From Frank Norton's portrayal of events:
"The proudest thing on my resume is that I am not a Hillsborough novelist," said [Pat] Conroy, author of "Conrack" and "The Prince of Tides." His words incited cheers among the packed house of mostly older adults.
Conroy lambasted [Alan] Gurganus and other Hillsborough writers for their attacks on Marlette's work. He weaved in a short account of the disdain he and Marlette shared for knee-jerk reactions to the Duke lacrosse affair.
"Doug and I hated what happened to the Duke lacrosse team and the lynch mob that pursued them because of the stupid Group of 88," he said, referring to an alliance of Duke professors who denounced team members following unsubstantiated allegations of rape.
Conroy can be fair, but it doen't seem as if Duke Group88 can be, nor do they seem able to gather themselves in an apololy for the damage they have done to the lacrosse team, the Duke community, Durham, and to themselves. It goes without saying what they are.
I will have to read The Bridge.
There is a reason the liturgical legislation of the Catholic Church bans eulogies at funerals, and advise that any such be confined to wakes. It seems in poor taste to incorporate into remembrances of a man caustic references to the feuds he had with others during his lifetime, though it would not surprise me if the reporters covering the event exaggerated that aspect by a factor of ten.
You might want to correct the spelling -- MarlEtte, not MarlOtte.
I'd much rather have a heartfelt eulogy at my funeral than a bunch of standard boilerplate. The most memorable funerals I have ever been to had the best--meaning truthful--eulogies I've ever heard. What better tribute is there for someone than to be remembered as they lived? For the life of me (no pun intended), I can't see why people pretend only good existed just because someone dies! Life is both the goods and the bads!
Here is Doug Marlette's cartoon on the "stupid group of 88":
I thought it was hilarious that Pat Conroy found it appropriate to trash Alan Gurganus (and the "stupid 88") at Marlette's funeral -- Pat must have known that Doug would have wanted it that way. That must have been one helluva feud!
well see how many group 88 come to the funeral...?
Art Deco said,
"There is a reason the liturgical legislation of the Catholic Church bans eulogies at funerals..."
That's news to me. I went to Catholic schools for 19 years, served as altar boy at countless funerals with eulogies, and have even delivered eulogies myself, sad to say, in Catholic churches, and I never heard of that rule (not that I'm arguing with you -- I just never heard if it).
Satirists like Marlette leave a wake.
Marlette's cartoon skewering Duke's Group of 88 was one of the best. I emailed the cartoon to one of the Gang of 88 with the simple message "Got chalk?"
The recipient was not amused.
KC - One little quibble: it's Allan Gurganus with two l's, just like it's Marlette with two e's.
Feel free to delete this comment; it's just an FYI.
Here are the 3 Marlette cartoons that I know of, re: the lacrosse hoax/fiasco:
Notably, it seems Doug Marlette was far more offended by the bigotry of Duke University and its exalted ignorami, than he was by the commonplace corruption of a small-time shit-heel like Mike Nifong. In this regard, Doug was much like KC.
I have to respectfully disagree with poster Art Deco, re: the taste/"appropriateness" of including Doug Marlette's feuds, enemies or pet peeves in the man's eulogy. Doug Marlette was not a normal human being -- he was a cartoonist.
More specifically, Doug was a political cartoonist: He loved to piss people off, especially people who were in serious need of getting pissed-off, and/or getting pissed-on. Nothing would have pleased Doug more, than to hear Pat Conroy calling Allan Gurganus an a-hole, together with the rest of the 88 Morons.
It's Doug MarlEtte
Not to be confused with Amanda MarcOtte
Glad this was posted. I brought the paper in this morning, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
Apparently, the service was short and very sweet. Even Kathleen Parker and the scuffy, witty devil Pat Conroy showed up. Priceless that Conroy focused freely on Allan Gurganus and the behavior of so many of the flabby, over-the-hill, overblown, and overpaid group of writers in the Chapel Hill-Hillsborough area. The clique.
I will forever remember the longwinded, inciteful diatribe from Gurganus when this Hoax first began which was printed in the Times.....then in robot fashion, reprinted in the N&O prominently on their editorial pages.
The breathtakingly gay and wordy Gurganus--(think Oldest Living Confederate Widow Tells All, noteworthy not only for its outrageous length, but for its endless historical inaccuracies.
Gurganus and his little Hillsborough clique enjoy easy living. A group of guppies in a warm pond--Hal Crowther and his nails-on-a-chalkboard-G/d-awful-speaking wife, Lee Smith, among them--who seem to major in historical inaccuracies.
In the Gurganus diatribe last Spring, he wove a sordid, sweaty tale of animal lust and dominance.....embroidered by the weight of thick Spanish moss dripping over plantations.....mint-juleps.....pure antebellum madness was spun with an upended Mandingo allusion of a "pure, defenseless black woman gang raped" by "masters". These "white boys", according to Gurganus, were living out their legacy.....their history of shame.
Fast forward, if you haven't already thrown up your lunch, to equally disgusting and stereotypical outbursts by Timothy Tyson, Orin Starn, Earl Holt (in the H-S), etc....... and a never-ending roster of "experts" pregnant with trigger-ready libel and fabrications....tailor-made soap opera fare.
Where are all of these sex-obsessed-stereotype-worshipping-death-warmed-over-libelous-son-of-bitches now?
Where are the feminist rape counselors to tell us about the destructive residue left by Mangum?
Where are the lecturing clergy who excitedly jumped into this Hoax? Have they lost their frocks and props?
I believe that heaven and hell are here on earth. Dynamics of both are here always to thrill us or destroy us.
How else to explain why people like Ed Bradley and Doug Marlette are taken so soon.........and those such as Gurganus, Crowther, Tyson, Chafe, the Gritty Gang of 88, and so many worthless seat-warmers remain?
In the end, there will be a day of reckoning.....but not yet.
As to Ed Bradley before him......G/d bless you Doug.
Remember the kneejerk reaction of Gurganus to the lacrosse charges in the April 9, 2006, New York Times Op-Ed piece, "Blue Devils Made Them Do It." After trashing the lacrosse players (noting porch pissing, of course), it closes with the following observation:
"When the children of privilege feel vividly alive only while victimizing, even torturing, we must all ask why."
Compare it the the succinct commentary of Marlette in his cartoon on the Gang of 88, "I will never join a lynch mob again."
Gurganus needs to revisit and rethink his take on the case, or he will remain an honorary member of the G88.
Below is a fair-use excerpt of Allan Gurganis' 4/9/06 NYT Op-Ed, Blue Devils Made Them Do It. Perhaps it gives a sense of why Marlotte held Gurganis and his chums in such disdain.
Late in 2006, I emailed Gurganis to ask if he had any regrets about the piece, or anything to add. He did not reply.
-- begin excerpt --
[What] administrator is going to risk driving away a winning team from a winning university? How soon Boys Will Be Boys become Administrators Who Administrate in Defense of Such Boys. This lacrosse season, until rape accusations ended it, featured six wins and two losses. Code for "Leave them alone."
It would be far too easy to scapegoat one university for allowing boys to be brutes. But in the institution's hurry to protect its students, right or wrong, it seemed to forget its role of educating and reassuring a community larger than itself.
The university once offered respite from our country's most rabid competitive impulses. Once upon a time, there was even a core curriculum assuring that every student in every field had read the same great works, including sacred texts, Shakespeare, the Greeks. Once science reigned unchallenged by religious strictures. Once institutions of higher learning ranked higher.
Now corporate America, athletic America, Defense Department America form a unified competitive team.
When the children of privilege feel vividly alive only while victimizing, even torturing, we must all ask why. This question is first personal then goes Ethical soon National. Boys 18 to 25 are natural warriors: bodies have wildly outgrown reason, the sexual imperative outranks everything. They are insurance risks. They need (and crave) true leadership, genuine order. But left alone, granted absolute power, their deeds can terrify.
The imperative to win, and damn all collateral costs, is not peculiar to Durham -- and it is killing us.
Why is there no one to admire?
Not a fan of Marlette's (his work is literal and pedestrian--in a word, it sucks--and his drawings are mediocre).
Paul Conrad is a talented political cartoonist, but if you want to look at the work of a genius, check out anything by the great R Crumb.
"(noting porch pissing, of course.)"
I always thought peeing off the porch was kind of fun. Tough on the grass, though.
I was training for an ultra, doing a late-night run in the mountains with
a sizeable group; we stopped to admire the night sky, then made our way back to the trail.
As I was making my way back to the main trail, I heard a kind of rustling in the leaves nearby
while passing underneath a ledge created by a tall boulder,
and stopped when I realized that the rustling sound was someone peeing from the top of the rock!
It was funny - (since I didn't actually get wet) - and I don't see a darn thing wrong with peeing
off of high places.
BTW: ultra women have adapted so that they can pee standing up,
like the guys. More power to 'em.
Gurganus sounds like his name.
Pat Conroy said...
...Doug and I hated what happened to the Duke lacrosse team and the lynch mob that pursued them because of the stupid Group of 88.
Well at last!
The lynch mob and the fact they pursued the lacrosse team ...is rolled out like a black carpet ...at the feet of the G88 where it belongs.
Marlette was a genius.
Anyone who can provoke outrage and genuine laughter in one caption is a genius. It's a rare talent.
The 88 can only provoke genuine outrage and laughter at their own
expense. It's not a talent.
You need to correct your many inaccuracies in that one.
Polanski, in my opinion, if any political cartoonist today is a hack, it is Paul Conrad.
Please post a link to anything he has drawn recently, that you regard as superior.
I say this as somebody who loves all cartoonists (including Conrad), but who distinguishes among the great, the near-great, and the ...crap.
Which has nothing to do with how often I agree with Conrad -- he is just a hackneyed, soviet-style illustrator, with no gift for caricature, wit, subtlety, or humor -- an increasingly sad old man. His greatest achievement (no mean feat) was to get on Nixon's official "enemies list".
Marlette was not a best-of-breed, but any idiot could see that, as a satirist, he left Conrad in the dust.
Marlette did more-than-his-share of stereotyped, dead-guy-at-the-pearly-gates cartoons, but he also had his frequent moments of brilliance and white-hot, finely focused hatred. His work will endure.
At least, we can agree that R. Crumb is a genius.
Once, at a Christopher Hitchens booksigning, Marlette showed up and stood in the back of the room.
He was an unassuming, and frankly, a very ordinary man. I didn't recognize who he was until Hitch alluded to his work as they were talking during the Q&A session.
That was a great night of discussion and raillery on Hitchens' book No One Left To Lie To. I adore the devil Hitch!
He talks incessantly and that night the only time he shut up for a moment was when he glared into my cleavage as we were talking and again when he had an exchange with Marlette.
Such are the things of memories.
re Paul Conrad
Google Images "Paul Conrad."
On page 2 there's a graphic of 3 fingers extended. Click on it, and then tell me that Marlette has ever done anything in that league.
You sure you aren't KP?
FYI, in your 4:01 post you spelled Gurganus' name as "Gurganis."
It's easy to remember; think "anus."
Google Images "Paul Conrad."
On page 2 there's a graphic of 3 fingers extended. Click on it, and then tell me that Marlette has ever done anything in that league.
Are you serious? What drivel. How about -- just a quick example:
In reading your posts over time, I have learned, among other things, that you:
(1) are able to laugh your T's off
(2) possess cleavage that merits being "... glared into ..."
(3) like penises
(4) believe in God
I think I'm beginning to like you.
Marlette was a typical anti-Israel, pro-Hamas, left-leaning liberal who hated Christians. Good riddence to him, and I am glad that pissy little Gurganus got blasted at Marlette's funeral.
Please cite evidence that Marlette was pro-Hamas, or in any other way pro-terrorist.
Or, that he hated (real) Christians other than scum like Jim Bakker and Jerry Falwell.
Doug's own (Christian) church considered him Christian enough to bury him in the very shadow of the church. But I guess you know better than Doug's own pastor. Pissant.
Look at his work - he hated Israel, it is obvious, and sided with Hamas and other thugs. An anti-Christian bias ran through his work. Perhaps his own church is more of a mosque these days. And calling names is always a winning strategy.
He sided with Hamas and other thugs?
You mean, like in this cartoon? Which he was widely vilified for, and wrote a well-known op-ed piece, refusing to apologize for it?
Please cite counter-example.
Cite yourself, name-caller. He was a leftist, and he is still dead, so at least there is that bit of good news.
Thanks for revealing what you are.
Now you can remove your nose from the dead guy's ass.
Thanks again, for clarifying what you are. Just so nobody can doubt it.
Let us not be troubled by name calling, but instead remember that this is indeed a great day - Marlette is dead, and all is right with the world.
"Let us not be troubled by name calling, but instead remember that this is indeed a great day - Marlette is dead, and all is right with the world."
K.C. Johnson's outstanding "Moveable Expose" has been a day-to-day, even minute-to-minute, verbal documentary of the intricacies involved in the relationship between politics, education, political correctness and justice. Has this ever been done before? It feels so fresh!
The apparent missing element in "Pathos Theory" is justice.
Of course, "Pathos Theory" attempts to describe the fact that a politically correct system is based on emotion, rather than mathematics or logic, and that the unintended consequences of such a system are as random and pathetic as the intended consequences.
If you add "justice" as a variable, then the theory makes more sense.
Of course, a pure politically correct system is inherently unjust, but the degree of "unjustness" or the degree of deviation from true justice perhaps creates even more random and pathetic consequences, intended or not.
In the Duke Hoax, EVERY component of the politically correct system strayed so far from what may be termed pure justice, that the consequences went beyond random and pathetic to the luridly macabre.
For example, the local media was so politically correct, it refused to report KNOWN FACTS that would establish a hoax.
Duke University was so politically correct, it not only condoned a vicious feeding frenzy on its students, it has REWARDED the feeders.
The local government and police departments were so stymied by political correctness, they allowed a KNOWN FRAUD to stink for nine months, and it still took the State Bar to remedy the problem.
When entities in a political correct system stray this far from baseline justice, the consequences go from random and pathetic to random and unspeakable.
Sorry for the long rant. Now for some non-fiction:
Debrah is Elizabeth Taylor's really hot 27-year-old daughter. More non-fiction:
Prehistoric man told many stories about the great K.C. Johnson but this oral tradition was lost when they got Gameboys. CAVEMEN GODS, at vi (I. Ron Butterfly, 1989). MOO! Gregory
Marlette was a hack. He drew anti-Catholic cartoons and thought he knew better than the pope how best to manage the Catholic church. That is pretty arrogant, but that is the way of the left in America.
Of course, these days, hating established religion makes one a hero. He was a hero to many leftists, and will be lionized, now that he is dead. At least we know the output of his drivel is limited.
Alan Gurganus proved that someone can be pissy and lisping and still a stupid person.
Gregory, re "a politically correct system is based on emotion"
I wish that were true, but it's not. I'm not sure where political corectness originated, but I'm pretty sure it was a byproduct of "affirmative action" (the state-sponsored reaction to the reality of group differences). Would there be global political correctness if all cultures were as creative, industrious, and clever as the English? Probably not, which leads me to the sad conclusion the PC is here to stay, because group differences are largely intractable.
Everyone falls for Debrah. For me it was the boots. Oh my, the boots. And try as I might, I never run into her on the street. Last woman I saw on Angier Avenue wearing similar boots, was, alas, not Debrah.
We kid because we love, Debs, we know you are too smart to visit Durham.
TO "mac" and sweet "spook"--
Didn't anyone of the Duke Group88 stop to think . . . why Ah thought these Duke boys was . . . dare Ah say it . . . Yankees . . . but dey's nice Yankees . . . and yes, they were the useful victims of a hateful mob-like faculty projecting bull.... on them for reasons of their own. Interesting reversal . . . the Duke Group88 became everything they accused others of being.
To the contrary, I used to visit so many of the great restaurants in Durham--about three times weekly for dinner--for so long that I used to joke that I should receive an honorary table.
Parizade, Anotherthyme, Magnolia Grill, Papa's, Nana's, Taverna Nikos, George's Garage....so many of them.
There are many great things in Durham....which are eclipsed and easily overshadowed by the underbelly of which we all know so much about.
Satire is often offensive; Marlette was a satirist.
Goes with the territory.
People thought Jonathan Swift was offensive, too -
(and the concept of Irish babies being used for food
was intentionally offensive, for sure; it made his
point about the inhumanity visited upon the Irish people.)
Satire inspires change: the objects of satire that need to change most are those who can't laugh at themselves.
BTW, I think Falwell would have laughed
at the cartoon illustrating
him as the snake in the garden,
if only because of the ridiculousness of the image:
he once lamented that trying to
rescue PTL was one of the biggest
errors of his life, and that he should
have just let Bakker's empire fall under
its own weight.
Southpark is offensive, too, but it's most offensive
to the extreme left, PC crowd.
It is also deeply offensive to most Christians.
Like Marlette, Southpark is an equal-opportunity offender.
I don't appreciate all that Southpark satirizes, but I recognize
that it is, primarily, satire.
Calling Doug Marlette pro-PC is not
accurate, any more than calling
Southpark pro-PC would be accurate.
Besides that, the Catholic church can stand some humiliation.
They've sure offended the little ones,
with their priestly doings and goings-on and coverups and all that.
Let the stalking, er, Debrah Watch 2007, begin.
I have been to all of those restaurants, but do not go to them any longer. I used to like the Durham scene a lot more before my girlfriend was beaten in the head with a sledge hammer, kidnapped, robbed and raped. Of course the police did nothing, as this was a real rape. So I don't leave my house very often anymore, and she moved far away. You don't get over things like that and I will move away when I can. I have used the words "urine soaked hell hole" to describe Durham, and KC has deleted those posts. I will take my chances again, as it is still true. The ripples that emanate from an attack such as that go on and on.
And they have found.....and will continue to find.....that hypocrisy bites!
(DPD to the rescue, once again...)
Thanks for the support. It was horrible for me, and I cannot even begin to imagine what she went through. Lives were damaged that night and the perp goes on doing whatever it is he does. Our feckless mayor has watched over this mess without a murmur.
The Duke story has resonated with me from the beginning, and as soon as Crystal's story began to fall apart I smelled a rat. Turns out it wasn't a rat I was smelling.
Durham - the gift that keeps on giving.
"Pathos Theory" is a way of understanding a current system. Where it came from helps us understand the current system, but I don't think it completely "describes" it.
Henry Stanley is not renowned for being a bastard child. People instead remember his explorations of Africa. Which describes him better, how he came about or what he was?
Are you claiming that political correctness is based upon logic, reason or mathematics?
I think it is an emotional response to difficult issues. White Guilt is not based upon logic, reason or mathematics. It is an emotional response. I have no idea what my ancestors did during and before the Civil War, and, more importantly, should it matter? It does to some, and that is an emotional response.
(P.S. I'm sure some of my cavemen ancestors, between their various K.C. Johnson-worshipping pagan rituals, ate some early version of Soylent Green, but it just doesn't matter).
Politics will always need emotion, and emotion was a driving force in the Duke Hoax. For example: It angered some people that other people thought Mangum might be lying. As another example: It angered the Gang of 88 that some people questioned their motives.
Those are illogical, emotional responses based upon a politically-correct belief system.
It wasn't a sense of true "justice" that drove Chan Hall to say that the Duke Boys were guilty even if they were innocent. It was misplaced anger - one of the stronger emotions.
To me, political correctness is an emotional vehicle to stifle free expression and promote certain agendas.
What if we had some type of "Mathematical Correctness," which prohibited any discussion or use of fractions or the numbers 7 and 432?
What if there was a "Logical Correctness" that presupposed the answer to any argument had to be anti-white? Or, anti-black?
We don't have the problems of other correctness ideologies because math and logic are not based upon emotion.
That is why I see emotion as the captain (or at least the Bosun) of the good ship H.M.S. Politically Correct.
"K.C. Johnson lost one campaign. That was to remove the letter 'X' from the alphabet for its lack of overall utility. Well, the war isn't over yet, but those 'Xians' are well-funded zealots." English the Way It Could Be (Fred Ian Slip, Putnam) MOO! Gregory
If that is a true story.....how gruesome!
There are many dangereous areas of Durham as everyone knows.
I don't have--or take--the time to go out for dinner there as I used to. Perhaps because eating at the same places gets old.
I eat in more at the Dive Villa because Kitty Diva needs lots of tending and I can't do the incessant late evenings right now.
Kitty Diva is a sweet, wondrous geriatric Kitty. She came to the Diva Villa to live when she was already 9 years old. Her former home had not taken good care of her and she had lots of issues and problems.
But now she's a pampered Kitty and enjoys sheer sybaritic Kitty Diva pleasure.
Because of a few health issues, she has to take medicine every day and it's almost like having a little person to tend. LOL!!!
However, no matter what we say about Durham, George Bakatsias--the chef/owner of so many of the great restaurants--will always be one of the best things about Durham.
I'll probably go over there for dinner some time in the future again.......maybe.
Make that dangerous
Gregory @ 7:53
"I think it is an emotional response to difficult issues. White Guilt is not based upon logic, reason or mathematics. It is an emotional response. I have no idea what my ancestors did during and before the Civil War, and, more importantly, should it matter? It does to some, and that is an emotional response."
This particularly matters to me. My ancestors lived in and farmed land in Surry, Sussex and Southampton County Virginia. Of historical note is that Southampton County was the site of one of three slave insurrections in the ante bellum era. (Google Nat Turner's Rebellion.)
My family, like many others of that time, owned slaves. Of interest to me is that over the course of 5 generations, the number of slaves owned by my family declined. I often wonder if that resulted from a practice of manumission through the generations or whether it resulted from a practice of selling property to more profitable Southern plantations in South Carolina or Georgia. Because the Quaker religion and traditions guided my family from their earliest adventures in Virginia, I like to believe that they practiced manumission. But I don't know that. But I do know that my family never gained wealth in any generation that involved a decline in slave holdings.
And I do know that my great great grandmother's maiden name was "Mangum" -- Southampton County Virginia. I also understand that Negro slaves, when granted freedom, often took the name of a family that they respected or one that granted them freedom.
I continue to be horrified at the notion that my family and its traditions in any way intersect with the pathetic Crystal Gail Mangum, a person who has sullied one of my family names.
And Gregory, that is a deeply felt visceral response.
Surry, eh? Where Mike Vick's dogpound is located?
one word "mapquest"....
I haven't followed the Vick dogpound affair...but I ggogled it ... and
...yes, the same Surry County Virginia ...south of the James River and Jamestowne...
Damn... for all I know .... this could have been on land once owned by my ancestors.
To inman: But is it logical?
The guilt I feel for my own actions is bad enough. To also carry the guilt of my ancestors is an unconscionable and illogical price that some expect me to pay. I cannot afford it.
Besides guilt, another example of the emotion-based nature of Political Correctness is Al Sharpton creating a furor over the death of a bachelor on the eve of his wedding.
If you look at that situation logically or ethically, the first question might be that Sharpton should, instead, concentrate on the reasons behind the large number of black-on-black murders in the country.
If you look at the same situation mathematically, you reach basically the same conclusion: Why not concentrate on the thousands of black-on-black murders in the country?
At Duke University, another emotion also drove the PC bus. The emotion of fear played a huge role in the University's political correctness. Few professors dared speak out against the Gang of 88 or the irresponsible actions of the administration. Those who did were attacked.
P.S. I had to take some time to look up the definition of "manumission." Also, in the short time I have posted regularly on this board, you have already proved to be very brave and intelligent, not somebody easily susceptible to a "visceral response."
All good points about the First Amendment! I especially enjoy the Freedom of Satirical Expression.
The Catholic Church wouldn't need to be so defensive if it didn't feed itself 700 Irish babies every day.
Rightly or wrongly, I'm now even more convinced that the degree of injustice perpetrated by a politically correct system creates an even greater randomization and pathetic-ness of the intended or unintended outcomes based upon the heightened emotions created by the situation.
If the politically correct system (school, government, majority of people) in Durham had been allowed to attain it's goal, there would have been three innocent kids convicted of fake crimes, all in the name of fear, anger and guilt.
The only reason the politically correct circuit was not completed was because of outside influences -- the State Bar, the Attorney General, K.C. Johnson, Liestoppers, etc....
"K.C. Johnson's voice is actually at a frequency only animals can hear. That is how he maintains control of them. What you are 'hearing' is telepathy." Back of Sugar packet at Denny's (2007) MOO! Gregory
The 2 creators of "South Park," Trey Parker and Matt Stone, consider themselves libertarians. Stone was quoted thusly: "We hate conservatives, but we really hate liberals."
I'd heard that!
Thanks for the elucidation.
I love your posts. Humor and insight: a deadly combination for those you target.
I'd like a witty reply to this query.
You say: "At Duke University, another emotion also drove the PC bus. The emotion of fear played a huge role in the University's political correctness. Few professors dared speak out against the Gang of 88 or the irresponsible actions of the administration. Those who did were attacked."
Fear might be a good explanation for the behavior of those faculty -- as it's been suggested several times in this blog -- but let's not overrate it. Another factor could be that they find distasteful and pretty much useless to even try to argue with the 88-types. I can picture many of them just roll their eyes, think "there they go again!" and move as far away as they can from the controversy.
I often wonder whether the sane-minded faculty just pereceive the 88 as harmless fools and simply ignore them.
"South Park" can never touch the gone-but-not-forgotten "Pee Wee's Playhouse". I miss Pee Wee!
"K.C. is a manifestation of the singularity posited in string theory with his existence being at the intersection of qauntum matter, dark energy and time." Stephen Hawking, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics Vol 4 #3.
BAA. Inman mimicking the Great Gregory,
Anonymous 10:16 said...
...I often wonder whether the sane-minded faculty just perceive the 88 as harmless fools and simply ignore them.
I have worked with G88 types for many years and you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
They usually don't have very many students; don't like students; weep a lot; spread rumors; create problems on campus with the office of student affairs and are involved with programming on campus with the office of students affairs and goofy alumni.
The number of young women students that hang around these types is really quite amazing. They 'rat' on their peers...and claim that they rank professors poorly on teaching evaluations if the professor is not supportive of their group.
I watched those students very very carefully!
As long as these faculty members and their followers didn't hurt anyone, I ignored all of them and sent e-mails to the Dean and Vice-Presidents requesting monthly fumigation of the liberal arts buildings...and especially the office of student affairs.
Now, these G88 types hurt people!
Different strategy is needed.
funny how some of the mental cripples here are getting their panties all bunched up over a cartoonist supposed "politics"
hope that Floyd was able to get over to the funeral.
my amygdalae iz sew glad to have a kruch. Thank ewe fer hepping me aginst the emeny.
Thank you for your response. I'm going to attempt to answer your queries despite the fact that we're diving into deep philosophical waters inhabited by 2 of our greatest philosophers, David Hume and Aristotle. Because any discussion of political correctness addresses the nature of reality which, as we all know, is a slippery slope.
I gather that, in your opinion, political correctness is an emotional response to difficult issues ... [which is also] an emotional vehicle to stifle free expression and promote certain agendas.
What you say may be true, but from my perspective political correctness is social lying. Yes, there is emotion involved; at its center, however, PC is a logical way to deflect discussion of intractable group differences.
These differences are also known as taboos. Not too long ago Charles Murray published a brilliant essay entitled "The Inequality Taboo." Murray's argument is simple: because of intractable cognitive differences among groups, some will prosper while others will continue to struggle. To me, this essay could be painted on top of Duke's Angry Studies departments in boldface.
I realize that one could probably trace political correctness back to the Frankfurt School, through Marcuse and Lacan et al.
Bottom line, political correctness is the process by which society disguises cognitive inequalities, talent, and productivity. It is therefore logical at its essence, not emotional.
The story is sadly true. It was my first introduction to the profound inadequacies of the DPD. They were and remain a very sorry and incompetent lot.
Peewee's Playhouse rocked. The intro to his show is on YouTube - what a marvelous piece of work that is. HA!, said in my best Peewee voice.
And cats are the best - I have three and two dogs.
But by now this has gone dreadfully off topic, so back to the subject at hand. How about that cartoon drawin' fellow, eh? Boy, folks sure get riled up over some ink and squiggles, eh? And cancer of the spine has got to be a bit painful, eh? Mr. Gurganus might be able to tell us all about it.
To: Anon @ 10:16
I think GP hit the nail with his head ... err ... brain. Packwood said: "Now, these G88 types hurt people!" I agree, but would go a step further. They also hurt institutions and fundamental ideas.
The G88 and Duke Administration:
1. Harmed the reputation of the University as a whole.
2. Harmed the reputation of the professoriat.
3. Risked the physical safety of 46 of their students.
4. Risked the freedom of three of their students.
5. Allowed the violation of numerous legal safeguards (e.g. presumption of innocence)
Now, how does that, and the response of other professors, fit in "Pathos Theory," which is being made up as the letters appear on your screen?
The professors who are not engaged in the political correctness can respond to the emotion-based politically correct actions and words of others with (a) logic, or (b) emotion.
Some logical responses:
"Maybe if we ignore them, they will go away."
"I will let the legal process play out, as I am an expert in quarks, not non-testimonial orders."
"They have a right to free expression, let them hang themselves with their own words."
Some emotional responses:
[Anger] This professor might write a letter to the local newspaper expressing displeasure regarding the actions of the G88.
[Guilt] This professor might shy away from a response to, or even tacitly support, the G88's actions because of the "Great American History of Oppression."
[Fear] This professor would avoid a response because of a fear of reprisal.
[Hunger] This professor might respond to the controversy with a cheeseburger. [Thereby leading to guilt]
I thought your phrase, "move as far away as they can from the controversy," was somewhat telling. It contains characteristics of both a logical response -- "I don't want to be associated with that" -- and an emotional response -- fear of a "controversy."
To me, the low number of "first responders" means that there was something afoot besides professional courtesy. I am going to speculate that it was fear, guilt and some hunger.
African-Americans hate to be called the "N" word, and whites hate to be labled with the "R" word. That's a lot of fear, guilt and anger going on.
To Polanski: I disagree with your foundational premise -- that there are cognitive, talent and productivity inequalities. Because of that, I cannot build up to your final thesis. But you write like a mofo!
To Inman: It blew past mimicry and set a new standard! I have to elevate my game.
After K.C. beat Deep Blue again, the computer pushed back from the table, slumped it's shoulders, put it's hands in it's pockets and shuffled off to sulk for 340 trillion nanoseconds. It then took up darts.
Just a quick note to correct any ambiguity above. When "Anger" is mentioned as a possible response of the few "first responders" among the professoriat, that should read: "Righteous Anger."
Additionally, that emotional righteous anger was the effect caused by the use of logic to determine that (a) there was a serious problem, (b) the problem needed addressing, and (c) they were just the man (or woman) to do it!
Marvel Comics came out with, but were forced to quickly shelve, a "Captain Johnson" comic book, as the other super heros went on a "jealousy" strike. MOO! Gregory
Gregory, this is anon@10:16
Keep it up, humor is taking you far in understanding this farce.
It so happens that I am one of those faculty -- I am the SocSci Prof that posted in the thread on Prof Harris and the UWP.
I have encountered the logical responses you suggest. My own reaction initially was of the second type (the expertise thing). Then I got annoyed...
I have also encountered ALL of the emotional responses that you mention -- yes, including the hunger thing; I'll never understand it, but hey, who says I should?
I also encoutered an emotional response that you don't mention:
[ANGER + SELF-RESTRAINT] This professor is as mad as hell for what these clowns did -- your items 1 through 5 -- but understands that throwing gasoline on the fire is not constructive. He might then take alternative, less confrontational and spectacular actions to weigh in and try to accomplish something good.
Perhaps this response is not purely emotional and contains that touch of logic that leads us to miss it in today's rampant use of simple two-categories schemes... However, those faculty (minus me, of course!) are higly intelligent and thoughtful individuals who do not reason in two-categories schemes when it is not useful.
I look forward to having my thougths dissected once again.
To anon @ 1:04,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I applaud your "less confrontational and spectacular actions ... to accomplish something good." I would, however, note the following:
[ANGER + SELF-RESTRAINT = ULCER]
Your personal response did seem to follow along classic "Pathos Theory" lines, in that you showed --
1. A logical response, followed by,
2. An anger (emotional) response. I know you used the term "annoyed," but isn't "annoyed" only anger's peevish little step-brother?
3. Then you used your "Righteous Anger" to call the G88 "clowns" in your post. Good on you!
Sometimes a two-category scheme is appropriate, most especially in those instances in which only two categories exist.
One of my favorite two-category schemes is embodied in the phrase, "Fight or Flight." Oh sure, there is also the stare-at-the-oncoming-headlights category as well, but that category is only championed by dead rabbits and squirrels.
The Duke Hoax had such terrible consequences that most people expected, from the professoriat, more "fight" and less "flight."
Good luck on changing the future! Cheers!
"On weekends, K.C. Johnson travels to other planets to confront aliens and probe them." Galactic Journal, StarDate 3911. MOO! Gregory
Wow, an answer at 3:41am. I'm flattered -- unless you're in Europe. Thanks!
Elegant as expected, by the way.
I like your math, [ANGER + SELF-RESTRAINT = ULCER]. I know it to be literally true in at least on case!
No, it's not me, but thanks for your concern anyway.
On fight vs. flight I can only say it does look that way, does it? It's one of the many sources of frustration for us.
Oh, don't downplay the stare-at-the-oncoming-headlights category; it's more common than you seem to think -- the absent-minded professor thing, you know...
But I concede your point: the professoriat did not meet the expectations of most people of your persuasion.
I would not be surprised, however, to find out that we did not meet the expectations of most people of the opposite persuasion either. The G88 do complain quite a bit that they have been left alone to fend off the barbarians...
I really like your Pathos Theory. Work in progress but, as you say, seems to accord with this data point (me).
One question: does the theory allow for step 3 to be followed by a return to logic? Or once the Righteous Indignation (I like it better than Anger) stage is reached one has to keep shouting?
For what is worth, I used the term "clowns" with the utmost respect; it is a honorable profession and it takes years of hard training to perform such acts....
anon @ 1:04 aka SocScProf
Bascially, what it comes down to is this:
Memory is stored - (by, not in)
the hippocampus; it is aided by the amygdala, which is involved
with emotional memory etc.
Comparing the two parts to a pair of librarians, the hippocampus
might help you find the factual stuff in the library, and the
amygdala would retrieve the deeper,
more emotional material (including things related to fear and fearful memories.)
A simplification, certainly not complete, but it
explains some of the differences
in memory and
in learning styles.
Amygdalic learners are emotional learners;
hippocampal learners are
less so. Generally speaking, both are used in the process of memorialization,
regardless of which part is used to a greater extent.
Race does seem to play a part in the differences in learning style
and memory retrieval, as does gender.
You folks can argue the philosphical aspects of education/learning etc.,
but it still boils down to neuroscience, not abstract
The study of dreams (not dream- interpretation: the study of memory,
using dreams and memories of dreams)
appears to confirm the dual nature of memory, and the neccessity for
both parts to collaborate if memory is to be reliable.
For example, someone with a damaged hippocampus might not
be able to tell you what they ate for breakfast, but
they can tell you if they liked it.
And so forth.
Which is why certain characters in this mess (Mangum, Levicy)
place undue emphasis on what they
feel might've happened,
rather than the facts involved,
and why certain communities maintain, contrary to clear evidence,
that "something happened."
In other words, the "something happened" people likely have deficiencies in their hippocampus.
For the 88 to truly understand the nature of your analysis, it might be helpful to have its cadence sound something like:
(A) "eenie, meenie, minee, moe, catch a fellow by his toe, if he hollers let him go, eenie meenie, minee, moe," or
(B) "this little piggie went to market, this little piggie stayed home, this little piggie had roast beef and this little piggie had none."
And also, you may find it helpful in communicating with the 88 to use substantially more one and two syllable words, avoid compound sentences, and never --ever-- use more than one adjective and one adverb in any given sentence. Generally, preposition phrases are to be avoided. Finally, limit vocabulary to no more than 700 words.
Pat Conroy's father says that "their homelife was nothing like Pat describes and he has no idea where Conroy gets his ideas."
Post a Comment