tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post49047073701714662..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Fact-Checking Brodheadkcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger225125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-16609997682199450562007-08-23T18:02:00.000-04:002007-08-23T18:02:00.000-04:00To Ralph--Again, you miss the way I use the word. ...To Ralph--<BR/><BR/>Again, you miss the way I use the word. Some people do use it to mean something close to "mensch". However, my use of it goes a bit beyond that.<BR/><BR/>I'm an expressive person. When I talk about someone, I don't just say..."Oh, he's a really nice fellow."<BR/><BR/>My senses are to the boiling point as to why so many men have taken issue with this simple little word. LOL!!!<BR/><BR/>You get points, however, for being cute.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47290272094141162172007-08-23T11:21:00.000-04:002007-08-23T11:21:00.000-04:00Debrah 10:03 -I can't really picture KC laughing i...Debrah 10:03 -<BR/><BR/>I can't really picture KC laughing in the purple rain.<BR/><BR/>I'd use the term "mensch" myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5548868146054998922007-08-23T10:32:00.000-04:002007-08-23T10:32:00.000-04:00Brodhead has not been forced to resign because he ...Brodhead has not been forced to resign because he is the man for the job. He is docile, toothless, and can be bullied by the diversity racists.<BR/><BR/>And as for ankle biting Debrah, dang, I would, but she is always wearing those really nice boots!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15276286065184671293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-13460179579123428342007-08-23T10:03:00.000-04:002007-08-23T10:03:00.000-04:00TO Trinity '74 (9:52PM)--I certainly have to take ...TO Trinity '74 (9:52PM)--<BR/><BR/>I certainly have to take exception to your remark.<BR/><BR/>As you are an expressively <I>dry</I> commenter, I am not.<BR/><BR/>I would also urge everyone "on this blog" to do some reading and you might be enlightened by the everyday usage of the word "prince".<BR/><BR/>I will not allow you or anyone else to try to minimize my valid point because you might not be familiar with the usage of a single word.<BR/><BR/>There is no worship of anyone, yet curiously, I see no women taking exception to my sentiments.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19744914613259167852007-08-23T09:30:00.000-04:002007-08-23T09:30:00.000-04:00One Spook @ 12:18Just for the record, at that poin...One Spook @ 12:18<BR/><BR/>Just for the record, at that point I was doing a backstroke in Glenlivet using a Waterford swimming hole. Thank God for Speyside.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and thank you for your comments as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47100805325837643002007-08-23T08:26:00.000-04:002007-08-23T08:26:00.000-04:00Visiting the Wayback Machine for a moment, here is...Visiting the Wayback Machine for a moment, here is the future Vanderbilt University Distinguished University Professor <A HREF="http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lange_baker.html" REL="nofollow">commenting</A> on the Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame on March 29, 2006 (representative excerpt):<BR/><BR/><I>It is very difficult to feel confidence in an administration that has not addressed in meaningful ways the horrors that have occurred to actual bodies, to the Durham community of which we are an integral part, and to our sense of being members of a proactive and caring community. Rather, gag orders and trembling liberal rhetorical spins seem to be behaviors du jour from our leaders.<BR/><BR/>There can be no confidence in an administration that believes suspending a lacrosse season and removing pictures of Duke lacrosse players from a web page is a dutifully moral response to abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us.<BR/><BR/>How many mandates concerning safe, responsible campus citizenship must be transgressed by white athletes' violent racism before our university's offices of administration, athletics, security, and publicity courageously declare: enough!</I><BR/><BR/>Duke Provost Peter Lange's milquetoast response on 4/5/06 did include the following:<BR/><BR/><I>I cannot tell you how disappointed, saddened and appalled I was to receive this letter from you. A form of prejudice - one felt so often by minorities whether they be African American, Jewish or other - is the act of prejudgment: to presume that one knows something "must" have been done by or done to someone because of his or her race, religion or other characteristic. In the United States our sad racial history is laced with such incidents, only fully brought to light in the recent past and undoubtedly there are uncounted numbers of such incidents not yet, or ever to be, known.</I><BR/><BR/>"Farm Animals" Baker is thus <I>distinguished</I> by being the sole faculty recipient of even the mildest of public rebukes from the Duke Administration (may the disgrace of that web page dog him into retirement).<BR/><BR/>Steven Horwitz has explained both his own views on academic freedom and the political realities of faculty privilege vis-a-vis Deans and Presidents. There's a lot of merit there. But the unflinching failure analysis of Ralph Phelan 8/23/07 12:27am also contains a great deal of insight.<BR/><BR/>It's worth noting that the Listening Statement would be the high-water mark for probity and restraint if it appeared on the c.v. of Colorado University Professor Ward Churchill. Despite documentation of a pattern of disgraceful, dishonest, and fraudulent conduct that has spanned his entire career, the University is having a most difficult time in dismissing him for cause. The faculty committee that reviewed and substantiated the gravest charges against Churchill <I>still</I> could not bring itself to recommend that he be fired. To them, the clown professor's misconduct was overshadowed by the threat to "academic freedom" that arises when Yahoos take note of wrongdoing that should properly be considered exclusively by those who have been credentialed by the Academy. Hard to believe that C.U. faculty investigators should offer such one-sided support to Ralph Phelan's premise--but <A HREF="http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/churchillreport051606.html" REL="nofollow">their May 2006 report</A> is online.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47473948001651500532007-08-23T01:02:00.000-04:002007-08-23T01:02:00.000-04:00I apologize for the rant-like quality of my last p...I apologize for the rant-like quality of my last posting but I did not have time to really explain my point.<BR/> I have been reading about the case of the murder conviction in Niccarauga of American Eric Volz. What I am finding to be fascinating are the very similar reactions from the local "mob" in Nic. as in Durham. It is as they are all reading from the same script.<BR/> There are some very real differences between the two cases; in Nic. there was an actual murder victim and Volz, by many accounts, is not easy to like.<BR/> But he has a lot of excellent evidence that he was in a different city all of the day the crime was committed. The street mob has not cared about "facts" this has been howling for his blood.<BR/> Considering that murder is common down there, why should this case arouse such passion? For starters, he is a good looking, rich, 20 something American and the victim was an hispanic ex-girl friend who apparently was the best looking young woman in the vicinity. IOWs, there was with the crime an intersection of class, gender, and race. But that is not the key, imho, to understanding the furor. Those elements are commonplace but media storms and angry mobs like this generally are not.<BR/> Basically, Volz became a lighting rod because he symbolized the rich Yankee coming down South to make lots of money and get the best local women (and then dump them), right in front of the much poorer locals.<BR/> This is off topic but if you read about this on your own you should be struck by the amazing similarities between the two cases in regard to the way local officials fanned anger and were then trapped by it and the seeming irrationality of so many of the commenters.<BR/> The list of causes for such anger is quite short, imho, and sexual jealosy/competition should never be discounted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-63666679069887615332007-08-23T00:20:00.000-04:002007-08-23T00:20:00.000-04:00"At the very least, by your own admission, since t..."<I>At the very least, by your own admission, since they were not acting/speaking under the protective cloak of "academic freedom", perhaps a public censure from Brodhead and the BOT would be appropriate?</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem something like that but it would be very hard for a college president to pull off in a way that didn't make his life miserable with faculty."<BR/><BR/>Which is one of the reasons I hold that ome aspects of academic self-governance are failing, and outside (e.g. legislative) intervention is required. Such intervention is justified to the extent universities are subsidized or favored by law. Which is a lot, in myriad ways both indirect and direct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81631876232867836602007-08-23T00:18:00.000-04:002007-08-23T00:18:00.000-04:00inman @ 9:59, not yet deeply into the Single Malt,...inman @ 9:59, not yet deeply into the Single Malt, writes:<BR/><BR/><I>Scholars who espouse a view anethemic to United States policy and long-term interests are, in fact, seditious. Miriam Cooke ( and potentially her husband) are, in my judgment, among that class.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to change the policy, and surrender to Osama Bin Laden, so be it. But until that decision is made, thoase who aide and abet the enemy, even under the cloak of academic freedom are, in my most humble opinion, guilty of sedition if not treason.</I><BR/><BR/>That was an outstanding post! BRAVO inman!<BR/><BR/>As I've followed this event, I've many times thought that the "teaching" of Cooke, Lubiano, Deutsch, Bonilla-Silva, Sigal, et al are really wasted on the white children of privilege whom we are told occupy the "Plantation" that is Duke.<BR/><BR/>Lord knows we in America have more than enough of these academic poseurs peddling their predictable pap at universities nationwide.<BR/><BR/>No ... these 88 professors at Duke need to teach in the Arab world where their novel ideas and obsession with race, class and gender will have far greater impact on a society that is firmly ensconced in the 7th century.<BR/><BR/>Their very revolutionary ideas on race, the equality of women, anti-religion, anti-male, anti-privilege, salted with their curious views on sexuality in the very modest Arab society will bring them a great deal of the notoriety they seek.<BR/><BR/>Very soon, the Arab men will cut out these professors' bowels and feed them to them. Perhaps in their last dying moments they will appreciate the very novel, yet imperfect, experiment that is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.<BR/><BR/>One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2760946008795257672007-08-23T00:08:00.000-04:002007-08-23T00:08:00.000-04:00"Not too many readers of this blog understand the ..."Not too many readers of this blog understand the point KC and Horwitz make over and over again, namely that "Duke" doesn't hire faculty, departments do through the dean."<BR/><BR/>I understand.<BR/><BR/>I just don't care.<BR/><BR/>Some faculty do something stupid and evil that is harmful to their students and to the institution that employs them. Most suffer no career harm, many are rewarded.<BR/><BR/>On closer examination we discover entire departments that appear to be political activist cults, and others that spew reams of meaningless obfuscation of a sort that should have disappeared the day after Sokal revealed his hoax. We discover large numbers of faculty for whom the usual hiring standards have been ignored because they have the "right" skin color and genetalia and/or because they espoused the "right" radical politics. We see that some of these same people have a history of harrassing students based on their race, sex, political beliefs or hobbies, some of these same people have a pattern of disrupting or stifling the speech of those they disagree with, nd some of these people presumed to sign their entire departments to controversial statements without asking their colleagues permission, yet somehow none of this is ever held against them.<BR/><BR/>There seems to be a "privileged" subset of academia to whom the usual rules, checks and balances don't apply. <BR/><BR/>This is a major systemic problem. There is no evidence of attempts to fix it from within, but ample evidence it's continuing to get worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65221128830935683162007-08-22T23:52:00.000-04:002007-08-22T23:52:00.000-04:00Debrah 9:42 said... ...Here's what the is......is:...Debrah 9:42 said... <BR/><BR/>...Here's what the is......is:<BR/><BR/>..Most members of the academy will predictably bring forth the view that what the Gang of 88 did was a minute deviation from otherwise stellar work...or at least work that fills in enough blanks required by the quota police.<BR/><BR/>...But there is a whole other world out here full of very accomplished and multi-faceted people and who make the wheels turn in this country.....and when they become sufficiently concerned, repulsed, and pi$$ed off by the kinds of scholars KC has illuminated here....<BR/><BR/>.....the veils of academic freedom without responsibility which drape their existence will begin to be peeled away.<BR/>::<BR/>Excellent and I would like to suggest an addition. <BR/><BR/>In the final analysis people will remember Coach Kerstin Kimel and the members of the Duke Women's lacrosse team who knew the truth and told the truth while wearing the Duke lacrosse wrist bands for everyone in the academy to see.<BR/><BR/>The BOT, their President and the G88 can not and will not deconstruct that history.<BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-40203308120468486512007-08-22T23:49:00.000-04:002007-08-22T23:49:00.000-04:00Steve: Anon 926 here. I agree with your last post ...Steve: Anon 926 here. I agree with your last post with a caveat. If a university president ever had the ammo to slap the wrists of faculty members for misconduct, this is it. Contrary to many commenters who have drawn a parallel to Larry Summers, this is not a Summers situation. Whether one is inclined to defend Summers or not, his gender remarks were proactive, not reactive. In that sense, he shot himself in the foot. Brodhead, on the other hand (foot?), has perhaps more wiggle room than any university president ever has to send the very message that you well-articulated in the second paragraph of your last post. It is now a question of courage and integrity for Brodhead. His silence is revealing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2346719368479354672007-08-22T23:33:00.000-04:002007-08-22T23:33:00.000-04:00Anon 926 asks at 1100:At the very least, by your o...Anon 926 asks at 1100:<BR/><BR/><I>At the very least, by your own admission, since they were not acting/speaking under the protective cloak of "academic freedom", perhaps a public censure from Brodhead and the BOT would be appropriate?</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem something like that but it would be very hard for a college president to pull off in a way that didn't make his life miserable with faculty.<BR/><BR/>What I would love to see Brodhead do (or to have done) is to say publicly that the faculty involved in the listening statement rushed to judgment and acted in a way that was unfair to the accused students, as well as the lacrosse team in general, and such a rush to judgment is not consistent with the ideals of fairness and respect for due process and the presumption of innocence that should characterize the relationship between Duke faculty and their students as indicated in the Handbook. <BR/><BR/>That is the sort of thing that a college president ought to be able to do, but is often very difficult (and the BOT would never touch this, nor should they, frankly).<BR/><BR/>To even publicly say that the G88 was wrong in what they did and that it ran counter to how he sees how Duke faculty should treat students would (I think still) go a long way to healing some of the damage and to sending a message to faculty, both the G88 and those who have been disgusted by them but silent.<BR/><BR/>The trick is doing it in a way that forecloses any claims that he is threatening their academic freedom or somehow threatening their jobs. <BR/><BR/>Public censure is a good thing, and so is the sunshine that KC has thrown on their CVs and courses.Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-44685695098214675382007-08-22T23:11:00.000-04:002007-08-22T23:11:00.000-04:00In the case of the G88 and others of their ilk I d...In the case of the G88 and others of their ilk I doubt a review of the quality of their work, whether internal or external, is the basis of their employment. Rather it often seems to be based on a review of their pigmentation and genitalia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19937975609957283132007-08-22T23:03:00.000-04:002007-08-22T23:03:00.000-04:00Yes, Gregory dah-ling...the trolls were animated t...Yes, Gregory dah-ling...the trolls were animated today.<BR/><BR/>LOL!!!Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-91121470088577315892007-08-22T23:00:00.000-04:002007-08-22T23:00:00.000-04:00Steve: This is anon 926 (nice number!). You say th...Steve: This is anon 926 (nice number!). You say that there are very few exceptions to words/conduct that fall outside the protection of "academic freedom", yet concede that the LS is such an exception. Your defense of the 88 in this regard is that they should get a "mulligan" for a first time offense. Are there any first time offenses that would warrant dismissal or severe disciplinary action under your construction of "academic freedom"? At the Nifong bar trial, Lane Williamson spoke eloquently to this dilemma. What misconduct by a lawyer would justify the sanction of disbarrment in a first offense case? Williamson said that the mitigating factor of a clean prior record had to be weighed against the gravity of the offense, and the harm to the public and the justice system. The panel concluded that Nifong's misconduct was so harmful that disbarrment was warranted. The panel was correct. The conduct of the 88 was likewise so severe that the "mulligan" defense seems weak to me. Their breach (reaffirmed in subsequent statements/conduct) of their ethical, educational and moral duty to their students and the academy is, in my humble opinion, no less harmful than Nifong's misconduct. Indeed, Duke paid dearly (literally and figuratively) for their misconduct. Should they be fired? A good question that deserves some critical thought. At the very least, by your own admission, since they were not acting/speaking under the protective cloak of "academic freedom", perhaps a public censure from Brodhead and the BOT would be appropriate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6495228266706652472007-08-22T22:58:00.000-04:002007-08-22T22:58:00.000-04:00Wouldn't it be naive to believe that this blog, al...Wouldn't it be naive to believe that this blog, along with the threat of lawsuits and the expressed calumny of other commentators have squelched the Gang of 88's speech at least on this particular issue? Remember, these folks are professional protestors. <BR/><BR/>1. If that has been accomplished, that is good. <BR/><BR/>2. If the Gang of 88 (and others like them) think twice before judgment rushing, that is better. <BR/><BR/>3. If national attention is drawn to the link between careless scholarship and professional protesting, that is even better. <BR/><BR/>4. If some (or all) of these twits are terminated or at least face some form of unfavorable personnel action, that is best. <BR/><BR/>There is no doubt in my mind that 1-3 have occurred (are occurring).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64791479868199865542007-08-22T22:40:00.000-04:002007-08-22T22:40:00.000-04:00gregory @ 10:24You forgot to close ---- "MOO! Greg...gregory @ 10:24<BR/><BR/>You forgot to close ---- "MOO! Gregory"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-82924654399163104792007-08-22T22:24:00.000-04:002007-08-22T22:24:00.000-04:00I have pursued this case as an after-hours hobby. ...I have pursued this case as an after-hours hobby. On October 5, 2006, I posted a list of evidence of a Hoax. Brodhead gave his speech on November 18, 2006. Do you think his in-house Duke counsel and the Duke attorneys on retainer did not know this (and more) at the time:<BR/><BR/>1. Reade's airtight alibi<BR/>2. No DNA match anywhere<BR/>3. 40+ witnesses to no rape<BR/>4. Mangum w/history of false claims<BR/>5. Mangum's motive to lie (avoid drunk tank)<BR/>6. Mangum's motive to continue to lie ($)<BR/>7. Mangum's ever-changing story<BR/><BR/>a. Rape by 5 rapists<BR/>b. Rape by 0 rapists<BR/>c. Rape by 3 rapists<BR/>d. Rape by 4 rapists<BR/>e. 30 minute rape<BR/>f. 5-10 minute rape<BR/>g. etc....<BR/><BR/>8. Mustache identification<BR/>9. 100% id of someone not at party<BR/>10. Mangum's use of drugs & alcohol<BR/>11. Early lineup mistakes by Mangum<BR/>12. "Crock"<BR/>13. Time-stamped photos<BR/>14. Id of short, chubby guys<BR/>15. Mangum had impeachable conviction record<BR/>16. Tiny bathroom<BR/>17. Id on 4/4/06 of 4 rapists<BR/>18. "Brett," "Matt" & "Adam"<BR/>19. Sex w/boyfriend & vibrator explains swelling<BR/>20. No DNA match under fingernails<BR/>21. Boys left her stuff in house for 2 days<BR/>22. Boys have no admissible convictions<BR/>23. No confessions<BR/>24. Mangum had psych treatments<BR/><BR/>Brodhead is an effectual leader if your definition of that term includes "of or pertaining to a person who exhibits that minimal authority generally associated with weak-kneed pussies." <BR/><BR/>I am not going to believe the Gang of 88 were so unintelligent that they did not know the ramifications of their actions. They joined in a lynching of their own students. They don't belong on any campus. <BR/>___________<BR/><BR/>One Spook @ 1:16 pm: Well done!<BR/>___________<BR/><BR/>Debrah, you have apparently riled up the trolls! Isn't that mac or Inman's job? Your anonymous heckler at 1:37 pm stated: "I don't figure I'm less intelligent [sic] you or even K.C." I figure so. <BR/>___________<BR/><BR/>"K.C. Johnson is from the frozen streets of New York and is the blue collar son of a Stoker.* Nasty and fierce, he likes to spit." (unfinished biography) (* a "Stoker" is one who stokes).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-7217798362214925382007-08-22T22:19:00.000-04:002007-08-22T22:19:00.000-04:00Yet Another Anon (926) asks:Re your 8:48 post, how...Yet Another Anon (926) asks:<BR/><BR/><I>Re your 8:48 post, how, exactly do you define "academic freedom" (emphasis on academic)? What was "academic" (in the AAUP sense) about the comments/conduct of the 88? Are there limits to academic freedom?</I><BR/><BR/>In the context of that comment, all I meant was that one should not be able to dismiss a faculty member for having political or other intellectual opinions that are odious or that one doesn't like. The conversation was about miriam cooke, whose substantive views I find obnoxious. My point was simply that she does, and should, have the right to her views and that any argument to terminate the employment of a faculty member needs to be about something other than the content of their views.<BR/><BR/>Academic freedom, in that sense, is the right to pursue the truth as people see it, subject to the generally accepted canons of scholarship (hence, Ward Churchill's plagiarism isn't covered), and to not have one's job depend on one's substantive views unless the institutional conditions of employment explicitly state otherwise (e.g. a religious school requiring faculty to not teach subject matter that contravenes doctrine).<BR/><BR/>Academic freedom covers the G88's views on race/gender/class and covers their right to teach courses on those subjects in a manner that they deem appropriate.<BR/><BR/>The second part of the sentence at 848 that mentioned academic freedom was referring to things like the Listening Statement, which I do not believe is covered by academic freedom and probably did violate the Faculty Handbook. My point there was that you can't, and shouldn't, fire people for a violation of that sort unless it's part of a continuing, egregious, and documented pattern of violating the Handbook.<BR/><BR/>I should have made the distinction between those two points clearer. <BR/><BR/>I don't think the LS is covered by "academic freedom," whether it violates Duke's in-house Faculty Handbook, which faculty have consented to abide by, is a separate question.<BR/><BR/><I>Are there limits to academic freedom?</I><BR/><BR/>A terrific question. Should a faculty member who believes the Nazis were right be allowed to teach that in a classroom? A biologist who believes in Biblical Creationism? A Middle-east specialist who wants to defend 9/11 (or Ward Churchill's comments)?<BR/><BR/>To be honest, I think you have to look at the particulars of such cases, but I do think there is a very small, very small, number of things that are beyond the protection of academic freedom. The problem is that everyone's list will be different and the dangers of erring on the side of protecting too few challenging ideas makes me inclined to protect as many as possible. Thus I tend to favor giving faculty the maximum of freedom possible.Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-545637805195507462007-08-22T22:08:00.000-04:002007-08-22T22:08:00.000-04:00Steven Horwitz...the duty of the message is with t...Steven Horwitz...the duty of the message is with the sender.<BR/><BR/>If the receiver cannot understand the message or misunderstands the meaning then the sender has failed.<BR/><BR/>It is really a simple concept for any communique.<BR/><BR/>Conservative or liberal, the message becomes pap if the intended audience cannot understand the message.<BR/><BR/>The fact that English professors required a clarifying statement is one of the things that I will laugh about twenty years from now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-63890429368628948932007-08-22T22:04:00.000-04:002007-08-22T22:04:00.000-04:00Gnats on an elephant Debrah. Your delusions of th...Gnats on an elephant Debrah. Your delusions of the influence of this blog are charming and entertaining in their naivete but delusional nonetheless. And if I were KC, I'd be mortified by the hero-worship that goes on around here.<BR/><BR/>Even KC admits that the practical effect of his book will be little to none when it comes to faculty like the G88.<BR/><BR/>The academy is my home too Debrah, and I've been in that house a few years longer than KC has but I don't get the props from you that KC does for my brilliant insights about the culture of academia. Why is that? Maybe because I don't play to your prejudices and priors?Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27560897073695038422007-08-22T21:59:00.000-04:002007-08-22T21:59:00.000-04:00Dear Steven Horwitz:Please note the colon for this...Dear Steven Horwitz:<BR/><BR/>Please note the colon for this is a most formal response.<BR/><BR/>You defend the notion of academic freedom and I salute your efforts in that regard. But however well intended your comments are, there is a limit to my agreement.<BR/><BR/>I respectfully submit that Miriam Cooke's views border on sedition. The United States is at War and that war is not about Iraq or about Afganistan or Iran or North Korea. It is about fundemental belief. Just like Vietnam, the foe has a multi-century time frame for achieving goals. The American people, in contrast, have a McDonald's carry out view of war. They want a quick fix and fade so quickly, just like those sunshine patriots of Thomas Paine's observation. Another patriot, Patrick Henry, properly espoused the notion that the American experiment would end as a result of the involvement and opinions of the uninformed masses. The modern American people and their related opinion polls think that "long-term" relates to the equivalent of their decision on lunch tomorrrow. They have no concept of the long-term policy implications of decisions made today, decisions about a foe whose time frame spans decades if not centuries.<BR/><BR/>Scholars who espouse a view anethemic to United States policy and long-term interests are, in fact, seditious. Miriam Cooke ( and potentially her husband) are, in my judgment, among that class.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to change the policy, and surrender to Osama Bin Laden, so be it. But until that decision is made, thoase who aide and abet the enemy, even under the cloak of academic freedom are, in my most humble opinion, guilty of sedition if not treason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-1954735114007450342007-08-22T21:56:00.000-04:002007-08-22T21:56:00.000-04:007:51Could you be any other than the infamous Wah-W...7:51<BR/><BR/>Could you be any other than the infamous Wah-Wah Lube-me-in-ho?????<BR/><BR/>You just have all the markings!<BR/><BR/>You have gotten rather vicious in your attacks on Debrah. Wht has caused you to become so vile? Take a chill pill and grow up a little. You even popped ole AF. Debrah's too good for you to go mess with. Take it easy. Since you have obviously found a set on 'nads, learn to use them in a positive way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-61764460727144774912007-08-22T21:52:00.000-04:002007-08-22T21:52:00.000-04:00KC Johnson is a "prince"?Debrah, your posts are fa...KC Johnson is a "prince"?<BR/><BR/>Debrah, your posts are fast becoming an embarrassment to the blog. Are you sure the professor isn't Yahweh? Santa Claus? Beowulf?<BR/><BR/>Trinity '74Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com