Taylor and Johnson have plenty to say about Nifong and his pandering to Duke's black electorate, but the gravamen of their book is the appalling conduct of Duke's radicalized faculty members and the numerous journalists who were only too eager to report the story as a morality play of "race and gender"--privileged white males carnally abusing an impoverished black woman--rather than as a real-live case of an alleged rape concerning which there was plenty of evidence, even during the earliest weeks, to suggest that it had not actually occurred . . .Read the entire review here.
[Yet] the Duke lacrosse debacle, which cost three innocent young men and their families a year of disgrace and millions of dollars in legal bills, seems to have made only the smallest dent in the ideological carapaces of our nation's chattering classes.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Weekly Standard Review
Charlotte Allen writes,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
This Weekly Standard review is simply magnificent.
The detail is like no other review.
If anyone wishes to understand why I cannot endure all those little dishonest, envious, and sleazy leftist detractors who come here, this is one example which is included in this in-depth review of UPI:
"And, just a few days ago, Group of 88 sympathizer Scott Eric Kaufman, a journalism instructor at the University of California at Irvine, posted an entry on his blog, Acephalous, calling for Johnson to be ostracized by the prestigious history website Cliopatria, even though Johnson has a doctorate from Harvard and is the author of four scholarly books."
Every review from all of these top news sources is glowing and full of high praise.
UPI really needs coverage in Vanity Fair as well.
If the publisher hasn't looked into that, then someone should.
Although I'd sporadically followed the Duke lacrosse case from the left coast, beginning around the time the defense team began its public counter-offensive against Nifong's relentless pursuit of injustice, it was Charlotte Allen's "Duke's Tenured Vigilantes" article in the Weekly Standard that opened my eyes to the further injustices being heaped upon the falsely-accused students from the academic quarter.
URL for the article is here (gotta learn how to link):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/190uejex.asp?pg=1
It remains one of the most incisive and devastating articles that has been written about the case.
That Ms. Allen should now produce an equally incisive and devastating (to the usual suspects, laudatory to the authors) review of Stuart and Johnson's book is cosmic justice indeed.
The continuous screed heard from those who are so totally jealous of the brilliant work done by Professor Johnson (and I use the title specifically where it is deserved). The only means by which the subordinate teachers (subordinate to the consummate teacher in this case--Professor KC Johnson) have to counter the facts uncovered is to attack on the basis of sex/race/class discrimination. In some academic areas, this type of rationale is called circular justification. In my opinion, the Klan of 103 (the 88 idiots at Duke plus the 15 letter signers) all suffer from an extreme case of rectus crainius (they have their heads up an orifice which shall remain unnamed). And yes, I realize that there are more than 88 at Duke. The administrative crowd are not idiots--they are morons.
I was just thinking....(again, while contemplating the sublime).....
Wouldn't it be fantastico if someone like Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair would zoom over to Tel Aviv while KC is doing his thing there.....
.....and do a critique of the book as well as a background story on the entire Hoax?
Tres dramatique!
Anon @ 7:12 writes:
URL for the article is here (gotta learn how to link)
Charlotte Allen's review is terrifc despite her writing style that rivals Maurice Wallace for "excruciatingly long sentences." It was refreshing to see that she took a nice shot at "Acidophilus" bloviator Scott Eric Kaufman who, of course, has back-peddled like an embarrassed figure skater regarding his call for KC to ostracized by Cliopatria.
The link for Ms Allen's very excellent "Duke's Tenured Vigilantes" article in the Weekly Standard is here:
Duke's Tenured Vigilantes
One can learn how to insert hyperlinks here:
How to Insert Hyperlinks
Be sure to read the comment by M. Simon who explains the method far more succinctly than I.
One Spook
It's good of KC to link to Charlotte Allen's glowing review of Until Proven Innocent.
That's the same Charlotte Allen who posted this at the Independent Women's Forum three days before KC's first Duke case post:
Presumed Guilty at Duke, Despite Lack of Evidence
La Shawn Barber is tracking the case of the white Duke University lacrosse-team members accused of gang-raping, sodomizing, and beating an African-Ameridan stripper hired for a party on March 14--a case that looked big until, uh, all 46 white members of the team were DNA-tested and the results came up negative. (The alleged victim claimed that she had lost several fake fingernails torn off as she clawed her assailants in an attempt to escape, and the DNA tests were run on the nails as well as the players.) Nor was there any other evidence of a sexual assault at the party premises, according to police who arrived there one minute after someone called the police to complain about racial threats coming from the house.
Nonetheless, Durham County D.A. Mike Nifong plans to go ahead and press charges anyway, against somebody or other on the team based on some kind of evidence or other. And the usual array of man-hating fems and whites-hating black demagogues is holding the usual array of marches, candle-light vigils, letters to the editor, and calls for the summary imprisonment of all Duke’s white lacrosse players (whose season has already been suspended), even though no charges of any kind have been filed against any of them.
The situation, as La Shawn points out, is outrageous. For one thing, the victim of the alleged gang-rape was a good two-and-a-half miles from the party house when the police arrived to investigate.the call reporting a disturbance there (they had already been at the house for 16 minutes before she called):
"Two Durham police officers were investigating a reported disturbance at a Duke lacrosse party just 16 minutes before the alleged victim of a gang-rape there showed up at a grocery store more than 2 miles away to call for help.
But police found nothing at the scene, a police spokeswoman said....
Police arrived at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. just two minutes after a woman called 911 to report she and her black friend had been verbally accosted by men outside the house yelling a racial slur early on March 14, according to computer dispatch records.
"Officers responded to the call at 610 N. Buchanan within a minute of the dispatch. The complainant was not on the scene and no one seemed to be at the house, according to the officers, so they cleared the scene after checking the area for several minutes," said police spokeswoman Kammie Michael.
The dispatch records show officers were on the scene for more than 11 minutes.
"’Where are all these white guys raising hell?’ asked an incredulous James D. ’Butch’ Williams, who represents a lacrosse captain who lived at the house and voluntarily submitted to a DNA test shortly after one of two exotic dancers hired to entertain at the party said she was raped, sodomized and beaten by three white men there. ’When the people start digging the least little bit, they’re gong to find out things don’t make sense.’"
Furthermore, Smoking Gun, the guy who unmasked James ("Million Little Fibs") Frey, is on the case, with a copy of the application for a warrant to search the Duke dorms where the alleged assailants lived. Note that none of the supposed
"evidence" sought in the warrant was found anywhere.
At any rate, La Shawn’s got plenty o’ links, including this one detailing efforts by the team members and their parents to fight back and this column by John Leo. La Shawn writes:
"The next time a black woman cries white gang rape, people will be more skeptical because the fake rape allegations at Duke will be fresh in their minds. The next time any woman cries rape, people will be more skeptical because the fake rape allegations at Duke will be fresh in their minds. It’s not fair, but it’s human nature....
"This fiasco adds fuel to the victimhood fire in America that is already burning out of control. No one is responsible for his own actions, and it’s always someone else’s fault that we’ve made a sordid mess of our lives. If you’re black, all you need do is tell your sob story to bored, useless ’civil rights’ groups like the NAACP, and the jaded, left-leaning media will handle your PR."
Posted by: Charlotte Allen | Link to this Entry | 4/13/2006 11:29 AM
Until Proven Innocent included a great quote from a later writing by Charlotte Allen that appeared in The Weekly Standard, like her glowing book review.
But neither the book nor KC's acknowledgement of her review described Charlotte Allen.
Charlotte Allen edits the InkWell blog for the Independent Women's Forum and writes regularly for the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and Weekly Standard. She is author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.
Charlotte at least got quoted in Until Proven Innocent, unlike the wrongly ignored La Shawn Barber.
La Shawn plugged Until Proven Innocent on her popular blog anyway, and happily reported Stuart Taylor's apology for overlooking her.
Two apologies would be better than one, but one beats none.
Michael J. Gaynor
OK everyone.
It's sushi and Chardonnay on the veranda this evening!
But no disgruntled urchins are allowed.
LIS!
Wow, take-out is its own reward.
Stay off the maguro, Kitty Diva!!!
Mew! Mew!
how old is this 'instructor' ...old enough to kiss the likes of chavez and castro ?
he need to be admitted to the stalin association as a premier member
Mr. Kaufman writes in his blog today at acephalous.typepad.com that he has been "smeared" by The Weekly Standard. He has once again been forced to explain to those with diminished reading comprehension skills that he "said nothing about how to manage Cliopatria." He further explained, again, that "[i]n this regard, [he] believe[s] there must've been some context [sic] missed," as he never called for Prof. Johnson to be ostracized from Cliopatria, instead he stated "quite plainly, that 'keeping [KC Johnson] on the roster does the rest of [the contributors] a disservice.'" How Ms. Allen would interpret such a statement as Mr. Kaufman advocating the ouster of Prof. Johnson from Cliopatria belies her keen and observant mind evident in her review of UPI. Ms. Allen - though an accomplished author - should immediately apologize to Mr. Kaufman - a graduate student of the clearest of writing abilities - for misrepresenting his observation regarding the disservice to Cliopatria by Prof. Johnson.
*** I apologize for not providing the link to acephalous; I tried to follow One Spook's tutorial to hyperlink, but failed. I am HTML challenged.
TO 8:42PM--
Why highlight something that has already been acknowledged?
Something that is not a key element---as whether or not a name was included somewhere--a name not having to do with the story--a name of someone, like the hundreds, who were covering the story.
Surely everyone who participated by writing about this Hoax did not automatically expect to be in the book.
Surely that was not the impetus behind their efforts.
I'm sure that the fine work of Ms. Barber is known to a great many people and is acknowledged everyday.
This is not the way to go.
Not very sporting.
Has KC disappointed anyone else? Too late to bring the past out tonight.
UPI has already been launched and is skyrocketing through the Wonderland gates.
GIS!
Debrah:
If anyone wishes to understand why I cannot endure all those little dishonest, envious, and sleazy leftist detractors who come here ...
I know how much it bothered you that Allen's editor removed this paragraph:
Critics of Johnson's work have been roundly derided by internet commenting celebrity Debrah. "Yes......" Debrah wrote, "......that someone would dare......criticize KC.......who as........we.......all know, is an imaginative......imaginative......and dedicated.....with that dreamy bowtie.....and perfect teeth.....and my friend, who is a fabulous cook, brought me plastic containers.....now I don't have to cook........LOL!"
Maybe it'll make it into the print edition?
One Spook:
If by "back-peddled" you mean immediately clarified the misunderstanding, then yes, I back-peddled ... only not like a nervous figure skater, but like a bewildered ox, desperate to avoid the inevitable goring at the hands of his betters.
Anon.:
how old is this 'instructor' ...old enough to kiss the likes of chavez and castro? he need to be admitted to the stalin association as a premier member
Not even you know what you mean here. How do you expect us to?
It's no wonder the MSM in the U.S. consists of such a disgraceful bunch of hacks, with nitwits like this Kaufman fellow "teaching" journalism at one of our major universities.
The scariest thing about Kaufman's suggestion is that it smacks of censorship, because he doesn't like the conclusions of UPI.
And it is EXACTLY that propensity among the agenda-driven MSM that nearly cost three innocent young men their freedom.
Again... proof exactly of what KC and Stuart have unveiled "It's NOT about the TRUTH"!
Journalism???? Would somebody please define for me what that is these days?
dsl
TO 9:35 PM--
Don't come around here!
At Mr. Kaufman's site, there is a comment today declaring that Prof. Johnson should be ostracized by his colleagues; specifically, the comment states: "That Weekly Standard article really is quite the symphony of propaganda. I think that people should read it, then consider that this is really what KC Johnson is supporting. Not the students at Duke -- they have been declared innocent, and the prosecutor punished. No, his cause is the support of articles like this one. Having done that, I think that you should understand when I say that KC Johnson really should be ostracized at Cliopatria and in general by his colleagues. Scott didn't call for that ostracism, but it should happen nevertheless."
Clearly, Prof. Johnson should be ostracized as he does not engage in the type of group think required of an academic to be held in esteem by his/her colleagues. His independent thinking and his audacity in criticizing those outside of his field demand that he, along with his scholarship and teaching ability, be ignored by his colleagues. Academia is no place to engage in the free exchange of ideas. Disagreement and debate can not be tolerated! And, all can agree, that standards - such as research, publication, teaching ability etc. - have no place in hiring and tenure decisions.
In all seriousness, but for the evidence from Brooklyn College regarding Prof. Johnson's superior teaching abilities, I would advocate that he abandon the academy and become a full-time journalist* so he could avoid this pack of wolves.
*the New York Times could use a journalist who knows how to ask "who, what, where, when, and how".
I know this is off topic, but I just had an epiphany ... every single one of the lacrosse players were unequivocally and irrevocably devoted to the truth. Not one of them was soft and subject to coercion, even in the face of gestapo-like tactics.
Every single one of the lacrosse players were true gentlemen, beyond reproach and beyond the coercion of a flawed and corrupt investigative process.
K.C.,
After reading the blog calling for your ouster from Cliopatria, here was my response:
I guess that some people are just disappointed that the vaunted Duke Lacrosse Rape Case turned out to be the Duke Lacrosse Non-Rape, Non-Kidnapping, and Non-Sexual Assault Case. And I guess that some people are disappointed that K.C. Johnson took some Really Stupid People apart on his blog.
I think it is humorous (and a bit pathetic) that some people want to take this out on K.C. Oh, the poor, poor, campus hard left. This case meant So Much to them, and it turns out that Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong were lying all along.
As a college professor, I will say that what those members of the Duke faculty and their supporters did was a disgrace, and I am glad that K.C. Johnson took them on. And for that people want him "ostracized" from a history blog? People who supported a lying and corrupt prosecutor and who cared not a whit for due process and every other legal protection that supposedly we have?
I guess that some college profs just cannot let it go. The attitude seems to be, "Dammit, we had these evil rich, white boys in our clutches, and then along comes K.C. Johnson to deprive us of our prey."
Well, little people, I am so, so sorry that your wish didn't come true. You rolled the dice and supported a lie, and all of your protestations just could not turn that lie into the truth. But, then, I doubt that most of you really were interested in the truth, since the story you chose to believe was much more satisfying to you than what really happened. Sorry that you did not get your way, and I am so, so sorry that K.C. is getting the attention and credit he deserves, while you stew in your pathetic little juices.
Posted by: William Anderson | Saturday, 15 September 2007 at 07:32 PM
The bad news today from Amazon.com about availability of "UPI:"
Availability: Usually ships within 3 to 6 weeks. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
***
This is the publishing equivalent of the Titanic-- a blockbuster book that virtually no one can buy because it is not readily available at most bookstores or on-line. KC's publisher is incompetent and negligent (get a good lawyer!).
Scott Eric Kaufman (SEK) has harshly criticized KC Johnson on numerous occasions. However, after reading "Acephalous" off and on for the past few weeks, I know of nothing SEK has written there that would qualify him as a "Group of 88 sympathizer." I'm unaware of anything outside his blog that would entitle him to that moniker, either.
"Acephalous'" regular commenters include a number of astonishingly intolerant and invective-prone individuals who don't hesitate to revile those who would stray from the hive-mind's consensus.
However, as folks here know, bloggers write "posts", not "comments." Neither SEK nor KCJ should be required to embrace the words of their commenters as their own.
And--left, right, or center--civility and reasoned argument towards those with opposing ideas are often more persuasive than name-calling and rancor.
Truly scary that a so-called journalism "Professor" doesn't know how to properly use the ellipse.
Thank you Amac. That is my judgment of SEK as well. I think he's more wrong than right in his negative judgment of the quality of KC's work, but he is emphatically not a G88 sympathizer.
But saying that's not going to matter, because some folks around here are much better at name-calling and rancor than they are at actually looking objectively at criticisms, or critics, of KC.
Let me also add that SEK is "strong" enough to post his work on the Net under his real name with real links to his workplace etc., unlike many of those who call him and others who raise critical questions "cowardly" and "dishonest."
Name-calling while hiding under the cloak of anonymity is the real act of cowardice, dishonesty, and weakness.
Debrah:
There's no retort more withering than someone else singing a song. The game is yours.
Anonymous:
The scariest thing about Kaufman's suggestion is that it smacks of censorship, because he doesn't like the conclusions of UPI.
Shame I didn't suggest that, isn't it?
Mr. Anderson:
Are you talking about me? You seem to be, only your comments have nothing to do with my criticisms of KC.
Needless to say, I'm a little confused.
Amac and Steve:
Appreciate the support. I don't think I'm a tool either. Of course, Debrah has the final say in this ...
Other Anonymous:
Truly scary that a so-called journalism "Professor" doesn't know how to properly use the ellipse.
I'm not a "so-called journalism 'Professor,'" but an "identified 'Instructor' of literary journalism." Of course, that's no longer true, as Allen would've learned had she (or The Weekly Standard checked their facts). But I digress.
I'm curious as to why you think I don't know how to use ellipses. Is it that ... I use them inmoderation and for effect, instead of as a ... regular feature of my prose ... indicating my inability to finish a ... thought? Or is it the space I place before and after the ellipses when I write online? I only ask because I could point you to several very heated discussions about how to transfer the printed word to digital text ... all of which talk about the necessity of creating more space between letters and words online so as to reduce eye strain.
Name-calling while hiding under the cloak of anonymity is the real act of cowardice, dishonesty, and weakness.
And sometimes signing your name to silly attacks on your betters is the mark of a two-digit IQ seat warmer.
BTW...for anyone who doesn't know, Debrah is my real name and the one I always use.
For those people who are familiar with my past freelance columns, you know my full name.
Just for the record.......in case I am included in the silly defense of the attacks on KC.
Don't know if you still need to keep up with this but the B&N at Mall of Georgia (North Atlanta) had no copies of UPI today but offered to order...
H.
Steven Horwitz wrote "But saying that's not going to matter, because some folks around here are much better at name-calling and rancor than they are at actually looking objectively at criticisms, or critics, of KC."
I agree with your statement above in part and disagree with its underpinnings regarding SEK. You are correct; this blog has produced posters who have never disagreed with any of KC's posts and will vilify those who do, reasonably or otherwise. But I think you have overlooked some of SEK's shortcomings. Previously he had raised, I believe, a valid issue regarding the usefulness of Prof. Johnson's review of the scholarship of the G88 professors. In so doing, he made the (most likely) not well-thought out statement that Prof. Johnson's contribution to Cliopatria did the other contributors a "disservice". In other words, he was advocating stifling debate and criticism, i.e., censuring Prof. Johnson. He claimed thereafter that that was not the intent of his statement. Words have meaning and the plain meaning of his commentary re. the disservice of Prof. Johnson commenting on Cliopatria, is that a service to the site would be the elimination of Prof. Johnson's commentary. It has always been enjoyable when a new voice joins this blog with a novel and interesting perspective and willingly bears the brunt of some of the more sharp tongued posters here. I thought SEK was a welcomed addition to the fray. Notwithstanding his seeming desire to engage in a valid discussion, SEK does not appear willing to allow KC to pick the topic. He wants to criticize KC, but he will not have his own words reviewed and criticized.
Another note; I find it interesting that SEK observed that Allen misrepresented him as a G88 sympathizer, thereby "smearing" him, but he can not see that he engaged in a similar smear re. his commentary regarding the disservice that KC does Cliopatria.
Full disclosure - I am one of your "fans" that welcomed you back to the blog; I always enjoy your well reasoned thoughts. Further disclosure, I have posted comments here questioning the validity of Prof. Johnson's group profiles. re. how to balance their action in this case over their careers, etc. and received some of the rebuke that SEK is now facing. And, yes, I am cowardly because I never chose a "handle" and continue to post anonymously. :)
Greatly appreciated, One Spook, it worked.
Anon @7:12
Oh, and it's back-pedaling, aka immediate clarification.
To all re. SEK at 11:23:
Agree with him or not, you gotta admit, SEK is pretty fun to have around . . . "heated discussions about how to transfer the printed word to digital text . . ." Too. Funny.
To SEK: stick around.
I will acknowledge that there is a difference between "KC Johnson should be forcibly removed, ostracized from, or otherwise driven away from Cliopatra" and "it does a disservice to everyone else at Cliopatra to let KC Johnson remain".
I will also opine that it seems to approximate the difference between "Rid me of this turbulent priest!" and "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" When you've already identified a state of affairs and said "how desirable that would be" it seems odd if not bizarre to angrily deny that you ever called for that state of affairs to be brought about.
I find it interesting that SEK observed that Allen misrepresented him as a G88 sympathizer, thereby "smearing" him, but he can not see that he engaged in a similar smear re. his commentary regarding the disservice that KC does Cliopatria.
Thank you.
I think that Acephalous is a strikingly appropriate title for the Blog of Gang of 88 wannabe SEK.
a·ceph·a·lous (ā-sěf'ə-ləs)
adj. Biology Headless or lacking a clearly defined head: acephalous worms. Having no leader.
LOL
ES Duke 1990
I think that Acephalous is a strikingly appropriate title for the Blog of Gang of 88 wannabe SEK.
Even if that wasn't his joke, it'd still be funny.
SEK @ 9:35 PM writes:
"One Spook:
If by "back-peddled" you mean immediately clarified the misunderstanding, then yes, I back-peddled ... only not like a nervous figure skater, but like a bewildered ox, desperate to avoid the inevitable goring at the hands of his betters." [My bold]
Fair enough. So, I returned to your Blog to re-read how you "immediately clarified" your "misunderstanding."
After slogging through your "clarification" which was quite painful --- tantamount to watching a tooth extraction, I councluded this:
Your writing reminds me of a person who sits up late at night using a rusty razor blade in a vain attempt to split a pubic hair in half, lengthwise.
At length, you finally conclude, "What I can say is that I don't think KC should be barred from Cliopatria or otherwise ostracized by the academic community (online or otherwise)."
Thank you. That alone would have sufficed as an immediate clarification.
One Spook
My Dear Horwitz:
SEK is not "more wrong than right". He's an oozing Junior Common Room asshole. He derogates people who disagree with him as anti-intellectual. That's pure smarm.
I've never seen a single example of defect in the quality of Dr Johnson's work. Plenty of disagreement,but no objective examples of defect.
The profiles were discussions of what the profilee did and said. There is NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, wrong in that.
To criticize a commenter's anonymity is to argue ad hominem and is invalid.
No one cares if Saint KC remains on Clipatria or not, because most historians pay little or no attention to it. But, try reading SEK's blogs. He's a very bright young man. You just can't stand that he doesn't kneel to the sainted KC. Gag me with a spoon as they say.
10:55,
Is there something wrong with you or do you really write like this all of the time? Your comments are pretty much off the wall.
SEK,
Do you think you can summarize for us less erudite types why you think KC should not be allowed to post at your website which virtually nobody visits? If its not because he declines to join your "groupthink", then what is it? And if that,s the reason, then why come here to defend yourself? None of us here are terribly "into" your groupthink, either.
One Spook:
Fair enough. So, I returned to your Blog to re-read how you "immediately clarified" your "misunderstanding."
You seem not to understand how links work. What you read linked to my immediate clarifications. KC brought the statement to my attention at 10:20 AM. I clarified at 11:06 AM. "As soon as it was brought to my attention" qualifies as plenty immediate enough.
Your writing reminds me of a person who sits up late at night using a rusty razor blade in a vain attempt to split a pubic hair in half, lengthwise.
Very clever. I especially like the bit about the pubic hair. But if Debrah may make a suggestion, it might read better thus:
Your writing reminds me........of a person who sits up late at night using a rusty razor blade in..............attempt to split a pubic hair in half............lengthwise.
Don't want to miss the chance to emphasize that my writing fails to accomplish its pointless task.
Anon.:
Do you think you can summarize for us less erudite types why you think KC should not be allowed to post at your website which virtually nobody visits?
I take it you don't understand what's going on here. I didn't call for KC not to post on my site: I didn't call for him not to post on Cliopatria. You're confusing your confusion, my friend. It makes no sense that I would call for someone to be removed from the roster of a group-blog to which I don't contribute. That's why I didn't do it. I've admitted that my statement could be interpreted as such, and attempted -- via the clumsy use of a rusty razor -- to clarify what I intended.
I'd explain this in more detail, but your knock on my traffic has me choking back tears, and it seems I just can't cry through them.
It seems that some people are obsessed with the Diva.
Even when she isn't around.
LIS!
SEK at 3:00pm
"It makes no sense"
It makes perfect sense smarmbot. You were trying to piss in Johnson's boots and you got called on it. And now your trying to "clarify" your way out of it.
That won't work with us - we're all too anti-intellectual.
And anyway, we've seen that jive before when the 88ers tried to "clarify" their way out of their crude mob incitement, social disaster, listening statement. Those 88ers tried to claim that we didn't understand, when the real truth was that we undersood all too well.
See?
Clarify that!
Debrah:
What do you mean not around? You're all up in this thread. If only I had some way to prove it ...
Anon.:
Very insightful "DOES TOO!" you have there. I'm not sure how to refute it on its merits, so let me leave it at this: If I were to call for Johnson's ouster, why would I have backed down from it? If it seemed like a good idea Wednesday night, why would it not Thursday morning?
Just as there is no reason for me to make the claim in the first place, there is no incentive for me to retract it once made. In short, had I meant to say "KC should be barred from posting at Cliopatria," I would have 1) said it outright and 2) defended it squarely.
SEK at 4:37pm
"Very insightful "DOES TOO!" you have there"
I know. Plain and simple and dead on.
"If I were to call for Johnson's ouster, why would I have backed down from it"
You did call for it - there's no 'if' about it. You didn't back down. You tried to do a clarification two-step. Didn't work.
"I would have 1) said it outright and 2) defended it squarely."
Said it outright? Defended it squarely? Who are you trying to kid?
TO 4:37 PM--
Relax.
Sometimes it's best just to concede that you did a naughty thing and move on. LOL!
Jump aboard the sexy love train with a few of the more versatile members of Duke's 88.
Thugintellectual is always there to please.......along with the orchid-as-vulva pheromone king of love Michael Hardt.
They will never measure up to the one and only Midnight Rider, but they try.
Check in on them.
:>)
Anon.:
I know. Plain and simple and dead on ... You did call for it -- there's no 'if' about it ...
When my students present answers like this, I explain to them that you'll never convince anyone of anything if you insist that you're correct absent any evidence. I'm saying the same thing to you right now:
Show me how "keeping KC Johnson on the roster does the rest of the contributors a disservice" necessarily means "Kick Johnson off the roster" and not "Johnson's work is not up to par with the rest of Cliopatria." It plainly and simply means that I think Johnson's work does a disservice. You can deduce from that that I think it the overall quality of the blog would be improved were Johnson not on it. But you can't claim that it means what I neither said nor would think of saying: "Kick Johnson off the roster."
I'm in no position to say that -- and as a member of a group blog myself, I know the etiquette involved better than you. (Or so I assume. You may contribute to one too, but how would I know?) In point of fact: I wouldn't openly recommend that someone be removed from the roster of the group blog to which I contribute. Mark Bauerlein will back me up on that.
So prove to me that I meant what I didn't intend and promptly clarified, then maybe you'll convince me that I did what I didn't do. However, I'm sure this request will fall on deaf ears ... or I'll be provided with another iteration of "DID TOO!"
Show me how "keeping KC Johnson on the roster does the rest of the contributors a disservice" necessarily means "Kick Johnson off the roster" and not "Johnson's work is not up to par with the rest of Cliopatria." It plainly and simply means that I think Johnson's work does a disservice.
********************************************
You know, I made a stab at humor....hoping you might be able to take a hint and move on......but you keep making a fool of yourself.
I don't know where or how you grew up, or if you are permanently and hermetically sealed inside some archaic ozone cavity of like-minded Duke 88-ers, but what you posted on that blog and what you have quoted above does NOTHING MORE than advocate for KC's removal.
You can peddle that weak obfuscation on some 3rd tier campus. Perhaps they will not see through the thickness of grey matter that you leave behind like a mucked-up Hansel and Gretel trail.....but please!
Enough of this silly double-talk.
You embarrass yourself.
People of your ilk on those groupthink websites are just waiting for a little know-it-all envious urchin to suggest something for them to do.
G/d knows, most have never actually produced a thing of value in their lives...which is why someone like KC Johnson scares them so much.
aaaggghh, enough already with what SEK meant or did not mean with his comment. Personally, when I first read it, I interpreted his statement as an opinion that the blog would be better without KC Johnson. He's stated that he did not so state; fine. Let's move on.
SEK: I don't know how interested you are in the legal and political aspects of KC's blog, but it really is the meat of DIW. Stick around and comment about those posts; I, for one, will enjoy your insights.
Read them and weep!......weep a tsunami of KC-inspired-jealousy-weepy-tears!
LOL!!!
New York Times Book Review
Wall Street Journal
Economist
Chicago Tribune (Clarence Page, op-ed)
Newsweek
Weekly Standard
Newsday
Greensboro News-Record
Duke Chronicle
Such Diva madness!
SEK at 6:51pm:
First of all it's not "DID TOO". The correct form is DID TOO! DID TOO! DID TOO! Anyway, that's not what I've been doing. Ask anybody.
If what you meant to say was "Johnson's work is not up to par with the rest of Cliopatria" why didn't you say that? Instead, you said
"keeping KC Johnson on the roster does the rest of the contributors a disservice". Why do you keep offering different versions of what you said? You are actually paraphrasing yourself!
You know, I made a stab at humor.........but........
Debrah, there's no "buts" about it: you killed it dead.
Now, if you'll please quit mutilating its corpse, maybe it can have an open casket.
Anon.:
Thanks. I've commented on a few other threads, but was immediately attacked by................sycophants and fawners. Need more folks like you and AMac around here, and fewer of......somebody else.
TO 9:00 PM--
LOL!!!
¡ Mas que nada !
Out of curosity, I just went over to peruse that other site to see what was being discussed.
Here is yet another example of KC's brilliance as he patiently answers rude questions and then tries to explain history to these confused people.
Such brilliance!
"In the contemporary environment, on the other hand, defenders of the academic status quo vehemently resist any "outside" intrusion from political forces--and are wholly antagonistic to outside academic reform movements.
The idea that departments dominated by social and cultural historians will be receptive to other pedagogical approaches as 1960s or 1970s departments were receptive strikes me as ignoring the broader political and ideological climate in which the academy operates."
Post a Comment