John's definition of "free of personal attacks"

John said, on John in Carolina (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/talking-to-regulars-commenters.html):

"an expression of appreciation to all of you whose thoughtful comments free of personal attacks "

Really? Be honest:

"Ralph Phelan said...
You are a useless dolt"

or,

"Some people might think you’re a Duke faculty member and/or someone who sincerely believes Mike Nifong got a raw deal from the NC State Bar.

But I don't believe that.

You’re a troll.
...
John"

or,

Ruth said...
'just a thought' is just wrong but "Facts don't matter." Well, to people like 'just a tought' they don't.

or,

And the racism, sexism, homophobia and platitidinous filibuster of "just a thought" contribute to the subtraction of value from this discussion, as well as an egregious contribution to global warming by wasting of bandspace.

Free of personal attacks? Who are you kidding? I was personally attacked from the very first moment I found your blog. The only poster who mildly engaged me was Ken from Dallas.

Just be honest with yourself. When you mean debate, you mean "the reinforcing of each other's common ideas free from anyone who might disagree or prove these ideas wrong." Its sad that Duke has prepared you this poorly.

The other complaint made was that I failed to address the points brought up by the other commenters.(http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/just-few-thoughts.html)

On another matter: Informed and fair-minded people reading your comments about what Communists and Nazis sought to do in Weimar Germany know those “protestors” often tried, frequently successfully, to shout down speakers with whom they disagreed.

But you didn’t acknowledge that.
...
Posted by JWM at 11:45 PM

I actually had acknowledged this, and explained why that example didn't apply, even before John posted his account, seen above.

As for your the freedom of speech issues, you are correct there are limits. You cannot incite a riot or cause others harm (yelling fire in a crowded theatre for example). The examples in the 20's and 30's you correctly refer to were attempts (many successful) to incite riots, and therefore were not allowable free speech. Yelling comments to Mr. Rove and being rude (because really thats all it was) is not a violation of Mr. Rove's rights. If someone threatened him with violence, or something similar, then that would be a crime, but saying his pants are on fire is not a crime or violation of his rights.

12:27 PM

Another I was still thinking about:

Incorrect. I specifically asked you a question. Twice. (If Plame was covert, why wasn't Armitage or Rove charged?). You finally indicated you didn't know. Remember?

To which I responded:

Ok. I apologize, here is my answer to those questions upon more reading and thought.

Mr. Armitage was not charged because he came forward and the statements he made to the prosecutor were corraborated. Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove did not come forward and there were inconsistencies in their statements. Mr. Rove was able to clear this up to the satisfaction of the prosecutor, Mr. Libby wasn't.

Would a troll really say they didn't know? Seriously, you made a good point, I hadn't heard that point before. The other point dominating the discussion, "she wasn't covert" are contradicted by other evidence (including the prosecutor himself in court documents).

Ken's comments, and the Exposure of John's Hypocracy

The following post appeared by one of the calmer posters on John in Carolina (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/prof-mungers-interesting-comparison.html):

Ralph Phelan:

"I think any set of standards for the rules of decorum at an event are legitimate so long as they are stated clearly and enforced as written."

I am in agreement with you on decorum enforcement.

I seriously doubt that Duke's written guidelines for student behavior change from the classroom setting to that of behavior toward an invited speaker. If anything, the rules of decorum are probably tighter.

It has become common practice from left wing students to harass and insult invited speakers (mostly conservative) at universities across the nation. The administrations have turned a blind eye toward enforcing decorum because, I suspect, they are politically motivated.

Professor Munger's agreement that he would expel an abusive student from his class shows that he understands intent. When he says that type of treatment is acceptable toward invited guests, I believe he is being hypocritical.

Ken
Dallas

Ken,

It has become common practice from left wing students to harass and insult invited speakers (mostly conservative) at universities across the nation.

It is also standard practice on John's board to silence critics by erasing their posts, even when they contain no personal attacks or offensive material. The rules of decorum set out by John were:(http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/reader-comments-today.html)

I hope you can understand my desire to keep JinC a place where people can have reasoned, fact-based discussions with respect for diversity indicated by the care and respect shown for those who offer reasoned, fact-based contrary points of view.

Why doesn't he follow his own rules? Doesn't this make John a hypocritic in the same regard?

Just a thought.

Allowed commenter at John in Carolina?

A commented on the blog John in Carolina posted the following:(http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/prof-mungers-interesting-comparison.html)

Professor Munger:

It is a breath of fresh air to find a Duke student or professor who makes arguments based on verifiable facts, and is willing to listen to and respond articulately to ideas with which you may not agree.

I have ben aghast watching from afar at what certainly seems to be a HUGE problem at Duke (and of course other universities) with a culture where professors and other professionals are celebrated and promoted for spewing hate, bigotry, and anti-intellectual behavior.

They get away with it because they are black, or so it seems. A white person would not survive professionally for five minutes making such outlandish public statements.

If you do not know what I mean, or disagree, I would be glad to share a catalog with you (example: "white innocence is black guilt"; "[the presumption of innocence] is silly sentamentalism", etc.)

There is hope yet.

Jim Peterson

Seriously? "I would be glad to share a catalog with you (example: "white innocence is black guilt"; "[the presumption of innocence] is silly sentamentalism", etc.)" I'll call you on that. Why don't you come up with some examples as well for the following:

They get away with it because they are black, or so it seems. A white person would not survive professionally for five minutes making such outlandish public statements.

Really? Senator Trent Lott told an audience "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either." My Thurmond ran on a platform of the Dixiecrats (segregationists).(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond)

Strom Thurmond said the following during the campaign:

I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.

So what happened to these white men for their words? Mr. Thurmond served in the US senate until 2002, when he declined to run for reelection. Mr. Lott was forced to resign, but only from senate leadership. These white individuals remained for more than "five minutes professionally."

Reply to my Nifong comments

Anonymous said...
"Just a thought" (JAT for short) is a good monaker for the person.

I'm sure he is enjoying all this undeserved attention.

Meanwhile, he is a distraction for those of us who have been engaged in dialogue on this and the DIW and other blogsites for many months.

That JAT needs someone to explain the racist mire oozing throughout this case makes me think he just read the last 10 pages of the book without bothering to understand the characters, setting, and plot.

Nobody as brilliant as Joan
Foster needs to be wasting her superb wit and incisive intellect with this dimwit.

Let him have his tantrum, but don't let's sidetrack from the reasonable dialogue that hopefully will keep us searching for truth and justice.

There is MUCH yet to be done. The LAX three were just the bait that revealed the demons. I'm glad they escaped with their freedom, and their good names intact, but the sewer still exists. If JAT can't figure it by now, he will never figure.

He is making himself the issue, and he is much too small a figure to merit so much froth.

7:38 PM

Lets take this in segments.

"engaged in dialogue on this "

Where is the dialogue when my posts are deleted? You aren't interested in a dialogue, you are interested in reinforcing each other's radical views without the restraint of a critical ear. If you were interested in a dialogue then you would incorporate me into your dialogue, instead of running scared behind a screen of deletion.

"let's sidetrack from the reasonable dialogue that hopefully will keep us searching for truth and justice"

Ok, we should seek truth and justice. I agree. Please see below, truth and justice has already been found and exercised.

"revealed the demons"

Seriously? Demons? Is the anti-Christ behind this conspiracy as well? Lets return to a "reasonable debate".

"He is making himself the issue, and he is much too small a figure to merit so much froth."

Really? I am attempting to probe your ideas and rational behind your opinions. Your group started attacking me instead of having the "reasonable debate". You lost the moral high-road when you decided to silence my criticisms.

By the way someone as brilliant as Joan can probably defend herself. John, why don't you let her respond to my comments instead of deleting them?

Irans nuclear weapons program

Most people have seen the recent NIE report (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315742,00.html). The new NIE states:

with "high confidence" that the [nuclear warhead development] program halted in 2003

Most of the controversy surrounding this has to do with when Mr. Bush knew the conclusions of the report (same reference as above). This is probably not the important issue. The issue is what project should the US pay attention to, the weapons program, or the enrichment program. These are not entirely separate. The enrichment program is more important, and it deemed the rate limiting step by the intelligence community.(http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_11/Albright.asp)


But let me start at the beginning. I do not believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons. However, Iran's remaining nuclear program is legal under international law. How do I know this? Because the US sold it to them. (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013007E.shtml)

Such dreams were energized by a bold new American experiment called Atoms for Peace. Unveiled by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, the program promised to share some U.S. nuclear technology with foreign nations that vowed to forgo atomic weapons.
...
U.S. reactors, for instance, went to Iran, Pakistan and Colombia

One of the main reasons Iran reacts poorly when the US tries to shut down their nuclear program was because it was sold to them by the US. Because of our history supplying this regime, we need to stop trying to stop them entirely. There is a compromise position, allow Iran to have its program but without enrichment capability.

Without highly enriched weapons grade uranium, Iran cannot build a weapon. This statement is obvious, but how enriched is Iran's uranium? (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_11/Albright.asp)

The August IAEA report does not state how much LEU Iran has produced, only that the IAEA has verified enrichment to levels up to 3.7 percent, though Iran has claimed enrichment up to 4.8 percent.

Iran is using its nuclear program as a source of national pride(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/middleeast/29nuke.html), so if anything Iran is reporting a higher value than is generally available, explaining the discrepancy between the inspectors value and the value that Iran claims.

How enriched does Iran's uranium need to be for it to be used in a reactor or to make a bomb? Low enriched uranium is used in reactors, weapons grade is used in weapons.(http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_11/Albright.asp)

LEU fuel typically has less than a five percent uranium-235 concentration, while weapons-grade uranium has more than 90 percent of the uranium-235 isotope

So, right now Irans Uranium is squarely withing the fuel uranium regime. There is still time to deal with this issue.

The timeline given in and conclusion of the this report:

The U.S. intelligence community has given the date as no sooner than 2010 but before 2015, and a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reportedly contains the same projected estimate...

Iran has not yet therefore demonstrated competency at enriching uranium, though it is clearly on the road toward doing so.

What we need to be addressing is Iran's uranium enrichment program because this is one of the most critical steps for making a weapon. In early August, President Bush changed his dialogue about Iran to reflect this, though it may have had to do with the impending NIE. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/)

Russia's plan to supply Iran with uranium could be the solution: (http://www.kommersant.com/p832102/Iran_Nuclear_UN_Russia/)

Russia has recently allowed experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to Novosibirsk Plant Chemical Concentrates which is the storage site for nuclear fuel for the first block of the Bushehr nuclear power station. As soon as inspectors seal the barrels with the fuel it will be ready to be shipped to Iran.

If Russia supplies Iran with Uranium, then the international community, including both the US and Russia, can pressure Iran to halt its enrichment program entirely. Because the transferred uranium is monitored by the IAEA, Iran could be effectively stopped from having the capacity for creating weapons. The US needs to come to the table, without preconditions, to make such a plan work. They have been unwilling to do so. (http://www.nysun.com/article/43433) Iran will not stop its current program to come to the table because (at a minimum) national pride prevents it (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/middleeast/29nuke.html). The US should take the high road and come to the table without the demanded preconditions. This is the quickest way for us to stop WWIII.

Rules of Decorum

Are the rules of decorum the same for different events? No, they cannot be. The behavior of the audience at a movie is different from the behavior of the audience at a professional wrestling match, for example, so the rules must depend on the situation.

One response to the comments by John (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/prof-mungers-interesting-comparison.html):

John:

"your calling my consideration of the standards that ought to apply in a university classroom and at a talk such as Rove’s “silly"

Should the good professor ever invite a guest speaker to his class or auditorium, I doubt very much that he would ever waive the rules of decorum.

Ken
Dalllas (sic)

Why do they necessarily have the same rules for decorum?

Mr. Rove's speech is different because the content is arguably educational, but the format is different from a class where an instructor is attempting to teach a curriculum, so different rules of decorum apply. As Tom suggests, (http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2007/12/long-live-internet.html) you wouldn't clap/cheer in approval for a professor in class would you?

More responses about the "Nifong Conspiracy"

Debrah said...
This issue goes far beyond someone as intellectually and ethically miniscule as Mike Nifong.

The corrupt and racist system is still in place which sustained and helped perpetrate this Hoax.

That the FEDS have chosen to bow out is quite disgusting.

Let me take this in parts.

"The corrupt and racist system"

Ok, I see the corruption, but it was routed out by effective legal counsel. Where was the racism? The boys had access to a proper defense and, aside from the misconduct of Mr. Nifong, were treated appropriately. They were not beaten by the police, tortured, and/or forced to confess anything. Their rights were protected. They were innocent until proven guilty. They could not be proven guilty. They were pronounced innocent and free to go.

"That the FEDS have chosen to bow out is quite disgusting"

Perhaps the department of justice bowing out should tell you something. If they are leaving it is because a case could not be made for the conspiracy or civil rights violations (racism) that you are suggesting.

Move on and help someone who really needs it. Nifong is old news.

I commented yesterday on John in Carolina's blog (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/dojs-no-to-nifong-investigation.html)

He was discussing the continuing investigation into Mr. Nifong's actions and that the department of justice apparently decided to leave it to the state authorities. The link to the origional story is on John's blog, it was broken when I checked it.

I commented on why this was still of interest to the young republicans at Duke. I received the following responses:

Anonymous said...
What would make me happy is to have a full disclosure of the illegal activities that took place on Duke Campus, in Durham Police Department, and at the "labs" of Meehan. What would make me happy is to have the THREADS of the conspiracy revealed.

What would make me happy would be for the guilty to be punished.

I frankly don't care if the State of North Carolina does it ( best case scenario. Gives the GOOD folks a chance to vindicate themselves) or if the Feds do it
( not as good, because it implies that our respected and competent folks can't do it, and that is just not the case)

What would make me happy is JUSTICE for the innocent, and punishment for the guilty.

So, isn't that the way the script is supposed to read????

And this one:

Joan Foster said...
To "Just a thought":

Nifong "screwed" and the innocent "freed and cleared" is all well and good... if one's interest in "justice" is narrowly confined to this one case.

Nifong was not alone. This Hoax was aided and abetted by numerous key players whose ideology, apathy,"old-boy" affability or outright criminality provided Nifong with the means and method to proceed.

Many of these enablers are still in place. Many of these "attitudes" are still at play. We have seen how one rogue prosecutor could masterfully manipulate the system...almost to success and easily incite an enraged local jury to make him a "winner."

The game is still on. The Tricksters gamebook is still viable. THERE HAS BEEN NO REFORM.
Many of us cared deeply about Collin, Reade, and Dave and the outrage they endured. But our concern remains for the next "victims" of North Carolina's legal loopholes. The next victims of Durham's local "justice." The kids who may not have the resources to pay lawyers thousands to uncover suppressed evidence, who may not have the media coverage as witnesses are intimidated, sweet deals are made, line-ups are rigged,procedures are ignored, notes are NOT taken.

Think of how many of these key issues still exist... the secrecy of the N.C. Grand Jury system, the frightening power of a District Attorney, the appalling ability of the media to incite with half-truths, the willingness of the local police to aid and abet a fraud.

So "Just a Thought"...you wish to leave this all in place and have us all leave the field? Leave the corruption all in place for the next kids that fall into their clutches? Because there will be more. People with the moral emptiness to assist Nifong are still in positions of power.The system is unchanged.

Whose sons are expendable? How limited is your capacity for caring? How selective is/was your own moral outrage at a egregious, outrageous, slick and so easily promoted..HOAX...whose successor may well be in the works today?

It's that Bigger Cause, the thought that those who have the least are the most at risk...it's that principle is what keeps many of us clamoring for investigation, accountability, and institutional change.

Quite a response. Wasn't justice done when the lacrosse players were publically cleared of charges? Wasn't justice done when they received their settlement checks (with more to come)? The justice system worked for these boys. They were innocent, they were found innocent, and they were even given money to make up for the prosecutorial indiscretions that kept them in limbo for so long. Justice was done.

As for punishment for the guilty: Mr. Nifong has had his license to practice law revoked, he was fired from his job, and he will probably lose all of his meager possessions in the civil suit. Isn't this punishment? His life is over for what he did. He is going to have a lot of trouble making a living and supporting his family. Was justice done? Yes, he committed a crime, he was found guilty, he is dealing with the consequences.

Ok, now I thought it was mostly left-wingers who were interested in playing conspiracy theory, but I was obviously wrong. If there was a real conspiracy against these boys did someone else call the stripper over? Did someone else deliver the alcohol that was being served to minors? They were not setup from the beginning in a vast Durham conspiracy. A girl they invited to their house made a false allegation, how is the Durham power structure responsible for that? Should they have not believed her? What if you, your wife, girlfried or sister claimed they were raped? I would want the authorities to investigate and find out what happened. It was in the course of the investigation that Mr. Nifong lied to the media and the court. Who else was involved?

The Tricksters gamebook is still viable. THERE HAS BEEN NO REFORM.

You are correct, but the justice system worked. Be glad that the system was proven to work before your very own eyes.

It's that Bigger Cause, the thought that those who have the least are the most at risk...it's that principle is what keeps many of us clamoring for investigation, accountability, and institutional change

Surly you do not intend to say that these boys are "the least"? They had millions of dollars at their disposal to hire the best lawyers. Their excellent legal team got them justice. That is what it takes. Did you ever wonder why so many African Americans are on death row? I don't see you trying to help them clear their names. I don't see you having fundraisers to help them buy effective legal counsel. If you really want to help "the least" that is how you can do it. Going on continued tirade when justice has been served isn't helping anyone.

Adult Debate

I was on the blog, John in Carolina, posting my ideas and attempting a debate with the readers of that site. When I started on the site, John, realizing I was not of like mind, asked that I maintain a "reasoned fact-based debate". Instead of reasonable responses I received attacks:

Ralph Phelan said...
You are a useless dolt being appropriately prevented from making noise where the grownups are trying to talk.

The only way Einstein would have let you into his house was if he wanted to experiment with a substance of infinite density.

By the way, I don't think any of us should put words in Einstein's mouth. Instead of a debate, I was called names and had my posts deleted:

Just a Thought is a troll you helped expose.

Now that that's known I hope you look at troll's posts as no longer needing your attention since I'll delete them as soon as I see them...

John

or

Some people might think you’re a Duke faculty member and/or someone who sincerely believes Mike Nifong got a raw deal from the NC State Bar.

But I don't believe that.

You’re a troll.

American democracy was founded on reasonable fact-based debate (interestingly, the same thing 'John' requested when I started visiting the site). Doesn't that make stifling reasonable fact-based debate unAmerican and unDemocratic?

Instead of fact based debate, my comments were ridiculed largely without counterpoints being made. I was even called such terrible things as "a Duke faculty member"! Dastardly!

"'just a thought' is just wrong but "Facts don't matter." Well, to people like 'just a tought' they don't. Keep up the good work John."
"I just visited your blog - it's empty! Just like your mind?"

Physical attacks were found to be acceptable, when I said "luckliy nobody was tazed", comparing the civility of the speech by Karl Rove at Duke with the recent John Kerry speech where a student was tased. The response from Johns favorite reader?

"I'd have said "sadly" myself."

Wow. This is a scary view of America, and particularly suprising that it would be accepted by John who is "rooting hard for America and civilization."

In adult debate we do not call each other names. Instead we listen to what our fellow debater says, attempting to counter their points, while making our own. Its easy to just write off those who disagree with us, it is far more difficult to listen to their point of view and respond with fact-based supportive evidence of our own position.

I challenge John and his readers to an adult debate. I will hold myself to the adult standard. I will not erase posts by people who disagree with me, I will instead respond to their points and seek to further the understanding of all.

Response to John in Carolina on Mr. O'Hanlon

First blog Post! Lets get things started by commenting on another blog.

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/ohanlon-on-iraq-dems.html

Please see the above blog post based on an article in USA Today by Michael O’Hanlon (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/a-new-course-on.html).

I would like to respond.

I’d like to see what O’Hanlon’s proposing work. But I doubt it will.
What he’s asking the Democrats to do is to put partisan interests aside and act as “honest broker” appraisers of progress in Iraq.

He isn’t just asking the Democrats to put aside partisan interests. He is also directly confronting the President on the matter as well. Mr. O’Hanlon states:

The surge was never designed as just a military operation; it was intended to create political space for Iraqis to forge reconciliation with each other across sectarian lines.
Since that is for the most part not yet happening, it is perfectly reasonable for the Democrats to demand more as a condition for continued funding.

President Bush is unwilling to compromise and threatens a veto anytime Congress tries to follow this strategy and place conditions on continued funding: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJGuiY.o4jz8)

One of the biggest battles ahead is over war funding. Democrats say they won't pass Bush's request for $190 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and have instead offered a $50 billion down payment, which contains language calling for a troop withdrawal. Bush threatens to veto any legislation containing goals or timetables for pulling troops out of Iraq.

``It's unconscionable to deny funds to our troops in harm's way because some in Congress want to force a self-defeating policy, especially when we're seeing the benefits of success,'' Bush said, referring to a decrease in violence in parts of Iraq.

John continues:

I doubt the Dems can do that because they’re so heavily burdened by their MoveOn.org wing which strikes me as unreasonable on a number of issues, particularly the Iraq War.

What O’Hanlon’s calling for depends on people being very reasonable: data driven rather than ideology driven.

And they’ll need to be that way over the course of many years.

Both sides should follow these rules. If we follow the data we will see the following:

1) Bush’s original strategy was a failure (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601505.html).

2) Bush’s current strategy was to give the Iraqi democracy breathing room. This strategy is failing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6985436.stm)

3) The government we put in place is corrupt (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/middleeast/05contractor.html)

Mr. Bush is famous for having said “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again” (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/youtube/bushfoolme.htm)

Mr. Bush was wrong the first time (point 1 above), and fooled Congress into giving him authorization for the war. Mr. Bush was also wrong the second time (point 2 above). Congress, you can’t get fooled again!

The Congress should be reasonable, I agree with both John and Mr. O’Hanlon on this point. The President should be reasonable as well and realize that because political reconciliation is not occurring we need to step aside or find a new less-corrupt government for Iraq. Mr. O’Hanlon’s suggestions sound like a good start, but they are predicated on the assumption that the Iragi government can implement his “considerable to-do list.” Can we really rely on a corrupt government (point 3 above) to implement such a considerable list? If we cannot trust them to protect the Judge we put in charge of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity and his staff (discussed in the link for point 3 above) then we cannot trust them with Mr. O’Hanlon’s more expansive list.