Sunday, May 06, 2007

Sunday Roundup

Lara Setrakian of ABC's Law & Justice Unit had a piece last week taking people behind the scenes of Mike Nifong's defense--surely an unenviable place at this point. Nifong's backers didn't seem optimistic: Bob Nauseef, whose Durham caseload primarily focuses on traffic court and who was a Nifong backer, told Setrakian, "Given the climate, the way the AG came out, I can't envision a scenario where he doesn't end up losing his license or having it suspended." Continuing a line of defense first offered in Nifong's December 28 letter to the Bar, Nauseef complained that "there's that feeling that he'll be made an example of." And Nauseef blames "politics" for Roy Cooper's response to the case--quite an allegation, coming from a Nifong supporter.

Setrakian's article had several new revelations. Nifong, Nauseef reported, is thinking about life after being a DA--"I've heard he's looking at teaching jobs. It wouldn't surprise me if he wrote a book." As to the former, what school could possibly hire someone as ethically challenged as Nifong as a professor? (Apart, I suppose, from Duke's newly elevated AAAS Department, which has been promised new faculty lines.) And the fact that Nifong is considering a book makes it all the more important that civil lawsuits be filed against him, so he cannot profit from his misconduct.

Meanwhile, Durham assistant district attorney Stormy Ellis offered an astonishing defense of Nifong. Lashing out at prosecutors who have criticized the DA, she also defended Nifong's character: "He's a good man and one of the most honest people I know. People fail to look at the man who convicted numerous criminals, who dismissed numerous cases, who had an open-file policy before it was the law . . . I'm shocked that he has been tainted as a 'rogue prosecutor.' It scares me to think that one case can mar you for the rest of your life." Given what we saw in this case, it's worth wondering just how Nifong implemented his "open-file policy" in the past. More broadly, Ellis' argument appears to be that prosecutors should have license to massively violate ethics obligations at least once in their career. Such a standard would, to put it mildly, wreak havoc on the justice system.

In this week's humor category, Ubuntu, the group co-founded by potbanger and Duke graduate student Serena Sebring, held a "National Day of Truthtelling" in Durham last week. The Orwellian call was not to demand "truth" from the DA's office, or the Police Department, or Bob Ashley's newsroom, but instead to suggest that the "truth" had not been exposed in the lacrosse case. As a Liestoppers commenter noted, a video of the event needs to be seen to be believed.

Among the week's items of unintentional humor, Washington Post legal commentator Andrew Cohen--best known for his charge that critics of Nifong's behavior sought to deny the public the "privilege of a trial"--penned a lengthy essay saying how much he wanted to serve as a juror but that he just had to be excused "because I was worried that I would not be able to fully and fairly deliberate with the other jurors for fear of saying something about the law, or about the evidence, or about some other trial in my past that would somehow change an intensely organic deliberation into something different, something artificial." And Cohen's most prominent Durham admirer, Herald-Sun editor Bob Ashley, has offered an auction item of a day "behind the scenes" in what Liestoppers has termed the Snooze Room (apparently on how to botch the most important story of the year in a newspaper's city).

In the intentional humor section: Hatemongers' Quarterly tackles the Group of 88.

At the Liestoppers forum, Tony Soprano discusses how the Durham Police also appear to have spread the false suggestion that Crystal Mangum was given a date rape drug. No indication whether Patrick Baker will address such improper behavior in his report this week--but I wouldn't count on it.

In the midst of the case, Duke Magazine--an official University publication sent to all alumni--published a transparently slanted article on the case quoting from one and only one student (who demanded that the university apologize to Mangum) and from three of the team's most extreme faculty critics (Starn, Wood, and Baker). As recently as two days before dismissal, Duke officials publicly attacked the character of the lacrosse players.

But, it appears, in the time before minor alcohol offenses were seen as revealing massive character flaws, the Duke official line was quite different. At the start of the 2005-2006 academic year, the Magazine noted,
Despite their success, [Matt] Danowski and his fellow lacrosse players are largely unheard of and unheralded on a campus where high-profile sports such as basketball and football dominate the collective sports consciousness. A low recognition factor has its pluses, Danowski says. Small-sport collegiate athletes tend to be grounded by their relative anonymity and more focused on academics and life after the game. "You look at all the good lacrosse schools and you see they're also very good schools. Duke, Georgetown, Princeton. I think the kids who play lacrosse have more of a balance between academics and athletics."
It's difficult to reconcile this portrayal with the convenient, after-the-fact portrayal of the team as well-known by everyone on campus for bad behavior.

The Devil's Den (Duke's site on the network had an interesting post last week from a reader about the Group of 88:
Think whatever you want, but in my opinion the biggest disappointment and the longest lasting wound will be the damage the 88 have done to the reputation and academic integrity and atmosphere of the university. Intentionally, unintentionally and for whatever reason each of them had in signing the first statement and then following it up with their comments, silence, actions and inaction thereafter, each of them hurt Duke. Every time they, individually or collectively, issue another mealy mouthed "woe is me" and refuse to own up to it, they hurt Duke even more. You can talk about freedom of speech or academic freedom all you want, but this isn't about that. Heck, if anyone has chilled academic freedom or speech at Duke it is them, the Gang of 88. (Do you deny grade retaliation? Open confrontation in class? Do you think that's AOK?) This should have been a learning experience; and should have been a foundation for a calm, rational, constructive discussion of some of the topics you try to raise; but the Gang and its members preempted that and has effectively precluded it with their muck raking actions, outright meanness and dishonesty, as well as the ensuing silence and whining. No offense, but name one productive thing that has come out of the Gang and their efforts in the past year? Holloway all but admitted that she just wanted to light a stink bomb and then run away when she belly-ached about participating in the CCI and then quit. Houston Baker . . . whatever. Silence from other signees in the wake . . .? Regardless, not really a positive contribution to the University community . . .

Anyway, it seems to me that the debate in the court of public (ie students, other faculty, alumni, and fellow "intellectuals", but specifically excluding anonymous comment posters on random, unmoderated web sites) opinion regarding whether the Gang was right or wrong is clearly over in any event and the Gang of 88 lost, badly. My sense is that this story and discussion is now about honesty, integrity, honor and responsibility and has been for a while. The Gang members are scoring low across the board and, unfortunately, are seemingly irrelevant to the debate going forward. They've marginalized themselves and, worst of all, just don't get it, still.

The Gang had a whole year and numerous chances to join the debate prior to now but refused and/or have been in denial. The students have been running laps around them for the whole year and (along with many others in the University family) are now fed up and/or have otherwise given up trying to have that discussion. The Chronicle seems to have thrown the Gang one last bone with the last article and they balked/didn't get it one more time. If a vote of no confidence from the 1000+ students doesn't wake them up, nothing will. It is truly sad -- as this is unprecedented in the 25+ years I've been associated with the University -- that a group has shut down a discussion, so poisoned the community, vilified themselves, and virtually assured their irrelevance to/exclusion from a debate; but this is part of the Gang's legacy.

Meanwhile, a Duke graduate and parent of two Duke students, William Gaffey, posted at the DBR forum a lengthy response to a recent e-mail from the administration, which claimed that the administration had fully supported the accused players:

We, just as the parents of the accused lacrosse players did, entrusted our sons to Duke with the expectation that their welfare and best interest would be looked after in the event of trouble. Instead, President Brodhead chose the politically correct course of action and threw these kids to the wolves. He promptly canceled the season, fired the coach, suspended the kids, and ran down to NCCU begging for "a time of healing" , all actions which encouraged a national media frenzy against Duke in general and the 3 accused kids in particular . . . When the Nifong/Stripper story began to unravel and Mr. Brodhead had to face some tough questions put to him by Ed Bradley and other journalists, he managed to look like a deer caught in the headlights, babbling politically correct platitudes and bleating that the matter was best entrusted to the justice system . . . His failure to give any support to the accused players until the dismissal of charges was virtually assured and his failure to take any action to discipline or discredit the Group of 88 announced to all interested that it was open season on Duke and its students, giving us weeks of endless stories about rich white punks run amuck and Lacrosstitutes – just what I wanted to hear having spent $360,000.00 in tuition payments for my two kids . . .

The response to this crisis by the Duke administration was an unmitigated disaster. The only bright spot in the entire affair was in the way that Evans, Seligmann, and Finnerty behaved throughout the ordeal. Their comments to the press were thoughtful and intelligent-just what Duke students are expected to be. They, of course, are gone and Duke is left with the inept Brodhead and the despicable Group of 88 - what a trade off! If these young men had, as you claim in your email, the total support of you, the Board of Trustees, all I can say is Shame on You.

The first chapter of the Pressler/Yeager book has now been released, and the book was covered in the N&O as well. The former coach contended that Duke caved in to public (and faculty) pressure in its handling of the case, prompted the following response from John Burness: "The university made its decisions at the time based on what it believed was in the best interest of the university and everyone involved."

People of good faith can disagree whether the Brodhead administration's actions served the best interest of the University. But surely it cannot be contended that the president was thinking of the "best interest" of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty when he informed the Durham Chamber of Commerce, in his first public appearance after their arrests, "If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough."

Last week, the North Carolina House passed what could be deemed the Nifong-avoidance Act, to regularize eyewitness ID procedures. At the same time, the body is considering what should be deemed the Nifong Protection Act, a measure that would have allowed the DA to withhold the evidence that ultimately undid his case in the lacrosse affair. It's astonishing that the latter even could be considered after events of the last year.

Amanda Marcotte --taking a page from extremists among the Group of 88--recently posted a comment on her blog, announcing, "Having never accused anyone directly of anything, I have no idea what I'm supposed to apologize for. Oh yeah—being a feminist and opposed to rape and sexual harassment."

One of her own readers explained, "Amanda, how about apologizing for this: 'Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.' Again, I ask, What sexual assault are you referring to? Again, I ask, What sexual assault do you continually refer to when bashing those three lacrosse players? Again, I ask, Why were they guilty until proven innocent, and even then continually guilty, according to you?"

The comment thread is particularly notable for its willful ignorance: among Marcotte's defenders, about the only piece of news they appear to have witnessed since April 6, 2006 is Duff Wilson's August New York Times article, which was frequently (and fawningly) referenced.

The editor and faculty advisor to NCCU's campus newspaper apologized for printing an op-ed by NCCU student Solomon Burnette, a convicted criminal who urged vigilante action against the lacrosse players. Taking a line almost directly from Wahneema Lubiano's April 13, 2006 essay, Burnette wrote, "The 'facts' of the case should not matter to us because even if we are unsure of sexual assault, these supremacists have admitted to sexually, racially and politically denigrating these women. Strippers or not, this must be addressed."

(Burnette is also listed as taking Arabic classes at Duke. There has been no notice of any action against him, even though he has publicly advocated violence against other Duke students.)

The most interesting aspect of this affair was the response: even as the NCCU paper apologized for the op-ed, the Herald-Sun published a letter to the editor explicitly defending Burnette's argument. The paper also ran an editorial noting that "the right to voice radical opinions is woven in the fabric of our nation. It goes back to Benjamin Franklin and the colonists, whose loudly stated opinions were often intemperate. Those who prize freedom must stand on the shoulders of those who would say, as we do to Burnette: We disagree strongly with what you say, but we must defend your right to say it."

Imagine a counterfactual: the Chronicle published an op-ed by a white Duke student endorsing vigilante action against the black NCCU students who attended the April 11, 2006 forum. Does anyone seriously believe the H-S would have responded with an editorial defending the columnist's right to free speech?


With Group of 88 extremist William Chafe making reckless allegations, John in Carolina offered the former dean of faculty an opportunity to present his evidence.

Unsurprisingly, Chafe has not yet responded: as one JinC commenter noted, "If you held your breath until Chafe responded, the only sound you'd finally hear would be your harp playing in heaven. Time to exhale."


The administrative changes continue at Duke. First was the creation of a new dean of undergraduate education--a position not recommended by the CCI and which seemed to diminish the power of the two people responsible for the CCI (Bob Thompson and Larry Moneta).

Last week came two other moves. First, another new position--vice president for Durham and regional affairs--was created, with President Brodhead selecting Phail Wynn. The announcement noted that most of Wynn's portfolio previously had been handled by John Burness.

The same announcement contained news that Allison Haltom is leaving as university secretary and vice president. One of Halton's chief responsibilities was coordinating the activities of the board of trustees--who, thanks to several publicized and written remarks by BOT chairman Bob Steel, have been left in the uncomfortable position of approving, after the fact, the administration's response to the lacrosse case.

Finally, two excellent editorials from the last week:

New Criterion places the case in perspective.

And a sensational editorial from DBR taking to task Shadee Malaklou, concluding with an important lesson of the past 13 months:
The power of the state was brought to bear on these private citizens, and despite an appallingly weak, trumped up case, the state, through Nifong, was prepared to ruthlessly crush them and send them to prison for the rest of their lives when it could not prove that a crime was committed, and when the great mass of evidence argued against it as well.

People who are so blinded by ideological commitments have no place in a university, but perhaps the idea of the university has changed to accommodate them and the old idea of pursuing truth and reason is obsolete. The truly sad thing is there's no more flexibility among many at Duke than there is for many at Bob Jones University.


Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson apparently never sleeps. Another excellent Sunday roundup keeps the nation abreast of the latest hoax news, even as the newspapers fail to pursue obvious stories — such as the DUMC-SANE nurse role in the hoax.

Anonymous said...

ANOTHER great selection of FACTS that portray the feckless and liberal braodrot and his band of board dummies and grooup of 88 as the anti american anti religious anti white syndicate

Anonymous said...

There may be something to much of DBR's editorial, and Bob Jones University may deserve criticism for some things. However, Bob Jones University by no means deserves to be placed in the same category as the Group of 88. David Duke--maybe. Bob Jones University--no. I would put my grandchildren in the care of Bob Jones University long before I would subject them to the bigotry and evil that characterizes the Group of 88.

Anonymous said...

Shadde is probably coming back to Duke for a Masters - just to get folk rilled up.

Anonymous said...

No, Shadee now has the credentials to enter the PhD program in AA at Harvard, then return to Duke as an assistant professor in its newly created AA Dept.

Anonymous said...

Can this be true? What a thought!

Jamie said...

Astonishing how appropriate the name of this blog is, and has always been. Durham is Wonderland, such a completely upside-down world that to its inhabitants, bottom looks like up. And the hits just keep on coming. Geez, every place has crazoids, but in Durham, where are the non-crazoids?

Solomon Burnette advocates violence, the local rag backs him up, and who do they invoke? Ben Franklin. Then they offer a trip to their newsroom as a prize!

Bob Nauseef blames "politics" for Roy Cooper's response to the case? Of course! Because "politics" was exactly what made Cooper's response unlikely.

In Durham, rape victims float in the air, racists cry racism, the feminists undermine women, the University faculty and admin act like absolute stooges, the worst victimizers scream with the loudest outrage...WTH? Does gravity work the same way in Durham? If you flush a toilet there, does it fill up with money?

Durham is one of those nightmares that will not end, and long ago the weirdness went from to fascinating and pathetic to simply frightening.

Anonymous said...

I only stopped by to see DK's wife's promised piece defending Tara.


Anonymous said...

Maybe this is not the best place for this comment:

I am rereading "I am Charlotte Simmons". Wolfe has a professor in his book named Jerry Quat. Guy is right out of the group of 88. Amazing.

Anonymous said...


"Durham is one of those nightmares that will not end, and long ago the weirdness went from to fascinating and pathetic to simply frightening."

I couldn't agree more.

My son is a Duke alum and just before the lacrosse story broke, my husband and I were considering some investment property in Durham. We even talked about possibly retiring to the area some day. It goes without saying that when we received the prospectus we had requested it went straight into the trashcan.

I never realized before that driving into Durham with NY license plates could be as dangerous as leaving the Green Zone and at this point I would sooner invest in the Sunni Triangle than in the Research Triangle.

Durham's motto should be "Abandon hope all ye who enter here."

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

KC, dammit! You didn't warn me. All you said was that the Ubuntu video 'needs to be seen to be believed'. Honey, that was so NOT an adequate warning!

Well, I did what you wanted me to, I clicked on the link to the Ubuntu video, it popped up on my screen and...dammit! what the hell?

A floppy haired broad is hopping up and down like a demented Martha Graham wannabe, arms jerking, sneakers slapping the hard concrete, running back and forth like a demented rabbit before stopping to hurl her butt to the hard concrete (ouch!) and jerk and writhe on the cement (oh, she is SO going to need BenGay!). And she's doing this because she's accompanying a shrieking, howling, moaning wail in the background of a sobbing female screaming about being afraid, afraid, afraid!! The voice's pain, its anguish, its shrieking swells and swells as Miss Floppy careens back and forth across the concrete - the voice moans, it cries - "I am afraid!" - the fear, the fear, the fear! (And now Miss Floppy is really hurling herself to the concrete - I'm worried she's going to break a tibia.) The voice screams of this fear, howls of this fear, sobs of this fear. What IS it?

"We are afraid of INDIGESTION!!"

KC, dammit, I've got spit all over my computer screen and my butt is hurting because I fell off my chair. Dammit, next time would you please, for the love of God, remember that not all of us were educated at Ivy League colleges and we're simply not attuned to your elegant understatement. Next time just give us a heads up in plain old language - something simple like "Yo, the people in this video are making total ASSES out of themselves!"

Anonymous said...

Thanks, KC, for the link to the New Criterion article, "Regardless of the Truth," a great read.

The article concludes pessimistically: "A lot of people have suffered because of the Duke farce. But what of the Professor Bakers and Wahneema Lubianos? What of the Group of 88? They will wrap themselves in the mantle of 'academic freedom' and proceed as if nothing had happened. What a travesty."

It will be worse than a travesty if academia learns nothing from this "tawdry melodrama" and the G88 are able to proceed if nothing has happened. Whether the Duke administration will ever gain the courage to confront those of the 88 who spoke and acted with seeming impunity to degrade both students and the institution will not be known for some time. Will faculty culture be addressed (a faculty culture initiative) and how faculty culture affects students discussed and recommendations made? It may take a sea change before there is an administration that can deflate the self-important ideologues who spat their venom this past year and continue to, as Grant Farred did at Williams last week.

Beyond the administration, will there be a backlash, obvious or subtle, by students and faculty who are not ideologues?

Beyond the university, will journalists, academics, and bloggers continue to explore the ways in which identity and victim studies are impacting universities? It must have come as a shock to some of the pampered professors to see their outrageous speeches and writings (usually spoken to like-minded colleagues or buried in insignificant journals) publicly criticized and parodied. If these professors know that untruthful and thin scholarship and false claims of victimization can be and will be exposed, maybe there's a modicum of hope that some of them will become more responsible in exercising their "academic freedom."

There were several comments on KC's last post, "Crying Wolf," about the 2004 Claremont McKenna incident in which a visiting professor, Kerri Dunn, spray painted "n***** lover" on her own car and claimed she was a victim of racist vandalism. The incident created an uproar on the campus. One commenter noted that the trial judge likened her actions to someone who perpetrated a bomb hoax and the visiting professor was convicted and sentenced to one year in state prison.

While the organizers of the signing of the listening statement didn't create the incident they addressed, their actions have been characterized by many bloggers as throwing gasoline on a fire. If Dunn could receive a one year prison sentence, surely the G88 should at least be reprimanded for their actions by the Duke administration. Well, I can dream, can't I.

For the G88, will things proceed as if nothing happened?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn, dear, didn't you realize that you were viewing Art, a theatrical rendering more deeply emotive than the great work of Diane Nelson wielding scissors and cutting string at "Shut Up and Teach," described with skillful understatement by viewer Locomotive Breath.

Anonymous said...

No, nothing was learned.

I received the quarterly magazine of my alumni organization at the University of Illinois last month. In the midst of the Duke fiasco, one of the lead stories was that the entire campus was in an uproar over the usual: "racist, sexist and homophobic" incidents on campus. The furor culminated in the usual demonstrations, marches and assemblies.

Try as I might, I haven't been able to discover what happened. At most, it appears that a couple of distasteful e-mails were received by faculty members. The article doesn't suggest that any crimes or misdemeanors actually occurred. In fact, it all seems like a trumped up event to advance the interests of the usual characters... women's studies, blacks studies and queer studies.

Expect these ritual demonstrations to continue. They are, in fact, recruitment and funding drives for the women's, black and queer studies departments. Fortunately, at Illinois, the purported offenders were never named. Perhaps, this is the best we can hope for... tirades against unnamed but omnipresent racists, sexists and homophobes.

Anonymous said...

At first, I loved reading all your posts. In fact, I could not get enough. And I am definitely an anti-Nifong person. However, I think there is a proper time to stop harping on old news. I do not mean to suggest that the Duke Rape Case is old news, but you keep bringing up the past; how the media slanted the story wrong, the New York Times, the Duke 88 (which I am actually interested in). My point being, obviously they are in the wrong; however their pride prevents them from admitting their errors. This is human nature. We understand it. Stop harping on it, and I think you should move on. It almost seems like you're searching for things to write about as the case comes to a close. We get the point already. Yes, I understand I don't have to read about it, but I can't help myself either. Other than that, I do think you have done an excellent job.

I guess my gripe is now that the case has been exposed, you do not need to keep hammering away so harshly at everyone who ever made a mistake and went the other way.

Just my opinion. I did not really follow the case until it turned around in December, so I have no idea about what was said early April.

Anonymous said...

From the New Criterion:

One of the central players in the scandal was Houston A. Baker, Jr., a former president of the Modern Language Association who has built his career through a carefully orchestrated fabrication of race scandals and juvenile cultural relativism. (Choosing between Shakespeare and Jacqueline Susann, he once wrote, is “no different from choosing between a hoagy and a pizza,” adding that “I am one whose career is dedicated to the day when we have a disappearance of those standards.”)

This is vintage Baker. First, he misspells "hogie," keeping to his record of not being able to spell anything correctly, and then he tells us that there is no difference in quality in literature.

I would say that the set of standards that Baker gives regarding literature also can be applied to himself: there is no difference in the quality of English professors. Houston Baker is no better than someone teaching English at a technical school.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link to the video of the "National Day of Truthtelling" in Durham.

I thought that is was ironic that they had both a signer for the deaf and an interpretive dancer for the blind.

AMac said...

Anon "At first, I loved reading all your posts" 6:56am --

Thanks for your review of this web-log. Let me be the first to offer a commendation for wading through posts on a subject that you now find tedious, because... well, because that's what Makes America Great.

But I must warn you of NZ Bear's website The Truth Laid Bear. He lists hundreds of popular blogs, on a wide variety of subjects.

You will probably find most of them to be of no great interest, yet, as with Durham in Wonderland, you risk forcing yourself to read them anyway. So. please--don't click on the link!

Anonymous said...

I too watched the video. They were afraid of many things and there are many things to be afraid of to be sure, but there was no real context to their theater. They didn't look like they had gone without food for some time. Nothing happened at Duke for them to be afraid of except perhaps the truth being found out and found out about themselves. Now begins the battle for control of "reality" that the Klan of 88 are so good at doing. They will spend the rest of their lives trying to define what happened that night no matter what their mean mischief. Oh, I'm sorry> It is difficult to use my keyboard right now. I am flying through the air at this moment having sex with . . . twelve, no sixteen flying virgins. They say they are going to Duke. How can that be?

Anonymous said...

"...the body is considering what should be deemed the Nifong Protection Act, a measure that would have allowed the DA to withhold the evidence that ultimately undid his case in the lacrosse affair. It's astonishing that the latter even could be considered after events of the last year."

Not if you understand the basics:

- Nifong supported the cause.
- Nifong fell "victim" to existing law
- This hurt the cause.


The law is bad and must be changed.

Too many people are in denial about the effects of the radical Left on the Democratic Party - you know, the one in control of North Carolina. That is the home of Nifong, the Gang of 88, radical feminists, the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, most journalists, and the remaining list of supporters and enablers.

It should be crystal clear (pun intended) that these people have destructive complementary agendas, which for decades have included changing (or creating) policies and laws to promote those agendas. To the extent they have been successful, we have the Democratic Party to thank. So go ahead, vote Democratic and show your support for the demented radicals.

"The administrative changes continue at Duke."

When in trouble,
when in doubt,
run in circles,
scream and shout.

Or, in the best bureaucratic traditions, create more bureaucracy and costs to be borne by future students and parents. Meanwhile, do not under any circumstances address root problems. Brodhead, a good Dem and radical enabler, soldiers on.

Anonymous said...

Dear 6:56 am poster;

To quote an interesting video I just watched

I am afraid my stomach is empty and I will not eat again.


Alright had some breakfast better now.

Didn’t eat too much so not too afraid of indigestion.

But I am afraid of you – you want us to stop talking about history, stop writing about new information to back up an old hypothesis.

Yes 6:56 keep doing your little interpretive dance, and yes I will watch, but more importantly I will laugh!

Now I am afraid to fall off my chair just like Carolyn.

Tom E.

Anonymous said...

9:03: I, too, watched the video, and I have to commend you for your judicious commentary on this great piece of art.

Anonymous said...

LOL Carolyn!

My biggest worry about the video was the greater than scant applause that followed the performance. It would appear they had a sizable crowd watching and liking what they saw. Oh my!

Anonymous said...

As I understand it, Stormy Ellis, who defends Nifong, was fired from the Wake County (i.e. Raleigh) DA's Office and left the AG's Office under questionable circumstances prior to being hired by Nifong. You don't suppose she's loyal to Nifong because he's the only person in the State who would hire her, do you?

- The Pessimist

Anonymous said...

"....among Marcotte's defenders, about the only piece of news they appear to have witnessed since April 6, 2006 is Duff Wilson's August New York Times article, which was frequently (and fawningly) referenced."

This shows just how much influence NYT still has with some people. That August 6th piece was the worst and most contrived news article in this entire episode. Its been completely debunked, by bloggers, by the AG, and by others in the press. Its even an embarassment to other NYT staffers.

Yet there are still those out there who think that if the Times said Precious and Nifong had a legitimate case, then it must be true.

Its becoming clear that the Times is now basically a political journal whose faithful readership is a narrow minded group who agree with the Times political philosophy.

But to see them cling to the idea of the Times as an authority above all else is incredible. The Times shouldn't have bothered to fire Jayson Blair since their core readers will believe anything they print anyway.

Anonymous said...

I doubt that anyone at Bob Jones University ever argued that mobs should "castrate" Black men accused of crimes ... only at Duke, where apparently a PhD is now required to join a good old-fashioned Lynch Mob.

Advocating violence which causes a victim to fear it is, in most states, criminal assault even without actual physical contact. The Group of 88 may well have committed a crime -- and coupled with their virulent class/gender/race motivation -- could very well be classified as a "hate" crime ...

Gary Packwood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

To "shouting thomas said" at 5:00 am:

If you find out more about the U of Illinois brouhaha, let us know. I'm not surprised to hear of "ritual demonstrations" (great phrase) there, given the sad and slow death by political correctness of the traditional mascot, Chief Illiniwek.

Anonymous said...

Its becoming clear that the Times is now basically a political journal whose faithful readership is a narrow minded group who agree with the Times political philosophy.

becoming clear? Where have been? In the 1930s New York al-Times "reporter" got a pulitzer prize for reporting fantastic lies about Josef Stalin Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty: The New York Times's Man in Moscow
Review: "A beautifully researched life of the high-living, cynical journalist who helped cover up Stalin's atrocities in the 1930s"

Similarly, NYT "reporters" glorified Fidel Castro in Cuba.
NYT has always been a Stalinist mouthpiece. Support for Gang88 is a logical continuation, in the larger meta-narrative in the context of race, gender and class.

Why anybody has ever believed anything from NY-al-Times is beyond me.

And eh, bashing Bob Jones University is a cheap shot. I really doubt Klu Klux Klan is having own department there, inciting racial hatred.

Anonymous said...

KC's "counterfactual" raises an interesting issue.

Very many on the left emphatically (though not specifically in these terms) embrace a double standard. And they do so believing completely, though mistakenly, in their own moral high ground.

Interesting to see how this evolved over the past 35 years. The moral authority of the civil rights movement, in my view, came from positing the essential rights of individuals, not of groups. The individual, it was said, deserved the protection and recognition of the law. That position, in turn, undermined fatally the assumptions of white supremacy that permeated many parts of our society.

What the Gang of 88, and NCCU's Mr. Chan, and Ms. Makalou now argue is that the relative power positions of GROUPS, not individuals, justify disparate applications of state power and public condemnation in individual cases.

In other words, "of course!" it would be an abomination for an editorial to claim free speech protection for a position that would subject black men to criminal prosecution based solely on the unsubtantiated allegations of an incredible witness.

However--and this is their implicit position, not mine--precisely because whites and men have historically been in a favored position, it is a bold and laudable exemple of free speech to advance positions like Mr. Chan's, and Shaklee Makalou's. Power to The People!

Think of how regrettably far we have come! One justification for persecuting blacks in the Deep South used to be that "hell, a [N-word] has ALWAYS done somethin'! [criminal]".

Now fast forward to the present: "it's not what these individuals--the lacrosse players--have done, but what they might have done, or what other athletes might have done, or what other white men did to Emmett Till fifty years ago--listening, Professor Chafe?--that counts". In other words, "a white man has ALWAYS done somethin'". Dang, BillieBob, we come a long way, ain't we?

We are going to see more of this selective moral preening. It is the stuff of greatly increased racial and gender politics and division--more so than even the lacrosse case has evoked. It marks the final evolution of the original civil rights position--that I am an individual, entitled to the right to be treated as such in all legal, political and public arenas--into a grotesque claim to special favor, based on the alleged mistreatment of other members of their particular group at a time or times in the past.

As Mr. Chan said, convicting the lacrosse players of rape, regardless of the facts, would be justified because other unidentified white men raped other unidentified black women at some unidentified time in the past.

However, other commenters have accurately noted that the problem of white male on black female rape is statistically insignificant in national crime statistics. The occurrence of black male on white female rape is considerably more frequent. Mr. Chan surely would not argue that individual black men may be prosecuted, without regard to their individual culpability, because other black men do get away with rape.

And I think that very many in this country are susceptible to such an appeal. It is a form of intellectual pollution that, I think, we must address. It is not enough to say that Makalou and Chan and McClain and Chafe and Baker and the incomparable Mr. ThugNiggaIntellectual would treat whites and blacks, and males and females, differently based solely on those attributes. Their response, in effect if not in as many words, is "yes we do! and we claim the high moral ground in doing so!".

First and foremost among offenders are liberal institutions like the New York Times--no matter what they say officially about the sanctity of individual rights. Instead of standing firm to the positions they enunciated at the dawn of the civil rights movement, they have descended into a grossly self-contradictory, mealy-mouthed, and fairly petulant intellectual embrace of interest group politics.

It's sad, but really: who still views the Times as the nation's paper of record?

Anonymous said...

Appropos Gary Packwood's 10:44 comment --

From The Johnsville News blog, May 5:
David R. Usher,
Duke Rape Case: The Feminist Klan Exposed -- Duke University cannot rebuild its crumbled foundations until apologies are made to the Lacrosse players, and changes are made to campus policy and curricula to ensure that radical feminist professors cannot control the campus by manipulating students to serve the next generation up on the platter of radical feminism.

One thing is clear: feminist campus activities at Duke in 2006 did not occur because of spontaneous student outrage. They were organized by professors in the Women’s Studies department in cohort with national feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women and the American Association of University Women.

The “take back the night” rally at Duke was organized in the same style Castro orchestrates public events in Cuba. Students were spoon-fed agitprop and then sent out to put on a show for the media. What a carnivale of hate it was! Wanted posters with photographs of 40 members of the Lacrosse team were posted all over campus. Wild epithets were brandished about a “culture of rape” that exists on college campuses. Students were told to come forward and tell “stories” about “rapes”. Walls of protesters emerged brandishing sexist signs.

Anonymous said...

ADA Stormy Ellis (isn't it fitting that these people have names that sound like soap-opera characters?) thinks one case (frame-up) shouldn't define a prosecutor's career? That's kind of like saying that a novice bank robber who murders three people in a botched hold-up shouldn't be defined by that one event. Hey, it was just one day out of his life! Things didn't go as planned, and he made a few mistakes. Why should he be judged by that? Everybody deserves a second chance, don't they?

These people are unreal.

Anonymous said...

Why am I not surprised that Chafe, in my opinion, was an abysmal administartor.

This was published when he "stepped down" as Dean

"At the same time, however, Chafe's tenure has been rocked by several major scandals and many faculty members have expressed disapproval of his management style. Part of the criticism Chafe has taken is because of the nature of his job. It involves making tough decisions about budgetary priorities, and the University must inevitably disappoint some departments in the hiring process. Nevertheless, Chafe's priorities in the budget have at times been questionable. Scandals like the downsizing of the biological anthropology and anatomy department, the treatment of the Primate Center, sexual harassment in the physics department and the embezzlement from the Center for Demographic Studies have all called Chafe's deanship into question in recent years.

Regrettably, Chafe's major legacy will be the Arts and Science budget deficit, which threatens to subsume the school and has necessitated a hiring freeze and led to occasional talks of cutting back the number of faculty positions. This problem is something Chafe's successor will have to wrestle with for years to come."

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the soon-to-be-disbarred Nifong could get a job teaching law (and probably ethics classes too) at NCCU's law school. As Irving Joyner has demonstrated repeatedly in his commentary throughout this case, the only thing required to be a law professor at NCCU is an ignorance of the law and a willingness to argue that whites should be subjected to legal standards not applied to people of color. Clearly, Nifong is more than qualified to teach there.

Anonymous said...

Minnesota State University had 2 weeks ago similar fake hate crime/Kerri Dunn episode. Local gang88 member (gay activist) fabricated the story that a group of white anti-gay males ("the perfect offenders) had viciously attacked him. As expected, media, local gang88 and student chapters of gang88 quickly organised marches to protest against the perfect offenders. Luckily, the police exposed the hoax pretty soon and some random white athletes were not rounded up and paraded in the front of eager PC media.

Local Gang88 people had this to say about the Paul Marquardt:

This kid has somethings to teach, and somethings many of us could learn. His parents shoudl be bursting their buttons that raised such a fine young man.
by: southern minny moderate @ Apr 30, 2007 -- 9:22 PM CDT
[ Reply ]

I agree
I agree. If you watch his interview on WDAY, the guy has a lot of class.

He stopped by my blog to comment on the support he's gotten, and I thought I'd post it here as well.

Paul Marquardt: "thanks so much guys, your support is SO necessary and helpful. I have never been more overwhelmed with help, care, love and support. thank you all"

Fake anti-gay hate crimes up

Like Crystal, he was not prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

More from the Duke Department of Self-Congratulatory Double Standards:

It was racist and misogynistic for the lacrosse players to hire black strippers. However, Crystal Gale Mangum was just a working girl--her choice of "profession" should not be held against her.


OK, we all know by now that the lacrosse players specified they wanted white strippers, not black. But more to the point:

(1) If Precious was simply a working girl, trying to put food on the table for her kids, why are the lacrosse players faulted for engaging this working girl? They were providing employment to this woman. Why is she noble, and they ignoble, simply by virtue of their deciding to engage her voluntarily proffered entertainment services?

It just don' make sense, JimBob.

(2) Of course, we all know that boisterous female groups hire male strippers. I understand that female sports teams at Duke have done this. Is this crude misandry? Or women boldly and laudably asserting their own sexuality and hurling aside the straitjacket of convention?

(3)Does anyone at Duke give a rat's pink ass? Of course not.

To use a precise and elegant term, my friends, this is a pantload.

Anonymous said...

Don't you know? Duff and the NYT were taken down the Primrose path by Nurse Tara and she is the reason for their coverage. Duff even said so - how can you fault them?

Anonymous said...

Is ADA Stormy Ellis the black woman Nifong was hugging all the time? Mybe Mikey has a case of jungle fever.

Anonymous said...

watched the video...echoing sentiments of the Geico caveman: "What?"

Anonymous said...

It is sad state of affairs, but I bet Nifong, ADA Stormy Ellis, Tara Levicy and Gang88 would win any election against non-gang88 member. Just look Nifong's support now and Freezer Jefferson, and Alcee Hastings in powerful positions in the most ethical Congress in history.

It is frightening to think what these people are up at election time. Some of gang88 members were caught stealing Duke money for democratic party campaigning in 2004 (I'm sure all non-dem activists parents appreaciate that their tuition money was used for far left political activism). I'm sure many gang88 members are members of ACORN and other voter fraud front-ends.

Had Durham or Drive-By-Media any investigate reporters, this would be important story to investigate.

Anonymous said...

Good editorial in the News & Observer today.



Anonymous said...

The Ubuntu video was pathetic. Brutally frightening.

Are there really women out there that nutty?

I believe the "dancer" needs to load up on one more Big Mac before her next performance. Another gut roll might elevate that midriff attire into its own form of entertainment.

This hideous display--accessorized by a monologue that rivals any piece of Maya Angelou poetry for kindergarten fare--is yet another example of the desperation of the hoax enablers. It's killing them that Mangum was not only NOT raped, but she wasn't even touched by the lacrosse players. Their whole lives are invested in "truthtelling" of their fantasies.

These are hopelessly morbid and saprophytic creatures.

Obtaining nourishment osmotically from the dead matter of the Nifong Hoax.


M. Simon said...

I have heard that it takes about five years from a willingness to look at evidence until a change in personal view point takes place.

KC, when I started reading this piece I honestly thought I was reading a dyed in the wool Republican site - libertarian (liberal) orientation.

I think in five years (more or less) you will look back and wonder how you could support your current favorite candidate (unless things changed while I wasn't watching).

We have laws and proceedure to bias the odds in favor of justice, and heavily against injustice to the innocent.

When those laws and regulations are breached - to get the usual suspects - injustices are done.

The justice system in America is broken in the oughts for the same reason it was broken in the '20s. Prohibition is corrupting the system.

The right is starting to come around on this issue. When more of them get it it will bust the justice system in America wide open.

I predict corruption so widespread that confessions followed by amnesty will be the only reasonable way to fix it.

Your exposure of the Duke case has opened a lot of fracture planes in America. Equality vs. affirmitive action. Justice based on evidence vs. justice based on mob rule. Upholding standards vs flexible standards. Belief vs. evidence.

A whole array of human behavior. In the end it comes down to civilization. Mob rule, rule by intimidation, is incompatible with civilization.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, being "afraid" of indigestion among the Ubuntu group doesn't seem very plausible. By the looks of them they digest, and digest, and digest 24/7.

Cedarford said...

The fascinating new info KC broke was about Tara Levicy in his 4-part series. Unfortunately, no MSM has picked up on his additions to the Neff article that ran Apr 15th.

Levicy did her damage. Those at DUMC in a position to know - Manly, the two ER docs and 4 nurses treating her, plus her reporting path up to Chancellor Victor Hzau of Duke Health Services and the Duke Nurse Leadership Team remained silent or were gagged. Her SANE Supervisor did not disclose Levicy's misconduct or lack of quals, attempt to correct the record in public remarks, but instead backed her charge and even met with her in Nifong's office 2 1/2 months after the Crystal Gail Mangum encounter.

The emerging news about people at DUMC raises some interesting questions on how President Brodhead, Larry Moneta, the Board of Trustees might have behaved in the Lacrosse Case if DUMC had not acted as a black hole on Levicy's misrepresentations but served as a "BS" warning beacon.
At the same time, does anybody believe the Group of 88 would have paused from their agenda if they had known the truth about Levicy? Or the rest of the black racists and PC activists on Duke campus, NCCU, or the "angry, really angry and oppressed" citizens of downtrodden Durham??

Please, if anyone here is at DUMC or knows someone there close to the grapevine, any buzz would be nice to hear

After the "innocent" declaration, regular journalists seemed to have "moved on and started the healing process so closure can start". At least until Mikey Nifong's trial starts. If he pleads out to avoid a trial and gives up his law license, its a Page 16 subparagraph or a one minute soundbite with 2 talking heads brought in to talk about "moving on". Lawsuits may resurrect it somewhat at Duke and in Durham, but not as national news. The KC and Stuart Taylor book may get some attention.

Overall, though, the journalistic shovels are coming out to bury it.
The next news cycle awaits. Paris Hilton faces up to 45 days in jail and the Baby Danielle pictures will be out soon!

Anonymous said...

The coauthors of "The New Criterion" article should be recognized: Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball.


Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen Brodhead's face lately? He has been bending over grabbing his ankles so much we have almost forgotten what he looks like. Imagine what a VP for
Durham and Regional Affairs will end up costing Duke. Millions have already been extorted from Duke and
Durham is still a sinkhole.

Anonymous said...

From the ABC article:
"He'll be prepared to deal with any outcome that comes from the Bar," Nifong's lawyer David Freedman told ABC News. "That being said, he's a fighter."

Wow the last part of that "he is a fighter" means This is Nifong's fight not mine. He is paying me to do it but we certainly aren't going to stick out necks out and say he ought to be fighting this one.

And the first part of the quote has an interesting tone..."He'll be prepared ..." It means I am going to warn him he is going down and it won't be any skin of me.

The other NC prosecutors are distancing themselves from Nifong. His own attorney is stepping a few feet away from him....Nifong has just a few left Cy and Victoria Peterson left and the mopy ADA .gee only one mistake...Stormy

Nifong has to atone for his sins and even his lawyers are implying as much.

M. Simon said...

"I never realized before that driving into Durham with NY license plates could be as dangerous as leaving the Green Zone and at this point I would sooner invest in the Sunni Triangle than in the Research Triangle."


I wrote a bit about this post at Civilization vs Mob Rule


"Durham is one of those nightmares that will not end, and long ago the weirdness went from to fascinating and pathetic to simply frightening."

Is very expressive as well.

Anonymous said...

Hey DK!

Hey AMac!

Where's the wife's expert analysis of in-SANE Tara Levicy?
We're all waiting. Tell us how wrong KC is.

Anonymous said...

DK wrote earlier that the essai will be coming out next week, what ever she writes, it is clear to this nurse that Levicy is a bit player in this deal.

AMac said...

Anon 1:20pm --

Mrs. DK emailed. She told me that she plans to have a SANE nurse colleague review her draft early this coming week. Then, presumably, she'll have it posted. So be patient.


M. Simon said...

Anon. May 6, 2007 11:24:00 AM,

I have an idea why the biological antropology might have gotten downgraded by Chafee.

Maybe he was afraid of Inequality.


Anonymous said...

After the boys were declared Innocent, their are still those who say - Yeah, well they did underage drinking and peeded off the porch. I will not be surprised if the same reaction applies here to Levicy. Yeah, well she met with the DA four times - we think. Even though we have absolutly no idea what she said - it was unpofessional. Ignoring the fact that when the DA calls - you go.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Debrah.


Well done. Deep, worshipful feelings overwhelm me. I am now bound to find further uses for this wonderful word. It shall become my quest.

Gary Packwood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

P. Rich--






Anonymous said...

Amanda Marcotte and NCCU are two such sad entities at this point that I can't possibly begin to address how ridiculous they both are.

As for the argument that "boo f'ing hoo, they're making an example of Mike Nifong", I would say that he needs to be made an example of. If the NC legal system was structured effectively to have prevented Nifong's misconduct at its inception, there would be no need to send a message to other morally and ethically bereft DA's in order to create a deterrent. However, such structure is not in place. Atrocious DA's such as Nifong are free in NC to trample over the rights and lives of the innocent. Any time that DA considers a questionable ethical action, he or she must have Mike Nifong, former DA and current bouncer at a local strip club, always there as a cautionary tale.

Anonymous said...

I want to compliment all the posters who have written that the silence of the non G88 is worse than the BS of the now-marginalized G88.


Anonymous said...

Wonder how Mrs. DK is going to
worm this one?

I'm sure there'll be more
sophistry about how SANE
can't afford to be questioned,
sued etc. I wonder if she'll
address the malpractice issue?
I wonder if she'll fail to mention
the fact that most healthcare
professions have professional
organizations that offer
malpractice insurance?

I wonder if she'll comment
about the fact that Levicee was
testifying for a physician
under her own credentials?
That she was claiming authority
she didn't have?

Doesn't matter what Mrs. DK says,
anyway: a report to the Board
of Healthcare Professionals
(that's what Virginia has, so
I assume North Korealina has
one of the same)- could be
a disaster for Nurse Tara.

BTW: Tara wasn't the one dancing
on the video, was she?

Which reminds me: the video
was the infamous paper itself
come alive - (AKA known as the
"Hurled Scum.")
Only she was self-hurling,
in pantomime.


Anonymous said...

That Ubuntu video was really something (but I am not sure what).

Was the "performer" doing an imitation of CGM when under the influence of a variety of drugs?

I was hoping the performer would lie down on her side and start spinning like Curley of the Three Stooges.

Nyuk - nyuk - nyuk.


Anonymous said...

Misspelling: my bad.
Levicy, not Levicee:
one's like spicy,
the other's like a
levee. A dolt is a
dolt is a dolt,
however, spelled by
any other letters.
Like a rose, only


Anonymous said...

5:28 You could not be more wrong with all of your quess work. BTW, It the State Board of Nursing in both Virginia and North Carolina - No pretending to be a Doctor - worm is nasty and does not describe this no nothing event.

Anonymous said...

There is no malpractice or fraud - the job was to collect swabs and cloths to send to SBI = that was done.

Anonymous said...

Exactly what use is an 'open file' policy if at DA is unwilling to record or even recognize any evidence that doesn't conform to the DA's preconceived theory of the crime.

Nifong: "Here you go! That's all the files and evidence that I was willing to record. Good luck, you schmuck!"

Anonymous said...

She claimed to have performed
what she could not have performed:
therefore, she was claiming to
perform the Physician's function.
Perhaps you haven't seen what
KC has on her.
Practicing Medicine - or pretending
to - without a license is a likely
charge; offering false testimony is

I do know what I'm talking about.


Anonymous said...

Mac - You wish - to date no one has seen the written report and that is all that matters - the rest is noise,quess work and speculation.

Anonymous said...

In Why most serial killers are white men, La Griff Du Lion points out that blacks make up 22% of serial killers, which is almost double their proportion of the general population.

Anonymous said...

BTW: Nurse Tara claimed to
see what she could not see;
observe what she could not
observe; diagnose what she
was - (as a trainee and a
non-physician) - unlicensed to
diagnose, even with what is
called a "nursing diagnosis."

There is something that supercedes
the Nursing Board in Virginia,
and that is the Department of
Health Professions.
They oversee other Boards -
(like the Chiropractic Board) -
and so forth. In this way,
for example, a Chiropractor can
be charged with making medical
claims - (such as being able to
cure cancer and so forth.)

Like it or not, Levicy is in
big trouble.

I'll admit that there will have
to be evidence to prove
malpractice, but if you've ever
seen people like John Edwards
in action, or seen the home he
lives in? Most healthcare
providers have malpractice
insurance, and even a hint of
malpractice will sometimes
get the insured's policyholder
to settle. Depends upon lots
of things. If I were Nurse
Levicy? I'd be checking my
coverage, and getting lawyered-
up like the rest of them,
regardless of actual guilt.

Remember: this case never was
about "actual guilt," since
there never was an "actual crime."

Ain't fair? Ask three young men
who were accused of a crime that
never was: ask them "what was


Anonymous said...

Why would Burnette, a self-professed hater of American society, want to take Arabic lessons?

Anonymous said...

John Edwards collectd on a Cerebal Palsy Case - not the same at all.

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson--
Don't know if you'll see this, as KC has a new post up, and I realize it's a side point, but I've never heard of a "hogie"--where I grew up in Western Pa. (not all that far from Frostburg, MD, actually) we had "hoagies" (for which "hoagy" is a plausible singular). Could this be a regional variation?

And, no, I'm not generally trying to defend the loathesome Houston Baker--just curious about the sandwiches.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, you are assuming
that a complainant might be
the LAX boys' attorneys.
Perhaps. Sometimes complaints
are lodged by Physicians,
as well, especially if their
authority has been superceded.

Keep in mind that Boards
investigating such cases take
into account the harm to the
complainant, as well as the
relationship of the complainant
to the accused. They don't
spend much capital on frivolous
cases. In a case of this
magnitude? Hard to say.
Depends upon the complaints,
the complainant(s) and the
veracity of said complainant.

CGM could potentially be the one
to make a claim, since she no
longer has her initial targets
to sue or blackmail.
She would actually be the most
likely to sue, rather than going
to the Board of Health Professions-
(unless she merely wants to bolster
her case) - CGM being from a
community that routinely plays
"medical lotto" with regard
to malpractice. Since the
Nurse's memory was what she
used - not notes - Nurse Levicy
is quite vulnerable. If she
doesn't have notes...the point's
been made before.

Nurse Tara ought to consider a
restricted-fluid intake, because
considering the unpredictability of what she faces, she may have
to deal with an unfortunate
side effect of terrific or horrific
fear-inducing stimuli - (such as
the boys themselves faced for
over a year) - which includes
a danger of spontaneous
micturation -(happens
sometimes when the pudendal
nerve gets a good squeeze
under the pressure of the deep
hip rotators, specifically the
obturator internus.)

Needless to say, I'm not predicting
guilt: I'm only saying that she
is potentially a target of:

1) Nifong, seeking to blame someone
else other than himself ("the woman
made me eat, and I ate!") We've heard that one before.

2) Gottlieb, seeking to blame
someone else. His notes are
as corroborative as Levicy's:
not. He's going to be looking
for a co-scapegoat.

3) The treating Physician, seeking to blame someone else for the case

4) CGM, hoping to find some way
to make a payday out of all this.

5) The pissed-off parents of the
innocent players, who will likely
become VERY CREATIVE in their
methods - and who they decide
is involved in making them suffer
such incredible pain and suffering.
(In fact, they may be reading this
as soon as it's posted!) Sorrrrry!

6) The Board itself, which likely
won't appreciate the mud this case
has dragged SANE Nursing through.

7) Duke Medical, which may throw
off the heaviest furniture AFTER
the iceberg has made contact:
right now, they're not admitting
anything, and terminating an
employee is de facto admission
of guilt and/or responsibility/
liability. You know what?
They have lawyers, too!

My wish would be that most
of the parties involved would
learn to pray.


Gary Packwood said...

Shouting Thomas 5:00 said...
...I received the quarterly magazine of my alumni organization at the University of Illinois last month. In the midst of the Duke fiasco, one of the lead stories was that the entire campus was in an uproar over the usual: "racist, sexist and homophobic" incidents on campus.
SHO Fire Issues

I would like to offer a suggestion for parents, professors and their students.

We are seeing a growing number of parents and professors over here in Texas and New Mexico who are listening to Developmental Psychologists and their concern about young people being flooded with propaganda on campus and their need to be OUTRAGED something.

We can tolerate just so much propaganda and that amount is much less in the developing minds of college students.

Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, Texas presents that argument rather well when she observes ..."there are certain set-your-hair-on-fire issues" that need to be discussed.

We nick-name that as SHO Fire Issues!

Her message is...not all issues are set-your-hair-on-fire...issues!

Some of us are quietly spreading that message across academia and even suggesting that there needs to be a SHO Fire column in the campus newspaper with a survey attached so that students can agree or not agree that the issue being written about is ...SHO Fire eligible.

With respect to mental health, a little humor goes a long way and besides, a SHO Fire policy makes the far left and the far right a little nervous as they must focus on information that is factual and truthful...if they wish to move their agenda forward across campus.

I offer 'SHO Fire' to Duke students, parents and professors as a gift from all of us over here in Texas and New Mexico.
(Comment Corrected 05/06/7:46)

Anonymous said...


Oh, and by the way, the Cerebral
Palsy case you cited - the one
that John Edwards got rich from?
There's a lot of debate about
whether that was an actual case
of malpractice. Obviously, the
jury saw it that way, but
a jury in, say, Durham, might
be inclined to believe -
(in a similar way) -
the notion that Nurse Tara
didn't collect or process
or record the samples correctly,
resulting in a "terrible
misunderstanding" that continues
TO THIS DAY to cause Miss CGM
untold trauma and sleeplessness!

Oh, the horror! The horror!


Anonymous said...

I agree that this rinky dink certification SANE deal has been dragged through the mud. Who started the mud slinging??? Back during the Will Smith trial - the female prosecutore hammered Sen Kennedy with "Is this your mothers phone?" The Senator's respone was "My mother has many phones - if you tell me it is her phone, I believe you." After numerous repeats of this question, the Senator finally said "Yes, its my mother phone", She did not, but us nurse watching the trial expected her to say "Its not your mothers phone and if he lied about the phone - he lied about the rape,"

Anonymous said...

This "rinky dink SANE deal
has been a vitally important
link, allowing Nifong to
proceed - (until the VERY
astute Attorney who did a
quick-study of DNA got
Meehan to drop trau.)

Nifong had help; Nurse Levicy
was one of the elements - and
a very important element - in
perpetuating the case.

You can say: "no way" if you
want, just the same as commentators
said "no way is the AG gonna use
the word INNOCENT!"

Just keep denying the danger.
Please keep denying the danger.
Please please please keep
minimizing the danger.

Anonymous said...

p.s. to 8:12:

See 7:42.

Grumpy Old Man said...

That video is a satire, right?

Anonymous said...

I'm glad to hear that Nifong may write a book about his role in the lacrosse hoax. What's the title going to be, "If I Did It"?

Anonymous said...

To: Carolyn @ 3:59am

Pure genius! Congratulations, your commentary on the video is exactly how to respond. These self-centered types will never understand reason, they might understand ridicule.

Anonymous said...



In this week's humor category, Ubuntu, the group co-founded by potbanger and Duke graduate student Serena Sebring, held a "National Day of Truthtelling" in Durham last week. The Orwellian call was not to demand "truth" from the DA's office, or the Police Department, or Bob Ashley's newsroom, but instead to suggest that the "truth" had not been exposed in the lacrosse case. As a Liestoppers commenter noted, a video of the event needs to be seen to be believed. both mean-spirited and packed with inaccurate statements. While I am flattered that you seem to find me important enough to repeatedly comment on, your information is nearly 100% wrong. And while I think it's unfortunate that you are using your blog to mock rape survivors who are using poetry and dance as methods of healing, and encouraging your followers to do the same (by providing a link to the video so they can pile on the laugh-at-the-poetry-and-silly-dancing bandwagon), my only hope in sending you this message is that you will at least correct the misinformation you are putting out about me.

1. I am not a co-founder of UBUNTU. No one is. There is no such role within the group. If you are interested in our organizational structure, more information can be found here:

If, by 'co-founder' you are referring to original membership within the group: I attended a meeting for the first time after they had been coming together on Wednesday nights for several weeks already (I suppose you will just have to take my word on that). It is inaccurate to say that I am a co-founder. That said, I am very proud of the work UBUNTU has done and continues to do - I simply don't deserve the credit you have granted me.

2. I was not at the pots and pans rally. I was present at the candlelight vigil the evening prior, and several protest events around that time, but I did not attend the rally on Sunday morning. I think that this perception of me as a "potbanger" must stem from my appearance on Nancy Grace in which she asked about the protests. I answered her questions about that protest as one instance of a set of protests - most of which I had participated in. My answers to Nancy Grace were based on my participation in other protests, and conversations with friends who had attended and organized the pots and pans rally. I want to be clear though that my correction of this information should not be taken as an indication that I did not support that action - I just did not attend the rally because I had other commitments that required my presence at that time.

3. UBUNTU was only one of 9 organizations that formed the planning committee for the Day of Truthtelling. In addition, there were 51 organizations that endorsed it. We (members of UBUNTU) cannot claim all of the credit for creating that beautiful event.

4. The Day of Truthtelling was not intended as a statement to "suggest that the 'truth' had not been exposed in the lacrosse case" as you wrote. In fact, information specifically clarifying the relationship of the Day of Truthtelling to the lacrosse case is prominently displayed on the website for the Day of Truthtelling. It reads:

"This day is a call to end all forms of sexual violence. Sexual violence happens every day and in all of our communities, including: on college campuses, in our homes, in our neighborhoods, and all over the world.

Some people have asked if this event is a reaction to the dropping of the charges in the Duke Lacrosse case. Absolutely not: work on building this important day began in January - long before the charges were dropped. It is important to us that this day not be simplified as a reaction to the Duke Lacrosse case, because ending sexual violence is about more than any one high-profile case – all rapes deserve outrage.

Our vision for the Day of Truthtelling is that in the place of divisions and disempowering silences, we will create healing, loving, transformative spaces where we can celebrate and honor each person's humanity and the power of community. Join us!"

While the utility of correcting all of this is questionable - since I am sure you will either ignore my comment, or find a way to still count me as among the 'enablers' or 'pot-stirrers' or people who are otherwise wrong - I wanted to at least make an effort to speak on my own behalf.

You did get one thing right - I am a graduate student. I'm also a mother and a survivor working in my community (in ways that will never make the news or capture the attention of scandal-seekers) to create awareness about sexual violence and community-based prevention and healing strategies, and hopefully to bring about changes that will lead to a safer world for my daughters and my son. I also coach my daughter's soccer team, and love to watch ER on Thursday nights. I hold no Orwellian aspirations, and I'm surely not as important in this whole thing as you've painted me to be.

M. Simon said...

Anon May 6, 2007 2:38:00 PM:

Says re: Levicy

Even though we have absolutly no idea what she said - it was unpofessional. Ignoring the fact that when the DA calls - you go.

Actually we do have SOME idea. Levicy concurred with her previous statements in Jan. 007. We also have the defence interview with Levicy.

In any case no notes were taken at the meetings although good procedure would tend to require them.

Now to get all tin foil hat on the case: the reason for taking no notes is that the folks involved had entered into a conspiracy. Except for one minor point. Other evidence points to a conspiracy. Meehan, Linwood Wilson, not talking to Manly, etc.

Anonymous said...

To Serena Sebring,

If - if - you identify with
others who have been raped -
(and you are not the only one,
my friend) - and IF you are
sensitive to fear of injustice
- (you used the word "fear"
a whole lot) - then you must have
been aghast and made fearful by
the rape of justice that was
occuring as three INNOCENT young
men were being dragged through
hell, to be dropped in a prison
for 30 years or more, to be raped
by other men.

Does that make you fearful?

It should.

How about a system that is so
corrupted with racist hate and
envy that they will do anything
to put three young men in jail?
How about a medical system and
a court system that collaborated,
a Judge who allowed threats in
his own courtroom, a prosecutor
who cared more about his pension
than the lives of three fine
young men? Does that fill you
with fear?

It ought to.

How about you?
You obviously don't have a fear
that keeps you from appearing
(so-to-speak) on this blog!
Good for you! You shouldn't
be fearful; you apparently

You aren't afraid to speak your
mind. That's positive.

Maybe it's people like Mike Nifong
who should fill you with fear?
If Nifong can do what he's done
to these innocent young men, think
what he could do to prevent and
pervert justice for someone - like
yourself - who has actually
been raped? In truth, not
in some attempt to "get" someone?
Think of what he could do with
his power over the helpless?
Think of what he HAS done with
his power?

Mike Nifong should make everyone


Anonymous said...

Serena Sebring - Thank you for your post. I think we have more in common than you might imagine. The folks frequenting this blog also want a world free of sexual violence. The specific group that we focus on are the three lacrosse players who have been victimized over the last year by a documented lack of "truthtelling." They have gone through a tortuous time having been falsely accused of sexual violence. They are legitimate victims and deserve concern and respect. I don't see your groups or any groups showing much compassion for the victims who have been falsely accused. Your statistics seem to minimize their importance and frequency and your rallys seem to exclude these players as being legitimate victims of a type of sexual violence. I don't see any condemnation of the false accuser. Am I wrong about this?

Speaking for myself, I see a great deal of over-identification with the victim role in groups such as yours. What I mean by this is that being a victim becomes not just a tough period in ones life it becomes a way of life. An easy way to understand this is to think of a time when we were angry. We have all been angry at times, right? We get furious at this or that. Then, if the anger lasts long enough, at some point it ceases and instead of being an emotion it is transformed into hatred. The emotion we experience no longer is an emotion, importantly it becomes a way of thinking. Hate. It is this shift that shows where the over-identification is taking place. Suddenly we are no longer just angry, we become an "angry person." We aren't just experiencing the emotion, we are living in an ideology that is fueled by that original anger and now is something quite different. Hatred. We have ceased just being upset and now have become identified with the anger to such a degree that it becomes integral to our identity. The danger is that we will lose the capacity to be in the present moment, to be alive and experience life in its fullness. This is what I see from groups such as yours and what was clear from the dance/talk. The identification with the victim role was so profound that the real person becomes clouded and obscured. The ideology takes precedence over the experience of ones life. The cause is all important and the hatred for those to blame becomes a constant. When we get into states such as that we lose our clarity. My guess is that if you had a bit more clarity you would see these three young men as fitting into your classificaation of victims of sexual violence and would see the false accuser as a perpetrator. I don't think you are able to see it like that and your over-identification is likely a part of the problem.

I think I would have a great deal more respect for groups such as yours if you acted inclusively and honored the type of sexual violence done to these boys by a false accuser, the legal system, the media, their professors and fellow students.

AMac said...

Serena Sebring 2:55am --

Thanks for writing.

You note that many people have clicked on the link to the "Indigestion Video" that "Day of Truthtelling" organizers uploaded at YouTube. Given the roles that many of these people played in enabling the Hoax, it is unsurprising that so many viewers disdained the clip. (I hadn't bothered to look until reading your comment.) A belated suggestion: if you're unwilling to be mocked, don't use YouTube to post ridiculous videos.

As I understand them, your numbered rebuttals to Johnson's "mean-spirited" post that is "packed with inaccurate statements" are:

1. You are an early, active, and proud member of UBUNTU, not a "co-founder." Fair enough.

2. You were not present at the most notorious potbanger rally, because you had a scheduling conflict. You attended many similar-themed rallies, and supported (and still support) the goals of the potbanger demonstraters. Fair enough.

3. "We (members of UBUNTU) cannot claim all of the credit for creating that beautiful event." Fair enough.

4. "The Day of Truthtelling was not intended as a statement to 'suggest that the 'truth' had not been exposed in the lacrosse case" as [KC Johnson] wrote."

Ms. Sebring, a couple of questions on this point #4.

-- Why do you use sneer quotes around the word truth?

-- Why the weasel phrasing in the non-clarifying clarification that you quote? "It is important to us that this day not be simplified as a reaction to the Duke Lacrosse case, because ending sexual violence is about more than any one high-profile case – all rapes deserve outrage." Alas, your code is clear. "Simplified" means "not limited to." "All rapes" including that one "high profile case," "the Duke Lacrosse case," "deserve outrage."

Your faux distress ("both mean-spirited and packed with inaccurate statements") is as Orwellian as the record of funhouse-mirror TruthTelling that you have undertaken during the last fourteen months.

Here's a Google search, Sebring Duke lacrosse. Do you plan to review the worst of these items, and make amends for the damage you did to Due Process, and to innocent lives? You could start with this Nancy Grace transcript.

SEBRING: people want more accountability from the administration for the sexual and racial nature of this crime.

But then, you have so many choices about where to begin.

AMac said...

Another thought.

Ms. Sebring, blogger John-in-Carolina excerpted the following from a March 28, 2006 N&O article on the previous day's Rush-to-Condemn demonstration:

"If you see them in class, ask them who did this," said Serena Sebring, a graduate student.

Some students sported T-shirts that said, "Men's Lax, Come Clean."

"Them" referred to "Lacrosse players" and "this" referred to "the rape they committed, or enabled."

On a different note, John-in-Carolina has long been curious about the Vigilante Poster that did so much to inflame and endanger. It is quite possible that you are acquainted with its authors, and with the circumstances of its production and distribution.

If I saw you (in class or outside), I would certainly want to ask you who made the poster.

I might even sport a T-shirt that said, "Vigilante Poster Makers, Come Clean."

If you wished to use these blog comments to expand on this issue, I am sure you would find an attentive audience, with excellent "Listening" skills.

Anonymous said...

5:37 Thanks for reinforcing my point that the conspiracy folk have no idea what was said during Levicy's meetings with DA fong. This is a non event.

Anonymous said...

It matters what Levicy said to
Nifong in the sense that she
could have stopped the railroading,
had she endeavored to, and had she
understood her "place" in the

Nifong appears to have taken
over an investigation that wasn't
his to take; Levicy appears to
have performed in a professional
capacity - vis a vis testimony -
for which she was not trained.
(Who, pray tell, is trained to
provide inconsistent evidence?)
She did much more than that,

If you look at the March 14, 2006
report (as reported by KC)- you
may note that there was no mention
of "anal edema." The examining
Physician stated that there was
"no anal tenderness or edema."
Yet Levicy claims there was.
And Levicy wasn't, according
to her own words, in a position
to actually see the examination!

The problem with posts like yours
is that KC has documented most
of this stuff. And then you
and your trolls come in and
claim that nothing's been said,
there's no evidence etc.

If you will look at the DIW
sidebar, and re-read anything with
"Levicy" in it, or perhaps
have someone read it and explain
it to you, then you might not
be trying to shoot down things
that are solidly grounded.

As far as what Levicy said to
Nifong etc, I would be profoundly
frightened at the prospect that
Nifong wrote stuff down, while
Levicy didn't! That would
leave her in a world of hurt,
and given Nifong's propensity
to bend, shake, fold and piss
on the truth, he's already shown
that he's got what it takes
to let someone else take the
fall for him - or failing that,
to let someone else be his
cushion when he finally does
hit bottom!


Anonymous said...

Thanks for taking advantage of KC's open comment policy to correct the record Sebrina. Perhaps you could work with UBUNTU to extend the same courtesy to people who would like to comment on the UBUNTU blog. For instance I would like to correct this mean spirited inaccurate statement from April 26 2007:

On April 28th, one such event will take place in Durham, North Carolina. It is the “National Day of Truth-Telling” to speak out against sexual violence but also to address its root causes. It has been the hotbed of confusion, resentment and anger since the rape occurred at a Duke Lacrosse team party. An organized effort emerged to untangle the web and educate the community towards a place of healing and empowerment.

Anonymous said...

Wayne Fontes,

Thanks for bringing the quote
from the UBUNTU blog out in
the open. Was that a post,
or a header?


Anonymous said...

Nifong was pushing this case no matter what the evidence. No one was derailing him. Least of all a 40K a year Rn. I have a lot of respect for KC than me, but I disagree with him and his conclusions from day one on this issue - This is not a group sing, but a discussion board. Troll is code for disagree

Anonymous said...

Wayne - If you follow the link that Serena Sebring left in her post here you will find the following quote:

"UBUNTU was born in the aftermath of the March 13, 2006 rape of a Durham, NC Black woman by members of the Duke University Lacrosse team."

Even after the players have been declared innocent this organization maintains publically that a rape took place. Go figure.

Anonymous said...


That is a reprint of and article. Here's the header:

Read This!
26 04 2007

Please go over to Black Commentator and read this important article about the impact of sexual violence on black women and the struggle to end it.

In “Raped and Then?”, Jamala Rogers (leader of the Organization for Black Struggle in St. Louis, Black Radical Congress National Organizer, and Black Commentator Editorial Board member) speaks powerfully about the issues at stake and what it will take to make change. Thank you Jamala Rogers!

Wayne will no write I will learn HTML one hundre4d times on the blackboard. After doing that I might even learn some HTML.

Anonymous said...

Y'know, it reminds me of
something: when a 2-year old
child wants to get on his parent's
last nerve, he/she'll repeatedly
and defiantly say:

It's button-pushing, aggravating
and immature. It's behavior best left for 2-year olds.

It's also hypocrisy,
especially since UBUNTU claims to
represent people who've been
marginalized. Often, people who've
been molested and raped are not
believed - (ask victims of
pedophile Priests, who've had
to fight to gain the admission

Let me ask Sebrina an open question:

Since it's been proved beyond
any doubt that the boys are the
actual victims in this case,
and not CGM, how can you continue
to abuse the boys? How long
will you continue to enable
Nifong and others to maintain
the delusion that "something
happened?" How long will you
victimize three innocent young

If I were you, I'd ask a lawyer.
You might be advised to take down
your website claim of "rape."
Do you want to really feel
vulnerable? Do you feel afraid?
Do you fear getting sued?
Perhaps you should?

Talk to a lawyer: don't take
my advice. Continuing to post
a claim of felonious behavior
ought to make you somewhat...


Anonymous said...

Inre: video

"...we are afraid and will never eat again..."

They don't appear to be afraid at all.

That fellow in the red shirt and red hat must have been sentenced to some sort of creative judicial sentencing. Why else would he be standing there?

Tawny2 said...

My dear Ms. Sebring:

I am ashamed. I am ashamed that I have not contributed to this splendid and literate blog before now, having let other committments get in the way. However, your spirited defense of UBUNTU, the Day of Truth Telling video and your own part in this unbelievable farce moved me.

Others have commented on various parts of your post so I shall concentrate primarily on one. The UBUNTU website states: "Some people have asked if this event is a reaction to the dropping of charges in the Duke/Lacrosse case. Absolutely not."

Absolutely not? This is taking hypocrisy to a critical mass stage. Wayne Fontes has already pointed out the "hotbed of confusion" quote. A few more:

As far as I can tell, the UBUNTU webite was last updated 5-03-07. Yet, we still see a photo caption reading, "Police blocks [sic] women trying to put protest signs at the Buchanan house, site of the Duke sex assault." Of course, there was absolutely no assault, sexual or otherwise, but that shouldn't get in the way of a great photo op. And who told you that your "victimization" gave you the right to trespass on private property?

Moving on, there is also handwringing that Nifong [to describe him as a DA now would be ludicrous] dropped the rape charge "before a trial that could allow her [admitted liar Crystal Gail Mangum]to give her account of what happened." And which account would that be Ms. Sebring? Ms. Mangum gave at least half a dozen accounts of what allegedly "happened," each more spurious than the next.

And of course, the big question. If this was not directly aimed at the Duke 3 then why did your caravan of luxuriously self-pitying protestors stop at 610 Buchanan Street at all? I guess so that Alexis Pauline Gumbs can laud "our sister survivor" and then recite "Wishful Thinking" in which she wove "specifics of the Duke case."

One further note. As a Criminologist, I cannot allow your beatific description of "sex workers" [aka male and female prostitutes] to go unchallenged. You can hardly contain your joy concerning: "The English Collective of Prostitutes as they occupied a local church to claim sanctuary from the constant police harassment and brutality they were experiencing. If you can’t tell…I am inspired and thrilled by the bravery of these women (mostly women of color, mostly with threatened immigration status) who not only demanded fair wages for the “private” labor of nurturing, but who also repeatedly took over public spaces and spoke out against sexual violence."

I beg your pardon but these individuals are not "nurturing," they are having sex for money [the politest way I can put it]. This is a criminal activity, the social and public health repercussions of which should be obvious even to someone of your ilk. And frankly, I don't care if one of these English hookers rode back and forth on a bell crying "sanctuary," ala Quasimodo. I'll be dammed if I will support their dimwitted "cause" and you can take that from someone who has been in the equity feminist movement for over 25 years.

As for your video, well yes, it did not get a very good reception. But, what can you expect when you show a woman doing major damage to her vocal cords while shouting that somehow she is not being heard? And may I suggest that other people also feel lonely at times, they feel fear, they have to make their own decisions and worry that love might not last. The difference is that they do it privately without wallowing publicly in their own self-absorption.

I will be candid, my first reaction when I viewed this video was, "How insensitive that these people are all standing around while this woman is obviously suffering a severe seizure of some type." My second, this video should have a warning label for individuals who have weak cardiovascular systems. And no, I am not kidding. One English gentleman laughed so hard during the British tv show the "Goonies" that he suffered a fatal heart attack. Future watchers of this "truthful" video, beware!

Ms. Sebring, I have asked what I consider some pertinent questions. I would be interested in your response.

Anonymous said...

Re Serena Sebring and UBUNTU:

The UBUNTU site has an entry dated April 30 2007 -- so posted just a few days ago -- entitled "Birth of an UBUNTU blog." It includes the following:

"as we passed the house where a womyn was gang raped last year, a womyn whose case was dismissed from the criminal “justice” system like almost all of the cases of survivors i know who have reported their sexual assualt [sic] or rape, i felt layers lift from my self like you would peel layers from an onion. i felt new, listening to my sister’s and my brother’s pain, audible cries that broke the silence and traveled to the corners of our hearts."

I submitted a restrained and civil comment suggesting that UBUNTU concentrate its efforts on real rapes rather than fictitious ones, but it didn't make it past the censors.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Sebring:

You state that you support the potbanging demonstration (para. 2 of your post above.) Do you support the prominent displaying of the "Castrate!!" banner at that demonstration? If not, will you condemn it?

Unknown said...

I am an aluma of Duke University. I graduated in 1988. I was so taken with this case that last April I got on a plane in NYC and flew down to Durham. My first trip back since graduating. After a few phone calls and the most basic sleuthing/investigative reporting, it was clear she was lying (for whatever reasons we may never know) and the three indicted lacrosse players were innocent. I contuinued to go down to Durham out of my own interest in justice. The problems with this case were glaringly obvious even back in April '06. Everything stated by Cooper, while being the truth, had been sadly evident to most for a year. And to Ms. Serena: to say "a myriad of" is redundant. The correct usage of the word would be, "There are myriad social forces...." Like most sane people I am interested in and committed to the truth. Why is DNA the holy grail to exonerate death row inmates of crimes for which they were falsely accused and convicted, and in the Duke Lacrosse Case, the results were pushed to the side. Confirmation bias, anyone? How Mike Nifong lives with himself, I cannot comprehend.

Anonymous said...

Serena Sebring is a survivor of what? What is she a survivor of? Being a single mother? Making bad choices? Supporting an indefensible cause? Foolish myopia?