Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Nifong Delay

Mike Nifong's long-awaited response to the Bar has been delayed due to illness of one of his attorneys. He has received an extension until Wednesday.

It would appear he has two alternatives:
(1) accuse others for unethical behavior, chiefly Brian Meehan and/or Linwood Wilson, and claim that he was an innocent victim of their misconduct;
(2) suggest that he was overwhelmed by the publicity/notoriety of the case and that whatever misconduct he might have committed, he should be allowed to retain his law license because of his record of service.

I suspect we'll see option (1).


Anonymous said...

I suspect we'll see both.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

Now is anyone surprised that preparing a defense for Nifong has made one of his attorneys ill?

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised it hasn't made ALL of them ill.

Anonymous said...

Or suicidal.

Gary Packwood said...

I suspect neither as he is a bitter man who does not like these kids from Duke.

I'm banking that he will say that new charges needs to go before a grand jury and the evidence, which can't be discussed now, will explain everything.

If the new prosecutor doesn't wish to present new changes to the grand jury, so be it.

The Duke kids get a pass and so does Nifong.

Anonymous said... there any indication from Meehan or Wilson as to whether or not they are being kept apprised of Nifong's intentions? Really, do you think Nifong's said to them, "I'm going to throw you under the bus" or "I'm going to fall on the sword I just made"? In any case, do you think that Meehan and Wilson are aware of what Nifong's strategy might be before the bar?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, option (1). There's an old saying: no honor among thieves....

Anonymous said...

Isn't it great to have two defense lawyers. They can alternate getting sick...

Michael said...

Has Nifong used Meehan before? I have a feeling that Meehan has more on Nifong than the other way around.

This case gets stranger by the week.

Anonymous said...

We can be sure of one thing: Nifong will lie. As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "Character is fate," and all of us understand the character -- or the lack, thereof -- of Michael B. Nifong.

Anonymous said...

My guess, actually, is that Nifong will pursue strategy (3) all the way: denial, denial, and more denial.

He can deny that it occurred to him that the DNA evidence could be even "potentially exculpatory".

He could deny that he believed at the time that his public comments would be prejudicial, or even controversial.

He could state that at this time he continues to believe a crime occurred exactly as it was described by the AV.

It seems like this may give him a reasonable amount of cover, because for charges of prosecutorial malfeasance, it is necessary to establish that he acted with malice and prejudice, not just with naivete.

Anonymous said...


You forget about the letter the defense lawyers sent Nifong and the bar when he began making these statements, and continued after the letter, warning him about the public statements. Nifong can not claim he did not know or got carried away. He received written warnings.

As for the DNA he has 27 years in the various parts of the DA office.
He knows the defense was entitled to that evidence. DA do not get to judge what is exculpatory. The law says the defense gets all the tests results. No and ifs or buts.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson Interview in Chicago Sport Review

Nice interview

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the tip. It's a terrific read -- intelligent questions, thoughtful answers ... well, down to the Natalie Gulbis link, at least ... I'm sure the rest was good too.


Anonymous said...

I don't think option (1) works. A lawyer and district attorney is beguiled by the misconduct of two non-lawyers? Nifong is the guy that's supposed to know right from wrong regarding (mis)conduct in the judicial process. Claiming ignorance such matters makes him unfit for the job he holds. Adam and Eve blamed the serpent, but they were still banished.

Anonymous said...

How can LieFong expect that taking tack (1) will do away with his endless public assertions regarding the (alledged) crime and the lax plays as the perps? And how owuld the soon-to-be-ex DA rationalize his agreement with Meehan based on the notoriety of the case with tack (2).

He'd toast. Put a fork in him, he's done.

I suspect we will see these two along with the kitchen sink, CGM made him do it, and a vision came to him in his sleep, all thrown in for good measure

Anonymous said...

The NC Bar's complaint was very specific and Nifong will need to respond point by point. He will deny everything. He may not be convincing, but a flimsy excuse is better than failing to address any of the points raised by the bar.

Anonymous said...

If Nifong's lawyers are any good at all, which I suspect they are, Nifong's defense will be super-technical. "I did not violate Canon x because Canon x requires evidence of knowledge of a; I assert that I had no knowledge of a, and there is no credible evidence I did have such knowledge." Now I doubt that is going to work for everything, but it may allow him to dodge a whole bunch of bullets. It is a good mitigation defense. What else does he have?


Anonymous said...


I don't think that Nifong has a legal leg to stand on no matter what he does, and it will be a great day when he is held accountable for his crimes.

I just think that it will be in keeping with his personality to continue to play the victim, which he cannot do if he blames others (1), or if he pleas for the mercy of the court in light of past service (2), which would not at be at all be effective unless he recants his actions publicly.

The only people still supporting him are nuts, but would be a huge strategic mistake to anger those people still by his side. And, they are the type of people to hold a betrayal against him in a big way.

Yep, not a lot of good options, and I would not like to be in Mikey's shoes right now.

Anonymous said...

>>> Kate BARTLETT 2/21/2007 11:21 AM >>>

To The Duke Law School Community:

The purpose of this letter is to address a recent incident of concern arising out of a law firm recruitment visit to Duke. A Duke student reported that a partner from Fulbright & Jaworski who was meeting students on campus told a story in which "the n word" was attributed to one of the characters in the story. Understandably, the use of the word offended the student.

Upon learning about this episode, pursuant to the Law School's Anti-discrimination Policy,, the Career Center staff immediately asked the student if they could approach the employer to investigate the incident. The student agreed, and Tia Barnes called the recruiting manager to say that this was a serious situation that needed to be promptly addressed.

The hiring partner called back within minutes, clearly upset at the behavior of his partner. Shortly thereafter he reported back that he raised the issue to the highest levels of the firm, that the firm was taking internal measures dealing with the individual involved, and that the offending lawyer will not be permitted to return to Duke to meet with students.

The offending lawyer admitted his use of the word in question and reportedly recognizes that it was wrong to do so. The firm also sent an official apology to the student through us, as the student wished to remain anonymous.

As part of its remediation efforts, a partner at the law firm has asked to come to Duke to meet with students to describe the incident, to apologize to the community publicly, and to explain the measures that the firm has taken. Bruce Elvin has arranged for this meeting to take place tomorrow, February 22, at 4:30, in Room 3041.

This situation is ongoing, but to help the community better understand what has occurred thus far in the face of stories circulating on the grapevine, we asked for the student's permission to describe what happened and to write this letter, and the student agreed. As is understandably often the case, the student still wishes to remain anonymous, and we have done our best to respect that wish, particularly given the importance of ensuring that our follow-up to incidents of this sort encourages students in the future to come forward to report such incidents, and does not discourage them from doing so.

This incident creates an opportunity to restate that the law school does not tolerate offensive or discriminatory conduct behavior by employers, whether occurring during interviews, mock interviews or summer employment. Pursuant to our policy, complaints of such behavior are investigated and we evaluate the response by employers to determine if their remedial action in response to the behavior is adequate. If you experience such behavior, please let us know either in person or by using the complaint form referenced above.

I appreciate the strong feelings this incident has raised and seek to work with the community as an ongoing matter to facilitate communication about how to make our climate here free from discrimination in the career services context and in all other dimensions of our Law School.

Katharine T. Bartlett
Dean and A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law Duke University School of Law

Anonymous said...

Gary - Whar evidence can't be discussed?

Anonymous said...

He will admit only that which he absolutely, positively cannot deny because of documentary evidence that has his finger prints all over it, and claim victimhood for those items and as well as all of the rest [poor, poor, pitiful, misunderstood, misquoted, victimized me - I was only trying to protect this poor, disadvantaged victim of the vilest of crimes, etc.]. If he makes any substantive admissions [ie. those which could lead to his disbarment and/or which cast real doubt on the remaining charges]I will be shocked. The Group of 88 and the potbangers will seize on his defenses, and a new round of revisionist history will ensue. Too much is at stake, both for Nifong personally and for the perverse idealogues that view the false accusations as validating their views on sex, gender, class and capitalism, generally. I'll gladly eat [virtually, of course]my words if I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

Too bad Dean Bartlett did not get as exercised over the gross mistreatment of three Duke lacrosse players. Obviously words are far more important to her than egregious actions.

Anonymous said...

Did the number in the gang of 88/89 just increase by one Dean?

Ooo - someone said the "n" word. I am quaking here - that's a word that is never heard in Durham. In fact, that might be the first time it was ever uttered, other than when Kim "Prostitute number 2" said it.

Back to ignoring the railroading of Duke students Dean - you are clearly in over your head...

Anonymous said...

This whole sorry affair is quite sickening. I still hold that as much as possibly can will be covered up -- but Nofing will probably have to be sacrificed in an attempt to defuse things.

I'm sure there is lots of knowlege of skeletons in various closets and this sort of thing will make for some interesting (but very private) negotiations.

"I'll tell X, Y, and Z if I'm held to account."

"You'll accept sanction A and agree to do B, or you'll be refrerred for criminal investigation of P, Q, and R."

And on and on...

Whatever is seen in public will have been agreed to in advance and will be put on more as a way to deflect the light that is being shown in some very dark places than for all other reasons.

Hopefully, the civil suits will expose things that we're not done in from of TV cameras or in open court -- this is the risk that is run in not coming clean, but it is only a small risk so don't expect much. It's all about damage control at this stage.

On the topic of the filing to have Nofing removed from office, I came across this in the N&O:

"Only one district attorney North Carolina has been removed from office with Statute 7A-66. In 1995, District Attorney Jerry Spivey was removed from office in New Hanover and Pender counties because of a racial slur he allegedly made at a bar in Wrightsville Beach."

The Durham Judge (the same one who did the swearing-in cerimony) has issued a stay in this matter, despite there being a requirement to respond within 30 days or refer things to another Judge. Any bets as to how things would have played out had Nofing made any of a number of remarks that he has made, except with the races of the parties reversed?

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to Nifong being skewered --- will prop my feet up and eat some popcorn !

Now that's entertainment.

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that Nifungu's lawyer also has Former Rep Decker as a client and he was probably in Raleigh helping Decker put the nails in Jim Black's coffin on Tuesday when Black pleaded guilty to bribing Decker.

Anonymous said...

I think his only defense is he had a massive brain fart and went mad.

Anonymous said...

I think that due to the number of cases that Nifong prosecuted, and the bad behavior that can be attributed to him directly, the overwhelmingly corrupt Democrat state government, the black plurality of Durham, and the far reaching ramifications of having the lid pried off this ugly can of worms, that ultimately, in an effort to lessen the damage done to the legal and political systems that benefit the politicians so well, Lil Nify will be allowed to slink off the stage, partial pension in hand, where he can write his book, live off his wife's ill-gotten gains, and argue until his dying day that "I was framed!"

Michael said...

Great interview. He just asked great questions and got out of the way.

I didn't realize that KC is so young.

Anonymous said...

"wife's ill-gotten gains"? What's that all about?

Anonymous said...

great article about KJ. 50 years ago interviews like this would have been on New York Times. Of course, nowadays it would be impossible as it doe snto fit the NYT worldview (and KJ is a "right winger":-)

Anonymous said...

6:58 I really think we should re-think the use of the "N" word. Everyone knows it's meaning and as such that means they are mentally thinking of that meaning. Those thoughts are demeaning, repulsive, and shouldn't be tolerated.

Can we form a committee to discuss the vile and widespread use of the phrase "the N word".

It's for the children.

M. Simon said...

If he goes with #1 the rats will turn on him.


I read the Chicago Sports Review interview with you. You are starting to get it.

However, you really need to get your understanding of economics up to speed. Milton and Rose Freidman's "Free to Choose" is an excellent place to start.

Capitalism leads to freedom.

We will make a right winger out of you yet - libertarian version. LOL

Anonymous said...


good interview with KC, but what did you expect, a Gang O'88 moment?

He's exposed them for what they are, frauds, and now folks are starting to pay attention.

As for the use of derogatory language by prospective employers, let's hope no Duke grads are interviewed to work for the record labels, where the use of the word "nigger" and "bitch" and "ho" are required, but don't you dare say any of those words, or thugniggaintellectual (pun intended), or 'Neema, or whomever else is in the business of demonization will call the legal office.

This whole mess gets curioser and curioser

M. Simon said...

KC says in his interview:

It just shouldn't have gotten to the point where a blog like mine could be influential.

Until you start picking up the rocks you have no idea of how corrupt many of the institutions in this country are.

Given your current leftist bias you might want to rethink your position about the war we are in. You may have been misinformed by the sources you used to trust.

The bias you see in the Duke case is endemic and epidemic. It is not just one subject.

Anonymous said...

7:55 - I agree - the less we hear the word "Nifong" the safer and saner the whole world will be.

Well done - and the children of the world thank you.

Steven Horwitz said...

Could we not condescend to our host by suggesting he's somehow "misinformed" or stupid for being on the left? Note to my libertarian and conservative friends: not all lefties are either stupid or evil. Some are really smart and really well-intentioned. Perhaps you/we just haven't been persuasive enough.

Once again, academia is FULL of smart, evidence-focused, well-meaning liberals. The G88 is the exception not the rule. I have numerous colleagues like KC, all of whom are in general agreement with this blog's take on the whole Duke affair. And every single one of them is to the left politically.

I love this blog, but the fact that the people who spout off the most about "what academics are like" are those who are NOT in academia is getting really tiresome. Mainstream conservatives get rightfully offended when the media portray Falwell or Robertson as "representative" of their views, but I guess you all don't mind doing the same to academics.

And note to KC: if you choose to "go libertarian," don't use Mr. Simon as your guiding light. Please.

Anonymous said...

I think that when Mike gets up to testify he will have two steel balls in his hand rolling them around and his disconnect with reality will become apparent as he explains how he was betrayed by his subordinates and recalls his years of service to the State of NC.

Anonymous said...

And will he explain what happened to the strawberries, too? I am waiting to hear!

Anonymous said...


Simon's no libertarian. He's a right wing nutcase. Look at his blog and his posts here.

M. Simon said...

Steve H. 8:23PM,

Are you suggesting that facts are a bad idea?

All I have ever presented in this forum are facts. Facts I can back up. Facts that no one commenting on this blog have effectively refuted.

Facts may be inconvenient. They may not be PC. Yet they remain facts.

BTW any one who supports massive wealth redistribution (the left) has no understanding of economics. I say this as a person who went about as far left as you can go in my youth. I was a Communist.

So I'm critical because I understand that stuff from the inside. It kills liberty.

BTW Steve have you read Milton and Rose Freidman's "Free to Choose"?

Capitalism leads to freedom.

One of the reasons this was a right wing blog (commentary) led by a left wing prof. is that the left has an agenda. The right is more process oriented. A fair process more often leads to correct results.

BTW Steve what position of mine do you object to? We can discuss it here or I can open a thread in one of the blogs I post on. Let me know.

I can defend my position. Can you defend yours?

Anonymous said...

I was flipping through Digg and saw this

I encourage all fellow Diggers to Digg it!

M. Simon said...


The offer is open to you, too.

In fact anyone who has a disagreement with any position I have taken is welcome to debate with me.

I post on the following blogs:

Classical Values

Power and Control

The Astute Bloggers

Name one you would care to discuss this at.

Classical Values gets the most traffic. Power and Control the least.

Any one with the courage of their convictions?

Anonymous said...

M Simon, it's not about the courage of conviction, it's about KCs blog and posting what is relevant.

While you may deem IQ studies as germane to the blog, it's obvious others don't agree. You did the right thing in putting up your links, that's where your arguments for the use of IQ (I think you know my feelings on those particular posts) should be debated.

KC has focused on the actions of 88 profs and the DA as it relates to the persecution of three LAX players, I fail to see where IQ arguments enter the forum, and I think that's what others are getting at also.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon, thanks for the book recommendation and please keep it up.

Anonymous said...

8:57 So what do you think is important and worth discussing?

Anonymous said...


Damn it.

Inre: Sponge Bob characters and IQ inquiry. I thought for certain the cast was complete with two voice actors and that higher was the correct tense.

Alas, you are correct again.

M. Simon said...


The IQ discussion pertains to exactly why the intellectual abilities of the Gang of 88 is deficient.

I think that is germaine.

Ms. Lubiano is a direct effect of race/IQ and affirmative action or race norming as the colleges put it. In fact it explains a lot of why the quality of the output of the Gang of 88 is poor compared to the rest of the faculty. Standards were lowered to match the available talent with the number of slots to be filled.

If you believe that is not the case could you give me your reason for the low quality of the Angry Studies departments?

Their low quality is undisputed. How did that happen?

M. Simon said...


You could always claim you were asking for rank ordering and higher was appropriate in that case, although your choice of words to that effect was done in haste and thus not entirely clear.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully this social disaster at Duke will lead to a better future and termination of race privileges. MLK had a dream about this.

This episode showed what happens when you hire low-IQ politically motivated race quota admitted wackos.
It leads to a social disaster. That part Gang88 got right.

Anonymous said...


You say at 8:46, "All I have ever presented in this forum are facts." Then at 9:08 you allege that Lubiano has a low IQ. And you state that the "low quality" of the "Angry Studies" departments is "undisputed." You either do not even know the meaning of the word "facts" or you are just too full of yourself to care. I repeat, you are a right wing nutcase. If you had any power in this society, we would all be subject to social experimentation that would have made Stalin proud.

Anonymous said...


Good argument "I repeat, you are a right wing nutcase."

The depth of logic and back up material you present are overwhelming.

Is that what it's come to? Name calling? Get a grip - these are comments in a blog. When you are presenting an argument in court - then it is serious. This isn't.

M. Simon said...


Actually all I have ever asked for is a merit based society.

What is Stalinist about that?

“The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.” — John W. Gardner, Saturday Evening Post, December 1, 1962

Anonymous said...

District Attorney Appreciation Week. A delay for an ill attorney. Corrupt local media.

North Carolina is the closest thing to anarchy we have in the United States. The term "banana republic" comes to mind.

Anonymous said...

9:18 Do you mind providing links to Ms.Lubiano's published works? It would be interesting to read some of her work, wouldn't you agree?

M. Simon said...


Actually Jaifong is just the worst example of a bad lot.

The criminal justice system in America is broken.

Read Bill Anderson's stuff. This case is an isolated incident in terms of the number of bad things Jailfong has done in one case. However, actions like his on a lesser scale are epidemic in almost every major jurisdiction in America.

The poor do not get due process in America. Corners are cut almost every step of the way. Look up "testilying" if you want to get some reference points.

Anonymous said...

Excellent interview Professor Johnson! I e-mailed it to everyone whose e-mail addresses I could remember...and now I am going to look up a few and e-mail some more.

Well done!


Anonymous said...

If we're going to get KC an econ degree have him start with "The Road to Serfdom"

Have you made those NYC reservations yet?

Inquiring minds want to know?


Anonymous said...

University's Gone Crazy

1. THE List...

THE list

"We knew we were going to have to do something to get off the list," Lawrence Eppley, chairman of the University of Illinois board of trustees, said after the decision was announced..."

"...Removing the chief frees the university of NCAA sanctions after the organization deemed Illiniwek -- portrayed by buckskin-clad students who dance at home football and basketball games and other athletic events -- an offensive use of American Indian imagery..."

My children's imagery of the Amercian Indian will be of cheesy casinos just off the highway with eighteen-wheelers parked out front.

2. THE Chapel

What makes you all think Duke Chapel isn't next? It would be a lovely venue for sensitivity training.

THE Chapel

"The decision late last month by the new president of the College of William & Mary to remove the 100-year old Wren Cross from the college’s 274-year-old school chapel in order to make it “more welcoming” has abruptly brought the nation’s second oldest university to a dramatic crossroads..."

"...The first paragraph of its Royal Charter reveals the Christian underpinnings of its founding:...may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated ..."

"...If your measure of inclusiveness, “welcomeness,” and diversity is whether somebody feels excluded or unwelcome — as opposed to whether anyone is actually, in fact, excluded from attendance at or is unwelcome at a Wren Chapel function — then those claiming the feeling of being excluded or unwelcome become pretty powerful in deciding what stays and what goes.

By this logic, the altar table in Wren Chapel cannot stay. Some will be offended. Neither can the altar rails. The pulpit cannot stay — after all, readings from Isaiah and St. Paul are known to be read from the pulpit, the idea of which may offend someone. W&M’s alma mater song contains this stanza: “God, our Father, Hear our Voices, Listen to our Cry, Bless the College of our Fathers, Let Her Never Die.” Surely, those who object to a cross in a chapel will be mortally offended by these words.

Which university is next?..."

"For whom the Bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

""No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

M. Simon said...


Good point.

BTW the latest paperback edition of "The Road to Serfdom" has an introduction by Milton Friedman. So you get a twofer with that one.

Anonymous said...

Cross Removal Video

This simple video is very disturbing, on many levels.

It's time to take put a stop to this madness.

What the Gang of 88, Nifong, the pot bangers, and those at William and Mary have in common is that they are evil. Pure and simple.

Anonymous said...

Hayek's thesis in The Road to Serfdom was flat-out wrong. Essentially, he argued that social democracy under the Labor party would inevitably degenerate into full-fledged Communist totalitarianism. Of course, nothing of the sort happened. Instead, when certain specific elements of the Labor platform proved unworkable, the party lost power under the legitimate mechanisms of British politics, and changes were made. Then, when the pendulum swung too far in the other direction under Thatcher, the Labor party was brought back. At no time was British democracy or freedom overthrown.

Isn't it inconsistent for the right wing to excoriate Paul Ehrlich for his inaccurate doomsday predictions, while praising Hayek for his?


Anonymous said...

Kemp, I give Hayek's book out as high school graduation gifts. I know they won't recieve that message at college.

Hayek and Look Magazine cartoon

"But they can't agree on ONE Utopia..."

Anonymous said...

Your mouse clicks CAN have an effect :

Petition to Attorney General Cooper to end the hoax :

Petition to the Justice Department to investigate
corruption in the Durham city administration :

Petition to Attorney General Gonzales to investigate civil rights violations and hate crimes in the Duke lacrosse case :

Anonymous said...

Firebug, you know not of what you speak and may want to consider reading the book. It was written as a study on Nazism and how Hitler came to power...

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 7:55 PM said...

Can we form a committee to discuss the vile and widespread use of the phrase "the N word".

It's for the children.

This is a huge board and I can tell from your writing style that many folks don't live in the South.

In the South you can say absolutely anything vile you want to say about another person as long as you end your sentence with ...BLESS HIS HEART or BLESS HER HEART.

She was such a sweet thing growing up ...strange that she turned out to be so vile ...BLESS HER HEART.

No committee needed.


Anonymous said...

Considering that he took control of the police investigation early in the game - and deliberately instructed the police to violate standard lineup procedures in his multiple-choice-no-wrong-answers photo lineup - and other examples of turpitude too numerous to mention, selection (1) is pretty much a lost cause. Particularly if a trial is held with a discovery process, at which all those gendarmes undergo cross-examination. Providing, of course, that the Hollywood alternative of bumping off witnesses is not employed.

And selection (2), to claim that he was overwhelmed by the publicity/notoriety? He was absolutely delighted with it and pushed it to the limit, preening for the networks. Were he an ethical professional, he'd know better. He threw probity to the winds to win an election, and proved himself neither ethical nor professional.

I predict an option (3), which should be from the realm of fantasy and science fiction. Hang on and see.

Insufficiently Sensitive

Anonymous said...

"What use to be an error, has now become a crime against the state. Thus ends the Road to Serfdom"

M. Simon said...


Hayek's thesis is that you can have socialism (a government run or controlled economy) or you can have liberty. You can't have both.

As you point out he was correct.

Given the choice people prefer liberty.

In fact liberty is very good for all Americans. Our lowest performing economic group (Blacks) average higher income that the average Swede (on a purchasing power parity basis). Economic liberty did that. Not government (ala Sweden) programs.

The best way to help the poor in America is to do everything possible to foster economic growth (lower taxes, limited regulation etc.)

Anonymous said...

10:13 Now sir, that..."I can tell from your writing style that many folks don't live in the South" is a hate crime if I ever heard one. Is there a Statist Overlord in the house? We have an emergency!

Not only am I man of the South,but ironically, the only place I've lived north was in North Carolina. Interestingly I was called a carpet bagger. We call it Capitalist in Texas.

As an aside, we have friends from up north who made a comment about the Civil War. It was I, who correctly pointed out that it was the War of Northern Agression. He thought I was kidding.

I've also been cut down to size by the tongue of a sweet southern woman. I'm married to one and she's a Duke graduate.

Anonymous said...

That "study" has been thoroughly discredited. For starters, it failed to take into account the fact that Swedes not only have guaranteed, free accessibility to health insurance, but also heavily subsidized housing and day care. (These latter two are not totally absent in the United States, but are far less prevalent and of far lower quality.)

Obviously any modern, free society will be based on a capitalist framework. But reasonable regulations on business, progressive taxation, unions, and so forth are in no way inimical to liberty. In fact, in many ways, they are necessary to promote it. Victorian England was far more capitalist than modern-day America. It was also significantly less free. The same is true of Pinochet's Chile. Likewise, modern-day China is building capitalism without freedom - what we used to call fascism, before that degenerated into a smear word.

While capitalism is a useful tool in building a prosperous society, the links between capitalism and freedom have been grossly exaggerated by ideologues.


Anonymous said...

I am delighted for the American Indians to have casinos, etc. After what we as white Americans did to exterminate them. With the poverty that has plagued the tribes, anything they can get - including burgers is fine with me. I do wish the rich tribes were helping the poor tribes more. That old lady that sat on the land in Conn. is a heroine.

M. Simon said...

OK 10:11PM,

You asked for it:


The Justice Dept.


Here is how you make permalinks:

<a href="url">text to display</a>

replace url with:
leave the quote marks

replace text to display
Duke Fever

Duke Fever

M. Simon said...

"Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of ability, and recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the law... democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it. -- Will and Ariel Durant

It alo accelerates the creation of wealth and jobs. Compare European job creation to American job creation if you want to see the difference between socialism lite and the more robust capitalism of America.

Anonymous said...

10:28 What about the Indians who tried to exterminate the other Indians before the white man showed up?

I want a Casino, but that is not really the point.

The point is that when one erodes the culture, one erodes the culture. Why is is right to stop the mascots in the name of religion, but it is also right to take down a cross in a private school? Pretty soon all of our collective oxes are gored.

Steven Horwitz said...

Mr. Simon:

Thanks, but I've read "Free to Choose" a few times, not to mention having a PhD in economics and several dozen peer-reviewed publications and two books on Hayek, Austrian economics, and libertarianism.

More here:

I think I know my way around libertarianism, thank you very much. And I know that libertarianism does not need an infusion of eugenics, thank you very much again.

And thank you also for posting your other blogs where people interested in debating your eugenic-oriented arguments can go to do so. Your problems with the "facts" have already been noted, and I have much more valuable uses of my time than to debate you on those issues. Just do THIS blog a favor and take those very much peripheral issues elsewhere.

And for Firebug - you have utterly misread Hayek's thesis in Road to Serfdom. I suggest you read some serious work on Hayek before accepting the dimestore interpretation of a more sophisticated thesis than what you've put forward.

That said, I do think libertarians need to explain more carefully NOT why welfare states haven't become totalitarian (as Hayek never said that), but why they've held on for so long even a lower levels of economic performance.

M. Simon said...


Nice to see you here again.


Progressive taxation means that the rich are the chief funders of government.

Ever wonder why the government pays so much attention to the rich? Inevitable when they are the government's main source of revenue.

Steven Horwitz said...

oops, sorry about that link. Should be.

My webpage here.

Anonymous said...

A good lawyer can argue a bad case. They can show lists of Nifong interviews in which Nifong did not violate ethical rules, total the minutes that represent violations compared to those that don't, pick apart the BAR's list of interviews. For example, calling them hooligans is not calling them rapists. He could argue that they are hooligans. They were drinking and hiring strippers.
They can argue that the LAX players were not harmed by the information left out of the DNA report. They were indicted without DNA. He can argue he was trying to protect the stripper. He guessed she was a prostite and wasn't surprised at the DNA. He expected it. Didn't you? What's the big surprise? Therefore, the DNA wasn't exculpatory in his opinion. Or should I say his humble opinion. And, it doesn't matter that she had sex with others.
I expect a good arguement. He will go down fighting. Don't underestimate him or his lawyers. His weakest arguement is that he was overcome with the media, but he could make it.
When he told the judge he was not aware of additional evidence, he can argue that he was referring to evidence related to the three accused.

Anonymous said...

10:33 Better yet compare job and wealth creation in Ireland or Eastern Europe vs. France, Germany and the old Europe...

Low taxes and less government do stimulate growth, raise all boats, and lift everyone.

Well done M. Simon.

M. Simon said...

I have never ever promoted eugenics.

I'd like to see you find where I have ever said that.

In fact what I have said is that due to the declining value of labor and the rising value of brains that it would be wise for the top earners to make provision for those only capable of manual labor.

A fairly radical position for a libertarian. No?

Anonymous said...

"It was I, who correctly pointed out that it was the War of Northern Agression."

Yes,you correctly
pointed out that instead of refusing to treat humans as chattle, you were aggressed.

There stands no greater insult to this nation than Stone Mountain Georgia, the continued respect given to the Confederate battle flag (a symbol of the greatest traitors this nation has ever known, and perpetuated by the greatest terrorist organization this nation has ever known).

Yes, you are correct, it was a war of Northern aggression,now I beseech you, don't make us do it again.

M. Simon said...


Let me give you my IQ test and let us see if you can pass.

I invented this little IQ test for the person who believes they are not valid. See if you can pass.

You are a passenger on a 747-400 and you have a choice of pilots, each has similar visio-spacial co-ordination and motor skills, one has an IQ of 70 the other has an IQ of 130.

Who you gonna call?

To say IQ has no validity is BS. It is a belief that not even your own experience will support.

If you choose the IQ 70 guy all that will prove is that there are at least two morons on the plane.

Anonymous said...

10:28 Firebug, please don't tell me you need to leave and go grade papers...

Anonymous said...

Reread the 7:55 post - I think the humor it contains is too subtle for many.

>I really think we should re-think >the use of the "N" word.

First of all, that is an uppercase "N" - what does that stand for? Nifong? Who knows...

>Everyone knows it's meaning and >as such that means they are >mentally thinking of that >meaning. Those thoughts are >demeaning, repulsive, and >shouldn't be tolerated.

This is a call for policing of thoughts - awesome! Well done! Of course the Gang of 89/90 is all in favor of that, just so long as the thought monitoring machine is not pointed at their brains - the flat line results would be embarrassing. And any argument that begins "Everyone knows" has to be a joke.

>Can we form a committee to >discuss the vile and widespread >use of the phrase "the N word".

Here the point is to consider the use of the phrase. Not the word it stands for (whatever that might be). Very well done indeed.

>It's for the children.

And this, bless its heart, is a recycling of the favorite phrase of democrats - used to justify every erosion of our rights that they can dream up.

Here's to KC and his ongoing education. If he has half a wit, and clearly as a democrat, that much is true, he may actually learn something that goes beyond the limited borders of the Marxist state of Brooklyn.

Anonymous said...


You are a white American and you exterminated indians? That's against the law - you really shouldn't admit that on a blog.

If you meant that someone else did it, who gives a crap - can you undo it?

And why drag indians into this discussion - they just want some quiet time with their alcohol.

Anonymous said...

RE: 6:56 PM -- I wish just a tiny bit of the ire displayed in the letter of Dean Katherine T. Bartlett, A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law, were directed to the defense of the three lacrosse players. Is her powerful voice afraid to speak out when the situation is hot? You picked an easy target to attack so vigorously, Dean Bartlett.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Oh, barf! So Dean Bartlett says that a Duke student hearing the 'n' word used in a joke is a serious matter that needs to be promptly addressed? Oh, really? Where was her demand for promptness a few months ago when the word 'castrate' was shoved in the faces of those same students? And that was no damned joke! And what kind of weird sensibilities does Bartlett have that she can be offended by the 'n' word but NOT by 'thugniggaintellectual'? And if her sensibilities are so fragile that merely a word can offend them, then how does Bartlett explain why those same sensibilities were NOT offended by the sight of a known hate group, the New Black Panthers, threatening her Duke students in court?

Oh, lord, we could go on for years about the hypocrisy of the pompous self-serving letter Bartlett has just written. IMO, its sole purpose is to cover her butt against the ensuing lawsuit from the innocent Duke students who last year not only did NOT have their rights 'promptly addressed' but were instead thrown under the bus by the Gang of 88.

Anonymous said...

There is, of course, another argument that could possibly be made -- something along these lines:

The lion's share of the defense rests upon the divulging of matters that would jeopardize the current and active criminal case inasmuch as it would involve revealing attorney work product. (The work product doctrine holds that an attorney's strategies, opinions, theories, research, thoughts, and impressions are generally, subject to some very narrow exceptions, not discoverable. The doctrine extends to individuals assisting the attorney). Because of this extraordinary situation, justice here as well as in the criminal matter of State v. Seligman, et al. requires that addressing and resolving the Grievance Committee complaint be stayed until resolution of that criminal matter.

We shall see.

Anonymous said...

10:44 Wow! My understanding was it began as a State's rights question and that slavery would eventually have ended anyway as it did elsewhere without the huge loss of human life on both sides.

Also, I think if one were to take a poll, one would find that very few southerners owned much, let alone slaves.

Which is a reason not to have the Attorney General step in. NC should have the opportunity to work this out first, even though, based upon what we've seen, we should be sceptical of their ability to do so.

As for what offends...turn on the radio, television, or listen/read the hate spewed from the hallowed halls of academia. That will really get your heart rate up.

If everyone had the passion to liberate as you appear, then we'd already have brought democracy to Syria, Iran, and maybe even San Francisco.

M. Simon said...


Assuming you are actually an economist and know your way around a gaussian curve, what is it about the predictive power of IQ that you object to?

IQ is correlated to race and race is correlated to a very high degree with genetics. Ashkenazi Jews are a well studied example on the high end. The proteins that seem to be responsible for high IQ also are implicated in Tay-Sacks.

If there are correlations on the high end why is it impossible to have correlations on the low end? Because it doesn't fit with what you wish was so? Well I wish it wasn't so also. However, it is so.

To think that facts call for any particular action (eugenics) is your idea not mine. I think the facts call for support of those only capable of manual labor.

Intellectual Taboos.

Turning to race, we must begin with the fraught question of whether it even exists, or whether it is instead a social construct. The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."[25]

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.[26] Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity.[27] In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group.[28] When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

So Steve, given your understanding of statistics is race real? And if race is real why couldn't intellectual ability (on average) correspond to race?

If race is real and the corresponding intellectual differnce is real let me give yoyu a simple test question. Average black IQ is assumed to be 85. Average white IQ is assumed to be 100. If the standard deviation for both is the same at 15 what proportion of the white population will be above IQ 125? What proportion of the black population will be above IQ 125? The actual numbers are a little different than this but I have simplified the problem to make it easy for you.

Surely an economist of your undoubted ability can solve a simple statistics problem such as the one I have presented.

What are the implications of such a result? Or as ole' Lennin liked to say. What is to be done?

If it takes an IQ of 125 to teach at a high level institution such as Duke where are you going to get them from? I suggest recruiting among the Igbo of Africa to make up the shortfalls.

What do you suggest?

Anonymous said...

Raceless Female Raped by Raceless Male at a Party Hosted By a Raceless Fraternity in the Same City Where Rich White Boys Raped A Poor Black Stripper


Anonymous said...

To 2:04 Cedarford
Just brilliant always brilliant.


To Dean Bartlett:
Bless your little heart, I must puke on your shoes now.


Anonymous said...

Clueless Dean, Katharine T. Bartlett, Dean and Honey Pie Professor of Law, answers KC's question as to why he has to do the heavy lifting in this hoax instead of Duke law profs. Turns out they are too busy being offended, offended! by a word. Crimes committed against Duke students are unimportant compared to a word that surely no one here in Durham has ever heard or used. Get the thought control police - there is much work to be done!

Anonymous said...

Dean Katherine Bartlett's letter in the 6:56 comment frightens me. She should NOT be in a position of power at an academic institution. Self-serving, hypocritical, and reeking of political correctness. Does she teach through a race-gender-class filter in her courses. If I were a student, I wouldn't want to disagree with her. Scary.

Anonymous said...

Katharine T. Bartlett is clearly an example of what happens when a qualified prospect is overlooked in order to meet some goal of inclusion or diversity or whatever phony label is applied to discrimination today. She has gone much farther than her meager intellect should have allowed.

Anonymous said...

"You are a passenger on a 747-400 and you have a choice of pilots, each has similar visio-spacial co-ordination and motor skills, one has an IQ of 70 the other has an IQ of 130."

We've seen this absurd riddle posed before. Are we to assume that IQ is so inconsequential that someone with an IQ of "70" has the wherewithal to learn to be the pilot of a 747?

If so, your point is moot, if not, it seems that you are arguing that no matter your IQ, technical abilities, or grasp of upper math and science, anyone who applies him or herself can learn to fly a modern jet airliner, even a believer in Scientology, which again, makes your point moot.

Anonymous said...

Dear Professor Bartlett,

You should be a stand-up comedian. While it's despicable that some asshole called a human being a derogatory term, I must question your assertion about discriminatory practices, etc., at Duke or Duke-sponsored events. I AM POSITIVE DUKE LAW RACE NORMS to obtain the "correct" proportion of blacks. Let's see the test score and LSAT data, Professor, or is that protected information?

Professor, do you prostrate yourself at the feet of those poor Jewish and Asian suckers who were passed over in favor of middle class blacks? Say you're sorry, and I'll forgive you. I promise.

I'm waiting for an answer, Professor.

Roman Polanski

Anonymous said...

"If everyone had the passion to liberate as you appear, then we'd already have brought democracy to Syria, Iran, and maybe even San Francisco."

How about Iraq? Oops, that's right, we don't want to get into a discussion about the IQ of George "The Deciderer" Bush, he might go "nukular" on us.

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice ... umm ... err... don't get fooled again! (you may now smash the guitars and drum sets as you exit stage right)

M. Simon said...


I guess you were fooled by the A.Q. Kahn - Iraq, Libya connection as well.

You are easily fooled I guess.

M. Simon said...


So you agree that IQ is real then.


You passed the test.

Anonymous said...

I think option 3.

Follow the money!

Nifong knows he is going down; he is only trying to delay case as long as possible to increase his wonderful civil service retirement package.

Tom E.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon, inre: IQ test...

1. Are either parties blind?

2. Have either landed at the airport destination?

3. How experienced is the co-pilot?

4. What did they eat for lunch?

5. Whom is ranked higher in on-line gaming?

6. Do either have a personal bias against carrying a weapon on board?

7. How long have they been certified to fly that class of aircraft?

8. Have either ever lost their license, and why?

9. Where are they from originally and where were they trained?

10. Are either dating any of the stewardesses and if so, are one or both on board?

11. Is Leslie Neilsen involved in this test in any way? Barbara Billingsley? George Kennedy?

12. Do either attend church regularly, and if so, which denomination?

13. Who is sitting in first class and are any of them tied into corrupt political regimes?

14. Do either have teenagers, especially daughters?

15. Do either have children currently under indictment for a felony in Durham, NC? If so, are they white?

Anonymous said...

Some interviewer possibly lost their job from a law firm because they used the "N" word. This AA afirmative action has gotten way out of control. Hence you have the Duke Hoax. Black people are not owed anything, respect is something that is earned not freely given because you are black. If you act like a "N" than you are one. Anyway what does "N" mean..... stupid, ignorant, what does this word represent. It must be something really disgusting if people can't use it freely without losing their jobs or having ridiculous lawsuits filed. Everytime a black person calls a white person something we laugh in their faces because we know they are ignorant. But god forbid the white race stands up for itself. We are overboard with political correctness to the point where our own Constitutional rights of Freedom of Speech have been comprimised. Like black people don't call each other the "N" word all the time. Is it a word that can only be used by them. They get their own language now. Why not just admit them to Ivy League schools when they don't have the grades.... oh we already do that. Why don't we just pay out billions in welfare so they don't have to work... oh we already do that to... They are special people because they have been so hurt by something that happened to their ancestors 200 hundred years ago. Most of the black community never even had slaves as anscestors yet that is the same old excuse. Racism is a two way street. The blacks hate the whites because they are successful, intelligent and articulate. The white people hate the blacks because they are ignorant, lazy and dangerous criminals.

Anonymous said...

Interesting news from the normally hyper-liberal 9th circuit, in US v Novak. It seems that the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act trumps ERISA protections.

In twenty-five words or less, that seems to mean that pensions will no longer be sheltered from forfeiture in federal cases.

Justice may be deeper, more profound, and ironic in this case that expected.

Anonymous said...

What a thread! Lot's of bored folks out there, that's for sure.

WHEN you go to the NYC meeting, wear a Bow Tie FOR SURE, so everyone can cheer you on. In fact, SOMEONE in Durham should send you a Duke Bow Tie to wear.

Get on it up there, I am in CLT.