Sunday, July 22, 2007

Sunday Roundup

Two important articles appeared last week on the Friends of Duke site. The first, penned by Joan Collins, looked at the role of faith for the players and their supporters throughout the case.

Collins notes that “for me, it was faith that brought me to this case.” A resident of Garden City (hometown of Collin Finnerty and several other players on the team), Collins had never even read a blog before the case began—but she turned to the internet because she wanted to find more information about the case. Attacks on the Finnertys’ generous (longstanding) support for Father Peter LeJacq, a Maryknoll priest who has opened missionary hospitals and trained doctors in Africa, generated her first internet commentary.

Collins recalled,

I decided to pray to St. Raymond Nonnatus, the patron saint of the falsely accused, asking that the case be dismissed. In the spring of 2007, I wrote to Mr. Evans that St. Raymond was the patron saint of the falsely accused. It was another coincidence that Rae Evans and her father, Raymond, shared the same name as the patron saint of the falsely accused. Later, I was touched by Mr. Evans’ testimony at Mr. Nifong’s trial about Raymond Forker and how the family had embraced the patron saint . . .

Over the past year, I encountered remarkable, resolute people in the search for truth and justice in the Duke Lacrosse Case. Their research, writings, poems, videos and cartoons energized us to continue. It was a privilege to meet and speak with some of the lacrosse players, their families and the Presslers. Their courage inspired me. The common theme of the conversations was faith and how it had sustained them, provided them hope, and at times carried them through some of their darkest days. When their university turned its back on them, when the media spewed vile things about them, when our legal system did not seem to be working, what remained were family, friends and faith.

Today I met Rae Evans for the first time. She was wearing a St. Raymond pendant and she gave me a special gift of a St. Raymond medal. Faith has taken me on a journey from that first post on Court TV about faith, to writing the Dave Evans profile of courage on the morning of Raymond Forker’s death, praying to the patron saint of the falsely accused and receiving the medal. The St. Raymond medal reminds me that with faith all things are possible.

None of us will forget the Duke Lacrosse Case. We must move forward and learn from the experience. The Duke Lacrosse team will become better and stronger men, sons, husbands, and fathers because of the case. This is not the end, but the beginning for there is still much work to be done. Hopefully, the players and their many supporters will follow in the generous footsteps of St. Raymond, so that something like this never happens again.
You can read the entire article here.


Meanwhile, FODU spokesperson Jason Trumpbour has delved into the Bar depositions to explore some troubling connections between Duke and the police.

As Trumpbour noted, virtually the only time when the regular Durham judiciary (Judges Stephens and Titus) stood up to Mike Nifong was last July, when Judge Kenneth Titus rejected Nifong’s request for keycard records of the non-indicted players. Titus cited the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA). But, Trumpbour noted, the material released by the Bar suggests that “Duke University had already turned these records over to police months earlier in March evidently in violation of FERPA.”

“For those,” Trumpbour concluded, “who insisted that our criticism of the Duke administration for its lack of public support for its falsely accused students was unfair because Duke was probably concerned about its students and was probably working behind the scenes to help them, guess again. For those who have insisted that speaking out against the conduct of Mike Nifong might work against the University’s interests and expose it to unacceptable risks, look at the risks the administration was willing to take in order to further the interests of those working against the players.”

Looking over the case, the FODU spokesperson detected one “common denominator”—that “there was always some other priority for the administration that was greater than the welfare of its students. They wanted to be on the right side in the eyes of the public regardless of the facts or law. They wanted to maintain their cozy working relationships with local officials. They wanted to appease small, vocal constituencies within their faculty. They did not think the lacrosse players deserved their help.”

The Bar depositions brought to light at least two, previously unrevealed, March 2006 meetings between the DPD and the Duke Police. And Ben Himan speculated that information from the Duke Police was funneled to Nifong through his then-assistant, Sheila Eason, whose husband works for the Duke Police.

Trumpbour's post raises the question of what the Duke Police knew, and when the Duke Police knew it.


Yesterday’s post explored the somewhat . . . peculiar . . . arguments of Group of 88 member Pete Sigal. Lest it seem as if Sigal is a fringe figure—either at Duke or in the profession as a whole—guess again. This past spring, Sigal helped to organize a conference under the Duke History Department’s auspices. The title? “Ethnopornography: Sexuality, Colonialism and Anthropological Knowing.”

Sigal, meanwhile, served as co-chair for the Program Committee of the American Historical Association, the nation’s oldest and most prestigious group of academic historians. The AHA long has been considered a paragon of political correctness—it requires, for instance, that all (three- or four-person) conference panels include at least one woman. The conference theme reinforced Sigal’s preconceived notions: he searched for panelists who would call “upon us as historians to reflect on historical processes that have resulted in persistent and dramatic material inequalities” and who would “explore the possibility of alternative narratives that move beyond the Eurocentric explanations of the past.”

Next year, Sigal will have one fewer colleague in the Duke History Department. Peter Wood will still be free to give interviews to Indy appearing to slander Reade Seligmann; and he will still be available to provide unsubstantiated gossip to the New Yorker that lacrosse players in his class advocated genocide against Native Americans. But at the very least he won’t be doing so from the classroom lectern. Wood has announced his retirement, and officially moves to emeritus status this winter.

Wood’s departure would seem to be a case of addition by subtraction—though, no doubt, the Group of 88-dominated History Department will ensure that the anti-lacrosse extremist is replaced by someone of similar ideological and pedagogical biases.


From the Liestoppers discussion forum: Officer Clayton had a busy day on Friday. In the morning, the photo of him at the Elmostafa trial appeared in the Whichard Committee as the embodiment of police intimidation. That evening, Clayton then went onto the mean streets of a local bookstore, on Harry Potter patrol.


The Florida Bar News featured a lengthy profile of Joe Cheshire, Jim Cooney, and wade Smith discussing the case. Their basic message: the system did not work in the lacrosse case, and Durham just as easily could have tried three demonstrably innocent people.

Cheshire: “The most frightening thing that can happen to human beings . . . and it’s happened throughout recorded history, is a rush to judgment. We saw and suffered a rush to judgment and luckily we overcame it. If we had been representing poor, indigent people, we would have never overcome it.”

“What we say is in America today, our justice system has in many ways become politicized. We have a war on drugs; we have a war on crime; we have to be safe in our streets; we have to make all of our citizens afraid to walk to their cars at night,” he said.

“What’s happened is we have developed a culture in this country where winning is more important than seeing justice is done. Winning and statistics are more important than seeing that justice is done.”

Cooney: “The problem is that is nowhere near the truth [to say that the system worked]. There are at least a dozen happenstances . . . that if we missed something by just a hair, we would be in the middle of a jury trial right now. We would be in the middle of a jury trial with three young men who were innocent.”

“It was that open file discovery that changed these three boys’ lives.”

“If it wasn’t for Dave Evans picking up his bathroom, and putting those fingernails in the garbage, we would have missed it. You take away those fingernails and we would be in the middle of a trial. How did Mr. Nifong think he would get away with it? The answer is, he almost did.”

“As we drafted the motions, we knew we were drafting the motions for the media; it wasn’t just for the judge. We had to be clear, every assertion had to have a supporting document.”

“The lesson in all of this is there is nothing inevitable about justice. Justice is something you have to fight for every day . . . every hour, and every second. It’s sometimes things you can’t control, like Alan Gell or the vote on the grievance committee. There is nothing inevitable about the right result.”

Smith: “It was time that this man [Nifong] should fall. The excessive weight of this man in human destiny disturbed the equilibrium. He counted of himself alone more than the universe besides . . . .

“Napoleon vexed the gods. Well, so did Nifong. How do you vex the gods? I want to know because I don’t want to do it . . . . It was arrogance, his willingness to use these boys to advance his personal career, a refusal to listen to evidence, refusals to meet with witnesses, a willingness to convict the innocent to advance his career.”

“I think the problem is not only did Nifong take this case out of the superior courtroom and put it in the laps of the public, but he stood up in the court and just spoke untruth to the judges. Then having spoken untruth to the judges, he hid this material for a long period of time. I think everyone knew that [disbarment] was inevitable.”


Anonymous said...

Can the other lacrosse players sue Duke, assuming they haven't reached a settlement?

wayne fontes said...

The first link in the Pete Sigal paragraph isn't working KC.

Anonymous said...

Given that Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA) appears to have been violated, should not the Feds investigate if one of the Lax players files a complaint?

Anonymous said...

All who read and consider the actions of the Durham Police Department and Mike Nifong...must surely consider the statement: "There, but for the grace of God, go I"

Michael said...

re: 12:36

Or worse: my child.

Anonymous said...

No wonder Duke so readily settled. They were in violation of a federal law not once, but AT LEAST 45 times. Congressman Jones, there is your angle. Maybe if Senator Dole is paying attention at all, she will get behind this investigation.

Several years ago I had jury duty. The case was one of assault. Three young people were charged with beating a man, putting him in the trunk of a car, carrying him across state lines, and dumping him out in the middle of nowhere. Evidence was presented. My heart told me that the three were guilty of the assault. I was not so sure about the kidnapping. The prosecutor kept telling us that if they could only find the car that belonged to one of the charged boys parents, they would be able to prove the case. As we sat in the jury room on the last day of evidence, we could not imagine why we had not been taken into the courtroom. After sitting in there for over 4 hours, we were finally seated in the jury box. At that time, the judge informed us that the prosecutor had known for weeks that the car had not only been found but that the police had tested the car for traces of blood. There was no blood found and, since it was the basis of the prosecution's case, he "chose" not to reveal that the car had been found and that testing had been completed.
Many times during the Nifong/Mangum Hoax I have gone back and thought of this trial. I grew up being taught to trust the legal system. It seems that there are far too many problems in the system to place a lot of faith in it.

thanks again for an excellent post. Your work remains outstanding and you should be proud of what you have accomplished and are accomplishing. Sadly, we cannot count on the MSM to provide facts. At least we have you.
Thanks again!


Anonymous said...

Where has Alan Derschowitz been in this case? I've been listening to that joker for over 2 decades. Now, here is a real case about areas he know something about and the guy is virtually silent.

I am guessing:

1. He won't talk unless paid.

2. It's not a PC case.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. Can anybody comment on this? (and please, do not site some obscure article or interview--that's not nearly enough)


GaryB said...

Officer Clayton had a . . . photo of him at the Elmostafa trial . . .as the embodiment of police intimidation. That evening, Clayton . . .on Harry Potter patrol.

The liestopper guy should have cast a "confundus" spell on Clayton ... followed perhaps by a "Repario" on the police department :-)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MikeZPurdue said...

Professor Johnson: that was a riveting Sunday round-up,
especially the reflective comments by Cooney and Smith at
the end.

When it comes time to question Sgt Gottlieb, I hope
of the many questions the cmte will ask (for sure
about the 32 page report from memory months
after the fact) include the following.

1. You were at the mtgs between Nifong and Mr. Meehan.
From those mtgs, which occurred prior to the indictments,
did you or did you not understand that DNA from
four non-Lacrosse players was found on Ms Mangum (materials and samples from rape kit)?

(in the deposition, he preempted this question by
saying Mr Meehan's discussion was going over his head/)

2. Do you still maintain that Ms Mangum's
statements were consistent from the point where
Ms Levicy calmed her down until the time of the

3. Mr Nifong cited you and Officer Himan, and
the nurse, Ms Levicy, as to why he believed that a rape
had occurred. Since each of the three of you believed
a rape had occurred, that's why he believed it. So,
obviously, you can't say that you believed it, because
Mr Nifong believed it.

Since the first officer on the scene thought Ms Mangum
was lying, was your belief that a rape occurred based solely on
the opinion of SANE Nurse Levicy?

Follow up: if so, when the SBI report came back
with no semen and no DNA match, why didn't
you rethink things and assess Mangum's credibility?
When Mr Meehan told you that sensitive DNA
testing showed that there wasn't even a transfer
DNA match, why didn't that change your mind?

Why did no one ever make an attempt to assess
Ms Mangum's credibility before seeking indictments?

MikeZPurdue said...

12:36 actually when I think of the three innocent
students that were being willfully railroaded by
Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb, and others, I think
"there, but for the Grace of God, go I"

Is that what you meant?

Anonymous said...

As a member of the Duke faculty I find the revelations about the connections between the university and the DPD extremely disturbing...

Anonymous said...

Duke abandoned the lacross team because Durham's black community was unanimous in calling for the team's head. It was a case of white guilt patronizing black racism. When a white community is racist the media makes sure everyone knows about it. When a black community is racist the media takes the position that it's "justifiable rage."

Anonymous said...

The FERPA violations, if true, are troubling not because all FERPA violations are of equal weight, but because of the substantial harm these particular actions would inflict on the athletes. I don't know what relationship that would have to the settlement though. The athletes don't have a cause of action.
In 2002 iirc the Supreme Court ruled in the Gonzaga case that there is no private cause of action in a FERPA violation. It was the Rehnquist court, but John Roberts - that one - argued for Gonzaga. So that's one precedent unlikely to be overturned soon.
On the other hand, then it is up to the Feds to look into this. The Education Department has oversight I think.
Jason's post is important. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Dershowitz didn't concern himself with the Duke lacross case because it had nothing to do with Israel.

Anonymous said...

Racism? You're a few days late. KC's post on NPR recounted how several NCCU students vowed to support the accuser whether she was telling the truth or not, because she is black. NPR interviewers never batted an eyelash and we never heard a word of protest about it.

KC rightly pointed out the hypocricy. Imagine a Duke student or lacrosse team supporter saying they would support the team whether they were innocent or guilty because they were white.

My conclusion about the racism in this case...there are a lot of racists in Durham and they all hate Duke lacrosse.

Anonymous said...

There but for the grace of God go I...

...that is a prayer that many could and would whisper under their breath when thinking about the Duke Lacrosse Burning. I know that I do.

And I am sad. I am sad that the leadership of Duke University failed in a defining moment. I am sad that Duke's administration ignored the concept of innocence. I am sad that a fundamental notion of justice -- "innocent until proven guilty" -- was ignored.

Noone, I repeat noone can convince me that President Richard Brodhead's comments in early Aril 2006 in any way, whatsoever, incorporated the notion -- the fundamental right and notion --- of "innocent until proven guilty."

I am aghast at his willingness to abet those whose anger and calumny was unrelated to the moment.

Richard Brodhead must resign.

Thomas S. Inman '74

mac said...

"I think everyone knew that (disbarment) was inevitable."

That's a nice sentiment, maybe
understood by attorneys on
the inside, but
not so very clear to everyone:
what about the people (or trolls?) posting on DIW
who doubted that anything was going to change? Who said the word
"innocent" would never be used?
Who said Duke would never settle?

I remember being told to shut up,
that it "ain't gonna happen," (Duke settled, as we now know)
and to "stop trying to save Duke
from itself."

The latter is something that we might not have
any power to chance or even to influence,
but that doesn't mean that the case
is closed. It is not.

There's still fish to fry.

Anonymous said...

Another point for perspective-

So far 3 people (one being Mike Pressler) have lost their jobs over this case and Duke has paid some settlements. That's all, no other penalties or consequences.

I'd like to hear some predictions about what other consequences will follow, personally I see only a few more possibilities-

Gottlieb bagging groceries
Nifong doing 30 days

Personally I'd like to see Nifong get 10 years, Addison, Gottlieb, and Wilson behind bars for long periods and most of the Duke administration & Group of 88 ousted, but I don't see any of that happening.

By the way...yes, Kim Curtis still teaches at Duke. As long as that remains true the University cannot possibly pretend to have any standards regarding anything.

Honorable Duke alumni must be absolutely pulling their hair out.

mac said...

Just MO, but it looked as if the (apparent) collusion
between Duke and the DPD was an effort
by Duke to settle the case -
(with the students basically making
a plea bargain)
- as soon as it
could be arranged.
That's one possible reason why the
young men were advised not to
retain attoneys.

If the students had admitted guilt
of some sort,
this thing would have died,
and quickly.

Brodhead was gambling.
He lost.

Time to go.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

Professor Johnson,

Do you really think these defense attorneys believe what they say about this being such a near thing? Particularly do you think they really believe they would have lost the suppression hearing and a judge would have allowed Mangum's clearly tainted IDs in court?

I believe I have heard or read them say differently at other time, but I am not sure.

Also, I think they are over playing their hand saying such things as, "... We would be in the middle of a jury trial with three young men who were innocent." Don't innocent people go on trial from time to time? Really the issue in this case is that the former defendants should not have been charged as a reasonable investigation would have show that not only was the state not likely to prevail, but also there was not probable cause to charge someone. Unfortunately in the real world sometimes honestly mistaken witnesses or just circumstantual evidence leads to innocent people being reasonably charged with a crime. That was not the case in the Duke lacrosse cases.

mac said...


Not speaking for KC, but please consider how many people
still believe that "something happened!"

That, alone, shows how close it came.

A hung jury - (a likely outcome, regardless of the evidence) - is certainly far removed
from a declaration by the Attorney General of "innocence."

mac said...


Nifong: "We need to get this done."
Brodhead: "Do what you must, but do it quickly."

Nifong: "We'll need records."
Brodhead: "Done, done."

Nifong: "We need to keep attorneys out of this."
Brodhead: "We'll see what we can do."

Nifong: "If we can get a hung jury, it'll all pass by quickly."
Brodhead: "That's what we want, too."

Nifong: "I'll plead them down, so that they won't serve serious time."
Brodhead: "Good. We don't want to be seen as goons."

Nifong: "Can you fire the coach? He's likely to stand up to you - and to me."
Brodhead: "Done."

Nifong: "Can you make ambiguous statements that can be interpreted as guilt?"
Brodhead: "I'm a master of words."

Nifong: "Might want to cover yourself by not listening to anything that might exonerate the boys."
Brodhead: "I won't meet with them, their parents or their lawyers if they should get them."

Ah, just hypothetical stuff.
Could it have played out this way?
I dunno...

Anonymous said...

JLS says.." do you think they really believe they would have lost the suppression hearing "

I think without the DNA withholding as an issue, it would have taken a brave judge in Durham (where the prosecutors have such huge power) to squelch the trial. I still cant put my finger on Smith, but he doesent strike me as particular courageous.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: mac

Of course the suppression hearing could have come out many ways:

1. Mangum could have crumbled under cross-examination and recanted when pressed.

2. A judge could have tossed the results IDs.

3. Mangum could have failed to show.

4. A judge could have not suppressed the IDs but been overruled on appeal.

I am sure there are others. And remember this was to be heard not in front of a Durham judge, but in front of Judge Smith who was from another area. So the question remains, do they really believe they would have lost that hearing?

And my second question remains, are these defense attorneys over playing their hand a bit pretending that there is no reason an innocent defendant should ever be on trial? In fact may a clever prosecutor use these statements against them? If only under a highly unusual case like the Duke lacrosse cases is an innocent defendant ever on trial and since the jury can recognized the "this" case is not like the Duke lacrosse cases and there has been no prosecutorial misconduct even alledged, doesn't that logically mean the jury should vote to convict any future Cooney client who ends up on trial?

These defense attorneys should be stressing that Duke lacrosse charges never should have been brought since there was not probable cause. The reason we have trials is that sometimes the evidence points to someone who happens to be innocent.

Anonymous said...

A couple of questions for KC:

1. In what way do the 88/87/86 run the Duke history department? Do signees constitute the majority of senior faculty, ie, full professors?

2. Have AHA standards somehow dropped by requiring conference panels to include women? How old is this requirement? What effects, if any, has it had?

Anonymous said...

Two things: First, Sigal truly is pathetic AND evil. Anyone that consumed with sex like he has been simply does not need to be teaching young people. The guy is a pervert, pure and simple, and the academic language he uses does nothing to cover that fact.

That Brodhead and Steel (not to mention other academic historians) think of Sigal's work as be great stuff tells us that the history profession is full of truly pathetic people. No doubt,that is one reason that a scholar like K.C. runs into so much opposition: he actually does history.

Second, given what we have seen in the past with North Carolina juries, all one would have to conclude is that "something happened" to reach an agreement on a conviction. In the Little Rascals cases, the juries agreed that the stories told by the children on the stand were ridiculous, but then added that the only way that they could have made the accusations was for "something" to have happened.

(I got this from watching interviews with LR jury members, and they told the interviewer that while they thought the stories were fanciful, nonetheless, they would not have been told had nothing happened.)

Juries always are under tremendous pressure to convict. Given the fact that there was a racial element to this case, black jurors almost certainly would have been under even more pressure from their communities to vote a conviction -- even had Crystal totally melted down on the stand.

Remember, even though the facts speak otherwise, plenty of people today STILL are insisting that "something happened." I hear it all the time from supposedly educated and intelligent people.

You see, Goebbels was right. If the authorities tell a big enough lie, even if people don't believe the lie as such, they will conclude that there must be "something" there, otherwise, no one would be telling any stories at all.

Even now, we see people in Durham defending the outright criminal actions of the police. They WANTED a conviction; they WANTED Reade, David, and Collin to go to prison so their little narratives could be fulfilled.

JLS is right in that the prosecution had nothing. But prosecutors convict on "nothing" all the time in this country. We are better off not going to trial at all.

And, seeing the performance of the North Carolina judges over the years, there is no guarantee that Judge Smith would have tossed the IDs. And, if he had done so, then we would have heard that these guys really were guilty of EVERYTHING, but "got on on a technicality."

You see, America now is at the point where Constitutional rights to due process are seen as mere "technicalities." People who despise their freedoms -- and look at the politicians running for president this year urging us to do just that -- will lose what few freedoms they have.

mac said...

JLS 3:16

Ordinarily, yes: your points are valid. Isn't this the most extraordinary set of circumstances you've ever seen? Have you ever seen a national media line up against someone with so little (as in "no") evidence?

Have you ever seen professors and a University President rush to judgement like this?

Have you ever seen a police department conspire against defendants with this level of thoroughness?

I haven't.

Maybe the historical parallel is actually a kind of opposite,
where everything was set up, where the local government,
local criminal justice system and local citizens work incredibly hard
to exonerate guilty men, where any break could have unravelled the
case...but didn't for years and years?
Like when 16th street Baptist church was bombed in Birmingham?
In 1963?

It was 1977 before any of the bombers were held accountable.

Oh, yeah, I forgot: the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover witheld evidence from the prosecutors that pointed to the GUILT of the accused.

(Interesting sidenote: they were concerned that the
Prosecutors might do the right thing!)

Men were set free in that conspiracy,
one that might've unraveled at any
given point, but didn't.
It was another perfect storm,
and the resolution took...

In this case, the conspiracy was
similarly airtight, and only came unravelled
because an attorney
figured out the conspiracy between
a lab director and a prosecutor.
Remember: the December hearing
was sprung on the defense attorneys,
who sprung right back and surprised the prosecution
and the prosecution's main DNA witness.

It could have unravelled at other places and points,
but it's far from certain - (and
highly unlikey) - that the young men
would have been completely exonerated
if a trial had been held, epecially in Durrhhh.

Remember please, how this was unlike so many other cases:
there was no crime.

Anonymous said...

I will add that the one person who is running for president and DOES emphasize our Constitutional rights -- Ron Paul -- is labeled as a "kook." The others running for president either are defending the loss of our liberties as "necessary for security," or they are busy trying to find new ways to make war on productive people or to deny the rest of us the right to engage in peaceful, voluntary trade.

mac said...

Except the crime against the accused young men, that is.

Anonymous said...

1:52 AM

Read your own posting. What is wrong about what you are writing. The defense attorneys are correct in their observations about the case.

Anonymous said...

It is not Foster, it is Collins. Wrong Jaon, you may wish to corret.

Anonymous said...

Is Sigl a Communist?

Anonymous said...

One thing I find interesting is that so many of the G88 seem to worship sex and sexual body parts, yet all of a sudden they turned puritanical when it came to strippers. How DARE these young men hire strippers!! How DARE they drink beer!!

This is yet another example of the rot that affects elite higher education, as people like this bunch of frauds are termed "cutting edge." I am sorry, but the celebration of the worship of the penis is not "scholarship."

Only the wealthy, elite places like Duke can afford to hire people like this and give them cushy jobs and treat them as though they were real contributors to the academic process. Furthermore, we now see just how much influence they have, as these people were the ones who convinced Brodhead to throw the players under the bus.

The happenings at Duke will be with us for a long time. Elite higher education now is fully exposed, as well as the "rape crisis" industry. We see now that we are dealing with people who will stop at nothing.

In the Duke case, we saw a tag team of thuggish, lying cops, a lying and sociopathic prosecutor, and "cutting edge" faculty members who see "truth" as whatever they wish. Together, they became something akin to what we saw in Mao's bloody and evil "revolution" in China.

Welcome to hell.

Anonymous said...

"As a member of the Duke faculty I find the revelations about the connections between the university and the DPD extremely disturbing..."

Candidly, there's a whole lot more to disturb you than this instance of betrayal and illegal conduct. Your employer is taking on water, big time, the closer we look at what is actually going on. What a joke. Shame on all of you, especially Duke's "leadership" (from Steele and Brodrot on down). Duke deserves everything it gets. I hope the civil suits from the Lax (-3) take Duke's entire endowment (as well as the hospital). I don't think anyone would want the university.

Anonymous said...

As I recall commenting a couple weeks ago, Why did Duke settle so fast and for so much that the lax players had no problem instantly accepting? (and I'm guessing $10 million split between the three of them)

Because if the info about Duke providing confidential records to the DPD came out in discovery, Duke was sunk, and there could even have been criminal violations against some administrators. On the other hand, as long as the boys don't sue, then this info will never officially come to light - because who's going to investigate officially, the DPD who are accomplices to all of the dirty deeds?

Anonymous said...

The only thing that the G88 members truly worship is themselves.

Anonymous said...

Wayne Fonts inre: McCarthy and McCarthyism. Though McCarthy was directly involved in few actual discoverys he did in fact find some such as Owen Lattimore, the Director of International Relations at Johns Hopkins and a China Advisor to FDR. It was Lattimore who is credited with coining McCarthyism, while Louis Budenz, who worked as a former communist with Lattimore had alrady disclosed the relationship.

There are two major events that support McCarthy; the Verona tapes, and the fall of the Soviet Union which supported McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Whittaker Chambers and others.

These included:

Alger Hiss, #3 in the State Dept.

Harry Dexter White, Asst. Sec. of the Treasury

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, gave up atom bomb secrets

Lauchlin Currie, Spec. Asst. to FDR

Samuel Dickstein, Congressman

William Dodd
Martha Dodd, child of US Ambassador to Germany

Lawerence Duggan, State Dept Director of Latin American Affairs

Harold Ickes, Sect. of Interior (son was Clinton aide)

William Weisband, US Army Signal Agency

Each of the forth or so that McCarthy identified had trials with attorneys.

Some reading material: Venona" (Yale University Press); "The Secret World Of American Communism" (Yale University Press); "The Haunted Wood" (Random House); "The Venona Secrets" (Regnery); "The Secret History Of the KGB" (Basic Books); "Whittaker Chambers: A Biography" (Modern Library); and "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the life and legacy of America's most hated Senator" (Free Press)

Though McCarthy was contemptable in his approach, he was right.

Unlike the false accusations, and possible conspiracy against the Duke men, something DID happen in that house (US Government).

Anonymous said...

Kim Curtis is still employed (I won't say "teaching") at Duke???

What a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

One other thing that is conviently misunderstood and misrepresented about McCarthy. For what it's worht not all of his revelations were as communists, some were deemed US security risks.

Anonymous said...

To say that many of the group of 88 worship body parts is patently ridiculous. How many? What constitutes "worship"?

I don't know if bill anderson is being willfully stupid, but the issue of the LAXers and the stripper was not "body parts." It was, in the minds of many (don't go at me; I didn't think that way), it was as issue of power. I should have thought that was clear by now.

A number of you have been going on and on (and on, yawn...) about what is part of new cultural history. Ok, you didn't study it. You don't have to study it. But, at least find out about it before you blanketly attack it and those whose research and writing is informed by it.

Not everyone wants to study constitutional, economic, or diplomatic history. I studied the last named as an undergraduate. I loved it, because it was an easy A. Others may have loved/may love other subfields.

Anonymous said...

PS from post 8:54, I've seen a lot more homoeroticism on this site (read some of your comments about the LAXers) than I suspect I'd read in the work of some of those you attack so vigorously.

Anonymous said...

Inre: "Communist Owen Lattimore had supported Soviet policy at every turn, even declaring that the Stalin purge trials in Russia, "sound like democracy to me." With then-Vice President Henry Wallace in Russia, Lattimore compared concentration camps to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and later urged Washington to abandon China to communism and to withdraw from Japan and Korea."

Does this language strike any as similar to the progressives language about Cuba, Venezuela, and Qitmo? One wonders what the Gang of 88 have to say about Cuba and Venezuela?

Anonymous said...


I assume that at least some of them would remind you that Cuba has a better health system than the US, primarily because of its preventative medicine.

They might also tell you that Hugo Chavez is more a National Socialist than an International Socialist...he's a demagogue.

Finally, some of them might say that [Communist] China is practicing extremely capitalist trade.

wayne fontes said...


My question was whether or not he knew people were communists when he initially brought the charges.

It's not in dispute that in many instances he was correct.

Anonymous said...

mac @ 7:03 said --

"Remember please, how this was unlike so many other cases:
there was no crime."

Mac is correct. Beyond saying that the 3 were not only not guilty, they were innocent, those of us who have been following the case must tell those who haven't that nobody was guilty of rape, kidnapping, and sexual assault because it didn't happen, that the real crime was Mangum filing a false police report and then all the criminal activity of the DA's office, the DPD, and Duke University that followed.

As for Wade Smith's suggestion that Nifong being punished was inevitable, he is being too charitable to the position of the way things ought to be. Given the conspiracy among Nifong, some of the DPD, and some Duke administrators, the extreme level of racism, coupled with the incompetence of city officials, in Durham, and NC's track record of not taking action against rogue prosecutors in the past, there was nothing inevitable about it.

Remove the courage of the members of the state bar that chose to vote to put Nifong through a disciplinary hearing and you don't have Nifong recusing himself, you don't have the AG's office figuring out what a sham Nifong was conducting, you don't have AG Cooper declaring the lax 3 innocent, and you don't have Nifong disbarred and removed from his office.

Without all that comes the possibility we could be watching a trial right now.

Anonymous said...

Kim Curtis, Kim Roberts----two peas, one pod

Curtis dispenses her wares in the classroom while Roberts does hers at private parties. Does that make Curtis less hazardous? I think not.

While many of the Klan 88 may not worship "body parts", they do seem obsessed with them. Otherwise, why do you have articles with topics such as:
# Transsexuality and the Floating Phallus”;
# “Fornicating with Priests, Communicating with Gods”;
# “Pedagogy, Pederasty, and Political Power”;
# “Having Sex in a Church”;
# “Blood, Semen, and Ritual”;
# “Gendered Blood and Transsexual Bodies”;
# “Ritualized Bisexuality”;
# “The Phallus without a Body.”

Maybe perversion would be a better way to characterize them. 40 plus thousand dollars a year to have a child brainwashed with this kind of perversion. Parents, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?


Anonymous said...

Where has Alan Derschowitz been in this case?

Alan Dershowitz, Dec. 31, 2006 :

"I believe in the assumption of innocence before trial. I believe in the right of every defendant to a fair and impartial trial. I believe in the duty of every prosecutor to seek justice, and not merely victory in the courtroom.

"I believe these principles have been violated in the actions of Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong. Elected prosecutors must be held accountable for their misconduct and the prosecutor in the Duke case appears to have withheld exculpatory evidence, failed to interview the complaining witness in a timely fashion and refused to consider obvious evidence of innocence. His entire course of conduct in this case should be scrupulously investigated."

(Dershowitz is the ONLY law professor to have publicly made this kind of statement, AFAIK, other than James Coleman. The question should really be, WHERE WERE ALL THE REST? )

Anonymous said...

Duke university is a PATHETIC school.

mac said...

Please read KC's post yesterday:
it appears that there is evidence
of phallus-worship, as well as
vagina worship etc., or something
strangely akin to those.

Sorry to be so blunt, but
you might have to look back
at earlier posts: Bill Anderson
isn't only referring to strippers.

mac said...

AF 9:53's post is a reference to some of KC's earlier posts, BTW.
(Thanks, AF 9:53!)

8:54: What you interpret as "homoerotic" is in most cases
satire. If you think the satire
we've written is homoerotic,
then perhaps it is because you are
easily aroused.

Your comment is meant to
throw others off, making them defend themselves, much like the
common inanities that appear here
with such frequency (which I sometimes throw back in their faces)

They say:
"You must feel so threatened!"
"Why are you so threatened?"
"What are you so afraid of?"

These are infantile tactics, used primarily
by 88ers, meant to put the other in
a defensive-mode,
meant to make others back up and
say in response:
"I'm not threatened!"
"I'm not afraid!"

To which the 88ers usually respond:

"Then why do you write as if you are?"

It's a tactic, nothing more.
It's a silly tactic, too, more akin to charges of

"You're a racist!"
"You're sexist!"

And how do we answer those pathetic attacks?
Most of us have learned to ignore
them, since the "R"-word and
the "S"-word are nothing more
than variations on the "N" word.

Try using a grownup argument
next time.

And I sincerely hope that my satire didn't
make you feel like your clothing had
shrunk or anything, if you get my drift.

Christy said...

Off topic, but K.C. did bring up Harry Potter ---

One of the strong messages throughout these books (along with the power of love and of choosing our own destiny) is the unreliability of the press and how it is used to accomplish the goals of the powerful. Imagine an entire generation of skeptics. Just saying.

Anonymous said...

8:54 here,

I knew that, but didn't feel as if I had to endnote yesterday's remarks. Unless you've read these people's works, and are an expert in phallus or vagina worship, whatever these may be, I would not run around writing that. And given KC's brief, in my opinion, misleading and trouble making, comment about Duke's Latin Americanists yesterday, I would not necessarily take his word for it...He, too, has an agenda. And, from my perspective, it's not necessarily "fairness" for all.

mac said...


Most of the 88ers have no clue to what possible
benefit "faith" may offer.

Their faith - as someone noted earlier - is in themselves.

In a long-ago post, someone made a really good point about the 88ers. To paraphrase:

"Since what they teach is that there is no standard,
no right nor wrong; whatever is expedient or convenient
or self-satisfying is considered worthy,
then they're training future
generations of young men and
women to become like Kenneth Lay
and Donald Trump, people who
have no moral compass, no
comprehension of things like
love, compassion, honesty, integrity,
valor, commitment and kindness:
they're training a generation
to be without conscience, to abandon moral guidance."

mac said...

Since you would "not run around writing that,"
can you tell us if you've read
any of those "works" that 9:53 cited?

And since you are an expert
on KC, perhaps you will tell us what you believe is his

M. Simon said...

What is we knowing?

Is we knowing it better than we used to?

Inquiring minds want knowing.

mac said...

Easy to make "accussations"
(as one trollster usually spells the word) but harder to quantify.
If we should not take KC's word on it (and KC has been 99% reliable
on this whole ordeal) - then why should
we take any stock in your opinion?

KC has quantified and qualified the remarks of the 88 as far
as the innocent students go, and
judging ONLY on the statement and non-apologies:
the sum total of the 88's words of wisdom on the subject
adds up to something lower than biosolids,
and much more effluent in nature.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

9:33 W. Fontes, excuse my lack of clarity. Lattimore is one example where he McCarthy did know in an unimpeachable fashion prior to making the charge.

I used that example as it mirrors how the press manipulates the message. McCarthyism, coined by Lattimore as he weakly attempted to defend his position, was adopted erroneously by the MSM.

I understand there were about forty others, though they were not as noteworthy of some of those listed like the Rosenbergs.

As important Truman, Roosevelt and others also accurately knew but did not come forward for political and possibly security reasons.

Anonymous said...

Inre; Cuban health care - prove it. There health care is like their allocation of automobiles.

Tourists, and especially media frauds like Michael Moore, get great care, the elite get good care, and the masses die and have little access.

Go to Miami and interview the locals about Cuban health care.

Anonymous said...

9:12 Inre: "...some of them might say that [Communist] China is practicing extremely capitalist trade."

The Chinese certainly haven't learned anything positive about capitalism from the Gang of 88, and/or the race/gender/class warfare academic frauds.

One wonders what % of Chinses Universities are dedicated to similar "research" endeavors?

Anonymous said...

To 9:49

If the real crime was committed by Crystal Mangum, why is she still out walking the streets?

If the three players are really innocent, why is Crystal not prosecuted?

Until she is prosecuted there will always be unbelievers.

Anonymous said...


I'm the one who posted aboutthe possible sword fight between Collin, Dave, and Reade. The term homoeroticism is redundant--something is either erotic, or unerotic.

Bill Anderson: this Sigal turd is really nothing more than a PC Freud. And Sigal's problem is not his obsession with sex--his disease is that he has somehow convinced people in power that a 100% sexual analysis of history is worth funding.

When you reflect on how utterly ridiculous Sigal's methodology is, you have to wonder why he doesn't run for president.

M. Simon said...

Bill Anderson,

I voted for Ron Paul for President once before. However, he seems a bit out of touch.

1. A number of people, not obviously state actors, have declared war on the US and seem intent on carrying out actions pursuant to that declared war. The closest historical precedent seems to be piracy. When faced with piracy America went after pirates as individuals and the states that supported them. BTW Jefferson seemed especially hard on the pirates that came from the lands of the jihadis.

2. Liberties always get curtailed in war time. Sad but true facts of life.

If Ron Paul got any of that he would be my preferred candidate.

Sadly I have to find a candidate who understands the above points and will act on them and who is not totally horrible on the rest of the Constitutional issues.


No justice,

Venona. Verona is a city in Italy. Made especially popular by "Kiss Me Kate".

BTW McCarthy was a grand stander and also a heroin addict supplied secretly by the government so that his habit was less likely to come to light. I have nothing against heroin addicts. Edison was an addict. As was the famous surgeon Halsted. What I'm wondering is: did his precarious legal situation corrupt his judgment? Was he driven to make headlines to avoid personal scrutiny? What ever the truth of Joe's accusations he managed to generate a lot of sympathy for his targets as did HUAC.

Their mistake was to make the fight personal instead of ideological.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

NJ, NP--

I know about the Cuban health system from Cubans, not from Michael Moore. Don't assume people who disagree with you don't know what they're talking about.

Anonymous said...


Did the lateness of Dershowitz's statement strike you as odd?

Anonymous said...

I don't think so, 11:27. Too many of you refer to them as "boys." Read some of the earlier comments about their athleticism vs. the supposedly loser 88.

M. Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

anon 12:57 said:

"If the real crime was committed by Crystal Mangum, why is she still out walking the streets [sic}?"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

M. Simon said...

Did the lateness of Dershowitz's statement strike you as odd?

Jul 22, 2007 1:05:00 PM

Did the fact that so few made any statement at all supporting "innocent until proven guilty" strike you as odd?

I assume that since Dersh. had no dog in the fight he waited until there was no doubt about the situation.

mac said...

12:41 Polanski,

Last I looked, Wendy Murphy was white;
last I looked, Thomas Sowell is black. Murphy still thinks
"something happened."
Sowell didn't believe it from the start.

I will agree with you that a disporportionate number of black writers
have opined that "something happened." They look stupid.
Perhaps it's because they are stupid.

On that note, I'm reminded of the comments from some NFL players
about the Vick dogpound,
their comments being supportive of
dogfighting, even if not acknowledging Vick's possible
involvement (and we don't want to
rush to judgement, do we?)
People who misuse animals for their
own enteratainment - (and I'm not sayin' "rodeo," folks!)-
are almost as low as people who
molest children.

I dislike certain behavior, and if it happens to be practiced
by any particular race?
Which behaviors?

::Loud-mouthed talking, using wild gesticulations while speaking.

::Having children out-of-wedlock, with no father-figure to help
raise the offspring.

::Poor driving habits, like tailgating and talking on the cellphone while driving,
stopping to chat in the middle of the road with friends and associates,
blocking traffic, driving under
the influence of alcohol or drugs...

::Denigrating the most basic of academic endeavors, such as reading and writing and arithmatic,
and turning classrooms into miniature prisons.

::Denigrating people of faith.

::Being rude, cutting in line, not showing common courtesy.

::Laziness and tardiness.

::Telling lies, and especially insisting that the lies they're telling are the otherwise.

::Dishonoring the dead and dishonoring people - some of whom are our ancestors - who fought for our freedoms.

::Being perpetually willing to blame others for self-induced and self-produced problems.

::Sexual licentiousness, particularly past the age of, say, 30?

::Being abusive, uncaring, self-centered parents, delivering shouts and slaps and beatings as their chosen means of discipline.

::Defending all these behaviors in themselves and others, as if they are a God-given right.

::Using race, religion or sex to engender sympathy, particularly as
they pertain to all of the above.

I don't describe these behaviors in a racial context,
but you can be assured that many cultures do not tolerate such behaviors.

Anonymous said...

As long as Kim Curtis remains an employee of Duke (or any other University) the schoool cannot possibly be taken seriously.

This is the equivalent of a dirty cop being reassigned. I would love to hear how the University administrators can justify keeping Curtis on while insisting Pressler resign.

Very sad.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: mac I agree this case was far from ordinary. That is why I am criticizing these defense attorneys for pretending it is an ordinary case of the evidence pointing to innocent people. Rather they should stress there was not probable cause to charge their clients.

re: Bill Anderson

Ron Paul, the feaux Libertarian who favors a huge expansion of the Federal government? Has he said exactly how many new government employees he is seeking? No thank you.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: m. simon

I also very much agree with your crticism of Paul. In addition, Paul and others have so little historical perspective that they dont understand how LITTLE civil liberties have been affected compared to almost any past war.

Anonymous said...

Is KC's forthcoming book double-blind refereed?

Anonymous said...

JLS, "I am criticizing these defense attorneys for pretending it is an ordinary case of the evidence pointing to innocent people. Rather they should stress there was not probable cause to charge their clients."

I think what they wanted say was "innocent people facing a jury of "nullifyers" ", but they couldnt come out and say that. So they danced. Ain't PC great?

Anonymous said...

1:05 How's that Cuban health care holding up for political prisoners?

Anonymous said...

That so many black faculty members have behaved so badly, have abandoned their students, revealed their resentment and bigotry should come as no surprise. Virtually every black person that gains admittance to any major university (and, to a great extent the non majors) do so with inferior credentials - inferior to whites, inferior to the class average. This lack of achievement by blacks results in resentment, as they are unable to grasp that diligence, commitment and hard work can actually result in real, tangible accomplishments. The problem is not inferior intelligence or academic capability; the problems do not just emerge at SAT time in the senior year of high school, nor is it strictly an academic problem. It is a deep, profound and systemic sociological problem that has been in the making for nearly fifty years, and not likely to be solved without an equally profound and honest admittance that the system is broken and black leadership has failed miserably. All the commiserating on this web site is not going to change the attitudes of the Gang of 88, the angry students at NCCU, or the bewildering ambivalence of most people of color about the lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

Ahhhhh . . . the floating penis is alive and well . . . at Duke. This expains everything . . . for sure, for sure.

Anonymous said...

2:32 PM

The evidence, such as it was, did point to inocence. There was no evidence that pointed to guilt. What drove this whole affair was outside of the realty that was presented by the evidence. The case for Nifong was that poor . . . "We're fucked." As it turned out, yes, you were, but not raped because you asked for it . . . right?

Anonymous said...

“Situation of Women in Cuban Prisons”, - Maritza Lugo Fernández, from Santa María del Rosario, Havana, Cuba, earned a name for herself as an opposition leader against the Castro regime. She was acting president of the Partido Democrático 30 de Noviembre Frank País [Frank País 30 November Democratic Party]. For her activities in defense of human rights, she served 5 years in prison on an intermittent basis. She was declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International. She arrived as an exile in the United States on January 11, 2002.

Chapter 4, Medical Care

“Despite the fact that the dictatorial regime that is in power in Cuba claims to be a world power in the field of medicine, medical care throughout the island is a veritable disaster. The problem is worse in the prisons, where the female inmates are completely dependent on the penal authorities and have no possibility whatever of having the periodic check-ups which, as women, they require.

For an inmate to be seen by a doctor, she must write her name down on a list several days in advance. When her turn comes, if she has not had any problems, and if there are guards available to do so, she is taken to be assessed clinically. They cannot always take care of everyone who needs this service, given the great number of inmates and the variety of problems they have. The care provided by the doctors is very limited. When an emergency occurs, such as an asthma attack, strong pain, loss of consciousness, fainting spell or some case involving bleeding, the prisoners start shouting and banging on the locks and bars for the authorities to come and give the proper medical care. Only in this way will the guards do something and take the inmate to the infirmary, where she is given an injection or some kind of medication, provided that the doctors have it in stock. Then she is returned to her cell. Only in the case of evident death is the inmate removed from the prison and taken to a hospital.

There have been several instances of women who have died because they did not receive medical attention in time, especially in cases of acute asthma attacks. Some prisoners have attempted suicide. However, the authorities tell the inmates that they have no means of transportation to take them on an urgent basis to specialized medical centers. There are times when transportation is available, but there is no fuel, and other times when breakdowns make it impossible to move the patients.

There is a shortage of medications. Those family members who can, bring the inmates whatever they are able to get their hands on, since even an aspirin is a hard-to-find commodity. At times, there are outbreaks of diarrhea, produced by spoiled food. The health measures practiced by the prison authorities consist of handing out, in large quantities and every so often, guava tea or some other kind of infusion.

The women are also prey to being infected by parasite-related diseases caused and spread due to the lack of hygiene, the humidity, as well as the contaminated and stagnant water with which they have to bathe and also drink. The water which the inmates consume is full of harmful agents which they all ignore but which are clearly visible. When the prisoners collect samples to show them to officials who were taking the count, the latter would simply tell them not to take any water when they first opened the faucet; to let it run a bit so that the dirty and foul-smelling water could flow out. They would take the sample and that would be the end of that.

In the same prison, women who are infected with AIDS are put together with those who are not; this constitutes a major health risk due to the high degree of violence that exists in these places, where incidents of bloodshed are commonplace.

The majority of doctors and nurses are inmates of the same prison facility, women who are in no condition or lack the ability to do their work properly, since they are beset by problems caused by the prison and the crime they committed.

When a prisoner becomes pregnant following a conjugal visit, or enters the penal system already with child, the prison authorities do everything in their power to make her have an abortion. When they fail in their efforts, about five months into the pregnancy, the inmate is transferred to the prison infirmary, where the care is terrible and she is witness to one atrocity after another. But she is forced to remain there, although she might prefer to be in a cell block with the other prisoners. The hapless baby is born right there, in the infirmary, where he or she is also a prisoner until the age of six months, at which time a relative can claim the infant and take him or her away. If the child has no family member who can take him or her in, the child becomes a ward of the state until the mother is released.”

Anonymous said...

Inre: Cuban health care...excuse me, where you referring the care extend at Gitmo? If so, I sincerely apologize.

Packing on the pounds at America's toughest prison

"...who have been held in the detention camps at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. Upon leaving, it has been reported, each man received two parting gifts: a brand new copy of the Koran as well as a new pair of jeans. Not the act of generosity that it might first appear, the jeans, at least, turned out to be a necessity. During their stay (14-months on average), the detainees (nearly all of them) had gained an average of 13 pounds...

...and the meals are certified halal—adhering to Islamic law—at SYSCO's plant; that paperwork is later double-checked by GTMO's Muslim chaplain."

Anonymous said...


I admire your patience and research. But do you really think that the anon poster who implied that Cuba is the land of milk and honey was interested in facts? I rather think that it is once more a clumsy attempt at disrupting the discussion.

Noticed the other poster's innuendo about KC's agenda? As mac said, what pray tell is this agenda?

No, these are more of those posters with a high opinion of their intelligence -- too high I'm starting to think -- who can't help but delude themselves that dropping those little nuggets, implying that we are too incompetent or stupid or ignorant or deviously motivated to assess the worth of Segal's work, is really going to convince us that KC has got it all wrong and that the 88 are indeed great scholars!

Give it up guys, it's not working. Anytime I see one your posts my opinion of KC's work rises. If the best you can do is tell us the we are all closet homosexuals or that Cuba is a paragon of social justice or .... I'm waiting for what wonder you produce next ... I convince myself more that those who describe this stuff as intellectual rot have it right.

I don't like Bill Anderson's excessively strong language and blanket statements, but your posts are transparent in their dishonesty and their only effect is to make me lean more toward his characterization of what drives this group.

Ah, and drop the argument that we need to read the work to understand and appreciate it. When people ask about my work, or criticize my field from the outside, I don't think for a second that I can ask them to read the work before expressing an opinion. Open society does not work that way. Acedemics have the duty of explaining what they do in plain language to the non initiated. And if you really believe in your argument what pray tell made the 88 competent to comment on judiciary proceeding for which they have no qualification whatsoever? Did they do their homework and check the facts and the law before offering their opinions? Of course not.


Anonymous said...

A few Cuban healthcare photos. You may have all of it you want...

Cuban hospital photos

Anonymous said...

Dear I hope you're not my child's social science professor,

My reading of the posts was not the same as yours. Pls. reread OUTLOUD if necessary and restate your assertions about what was said, e.g., nobody said "milk and honey." What's up with you?

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed reading the Sunday Roundup just now. Cheshire, Cooney, and Smith always provide a provocative analysis of this case.

Wade Smith, with his folksy delivery, often references some historical or mythological figure to illustrate his point......and what he said about Mike Nifong should also be extended to the Gang of 88 and their followers.

Like Nifong, they needed to be brought down. It was time. However, their scenario of being "brought down" will not be so abrupt nor as decisive as Mikey's; however, make no mistake, the illumination of their academic records and the patina they cast on the entire university very little they contribute to their students' enlightenment of the real world in any meaningful way.....has greatly embarrassed them and put them on notice that the outside world is looking closely. Closer than they have ever looked before.


Anonymous said...

SSP, thanks for your note. Maybe they will or maybe they will not consider facts, who knows?

Answering their lies with facts and shining light on their lunacy may influence others. Solid responses demonstrate the wide gap between the frauds within the race/gender/class warfare academy and bona fide academics. The dishones posters who do not supply facts, use ad hominem attacks, and create myths deserve to be slapped down with light and truth. The Gang of 88 and their abettors require the same.

God bless KC for his outstanding efforts in doing so.

If not me, who? If not now, when?

Anonymous said...


Sorry that I didn't see your request yesterday. I left Wonderland mid-afternoon because I had to take my spa bath and get ready for dinner.

In any case, it seems that the dialogue that took place on in to the evening about the 88 professors' turned a corner....onto a pedantic avenue.

I skimmed a few posts, but the issues being discussed seemed to be singularly significant to a few of you guys.

Make no mistake, fighting these superfluous drones will be an ongoing battle. Irene Silverblatt is around 60. The other two--Petey Sigal and Jocelyn Olcott--are in their 30's. Yet they all share the same grotesque ideology. I can understand Silverblatt because of her coming of age during the Woodstock era.....however, it seems that later decades have produced an even more rabid brand of loon in Sigal and Olcott.

Hide your children!


Anonymous said...

Nice story about St. Raymond. Beyond serendipitous that Rae Evans and her father share the same name.

Lots of uncanny events and by-the-skin-of-the-teeth occurrences in this Jim Cooney described.


Anonymous said...

Last night, when I was out to dinner, I had another tumultuous exchange with someone about this case.

It seems that anytime it's discussed things heat up.

I will post about the whole episode a bit later. Have to take care of Kitty Diva right now.

Back later.


Anonymous said...

anon @ 4:35

"Dear I hope you're not my child's social science professor,"

No worries, odds are that I'm not. Best of luck to your child. No reason to drag him/her in this.

"My reading of the posts was not the same as yours."

That's OK. Isn't this the reason why we have discussions? You know, different opinions/interpretations that we compare to learn from each other?

"Pls. reread OUTLOUD if necessary and restate your assertions about what was said, e.g., nobody said "milk and honey.""

No need. I'll pass your query to NJNP who's doing the homework on Cuba today. However... I'll do some cut and paste to show my goodwill.

A) Anonymous said...

PS from post 8:54, I've seen a lot more homoeroticism on this site (read some of your comments about the LAXers) than I suspect I'd read in the work of some of those you attack so vigorously.

Jul 22, 2007 8:58:00 AM

B) Anonymous said...


I assume that at least some of them would remind you that Cuba has a better health system than the US, primarily because of its preventative medicine.

They might also tell you that Hugo Chavez is more a National Socialist than an International Socialist...he's a demagogue.

Finally, some of them might say that [Communist] China is practicing extremely capitalist trade.

Jul 22, 2007 9:12:00 AM

I concede that "the land of milk and honey" is my own hyperbolic translation of the first paragraph in B) above. I contend that if the poster meant the comment to be confined to the Cuban health care system, the post could use some editing since the three paragraphs as a whole suggest otherwise -- some anti-capitalist sentiment, perhaps? That's my reading. I admit I didn't get yours.

Perhaps you think that the post was supposed to be sarcastic. If so, I missed it. You could then simply have suggested that I missed it without getting in my face.

I'm assuming you're not a defender of the 88; if you are, you just reinforced the point of my post: your only accomplishment is to make them look worse.


Anonymous said...

To Soc. Sc. Prof:

Which of my "blanket" statements are untrue? We have watched members of the Duke faculty call for an unjust and unwarranted prosecution of innocent people. We have seen a number of faculty members engage in behavior that truly is pathetic and dishonest.

My point is that places like Duke can afford to bring in these identity studies people and pretend they are engaged in "cutting edge" scholarship. They are faux scholars, period.

There are plenty of adults at Duke, but the administration made it known it was siding with the radicals. Thus, those who spoke out against this travesty did so at their own peril.

Anonymous said...

KC’s spotlight on the works of the Gang of 88 is simultaneously very illuminating and very depressing. The first time I read the infamous “We’re Listening” statement back in April ‘06 I immediately looked at the departments that the 88 represented as some way of assessing the condition at Duke. My prognosis was, and still is, guarded.

Though the majority of the 88 come from the AAAS, Women’s Studies or Cultural Anthropology departments there were a sufficient number of individual professors from seemingly random departments for me to fear that a prerequisite for teaching just about any subject in academia today requires that the subject be examined through the prism of race, sex/gender or class.

Bill Anderson referred to the professors as being considered on “the cutting edge” but I question how “original” their approach to research actually is. Yesterday, I looked back again at the gang of 88 but this time I started to look at their specialties or fields of research. Every one that I checked listed at least one of the race, sex/gender and class triumvirate as an area of interest.

The Gang of 88’s blades are getting dull. The 88 will continue to hack away at, or maybe in, their respective departments but they have been put on notice. Debrah at 4:41:00PM expressed it best….” make no mistake, the illumination of their academic records and the patina they cast on the entire university very little they contribute to their students' enlightenment of the real world in any meaningful way...has greatly embarrassed them and put them on notice that the outside world is looking closely. Closer than they have ever looked before.”

Someday the 88’s focus on race, sex/gender and class will be anything but “cutting edge.” It’ll be academia’s equivalent of avocado green appliances in your kitchen

GaryB said...

Re: G88. I've been reading a fairly neat science fiction book "Darwin's Dove" that's premised on a grad student's evolutionary simulation producing sentient life forms inside the computer. But, the book's dedication page is interesting in light of the G88:

"To the engineers and mathematicians, whose profession punishes them for obscuring or deviating from the truth, and who therefor will always lead the politicians and the philosophers" ( and anyone like the G88 ).

I added the last part.

Anonymous said...

Hey Soc.Sc.Prof, glad to see you back on. Would like your thoughts on the following proposition:

That Duke beef up the AAS department, and fully fund targeted working groups of Duke faculty and national experts. For example, a targeted program might be Gangs in Our Community. The nation's experts in this area would be called to a seminar, with Duke Lawyers, Psychiatrists, Social Scientists, etc. Interventions would be devised and implemented in the Durham community under the auspices of Duke outreach. The outcomes could be carefully observed and improvements made as needed. Seems to me that this would address a multitude of issues, and working together pulls people together. I use gangs only as an example here, there could be a different program set up on an annual or semi-annual basis. I believe the community would support such an initiative, and hopefully bring parental and peer pressure to bear to positively effect the outcomes. I would really like to know what outreach programs Duke is running now, and am a bit disappointed that such programs have not been publicized more. If they can't or won't do it, I would really like to know why. Thanks in advance for your input.

mac said...

Bill Anderson,
I think Soc.Sc.Prof. - correct me
if I'm wrong - was stating that you make blanket statements,
but his comment "your posts are transparent in their dishonesty"
was likely a comment about THEIR comments
about YOUR posts -
(did you grasp my very unclear explication?)

In other words, even though he thinks you make blanket statements,
the attacks others are making on
your statements push him toward
your point-of-view "on what drives this group - (that is, the group of 88)

Does that sound about right, Soc. Sc. Prof?

I don't want to see a flame war
between you two,
especially since I respect both of
your opinions, even when I disagree.

Anonymous said...

"If the three players are really innocent, why is Crystal not prosecuted?"

She could never be prosecuted. The Group of 88 would burn down Duke. The citizens of Durham would burn down the city.

Anonymous said...


Never said that what you say is untrue. We are on the same side, I'm sure. And I admire the fact that you were denouncing this travesty of justice way before most of us.

I simply think that if you toned it down a bit you would be more effective. A blanket statement that you make often and that I find ineffective -- although not necessarily untrue, I just don't know these people well enough to say -- is that all of these guys are marxists and they do what they do because of it. The part that they are evil too can come across as over the top.

You are an academic, you know how it works. The defenders of the 88 latch on these aspects and ignore the rest. Why give them the excuse that they seek to paint you and the other fellow posters of this blog as extremists?

FWIW, I think your essays at are very, very good. There you always take the high road, and when you do it's much more effective.


Anonymous said...

TO "mac"--

I don't respect anyone who comes here with even an ounce of understanding with regard to the behavior of the Gritty Gang of 88.

This is one issue in which nuance plays no part. A few things in life are absolute......and their tactics were/are unconscionable.....absolutely.


Anonymous said...


Your idea is great. Don't know enough about Duke's internal politics to say wheteher it's got legs. However, Duke already does good things. Check the following:

The Pol.Sc. Dept. hosted a similar program at some time. Can't recall the specifics or find a link on the spot. I know some of the guys involved in these programs. Duke chipped in to the tune of hundreds of thousands of $$ for this. Is this an example that fits, on smaller scale perhaps, your idea?


Anonymous said...


Spot on! (See my 8:21 to Bill.) Thanks.


Apologies for being unclear. I hope my 8:21 cleared it up.


Anonymous said...

6:20PM presents a most unique analogy to illustrate the Gritty Gang of 88's staying power......

avocado appliances in the kitchen

Hilarious! Those were some sad-looking things.


mac said...

Ummm...which post are you responding to?


mac said...

Without knowing exactly what you meant,
I'll say this:
I enjoy dissecting the 88's work,
as presented. Dissection can
be fun!

It's a little like a linguistic CSI.

Anonymous said...

KC, or others, what are the other Historical Associations of note?


Anonymous said... 8:30

Thanks for your prompt reply, the link was very helpful. Impressive people in strong programs. Would like to see AAS firm up their offerings and focus more on real world problem solving -- that would go a long way to healing the damage, and would make a strong real life contribution to conditions in Durham.

I just don't believe that the Kwanzaa Fairy adds a lot to the quality of the average citizen's life.

Anonymous said...

To Soc. Sci. Prof: I think I like what you are saying. Keep in mind that often when I post, I am in a slow burn.

These people have pissed me no end, and I don't have a lot of respect for their "scholarship." I'm tired of seeking people like Houston Baker being treated like a serious scholar when the man cannot even spell simple words correctly.

But you are right, in that I do say some outrageous things when I am upset. In person, I tend to be a bit more sedate, although if someone pisses me off badly enough, I do bite back. (Just ask some of the Poli Sci guys at Frostburg about that.)

But in group situations, I actually am the one who tries to bring people together. It is just that this Duke thing to me is so damned outrageous that I find it hard to believe serious people can even go with this "something happened" b.s.

Now, Soc. Sci. Prof. is NOT, I repeat NOT, one of these idiots. He makes sense, and is just chiding me for showing my tail sometimes. That is fair enough.

Anonymous said...

I'm new to the site, having been made aware of it by my girlfriend, who was one of the faculty at Duke who signed the "Listening Statement."

Mr. Mac: you seem to "enjoy dissecting the 88's work," yet evidence of your dissection is lacking. You're like the retarded boy your genius mom brings to work. You think because you can stick out your tongue and parrot others' opinions, you are therefore a man of importance, a veritable "dissecter." Where is the evidence, Mr. Mac?

All you people think you're so clever throwing stones at scholars with Ph.D.s from places like Yale. What are your bona fides, Mac, and why should anyone care what an intellectual runt has to blabber about? Do you have any idea how more intelligence Professor Olcott is than you? A dedicated scholar with bona fides from Princeton and Yale. Who are you, Mac? What have you published, little boy?

I'm going to keep my eye on this blog. The mediocrities seem to need disciplining.

Type on, little man.

Anonymous said...

TO "mac"

linguistic CSI

How deliciously clever!

(BTW....I was referring to a few in academia who have been posting about all this. I don't want the Gritty Gang of 88 humanized at all.....because they are inhuman!)


Anonymous said...

By the way, I will be posting less over the next few days. We are moving to Garrett County, Maryland, tomorrow, the Land of Eternal Winter, four-foot snows, and higher house payments. Also, our move there no doubt will statistically increase the black and Hispanic populations there.

We will be in the country, so I am trading my big, old, magnificent house in Cumberland for a box. But the views are stupendous and we can cross country ski out our back yard when it snows. And, I am only seven minutes from my office at Frostburg.

So, I hope nothing happens while this move takes place, as I hate to miss anything.

Anonymous said...

Come on, who's the girlfriend? Wahneema? Kathy Rudy? No wonder you're in such a bad mood.

Anonymous said...

I've been chewing on some of the statemnets made by the defense lawyers.

While have great repect for Mr. Cheshire, I find one of his statements disturbing (I assume that the following is an accurate quote.). To wit:

Cheshire: “The most frightening thing that can happen to human beings . . . and it’s happened throughout recorded history, is a rush to judgment. We saw and suffered a rush to judgment and luckily we overcame it. If we had been representing poor, indigent people, we would have never overcome it.”

I'm not sure I understnad the last sentence. Is Cheshire suggesting that the same defense, if applied in the context of a poor defendent, would not have been successful?? If so, then there are more serious issues to be addressed than those exposed in the Hoax. Justice should be blind to the social and economic condition of those under investigation and those whose innocence or guilt is being decided.

Anonymous said...

The academic rigor of Duke's Gritty Gang:



Anonymous said...

anon @ 9:20

I too have a PhD from Yale. Does that suit you? Am I allowed to post now? Thanks!

I bet that several other posters have PhDs -- hell, for all I know mac might have one too!

Interesting, btw, that you singled mac out -- perhaps because you do know that Prof. Johnson has a PhD from Harvard and feel safe to assume that mac doesn't?

I insist: The more you guys post, the lower my opinion of the 88. I admit, though, that this is something else: We now have an 88er damesel in distress rescued by the knight in shining armor! I thought you people thought that man only assault women... did your girlfiend forget to inform you of your true nature?


Anonymous said...

No doubt, Petey Sigal would find a way to make a vulva or some other form of genitalia from the avocado halves.



Anonymous said...

Just curious, but is Inman a man or a woman? Because if he's a he, we may have a DIH regular whi is indeed "in a man."

I thought this was a conservative, bash-the-duke-professors-who-are-more-intelligent-than-you site.

Type on, Bruces.

Anonymous said...

My sense is that Mr. Cheshire mispoke and that he intended to say that the structure of the system does not provide equal justice because no defense lawyer can afford to represent a defendent pro bono, if that defendent is equally situated as the Duke lacroose players.

But then I find that equally troubling.

In fact...Mr. Cheshire's statement, however well-intentioned is an admission of a singular failure of the justice system.

I admit that I have only questions, and few answers. But, if anyone is to hold the high ground, to say that ethics and morality guides their position, then it seems to me that an attempt to solve the quandry posited by Mr. Cheshire is sorely needed.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 9:20! Whats the umbrage all about? Duke paid out about 30 million dollars to keep your girlfriend away from lawyers and annoyances of that sort; you all should be happy! She can still teach whatever silly thing she teaches now, in continuing bliss! So what's the rap, dude? Trying to impress her with your manliness?

Anonymous said...

anonymous 9:20

Great start. Your reasoned arguments are overwhelming. Is it the singer or the song? You seem to like the singers, but what counts in academics is the song. Substance, not style. If an argument is strong, closely reasoned, and based on good data I don't really care who presents it. If it is weak, frivolous, or hurtful it says a lot about the presenter. Coach Pressler, one of the very best people Duke had, got unceremoniously fired. Three lacrosse players, their families, and their team went through hell because they were white and the Duke administration caved to the black community. So look out, group of 88, you kicked good guys when they were down. What is the harm in saying, "I made a mistake, I got taken in by Nifong, I will do every thing I can to see that all Duke students are treated fairly and as members of the Duke family"?
What is the harm in saying that?

Anonymous said...

Good luck, Bill. Be careful.

I hate moving. Someone once said it was akin to a death.

That was a bit of an exaggeration; however, moving is certainly no fun. Usually takes several months to "break in " the new place.


Anonymous said...


My name is Thomas Steven Inman. Does that narrow down your choices?

And you are clearly not intellectually equipped to judge the tenor and political ideology of this blog. Please...say something intelligent...all here are listenting (although, unlike some who believe their message is universal, not inclined to publish a statement).

Surely, you can develop a coherent thought.

Oh, and please tach me,...what is the refernce to "Bruces"?

Anonymous said...

anonymous 9:20

"The mediocrities seem to need disciplining." Leather? Bondage? I'll bet somebody can get a paper out of it!

Anonymous said...

A Yale Ph.D.? Heck, all I could muster was a doctorate from Auburn, War Eagle! But, I tend to respect the degrees from programs that most likely would not have accepted me!

Thanks for the advice, Debrah! Your are right, you know. What a pain you-know-where! Total chaos.

But I also have thought long and hard about what is happening in elite education, and I always am dumbfounded that jackasses like Houston Baker end up at elite places like Penn, Duke, and Vanderbilt. It is like they have no self-respect, and just beg these people to piss all over them.

No doubt, Baker will wear out his welcome at Vanderbilt. I guarantee you that Penn and Duke were happy to be rid of him.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to keep my eye on this blog.


Listen, I enjoy being watched. No doubt, a few others here in Wonderland do as well.

A very observant law professor I used to date told me that I made egocentricity an artform.....LOL!!!..... the thought of a new set of eyes on the scene is making me hot......just thinking about it!


Anonymous said...

Oh and 9:37

Unlike so many who post here, I place my name in public because I am willing to accept the risk of my statements.

I could hide behind anonymity, but I choose to loudly and with passion assert my beliefs.

And at the risk of seeming presumptuous, Thomas Paine, when he stated: "These are the times that try men's souls ..." did not hide behind a pseudonym. Patrick Henry, when he proclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death..." did not bother with the thought that he had sealed his death warrant at the hands of the British.

You are clearly (what I have stated before to others such as you) someone who will never fear for hemerroids, for you are a perfect arse.

Now, if you'd like to come out from beneath your rock and sustain your calumny, please do so.



Anonymous said...

And to all you Eli's who are so rightfully proud of your intellectual achievement.....

my gggggg**** grandfather (Abraham Piersey) was a founder of Yale. Not that such a relation has any relevance whatsover.

**** I'd have to dig out the documents to properly identify the generations.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: Inman

What Chesshire was saying is that even if they had worked pro bono for the defendants, the lawyers themselves would not have been able to hire the experts these defendant were able to hire to fully analyze all the evidence. Even getting a great lawyer pro bono does not put the poor defendant on an equal footing with one with more resources. This is yet another reason for someone not to remain poor in life as assets are like a firearm, a type of self defense.

Anonymous said...

One other thing before I ride off into the temporary sunset (or Pocahontas Road in Finzel, Maryland) is that I have come to despise the language of Marxism. I recognize it and have no respect whatsoever for it.

I really don't care if these G88 faculty members have degrees from Harvard, Princeton, or whatever. Marxism is a fraud, pure and simple. No matter how obtuse the language that the G88-ers use, in the end, we are dealing with pure, unadulterated nonsense.

These "isms" violate all of natural law, and any society where they have been fully implemented has become a huge charnel house. The only reason these faux scholars still have jobs is that the Richard Brodheads of the world feel guilty because they are white and intelligent.

Well, I can tell you that my younger son, Habtamu, wants all you white and intelligent people to stop apologizing for it. Since he is black and intelligent (and quite opinionated), he really does not care for intelligent whites to feel guilty about it. In fact, he thinks that is ridiculous.

Anyway, have a great week, all of you, and I hope to join you when we have moved and there is less chaos.

Anonymous said...

Dammit, JLS, it is CHESHIRE. One "S". I am telling Barry that you cannot spell!!!!

Remember, Houston Baker cannot spell worth a damn, either, and you don't want to be in that category.

Anonymous said...

To the knight in shining armor

I have several duke-professors-who-are-more-intelligent-than-me friends. I don't bash them, I admire them. If offered I would join Duke to work wiht the likes of them. And I'm not a conservative, like Prof. Johnson I vote for the other party.

Please, stop embarassing your girlfriend.


mac said...


Well, I musta made her happy, doncha think?

Yours is teh best compliment I've gotten on this blog! Bar none!
(I got an 88 to squeal for help
from her boyfriend?)

Actually, I haven't got a degree at all:
I am a dropout. I used to be a sculptor (stone,) painter (oils)
and so forth, but no, I don't have any letters,
if that's what matters to you.

It doesn't matter much to me,
after all these years, and no matter
how much I respect true academics - (greatly) -
I'm not sure how much it ought to mean to me.

BTW: how's your girlfriend? Is she well enough to travel?

Dammit Polanski!

I shoulda known...!

Anonymous said...


I kind of like the notion that the 9:20 is for real...

Anonymous said...

By the way, I also have Duke profs who are friends. For that matter, the new women's basketball coach and her husband are friends of mine.

I even get along with some of the G88, but that does not change my assessment of what is happening in academe. Hey, I have a stake in all of this! Those adoptions meant that I have to work into my seventies, so I want to work in a decent situation, not something dominated by idiot Marxists!

Anonymous said...

I'm truly amused by 9:20 and the guantlet he has laid.

I love it when folks offer that someone is smart because...well they just are.

9:20 (who I will now call "junior") seems to think that a degree is a testament to the intellect. With all due respect to those scholars who so rightfully deserve honor for their achievements and contributions, the mere existence of a degree from whatever-school is not, in and of itself, a testiment to the worth of subsequent scholarship.

Junior...great ideas and great scholarship can withstand the scrutiny of peers and yes, even generations of peers.

And Junior...unfortunately, Duke's "angry studies"*** have simply not withstood the test of either broad critical and current peer review or the test of time.

Hey Junior, I am still waiting for a cogent and well-reasoned argument for the existence of these studies, beyond the obvious assertion that it aides the subject-matter group.

Would you like to try?

***I use Polanski's term and acknowledge him as its author.

Anonymous said...

TO "mac"--

I almost posted that 9:20PM is Polanski....but decided to play along....hoping that might possibly be some little appendage, so to speaak....of one of the 88.

But alas, that kind of open confrontation is not their game. They usually hide in the laundry room until the screaming subsides.


Anonymous said...


"(I got an 88 to squeal for help
from her boyfriend?)"


Anonymous said...

Damn! This thread is going to hell quickly, and I am part of the problem. Must be all that red wine I'm drinking tonight. (Nifong drove me to it.)

Steven Horwitz said...

My own 2 cents for 9:20:

No conservative here. Never voted Republican in my life.
AB University of Michigan; MA, PhD George Mason University.

But, like others, I prefer to be judged by my work. And unlike you, I'm willing to put my real name to my opinions.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: bill anderson

Sorry but spelling on blogs is not a big deal to me. I consider them more conversational than writing.

Thus, I dont criticize Baker for the qualifty of his spelling in private e-mails, but rather the quality of his ideas or more specifically the lack of ideas in his statements.

Anonymous said...

IIRC, Polanski was defending the physical appearance of Olcott and Silverblatt the other day/night. He was explaining how, through the camera filter, he could make them look lovely.

I should have told him that heavy makeup, airbrushing......or just some nitty gritty plastic surgery will do the trick as well. GIS!

I believe Polanski's gotta a hankerin' for these dames.

The fact that they spend their lives studying sex and body parts has him all excited....since he also spends his waking hours inside that thought process.


Anonymous said...


You and I are in agreement about Baker. All I can ask is this: What ideas? The guy is a fraud, and I am glad he is at Vandy, since as a Tennessee grad, I am honor bound to hate Vanderbilt.

(Remember, Vandy had NO RIGHT to beat us in football two years ago. None.)

Anonymous said...


Could Polanski make me appear taller and less, ... well... rotund?

Big smile!

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: Steven Horwitz

Never voted Republican in my life.

Well I can certainly understand your shame of a life spent in unthinking bias against one polical party, but did I miss the memo about a social work class breaking out here? Or did you just independently feel this need to confess to lack of independent thinking?

Anonymous said...

bill anderson...

... I have a son at guys take football seriously!

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re:bill anderson

Exactly what ideas. Professor Johnson's series on the 88 is an eye openner even to some academics like me out there doing real research and not paying attention to this kind of garbage.

Steven Horwitz said...


I've never voted Democratic either!

Exactly what kind of sheep am I do you think?

Anonymous said... have an acerbic style. What, pray tell, is the subject matter of your research? And could you please define your notion of "garbage"?

You throw punches, but no one can see your chin.

Anonymous said...

9:35 SSP, you assume the girlfriend has a boyfriend...more likely an angry girlfriend. Either that or Polanski...

Anonymous said...

Petey is very influential among his colleagues. He's even co-chair of their upcoming 2008 event.

They have encouraged everyone to be creative.....and we all know how creative Petey is!



Anonymous said...

Is Polanski prone to adopt an alternate persona?

Anonymous said...

Haskell..."The mediocrities seem to need disciplining." Leather? Bondage? I'll bet somebody can get a paper out of it!"

...get a paper out of it...very nice.

Probably gain departmental status at Duke.

Anonymous said...


Possible. But such a macho man email from a girlfriend? You think they are that confused?


Anonymous said...

TO "inman"--

I'm sure that with Polanski's brand of compulsivity and attention to all-things-genitalia, he could have you looking like a Chippendale in no time.



Anonymous said...

Scratch email; macho man POST. Inability to think must be contagious...


Anonymous said...


"Chippendale dancers are a group of men who provocatively dance for a primarily female audience. They are best known as being shirtless, muscular and wearing little else but bow ties, white cuffs and tight black leather or spandex pants."

Heck, I already am.

Anonymous said...

10:48 SSP inre: "You think they are that confused?"

Quit fooling around, in the words of the great Foghorn Leghorn, they're so messed up they think the Mexican border pays rent...

Anonymous said...

10:45 Inman, Polanski has so many personas that I'm not certain there are more than two people posting...he and I.

Anonymous said...


and who says you're not Polanski too?

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

1. re: Steven Horwitz one who likes to throw away his vote? Seriously, I just see this I have never voted Republican in my life comment like it is some badge of honor far more than the I have never voted Democrat in my life confessions. I guess I don't see the point.

2. re: inman My area of research as I have mentioned a couple of times is monetary aggregation and common currency areas. And sorry no NOT from the view point of sex, race or sexual preference. One of the great things about the internet is that we can discuss things heatedly without worry of being poked in the nose or people being judged on their looks, race, sex etc rather than the quality of their ideas. I like it that way and generally keep unknown on the web, but I have said I am an academic here because I have been pretty critical of some academics.

Anonymous said...

More brilliant scholarship from Petey Sigal.....if you can stomach it. Can anyone believe this guy is teaching at Duke?

Radical sexuality in its extreme form becomes leather sex, where two people who trust each other test their limits, role play, inflict and take pain, etc. Leather sex represents the sex that takes place between members of the leather community, a tight-knit, trusting community. It demands complete communication and understanding between members of the community.

States one member of this community, "Watching him put a surgical glove on his fist and then greasing his whole arm, it's an incredibly erotic experience. The trust I feel. The idea of letting him in, of giving up total control, of seeing his hand and then his forearm disappear into my asshole, of going through the pain until I move over that barrier into total pleasure, into an ecstatic, trance-like escape from a dog-eat-dog world, it's the most radical and erotic thing I can do. Sometimes I don't even have to get a hard-on, but that's not important when I move beyond the barrier of pain." Leather sex, rather than simply about dominance and submission is about people giving in to each other completely and voluntarily. If these people are not complete equals, voluntary submission becomes a farce.


Anonymous said...

Here's the full text:



AMac said...

Anon 9:20pm G88'er BF:

Thanks for posting. Your insightful arguments in defense of the quality of scholarship of the Group of 88 have raised the tone of the debate on this blog. I'm also struck by the excellence of your point that people should be judged mainly by their pedigree. It's tragic that society has gotten away from that idea.

Please comment often, and your GF's thoughts would also be welcome. But do pick a pseudonym--otherwise, hard to keep track of who's who.

Anonymous said...


"One of the great things about the internet is that we can discuss things heatedly without worry of being poked in the nose or people being judged on their looks, race, sex etc rather than the quality of their ideas."

Second that!


Anonymous said...

9:20 is such great fun that I hope he lives up to his word and visits often. It is so impressive to see a true scholar at work.

"All you people think you're so clever throwing stones at scholars with Ph.D.s from places like Yale."

Ahh, here comes the old argument from authority, known for about 2500 years to be logically worthless.

"What are your bona fides, Mac, and why should anyone care what an intellectual runt has to blabber about?"

Well, his blabber seems to have really got under your skin. That is proof positive of his rhetorical ability. Bravo to Mac.

"Do you have any idea how more intelligence Professor Olcott is than you? A dedicated scholar with bona fides from Princeton and Yale."

No, nor do you. Do you not grasp the distinction between intelligence and education? Do you not understand that life itself can be an education to those with an intelligent and engaged mind?

"Who are you, Mac? What have you published, little boy?"

And now comes the argumentum ad hominem. Because you are so attached to fallacious argument, I shall try the tu quoque on you. Who are you, little boy? What have you published?

I shall try my own tests that have every bit as much merit as yours: if your girlfriend is so smart, why does she not earn as much money as I do?

Arrogance is a vice; arrogance without justification is a joke. I like to be amused so please do come back.


Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if there are any photographs of Debrah's kitty diva on the Internet?

Run, pussycat, kill kill!

Anonymous said...


I'm not sure I understand the field..."monetary aggregation and common currency areas." Now I am more than coversant with mathematical finance and am reasonably comfortable with concepts underlying economic analysis. I also understand and appreciate statistics and quantitatice analysis.

I know that I am displaying my ignorance, but what does "monetary aggregation and common currency areas" mean?


Anonymous said...

I honestly though the article written by Sigal referencing the putting on of rubber gloves, leather sex, and tweaked A**holes was a joke until I read it.

I wonder who Duke is more proud of, Kim Curtis or Pete Sigal?

Somehow the Jesuits and Oblates who taught me missed the ass puckering and leather sexual escapade portion of my education. Not sure how I got by without it.

And I for one respect the statements of 9:20, after all Professor Olcott is certainly much more intelligence than me. Sarcasm off.

Anonymous said...

Intriguing commentary over at FODU by Jason Trumpbour.


Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: Inman

Aggregation theory is about combining over goods or agents to form aggregates. Monetary aggregation is about what people use as money and hence what the central bank should focuse on. This concept can be extended to that of a common currency area like the euro bloc. See you on the new thread.

Anonymous said... may be right. I chastised some friends at dinner last night for their atypical PC language...much like Polanski. had me going, but then I remembered I how much I despise the NYT.

To paraphrase Pulp Fiction..."I'm a long mother-@#$#@ way from being Polanski".

Anonymous said...

JLS...with all due respect...

you fail to provide a cogent definition. I am as flumoxed now as I was before.

Someone who professes to be a scholar should be able to provide a cogent and understandable explanation of their field of study.

Your descrition, so far, is babble. Frankly, at this point, I think you are a fraud.


Anonymous said...

JLS says...,


As you wish. I am not the topic of this discussion anyway. You can choose to believe anything you like about me.

Anonymous said...

important info on inman

He went to NCCU where he did not even graduate cum laude

He changed his surname from "Inboy," which is a perfictly good Southern name with mucho pedigree.

Anonymous said...

"do you think they really believe they would have lost the suppression hearing and a judge would have allowed Mangum's clearly tainted IDs in court?"

If the judge was Orlando Hudson, hell yes.

mac said...

I wish I could post with my real name,
but I have a business and the profession I'm
in is so PC, they invented half the
concepts of the 88: they'd make me take anger management courses
and other indoctrination-courses, like "The Chi of Sanskrit" or "Anger Management Through Feng Shui"
or "Hot Stone Therapy: How To Understand What Your Basalt is Saying."

So please, please don't ask for names! (Seriously.)
CONVERSATION BETWEEN 9:20 and his/her/its 88 girlfriend:

Aidey Ait: "I'm teaching a course on Intuition of the Divine tonight."

Glad E. Ater: "I worsip at your throne, mighty Priestess!"

Aidey Ait: "Think I'll start with: 'Worship me pigs!' (worked for Judy Tenuta)"

Glad E. Ater: "You are a priestess in the line of Melchizadek forever!"

Aidey Ait: "have you seen my PhD's around, serf-boy?
I need them for jewelry tonight at the Seminar."

Glad E. Ater: "I think they're over beside the baby-kiln, near the
statue of Molech."

Anonymous said...

JLS said @ 11:07:

"One of the great things about the internet is that we can discuss things heatedly without worry of being poked in the nose or people being judged on their looks, race, sex etc rather than the quality of their ideas. I like it that way and generally keep unknown on the web, but I have said I am an academic here because I have been pretty critical of some academics."

Yet, when asked to explain his/her work, the field of his/her work, she/he cannot.

And although not the subject of this blog, JLS is surely ready to provide comment. But evidently without integrity. One of the reasons that the Duke Lacrosse Burning occured is the absence of intellectual and judicial integrity among all to many people.

Lack of integrity, may I submit, is indeed a proper subject for this blog, since justice depends upon truth and truth depends upon integrity.

In my opinion.

mac said...

NCCU grad,

I can understand why JLS will not
provide specifics.
I'm similarly limited because I
operate my own business in a
PC community.

Since you insist that JLS reveal himself, what and who are you?
What was your field of study, and what
do you do- professionally - with your degree?

I would never call JLS a fraud,
(and neither should you.)
In the interest of fair play:
put up or shut up, please.

Anonymous said...


Cut JLS some slack. What he said makes sense to me. Sure, he/she could have done a better job but you are overreacting a bit.

I actually agree with his/her point that the beauty of this medium is that one must focus on the content of the post instead of the race, gender, class, qualifications, credentials, lineage, whatever-else-you-care-about of the poster.

Another academic economist

mac said...

Oh, was that Inman?

He usually doesn't flame like that.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain to me how the Chairman of the Committee - Whichard --- can say with a straight face that they don't have time to read the documents outlining the DPD crimes? Isn't that what they were hired to do? Read the reports? Since he hasn't even scheduled a second meeting, seems he could take all the time they need to read everything? Already too busy to investigate?

Anonymous said...

To all and especially JLS.

Please accept my sincere apology. I was wrong to have written what I wrote.

Again, I am sorry and hope you will forgive me.


88er's: Lesson 2 on how to apologize.

Anonymous said...

mac @ 8:53

Re: nccu grad

See: 12:47

Anonymous said...

After reading Ms. Ho's comments(letter) in defense of Professor Johnson's observation of her recent blog,..all I can say about her response is, "...Ho humm"!

Adjunct Professor