First, a remarkably generous and fair-minded review of the book by Newsday's Steven Marcus, even more so given that the blog had a post criticizing one of his articles. I am grateful.
Second, a few people have e-mailed me questions about the format for tomorrow's talk (7pm, Paige Auditorium). I'll be speaking for around 45 minutes; then, there will be around 45 minutes of question-and-answer. This is not the "shut up and teach" forum--anyone who attends is free to ask questions. Also, anyone who wants to record the talk is welcome to do so.
Finally, C-SPAN plans to coverage Stuart Taylor's talk--noon tomorrow--on the book, at Washington's Cato Institute. Stuart will be speaking for 30 minutes, with a Q&A to follow.
Wish I could be there! You have been a source of so much wisdom! The Book is just Great!
ReplyDeleteBaldo
What's up with amazon.com? (now 9/13/07 --certainly better than 1-6 weeks) I hope Crown ships many many books to amazon.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very fair review. It speaks volumes for Marcus that he can set aside the differences the two of you have had to fairly evaluate the book.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad the review was positive, but I'm not sure this is the kind of guy you want endorsing your book. First of all, was it me, or was the review barely readable in places?: "Then and I now I think that was more than apparent." Is that a typo or am I missing something? Typos can be forgiven, of course, but I found the review as a whole difficult to read.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the author purports to compliment KC by distinguishing him from people "bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." With all due respect, isn't that more or less what KC has (rightfully) done on the blog? And aren't all of those parties ripe for vilification?
KC, I am glad that your talk will be a true open forum, which is precisely what you would expect from a public intellectual. My daughter is looking forward to hearing your talk.
ReplyDeleteI hope we can get a video or transcript afterwards.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 6:06 p.m. Like so many other commentators, Marcus is so blinded by his antipathy towards "conservatives" that he simply cannot analyze the case rationally and objectively.
ReplyDeletewill your talk tomorrow be on the web anywhere?
ReplyDeleteFriendly suggestion: Incorporate a powerpoint presentation into the Page speech-- show a big picture of the purple "Castrate!!" banner and the other shocking potbanger signs, show highlights of the loony potbangers' demo (still available on Youtube), and the vigilante poster. We hoax veterans take these for granted now, but they have a hell of an impact on people who are newer to the case and aren't so sure what all the fuss is about.
ReplyDeleteTo the 6.26:
ReplyDeleteThere won't be streaming video, but the sponsors hope to have a video up pretty shortly after the talk.
He referred to some of your fans as kooks, and he rightfully referred to some of the people on this board as such. I may even qualify; it all depends on your definition of the term, but if I'm a kook, then I'm a kook who is opposed to the type of glaring injustices you have outlined in your blog. From the moment I formed an opinion on this issue, I wondered what would have happened had they not had the resources to defend themselves, and then I wondered how often it happens both in Durham and elsewhere around the country. After some research, I came to a truly frightening conclusion, and it was, in part, the work of your blog that opened my eyes. For that, and for your hard work over the course of the last year or more, I thank you.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6:06 said...
ReplyDelete...Also, the author purports to compliment KC by distinguishing him from people "bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." With all due respect, isn't that more or less what KC has (rightfully) done on the blog?
::
No. They have vilified themselves and are now living with the product of those who record what they have done.
I am here trying to figure out the 'why and how' so it won't happen again.
::
GP
KC, The Blog Hooligans need to buy extra copies of this excellent book to donate to the libraries in their respective hometowns. I certainly intend to do so.
ReplyDeleteYou have been an inspiration to all of us. Thank you.
...and to continue the thought from 6:30, visuals of the potbangers and their signs, chants, posters etc. are the most effective way of taking the wind (in advance) out of the sails of 88er apologists and revisionists who like to claim that (1) the 'listening statement' was necessary because minority students (as opposed to lacrosse players) were the ones under attack and (2) the text of the 'listening statement' really isn't that bad if you read it objectively (i.e. ignoring the bit about thanking the demonstrators). I imagine, with 45 minutes of question time, some 88ers will try to make those bogus points.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, break a leg KC.
http://www.bet.com/News/NewsArticleDukeRapeCaseNifongJail.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished&Referrer=%7B9624097D-F2F3-4D5C-B513-798AEAD259B7%7D
ReplyDeleteBET keeping it real...
LTC8K6
It would be a shame to close this blog. It is an intellectual asset of great value.
ReplyDeleteThe cultural, legal, moral and value issues exposed here, and the reasoned, fact intensive approach used at this blog, are very rare.
One general suggestion to all bloggers. When dealing with cultural issues, you have no chance whatsoever to change someone's view by name calling or ridicule. The best we can hope for, and it is a lot, is for someone to say, "wait a minute", or "I never looked at it that way", in response to the barrage of reasoned facts emanating from KC's blog.
Opinion
Marcus' review may be complimentary overall, but it tacitly contains within it the same old crap liberal assertion: conservative political viewpoints are so demonstrably racist that only crazy people would associate themselves with those viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteMarcus would have made a great member of the Gang of 88. It is only in retrospect that he is disassociating himself from them. It's pretty apparent from his grudging review, and his characterization of conservatives, that had the lynching gone down, he would have been there as one of the cheerleaders.
For me, the underlying issue of this case is 50 years of stacking humanities faculties with Marxist meatheads. You know, those people who tried to blackball Johnson's tenure application. Anybody care to guess how many deserving white, heterosexual men were denied teaching jobs and tenure as a result of that game?
KC,
ReplyDeleteBest wishes on your appearance. As you well know, this could easily turn into a circus.... I hope the basic rules of civility are strictly enforced, i.e., "interrupt him, and you're outta here!"
"Johnson's words stirred a frenzied crowd and brought along, perhaps (at least privately) to Johnson's chagrin, a cartload of ultra conservative thinkers bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system."
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am certainly not a conservative, I find this petty playground suck-up-after-the-fact a bit of a critique beyond repulsive.
Although it's a good thing for any book to receive a thumbs up from as many outlets as possible, when reading this Marcus quickly-put-together piece, I feel the same way he tells us KC feels about the people he has attracted to his blog....
.....Thanks for the compliments, but no thanks.
This 3rd rate level journalist Marcus is working overtime to get in line behind KC...just as some other very sad, desperate, and rabid Leftists who show up here often.
I'm sure KC finds him useful when he highlights his liberal credentials once again....so that no one dare have gotten the wrong impression. LOL!!!
I don't know or care about the politics of the posters here, but I'd say for a fact that those whom Marcus has slammed are the ones who have most helped carry this blog.
(I was always taught to leave the dance with the one who brought me....so to speak.)
For Marcus to present this dimestore and very partisan scenario just before KC comes to Duke to speak.....speaks for itself.
I hope Marcus actually paid for his copy of the book. No doubt, he picked up a freebie somewhere they provide for journnalists.
".......an earlier book co-authored by Mike Pressler, the former Duke coach, which sounded more like a get-even than get it right rendering of the case."
Does everyone see how irrational and illogical this Marcus son-of-a-b!tch is?
This comparison is perhaps one of the most nonsensical I've read during this case.
Of course, Pressler's book exhibits a dose of revenge. It was he who was in the eye of the storm, lost his job, and had his sterling Duke coaching record obliterated by the actions and inactions of a spineless university president.
Does Marcus somehow think that compares to KC researching and writing about other people's experiences?
Someone tell Marcus to go back and read the book. KC was not the one accused of rape. Of course he would be able to be more objective when writing his book.
Good that Marcus came to blow a kiss.
Bad that he is such a petty ideologue and such a bad writer.
Well, I gotta admit, Steven Marcus nailed me. "ultra conservative". I do believe in stuff like due process, innocence until proven guilty, courtesy, respect for others, civil discourse, honesty. Alleva was quoted as saying "It's not about the truth," I disagree. It is about the truth. So, Steven, thanks for the nice review but how about some helpful hints as to how I might become more progressive and less of an old curmudgeon.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the author purports to compliment KC by distinguishing him from people "bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." With all due respect, isn't that more or less what KC has (rightfully) done on the blog? And aren't all of those parties ripe for vilification?
ReplyDeletePrecisely.
Which is why I am "chagrined"--but not secretly!--that I took the time to read that poorly, misspelled, and disjointed little bit of anti-anything-to the-right-of-Richard Brodhead that Marcus has used to try to put himself back inside the game....disguised as "fairminded" praise.
KC, wish I could be there!!
ReplyDeleteDebrah, please, please let us know everything. Know that you'll be there with bells on. BTW, we can't find UPI anywhere in the Fayetteville area. Anyone know where copies are available? Amazon is showing 3-6 weeks. Ugh.
Will you be providing protective goggles in case any of the Klan of 88 show up and remove their blouses/bras in protest like the did for David Horowitz?
ReplyDeleteCan someone remind me what they achieved with that act?
Joan Foster 6:44 said...
ReplyDelete...KC, The Blog Hooligans need to buy extra copies of this excellent book to donate to the libraries in their respective hometowns. I certainly intend to do so.
::
Great Idea! Thank You
I will do just that tomorrow.
::
GP
The book arrived today. I have been scanning it. There is outrage on every page. There are many yet to be held accountable for their lies, misconduct, and horrific behavior.
ReplyDeleteJudges, ADAs, "journalists", faculty, administration, pundits all need to be reminded of the things they said and did. Many (e.g. Judge Ronald Stephens) are unfit to serve and should be removed, disbarred and disgraced.
This is a wonderful book and will be long cited in campaigns against prosecutorial misconduct.
KC,
ReplyDelete9/11 is a fraught date, of course. My advice is not to combine what you say at Paige Auditorium tomorrow about the Duke scandal with anything having to do with, say, faculty attitudes towards the war on terrorism. What we may think about those attitudes, it's dangerous to go there at this point.
Stick to the lax scandal. Don't be tempted to broaden this into an overall condemnation of leftist faculty in relation to 9/11. UNLESS, as with the lax, you can cite specific chapter and verse.
Anyway, that's my advice!
Great book.
Prof. E.
The professor @ 11:07PM opines with foreboding rapture:
ReplyDelete"My advice is not to combine what you say at Paige Auditorium tomorrow about the Duke scandal with anything having to do with, say, faculty attitudes towards the war on terrorism. What we may think about those attitudes, it's dangerous to go there at this point."
You do not need to school KC on how to be a good liberal.
Frankly this kind of last minute handwringing is turning off some of his strongest supporters of this book.
Too bad the Marcus column and comments like yours couldn't have held off so that we could have operated under the fantasy a while longer that someone learned something from all this.
Such comments magnify the very insular lives that some in the academy lead.
Not very attractive to be so cowardly after what has just happened this past year.
"Also, the author purports to compliment KC by distinguishing him from people "bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." With all due respect, isn't that more or less what KC has (rightfully) done on the blog? And In particular I remember a posteraren't all of those parties ripe for vilification?"
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between criticism (even harsh criticism) which has as its goal the correction of things that need to be corrected, and vilification, which is simply assault on the sensibilities. We have definitely had the latter. "Crystal Gail Mangum should be prosecuted for her false accusations" is criticism. "Crystal Gail Mangum is an ugly whore whose panties swim with disease" is vilification.
Prof. E 11:07 said...
ReplyDelete...KC,
...9/11 is a fraught date, of course. My advice is not to combine what you say at Paige Auditorium tomorrow about the Duke scandal with anything having to do with, say, faculty attitudes towards the war on terrorism. What we may think about those attitudes, it's dangerous to go there at this point.
...Stick to the lax scandal. Don't be tempted to broaden this into an overall condemnation of leftist faculty in relation to 9/11. UNLESS, as with the lax, you can cite specific chapter and verse.
::
I take it from your most unusual comment that the faculty at Duke does not have a standard set for welcoming guests to campus.
How about the Duke students? Do they know how to welcome a visitor who cares for them so completely that he spends nearly every waking hour working on this blog?
Perhaps the faculty will demonstrate for their students how they appreciate KC's dedication to the search for truth.
A big Duke welcome would seem to be appropriate. Duke cap? T-Shirt?
::
GP
There's a difference between criticism (even harsh criticism) which has as its goal the correction of things that need to be corrected, and vilification, which is simply assault on the sensibilities. We have definitely had the latter. "Crystal Gail Mangum should be prosecuted for her false accusations" is criticism. "Crystal Gail Mangum is an ugly whore whose panties swim with disease" is vilification.
ReplyDeleteFloyd sez-what you call vilification sure sounds like the truth 'round here. stop defending this drug addled stripper.
To prof e @ 11:07, (and, btw EXCELLENT post @ 11:56, Debrah!)
ReplyDeleteI don't think KC needs that advice, prof ... as I commented a few days ago, the Duke rabble will not disrupt KC, even if they have the courage to show, and I doubt that.
The T-shirt-wearing women (she couldn't get any men to show) minions that Professor Diane Nelson dressed for Horowitz's presentation declined to remove their shirts, even though she asked them to do so. That would have been a bust (rimshot) anyway because she advocated "sports bras" ... what's the fun in that?
KC will be treated with respect and will play to a full house ... go early if you want a seat.
There is no way on eath he would tie any comments to 9/11 ... he's not speaking on that topic and he might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
He'll do a great job and any of you who can attend, please do and give us a report.
Be sure and not tell KC if you're a conservative, lest he apologizes to the crowd for you. He seems so very sensitive to being grouped with conservatives, it seems.
This might be because of his association with what I call the "Acidophilus" Blog which is trying desperately to make "Horowitzian" into a new adjective.
Diversity in ideology is apparently easy to write about but far more difficult to embrace.
One Spook
Apologies for the verbiage, but a gentle Fisking of Newsday's review might illuminate a few points:
ReplyDelete“Johnson's words stirred a frenzied crowd and brought along, perhaps (at least privately) to Johnson's chagrin, a cartload of ultra conservative thinkers bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system.”
As with many other blogs, KC Johnson’s serves as a forum for thoughtful comment, as well as a wall for graffiti. A stereotype of all commenters as ‘ultra conservative thinkers’ renders the phrase meaningless. Focusing on the red herring of a blog’s comment section just associates the blogger with a mob he doesn’t control – and tells readers that the writer believes in that association.
“Many may perceive Johnson to be the anti-Al Sharpton, racing to stand up for rights of the elite (as in the mostly well off Duke players)”
Those are the rights of everyone that KC Johnson stands up for. ‘Everyone’ includes the whole human spectrum, even elites. Does the review wish otherwise?
“Johnson certainly did not try to win over the media, but certainly should in his well-researched statement of facts. It also may help Johnson fend off the staunch conservative recruiters who will want to sign him up for their causes, just or not.”
Were the media as interested in facts as they claim to be, his feats of out-investigating them should have won them over by sheer quality. His superior chronicle presented the public with such a contrast to media coverage that it hopefully confirmed some criticisms directed at media bias, or at its indifference to facts in the face of a preferred political narrative. And thoughtful people, conservatives as well as non-conservatives, prefer well-researched statements of facts. Tarring the bad guys as ‘conservatives’, as this review appears to do, is several steps below a university level of debate.
“Brodhead desired to ascertain the facts while mollifying a veritable lynch mob in the community of public opinion and, increasingly, the streets of Durham.”
President Brodhead’s mollification all too soon took the form of throwing coach, team and the three accused under the bus. And his desire to find facts certainly didn’t extend to getting the player’s stories, nor to meeting their parents. The mollified included his radical faculty, which resembled a lynch mob more than seekers of truth. And the streets of Durham also form part of the community of public opinion, and they contained the votes that Mike Nifong needed in his mendacious demagoguery. As much as Brodhead attempted to pose as fair and disinterested, those streets and radicals guided his actions by virtue of the media focus on their sheer political noise.
---
All in all, however, it was a gracious review, taking into account the milieu it sprang from. I'd not attempt to steer a prospective reader away from it - and I think that KC's example of scrupulous honesty with facts and events has provided a shining example for the reviewer.
Insufficiently Sensitive @ 12:46 writes:
ReplyDeleteAnd thoughtful people, conservatives as well as non-conservatives, prefer well-researched statements of facts. Tarring the bad guys as ‘conservatives’, as this review appears to do, is several steps below a university level of debate.
That is one of the BEST posts I have ever read here, in well over a year.
BRAVO I/S!
One Spook
"Johnson's words stirred a frenzied crowd and brought along, perhaps (at least privately) to Johnson's chagrin, a cartload of ultra conservative thinkers bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." - Marcus 9/10/2007
ReplyDeleteActually I’m not sure that ultra conservatives would feel that comfortable around here. Most of what KC has written is remarkable free from ideology and instead consist of gathering data and following it to its logical conclusion. Not sure either liberals or conservatives are that free to follow facts without running headlong in predetermined positions that are not always defendable.
Does the review (sic)-er wish otherwise?
ReplyDeleteDoes Cash Michaels want third and fourth helpings at a buffet?
skip to main | skip to sidebar Durham-in-Wonderland
ReplyDeleteComments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Newsday Review; Items for Tomorrow
First, a remarkably generous and fair-minded review of the book by Newsday's Steven Marcus, even more so given that the blog had a post criticizing one of his articles. I am grateful.
Second, a few people have e-mailed me questions about the format for tomorrow's talk (7pm, Paige Auditorium). I'll be speaking for around 45 minutes; then, there will be around 45 minutes of question-and-answer. This is not the "shut up and teach" forum--anyone who attends is free to ask questions. Also, anyone who wants to record the talk is welcome to do so.
Finally, C-SPAN plans to coverage Stuart Taylor's talk--noon tomorrow--on the book, at Washington's Cato Institute. Stuart will be speaking for 30 minutes, with a Q&A to follow.
Posted by KC Johnson at 5:12 PM
Labels: general
35 comments:
Anonymous said...
Wish I could be there! You have been a source of so much wisdom! The Book is just Great!
Baldo
9/10/07 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...
What's up with amazon.com? (now 9/13/07 --certainly better than 1-6 weeks) I hope Crown ships many many books to amazon.
9/10/07 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...
This is a very fair review. It speaks volumes for Marcus that he can set aside the differences the two of you have had to fairly evaluate the book.
9/10/07 6:01 PM
Anonymous said...
I'm glad the review was positive, but I'm not sure this is the kind of guy you want endorsing your book. First of all, was it me, or was the review barely readable in places?: "Then and I now I think that was more than apparent." Is that a typo or am I missing something? Typos can be forgiven, of course, but I found the review as a whole difficult to read.
Also, the author purports to compliment KC by distinguishing him from people "bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." With all due respect, isn't that more or less what KC has (rightfully) done on the blog? And aren't all of those parties ripe for vilification?
9/10/07 6:06 PM
miramar said...
KC, I am glad that your talk will be a true open forum, which is precisely what you would expect from a public intellectual. My daughter is looking forward to hearing your talk.
9/10/07 6:10 PM
Mike Lee said...
I hope we can get a video or transcript afterwards.
9/10/07 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...
I agree with 6:06 p.m. Like so many other commentators, Marcus is so blinded by his antipathy towards "conservatives" that he simply cannot analyze the case rationally and objectively.
9/10/07 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...
will your talk tomorrow be on the web anywhere?
9/10/07 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Friendly suggestion: Incorporate a powerpoint presentation into the Page speech-- show a big picture of the purple "Castrate!!" banner and the other shocking potbanger signs, show highlights of the loony potbangers' demo (still available on Youtube), and the vigilante poster. We hoax veterans take these for granted now, but they have a hell of an impact on people who are newer to the case and aren't so sure what all the fuss is about.
9/10/07 6:30 PM
KC Johnson said...
To the 6.26:
There won't be streaming video, but the sponsors hope to have a video up pretty shortly after the talk.
9/10/07 6:37 PM
Mandelbrot's Chaos said...
He referred to some of your fans as kooks, and he rightfully referred to some of the people on this board as such. I may even qualify; it all depends on your definition of the term, but if I'm a kook, then I'm a kook who is opposed to the type of glaring injustices you have outlined in your blog. From the moment I formed an opinion on this issue, I wondered what would have happened had they not had the resources to defend themselves, and then I wondered how often it happens both in Durham and elsewhere around the country. After some research, I came to a truly frightening conclusion, and it was, in part, the work of your blog that opened my eyes. For that, and for your hard work over the course of the last year or more, I thank you.
9/10/07 6:38 PM
Gary Packwood said...
Anonymous 6:06 said...
...Also, the author purports to compliment KC by distinguishing him from people "bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." With all due respect, isn't that more or less what KC has (rightfully) done on the blog?
::
No. They have vilified themselves and are now living with the product of those who record what they have done.
I am here trying to figure out the 'why and how' so it won't happen again.
::
GP
9/10/07 6:44 PM
Joan Foster said...
KC, The Blog Hooligans need to buy extra copies of this excellent book to donate to the libraries in their respective hometowns. I certainly intend to do so.
You have been an inspiration to all of us. Thank you.
9/10/07 6:44 PM
Anonymous said...
...and to continue the thought from 6:30, visuals of the potbangers and their signs, chants, posters etc. are the most effective way of taking the wind (in advance) out of the sails of 88er apologists and revisionists who like to claim that (1) the 'listening statement' was necessary because minority students (as opposed to lacrosse players) were the ones under attack and (2) the text of the 'listening statement' really isn't that bad if you read it objectively (i.e. ignoring the bit about thanking the demonstrators). I imagine, with 45 minutes of question time, some 88ers will try to make those bogus points.
Anyway, break a leg KC.
9/10/07 7:01 PM
Anonymous said...
http://www.bet.com/News/NewsArticleDukeRapeCaseNifongJail.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished&Referrer=%7B9624097D-F2F3-4D5C-B513-798AEAD259B7%7D
BET keeping it real...
LTC8K6
9/10/07 7:13 PM
Jim in San Diego said...
It would be a shame to close this blog. It is an intellectual asset of great value.
The cultural, legal, moral and value issues exposed here, and the reasoned, fact intensive approach used at this blog, are very rare.
One general suggestion to all bloggers. When dealing with cultural issues, you have no chance whatsoever to change someone's view by name calling or ridicule. The best we can hope for, and it is a lot, is for someone to say, "wait a minute", or "I never looked at it that way", in response to the barrage of reasoned facts emanating from KC's blog.
Opinion
9/10/07 7:42 PM
Shouting Thomas said...
Marcus' review may be complimentary overall, but it tacitly contains within it the same old crap liberal assertion: conservative political viewpoints are so demonstrably racist that only crazy people would associate themselves with those viewpoints.
Marcus would have made a great member of the Gang of 88. It is only in retrospect that he is disassociating himself from them. It's pretty apparent from his grudging review, and his characterization of conservatives, that had the lynching gone down, he would have been there as one of the cheerleaders.
For me, the underlying issue of this case is 50 years of stacking humanities faculties with Marxist meatheads. You know, those people who tried to blackball Johnson's tenure application. Anybody care to guess how many deserving white, heterosexual men were denied teaching jobs and tenure as a result of that game?
9/10/07 8:00 PM
Duke1965 said...
KC,
Best wishes on your appearance. As you well know, this could easily turn into a circus.... I hope the basic rules of civility are strictly enforced, i.e., "interrupt him, and you're outta here!"
9/10/07 8:03 PM
Debrah said...
"Johnson's words stirred a frenzied crowd and brought along, perhaps (at least privately) to Johnson's chagrin, a cartload of ultra conservative thinkers bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system."
Although I am certainly not a conservative, I find this petty playground suck-up-after-the-fact a bit of a critique beyond repulsive.
Although it's a good thing for any book to receive a thumbs up from as many outlets as possible, when reading this Marcus quickly-put-together piece, I feel the same way he tells us KC feels about the people he has attracted to his blog....
.....Thanks for the compliments, but no thanks.
This 3rd rate level journalist Marcus is working overtime to get in line behind KC...just as some other very sad, desperate, and rabid Leftists who show up here often.
I'm sure KC finds him useful when he highlights his liberal credentials once again....so that no one dare have gotten the wrong impression. LOL!!!
I don't know or care about the politics of the posters here, but I'd say for a fact that those whom Marcus has slammed are the ones who have most helped carry this blog.
(I was always taught to leave the dance with the one who brought me....so to speak.)
For Marcus to present this dimestore and very partisan scenario just before KC comes to Duke to speak.....speaks for itself.
I hope Marcus actually paid for his copy of the book. No doubt, he picked up a freebie somewhere they provide for journnalists.
".......an earlier book co-authored by Mike Pressler, the former Duke coach, which sounded more like a get-even than get it right rendering of the case."
Does everyone see how irrational and illogical this Marcus son-of-a-b!tch is?
This comparison is perhaps one of the most nonsensical I've read during this case.
Of course, Pressler's book exhibits a dose of revenge. It was he who was in the eye of the storm, lost his job, and had his sterling Duke coaching record obliterated by the actions and inactions of a spineless university president.
Does Marcus somehow think that compares to KC researching and writing about other people's experiences?
Someone tell Marcus to go back and read the book. KC was not the one accused of rape. Of course he would be able to be more objective when writing his book.
Good that Marcus came to blow a kiss.
Bad that he is such a petty ideologue and such a bad writer.
9/10/07 8:22 PM
haskell said...
Well, I gotta admit, Steven Marcus nailed me. "ultra conservative". I do believe in stuff like due process, innocence until proven guilty, courtesy, respect for others, civil discourse, honesty. Alleva was quoted as saying "It's not about the truth," I disagree. It is about the truth. So, Steven, thanks for the nice review but how about some helpful hints as to how I might become more progressive and less of an old curmudgeon.
9/10/07 8:51 PM
Debrah said...
Also, the author purports to compliment KC by distinguishing him from people "bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." With all due respect, isn't that more or less what KC has (rightfully) done on the blog? And aren't all of those parties ripe for vilification?
Precisely.
Which is why I am "chagrined"--but not secretly!--that I took the time to read that poorly, misspelled, and disjointed little bit of anti-anything-to the-right-of-Richard Brodhead that Marcus has used to try to put himself back inside the game....disguised as "fairminded" praise.
9/10/07 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...
KC, wish I could be there!!
Debrah, please, please let us know everything. Know that you'll be there with bells on. BTW, we can't find UPI anywhere in the Fayetteville area. Anyone know where copies are available? Amazon is showing 3-6 weeks. Ugh.
9/10/07 9:26 PM
no justice, no peace said...
Will you be providing protective goggles in case any of the Klan of 88 show up and remove their blouses/bras in protest like the did for David Horowitz?
Can someone remind me what they achieved with that act?
9/10/07 9:38 PM
Gary Packwood said...
Joan Foster 6:44 said...
...KC, The Blog Hooligans need to buy extra copies of this excellent book to donate to the libraries in their respective hometowns. I certainly intend to do so.
::
Great Idea! Thank You
I will do just that tomorrow.
::
GP
9/10/07 10:48 PM
north said...
The book arrived today. I have been scanning it. There is outrage on every page. There are many yet to be held accountable for their lies, misconduct, and horrific behavior.
Judges, ADAs, "journalists", faculty, administration, pundits all need to be reminded of the things they said and did. Many (e.g. Judge Ronald Stephens) are unfit to serve and should be removed, disbarred and disgraced.
This is a wonderful book and will be long cited in campaigns against prosecutorial misconduct.
9/10/07 10:52 PM
Prof. E said...
KC,
9/11 is a fraught date, of course. My advice is not to combine what you say at Paige Auditorium tomorrow about the Duke scandal with anything having to do with, say, faculty attitudes towards the war on terrorism. What we may think about those attitudes, it's dangerous to go there at this point.
Stick to the lax scandal. Don't be tempted to broaden this into an overall condemnation of leftist faculty in relation to 9/11. UNLESS, as with the lax, you can cite specific chapter and verse.
Anyway, that's my advice!
Great book.
Prof. E.
9/10/07 11:07 PM
Debrah said...
The professor @ 11:07PM opines with foreboding rapture:
"My advice is not to combine what you say at Paige Auditorium tomorrow about the Duke scandal with anything having to do with, say, faculty attitudes towards the war on terrorism. What we may think about those attitudes, it's dangerous to go there at this point."
You do not need to school KC on how to be a good liberal.
Frankly this kind of last minute handwringing is turning off some of his strongest supporters of this book.
Too bad the Marcus column and comments like yours couldn't have held off so that we could have operated under the fantasy a while longer that someone learned something from all this.
Such comments magnify the very insular lives that some in the academy lead.
Not very attractive to be so cowardly after what has just happened this past year.
9/10/07 11:56 PM
Anonymous said...
"Also, the author purports to compliment KC by distinguishing him from people "bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." With all due respect, isn't that more or less what KC has (rightfully) done on the blog? And In particular I remember a posteraren't all of those parties ripe for vilification?"
There's a difference between criticism (even harsh criticism) which has as its goal the correction of things that need to be corrected, and vilification, which is simply assault on the sensibilities. We have definitely had the latter. "Crystal Gail Mangum should be prosecuted for her false accusations" is criticism. "Crystal Gail Mangum is an ugly whore whose panties swim with disease" is vilification.
9/11/07 12:19 AM
Gary Packwood said...
Prof. E 11:07 said...
...KC,
...9/11 is a fraught date, of course. My advice is not to combine what you say at Paige Auditorium tomorrow about the Duke scandal with anything having to do with, say, faculty attitudes towards the war on terrorism. What we may think about those attitudes, it's dangerous to go there at this point.
...Stick to the lax scandal. Don't be tempted to broaden this into an overall condemnation of leftist faculty in relation to 9/11. UNLESS, as with the lax, you can cite specific chapter and verse.
::
I take it from your most unusual comment that the faculty at Duke does not have a standard set for welcoming guests to campus.
How about the Duke students? Do they know how to welcome a visitor who cares for them so completely that he spends nearly every waking hour working on this blog?
Perhaps the faculty will demonstrate for their students how they appreciate KC's dedication to the search for truth.
A big Duke welcome would seem to be appropriate. Duke cap? T-Shirt?
::
GP
9/11/07 12:22 AM
Anonymous said...
There's a difference between criticism (even harsh criticism) which has as its goal the correction of things that need to be corrected, and vilification, which is simply assault on the sensibilities. We have definitely had the latter. "Crystal Gail Mangum should be prosecuted for her false accusations" is criticism. "Crystal Gail Mangum is an ugly whore whose panties swim with disease" is vilification.
Floyd sez-what you call vilification sure sounds like the truth 'round here. stop defending this drug addled stripper.
9/11/07 12:29 AM
One Spook said...
To prof e @ 11:07, (and, btw EXCELLENT post @ 11:56, Debrah!)
I don't think KC needs that advice, prof ... as I commented a few days ago, the Duke rabble will not disrupt KC, even if they have the courage to show, and I doubt that.
The T-shirt-wearing women (she couldn't get any men to show) minions that Professor Diane Nelson dressed for Horowitz's presentation declined to remove their shirts, even though she asked them to do so. That would have been a bust (rimshot) anyway because she advocated "sports bras" ... what's the fun in that?
KC will be treated with respect and will play to a full house ... go early if you want a seat.
There is no way on eath he would tie any comments to 9/11 ... he's not speaking on that topic and he might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
He'll do a great job and any of you who can attend, please do and give us a report.
Be sure and not tell KC if you're a conservative, lest he apologizes to the crowd for you. He seems so very sensitive to being grouped with conservatives, it seems.
This might be because of his association with what I call the "Acidophilus" Blog which is trying desperately to make "Horowitzian" into a new adjective.
Diversity in ideology is apparently easy to write about but far more difficult to embrace.
One Spook
9/11/07 12:46 AM
Insufficiently Sensitive said...
Apologies for the verbiage, but a gentle Fisking of Newsday's review might illuminate a few points:
“Johnson's words stirred a frenzied crowd and brought along, perhaps (at least privately) to Johnson's chagrin, a cartload of ultra conservative thinkers bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system.”
As with many other blogs, KC Johnson’s serves as a forum for thoughtful comment, as well as a wall for graffiti. A stereotype of all commenters as ‘ultra conservative thinkers’ renders the phrase meaningless. Focusing on the red herring of a blog’s comment section just associates the blogger with a mob he doesn’t control – and tells readers that the writer believes in that association.
“Many may perceive Johnson to be the anti-Al Sharpton, racing to stand up for rights of the elite (as in the mostly well off Duke players)”
Those are the rights of everyone that KC Johnson stands up for. ‘Everyone’ includes the whole human spectrum, even elites. Does the review wish otherwise?
“Johnson certainly did not try to win over the media, but certainly should in his well-researched statement of facts. It also may help Johnson fend off the staunch conservative recruiters who will want to sign him up for their causes, just or not.”
Were the media as interested in facts as they claim to be, his feats of out-investigating them should have won them over by sheer quality. His superior chronicle presented the public with such a contrast to media coverage that it hopefully confirmed some criticisms directed at media bias, or at its indifference to facts in the face of a preferred political narrative. And thoughtful people, conservatives as well as non-conservatives, prefer well-researched statements of facts. Tarring the bad guys as ‘conservatives’, as this review appears to do, is several steps below a university level of debate.
“Brodhead desired to ascertain the facts while mollifying a veritable lynch mob in the community of public opinion and, increasingly, the streets of Durham.”
President Brodhead’s mollification all too soon took the form of throwing coach, team and the three accused under the bus. And his desire to find facts certainly didn’t extend to getting the player’s stories, nor to meeting their parents. The mollified included his radical faculty, which resembled a lynch mob more than seekers of truth. And the streets of Durham also form part of the community of public opinion, and they contained the votes that Mike Nifong needed in his mendacious demagoguery. As much as Brodhead attempted to pose as fair and disinterested, those streets and radicals guided his actions by virtue of the media focus on their sheer political noise.
---
All in all, however, it was a gracious review, taking into account the milieu it sprang from. I'd not attempt to steer a prospective reader away from it - and I think that KC's example of scrupulous honesty with facts and events has provided a shining example for the reviewer.
9/11/07 12:46 AM
One Spook said...
Insufficiently Sensitive @ 12:46 writes:
And thoughtful people, conservatives as well as non-conservatives, prefer well-researched statements of facts. Tarring the bad guys as ‘conservatives’, as this review appears to do, is several steps below a university level of debate.
That is one of the BEST posts I have ever read here, in well over a year.
BRAVO I/S!
One Spook
9/11/07 12:54 AM
Anonymous said...
"Johnson's words stirred a frenzied crowd and brought along, perhaps (at least privately) to Johnson's chagrin, a cartload of ultra conservative thinkers bent on vilification of the stripper, the media, the university and the justice system." - Marcus 9/10/2007
Actually I’m not sure that ultra conservatives would feel that comfortable around here. Most of what KC has written is remarkable free from ideology and instead consist of gathering data and following it to its logical conclusion. Not sure either liberals or conservatives are that free to follow facts without running headlong in predetermined positions that are not always defendable.
9/11/07 12:56 AM
Debrah said...
Does the review (sic)-er wish otherwise?
Does Cash Michaels want third and fourth helpings at a buffet?
9/11/07 1:08 AM
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) About Me
KC Johnson
I am a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, where I teach offerings in 20th century U.S. constitutional, political, and diplomatic history.
View my complete profile
Book
Until Proven Innocent
Book-Related Events
Book-Related Appearances
"In their vivid, at times chilling account, the authors are contemptuous of prosecutor Mike Nifong, whom the North Carolina legal establishment disbarred for his by now well-documented misconduct . . . but their most biting scorn is aimed at the 'academic McCarthyism' that they say has infected top-rated American universities like Duke."--Evan Thomas, Newsweek
Links
Case Narrative (start to finish)
Friends of Duke University
John in Carolina
Liestoppers
Johnsville News
William L. Anderson
La Shawn Barber
Forensics Talk
Free Republic Discussion Boards
Liestoppers Discussion Boards
Duke Students for an Ethical Durham
Conflicting Lineup Results
Motions and Documents
Attorney General's Report
DNA motion
Lineup motion
Supplementary lineup motion
Change of venue motion
Bar amended complaint/Nifong response
December 15 hearing
State Bar v. Nifong
Brewer removal motion
Nifong December 28 letter to Bar
Nifong January 16 letter to Bar
Group of 88 statement (removed from Duke website)
Group of 88 membership
Transcript of relevant sections, April 4 "identification" "procedure"
DIW in the News
New York Magazine (Kurt Andersen)
cnnsi (Richard Deitsch)
Slate (Stuart Taylor)
National Post (Mary Vallis)
Chicago Sports Review
Worcester Telegram(Paul Jarvey)
New York Sun (John Leo)
North Adams Transcript (Adam Bloch)
New Criterion
New York Observer (Anna Schneider-Mayerson)
Towerview/Chronicle (Rob Copeland)
New York Post (John Podhoretz)
Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren)
USNews.com (Michael Barone)
Crime and Federalism
Chicago Sports Review (Matt Wood)
Seton Hall Sports Blog
Wall Street Journal (Randy Barnett)
N&O (Eric Ferreri)
Blogger News Network (Jefferson Flanders)
Slate (Jack Shafer)
New York Sun (Eliana Johnson)
Infodder
Duke Chronicle (Saidi Chen)
Blog Archive
▼ 2007 (744)
▼ September (24)
Metro: Cheshire, Bannon, Finnerty
Newsday Review; Items for Tomorrow
Unanswered Questions
Sunday Roundup
Reviews & Reviewers
More State NAACP Hypocrisy
Nifong Video
Nifong Reports to Jail
Washington Post Op-Ed
Dashing Due Process
N&O: Saacks as Interim DA
The State NAACP Suddenly Discovers Due Process
Wall Street Journal Review
Questions for the Blue Committee
Herald-Sun: Criminal Inquiry to Come?
The N&O Speaks Out; Catotti & Curtis
Book Q&A; Various Items
Welcome
On the Schedule
Charns Speaks Out
On Judge Smith
Sunday Roundup
Book-Related Events
Disgrace and Redemption
► August (63)
Guilty
Morning in Wonderland
Morning Session II
Morning Session I--Meehan: Nifong Statement to Cou...
Avoiding the Issue
Hearing Highlights
Schedule
Afternoon Session
Morning Session Highlights
Morning Session
The Contemptible Nifong, IV
Chronicle On Target, Again
The Contemptible Nifong, III
The Contemptible Nifong, II
Editorial Page Extremists
The Contemptible Nifong, I
Item re Scott Kaufman
Gene Upshaw; On the Schedule
Butler on Brodhead
Credentials
Durham Statement
Whichard Committee in Jeopardy?
Group Profile: William Chafe
Coleman: Durham Likely Will Settle
Duff's Anniversary
Athletic Myths & Realities
► July (82)
► June (174)
► May (79)
► April (95)
► March (67)
► February (68)
► January (92)
► 2006 (278)
► December (78)
► November (51)
► October (52)
► September (38)
► August (28)
► July (7)
► June (8)
► May (13)
► April (3)
SiteMeter
what happened?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think it is only ultra-conservatives who think that KCJ's posts are free of any kind of ideological tinge or don't show his conservative bias.
ReplyDeleteShouting Thomas said...
ReplyDelete"Marcus would have made a great member of the Gang of 88. It is only in retrospect that he is disassociating himself from them."
That alone already makes him a smarter, wiser and better person than the overwhelming majority of Duke faculty and administration. A low standard, I know, but for a sports collumnist that's really not bad.
KC is not emotionally a conservative. He does believe in classical liberal values and I think that he resents the fact the the left and the academy have abandoned those values. Classical liberal values hvae now been taken over by a broad and diverse movement that is identified by the despicable (to KC) moniker of "conservative".
ReplyDeleteInsufficiently Sensitive said...
ReplyDelete" Tarring the bad guys as ‘conservatives’, as this review appears to do, is several steps below a university level of debate."
Oh, how I wish that were true....
Anonymous 9/11/07 12:56 AMsaid...
ReplyDelete"Actually I’m not sure that ultra conservatives would feel that comfortable around here."
I do, though I don't know if I count as "ultra:" On the one hand I consider President Bush annoyingly liberal, on the other hand I know of people way to the right of me.
"Most of what KC has written is remarkable free from ideology and instead consist of gathering data and following it to its logical conclusion."
He reminds me of the old-school liberal Democrats like Tip O'Neil and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I disagreed with them without ever losing respect for them. Their type has become way too rare in recent years.
No point in giving copies of UPI to local public libraries. The old-school librarians are long gone from the scene, and the donated volumes will end up in the same obscure locus as they have in the many Barnes and Noble bookstores surveyed by posters on this blog.
ReplyDeleteSimply recall the librarians' agitation about the evils of the Patriot Act.
He reminds me of the old-school liberal Democrats like Tip O'Neil and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
ReplyDeleteI posted the same sentiment recently and upset a few people.
I think KC's work has been mostly free of ideology as well.....which is why this blog has been so significant.
He can't start allowing silly losers like Marcus to contaminate the proceedings. That guy was willfully on the wrong side of this hoax.
If he had truly seen the light, he wouldn't have used his poorly written little offering as a way to push his ideology.
The only thing good about Marcus' column was the title.
:>)