencken), then, possibly, politics is the delusion that one politician differs from another.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for your input. My point about KC being "at the top of the intellectual food chain" of the Democrat Party was meant to highlight the fact that even he followed the MSM herd when it came to misconstruing a Republican's remarks to his wife.

Btw #1, while I'm socially conservative -- I'm faithful to my wife, I teach my kids right from wrong, and all that old-fashioned stuff -- politically I'm much more libertarian.

Btw #2, Roy Cooper was not a hero for his actions in the Lacrosse Hoax. I watched his press conference and as I said at the time, he did the minimum required of a lawyer reporting the conclusions of a case investigation. In order to be a "hero", Cooper would have had to -- at a minimum -- instigated criminal charges against Precious. And he could have gone much further than that: For instance, he could've recommended that the N.C. legislature hold hearings into the Hoax with a view towards evaluating the state's funding of Duke programs. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Best regards,

No justice, no peace said...

Mystery donors give over $45M to 9 universitiesUniversity of Colorado (CO. Springs), Univ. of Southern Mississippi, Univ. of Iowa, Univ. of Maryland, Penn St. Harrisburg,...

...getting warmer...

Univ. of N. Carolina Asheville,..

warmer still...

Univ. of N. Carolina at Greensboro...

wait, Duke was not included...

Oh I get it...

"..I think somebody is out there, or potentially a group of people, that has a great respect for the value of a college education and the power that it brings,"

Maybe the value of a Duke degree isn't worth as much as it once was...

No justice, no peace said...

Inre: cks "..that it is not to be unexpected as politics is one of those topics that tend to rile people to the point that they can easily forget their manners (it can happen to the best of us)."

KC has saved me from myself by not posting comments from me more than once. In some instances I am disappointed, in others, quite grateful.

Unfortunately the hoax is rooted in the race/gender/class warfare politics which do not bode well for any of us if they remain in each of the aforementioned institutions.

We must reject outright, regardless of political affiliation, the fraudulent claims that are introduced based upon race/gender/class warfare.

This is ALL about ALL levels.

Inre: Helms vs. Gantt...oddly it seemed I was the only one who ever admitted voting for Helms, yet he won easily. Odder still, I was and remain an independent. While living in NC that always led to some interesting conversations.

Debrah said...


I agree with part of your point #2 and have always regretted that Mangum was not charged.

There's not a doubt in my mind that if she had been a white woman, the NC NAACP--McSurely and Barber---would have demanded it.

Cooper resides inside the same twisted culture we all do.

One man cannot upend a culture of double standards whose creation has taken over 40 years---a society where black citizens are allowed to live by different rules---even as most "activists" would have us believe the opposite is true.

You have to pick your battles.

Like most people, Cooper has a family. I assume he does not want to become a vagabond for justice.

The rabid race hustlers would destroy the career of anyone who would have brought charges against the criminal Mangum.

This kind of situation makes me wish I had been attracted to the law profession as a kid instead of the artistic side of life.

This is a mission ripe for anyone who wants to see true equality instead of listening to recitations of dead mantras.

But more important, it will always take someone who has no dependents and who only has him/herself to worry about.

To fight this battle of such ingrained inequality will take at least another generation.

Cooper did all he could possibly do, and then some, given the social, political, and cultural climate in the Triangle.

Stu Daddy said...

The correct spelling of the name of Reagan era Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State is... Alan Keyes.

Debrah said...

An excellent post, Chris.

gak said...

Anonymous said... 4/16/09 6:57 AM

Cooper acted in a totally unprofessional manner throughout the investigation. From his little photo-op to his choice of witnesses to interview to a declaration of innocent that he had no authority to make and to a one-sided "summary" of the sham investigation that he has never made the details public, he took this investigation as a chance to advance his political aspirations. He now uses this case as his one shining moment.
He has hired some of the worst former prosecutors possible and gave them an opportunity to whitewash their sullied history by coming down hard on Mr. Nifong. He shopped the country for a Federal AG that would be willing to help in his hopes for further punishment of Nifong, and he shamelessly used CGM's unreleased medical history to cast vague aspersions of mental problems on her testimony. He made fun of her statements all the while professing that he felt so sorry for her that he would not charge her with making a false accusation out of the goodness of his heart.
Cooper is no hero.
I'm speechless

Debrah said...

Interesting update

Debrah said...

As a related sidebar, ex-governor Mike Easley, the man who appointed Mike Nifong Durham District Attorney and who is an NCCU law school alumnus who was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter until it became clear that Obama had wiped the floor with her, and his family, appear to have some real legal problems.

Debrah said...

Thank you, "Stu Daddy".

I always count on you for not only valuable information and corrections!..... but for your enormous heart and humanity.


Anonymous said...

I agree with part of your point #2 and have always regretted that Mangum was not charged.I wonder whether a jury would have convicted her even if the case had no racial aspects. Cooper's report said that when she was questioned she kept contradicting herself and almost seemed not to know what was true and what wasn't.

Juries sometimes refuse to convict obviously guilty people who appear mentally incompetent.

I wonder why her earlier conviction for trying to run down a police officer did not result in a long prison sentence. Any attacks on the police are usually severely punished.

Anonymous said...

You did not allow my following comment to your essay, "Nifong-Stevens - Follow-Up" Did I say something outside the bounds of your "lightest of touches" policy?

The Justice Project Article states, "Failure to comply with legal, ethical, and constitutional obligations constitutes prosecutorial misconduct".

It further lists the following behaviors as misconducts.
1. Suppressed exculpatory evidence;
2. Knowingly presented false testimony;
3. Coerced witnesses;
4. Fabricated evidence;
5. Making false statements to the jury;
6. The use of unreliable in-custody informant testimony;
7. Courtroom misconduct;
8. Mishandling of physical evidence;
9. Threatening or badgering witnesses;
10. Using false or misleading evidence;
11. Improper behavior during grand jury proceedings.

The Nifong behaviors you enumerate meet both the definition of misconduct and are contained in the above list. In the context of the Justice Project Article, I can believe there are dozens of cases where these misconducts have occurred.

Therefor I join chemistry professor "halkides1" in asking which one element of the perodic table or the above list you're referring to?

I would also have expected you to mention the names of the "Other Case Prosecutors": Brenda Morris, William Welch, Joseph Bottini, James Goeke, Nicholas Marsh, and Edward Sullivan. If they are found guilty of misconduct that would be a conspiracy, which is worse than the solo actions of Nifong.

North of Detroit

bill anderson said...

Regarding Crystal, why worry about the misdemeanor charge? For a year, Crystal lived courtesy of a state-funded "victims' fund" that I will guarantee also has federal dollars supplementing it. Taking money under such conditions is fraud, and since Nifong and the Durham police played a role in her receiving the money, more people could be charged as well.

The only reason that such charges were not pursued was because of the fear of stirring up racial politics. Furthermore, I cannot think of Crystal being a sympathetic defendant. She basically is a grifter, and I suspect that part of her would come out if she were in the dock.

Furthermore, either the feds or the state or both could have charged Nifong in the fraud, and he definitely would not have been a sympathetic defendant. So, the excuse that there were no grounds for pursuing felonies in this case is just that, an excuse.

bill anderson said...

I had a conversation with a prominent Duke faculty member the other day, and he told me that in his conversations with Karla Holloway, she continued to insist that RCD were "guilty." However, her reasoning was that "guilt is a social construct," which meant that because of their race and economic status, that alone made them guilty.

When I say guilty, I don't mean in a figurative sense, but in the sense of the law. She believed that they should have been tried, convicted, and imprisoned solely because of their race and economic and social backgrounds. Those inferred guilt upon them.

Keep in mind that Karla Holloway is a faculty member at the Duke law school. Here is someone who teaches law, but believes that the law is simply a club by which people seize power and do whatever they want.

This is the same mentality that was used by the various totalitarian governments of the 20th Century that committed murder on an incomprehensible scale. To them, right was power, period.

This person was not exaggerating, and he is an accomplished academic and not given to loose talk. And I would guarantee you that Holloway is not the only Duke faculty member who thinks like this.

Imagine facing a jury with people like Karla Holloway, Houston Baker, Paula McClain, Sally Deutsch, Larry Moneta, Richard Brodhead, and John Burness. Talk about a kangaroo court.

One Spook said...

To the 6.07 PM:

It took me a while to figure out the genesis of your latest rant.

It seems that some commenter(s) on a post at The Chronicle took you to task and you believe, as in your previous delusional manner, that I made those comments.

Your present comments follow your previous false accusations that I made disparaging comments toward you on you own blog. After I tried to explain to you that I did not make those comments and told you how you could use your Sitemeter to identify commenters, you refused to listen and it was then that I stopped e-mailing with you, by my own choice.

And yes, you were kind enough to get a signed copy of UPI for me, and I thanked you and paid you as well.

I'm going to tell you this again for the last time. Pay attention.

I have never made a single comment on your blog or any other blog under any name except "One Spook" with the exception of a Blog where I occasionally comment that requires the commenter's real name. You have no proof that I did do this because no proof exists because it never happened.

I do not think you've learned a single lesson from the false accusations of Mangum.

As I read the Chronicle comments, most amusing were comments by "Duke Psychiatrist" wherein this person made a reference to me that no one who comments on this Blog or anyone at the Chronicle knows, except you.


Sadly, I enjoy some of your comments and the local articles you post here, and I praised you for attending and reporting on the recent conference at Duke. But those good comments and efforts are overshadowed by your obsessive comments about the very craven Timothy Tyson, and your laughable, sophomoric, "KC Dahling" comments.

I agree with Steve Horwitz who used to comment here, when he observed that KC must certainly be embarrassed by your juvenile comments about him, and I and others have wondered why he approves such tripe, but then again, I'm sure KC is used to older women who develop a "crush on the Professor," so he simply ignores them.

Let me assure you that neither I or anyone else is "jealous" of KC Johnson as you have often charged. I think we all respect KC and the work he has done on this lacrosse case, but we also feel free to respectfully disagree with him on occasion and our praise for him is sincere and not characterized by puerile adoration as is yours.

You have frequently made comments here attacking other commenters with ad hominem attacks, including those you made to KC's colleague Ralph Luker. I've had my differences of opinion with Dr. Luker also, but I would never make demeaning comments about his physical appearance as you have done. That is at once disrespectful and demeaning.

You have also found it necessary to make disgusting comments about the physical appearance of others involved in this case including the new City Manager of Durham, Rev. Barber, and of course, your favorite obsession, Tyson, among others.

Many of your comments detract from the good general quality of discourse here, and when anyone criticizes this blog, your name alone is frequently mentioned.

And you commented on a statement I made in a private e-mail to you. Unfortunately, you misquoted and took out of context what I said. And, you failed to mention that your reply included your usual "LIS" "LOL" and "GIS" tics you often use here. In many subsequent e-mails to me, you never once mentioned that my comment offended you. We all know you are no shrinking violet and had you truly been offended you would have said so and I would have immediately apologized.

But now, over a year and a half later, you resurrect a private comment, feigning "offense" and hoping to cast aspersions on me. Forgive me if I'm not convinced when such false victim status is assumed by a woman who posts 40 year old full frontal photos of her own nude breasts on her blog.

Finally, and this will be the last comment I will ever make to you. You recently replied to my observation that Crystal Mangum deserves our compassion. You wrote one word, "bullsh!t."

You however, deserve both our compassion and our pity.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Moo Gregory:

"In judging Presidents, isn't 3 months basically a Rush to Judgment?"

Normally I would agree with you. The problem becomes one of degree. How many trillions do we go into the hole before someone says "Stop"! I am quite serious about that question. The damage will be permanent.

BTW, I just came back from southern California where it is heresy to speak ill of the One. I ran into the same comeback (why not give him a chance). Not one person defended his record.



qa said...

Re Bill Anderson’s 4/17/09 9/26 PM comments...

and a member of her race/gender minority, when condemning others solely because they are not a member of her race/gender minority, cannot herself be guilty of racism, by her doublethink definition of guilt-is-a-social-construct.

Anonymous said...

To Halides1:

You can self-promote all you want (he says generously on another blogger's blog)! That was an excellent article dealing with the disingenuousness of Cash Michaels. I had grown weary of taking the time necessary to point out things like: (1) How Cash Michaels would write something sarcastically one day, and then (2) cite to it as if it wasn't snark the next. Thanks, a good read.


To Jamil Hussein:

I agree that the actions of the mob to block Tancredo's speech were silly and counter-productive. Shouting over someone only proves that you are louder than him, which is an arrow in your quiver, I guess, if you are a certain type of rock band or a toddler.

I also appreciate that you have been the first poster -- that I'm aware of -- who has given a concrete argument for not voting for Cooper, to wit:

"I'm afraid that Cooper, if elected would vote strictly party-line and enable these actions."

I disagree with that argument, but I can live with it. If you ever get a chance to visit dailykos, I suggest it, if only to see that what you call a "party line" is like an old-timey telephone party line with everyone on the phone at once with different requests and solutions. I do agree that he would probably vote "left" of his opponent, and that is a valid reason for some not to vote for him.


For those of you interested in a money-making opportunity in an expanding market, I am franchising my new company: "L.A.W. Wigs, Inc.," which puts you first in line to gobble up a lucrative territory. The business model is simple: The hottest commodity in America today is Gossip, and the best way to tap into it is to offer the consumer a way for them to identify with their heroes of gossip. My first advertisement is here:

Get started with your own franchise today!! Operators are standing by!!!


Far be it from me to try to read Professor Johnson's mind (this is one of the clauses that gives the author license to read the other person's mind), but as a political historian, he might find it interesting and a little novel to, on occasion, pen a positive article, and it doesn't hurt to positively reinforce our elected officials when when they show a backbone. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Here is an article giving another side of the Cooper-Burr debate:
Is Cooper the man for the job simply because he made the obvious decision on the Duke Lacrosse case? A lot people feel Cooper is as corrupt as Nifong if not more so.

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson's illuminating comments about Karla Holloway's mindset is what is so frightening about the ramifications of the Duke Hoax - or should I say the ongoing Duke Hoax. One can be certain that any law student who would challenge her views would find himself (herself) on the short end of the grading stick. Unfortunately, it is "professors" like Ms. Holloway who will perpetuate the removal of Lady's Justice's blinders.

No justice, no peace said...

What's the difference between Texas and N. Carolina ...a not so subtle least one person in Texas has balls and is willing to shut down fascists who desire to undermine the 1st amendment.

<Campus Leftists Don't Believe in Free Speech"...Fortunately, a spokesperson for the administration was present to threaten the disrupters with arrest if they continued on this course..."

At UNC the Administration reactively writes apology letters and at Duke they proactively subvert the constitution by abetting pot bangers and posting wanted posters.

Anonymous said...

I see that Durham DA Tracey Cline has thrown out 19,000 unserved warrants. That is certainly one way to clear a backlog dating back 30 years or so. I guess that is as good of an innocent declaration as Roy's was.

Anonymous said...

Why does the Duke University Board of Trustees allow the continued employment as a professor(in Duke's law school, no less) who openly believes that middle-class caucasians are guilty by birth?

This is nauseating.

I'll be sure to bring this up the next time I am called by a member of Duke's Alumni Association begging me to contribute to Duke.

The last three times I have been called, the callers say that they are hearing more anger and dismay at the "gall" of Steel and Brodhead from those they are assigned to call. In the past, I have felt good about my contributions, but since the gross mismanagement of the LAX case and the unhealthy environment created by Stanley Fish, and perpetuated by current "leaders", I cannot , and will not, contribute. The last caller had not heard of the massive amount Duke has spent, so far, to defend itself.

Can't wait for the next Alumni call so that I can tell them of the distinguished professor Holloway's philosophy.


KC Johnson said...

Please keep comments on the topic of the post; or on Bill Anderson's important comment.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 10:36 AM, in reference to Karla Holloway, writes:

"Why does the Duke University Board of Trustees allow the continued employment as a professor(in Duke's law school, no less) who openly believes that middle-class caucasians are guilty by birth?"There is a precedent for Holloway's appointment at Duke. During Stanley Fish's "reign" at Duke, he secured a joint appointment in the law school there, as noted ”here”:

"For his part, Fish, who has generally been content to let others write about him, was dividing his time between the English department and Duke Law School, where he had secured a joint appointment in spite of his lack of a law degree and his frequently stated position that legal interpretation and literary criticism had nothing in common."Having so appointed Fish, it would be tough to turn down the "hip" Holloway for an appointment that was equally as irrelevant as that granted to Milton scholar Fish.

Had Duke refused, she probably would have sued them for discrimination.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

One Spook:

I suppose that the Fish and Holloway appointments are part of an ongoing (thus the hiring of others in the humanities who are members of the Gang of 88)position that Duke has undertaken to "right the wrongs" of its founders who used money earned by the sweat of slaves to establish and fund the university. I look for Duke to follow Brown's lead in elimintaing COlumbus Day and perhaps take the lead and get rid of the designation of Washington's birthday since he too was a slave holder.
What does puzzle me is the inability of Holloway and others to see that prejudice is not a one-way street. Racial profiling, whether it is black, white, yellow, or any other shade is still racial profiling. I wish I were younger,wealthy, and with time on my hands. If so, I would relish the opportunity to confront Holloway in class and then to make a federal case out of any comment or action on her part that might even have a whiff of prejudice in it. Until someone has the courage and wherewithal (because it would take a lot of time and money to pursue such a case)to do so, I am afraid that Holloway and others like her will hold sway in the institutions of higher learning of this country.

bill anderson said...

When I last read Karla Holloway's "Bodies of Evidence," I had thought that perhaps her "white innocence means black guilt" was an overstatement that she was using as an example of how the case been been politicized. Little did I realize that what she meant was what she wrote.

The problem with Holloway's legal thought is that it has nothing to do with law; it is nothing more than a declaration that power is the key to determining guilt and innocence. The actual facts of the case are useless, given that, according to Holloway, everything is a "social construct," anyway.

So, if we are to follow her logic, despite the fact that Reade, Collin and David never touched Crystal or were in the bathroom with her, nonetheless they were guilty of rape. This was her point to the professor with whom I spoke.

What bothers me is that she teaches legal ethics in the Duke law school. Here is someone who championed a prosecutor whose ethics were non-existent, and someone who believes that there really is no need for a trial, since "social constructs" determine everything, anyway.

Now, I never have sat in any of her classes, so I cannot attest to their content. All I have are her writings to date and snippets of conversation that others give to me. Nonetheless, what I have read and heard is chilling, for it really is no different than the thinking of the old Maoist political officers who were in charge of the slaughter of millions of people, killed simply because the regime had no use for them.

No society, or at least no free or even relatively free society can exist under the kinds of rules Karla Holloway wants. No doubt, she also believes that freedom is a "social construct," and maybe she even believes that the people who went to their deaths under Stalin and Mao actually were free people who simply were dying for the greater good.

I don't know; what I do know, however, is that she tried to use her influence to have three young men imprisoned for something they did not do, and she tried to destroy a number of families in the process. I really don't have to know anything else about her, as that is enough for me to know that she is someone that I never would even let near my own children.

One Spook said...

To cks and Bill Anderson:

Both of you have made excellent comments.

In my view, what I believe many critics of this blog fail to recognize is that the danger of a university having an overt group pedagogical emphasis on matters of race, gender, and sex is, as Emory professor Mark Bauerlein has argued, “when like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs.”This "extreme version" has never been more apparent than in the facts of the Duke lacrosse hoax that Bill Anderson relates above.

I have not seen anyone here argue that there is no place in the academy for the study of race, gender, or sex.

It was certainly appropriate for William Chafe's original scholarship to illuminate the very disturbing and dangerous behavior of individuals in the Emmet Till case. But when that case is deemed to "inform" the behavior of the lacrosse players in the Duke rape hoax, that is extreme and dangerous behavior and totally false use of scholarship.

When one sees a group of professors rush to judgment and accuse a group of their own students of a crime that never happened, one is seeing the fruit of a very dangerous, skewed, overt, and warped pedagogy at a university.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Sorry KC, I have to disagree with you about Senator Burr. I am from North Carolina (born & bred) and I like him. He is smart, keeps his mouth shut, does his homework and is not a posturing jackass/blowhard like 90 percent of his colleagues in the Senate. He was an outstanding member of the House and will probably be one of the more effective members of the Senate by the end of his first term.
Cooper is a good man but the though of him voting with left wingers like Schumer (NY), Leahy (Vt), Durbin (Il)etc. to organize the Senate scares me. Those guys are too much like the pot bangers and the Duke faculty. Cooper won't get my vote

Anonymous said...

I happen to know a college professor, who is a doctrinaire liberal Democrat. "I'm a party man," he says. When I told him about the Group of 88 and their petition, he said that he would not have signed it.

This professor's attitude is that we shouldn't worry about people like Karla Holloway. He tells me not to take it seriously. I warn him that Holloway's kind of thinking is on the way to being policy. The professor insists that the government is in the hands of "smart people," and we don't have to worry about so-called politicial correctness which he thinks is only a joke.


Anonymous said...


Your college professor friend is deluding himself. Holloway and her ilk have had a profound impact. Look at history textbooks sometime that are used at the elementary and secondary level. They are examples of pc run amok. Students in literature classes have little if any familiarity with the canons of literature - even in my school, which is fairly conservative, students have little if any knowledge of Dickens, Austen, Wordsworth, Eliot, etc. They read Sharon Draper, Doris Lessing, Maya Angelou instead - they are taught that these are the important authors. While I am all for reading across the spectrum, the fact that 'dead white males" and to a great extent their female counterparts have been cast to the dustbin. Why - in large part because they do not celebrate the victimhood that is so much a part and parcel of modern teaching.

One Spook said...

I was in the process of making a comment in reply to DN @ 7:23 regarding his professor-friend who had said "... we shouldn't worry about people like Karla Holloway. He tells me not to take it seriously."My argument was going to be that I disagree with his friend because some of these professors who hold extreme and dangerous views are rising to positions of power in academia and in government.

Then I read this excellent example in the news, ”U.S. Appears Set To Boycott U.N. Session on Racism”In deciding to boycott this session, the Obama administration has made a brilliant and important move in refusing to accept an extreme view of racism, entirely consistent with the extreme views of the miscreants in the Duke case; the Group of 88; and the NC NAACP.

And, who has immediately come forward to criticize Obama for this decision?

None other than "America's Race Baiting Czar" Jesse Jackson who you will recall agreed to pay for the college education of the false accuser in the Duke hoax, Mangum.

This is an excellent example of precisely why reasonable people need to be concerned with such extreme views. The actions of these very dangerous ideologues are well beyond the "we don't have to worry" phase.

I applaud the Obama administration for this decision.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

My son attends a prestigious American university. He was born in the Middle East and attended boarding school in the UK from the age of 12.He has lived through wars, invasions, terrorism,murder by Al Quaida of people he knew in his childhood and lived with an Oxford Arabist(his father) and thus been exposed to history at an early age.
This semester he was required to take a writing course from a 29 year old Ph.D fom Cal Berk.whose field of study was American Outlaw Literature. The secound day they were given assignments to read Foucault.After that condemnations of Guantanano were on the menu.This was followed by a tirade against Orientalists (such as his father). The Prof entertained no differing opinions to his own and didn't care a whit about anyone who disagreed-even if that youth has tremendous first hand experience of the Middle East and even spoke Arabic.As his mother , I suggested that he drop the course because it was too emotionally pounding for him, which he did.In my opinion, Holloway , this young professor etc hold a completely romantic view of the world which allows them to be heroes without any real risk at all and to damage innocent people for sheer pleasure.
I thought they weren't to discuss the case under the terms of the agreement Duke made with the boys.

Debrah said...

Staying on topic......(LOL!!! LIS!!!)

Few who are familiar with the Lacrosse Hoax would argue with most of the previous comments; however, there has been almost nothing new provided.

The same rehashing and rehashing.

The state of the academy is not only the result of uncritical and defective loyalty to Gang of 88 methods from their colleagues who know better.....

......but from the mere repetition of the same dark issues from so many who apparently believe that the state of the academy is ineradicable.

Or it is just easier to kibitz from afar, changing the placement of words on occasion, to update the message?

Sagacity is not required. Just some action.

Similar to modern politicians' invocation of Lincoln---an opportunistic and saprophytic device---there seems to be a belief that repeating the same complaints will produce a result.

Frankly, it was disappointing that almost no one else showed up at the Duke conference last month who would have challenged the agenda.

It was unbelievable that a number of people from the Triangle area did not make the time for that event.

Imagine the effect if only 20 or 25 others had joined me.

We all have detractors.

Some of us are better at detracting than others.

I'm proud to say that my methods will not be changed.

The Diva agenda will continue to provide a verbal abattoir for anyone who provides comfort for the architects of the Hoax.

There is great art in the ability to provoke.

I think Salvador Dali expressed the Diva sentiments best when he said:

"There are some days when I think I'm going to die from an overdose of satisfaction."

No justice, no peace said...

"Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their decision and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act of theirs is to be subject to the intelligent scrutiny of their fellow men, and to their candid criticism." ~ William Howard Taft - N. CarolinaThe site is of interest as are the sister sites, Ballotpedia and Sunshinepedia.

Durham-in-Wonderland should be a linked blog, don't you think?

No jusrtice, no peace said...

North Carolina Blog w/i Judgepedia:

North Carolin Blogs

No justice, no peace said...

Sunshine Review - Durham, North CarolinaNow this is interesting...sunshine, transparency, Durham, NC.

What a great, and much overdue, idea for a wiki.

No justice, no peace said...

No real surprise here...

North Carolina Transparency Report CardA 2008 study, BGA - Alper Integrity Index, conducted by the Better Government Association and sponsored by Alper Services, ranked North Carolina #23 in the nation with an overall percentage of 52.40%. [2]

A 2007 study, Graded state responsiveness to FOI requests, conducted by BGA and the NFOIC, gave North Carolina 34 points out of a possible 100, a letter grade of "F", and a ranking of 40 out of the 50 states.[3]

A 2002 study, Freedom of Information in the USA, conducted by IRE and BGA, ranked North Carolina's law as the 43rd worst in the country, giving it a letter grade of "D-".[4]

No justice, no peace said...

Wait?!?!? This organization, the Pope Center, is located in NC?

Where are my nitro-glycerin tablets? I...see...a small, tiny light...

Opening Up the Classroom - Greater Transparency Through Better, More Accessible Course InformationThis report, “Opening Up the Classroom: Greater Transparency through Better, More Accessible Course Information," by Jay Schalin, proposes a way to improve the transparency and accountability of colleges and universities. It recommends that faculty be required to post their course syllabi—the descriptions that go beyond the sketchy catalog summaries—on the Internet, with access open to the public... the very least each syllabus should offer a detailed class description and a full list of reading selections.

This report...discusses two posting systems, at Duke University, that go a long way to informing students and the public of what really goes on in the classroom.

(What really goes on in the classroom at Duke? That's rich, How can they make that claim when we have yet to discover what really goes on within Duke, or the Endowment?)

An excerpt -
"Truth in Advertising, Academy-Style

Another reason for mandatory syllabus posting is to
help students and the public know what a faculty member
actually intends to teach. The concept of academic
freedom gives professors considerable leeway in choosing
the specific subject matter of a course. Deviations from
the original design, or even the current description, of a
course are commonplace. Often, it is a harmless matter
of minor preferences—one teacher assigns Hemingway,
another Steinbeck.

Yet academic freedom has a dark side. Sometimes the
deviation from the course description goes far beyond
acceptable boundaries. Professors use their classrooms
as their personal soapboxes, instead of teaching an
academic subject; in some disciplines it is hard to get
a degree without heavy exposure to radical indoctrination.

Other professors use their positions to introduce
material that is shocking, immoral, and offensive to extremes—
in recent years, professors at major U.S. universities
have offered defenses of racial genocide,1 Islamic
Jihad,2 and bestiality.3"

(No mention is made of the costs to take these fraudulently presented classes)

Anonymous said...

Debrah, you wrote:

"The state of the academy is not only the result of uncritical and defective loyalty to Gang of 88 methods from their colleagues who know better....but from the mere repition of the same dark issues from so many who apparently believe that the state of the academy is ineradicable.....Sagacity is not required. Just some action."

There are those of us out here who, work tirelessly, in this regard. It is not easy work - bucking the entrenched system - and when one has financial responsibility for others, the bucking of the system has to be done with some care. I lost a job early in my teaching career because I did not buy into the victimhood belief that was the culture of that school system. It did not matter that within my class I had turned around the absenteeism rate and the behavior problems that my predecessor had been unable to deal with. I have since found that one has to pick and choose which battles to fight and to make sure that you can count on your forces not to desert you when the going gets tough. It would not surprise me at all to find that many of those who post here are in fact engaged in their own small skirmishes in the wars of political correctness and injustice.

Anon 6:46 (April 19th)
Though my four college students have not had the experience that your son encountered - it is not because such teachers in their colleges did not exist. Aware of the problems within the academy, we encouraged them to look closely at other classes taught by professors before signing up for their classes and asking fellow students about the freedom within the classroom to express a view that diverged from that of the professor. Luckily, the schools that they have attended, though mandating "race/sexual/class" courses, allowed enough leeway that they were able to skirt the most egregious of those for whom free and open discussion is not tolerated. Your advice to your son would have been the same that I would have given to my own children had they found themselves in such a situation. While I counsel students generally to stick things out - sometimes there comes a point at which to do so is counter productive and in fact harmful. Such was most definitely the situation in which your son found himself. I would probably have had some words with the Academic Dean, though not until the conclusion of my child's time at the university - while some might see that as the coward's way out, at least I would have felt that I had done something.

Debrah said...

It will be interesting to see if the administration at UNC-CH mimics Duke and allows the fringe to run the campus.

Will they really follow through and make changes?

H-S letters:

Call for civility

As advocates of both free speech and immigrants' rights, we were dismayed to see that a student demonstration against former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who was invited to speak at UNC, got so out of hand Tuesday night that Mr. Tancredo's speech was ended just minutes after it began.

First, let us say that we applaud the majority of students who turned out to engage in peaceful protest in support of basic fairness for undocumented students who are working to become citizens and productive members of our community.

However, the efforts by some to prevent Tancredo from even being heard are incredibly disturbing and are indicative of a lack of civility that has become all too pervasive not only on college campuses but also on talk radio, on cable news programs and across society as a whole.

Our democracy was founded on the ability of individuals to engage in civil discourse with one another. The First Amendment stands for the proposition that everyone is entitled to voice their opinion.

Rather than attempting to stifle an opponent's viewpoint, we urge all Americans to remember the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas."

JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, and KATY PARKER, Legal Director
American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina
April 18, 2009
Total hypocrisy

We, as longtime residents of Chapel Hill, certainly felt a tremendous sense of pride last week for the victory of our university winning the national basketball championship.

As proud as we felt last week, we feel embarrassed and disappointed this week that a very small segment of the student population and even faculty members were allowed to rule over who can speak out on the campus.

As citizens of this great country, we respect the right of all to voice their opinions, but in a respectful and orderly way.

What happened on the campus this past Tuesday night when former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo was literally forced out of the building by a raucous crowd just after he began his remarks was nothing short of total hypocrisy of those who only want their views heard.

After the completion of all the investigations presently underway, we anticipate that UNC will take swift and decisive action against the perpetrators as well as immediate dismissal of any faculty members who openly participated and encouraged this shameful behavior.

We trust that UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp will continue to uphold the high standards and reputation of this esteemed university.

Chapel Hill
April 18, 2009
Protesters wrong to disrupt speech

The protesters who forcefully disrupted Tuesday's Youth for Western Civilization meeting did a disservice to the very aims they were claiming to advance.

Make no mistake: Youth for Western Civilization takes xenophobia, wraps it up in a nice new package, and asks us to think it is something different. And it's not.

But Tuesday, no one got to know that, because some of the protesters prevented any of us from listening to, or engaging with, Tancredo. Free speech rights are indivisible; if we weaken free speech rights for one group, we weaken free speech rights for us all.

When destructive ideas are presented, we have to allow them to be voiced. We're also allowed to call them out for being wrong, but we must do so peacefully.

And many did, by silently protesting in Bingham Hall, or dancing loudly with UNC Young Democrats and others at the Dance Party for Diversity in the Pit.

Diversity and multiculturalism aren't toxic to our civilization; indeed, they are the very foundation of its strength. They lead to creativity, innovation and progress for us all. Youth for Western Civilization is easy to discredit on its merits.

But in forcefully silencing Tancredo, the protesters only discredited themselves.

Chapel Hill
April 18, 2009
Co-president, UNC Chapel Hill Young Democrats

bill anderson said...

When one teaches college students, as I have done for more than 20 years, one must remember that a teacher is not a dictator. The students are not there to receive propaganda from me, and any attempt to do so is utterly disrespectful to them and to the university which employs me.

The 6:46 poster once again reminds us that all too often, the classroom in the "prestigious" university is little more than a place where professors abuse students. No professor has that right, period, and when a university stands by and permits professors to abuse their students -- as Duke University did to the lacrosse players -- then the university leadership is making a very plain statement: Our students mean nothing to us but the money they bring in.

When one of the most honored professors literally declares certain students guilty of a horrible crime like rape, simply because of their race and social status, then it really is time to re-evaluate Duke University and the things for which it stands. We are not speaking of "opinions" in which one can engage in discussion.

Indeed, Holloway really was declaring that there could be no discussion about the false charges because the charges could not be false. Why? Because they were brought by an African-American woman, and as Tawana Brawley was telling the truth, so was Crystal Mangum.

When one would point out the facts of the case, Holloway would reply that "facts are a social construct," so one is free to believe what one believes. However, she went one step farther and declared that while all beliefs supposedly are equal, some beliefs are more equal than others.

Thus, she really believed -- and openly declared -- that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans should have gone to prison, even if they did not even touch Mangum at all or even were near her.

That Duke University would make this person one of its most honored professors and to continue to heap honors upon her is nothing less than a declaration of war against everything for which decent society stands. When one can be sent to prison for what one is rather than for what one does, then all is lost.

Remember how the Pol Pot regime would single out anyone with an education or who even wore glasses for torture and execution. That is what Holloway stands for, and I do not exaggerate. If three young men, in her view, should have been sent to prison simply because of their race and social background, then how does that differ from what the Khmer Rouge did three decades ago? It differs only in scope: Holloway did not endorse their being executed, only imprisoned.

With much of Duke's faculty, students are nothing more than a social abstraction. They are not living, breathing human beings. They exist solely to be subject to political harangues by professors, and if they object, then they are enemies of the people.

I would hope that I see all of my students first as people, and then as students in a classroom. It is incomprehensible to me how professors can reject hard facts in favor of innocence and demand their own students go to prison simply because of the color of their skin, and the zip codes in which they live.

I cannot make sense at all out of such thinking. I can understand it in an abstract way, but to think that one of Duke's most honored professors actually tries to live her life in that way and tries to impress such views upon her students reminds me of how fortunate I was that my oldest daughter decided not to try to attend Duke. I have two children who, racially and academically, would be supposedly the kinds of students Duke would want to promote "diversity."

Well, Duke will have to do its promotions without them. The university already has made a statement that its students are abstract social constructs, not human beings, and that would include my children.

No justice, no peace said...

Inre: CKS at 11:34 a.m. and ANON (4/19) 6:44 The most direct approach is to vote with your wallet after reviewing the course work, reading material and attending the first few lectures.

Drop the class within the drop date. More likely than not you will be able to tell if you are getting you monies worth just by reviewing the reading list and syllabus.

This is not just an academic issue. It is a financial one as well in four significant ways. There are the direct costs of the class, the costs of the books, the cost in time wasted on something useless (opportunity cost) and then the cost associated with not getting the desired job due to a weak academic resume. One must actively review what your children are enrolling in and provide immediate counsel.

My wife and I have absolute veto power since we are paying for their education. Another good option is Pick-a-Prof.

Pick-a-ProfPick-a-Prof isn't an end-all but does provide some student peer-review and background that the Universities do not provide. We have successfully used it to weed out professors.

After reading many of the course descriptions in the Duke AAAS, women’s studies and other humanities classes it is shocking to see the lack of transparency. They intentionally are misrepresenting or being silent about what will be "taught".

Were they selling just about anything else they would violate Truth-in-Advertising laws. The lack of transparency is both immoral and dangerous.

Debrah said...

TO "cks"--

I realize that you have been engaged in such endeavors in an up-close and personal fashion, and you are to be commended for the work you've done.

I can't even imagine what it's like inside the teaching profession today. When I was a child I thought of being one.

The really dedicated teachers leave an indelibly positive influence on a child forever.

There are a considerable number of LAX-related bloggers and their commentariate who live in the Triangle area. I had those in mind when I thought about this issue.

We all remember the numerous trips that KC made from New York to be on hand for case-related matters.

Your own courageous battles will most certainly make their mark in moving the mountain.

(By the way, for the last week I have noticed something odd on Blogger fora.

When you paste a quote from someone and italicize it in order to respond, it publishes without a space and a line between the referenced quote and the comment you want to leave.

As you can see, your quotation of my words did not produce the flaw because you didn't paste it and just typed it out.....or because you didn't italicize the words.

The flaw can also be seen above when I paasted the letters from the H-S.

There is no space between them.

In the "preview" it looks correct, but when it publishes, the words are jammed together.

It also happened to a comment I left on Chris's blog last week.

Wonder if this is another Blogger glitch?)

Curious, that.

Debrah said...

Bill (2:24 PM)---

I believe that Holloway's responses to the Lacrosse Hoax are from her own personal experiences and personal needs.

I believe that totally.

A Duke Dad said...

Bill Anderson said, "Thus, she [Karla Holloway] really believed -- and openly declared -- that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans should have gone to prison, even if they did not even touch Mangum at all or even were near her." ... "Holloway would reply that 'facts are a social construct'."

Well, if we can pick and choose what are facts ... then why not simply imprison Holloway for the "Duke Incident".

As the Queen of Hearts said to Alice, "The words mean exactly what I choose them to mean."

As with the trolls we've seen here, facts which do not fit the metanarrative are simply ignored.

bill anderson said...

I know that Karla Holloway and her husband had a tragic situation with their adopted son, and from what I have been told, they did everything they could for him. I cannot even imagine the hurt they experienced, and I would not want to do anything that could open up those wounds.

Yet, destroying the lives of David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty and their families was not the answer, either. If that is what Karla Holloway was wanting -- the destruction of the lives of other people in order to compensate for what happened to her and her family -- nonetheless while one can be sympathetic to the hurt of another person, one cannot fathom what an evil thing that would be.

All of us have had family tragedies, and all of us carry wounds and hurts. The answer is not found in extending human wreckage.

One of the good things for me in this whole saga was getting to know some of the players and their families, people that I would not have met had I not decided to become involved in this case. I am sorry that so many faculty members and administrators at Duke University decided that some of the people who were paying huge bucks to send their sons to Duke, and many who were Duke alums themselves, were not living, breathing, human beings.

I have to ask what has happened to higher education that this kind of thing can happen. So far, I have not had this kind of experience where I work, and for that I am grateful.

The other day, I received a nasty email from someone making fun of my teaching at Frostburg State, yet I will tell all of you that I am grateful to be where I am. If you had known my own life story, you would know that I am very happy to be here, and would not be anywhere else.

It is true that FSU is not Duke, academically speaking. My best journal publications would only rank as being in a second-tier field journal for tenure purposes at Duke, and, in fact, Duke never would consider me to be a tenure-track faculty member. I'm just not "high-powered" enough, but my answer is that there also is a place for me in this business, and I am where I should be.

Unfortunately, my choice to become involved in this case has led others (on Syndey Harr's evil blog) to call me a racist and even worse. That is fine with me. If Mike Nifong's supporters wish to continue the Big Lies, I am quite glad to be included in them.

So, the bottom line is that while I am not a high-powered academic, nonetheless there has been a place for people like me, too. Furthermore, from what I have seen at Duke, I think that the people there can learn from the Frostburg States and other "inferior" institutions where faculty members do seem to have their feet on the ground.

Anonymous said...

One does not have to be a "high powered academic" (whatever that really means) to be an effective teacher. From what I have read of Dr. Anderson, he is exactly the type of teacher one would want one's offspring to have. A good teacher views each of his students as individuals who seek to expand their knowledge and understanding of the world. That requires the teacher to have an open mind - not to impose one's world view on one's students. Holloway and her like-minded colleagues are intent upon forcing their views on others by using the podium and grades as their weapon. Students are forced to parrot their views (here would be an interesting question - if someone is a vocal opponent {should such a person be even allowed to express a contrary view in her class} what sort of grade would that person receive?) in order to achieve credit for the course.
Holloway and her like-minded colleagues are quickly turning academic institutions into proto fascist institutions. Look at the reception accorded Tom Tancredo at UNC-CH or the hostility that David Horowitz has encountered. Whether one agrees with their views or not, they should be able to express those views so that there can then be public discussion. Colleges should be an example of places where discourse can occur - the free exchange of ideas and yet, that is increasingly not happening. While there are some on the right that are just as rude, I would have to say that there is a tendency of those on the left (particularly those who like to wield the gender/race/class cudgel) to desire a silence of any views but their own. It is frightening to consider what the long term result of this mindset will be.

Debrah said...

TO "cks"---

None other than liberal Juan Williams agrees with your assessment of the rabidity scale between liberal and conservative detractors.

He's been called every demeaning and bigoted name in the book by the liberal fringe, including "Uncle Tom", simply because he employs reality when analyzing the political stage.

halides1 said...


Thank you; I imagine that you have spoken for a number of us today.

On the question of Rep. Tancredo at Chapel Hill, I can offer two salutary links. One is from Professor Geoffrey Stone at the University of Chicago on the neo-Nazis march in Skokie, IL some thirty odd years ago, and the other is to a speech that Archibald Cox gave to Harvard students who were demonstrating in 1971.