Comments on: The Duke lacrosse case: the third act

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:51:26 +0000

the first, of course, being Islam; the other being Eternally Aggrieved Blacks.

If you go back to the Nation of Islam history with Malcom X, and Louis Farrakhan, you’ll notice that blacks + Islam = equality more or less.

By: A_Nonny_Mouse

A_Nonny_Mouse — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:02:47 +0000

I just read a blurb about Prof. Houston A. Baker at

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/061222
“December 22, 2006
Duke case: Professor Baker still unrepentant”

As I see it, we have TWO “religions of the perpetually offended” — the first, of course, being Islam; the other being Eternally Aggrieved Blacks.

God help us, there are so MANY of that second group in our schools and in “public service” (like the raving lunatics of the Congressional Black Caucus, for instance).

How will we ever have a united country when so many hateful men make it their life’s work to sow division and discord?

By: Matt_SE

Matt_SE — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 06:31:08 +0000

@susan

I applaud your husband’s actions but I wonder if it’s enough. At the risk of sounding like a leftist, what we need is “collective action.” We need an uprising and a coordination of alumni to drive the point home. Publicly embarrass the ivy league schools and bleed them dry of funds.

By: parker

parker — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 02:44:49 +0000

In the face of the wind that blows against us there is still magic that sustaines us:

van: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVAnlke_xUY

mary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E28ftIIEejY

joni: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAsXMlkwXgs

Joh Lee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIvka3SSv9Y

The ultimate advice from Hank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Ls6CD3s4w

By: parker

parker — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 02:33:36 +0000

susan,

Good for your hubby… give them a flashlight & a mirror and invite them to find the place where the sun does not shine.

By: susan

susan — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:49:26 +0000

My husband is an honors graduate of Vanderbilt and he gets multiple fundraising requests a year from them. He will politely listen to the pitch and once he is asked for a gift will ask if Houston Baker is still employed by Vanderbilt. When given the affirmative (and everyone seems to know exactly who Baker is) he responds that he cannot support his alma matter as long as Baker is on staff and to feel free to call him when Baker is gone.

He does this two or three times a year. On a couple of occasions he has engaged the VU representative in a conversation that reveals that he is by no means the only former donor with this stipulation.

By: W.C. Taqiyya

W.C. Taqiyya — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:24:52 +0000

And nobody mentions the pile of steaming political reality still sitting, undisturbed and unchanged, that was the prime enabler of this case. But for the social imperative for everyone in any position of authority to accept the accusations, however unsupported by facts, of any female against any male, this case would not have been the destructive charade it was and is. And that is OK. When a society can’t tell or doesn’t care about the difference between equal rights under the law and the supremacy of some based on class differences, the games will continue. Now, where did I put my popcorn and salted nuts?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:17:21 +0000

Zombie brainwashing Nazi scientists experimenting on humans, basically.

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:35:46 +0000

When I saw the picture of professor Baker my first thought was affirmative action professor.

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:12:19 +0000

“Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one’s good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.”

All of the above would appear to apply.

Consequence is what changes behavior. Lack of consequence is a green light for the behavior to continue.