Saturday, June 30, 2007

The Bitter-Enders

In a piece nominated by Craig Henry (one of the savviest observers of the case) as the “most evil piece of punditry on the hoax,” Tom Ehrich, a local Protestant minister, opines on the lessons of the last 15 months.

Citing the Group of 88 as an example, Ehrich maintains that Duke currently embodies “a high-profile look at an epidemic of accountability-denial.” Indeed, it would seem to be so: after appointing a bevy of committees when it appeared as if the players might be guilty, the administration and high-profile Group members such as Bill Chafe and Paula McClain are adamant that there be no investigation into the Group’s apparent disregard of the Faculty Handbook.

Yet this isn’t Ehrich’s concern. Instead, in an extraordinary leap of logic, Ehrich argues that Duke needs to adopt the Group of 88’s agenda, even though the Group was, of course, tragically wrong in its commentary on the case. At the very least, Ehrich admits the basis of the Group’s ad: “condemning students’ alleged behavior.”

But, he reasons, the Group was correct to act as it did: “Even if the allegations were baseless, their deep concern for a university apparently losing its way should be seen as a wake-up call. The hapless DA didn’t stir their frustration; teaching Duke students did.”

Imagine if Ehrich were writing about contemporary foreign policy. Yes, he could muse, Vice President Cheney was wrong that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops as liberators. But we should examine not why Cheney was wrong, but instead all look to implement Cheney’s agenda more aggressively.

Ehrich employs similarly bizarre logic in the rest of his article. “Citizens have much to learn.” Not the race-baiters in the Durham community, however. “The allegations of a black woman that she was raped by three white men ignited racial outcries—not because a DA was leading citizens over a cliff, but because racial tensions always simmer in Durham (and other cities) and occasionally erupt.”

Duke’s campus culture needs to be examined: “If the women [in the extremist anti-lacrosse protests of late March] were correct in describing a high incidence of sexual assault by male students, then Duke has a huge ethical issue, not to mention potential exposure to crippling lawsuits.” Ehrich doesn’t pause to consider that the campus ideology behind such protests, not the unsubstantiated allegations, might need examination.

“Duke,” he concludes, “should be leading the way in a national reassessment of student life, campus ethics, entitlement and privilege, academic freedom, gender relations, underage alcohol use, exposure to liability for failure to provide a safe environment, and the role of over-involved parents.” Indeed. Wahneema Lubiano can serve as the discussion facilitator.

And Ehrich can’t finish his piece without a parting shot at the three falsely accused players: “They have also seen,” he clucks, “how classmates perceived them as arrogant. These perceptions predated March 2006 and need to be taken seriously, if they are to be successful citizens and professionals.”

Truly astonishing.


Anonymous said...

There is a certain gene pool these "ministers" come from. They believe the power of their words is so profound in the persuit of good deeds that they can say anything. The Revs Sharpton Jackson Falwell all come to mind. Of course they don't have a common ideology but they all sell their wacky believes with the aura of doing the lord's work.

Anonymous said...

Nothing surprises me anymore. And just think, this man is supposedly a Christian. This case has shown all of us the power of hatred and self-interest. Duke Grad

Anonymous said...

Ithink you are publishing your book too soon, KC. But perhaps you did devote a chapter to morons like Ehrich.

Anonymous said...

Good lord, $1 million each, 14 months of their names and photos all over the media, called rapists, received death threats, railroaded on false charges.

And.....they need to learn that some people on campus thought they were arrogant.

Alrighty then.

Anonymous said...

Obviously Ehrich has a great deal to teach us about arrogance... by negative example.

Anonymous said...

The Presbyterian, Methodist, and Church of Christ denominations have swung sharply left in the past 10 years. It is the reason that (especially the 1st 2) they are losing membership to non-denominational churches that are not PC.
I left the Presbyterian church b/c I could no longer stomach the feminist bent and leftist sermons. Changing scripture to say "People" instead of "men" was ridiculous and absurd. It is referring to the universal "man" not a guy!
BTW, I am a woman.

Anonymous said...

Ehrich's church should be ashamed of how American citizens perceive him as arrogant and misguided.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know where to find Craig Henry's original comments on Ehrich's original comments -- I look on "lead and gold" without luck?

Anonymous said...

Just wondering what role "over-involved parents" had in this. As far as I can tell, the parents played a most critical and valuable role in the case...but somehow I think that Rev. Ehrich's comments, like those of the G88, are not "about" the facts of the Duke LAX case at all, just about the college culture and making sure everyone's voice is heard in a general way--don't mind if I piggy back on the criminal, unethical, unprofessional conduct of just about every adult associated with this case, do you--just using the Duke LAX case to promote an agenda that is above close examination.


Anonymous said...

Before I clicked on the link, I said to myself, "Please don't let him be Episcoplian" (I am a member of that denominiation and am already greatly dismayed by the church's stance on many issues, to the point I may be leaving).

He's Episcopalian.


mac said...

Another Hollywood throwback
(and we wish some of them would
just get thrown back, like a
bad clam)

Tom Ehrich, playing
Pastor Dr. Matthew Collins,
in the 1953 version of War of the

Maybe one of those newfangled
flying triangles everybody's been
reporting will translate the good
reverend to his chosen dimension.

Anonymous said...

RE: Ehrich

I've been listening to idiots like this for over 30 years. They are all over the place.

1. While intelligent, they are not nearly as intelligent as they think they are.

2. While educated, they tend to have large gaps in their knowledge.

3. They tend to be arrogant and only listen to those they want to--and have a weird sort of selective outrage.

4. Obviously they are PC--but not courageous. So they tend to get involved with for example, the Civil Rights movement in the 80s, not the 50s.

5. They tend to be flippant, and try to "act cool and "with it" in public.

6. I doubt all of these jokers really believe in G-d.

7. A good movie example is the white minister in the Eastwood movie "True Crime".

8. When they are wrongheaded (as all of us can be at times), they generally do not admit their errors--> instead, they leave the damage they created and move on to a new cause. And, as a rule, they do not apologize.

9. Deep down, the are racist/ sexist. And outwardly condesending.

10. Am I the only guy who can imagine Nifong as one of these clergymen?

None of this is to say that's true of everybody. Father Judge, the great NYC priest who dies on 9-11, was a saintly man who is an example of what the clergy can be.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Ithink you are publishing your book too soon, KC. But perhaps you did devote a chapter to morons like Ehrich.

Jun 30, 2007 12:12:00 PM


Good post. But KC (or anyone else out there) could write an entire book on this.

Anonymous said...

Much as I respect KC's view of the case, I continue to wonder why he stresses the Faculty Handbook as an issue. Think of it! Prof. Throckmorton up on charges for violating the Faculty Handbook! I still think that if Duke were serious, it would hold some of the 88 accountable for violating section c of the AAUP 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, in particular the stricture against appearing to speak for the institution on non-academic matters. This would particularly apply to those who apparently made it appear that certain departments and programs had signed on to the "Listening" ad.

I do recognize that many "conservative" academic bloggers are afraid that serious efforts to enforce professional standards via the 1940 Statement would result in retaliation. But wouldn't efforts to enforce the flippin' Faculty Handbook result in the same?

wayne fontes said...

Here's a little nugget from Tom last year:

What concerns me is the emergence of a religious leadership cadre that doesn't hesitate to turn fearfulness into rage, hatred and scapegoating. They, of all people, should know better. They should know that the answer to fear is faith, not hatred. They should know that Jesus didn't name enemies, launch moral crusades or wage culture wars. He didn't exercise thought-control with his disciples. He didn't insist on one way of thinking or believing. He wasn't legalistic or rigid or conformist.

For someone who isn't a fan of waging moral crusades or culture wars he seems to be indulging in just that. I wish I could think of the word that describes this dichotomy of rhetoric and actions. It's on the tip of my tongue, starts with an H......

Anonymous said...


Let's assume for the sake of argument that no Duke prof, however radical, ever violates the Faculty Handbook going forward.

Does that make Duke a better university?

Not really, because crap still stinks.


1. Mobilize the alumni. Then remove all the trustees and Brodhead.

2. Bifurcate the presidency. First, hire a well-respected scholar with a pair of balls who has taste, judgment, and courage--someone like Francis Fukuyama. Second, hire a splendid manager/fundraiser who also possesses a pair. Someone like Jack Welch.

3. Eliminate all studies that advance agendas/races/ethnicities/politics/religion/gender/sexual orientation.

4. Establish an outside consultancy of geniuses from various fields to propose important areas of serious scholarship. This same consultancy would also propose ways to hire the best and the brightest among the crop of recent PhDs.

5. Eliminate tenure; reward excellence. Fire incompetents. Pay more for genius. Make distinctions. Do not fear the rabble.

6. Emphasize intellectual diversity. Eliminate affirmative action.

7. Let's party!


Anonymous said...

Episcopalians were once described as America's elite at prayer. Many of the nation's Founders and first presidents were Piskies. We are now just over two million (LT 1%) and probably declining.

That Ehrich has lots of company in our denomination explains why.

Anonymous said...

One could reason that he wonders why so many are leaving the church, when in fact, the church has left them.

Anonymous said...

That's some hard-core jackassery from the good Reverend.

"Finally, the three exonerated young men need to learn from this episode."

You hear that, Reade, Dave, and Collin?

Anonymous said...

A huge difference between my college days and today’s is this strange interest by the academic-class in the behavior of students - it borders on, and obviously crosses over, being downright voyeuristic and put more plainly – ‘creepy’.

- long gone are the days where professors concerned themselves primarily with the academic subject matter, but now instead offer 'Baker-like' commentary about students behaving as 'farm animals' –

-why is it something that concerns them so publicly?
-why is it even something they think about ?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that behavior has now become 'subject matter' – born from the feminist studies genre, I would assume.

- "puritanism" has been reborn, and the new "mayflower' might not have landed in Durham, NC. – but it sure has found a home there.

--which saddens me no end.


Anonymous said...

Add Ehrich as another one of the useless clergy in this case.

mac said...

Most people like Ehrich are
spiritually flabby, more interested
in their own opinions than in
Scripture. They lack a lot of
things, including things that
Paul describes as Gifts of the
Holy Spirit (knowledge, prophecy,

Of course, what Paul refers to
as Spiritual Gifts aren't the same
things most people consider when
they use the same words (knowledge,
prophecy, discernment.)

And of course, people such as
Ehrich wouldn't have those gifts
of the Holy Spirit, anyway,
since they usually don't believe
in the Holy Spirit.

People like Ehrich are usually the
first to decry people who don't
have a seminary education, but
who have a deep understanding of

A kind of belief-system not unlike
the 88: all arrogance, no understanding.

Anonymous said...

the role of over-involved parents

Right. What we need is more single-parent families where the one parent is really detached, to the point of not being around very much and letting their kids roam the streets. Bonus points if there are lots of kids for society to pay for and they all have different (or unknown) fathers.

Here in Pittsburgh, there was a recent situation involving the sort of appropriately uninvolved parents we should hold up as exemplars: two single mothers shared housing with five young children (one of these had the surname Manggum, BTW). They left the kids locked in a room while they went out at night to do the uninvolved parent thing. The kids were playing with matches and all died in the resulting fire.

Now, if only there were a place for the kids who survive to go as a group, there were be no parental involvement issues at all. Wait, I wasn't thinking of prison -- I meant a world-class university populated only by these types of people, really!

Anonymous said...

If any Duke professor finds teaching Duke students frustrating, then I suggest he or she find a job elsewhere. I pay way too much tuition to put up with this crap.

Anonymous said...

Jesus H. Christ said...
That's some hard-core jackassery from the good Reverend.

"Finally, the three exonerated young men need to learn from this episode."

You hear that, Reade, Dave, and Collin?

Jun 30, 2007 2:00:00 PM


Yes. One thing they have learned is something about the likes of Erlich.


Anonymous said...

Kudos to 1:35
The 88 and their like-minded enablers in academia must be confronted with the terms of the very standards thay claim as their impervious shield: "academic freedom". The 1940 AAUP Statement (and subsequent revisions) makes a distinction between academic freedom speech (institutionally protected) and personal speech (not institutionally protected). I have asked the question to head-scratching Duke faculty members (I live in Durham), exactly what is "academic" about the comments/conduct of the 88 that warrants institutional protection? The common response is that "academic freedom", by its very definition (at least their definition), is whatever the academic speaker deems it to be. Unfortunately, the caselaw suggests otherwise. There ARE limits to academic freedom, just as there are limits to free speech. I don't think an African-American professor could hog-tie a Duke lacrosse player in class and bull-whip him as an exercise of academic freedom to instruct students on the emotional and physical trauma of slavery. Similarly, as O.W. Holmes once said, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre that was not actually on fire, is not protected speech under the first amendment. So, where do the defamatory words/conduct of the Duke faculty fit in that framework? It's not clear, but certainly worthy of debate, and perhaps "academic inquiry" in the truest tradition of the academy.

Anonymous said...

This is what Ehrlich wrote back in January, he clearly was put out by the prospect of the case being dropped by the SP so that:

No one would have to listen to detailed accounts of an attack, lacrosse team parties, racist slurs, assaults on women or arrogant attitudes among the privileged. No witnesses would describe a university's hard-partying culture.
We would miss the familiar rape defense: "she asked for it."

Ehrlich wanted Collin, Reade, and Dave to be dragged through that mud so he could puff about the "larger issues." Notice how he lied about the defense, "she asked for it."

If Duke rape case vanishes, other issues will be ignored

Now that our local District Attorney has asked a state prosecutor to take over assault charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, it seems an even chance that the case will simply go away.

Many want exactly that. The alleged victim would lose her day in court. The alleged assailants would carry into adulthood and every job interview unanswered questions about their actions and character.

No one would have to listen to detailed accounts of an attack, lacrosse team parties, racist slurs, assaults on women or arrogant attitudes among the privileged. No witnesses would describe a university's hard-partying culture.
We would miss the familiar rape defense: "she asked for it."

Better, they seem to think, to let unanswered questions haunt accuser, accused, university and the community than to hear unflattering testimony about life as it is.

Certainly, if criminal charges are unfounded, they should be dropped. But it would be a tragic outcome to an important series of events if the whole matter vanished as well. For the "Duke lacrosse rape scandal," as people call it, has never been just about rape, lacrosse or even Duke.

The firestorm that erupted last March revealed deep fissures in our city, disturbing questions about our largest employer, and far-reaching questions about our society: out-of-control drinking, attitudes of entitlement, helicopter parenting, racist attitudes among tomorrow's leaders, boorish behavior toward women, and market-minded leaders who seemed reluctant to probe for deeper meanings.

That firestorm must be taken seriously. A few quickly shelved self-studies don't cut it. Hoping a former equilibrium can be resumed isn't worthy of a university claiming elite status. Pinning a community's future on a single black woman's claims against three white students is an affront.

What people said about Duke's "plantation" ethos won't go away. Neither will the rage expressed by Duke women about their treatment in a jock culture.

Neither will complaints of Durham citizens about having Duke students as neighbors. Neither will worries among the academically serious about lost focus.

From the beginning, the Duke matter has been a lens into larger cultural issues that are corroding our common life.

It's the same kind of attitude we see among political leaders who resist accountability and candor; corporate bosses and church officials who have to be dragged into court before they will admit anything; and citizens who think dishonesty is a clever strategy instead of a moral failing.

Almost every detail here speaks to troubling flaws in our society. It is tragic that those issues haven't been taken seriously. No one wanted three young men railroaded into prison. No one cried out for injustice.

But they did want an accuser's claims taken seriously. They did want systemic issues taken seriously.

They did want a university to do what universities are supposed to do, namely, lead the way in seeking knowledge, in bringing intellect to bear on society, in shaping tomorrow's leaders in something deeper than dreams of material prosperity.

Instead, we see a pattern. The national reassessment that could have happened after 9/11 - squandered. Reassessment of corporate ethics that could have followed the Enron scandal - squandered.

Reassessments of foreign policy, military strategy, global economic policy, oil dependency and religious extremism that could be happening now - all squandered - because few leaders dare to be civic-minded.

It isn't a matter of wanting Duke or any leading institution to fail. We just want them to do their jobs.

Tom Ehrich is a writer, consultant and leader of workshops. His book, "Just Wondering, Jesus: 100 Questions People Want to Ask," was published by Morehouse Publishing. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. His Web site is

Anonymous said...

A follow-up to my 3:11 post:

I believe that Duke quickly settled with the lacrosse players to avoid litigation on the academic freedom issue. Assuming that the Duke three made out a federal cause of action in federal court, they would potentially run the litigation gauntlet through the federal district court in Greensboro, then (if an appeal), to the 4th Circuit, then (if an appeal) to the Roberts U.S. Sup. Ct. Not exactly happy hunting grounds for Duke and the 88. I have no doubt that the University, for itself, and on behalf of the 88, would have demurred "academic freedom" as a primary defense. Would the modern academy want to defend their interpretation of "academic freedom" under these facts? I think not. I bet a BB-Q sandwich at Bullock's that Brodhead heard from other academic higher-ups that this case should go away...and fast!

Anonymous said...

gotc at 1:21--
for what it's worth, I'm an
Episcopalian who is NOT especially concerned about the church's stance on issues these days--and I still find Tom Ehrich's remarks reprehensible.

If he wants to opine generally about his views on racism, sexism, or booze-soaked jock culture in our society, fine--I won't necessarily agree with him, but he can have his opinion. But if he wants to connect his opinion to a specific situation, he has a responsibility (and one would hope even a greater responsibility as a priest) to know the facts and stick to them.

Anonymous said...

3:32, we don't know a whole lot about the settlement, but before we got anywhere near academic freedom, we'd be dealing with "intentional infliction of emotional distress" (or "tort of outrage"), leading to various health issues, etc., in the families. Reason enough to settle. But a violation of section c would be between the university and the individual faculty members. The appropriate action would be either to convene a faculty committee to review things like who actually signed on to the Listening ad or whether the public statements of the 88 were accurate and appropriately restrained, or for the university to impose unilateral discipline.

I doubt this would ever occur, since it's been hard for Colorado University to establish that any type of discipline applied to Ward Churchill.

But still less would Duke apply discipline for violating the flippin' Faculty Handbook!!!!

Anonymous said...

I looked at Ehrich's web site. His bio strongly implies that, while he was ordained an Episcopal priest, he actually served in a pastoral role for a short time, between about 1983 and 1985. Since then he doesn't seem to have been employed in a pastoral role by a parish, and instead has been a freelancer. I've got to say that I'm less than enthusiastic about picking up a copy of "Just Wondering, Jesus".

There are many, many more ordained Episcopal priests than parishes that can, or want to, pay them. I would take this for what it's worth and not worry too much about Ehrich as an Episcopalian.

Anonymous said...

Hmm. Evil? No, merely another clear lesson in the moral and intellectual vacuum that is contemporary liberalism.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, 4:20, for your insight. I was distressed that this idiot was from my denomination, now I'm not so upset.

Anonymous said...

Ehrich is an intellectual poseur. He is of no consequence in this issue other than serving as an example of the inclusive reach of the First Amendment. Useful idiots, Lenin called such types.

mac said...

Dear Tom,

"If you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the problem."
Youmust be part of the problem.

IF Nifong et al did their jobs,
the case would have been incredibly
"We just want them to do their jobs"
is nothing more than a snow-job.

Anonymous said...

All the world's a bell curve ... this minister is apparently lurking on the tail end intellectually.

It does prove one thing, however. People believe what they want to. And they dig their heels in when they're proven wrong. Yes, something "could've happened" in there. She might've been assaulted by Bill Clinton, or the ghost of Richard Nixon, even. Unfortunately, there was absolutely no physical evidence to demonstrate that anyone at the party was responsible for the "pool" of evidence in and on her person, so ...

Of course, the diligent search by Durham's finest to find the persons who match up to the DNA is breathtaking. As breathtaking as OJ's ongoing quest to find the killer of his wife and Goldman so many years after the fact. Note to OJ ... the killer does frequent golf courses ... wherever you go, there you are.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....


1. An historian that apparently missed the great joy of Iraqis tearing down the statue of Saddam thinks that the US troops were not welcomed by Iraqis as expected. Certainly the Iraqi army fought, weakly, and certainly some citizens, mainly his cronies, wanted Saddam to stay in power. One might think that an historian would have looked at say the KIA rate in WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam and have notice the historically unprecidented success the Iraqi and Afghani theatres of operation in the War on Terror have been? I understand 1960s left over mediots who wanted from day one for the WOT to be another Viet Nam not having an historical perspective, by an actual historian?

2. I don't see how given what he accept as true or plausible, that Ehrich avoided concluding that non one should send their daughter to Duke. That is also an implication of the 88 gangsters statements.

3. Finally I can certianly understand why Ehrich's column did not make the cut for a midnight posting. They guy is clearly a lightweight. He might be floating a trial balloon for the 88 gangsters. And he is a minister, his portfolio is really matters of faith and hereafter not sociology of college campuses.

Anonymous said...

1:21: Raised Episcopalian, went to Episcopalian school through 12th grade, married in the Episcopalian Church. Now a Roman Catholic. It's much much better here except for the few nuts like the RC Priest at Duke but they are far fewer. The Episcopalians seem to be trying to out left one another. This doesn't surprise me at all.

Anonymous said...


I may be joining you soon. For the Episcopal hierarchy, preaching PC has replaced preaching the Gospel. What keeps me holding on is that I belong to the diocese of Western Pennsylvania, and we have an orthodox bishop.

Anonymous said...

KC, on reflection, I'm not sure if it's correct to call Ehrich a "local protestant minister". Bill Moyers is an ordained pastor (I think a Baptist), but nobody really calls him a "protestant minister", as he doesn't serve a church in a pastoral capacity. Moyers is a "media commentator". I would use Ehrich's own description of himself on his web site and say he is an author and leader of workshops.

Anonymous said...

It's not on the radar for many people yet, but the Episcopal Church is heading for a major schism (meaning official split) this fall, possibly as soon as September. The Texas dioceses are preparing to dissasociate themselves from the American Church and re-associate with the African and South American branches, meaning mainly that all funding will go there and not to the Episcopal Church of America anymore. A lot of individual churches around the country are going to join them, and the possibility of years of litigation over the real estate is very real and may destroy what's left of the church for all practical purposes.

stay tuned.

gak said...

The single most obvious thing i've seen in this whole post-exoneration matter is the fact that since they could not try them based on a crime, they (the wingnuts, g88, this idiot and others) all try to convict them of moral crimes. Perhaps one day they will have their "day in court" and I don't think it will be pretty.

lonetown said...

They appear to be breeding idiots down there!

Jack said...

The Duke case, with a glimpse into the soft, faux academics of this pretender of a school, was just a preview. The gay lobby, in association with others, is determined to re-make the social order in America.

Anonymous said...

JSL, I'm not an actual historian, but I think your treatment of KC is a bit harsh here. First, of course you are right that some Iraquis welcomed US troops as liberators, and the people pulling that statue down may have been among them. That covers the first week or so--so if your interpretation of KC's post is that he meant "welcome" in only the most immediate and short-term sense, okay, you have a point. To me, though, that seems like more of a semantic quibble than a truly substantive critique.

I also think it's one thing to say that the Iraquis welcomed the fall of Saddam (doubtless most did, as he was a cruel tyrant) and quite a different thing to say that most Iraquis welcomed the US troops themselves.

Even early on, I don't think that's indisputably the case. I saw that same footage of those same people toppling that statue about a million times, along with one or mabye two other oft-used clips of some Iraquis greeting troops, or troops giving kids candy. But that's not much on which to base a determination about the attitude of most Iraquis toward the American troop presence in the beginning. And it's nothing at all on which to base a determination about the attitude of most Iraquis toward continued American troop presence today.

Anonymous said...

No one should take Tom Erlich seriously. He voices the anti-Christ line of reasoning while cloaking himself in the guise of a Protestant minister. Hah! He is nothing more than another liberal lacking a moral compass. He blames all of society's ills on those who still have a moral compass, namely, conservative Christians. Just ignore him.

MikeZPurdue said...

It got me mad that the minister seemed to go
out of his way to shift the blame away from Nifong.

Sure, there were already some racial tensions in
the Durham area BUT the minister should have come
down hard on someone who used his official
position to do the worst kind of race baiting
soley for personal gain.

So maddening ...


Anonymous said...

You are right that this is a very serious issue for the U.S. Episcopal Church. A couple of very large, high-profile parishes in Northern Virginia (and I think a few in other areas) have already declared themselves "missions" under various African bishops--and there is a lot of expensive real estate involved as well as issues of who controls the disposition of future fundraising.

One of the more unattractive aspects of all this is that bishops from Africa and South America are now coming out of the woodwork to see if they can get on the gravy train by "rescuing" asset-rich US congregations. I admit that I am an Episcopalian who is not offended by gay clergy (the real crux of the dispute), which probably makes me anathema to some posters on this board. But I'm pretty sure that, even if I shared the views of these parishes that the national Episcopal church is in grave error on this point, I would still find this money-grubbing competition for U.S. missions pretty unseemly.

MikeZPurdue said...

I am sure this same minister believes that
we, as Americans, are to blame for why extreme
Islamists hate us and want to kill us.

Of course, bleeding heart liberals like him
somehow overlook that the Sunnis and the
Shiites hate and kill each other -- Iraqis and
Iranians hate each other and engaged in a
7 year war, etc.

When someone ponitificates "we have to examine
why they hate us", my response is "they hate
each other -- examine that"

Anonymous said...

Is Ehrich kidding?

The alleged victim would lose her day in court. The alleged assailants would carry into adulthood and every job interview unanswered questions about their actions and character.

Why would Mangum want a day in court? She would show she is a liar, filthy, and a whore. She had DNA of different men IN her. Pretty disgusting that she kept getting screwed and not bathing or brushing her teeth. Disgusting! The only men she did not have sex with were probably the Duke white guys.
As far as job interviews--they are not going to live in Durham? A pathetic town run be crooks and racists. I would venture that these bright, educated, well-spoken, attractive, WHITE GUYS will probably go to a Fortune 100 firm. Trust me--leaders of the biggest firms in the free world are NOT going to believe your crap. Who would a CEO believe-- a whore, or the AG of the state of NC?

Mister, that's just wishful thinking on your part. Are you helping OJ look for Nicole's killer?

Anonymous said...

In Hassim Nicholas Taleb’s book, “Fooled by Randomness”, he deals with how one should consider the scientific problem of induction. It appears to be quite applicable to the fraudulent scholarship issue. In assessing Sir Karl Popper, Taleb notes there are two types of theories:

1. Theories that are known to be wrong, as theory were tested and adequately rejected. These are Falsified Theories.
2. Theories that have not yet been known to be wrong, not falsified yet, but are exposed to be proved wrong.

“These (True Scientists) are men with bold ideas, but highly critical of their own ideas; they try to find whether their ideas are right by trying first to find whether they are not perhaps wrong. They work with bold conjectures and severe attempts at refuting their own conjectures” - Sir Karl Popper

On the other hand the Gang of 88, the pseudo scientists, and those that abet them such as Brodhead are men with small ideas, not only do they not self-assess their ideas, but they strike back viciously when others questions their work. Their work is obfuscated with silly made-up language. Their work intentionally lacks clarity. They don’t want others to consider their work, hence the lack of linking their work for the entire world to see. They publish in incestuous, non-rigorous periodicals, if at all. It never occurs to them, the frauds, that they are wrong. The conjectures are soft, fuzzy, and pliable – purposely ill-defined, so any that attempt to refute their work are caught in shifting definitions. It never, ever occurs to the frauds to consider refutation of their own work.

Anonymous said...

FWIW, when I was growing up in an evangelical Protestant denomination, we called Episcopaleans "E-pepsi-colans" -- "a new religion for a new generation!" We called them and the Lutherans "Protestant Catholics" (not a compliment).

Anonymous said...

If TE at 3:20 really wants to make a difference in Durham, it's not going to work unless he realizes what the problems really are. He said:

The firestorm that erupted last March revealed deep fissures in our city, disturbing questions about our largest employer, and far-reaching questions about our society: out-of-control drinking, attitudes of entitlement, helicopter parenting, racist attitudes among tomorrow's leaders, boorish behavior toward women, and market-minded leaders who seemed reluctant to probe for deeper meanings.

Stop worriying about Nervana. You have a city that is out of control with crime--in the black area--where no white students live. Before self-esteem, people need food, shelter, safety. Why are there so many children born out of wedlock and the fathers just dropping sperm--not helping raise these kids. Why so many unemployed? Why so many gangs? Why so many on drugs? Why so many high school drop outs? You cannot blame this all on the "plantation owners."

An idiotic statement by Edwards and his 2 Americas is similar. He charges $50K to speak to college students about poverty. Instead, why doesn't he buy some property in his own state and build some small homes for Habitat for Humanity? I know, his hair might get messy.

Bottom line, stop talking about something others should do, lead by example. Think and ask yourself "Whose life have I made better this year?" Work in a soup kitchen once a month, or teach literacy at the library for a semester, volunteer at a Ronald McDonald house once a month --and then don't tell anyone. Like the Nike commercial says "Just do it"

mac said...

No Justice No Peace,

Good post.
One of the reasons Brodhead,
the 88, Nifong et al are so
widely reviled is that they
can't get the revilers to
join in their delusion.

Unfortunately, fellow delusionals
can't help but join them in their

Real academics and scientists have
built-in BS detectors, as the
author you quote seems to be

Anonymous said...

I was reading about the contempt charge against Nifong at Newsweek:

If found guilty, Nifong faces up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $500.

3 guys could have gotten 30 years each, Nifong will only get 30 days, and like Paris Hilton be out after 2 weeks for good behavior. Justice?

Anonymous said...

Is Erlich a Communist?

Anonymous said...

The guy simply is a disgrace. He is trying to salvage some of the PC nonsense that exploded in the early days of the Hoax.

The difference it that we see through his nonsense, and there are people to call his hand.

Michael said...

Mr. Erlich received 40 negative comments on his article. Seems like this guy really went out of his way to write a real piece of garbage.

mac said...

Bill Anderson,

Yeah, it's getting a little like
shooting skeet.


Anonymous said...

"Duke's campus culture needs to be examined?" I agree that somebody's culture needs to be examined, but Duke is not where I'd start. How about starting with the AA culture, which seems to indoctrinate its members with the belief that every problem in their lives is attributable to "racism" (see, e.g., actor Isiah Washington's recent firing --according to him, he was fired not because he's an unpleasant homophobe who argued with fellow castmates and called one a "faggot," but instead, he was fired because he's a black man. Or Vivica Fox, middle-aged minor black actress, who was stopped for a DUI recently, and railed against the white arresting officer. According to Ms. Fox, she was arrested not because she was obviously inebriated, but because the cop was a "white racist"). And of course, we have the abundant examples of racial scapegoating by Durham's AA community in relation to the Duke LAX case.

A self-examination of the AA culture might start with asking why personal responsibility and accountability are held in such low regard by so many members of the community.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12:27 said...

...Good lord, $1 million each, 14 months of their names and photos all over the media, called rapists, received death threats, railroaded on false charges.

...And.....they need to learn that some people on campus thought they were arrogant.

...Alrighty then.
And the man of the cloth says...Even if the allegations were baseless, their deep concern for a university apparently losing its way should be seen as a wake-up call.

Alrighty then...Wake-Up call it is!

mac said...

An example of shifting responsibility?
That kind of example could be made
with regard to health care.

Who is responsible for your health?
(Not health-care: health)

Most people (of all races) would say:
"The doctor."
"The insurance company."
"The government."
"My boss."

Very few would say:
"The person who looks back at me
from the mirror."

Shifting responsibilities.
It's everywhere.
You could write volumes on it.

It's not a racial issue.

Anonymous said...

You can see why the Episcopal Church has fallen off the edge of the world and is no longer taken seriously by anyone. This ass Elrich is the very voice of that looser group. My fav quote is:

On the Sunday after rape allegations were revealed, I watched female students express outrage at the way women are treated at Duke, neighbors express outrage at the way hard-partying undergraduates tarnish their neighborhoods, and others express outrage at a jock culture soaked in beer and privilege.

What a self-satisfied, moralist suckup. He's just an old woman trapped in a man-like body. This is why he responds with such breathless agreement with the G88. Their collective voice is essentially that of a self-righteous, moralistic liberal preacher. Can anyone in the world be more moralistic and self-righteous than a liberal preacher which is by the way exactly what Hardt is whether he likes it or not but he not a very good one. Paul Tillich was a lot more oblique, occult and moralistic than Hardt can hope for. He's an amateur when it comes to the heavy weights of the obscure like Tillich and Bultman. And that means that Elrich is just a monkey - a donkey who hasn't had a real thought since his first semester in whatever episcopal cemetary he went to.

Anonymous said...

The "PC" Politically Corrupt crowd must be held responsible for their ignorance, racism, feminazi, irrational and disruptive behavior...

The longer we ignore the bastards, the more they come to believe they have the CORRECT opinion, view or position...

They NEED to feel the hammer on their asses.....and forced to find employment that matches their obvious and extreme ignorance..

Clearly, they don't belong on the campus of ANY self respecting University....

river rat

Anonymous said...

It is my hope and belief that occurrences such as this Duke lacrosse case will begin to motivate people to stand up against this negative culture with regard to the habit of blaming others and blaming racism for their own bad behavior.
Fox is a 40-something woman who should know better than to drive drunk. The race of the officer who rightly charged her is of no consequence, yet she showed her racist mentality by bringing up race.
Washington is or was a mediocre actor on a television series. He can be replaced in two minutes. His arrogance and homophobic slurs caused his firing. Not because of his race. But most every black in the country, no matter how educated, will try to use race to cover their bad behavior or their lack of performance.
Washington not only used the slur once but twice on national television.
These people just need to be shunned until they can take responsibility for their own bad behavior.

Anonymous said...

11:31 is right. These destructive people must be confronted and made to cease writing their lies and distortions or else be held accountable.
Elrich is just like the dumb 88. In no way does he address the criminals Nifong and the whore Mangum in his diatribe.

mac said...


If anyone should choose to email
the priest with volumes of hostile, purile crap (keep it here
instead?) please don't harrass
the man. It only makes us look
like the Crazy 88.

Anonymous said...

The actual name of my dicoese is The Diocese of Pittsburgh; I don't know where I got "Western Pennsylvania" from.

(I know that this is trivial and that most will not see (or care about) this, but I hate to leave a mistake uncorrected.)


mac said...

Guess you can't take Nifong's
place then.

Anonymous said...

From a New Jersey Lawyer. Rev. Ehrich seems to have joined the "they may not be guilty of rape, but what they did was just as bad," school of thought when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse incident. People like Rev. Ehrich seem unable or, more likely, to appreciate the issues raised by the groundless prosecution/ persecution of the three indicted players and the rest of the team, and the response of much of the Duke and Durham community to the players. We are not to consider the abuse of power that was the case, the inabilty of many people to understand or support the concept that defendants in criminal cases are innocent until proven guilty, the seemingly automatic envy and resentment directed agaisnt athletes and well-off white male students, and that the left is as guilty of bigotry and prejudice as the right. Until those issues are addressed, any attempt to use the Duke Lacrosse incident to address issues of racism, sexism,classism, heterosexism or other issues will ring hollow.