And/or, they lack even rudimentary ability to reason, and their thinking consists of associating ideas and impressions. Hence, politician accepting percs associated with politician making policy effecting perc-giving entity equals corruption. They're either that stupid, think we are, or too addled and distracted to care.
The news around here is cheerily explaining why those nice Duke boys couldn't have raped anyone. They have high GPAs, you see, and are from wealthy families.
And our Memorial Day parade route had lots of Santorum balloons, but my dad said it would be impolite to pop them.
Anyhow, the article looks like fun spin. Y'see, all politicians are corrupt. Everyone knows that. So nothing to worry about.
6: What's weird is that the only thing that makes me think the story is true is that the guys are from Duke. Otherwise, there has been enough confusion, and the alleged behavior (beyond the rape) is so horrid, that I think I'd be leaning against rape. Instead I'm studiously unsure.
7: I know it's an unpopular stance to take, but I'm pretty convinced they didn't do it. Not that they wouldn't, but that they didn't. However, even if they did, I put the prosecution's chances somewhere between slim and zero.
The editorial in Wednesday's paper titled "Ringside With Caesar's Wife" is a bizarrely dishonest and misleading statement of a set of very innocuous facts. There is no question that Sen. Reid did nothing, in accepting tickets from the Nevada Boxing Commission, against the ethical rules of the Senate. There is further no question that his position on the relevant issues has been at all times opposed to that of the Boxing Commission, and so there is no possibility that he was improperly influenced by the acceptance of those tickets.
What rationale is there for the Times' decision to bring up this incident, devoid both of any actual impropriety and, given Sen. Reid's position on the issues, no appearance of impropriety, in the context of the ethical problems plaguing so many other members of Congress? Further, what possible rationale is there for the Times' decision to omit the relevant fact that Sen. Reid remained opposed to the Boxing Commission's position at all times from its editorial, leaving less-informed readers believing that perhaps Sen. Reid was influenced improperly by the tickets? This editorial appears to be a ham-handed attempt to show fairness in coverage of Congressional corruption by implying that Sen. Reid's unexceptionable behavior in this incident is in some way comparable to the very real, objectively criminal behavior engaged in by many associated with the Republican Congressional leadership. This is unacceptable -- where the facts show one party in a worse light than the other, it is neither objective nor evenhanded to change the facts to make it appear that both are the same. Report on Democratic corruption where you find it -- don't invent it where it doesn't exist.
On the Duke rape -- I don't know whether it happened or not: I haven't been able to make sense of all the purportedly exculpatory evidence, either to believe it or to discount it. Anyone who thinks it couldn't be true based on the idea that nice boys like that wouldn't do something so awful, on the other hand, is an asshole.
17: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that at all. I know a fair number of guys from the same cohort as the alleged rapists, and, sadly and strangely, it is much easier for me to imagine one of them raping a stripper than to imagine them using the n-word to the face of a black person in front of other people. That, combined with all of the confusion and apparent missteps by the DA, would normally make me suspect that they didn't do it.
As I said, such behavior is not even in the same realm as rape -- much less bad. But, for whatever reason, it's much harder for me to believe that happened than rape.
Anyway, my recollection is that Durham is poor, black, and pissed. (Apo, is that correct?) If I were the alleged rapists, I wouldn't count on money and legal talent getting me out of punishment.
Didn't think you were -- I was talking about the media Cala referenced in her 5 (and all the bloggy nonsense).
I don't know what to think about the facts. I figure there should be physical evidence, given the circumstances (speed of reporting the crime, etc.) but I don't know what that evidence would necessarily consist of. If you listen to the defense, the evidence establishes that it couldn't possibly have happened -- I doubt that that is the case, under the assumption that the prosecutor isn't incompetent. If he's going forward with the case, it's because he thinks it's a good one. So he has something.
I haven't really been following the case much, so I don't really have an informed opinion. OTOH, I'm more than willing to believe that in a big group of spoiled college guys, several of them are more than capable of raping any woman in a vulnerable position. And I haven't heard anything that suggests to me that the accuser had any motivation for making this shit up (she's not suing them; she made a criminal accusation). So I have to admit that I'm inclined to assume that *something* happened, even though I'm also inclined to assume that the'll be acquitted.
Durham is poor, black, and pissed. (Apo, is that correct?)
Durham has the highest black population of any city in NC, though it isn't particularly poor. In fact, through the first half of the 20th century, it was probably the biggest center of black wealth on the east coast. Some of the neighborhoods right around Duke are pretty poor, though.
Counter to my expectations, the storm around this case died down quickly. Probably as much as anything, because the DA quit showing up on the news every night after the primary (winning the Democratic primary=winning the election here).
The funny thing about Durham is that since the black and white populations are of roughly equal size, we're all quite used to dealing with one another and hammering out racial issues in public peacefully. You might hear some shouting now and again - particularly over the schools - but race relations here are actually quite smooth. Duke, however, is not really integrated well into Durham. Aside from the Medical Center, it's a bit of an island.
So, while I would be super-surprised to hear white locals calling anybody "nigger" to their face, I would be less surprised to hear it coming from the Long Island / New Jersey jack-offs that dominate the lacrosse team.
21: Huh. I visited someone there, and I got the impression that Durham was a poor black city, and that the Chapel Hill was more integrated and rich. I also had the impression that the black/white thing was problematic. The person I was visiting kept warning me to keep my car lights off to avoid getting shot; perhaps that influenced my perception that all was not well in Durham.
Chapel Hill is definitely not more integrated, but is certainly more rich.
kept warning me to keep my car lights off to avoid getting shot
Sigh. That's total bullshit that you hear from folks who are afraid of black people. Violent crime in Durham is overwhelmingly black-on-black, not particularly higher than any other NC city, and mostly confined to three neighborhoods.
I thought you lived in Chapel Hill.
Grew up in Durham, went to UNC, live in Durham about three miles from the Chapel Hill city line, work in Chapel Hill about half a mile from the Durham city line. Aside from the University, Chapel Hill is effectively a suburb of Durham.
That's total bullshit that you hear from folks who are afraid of black people.
It's also an urban legend that was everywhere a few years ago. Blah blah gang initiation, blah blah stupid shit. The variation is that if someone else has their lights off, and you signal to them to point it out, they'll shoot you. Nothing like making people terrified of simple generous impulses.
My (male) college professor who ran off with my (male) friend from grad school set up house down in Durham. Since they're the only people I've ever visited there, I just think of the whole place as gay.
You're not far off. Durham is exatrordinarily gay-friendly. The last GOP mayor we had (this would have been Harry Rodenhizer in the late 80s; there may have been another one in there somewhere) gave the opening address at a big pride march, welcoming the crowd to the city. Even our token Republicans would be liberals elsewhere.
See, this is why I thought NC was going to be in play in the last presidential election. Until I went to the State Fair, which corrected that perception but quick.
I grew up believing that you could get carjacked At Any Moment in Richmond, Ca. I still don't know how accurate that belief was, but it certainly did no good for my early impressions of poor black neighborhoods.
Oh, that reminds me of a movie scene that really does make me cringe (and laugh, and roll my eyes): the one in Flirting with Disaster where the black church group van catches up with Ben Stiller in his rental car to return the jacket he dropped in the parking lot, and he's convinced they're trying to carjack him and maces the guy trying to tell him what happened.
Chapel Hill is a suburb of Durham? I must have bought the cheap tour, because I was shown a single street with four or five stores on it (inc. the ONE bagel shop in town, I was told) and told that was what passed for Main St. in Durham. I thought Chapel Hill was the bigger town.
Chapel Hill has roughly 50,000 residents, about 1/3 of whom are students (i.e., temporary residents). Durham is the 4th largest city in NC, with over 200,000, and more than twice the land area of CH. There is more than one bagel shop in Durham, I assure you, and Ninth Street (which I suspect is what you saw) is a tiny bit of the city.
Man, about now I want to post funny stories about Durham, Southern cops, Stanley Fish, William Gass, children examining each other's genitals and when slightly older running around on rooves, and academic journals, but I can't because they probably contain too much potentially identifying information about an innocent party. Poo.
16: While I haven't followed the story beyond reading the AP story, the Editorial linked here, and whatever TPMuckracker has to say, one of your statements seems potentially unsupported to me. That is, there are other things someone can do besides voting for or against legislation, namely change what it says in a variety of ways. Has anyone written on what role, if any, Reid played in writing the bill, amending it, writing the legislative history, or sponsoring other people's amendments? I have no reason to believe he did any of those things, but haven't heard anywhere that he didn't.
Tia's story sounds pretty good, though I don't know
NC at all.
Given that it's googleable a few comments above, I doubt it would do much good. Also, it would be pretty swank if Stanley Fish showed up to call us all hidebound.
I have no reason to believe he did any of those things, but haven't heard anywhere that he didn't.
See, this is why the editorial board of the NY Times (and everyone else pushing this 'story') needs to be doused in gasoline and then set on fire spoken sharply to. You're right -- I don't know that no such thing is true. But I do know that if there were any such facts, they'd support the thesis of the editorial, and it makes no sense to leave them out, so I have a strong belief that there are no such facts. And in the absence of such facts, writing this kind of 'where there's smoke, there's fire' nonsense is complete bullshit.
50: A new story by the AP writer contains the following:
Reid told AP the free tickets did not influence his position, noting he voted for the legislation when it passed the Senate. However, Reid had forced a change in the bill that let the federal commission regulate the TV networks when they promoted fights. After the change, the House never approved the legislation.
This is a bit hard to decipher -- Solomon is still bamboozling enthusiastically (the bamboozly stuff has been pushed down a couple of paragraphs AOTW) -- but as I decipher it it sounds like "Reid amended the bill so that it was even less favorable to the folks who gave him the tickets and then [spooky music] it didn't pass the House! Reid must have put it in as a poison pill!" Schmuck.
And/or, they lack even rudimentary ability to reason, and their thinking consists of associating ideas and impressions. Hence, politician accepting percs associated with politician making policy effecting perc-giving entity equals corruption. They're either that stupid, think we are, or too addled and distracted to care.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 8:56 AM
Same fucking nonsense on the editorial page of the local paper. I need a drink.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 10:19 AM
Oh, man -- the Deseret Morning News version of it is really nastily dishonest.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 10:38 AM
Do people here read The Note regularly?
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 10:39 AM
No, I probably should. Does it have something interesting and related?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 10:46 AM
The news around here is cheerily explaining why those nice Duke boys couldn't have raped anyone. They have high GPAs, you see, and are from wealthy families.
And our Memorial Day parade route had lots of Santorum balloons, but my dad said it would be impolite to pop them.
Anyhow, the article looks like fun spin. Y'see, all politicians are corrupt. Everyone knows that. So nothing to worry about.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 10:55 AM
6: What's weird is that the only thing that makes me think the story is true is that the guys are from Duke. Otherwise, there has been enough confusion, and the alleged behavior (beyond the rape) is so horrid, that I think I'd be leaning against rape. Instead I'm studiously unsure.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:00 AM
Dishonest assholes or not, you know this shit is gonna work.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:02 AM
That's the thing -- what do we do about it?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:02 AM
Firebombs?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:04 AM
Wait for the fall of the Republic when I'm allowed to hit people?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:05 AM
lots of Santorum balloons, but my dad said it would be impolite to pop them
Not to mention dangerously gross.
the alleged behavior (beyond the rape) is so horrid, that I think I'd be leaning against rape
???
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:08 AM
" Sen. Reid consistently opposed the position of the boxing commission.."
An honest politician is one that stays bought.
Posted by dave heasman | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:09 AM
7: I know it's an unpopular stance to take, but I'm pretty convinced they didn't do it. Not that they wouldn't, but that they didn't. However, even if they did, I put the prosecution's chances somewhere between slim and zero.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:10 AM
12: I'm not suggesting that the other behavior was worse; it was much less bad -- I should have said "other" rather than "beyond."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:11 AM
I just sent this to the Times:
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:19 AM
On the Duke rape -- I don't know whether it happened or not: I haven't been able to make sense of all the purportedly exculpatory evidence, either to believe it or to discount it. Anyone who thinks it couldn't be true based on the idea that nice boys like that wouldn't do something so awful, on the other hand, is an asshole.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:21 AM
17: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that at all. I know a fair number of guys from the same cohort as the alleged rapists, and, sadly and strangely, it is much easier for me to imagine one of them raping a stripper than to imagine them using the n-word to the face of a black person in front of other people. That, combined with all of the confusion and apparent missteps by the DA, would normally make me suspect that they didn't do it.
As I said, such behavior is not even in the same realm as rape -- much less bad. But, for whatever reason, it's much harder for me to believe that happened than rape.
Anyway, my recollection is that Durham is poor, black, and pissed. (Apo, is that correct?) If I were the alleged rapists, I wouldn't count on money and legal talent getting me out of punishment.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:33 AM
Didn't think you were -- I was talking about the media Cala referenced in her 5 (and all the bloggy nonsense).
I don't know what to think about the facts. I figure there should be physical evidence, given the circumstances (speed of reporting the crime, etc.) but I don't know what that evidence would necessarily consist of. If you listen to the defense, the evidence establishes that it couldn't possibly have happened -- I doubt that that is the case, under the assumption that the prosecutor isn't incompetent. If he's going forward with the case, it's because he thinks it's a good one. So he has something.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:41 AM
I haven't really been following the case much, so I don't really have an informed opinion. OTOH, I'm more than willing to believe that in a big group of spoiled college guys, several of them are more than capable of raping any woman in a vulnerable position. And I haven't heard anything that suggests to me that the accuser had any motivation for making this shit up (she's not suing them; she made a criminal accusation). So I have to admit that I'm inclined to assume that *something* happened, even though I'm also inclined to assume that the'll be acquitted.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:47 AM
Durham is poor, black, and pissed. (Apo, is that correct?)
Durham has the highest black population of any city in NC, though it isn't particularly poor. In fact, through the first half of the 20th century, it was probably the biggest center of black wealth on the east coast. Some of the neighborhoods right around Duke are pretty poor, though.
Counter to my expectations, the storm around this case died down quickly. Probably as much as anything, because the DA quit showing up on the news every night after the primary (winning the Democratic primary=winning the election here).
The funny thing about Durham is that since the black and white populations are of roughly equal size, we're all quite used to dealing with one another and hammering out racial issues in public peacefully. You might hear some shouting now and again - particularly over the schools - but race relations here are actually quite smooth. Duke, however, is not really integrated well into Durham. Aside from the Medical Center, it's a bit of an island.
So, while I would be super-surprised to hear white locals calling anybody "nigger" to their face, I would be less surprised to hear it coming from the Long Island / New Jersey jack-offs that dominate the lacrosse team.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:50 AM
gswift, why are you reading the editorial page of the Deseret Fucking News anyway?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:56 AM
It's his local paper.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 11:57 AM
21: Huh. I visited someone there, and I got the impression that Durham was a poor black city, and that the Chapel Hill was more integrated and rich. I also had the impression that the black/white thing was problematic. The person I was visiting kept warning me to keep my car lights off to avoid getting shot; perhaps that influenced my perception that all was not well in Durham.
I thought you lived in Chapel Hill.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:01 PM
There's another.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:01 PM
Chapel Hill is definitely not more integrated, but is certainly more rich.
kept warning me to keep my car lights off to avoid getting shot
Sigh. That's total bullshit that you hear from folks who are afraid of black people. Violent crime in Durham is overwhelmingly black-on-black, not particularly higher than any other NC city, and mostly confined to three neighborhoods.
I thought you lived in Chapel Hill.
Grew up in Durham, went to UNC, live in Durham about three miles from the Chapel Hill city line, work in Chapel Hill about half a mile from the Durham city line. Aside from the University, Chapel Hill is effectively a suburb of Durham.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:10 PM
That's total bullshit that you hear from folks who are afraid of black people.
It's also an urban legend that was everywhere a few years ago. Blah blah gang initiation, blah blah stupid shit. The variation is that if someone else has their lights off, and you signal to them to point it out, they'll shoot you. Nothing like making people terrified of simple generous impulses.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:18 PM
My (male) college professor who ran off with my (male) friend from grad school set up house down in Durham. Since they're the only people I've ever visited there, I just think of the whole place as gay.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:22 PM
I just think of the whole place as gay.
You're not far off. Durham is exatrordinarily gay-friendly. The last GOP mayor we had (this would have been Harry Rodenhizer in the late 80s; there may have been another one in there somewhere) gave the opening address at a big pride march, welcoming the crowd to the city. Even our token Republicans would be liberals elsewhere.
See, this is why I thought NC was going to be in play in the last presidential election. Until I went to the State Fair, which corrected that perception but quick.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:31 PM
I grew up believing that you could get carjacked At Any Moment in Richmond, Ca. I still don't know how accurate that belief was, but it certainly did no good for my early impressions of poor black neighborhoods.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:31 PM
Oh, that reminds me of a movie scene that really does make me cringe (and laugh, and roll my eyes): the one in Flirting with Disaster where the black church group van catches up with Ben Stiller in his rental car to return the jacket he dropped in the parking lot, and he's convinced they're trying to carjack him and maces the guy trying to tell him what happened.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:35 PM
Ahh! Cross-thread pollution! Cleanse, cleanse!
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:42 PM
Chapel Hill is a suburb of Durham? I must have bought the cheap tour, because I was shown a single street with four or five stores on it (inc. the ONE bagel shop in town, I was told) and told that was what passed for Main St. in Durham. I thought Chapel Hill was the bigger town.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:42 PM
Chapel Hill has roughly 50,000 residents, about 1/3 of whom are students (i.e., temporary residents). Durham is the 4th largest city in NC, with over 200,000, and more than twice the land area of CH. There is more than one bagel shop in Durham, I assure you, and Ninth Street (which I suspect is what you saw) is a tiny bit of the city.
Sounds like you need new tour guides.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 12:56 PM
Sounds like it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 1:02 PM
Man, about now I want to post funny stories about Durham, Southern cops, Stanley Fish, William Gass, children examining each other's genitals and when slightly older running around on rooves, and academic journals, but I can't because they probably contain too much potentially identifying information about an innocent party. Poo.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 1:19 PM
You could email them to me.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 1:33 PM
So you could then spill them to the entire blog? I think not.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 1:38 PM
But they're funny stories about my home town!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 1:41 PM
16: While I haven't followed the story beyond reading the AP story, the Editorial linked here, and whatever TPMuckracker has to say, one of your statements seems potentially unsupported to me. That is, there are other things someone can do besides voting for or against legislation, namely change what it says in a variety of ways. Has anyone written on what role, if any, Reid played in writing the bill, amending it, writing the legislative history, or sponsoring other people's amendments? I have no reason to believe he did any of those things, but haven't heard anywhere that he didn't.
Tia's story sounds pretty good, though I don't know
NC at all.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 1:44 PM
w/d -- not "story", "stories"!! She's got more than one of them up her sleeve about this particular confluence of stuff.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 1:46 PM
Stanliy Fesh examined my genitals.
There, I feel like a weight's been lifted.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:24 PM
You're hardly an innocent party, Bridgeplate.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:25 PM
Um, forgot to google-proof. Awesome edity people?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:25 PM
Given that it's googleable a few comments above, I doubt it would do much good. Also, it would be pretty swank if Stanley Fish showed up to call us all hidebound.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:27 PM
gswift, why are you reading the editorial page of the Deseret Fucking News anyway?
It's the belly of the beast. Good way to find out how local political battles, and by extension, the national ones, are going to be framed.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:29 PM
SB did a pretty good job of Google-proofing Stanley Fish's name in 42.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:30 PM
He'd probably show up and ask what it meant to say a standpipe had an opening.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:30 PM
I feel like a weight's been lifted.
Of course, that happens every time my genitals get examined.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:32 PM
I have no reason to believe he did any of those things, but haven't heard anywhere that he didn't.
See, this is why the editorial board of the NY Times (and everyone else pushing this 'story') needs to be
doused in gasoline and then set on firespoken sharply to. You're right -- I don't know that no such thing is true. But I do know that if there were any such facts, they'd support the thesis of the editorial, and it makes no sense to leave them out, so I have a strong belief that there are no such facts. And in the absence of such facts, writing this kind of 'where there's smoke, there's fire' nonsense is complete bullshit.Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:35 PM
47: Nope, that was me editing it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:36 PM
and when slightly older running around on rooves, and academic journals
And then Stanley slipped me a mickey and made me dance on his collected works.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 2:36 PM
Does not googleproofing work only if done to every occurrence of the name in the thread?
Hey, I wonder if Sla/voj Zi/zek appears in disguise in Small World.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-31-06 3:37 PM
50: A new story by the AP writer contains the following:
This is a bit hard to decipher -- Solomon is still bamboozling enthusiastically (the bamboozly stuff has been pushed down a couple of paragraphs AOTW) -- but as I decipher it it sounds like "Reid amended the bill so that it was even less favorable to the folks who gave him the tickets and then [spooky music] it didn't pass the House! Reid must have put it in as a poison pill!" Schmuck.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06- 1-06 9:47 AM
Isn't it interesting that Solomon either didn't call these people to ask these questions, or he did and chose not to report it?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06- 1-06 10:13 PM