tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post8346744108951900402..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Suggested Panels for the Stone Centerkcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64582843524381517572009-04-27T15:05:00.000-04:002009-04-27T15:05:00.000-04:00To Joan:
My best wishes to you.
I'm sure there w...To Joan:<br /><br />My best wishes to you.<br /><br />I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct <I>on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case</I> and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.<br /><br />Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-67228621607746759512009-04-27T14:56:00.000-04:002009-04-27T14:56:00.000-04:00Thanks Ken, I now have to send ambassadors to the ...Thanks Ken, I now have to send ambassadors to the Court of St KC. I have not ever been a frequent poster there but I suppose I must now remain in seclusion here on LS...denied entry to Wonderland ever again...(though Mr. Reharmonizer was sporting enough to post every one of my replies to him...and I had not preceded those posts with lavish praise about HIM all over the internet.)<br /><br />So, thinking ahead... I could pop in THERE for the occasional change of scenery.<br /><br />It's my own fault. Like Miss California, I just did not understand what PC non-compliance might mean to me.or my stubborn refusal to yield. I assumed that KC's posts meant that his position on politicaly correct bullying extended beyond race , gender and privilege. Were there footnotes? I should have read the footnotes!<br /><br />Never to enter Wonderland again<br /><br />KC has been the absolute champion at exposing the hypocrisy of the PC angle in this case. He has chided the 88 for not coming to his Blog and engaging him openly. He has railed against the closed mindset of academia, the bullying tactics of grade retaliation, the tactics of cheap shots, agenda-babble, and snide retorts replacing meaningful exchange.<br /><br />Then suddenly... he's inserting an online put-down of the agenda-trapped Miss California quicker than Lubiano got out "something out on the Lacrosse case" and he starts shutting down comments like Melanie Sill on her "The Blog Has MOVED on" thread!<br /><br /><br />We all know that KC is a master at internet oppositional "engagement". My hands trembled a bit as I hit "send" on my replies last night.<br /><br />I thought he might run me into the ground with a devastating rebuttal. Well, I remain open to be educated.<br /><br />I thought he might stagger me with links and statistics. I was prepared to yield where necessary.<br /><br />I was NOT prepared to have him call me out by name and refuse to print my meager rebuttal! Holy New York Times! No, I never imagined that.<br /><br />I expected from him...what he has expected from others. Polite, reasoned open exchange of ideas. I was brought up with that old school debate tactic of actually LISTENING to well-argued opposing points. So I was interested in his point on point reply. I was listening.<br /><br />KC wrote..."The academy is supposed to involve the life of the mind. Academic freedom envisions an atmosphere in which professors first express their ideas and then modify their viewpoints based on informed criticism. To James, however, it appears that professors should simply have the right to make any statement—however outrageous—and then never have to defend its content."<br /><br />http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/group-of-88s-three-d-response.html<br /><br />Maybe my replies were not worthy enough to be "informed criticism." well, that's for others to judge. I'm not ashamed to post them here.<br /><br />Always before, he has posted almost every comment, hasn't he?<br /><br />I mean...it is just ME, just this one time...isn't it?<br /><br />Anyway, thanks Ken in Dallas...and thanks to the mods. You posted the new smiley just in time.<br /><br />:ban: :ban: :ban: :ban: :ban:Joannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41619079100262373852009-04-27T12:43:00.000-04:002009-04-27T12:43:00.000-04:00Gregory:
"in terms of poise, syntax, logic and ma...Gregory:<br /><br />"in terms of poise, syntax, logic and made-up concepts -- had more to do with her runner-up finish. But, I don't know all the facts."<br /><br />I think Joan would probably agree with you under most circumstances. However, Perez Hilton's subsequent comments made it clear it was the message, not the syntax, that cost Miss California the crown.<br /><br />Ken<br />DallasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-56609206475737839582009-04-26T19:45:00.000-04:002009-04-26T19:45:00.000-04:00To Joan:
I have not defended Perez Hilton's actio...To Joan:<br /><br />I have not defended Perez Hilton's actions -- especially his post-beauty pageant comments -- only his right to be a judge who doesn't have his questions pre-censored by anyone. <br /><br />On another note, I don't assume that Miss California lost because of her opinion. Hilton was only one of a number of judges. If I had to guess, I would say the fact that her response was the second worst beauty pageant answer of all time -- in terms of poise, syntax, logic and made-up concepts -- had more to do with her runner-up finish. But, I don't know all the facts. <br /><br />Like I wrote earlier, she should have lost just for saying "I think I believe ...." On top of that there was the "opposite marriage" silliness, the "country" instead of family, the "Well ..." which started the answer, and at least one "ummmmm." Instead of admitting that the contestant mangled the English language, you think "she deserved extra credit for poise under extreme pressure."<br /><br />Judging beauty pageant contestants based on their politics and not the substance of their "work product" is exactly what I don't want to see. MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-54766799482374604532009-04-26T19:38:00.000-04:002009-04-26T19:38:00.000-04:00To KC:
(First, in reply to an earlier comment of ...To KC:<br /><br />(First, in reply to an earlier comment of yours: I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone here would defend the censorship of questions in any such forum, as was the point of your hypothetical.)<br /><br />But, at 2:33PM, you write:<br /><br />"Ms. California's opinion on the question is now in the substantial minority among her age group--whites under 30 support gay marriage more strongly than any other demographic group."<br /><br />I would assume that's correct.<br /><br />But, her opinion represents that of the majority of her state; the majority of the American public (where a majority also support civil unions for gays); and indeed the stated opinions of the President and Vice President of the United States.<br /><br />That seems appropriate for a person who would represent the USA (as opposed to say, "Miss Under-30 America"), and yet she is vilified by many, including her manager (a former Playboy Playmate), and she lost the title because of her opinion due to an overt and unfair influence of fringe views. <br /><br />Where have we heard that before?<br /><br />And, unless I misread your comment, you seem to presume that because of her stated opinion, that she would "use her crown to rally support for" traditional marriage.<br /><br />Somehow, I don' think that Obama and Biden, who share Miss California's opinion, are going to use their offices to rally support for traditional marriage.<br /><br />I wonder why all of the "liberals" among us are comfortable with a president and vice president who hold that opinion, but yet they fear and shame a Miss America who holds the same opinion?<br /><br />That doesn't strike me as very liberal.<br /><br />And, I continue to believe it was a poor example. A better example would be as follows:<br /><br />“The Stone Center is delighted to announce an address by Vice President Joe Biden, who will speak on ethical scholarship and public speaking in the United States. To ensure that the event will not be a negative experience for Mr. Biden, questions will be submitted beforehand to organizers to prevent questions related to Joe Biden's apparent belief that plagiarizing others' works in writings and public speeches is allowed."<br /><br />One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65215372778210488902009-04-26T19:32:00.000-04:002009-04-26T19:32:00.000-04:00To the 4.13:
I should note that I have indicated ...To the 4.13:<br /><br />I should note that I have indicated my public support for gay marriage (as well as abortion rights) since the start of the blog.<br /><br />To the 6.19:<br /><br />Yes, Joan, you're absolutely correct. To perform my penance, I'm going to start up a blog as soon as the civil case is over exposing the pernicious efforts of beauty contests suppressing anti-gay opinions. (After all, seven times as many states ban gay marriage in their state constitutions as allow gay marriage, while the federal government refuses to recognize the same-sex marriages in the four states that allow it. So we obviously live in a society where anti-gay marriage folks have no influence at all.)<br /><br />And to confirm my "seriousness" to you, I now fully recognize your perceptive point that there's absolutely no difference between a professor abusing her classroom authority by exploiting false charges against her students and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for expressing her hostility to same-sex marriage. I can't imagine how I didn't see the connection earlier.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, I were a cynical person (which of course I am not) I would say that anyone who even begins to equate the sort of misconduct we have seen from the Duke faculty over the past three years with a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for expressing her hostility to anti-gay marriage trivializes to a disturbing degree the sort of misconduct we have seen from the Duke faculty in the last three years.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-43874942295353222132009-04-26T19:10:00.000-04:002009-04-26T19:10:00.000-04:00To the 4.13:
I should note that I have indicated ...To the 4.13:<br /><br />I should note that I have indicated my public support for gay marriage (as well as abortion rights) since the start of the blog.<br /><br />To the 6.19:<br /><br />Yes, Joan, you're absolutely correct. To perform my penance, I'm going to start up a blog as soon as the civil case is over exposing the pernicious efforts of beauty contests suppressing anti-gay opinions. (After all, seven times as many states ban gay marriage in their state constitutions as allow gay marriage, so we obviously live in a society where anti-gay marriage folks have no influence at all.)<br /><br />And to confirm my "seriousness" to you, I now fully recognize your perceptive point that there's absolutely no difference between a professor abusing her classroom authority by exploiting false charges against her students and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for expressing her hostility to same-sex marriage. I can't imagine how I ever didn't see this connection from the start.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-83241753856582560512009-04-26T18:19:00.000-04:002009-04-26T18:19:00.000-04:00KC, every member of the 88 thinks that they were p...KC, every member of the 88 thinks that they were pursuing "social justice" in persecuting the Lacrosse team. They claim they were just “listening." No one articulated their hypocrisy better than you. One's opinion on gay marriage is really not the issue here, just as… compassion for one’s minority students… did not constitute the premise for outrage over The Listening Statement.<br /><br />Someone more articulate than I stated the case this way…<br /><br />"In contemporary society, partisans on both sides of issues such as abortion, the Middle East, affirmative action, welfare reform, prayer in public schools, and gay marriage maintain that their own position serves the cause of “social justice.” But who decides just what constitutes “social justice?”<br /><br />(You now nominate…Perez Hilton at the Miss USA finals..."Out with this Christan c**t!")<br />And paraphrasing here…<br /><br />"I fear that if the (activist judges) continue to use the sword of (THEIR perceived social justice) to thrust our (Beauty Pageants)... into fundamentally political areas, the shield of (supposed “tolerance” and “popularity”) will no longer protect us when OTHER politicians, religious leaders, or the public decide that they, too, should have the right to impose their political agendas on ( contestants.)<br /><br /><br />http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6253.html<br /><br />Whose definition of "tolerance" applied here and was Miss California so informed when she first began competing? Perhaps the Miss USA Pageant should provide a list of beliefs that preclude a young woman from achieving the title at the first. Why spring Perez Hilton at the finale? If one does not possess the current "popular", "tolerant" views...go home!! Evangelical Christians need not apply.<br /><br /> How far can we take this? Do we need to know how each respective contestant stands on “abortion, the Middle East, affirmative action, welfare reform, prayer in public schools?”<br /><br />Do we need polls to see what "popular" positions should prevail in the judging?<br /><br />If polls tip right,should Trump seat, say...Anita Bryant next year and let her impose her particular moral “check-list” on the future of various contestants? How about Wendy Murphy or Ann Coulter? May they also have a turn in the blackball seat?<br /><br />Should I assume, KC, that it is you who are "unserious" in this new stance and just toying with your admiring posters on this Sunday <br />afternoon?joan fosternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-50375203733005637022009-04-26T16:13:00.000-04:002009-04-26T16:13:00.000-04:00"It's not clear to me whether Ms. California's def..."It's not clear to me whether Ms. California's defenders in the thread are also defending the hypothetical I had offered in the post, in which a university invited her to speak but censored the questions asked of her. I would hope not."<br /><br />KC. Of course not. I will not and haven't defended Miss California, as I don't care what she thinks (either way) about same-sex marriage. I care what YOU think about the Rape Hoax and the Race/Class/Gender issues! It was a poor choice of example(?) to advance your point. I'm not defending her, I'm (mildly) scolding you. I also think the shark is still way in front of you, although recent posts make me question that for the first time. Don't let your opinion on my opinions, (and other's) make you deviate from burying the Race/Class/Gender bigots and the "rape victims never lie" crowd. And (anonymous), if I "lighten-up" any more, I'll float away.skwillihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17216150339054413310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-72484599849737686952009-04-26T15:41:00.000-04:002009-04-26T15:41:00.000-04:00"Now could we possibly move on? I would love to he..."Now could we possibly move on? I would love to hear anyone’s take on reforming the NCNAACP."<br /><br />Ask Cash Michaels about the subject.<br /><br /><br />.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-58446233469384840132009-04-26T15:28:00.000-04:002009-04-26T15:28:00.000-04:00To Joan F.:
KC says…”I am assuming that you are o...To Joan F.:<br /><br />KC says…”I am assuming that you are offering this comparison unseriously. The hypothetical behavior of Lubiano that you are describing would be a violation of the faculty handbook and the tenets of academic responsibility.”<br /><br />No, I am not. I think most of us are reacting to a similar sense of bullying, of forcing the supplicant to kneel to the viewpoint of the powerful. To create a question that essentially forces this attendee of an fundamentalist Christian college to either deny her faith and advocate for gay marriage, or be eliminated from achieving her goal. It was a sorry public spectacle, and IMO ..not on her part. . “You will yield publicly or else.”<br />I ask again, was any other contestant posed a question like this? Would you approve of a evangelical Christian judge (if such a one would be “allowed”) to ask a question of a lesbian contestant requiring her to affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman…and then give her a low enough score to eliminate her to retaliate against her answer?<br /><br /><br />KC says…”I admit: I'm not up to speed on the rules of professional conduct regarding beauty pageants (perhaps you can point me to an on-line version of these rules?).<br />Hmmm…and something I’ve said has given you the impression I know where to “point you online?” Regretfully no.<br /><br />KC says..” But I doubt very much there's any prohibition on asking a question about contemporary public policy (indeed, I think it happens all the time). And, for better or worse, there's an expected answer to such questions--pro-"peace," pro-"tolerance." <br /><br />An "expected answer?" Who determines this years' "expected answers?" Can any of our favorite 88 professors..if asked to be pageant judges...insert THEIR "expected answers?"<br /><br />"Pro-tolerance?" Does this “pro-tolerance” position extend to fundamentalist Christians? Can their beliefs be tolerated, even in beauty pageants?<br /><br />KC says..”It would be hard for me to imagine, for instance, that a pageant contestant who answered a question saying that she would use her crown to rally support for sending more troops to Iraq would have done very well, either. “<br />Did Miss California ever express her intention to “advocate” against gay marriage? Will you link me to her expression of this intended agenda? Since you brought up the war, were the other contestants vetted on their Iraq positions? If not, can you be certain that this activist judge was not remiss in imposing only THIS grade retaliation? Perhaps there were others needing to be squashed. Any other non-allowed positions for Beauty Queens these days? Why not just articulate to the young women at the very start… that young ladies who do not hold certain “popular” views…need not apply? This will eliminate young women from spending time and money on something they cannot achieve…and the need for one activist judge to carry this burden alone.<br /><br />KC says…”It's true that attitudes on gay rights have shifted a lot in the last 10 years; Ms. California's opinion on the question is now in the substantial minority among her age group--whites under 30 support gay marriage more strongly than any other demographic group. I suppose if this had been 10 years ago, Ms. California would have been fine.”<br />Again, pageant directors should state up front that anyone holding views that have passed out of popularity should just go home. Why play games? THEY will not be tolerated (by Perez Hilton or any other of those passionate advocates of…um-m-m-m tolerance .<br /><br />KC says…”It's absurd to compare professional misconduct (of the type we saw in the Duke case, if in not quite as blunt a form as your hypothetical describes) in the academy to a routine event in a pageant (a contestant being asked a question for which the answer is supposed to indicate "tolerance").<br />I believe there is a bit of “intolerance” in your use of the word “absurd” to frame your response to me. Whether it is in academia or in a beauty contest, a display of only “tolerating” views that coincide with one’s own is offensive. That’s what I saw. Some people pursue their dreams in academia, some on the lacrosse field, some in pageants. This young woman’s dream was denied her because an activist judge was not going to allow a Christian woman with views other than his “popular" ones…to succeed.<br />I believe you , a brilliant and well published academic…were almost denied tenure for not parroting “popular” views among your peers. You, KC, in your own way, have a lot in common with Miss California <br />4/26/09 2:33 PMjoan fosternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2278089283101657562009-04-26T15:23:00.001-04:002009-04-26T15:23:00.001-04:00KC - There were violations of faculty handbook pol...KC - There were violations of faculty handbook policy when Peter Wood denigrated his students publicly and when professors altered grades based on the fact that students (I can't remember if it was just one or more than one) were members of the lacrosse team. I know (from my long experience in academia) that there are those teachers who use the power of the gradebook to "cow" students into submission of their particular views or who use it as a way of retaliating against students towards whom they have a certain antipathy. <br />While I understand the point you were making with your example, I also can see why there has been such a heated exchange over the Miss California example. Political and current event questions are always asked of "beauty queen" contestants, it has always been expected (even going back to the days of Bert Parks) that the contestants would give the pc answer of the moment. (Not all did and there chances of gaining a title suffered as a consequence). That Ms. California did not (one could argue that Perez Hilton was setting her up - perhaps there would have been a follow-up question from him if she had in fact given the pc answer in which he questioned whether or not she was going back on her religious beliefs?), I believe, says something about Ms. California - that her religious beliefs (whether one shares them or not) about homosexual marriage are deeply held. The first amendment guarantees her the right to express that view. That Perez Hilton disagrees with it is also his right. That he was and continues to be rude is either necessary nor does it reflect well upon him. One can be disagree stongly yet still be civil. I would hope that those who contribute their opinions on this blog do not adopt the example of Perez Hilton in their postings.<br />cksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-10821461717505871252009-04-26T15:23:00.000-04:002009-04-26T15:23:00.000-04:00Dr. Johnson:
1) Perez Hilton used a beauty pagean...Dr. Johnson:<br /><br />1) Perez Hilton used a beauty pageant as a platform to excoriate a leading contestant whose views did not sufficiently defer to his.<br /><br />2) In subsequent statements, Hilton called the contestant "Bitch", "Cunt". He subsequently apologized for "Bitch" and then later, after that, retracted the apology.<br /><br />3) Hilton stated he voted against the contestant, which cost her the title, because of her answer, which he called "the worst answer in the history of the pageant" and that it was booed.<br /><br /> The video of the answer clearly shows only audience APPROVAL of her answer.<br /><br />Video is at:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m35zNXq7C0s<br /><br />4) Like so many things in today's society, institutions are politicized for narrow agendas. This results in people losing faith in these institutions. <br /><br /><br />5) Common to failed societies is the lack of faith in government and institutions. The same hijacking occurs in government (NC Judiciary, et al), academia, charities. The beauty pageant is a small microcosm of this.<br /><br />The public trash talking of Perez was intended to publicly humiliate someone who presented an opposing view. His choice of language is deplorable.A Duke Dadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-82184725647262143402009-04-26T15:19:00.000-04:002009-04-26T15:19:00.000-04:00(a contestant being asked a question for which the...<I>(a contestant being asked a question for which the answer is <B>supposed</B> to indicate "tolerance").<br /></I>.<br />.<br />Un-believable... We now have jumped the shark in thought control. "Supposed", according to whom?<br /><br />Did you co-author "The Giver"???<br /><br />DMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-70815150450160429942009-04-26T15:18:00.000-04:002009-04-26T15:18:00.000-04:00Part of the problem here is Prof. Johnson's origin...Part of the problem here is Prof. Johnson's original use of analogies in his blog post which may or may not be relevant or understandable. In addition, his excessive use of sarcasm detracts from his usually good arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-22399751015141778622009-04-26T14:33:00.000-04:002009-04-26T14:33:00.000-04:00Per Chris' suggestion:
I have written the two org...Per Chris' suggestion:<br /><br />I have written the two organizers of the Mangum event to ask if they would be willing to host an event on the NCNAACP. No response as of yet.<br /><br />To Joan F.:<br /><br />I am assuming that you are offering this comparison unseriously. The hypothetical behavior of Lubiano that you are describing would be a violation of the faculty handbook and the tenets of academic responsibility.<br /><br />I admit: I'm not up to speed on the rules of professional conduct regarding beauty pageants (perhaps you can point me to an on-line version of these rules?). But I doubt very much there's any prohibition on asking a question about contemporary public policy (indeed, I think it happens all the time). And, for better or worse, there's an expected answer to such questions--pro-"peace," pro-"tolerance." It would be hard for me to imagine, for instance, that a pageant contestant who answered a question saying that she would use her crown to rally support for sending more troops to Iraq would have done very well, either. It's true that attitudes on gay rights have shifted a lot in the last 10 years; Ms. California's opinion on the question is now in the substantial minority among her age group--whites under 30 support gay marriage more strongly than any other demographic group. I suppose if this had been 10 years ago, Ms. California would have been fine.<br /><br />It's absurd to compare professional misconduct (of the type we saw in the Duke case, if in not quite as blunt a form as your hypothetical describes) in the academy to a routine event in a pageant (a contestant being asked a question for which the answer is supposed to indicate "tolerance").kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-85678036526843955112009-04-26T14:32:00.000-04:002009-04-26T14:32:00.000-04:00SACRED COWS and TRADITIONS
joan foster 4/26/09 ::...SACRED COWS and TRADITIONS<br /><br />joan foster 4/26/09 :: 9:19 AM :: said... <br /><br />...The problem is that we now have seen a very public demonstration of religious intolerance.<br />...<br />::<br />I think not as organized religions don't require their parishioners to have a marriage license.<br /><br />Kim Curtis...or Lubiano or Perez or the thousands of other 'Gangs of 88 or 44 or whatever' are passing around a list of our American Sacred Cows and Traditions just to see if we are going to get our shorts in a knot when we are challenged ...to change.<br /><br />Gay Marriage? Why is the government concerned with ANY marriage in the first place? <br />Strippers as a Right of Passage for College Students? Why?<br />Porch Pissing as Right of Passage? Why?<br />Probable Cause? Why?<br />Due Process? Why?<br />Constitutional Right To Petition For Redress Of Grievance? Why?<br /><br />And we do get our collective shorts in a knot each time one of our Sacred Cows or Traditions becomes the political 'shaken baby' du jour.<br /><br />Which of course ...is the plan... as we always take our eyes of the immediate harm and pretend that the situation has wider or global implications. <br /><br />Sheesh! <br /><br />There is nothing 'global' or 'PC' about finding the people on the campus of Duke who worked with the people in the City/County of Durham to harm those lacrosse athletes. WHO WERE THOSE PEOPLE at Duke and in the City/County of Durham?<br /><br />Haul their asses into a proper court of law before someone else is harmed at Duke.<br /><br />And I have no problem with discussing changes in the US Constitution or the appropriateness of stripper parties and porch pissing ...after we deal with the issue of hand.<br />::<br />GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2875731158126146882009-04-26T13:31:00.000-04:002009-04-26T13:31:00.000-04:00Gregory. if as a pageant judge..Perez, Gore, or Se...Gregory. if as a pageant judge..Perez, Gore, or Sean Hannity is going to use his moment of power to pose questions...as a vehicle to essentially disqualify anyone who does not MOO like his particular cultural sacred cow..he should be disqualified as a judge.<br /><br />You and KC cannot defend Perez unless you intend to extend that same defense to all those who rallied to deny the Lacrosse team their season,their grade point averages and even their reputations. Don't the people we have spent years excoriating here...also believe that their respective views are non-debatable... except by small-minded "haters?" Is that not how we have seen them excuse their own intolerance and inconsistency?<br /><br />I'm no "cultural warrior"...just an admirer of KC's and of yours..who is disappointed to see you employ the NC-NAACP excuse."Yes, we stand firmly for all these things..unless we don't like the targeted people."joan fosternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-797566716536962032009-04-26T13:26:00.000-04:002009-04-26T13:26:00.000-04:00To the 4/25/09 10:30 AM and 1:59 PM,
The question...To the 4/25/09 10:30 AM and 1:59 PM,<br /><br />The question posed to Miss California may or may not have been fair, and one can debate whether choosing this particular hypothetical was the best one to serve KC’s point. However, the suggestion that KC has animosity toward this woman is unfounded, at best. In the spring and summer of 2006 many people who should have known better (including myself) allowed their empathy for the three accused players to go AWOL. Instead of the abstract, almost faceless image of privileged lacrosse players, UPI gave us a genuine portrait of three young men who were scared, hurt, and confused by what was happening to them. KC has a proven track record of empathy toward students that few could match. <br /><br />Now could we possibly move on? I would love to hear anyone’s take on reforming the NCNAACP.<br /><br />ChrisChris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-1341548096622174402009-04-26T12:53:00.000-04:002009-04-26T12:53:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86870283856560361582009-04-26T12:51:00.000-04:002009-04-26T12:51:00.000-04:00to 10:06AM
As best I can tell, no one is defending...to 10:06AM<br />As best I can tell, no one is defending the hypothetical concerning free speech. More likely, the "defenders" aren't defending Ms. California as much as they are attacking what they view as a cheap shot that you took while setting up that hypothetical. 6:45PM and 8:47PM raise cogent points. Your 4/25/09 12:36PM post seems petulant.<br />In so far as Ms. California now being in demand, she wouldn't be if Perez Hilton hadn't been such an ass. Do you suggest that there is something wrong with Ms. Prejean's activities? Does she not have the right to express her feelings over the treatment she received during the pageant?<br />As usual I remain confused.bobo1949https://www.blogger.com/profile/16019602906108793639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11698817246623922212009-04-26T11:52:00.000-04:002009-04-26T11:52:00.000-04:00Whether Miss California was "prepared" for that qu...Whether Miss California was "prepared" for that question, or knew of its possible inclusion is beside the point.<br /><br />Suppose Lubiano had one of the 06 Lacrosse team in her class and... well aware of his presence... asked him to prepare for a possible final exam question on..the Duke Lacrosse case. <br /><br />Facing Lubiano, grimacing and frowning throughout his reply, and KNOWING there could be only ONE CORRECT MINDSET in her view...the player is essentially required to either frame his reply to please the Professor (or Judge) and pass...or betray his teammates (or Faith) and fail.<br /><br />What would you think of that? <br /><br />This player has...two minutes (or whatever) to answer verbally.Not much time for elaboration or nuance. Of course, the judge is well aware of that. <br /><br /> Gotcha!<br /><br />Miss California was asked by a Gay activist judge to publicly betray her faith as the price for achieving her goal. Whether you agree with her answer or not..Bravo! to her that she had the integrity not to capitulate! <br /><br />Was any other contestant put in a similar position? If not, she deserved extra credit for poise under extreme pressure.<br /><br /><br />The fact that Miss California is being asked to comment now in the media is probably an indicator of the backlash to Perez' "trap", both the one he sprung at the pageant...and the ugly one he keeps opening to his own detriment...all over the media himself.joan fosternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88959641094791947492009-04-26T11:50:00.000-04:002009-04-26T11:50:00.000-04:00To Kc, 10:06:
I don't see anything strange that sh...To Kc, 10:06:<br />I don't see anything strange that she is now on TV, after the bizarre episode with biased judge is the most talked thing in the news and blogosphere. Of course, everybody is now interested in her.<br />The point is that it was unfair to inject political activism into beauty contest. <br /><br />I've been thinking about this blog post and I think it is even more disgraceful than I first realized.<br /><br />CGM is a dishonest, pathological liar and a danger to the society (her action almost resulted in long prison sentences for innocent people). Comparing Tenet or Miss California with her is just beyond belief. Tenet, by all accounts, was honest director and made his best effort (and reached identical conclusions with anti-war Germany's and Russian's intelligence services, and Saddam's generals.). Miss California was honest too and her answer was certainly reasonable and shared by majority of the country - including the neo-liberal president.<br /><br />I agree with previous poster about the grade retaliation aspect. I can imagine that Klan88 would ask students about their opinion on gay marriage, iraq war, global warming or any other hot topic and "wrong" opinion would result in failed grade. Hopefully not at Brooklyn College..<br /><br />Why can't we just get along? I came to this great country 9 years ago in pursue of freedom and happiness. I found happiness, but freedom is getting cornered. Of all places, I would have assumed that this blog were to respect different political opinions and avoiding the divisive and dishonest insults.jamil husseinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76800305253604003342009-04-26T11:26:00.000-04:002009-04-26T11:26:00.000-04:00".....the Duke Lacrosse players, who are certainly...".....the Duke Lacrosse players, who are certainly no angels...."<br /><br />I noticed that also and almost made a comment about it at the site, but refrained because my comment would have been too long to reasonably make my point; and it would have directed the topic of that conversation elsewhere.<br /><br />But this continues to demonstrate how the reputations of the players were hurt (even after being virtually "cleared" in the Coleman report of being hooligans).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88014358115423665942009-04-26T10:54:00.000-04:002009-04-26T10:54:00.000-04:00To RD at 12:16 --
"After reading One Spook at 6:0...To RD at 12:16 --<br /><br />"After reading One Spook at 6:00, I went back and compared a couple of Youtube videos of Obama responding to questions about same-sex marriage with Miss California's response. <br /><br />Miss California was at least as articulate as BO, who almost ties himself into a knot trying to stand on both sides of the issue. And of course, BO is a seaasoned politian who had to know the question was coming. The 21-year old student was blindsided."<br /><br />If we are going to judge speakers on eccentric mannerisms and individualized tics, then William F. Buckley, Jr. sounded more than mildly "retahded." But, instead, we judge people on what they say. <br /><br />For that reason, it is easy to see that President Obama belongs in the Buckley, and not the Miss California, camp of oratory. <br /><br />As for being "blindsided," please see my comment above. Miss California admitted she PREPARED for the question. She is your worst witness. Moreover, she should have lost just for the phrase "I think I believe in ...." <br /><br />*********************<br /><br />I did a post on another blog about "Reverse PC," which is like "Reverse Racism," except that the timing is all wrong. It should more accurately be called "First PC." <br /><br />Before it became taboo to report the skin color of an alleged criminal defendant in the newspaper even though it may be helpful in identifying same, and before it became de rigueur for colleges to discriminate based on skin color, there was Reverse PC or First PC (which sometimes included discrimination by colleges on the basis of skin color). <br /><br />The most notorious examples, of course, included the Salem Witch Trials and the McCarthy witch hunts. Many of those same "Frist PC" concerns continue today, for example:<br /><br />-- It is not reverse PC to admit that you are an atheist or agnostic running for political office in America.<br /><br />-- It is not reverse PC to admit to the other players on your sports team that you're a homosexual. <br /><br />-- It's not reverse PC to call Colonel Oliver North anything other than "Colonel North" or "Colonel Oliver North," even though the only other non-active duty colonels who keep that title are found in books written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or the board game "Clue." <br /><br />-- It's not reverse PC to question the President of the United States, the Office of the President of the United States or the Vice-President of the United States or his office.***<br /><br />-- It's not reverse PC to show affection to your spouse in public, unless it is apparent that a diversity of sexual organs exists. <br /><br />______________<br /><br />*** This directive is hereby suspended until January 2013 or upon further notice. <br /> <br />*******************<br /><br />To One Spook, skwilli, joan foster, jamil hussein, jim2 and now RD --<br /><br />I have enjoyed almost everything ya'll have written about the Duke Lax case. MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com