left right politics showbiz tech invest good life gossip fun hot
HuffingtonPost Hot Air Wonkette Variety Engadget Seeking Alpha Lifehacker TheSuperficial Daily Beast Drudge
Daily Kos Michelle Malkin Politico Billboard Boing Boing TheBigPicture Luxist TMZ.com Fark digg
ThinkProgress RightWingNews First Read CNN Showbiz Gizmodo FT Alphaville Joystiq Perez Hilton 4chan memorandum
Crooks+Liars Power Line CNN ticker E! Online Techcrunch InfectiousGrd Kotaku gamer Bastardly Post Secret Techmeme
TalkngPtsMemo Ameri..Thinker Swampland TV Guide Ars Technica 24/7 Wall St. TreeHugger Egotastic hascheezburgr tweetmeme
The Raw Story NewsBusters The Caucus Ent. News Mashable bloggingstocks Consumerist PinkIsTheNew dooce trends
Hullabaloo Wizbang fishbowlDC HlywdWiretap Google blog DealBook lifehack.org CelebrityBaby Someth'nAwful Megite
Atrios The Corner WashWhisprs DeadlnHllywd Read/Write Jeff Matthews 43folders GoFugYourself Neatorama PSFK
Firedoglake Big Hollywood The Fix MSN Ent. OReilly Radar PhilsStockWorld Autoblog Page Six Cool Hunter reddit.com
MyDD AndrewSullivan Capital Gains Rot'nTomatoes GigaOM Daily Rec'ng Deadspin BestWeekEver stereogum Timespop
Americablog AceOfSpades Open Secrets Cinematical ProBlogger Zero Hedge DownloadSqd Dlisted CuteOverload media eye
LiberalOasis Redstate WikiLeaks law Cool Tools Bespoke MediaZone PopSugar Dilbert blog TVNewser
SeeTheForest Jawa Report econ law.alltop Scobleizer BtwTheHedges Deviant ArtHollyw'dTuna gapingvoid BuzzMachine
TalkLeft Patterico EconLog Volokh Consp. Apple Blog Minyanville Gothamist x17online DailyGrail Gigaom
Feministing Townhall.com Freakonomics Legal Insurrec.. Valleywag Fast Money Curbed DailyBlabber Prof. Hex Steve Rubel
PolitAnimal OutsideBeltwy CrookedTimbr Conglomerate mozillaZine RealClearMkts FabSugar Gawker OvrheardinNY MediaBlgNRO
Truthdig Moonbattery MarginalRevo SportsLawBlog Smashing W$J Mktbeat Gridskipper Radar Last.fm Threat Level
AlternetPeek RealClearPoli crime W$J Law BlogTechdirt AbnormalRtrns Material Defamer kottke.org Seth's blog
Pandagon Instapundit CrimeblogsBalkinizationMAKE RandomRoger Sartorialist Jossip PumpkinChuckin mediamatters
Shakesville Hugh Hewitt AMW Credit Slips SrchEngLand Stock Advisors Drink'nMadeEasy Just Jared Maps Mania Newshounds
Sadly, No! RightwingNut CourtTV FindLaw VentureBeat Slope of Hope Mark Cuban Celebitchy CollegeHumor FAIR

Thursday, March 15, 2007

"Airbrush Tony" a/k/a Anthony Gordon (A.G.) Rud

 'Airbrush Tony' - Anthony Gordon (A.G.) Rud Jr.Anthony Gordon (A.G.) Rud Jr. henceforth known as "Airbrush" Tony has confirmed that he is a first class wanker. The associate professor in the Department of Educational Studies at Purdue University has a blog called MOO2. On March 2nd Airbrush Tony Rud wrote a stupid and snide blog posting entitled "The Culture of Violence and Privilege Behind the Duke Lacrosse Case."

KC Johnson received some unprompted email from Rud and then in his Sunday Review on March 11th he took Rud to task for his errors in giving a review of "Amen" to the Peggy Reeves Sanday article. This prompted a host of comments on Rud's blog - comments from critics, Rud himself, friends, colleagues, and 'trolls.'

TJN noted Rud's stupidity in our March 12th "Wanker Watch." Rud followed up his first foot-in-mouth post with another one entitled "Perfect Storm." Again Prof. Rud drew more criticism in the comments section of that post. Rud continued his lame attempt to explain why he wasn't interested in the facts of the Duke case, but he still had a right to pontificate about it in terms of "broader cultural issues." Where have you heard that before? Hello, "Gang of 88." Rud was embarrassing himself and Purdue.

AMAC over at the LieStoppers forum picks up the Rud affair:

Academic blogger A.G. Rud put up a snide post last week that got a mention at Durham-in-Wonderland's Sunday Roundup. That attracted commenters who disputed his pro-88, anti-student talking points. His follow-on ripostes seemed to be ignoring Mark Twain's advice about keeping one's mouth shut rather than removing any doubt.

Fortunately, Prof. Rud found a solution to his problem, which was to declare that his adversaries were venomous trolls, and send the embarrassing comments to the Memory Hole.

Since the back-and-forth in the Haloscan comments were more interesting than the posts themselves, there's no compelling reason to click over to there. Prof Rud is a reminder that illiberal supporters of the Group of 88's stance can be found throughout the Academy. While they may start out civil and engaged, the frustration of defending the indefensible may lead them to stifle dissenting views. As the proprietor of his blog (Moo2), that is of course Prof Rud's absolute privilege. For me, it's certainly a disincentive to try and engage people like that in reasoned discourse.

Some of the banished commenters offer their views at D-i-W's IWW Forum on the Duke Case thread. Search the comments for "Rud".
The straw that might have broken the back of "Airbrush" Tony was harsh criticism from his Perdue colleague, Thomas Sellke. Tony went on his 'troll' purge soon after Sellke's comments (see below) hit his blog. Can a colleague be a troll too?

What did the Amanda Marcotte fiasco teach us? We learned that ignorant bloggers like Marcotte and Rud will try to remove, change or "airbrush" (as KC Johnson says) evidence of their stupidity. But, guess what? Once anyone saw the intellectual thrashing that Rud was taking in his blog comments you could have bet money that Rud would airbrush them. Rud's ego could never stand the public embarrassment.

That was a good call. Rud conducted an industrial strength airbrushing - everthing was deleted, perhaps 200+ comments.

TJN saved a chunk of Rud's comments (see below). We didn't get all of them, we missed (70+? comments) on his follow up "Perfect Storm," March 11th post and still more on "Blogging and Dialogue." Rud amended his storm post to say:
UPDATE 3/14: I have decided that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, Nifong appears to be mostly at fault with that, and some lives are already scarred and we are not at the end of it. I don't know enough about the gang of 88 or the potbangers or whatever but it appears from my scant knowledge that excess occurred with these groups, and I don't condone some of their tactics. But I do support their efforts to bring the wider issues to the fore. . .
Here is Rud's "final word" regarding his sorry performance (3/15):
Essai: A Letter to AMac (Re Duke Lacrosse Context) -
Here is my “essai,” more a letter to a commenter, and it will need to stand as my final word on the context of the Duke lacrosse situation. My response to AMac’s civil query, now expunged along with the trolls’ venom, posts from my friends, and my own comments, is here now slightly edited. Some of this below appeared already tonight in an update to my “Perfect Storm” post. I haven't time, interest, or energy for more and spring break is now half over. . .
Judge for yourself if the comments on Rud's blog were "trolls' venom." Is this the same type of "venom" that the Group of 88" says they have received in the form of “thousands” of anonymous racist or sexist e-mails? It mostly looks like criticism here.

discussion of Rud:
LieStoppers forum: Another prof. persists linking violent culture, with this case

----- comments deleted by Rud ------
Thomas Sellke here.

Yesterday I sent my Purdue colleague Professor Rud an e-mail.Here is the relevant part:

Professor Rud,

I was gone over the week-end and too busy yesterday to reply to you.

I have followed the discussion on your blog concerning the Duke rape hoax. I had some points to make, but they have almost all been made now (very well,probably better than I could have made them) by others. I have not been favorably impressed by the quality of your commentary. Just about everything you have said on this Duke rape hoax issue has been shown to be silly,and with no substantive rebuttal from you. The "thoughtful" comment that you included from your friend Len Waks is similarly unimpressive. The other commenters are wiping the floor with you, but Waks can't tell the difference between that and mindless namecalling. (Can you tell the difference?) And then there's Krista Simons, who seems to have been a faculty member here at Purdue a few years ago. She argues that university athletes be held to high standards of conduct as representatives of their institutions, but she ignores the reprehensible behavior of the "Group of 88" at Duke, who as faculty (i.e.,employees,versus paying customers) should clearly be held to standards at least as high as the standards for athletes. Don't you think it's reasonable for readers of the recent discussions on your blog to ask,"What the hell kind of intellectual standards do they have in the Purdue College of Education??"

Here's a question about your "Terrific commentary, especially in light of the sickening display of sham virtue by the students involved and the parents determined to “get” Nifong." I take it you were accusing the parents as well as the students of "the sickening display of sham virtue." Can you tell me what justified this accusation? As has been pointed out to you in case you were not aware,the players admitted that the party was not something to be proud of. So, do (or did) you think that the players were not morally entitled to defend themselves against their vilification as rapists and accessories to rape, in a case where there was no rape? Now that (I hope) you've been convinced that there was no rape, can you say what you as the parent of one of the lacrosse players would have done differently from what those parents did, especially those parents whose son's were randomly chosen by the accuser to be charged with rape?

I have the impression that gang rapes at fraternities are very rare.The fact that Sanday had to use a false accusation of gang rape as an excuse to discuss her book FRATERNITY GANG RAPE seems like additional evidence for that.Plus,her getting lots of basic facts wrong concerning the Duke hoax makes me skeptical of anything she claims. I think she's probably a buffoon. (See also KC Johnson's comments on the Sanday article.) Do you still think her article is "terrific commentary"?

Thomas Sellke here, again.

After I sent my e-mail yesterday to Professor Rud (excerpted in my previous comment here), Professor Rud quickly sent an e-mail to me in reply. He wrote that he was interested in "talking about broader cultural issues", which apparently did not include the anything I was asking about, or the issues that had been raised by commenters on his blog. He suggested that I phone him or meet him. However, I thought he should explain what he meant by "broader cultural issues" to the commenters on his blog, so I posted the above excerpt from my e-mail on his blog, suggesting as well that he inform all his readers about the "broader cultural issues" stuff.

You won't find my e-mail excerpt or any Duke lacrosse comments on Professor Rud's blog anymore, though. It appears that he has flushed all that down the memoryhole.

--- More comments deleted by "Airbrush" Tony Rud -----

What a tard you are. Young men hired a stripper. BFD. And you pin a Goodfellas label on them? The victims are the young men handcuffed and put on a perp walk all so a gutless DA could buy some black votes.

I admire you for one thing though. You dont let facts get in the way of your jaundiced world view.
dumb name | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 1:00 pm |


Gravatar And you neither!
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.08.07 - 2:36 pm |


Gravatar Please include Bonfires of the Vanaties to your study group. These boys are the "great white defendant." I agree showing a film would have been smarter - cheaper (the 28 and 33 year old women got paid $800 for four minutes), beautiful professsional strippers and no hastle. It was dumb. All age groups, regardless of economic status make dumb decisions. Sometimes they pay with their lives or are maimed for life. for being dumb. four of the lax teams fathers are NYC fireman and one policeman at 9/11 - middle class folk like most of us. You ahould be ashamed of yourself. How can you enter into the debate being so uninformed? A plague on you.
lyn p | 03.11.07 - 12:34 am |


Gravatar Just one problem with this piece. The allegations you speak of are transparently false. Not only are they false but the DA is on record in a court of law practicing gross misconduct. He is on the verge of being disbarred. If you want to push an agenda, pick a winning battle as a rock to stand on, not a case of false accusations.
Dave | 03.11.07 - 12:44 am |


Gravatar Do you people read the nonsense you write? Thanks for a good laugh. Whats to study in Wolfe's book?
vegas grandmother | 03.11.07 - 1:00 am |


Gravatar Kiss your credibility GOODBYE.

LOL. This is what happens to poseurs.
foobar | 03.11.07 - 1:06 am |


Gravatar Prof. Rud,

On your drive down the... "highway to heck"... you might want to check your rearview mirror. The facts in the Duke Lacrosse case are desperately trying to close the gap between your suppositions and their reality.

Pull over. Roll down the windows. Enjoy the fresh scent of truth.
Jim | 03.11.07 - 1:09 am |


Gravatar OK, so some look for DNA evidence, lineup reports, eyewitness reports, witness testimony, and exculpatory evidence, and others look for narratives, ideology and vestiges of racism. Hmmm. Who is right?

If you agree with the former, you are intelligent, and the world thanks you for your understanding of the Truth.

If you agree with the latter, you want to screw white people, the truth doesnt matter to you, and you cling to obvious falsehoods to vindicate your world view.
dumb name | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 2:37 am |


Gravatar To borrow the analogy from the 'Higher Ed' piece, the (lame) ducks in this post are the original author and you.

By supporting her misguided, uninformed, poorly written diatribe (and yes, I have read the sorry 'article' in full) you weaken your credibility.

The "scenario," as she puts it, is just that - an outline of a supposed sequence of events. It's material for a pot-boiler novel or a TV film.

Unfortunately, unlike TV films, we don't get a warning at the start that her piece is merely 'inspired' by the events - only bearing a superficial resemblance to what actually happened.

The young men in the Duke rape hoax did nothing illegal. Perhaps they were stupid, possibly even immoral, in hiring a stripper, but I'd be very careful about casting any more stones. To use a terrible cliche, "what goes around, comes around"
James Howard | 03.11.07 - 4:05 am |


Gravatar James Howard, are you threatening me with your last few lines? Is this your idea of argument and commentary?

Why do most of these comments above concentrate on the supposed "facts" of the case, rather than the culture of violence and privilege that I discuss?

What does being a fireman's son or a 9/11 policeman's son have to do with my commentary?

There's lots to study in Wolfe's novel, Vegas granny. I would be happy to share these ideas with you.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 5:31 am |


Gravatar Oh dear - just a TOUCH paranoid aren't we? As you missed the point, let me clarify:

By referring to the cliche, I am pointing out that those that throw stones (ie make comments concerning another person's morality) in the public arena should be careful, especially when the 'facts' don't stand up to scrutiny.

I'm not a Bible-thumper, far from it, but there's something to be said for "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." - are you in such an enviable position?

Do you REALLY want to encourage the all too prevalent climate of denouncing a person or culture before all the FACTS (yes, the facts) are established? If so, don't be surprised or outraged when public opinion inevitably turns and your 'side' is put in the position of the 3 accused.

To address your point about concentrating on the "culture of violence and privilege that I discuss" I'll say this:

When you make sweeping statements like "It is just the latest, most egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly..." but use a case like Duke to illustrate it, then you shouldn't be surprised if people call you on the facts of the case.

When you remove the alledged rape (as the DA has been forced to do) and ignore the equally dubious kidnap and assault charges (soon to be removed if the overwhelming body of disinterested legal opinion is anything to go on) then what are you left with?

1. An athletics team had a party at which they drank alcohol
2. A group of young men hired a couple of strippers
3. Err... hmmm... that's it

THIS is what you refer to as the "...the latest, most egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly"

THIS is the worst example you could come up with? That they drank lots of alcohol at an off-campus party and hired a stripper?

I take it, of course, that YOU didn't EVER drink whilst underage? And that you've NEVER drunk to excess?

It's possible that you've never hired a stripper or attended an event where a stripper was present, but I'd like to bet that you've at least viewed Porn at some point in your life.

That aside, wouldn't you agree with me that inviting a borderline terrorist/race hate group (the New Black Panthers) onto a campus would be a much more pertinent example of a culture of violence?

Or how about encouraging a vigilante group (the so-called potbangers) to make death threats against people?

Or what about attending an event with loud-hailers, telling the 'rapists' they're not welcome and displaying banners reading "castrate" (all WELL before the facts had come out - is that your idea of how justice should be served)?

Or how about printing "wanted" posters with photographs and contact details of the 'suspects' (all 47 of them) and allowing them to be prominently displayed on campus?

These, I would suggest, are far more egregious examples of building an atmosphere of hate and violence than anything a group of young
James Howard | 03.11.07 - 7:34 am |


Gravatar My comment was curtailed.

To finish my point, all of the most violent actions on the Duke Campus were initiated by the "Gang of 88."

Far from being "fragile and impotent," a substantial portion of the faculty at Duke have been craven bullys, displaying the type of authoritarian and bigoted behaviour that wouldn't have been out of place in Wiemar Germany.

Be careful (of your own reputation), when you choose to support them without first understanding what it is you're supporting.
James Howard | 03.11.07 - 7:47 am |


Gravatar I would like to believe that you are speaking out of good intentions.

The truth is, Mr. Rud, you are just a liar.

Plain and simple. The usual sort of liar, too.
Stephen Thomas | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 8:14 am |


Gravatar "Be careful (of your own reputation..."

OK, Dad!
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 8:20 am |


Gravatar Stephen, what is the "usual sort of liar?" And, while you and others are at it, please let me in on the "truth" you know.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 8:24 am |


Gravatar James Howard: "By referring to the cliche, I am pointing out that those that (sic) throw stones (ie make comments concerning another person's morality)"

Unlike James Howard, of course. He's immune from throwing stones, and he knows THE TRUTH ABOUT DUKE. He was there! Now, back to watching Rashamon...
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 8:28 am |


Gravatar "the culture of violence and privilege behind the Duke lacrosse case."

hmm; there was no violence or privilege at the Duke LAX incident; merely young men who hired strippers, and had the decency to pay up when they were ripped off.

"So much of the commentary on the Duke case overlooks the disgraceful culture of privilege, racism, and simmering gang rape."
it is a shame you cannot justify the phrase "culture of simmering gang rape" at Duke.

A disgraceful culture of privilege ? Presumably that means you get to despise young men because of their parents ?

A disgraceful culture of racism ? That just means you cannot even get the evidence together to justify a plain charge of racism.

per
per | 03.11.07 - 8:40 am |


Gravatar "Unlike James Howard, ... he knows THE TRUTH ABOUT DUKE"

hang on; you just wrote:
"It is just the latest, most egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly..."

he just pointed out that the record of fact supports under-age drinking at a party, and the (legal) hiring of strippers. It is you who is making allegations which seem to have no basis in reality.

per
per | 03.11.07 - 8:50 am |


Gravatar PER,

If my son attended a similar party, I would be ashamed.

It is unfortunate that you don't recognize a cultural critique, and honk on with the other trolls about "facts."
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 8:58 am |


Gravatar I'll take the "ok Dad" as a compliment seeing as I am one.

Of course, like all children, you're free to ignore good advice and, like most children who do, you'll end up getting hurt (and just to keep your paranoia at bay, I'm talking professionally).

Whether you'll subsequently learn from your experience is, I'm guessing, doubtful.

As for stone throwing, I'll leave that to you. You seem to be so much better at it. The difference between you and I?

Neither of us were there for the alledged incident, but at least I've taken the trouble to read through as much material as I can find on it before pontificating. That's called 'researching your subject' - something you SHOULD be familiar with (or did your degree come on the back of a cornflake packet)?

Oooh look, I can throw stones after all.

Perhaps, when you've had your fill of pretentiously name dropping Japanese art house flicks, you'll get around to properly defending your outrageous position (I'll remind you that it's "...the latest, most egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly").

Either that or have the courtesy to admit you were talking out of your hat.
Anonymous | 03.11.07 - 8:59 am |


Gravatar .....And you are a college professor???

Sure do feel sorry for your students. They are getting cheated.

Also "what goes around, comes around" equals "you reap what you sow", but you probably haven't read the Bible.
duh | 03.11.07 - 9:00 am |


Gravatar Rashamon is not name dropping. It is common knowledge, Dad. And stop insulting my degree. It came from the back of a Wheaties box.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:04 am |


Gravatar Hmmm.

Why do most of these comments above concentrate on the supposed "facts" of the case, rather than the culture of violence and privilege that I discuss?

1. People actually pay money to learn from you? That's quite astonishing really.

2. Precisely what "culture of violence and privilege" are you talking about?

The one where Duke LAX players did not rape the accuser? Where they did not assault the accuser?

You've gassed on quite a bit about this without actually providing a single instance of such that hasn't been completely and utterly debunked.

But then again that's probably par for the course for someone who thinks facts should be referenced as "facts".
ed | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:05 am |


Gravatar Hey Duh, come on over and read the Bible to me; I can show you my notes from my undergraduate religion major.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:06 am |


Gravatar "So much of the commentary on the Duke case overlooks the disgraceful culture of privilege, racism, and simmering gang rape."


Statistically, as a group, do white priviledged males engage in violence or gang rape at a greater rate than other race/ socio economic groups? Why highlight a group in reference to acts of violence when other groups statistically are more likely to commit those acts?
LEC | 03.11.07 - 9:07 am |


Gravatar Hmmmm.

If my son attended a similar party, I would be ashamed.

Really?

I've been to quite a few of these kinds of parties and they're really rather boring but you're often expected to attend because of team participation or the sense of obligation. But rarely for enjoyment. Usually the only really enjoyable thing going on is the beer keg.

What I find enormous amusing is the idea that these parties are some sort of Roman Bacchanalia filled to the brim with deviants and perversions. In reality it's usually a bunch of really bored guys drinking beer while an equally bored dancer is watching the clock.

But hey. Don't let reality get in the way of your manufactured outrage.
ed | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:11 am |


Gravatar Ed, thank you. It is par for the course for me to refer to facts as "facts." And it is a culture of violence and privilege that I am talking about. Read Charlotte Simmons, and if you don't like Tom Wolfe, then ask yourself if you would find such a party just a "good time" by "boys."

Sorry to be so flatulent! Beano to the rescue!
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:11 am |


Gravatar LEC, because they should know better. That is why I refer to the liberal arts environment as fragile and impotent. Thanks for reasoning with me.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:14 am |


Gravatar Oh so humourous. I guess this is the phase you'd LIKE to think of as 'winding up the trolls.'

Fine, it's your blog so you can leave yourself looking as stupid as you like.

I would have liked to see you try to justify your position. I don't think you'd have managed it, but at least you'd have retained some credibility.

And Rashamon being well known? Get a grip (or a life). I'd absolutely pay you top dollar if you got anything more than about a 5% recognition of that name from a statistically meaningful random selection of people.

My very last word of advice? (I know - try not to cry though)

Try the cornflakes next time, their certificate is better printed.

Dad.
James Howard | 03.11.07 - 9:16 am |


Gravatar "In reality it's usually a bunch of really bored guys drinking beer while an equally bored dancer is watching the clock."

All the more depressing for the parents shelling out $40K plus for such boredom!
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:16 am |


Gravatar Hmmmm.

Read Charlotte Simmons, and if you don't like Tom Wolfe, then ask yourself if you would find such a party just a "good time" by "boys."

I'd suggest your error is in conflating literature with reality. A novel has characters created by the author of various repute because it makes for a good story.

This doesn't mean that the novel, story or characters have any connection with real people. Particularly since real people are far more complex than any literary character who, almost by definition, must be represented as an archetype.

Additionally the situations as represented in a piece of literature has absolutely nothing in common with reality, even those that are supposed to represent real situations as real situations are far more complex.

As for you using Tom Wolfe's novel as a yardstick with which to measure the Duke Rape Case. Really now. Have you no shame? There is absolutely nothing to compare the two aside from your contention that they are mirror images. That they are not in fact mirror images really shows the lack not in the novel but in the representation by you.

Frankly the internet has been both a boon and a heavy burden. I went directly into the US Marines at age 17 instead of attending college. For many years I thought this was a mistake, until I acquired more and more contact with college professors. Now I've come to thank Almighty God that I had avoided this sort of nonsense.

At some point I'll go to college and quite likely for a degree in English or perhaps literature when my working career is at an end. But I know when I do so that I'll have the breadth of experience to know when to tell a professor that he's full of crap.
ed | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:19 am |


Gravatar "ok Dad"???

From a college professor? How old are professor? What kind of morons do we have teaching our children when they state to ignore facts?

Sorry professor but facts are important. Without them, we are dealing in fantasy. If that is what you want to do, then say it clearly so you do not falsely imply what you state is fact.

Get it now?
EC | 03.11.07 - 9:20 am |


Gravatar James,

I have tried to justify my position. Perhaps when I have more time, I can think more and do more on this issue. I have to move on, but it has been, er, um, stimulating to think a bit more carefully about the Duke lacrosse case. I'll take your tip on the cornflake certificate!
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:21 am |


Gravatar EC, I am unconvinced that fantasy is the opposite of fact. And I am tired of making this point in response to ad hominem attacks. Maybe I will have more to say some other time on my views.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:25 am |


Gravatar "But I know when I do so that I'll have the breadth of experience to know when to tell a professor that he's full of crap."

Sounds good, Ed. I like such students.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:34 am |


Gravatar "It is unfortunate that you don't recognize a cultural critique, and honk on with the other trolls about "facts.""
even "cultural critiques" have to have some basis in reality; otherwise you are dealing in lies and fantasy. And the fact is that there was no rape, and the official duke investigation of the LAX team revealed no evidence of racism; that there was excellent academic performance in the LAX team, and that misbehaviour was at a comparable level to the college average. These are the "facts" you so despise.

"If my son attended a similar party, I would be ashamed"

I am looking forward to you being consistent. All your current students that drink, that go to strip clubs or see strippers; they will all be "most egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly". And we shouldn't forget any unintended misandry here, since women do exactly the same things. I look forward to your public castigation of your own students for such "shameful" behaviour.

Of course, if you don't do this, it won't in any way be hypocrisy.

per
per | 03.11.07 - 9:35 am |


Gravatar Professor,

I am not sure that it is at all profitable to engage you in intellectual debate given you seem capable of little more than childish retorts (reminiscent of a bad 1980's era bulletin board), but I am still amazed by your inability / refusal to address the facts.

The overwhelming evidence indicates that no rape or assault occurred. To then try fit this incident into a narrative of a culture of violence and privilege requires a stunning leap of intellectual dishonesty.

Feel free to respond with any gratuitous insult of your choice.
Another | 03.11.07 - 9:43 am |


Gravatar Mr. Rud,

To what extent are you informed on the facts and revelations of this ENTIRE case? I get the impression you know very little outside of the accusations against the Duke players. It is the only conclusion I can draw based on your comments.

The entire team is on record that the drinking and strippers at the party were a poor decision, but that no rape occurred or crime occurred. The investigation and facts of the case are further proof that this case is a hoax.

This is not a winning battle for you to hang your agenda on, even if your agenda is simply to further these "discussions" you seem to enjoy.
Dave | 03.11.07 - 10:05 am |


Gravatar "I take it, of course, that YOU didn't EVER drink whilst underage? And that you've NEVER drunk to excess? "

You haven't answered the questions, Prof. Rud. And here is another one:
have you ever attended a party where there has been under-age drinking ?

And if your answer is yes, will you condemn yourself for participating in an "egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly" ?

per
per | 03.11.07 - 11:00 am |


Gravatar I have played lacrosse since I was nine – in pee-wee leagues, elementary school, junior high, high school, college and then on several post-collegiate teams. I turn thirty-nine today. And I ushered in my thirty-ninth birthday by watching Loyola beat Duke on CSTV until the wee hours of this morning.

Amidst all this "playing" and "watching" I was also studying; earning three postsecondary degrees to date and working on a fourth. While working on several of the graduate degrees, I supported myself by being a lacrosse coach. (Both on the collegiate and high school levels.) For the past fifteen years, I have worked as a higher education administrator – and several of those years were spent at Hofstra where I came to know (in passing) John Danowski – who left Hofstra less than a year ago to take the coaching reigns at Duke in the wake of this situation.

It suffices to write, with these kinds of experiences, you will find it no surprise that I have been following the Duke case with great interest. And, clearly, I am not the only one following this; it has become the focus of much media scrutiny. You can find it covered on sources from youtube to Sixty Minutes – and blogs like this.

What strikes me about this blog is that there seems to be a lot of emphasis on facts here – so much emphasis, in fact (pardon the pun), that folks seem to be missing the forest for the trees. In other words, many of the responses here seem to be concentrating on the pedantic aspects of the Duke case, and those details seem to be bogging you down.

As far as I can tell, the whole reason for Professor Rud's posting was not to debate the facts; it was to discuss public perceptions of the predominantly (but not solely) white, affluent, college-aged male culture of violence and privilege. To argue that the DNA tests and Nifong's wrong-doings dispel this culture is to ignore the facts – and by facts I mean, the cultural history of the game and the broader history of which it is a part. Whether they were aware of it or not, the Duke players were acting in (and thus shaping) these facts (a.k.a. the cultural history). And thus, I'd like to bring those facts to your attention.

Fact 1 – Lacrosse, in and of itself, is an example of cultural appropriation – by the phase "cultural appropriation" I mean a case where the dominant culture (in this case, white, affluent males) took an aspect of a subordinated group's culture (in this case, a sport played by Mohawks living on a reservation near Montreal) and made it their own – in the process, rewriting the game's history to omit details and limit participation of those who created it. I am not advancing my own thesis here. This is a well-supported argument. Check out Thomas Vennum's American Indian Lacrosse: Little Brother of War and/or Donald M. Fisher's Lacrosse: A History of the Game.

Fact 2 – Even though exceptions abound, the public perception of lacrosse is that it is a privileged, white person's
Drew | 03.11.07 - 11:26 am |


Gravatar Fact 2 – Even though exceptions abound, the public perception of lacrosse is that it is a privileged, white person's game – this is why U.S. Lacrosse (the governing body of the game) has made great efforts to feature African Americans and Native American players in their publications and practices. For example, the latest edition of Lacrosse Magazine has an article on the first installments in the black lacrosse hall of fame. I applaud U.S. Lacrosse for taking this action – but they would not need to do so (at least in part) if the public regarded the game as inclusive.

Fact 3 – Some of the most prominent institutions in which the game is featured were founded on racial inequity (even if efforts are underway to change that today) – Let's look at Duke's conference, the ACC. In particular, let's look at the University of Virginia – the winner of the 2003 and 2006 men's national championships and women's national championship in 2004. "Mr. Jefferson's University" is not without its own racial baggage. As you may recall, Jefferson's slave owning past and the denial by his descendants of his being the father of children born to one of his slaves (Sally Hemings) have been "flies in the ointment" for Jefferson's legacy – to say the least. On the paternity part, the denials bordered on the contentious until, in 2000, DNA evidence was examined in a study commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. (See http://www.monticello.org/ planta...ngs_report.html ) The findings revealed that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings (one of Sally's sons), and that he was perhaps the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children listed in Monticello records. The point that I am getting at here is that race, denied sex, and subordination are intricately linked with some of the most prestigious ACC institutions through their founders, and that athletics at these institutions (even if only through association) are linked with this legacy as well.

What I am saying is it that race, class and the history associated therewith matter – they form people's opinions and shape the culture of which we are all a part. And though our actions, we also shape this culture.

Again, whether they were aware of it or not, the Duke players were acting in (and thus shaping) this culture – and, as gifted Duke students, they should not pleads ignorance to the history of the game they play and the context in which it is played. They have a responsibility to do better. To be better.

If you think I am full of it, then ask their new coach, who in a well balanced interview with the New York Times, asserted that he is telling his players at Duke that he is preaching "good decisions on and off the field." (The article was published on February 25, 2007 under the title "A Father Goes to Aid His Son and Duke." You can find it at http://select.nytimes.com/2007/0...%2fColumns% 2fGe
Drew | 03.11.07 - 11:27 am |


Gravatar Coach Danowski would not need to do that if these players had not made some bad decisions last year. And these decisions (unfortunately) reinforced the public perception of lacrosse as a classist and racist game. It is clear that the Duke players are taking some lessons about their actions as a result of this whole issue. Sadly, form what I read in this posting, I am not sure that the learning has been vicarious for many of the folks posting here . . . .
Drew | 03.11.07 - 11:28 am |


Gravatar AG - I am disappointed that you are unable to that boys from working class/middle class families do not fit into your agenda of priveliged males. My youngest son and his pals have MBAs from Chicago, Duke, Northwestern - Phds from MIT, Stanford and the like. All came from middle class families who worked their b***s off to put these guys through a good school. They can afford to come to Vegas for the bachelor party -I am sure always involves a strip club. I am not ashamed of them and know they did underage drinking.There is no white on black rape - see DOJ and FBI. Vegas having been invaded by thug fans of the NBA, know what simmering gang rape threats are all about.
vegas grandmother | 03.11.07 - 12:38 pm |


Gravatar Surely, we're seeing the aftermath of a stroke here. Time to lighten up. This is beyond rational.
dw | 03.11.07 - 1:12 pm |


Gravatar Out of curiosity...by "culture of violence and privilege", what exactly are you talking about?

Are there studies, or FBI stats, or any evidence whatsoever that suggest the "privileged" commit a disproprtionate amount of violence?

By "privileged", do you mean "white"? If not, can you give sime examples of non-white "privileged" violence that concerns you?

Do you have any interest in violence committed by the "non-privileged"?
Kenny | 03.11.07 - 1:25 pm |


Gravatar drew
if these players had not made some bad decisions last year."
the players went to a party where there was under-age drinking, and (legal) stippers; no different to a very large number of all undergraduates.

"the public perception of lacrosse as a classist and racist game"
the official duke LAX inquiry found that the LAX team were neither "classist" nor racist, had an excellent academic record, and had a record of disciplinary complaints on ly slightly above campus average. Some of the "facts" that some folk like to ignore.
How can the duke LAX players be responsible for "public perception", which was fuelled by the lies and unethical behaviour of DA Mike Nifong ? By the incendiary language of their 88 professors, who spoke of racism and rape ? By Brodhead, whose actions of firing the coach and stopping the season, made their own eloquent pre-judgement ?
when people start telling us to forget the "facts", and follow their own historical meta-narrative, based on no relation to facts, that's when I know there is trouble.
per
per | 03.11.07 - 1:33 pm |


Gravatar On the other hand, if the Women's LAX team had a party, drank a few beers and hired a couple MALE strippers, would that be an example of the rampant "rape culture" and the "climate of privelege and elitism" of which you speak?

Or would that simply be some kids being a little naughty?

Please extend my sympathies to those unfortunate students who find themselves stuck in one of your classes; I'm certain that they get a healthy dose of this kind of garbage on a regular basis.
WIlliam | 03.11.07 - 1:41 pm | #


Gravatar I doubt you have any sons. If you did, you would know better.

Flan
Flan | 03.11.07 - 1:57 pm |


Gravatar Um, I think it's actually Rashomon.
anon | 03.11.07 - 2:37 pm |


Gravatar Thanks, Anon, I thought when I wrote it that it didn't look right!
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 2:54 pm |


Gravatar Rud, you really are a piece of work. Have you no shame sir? STFU before you are totally blown out of the water.
anon | 03.11.07 - 3:00 pm |


Gravatar Drew,

Your facts are interesting. It's unfortunate that you--like Prof Rud before you--and like the Group of 88 before him--are so enchanted by one meta-narrative that you choose to illustrate it with the particulars of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. As Sigmund might have said, sometimes a hoax is just a hoax.

People can be tempted to misrepresent circumstances so that they better symbolize favored interpretations of the wider world. This does their causes no great service.

The 'blogosphere' is a big place, and perhaps you will enjoy the posts of Steve Sailer. Almost a year ago, he wrote perceptively about the connection between Wolfe and the Duke Lacrosse Hoax:

Once again we see from the media's frenzied hunt for the Great White Defendant (to use Wolfe's term from 1987's Bonfire of the Vanities)… that what white Americans really like is sticking it to other white Americans. As Wolfe pointed out in his description of the New York City district attorney's office, white Americans find the transgressions of African Americans and Hispanics to be depressing and boring, in large part because whites see themselves (condescendingly) not as being in status competition with minorities, just with other whites. This is not because white people hate white people as a whole, just other white people they are competing with for status. The Duke lacrosse team, a bunch of rich preppie jerks, makes a wonderful target for other whites wishing to parade their moral superiority.
Developments since Sailer wrote have not borne out his impression of the Duke team as preppie jerks, but that's a quibble.

I hope this excerpt has not upset either you or Prof. Rud from your respective lofty perches.
AMac | 03.11.07 - 4:11 pm |

Gravatar Drew

Cricket is a game that originated in the English home counties. It was in the Victorian era a game of the white and privileged. It was played by these white privileged elites all over the British empire where it was taken up by the poor and non-white. Nowadays it is the most popular sport in the Indian Sub-continent where it is played in front of huge fanatical crowds. It is also hugely popular among West Indians. Is this an example of "cultural appropriation" and if it is what is wrong with that? It is just a hugely enjoyable game taken up by people for that reason. The same is true of Lacrosse. Sometimes people with your views have their asses so far up their backsides its impossible to extricate them.

As far as the perceptions of lacrosse or the players go, if perceptions of this case are shaped by anthing other than facts about what the players did, they are prejudices and prejudices are ALWAYS wrong. The facts say that the Duke Lacrosse team did nothing that any reasonable person would desribe as seriously wrong. You are in effect arguing that the Duke Lacrosse players were in the wrong because they are white, male and come from a well-off background. That is as much an unacceptable prejudice as saying someone was in the wrong because she is black, female and poor. Racism and other prejudices are evil and hateful because they denigrate people over who they are and not what they do. That is exactly what you are doing.

PJ Brooke
PJBrooke | 03.11.07 - 4:26 pm |


Gravatar The Duke non-rape in question is a case of man bites dog.

Sad but true.

Otherwise we would know nothing of it.

Rud, it seems you still know nothing of it.
michael freeman | 03.11.07 - 4:35 pm |


Gravatar Ugh Drew - Easton was the only child to have Jefferson DNA in spite of your inneundo. Thats Jefferson DNA, not Thomas Jefferson DNA. When all else fails insult the writer. AG Rud is another hoax commentator who retires from the field quickly. Has to "move on" like so many others who got caught by by the facts.
lynp | 03.11.07 - 4:44 pm |


Gravatar It is just the latest, most egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly

For context, can you please define "privileged" and "behaving badly"?

It has already been established that many of the Duke Lax players come from non-wealthy middle-class families, so does "priviliged" mean "white"? Is the one black Duke Lax player (Devon Sherwood) also "privileged"?

Is attending a keg party "behaving badly" if some present are underage? Was Devon Sherwood "behaving badly" by attending? Do you agree that such "bad behavior" is common on college campuses, even among "non-privileged"?

Is attending a party with strippers "behaving badly"? Do you actually believe this is uncommon among college students...privileged AND non-privileged?
Kenny | 03.11.07 - 4:46 pm |


Gravatar Kenny,

Is attending a party with strippers "behaving badly"? YES.

Do you actually believe this is uncommon among college students...privileged AND non- privileged? YES, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT IS: UNCOMMON.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 5:00 pm |


Gravatar Fact 1 – Lacrosse, in and of itself, is an example of cultural appropriation – by the phase "cultural appropriation" I mean a case where the dominant culture (in this case, white, affluent males) took an aspect of a subordinated group's culture (in this case, a sport played by Mohawks living on a reservation near Montreal) and made it their own

If white males refused to play a game that originated in a "subordinated group's culture", wouldn't that be racist?

Some whites like rap music, some do not. Are the whites who like rap guilty of "cultural appropriation"? Are whites who do not like rap, racists?
Kenny | 03.11.07 - 5:03 pm |


Gravatar Is attending a party with strippers "behaving badly"? YES.

Do you actually believe this is uncommon among college students...privileged AND non- privileged? YES, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT IS: UNCOMMON.


Thank you for your response. (For the record, I've attended parties with strippers, I consider it quite common...and it was also common when I was in college 25 years ago.) However, it appears you overlooked several of my questions. For your convenience, I'll repeat them.

Out of curiosity...by "culture of violence and privilege", what exactly are you talking about?

Are there studies, or FBI stats, or any evidence whatsoever that suggest the "privileged" commit a disproprtionate amount of violence?

By "privileged", do you mean "white"? If not, can you give sime examples of non-white "privileged" violence that concerns you?

Do you have any interest in violence committed by the "non-privileged"?

For context, can you please define "privileged" and "behaving badly"?

It has already been established that many of the Duke Lax players come from non-wealthy middle-class families, so does "privileged" mean "white"? Is the one black Duke Lax player (Devon Sherwood) also "privileged"?

Is attending a keg party "behaving badly" if some present are underage? Was Devon Sherwood "behaving badly" by attending? Do you agree that such "bad behavior" is common on college campuses, even among "non-privileged"?
Kenny | 03.11.07 - 5:10 pm |


Gravatar "Do you actually believe this is uncommon among college students...privileged AND non- privileged?YES, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT IS: UNCOMMON."
well, it would be tempting to ask you if you had any facts to support your beliefs; but I guess that would be where we get into your line of the "facts" not having anything to do with the cultural narratives.

Nonetheless, just in the name of equity, I will be looking forward to you demonising any of the students at your college that go to strip clubs, or attend parties with strippers. You should do so publically, as you have done for the named Duke boys, and you should use similar invective as you did with the LAX players.

Why not ?

per
per | 03.11.07 - 5:22 pm |


Gravatar Mr. Rud, Charlotte Simmons is a lesser fiction than Precious' accusations.
dumb name | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 6:25 pm |


Gravatar Mr. Rud...Do you get that the theme here is you do not know what you are talking about...when was the last time you actually read information on this case? According to your 'facts' you are 10 months behind in your reading !
The FACTS are: NOTHING happened that night that does not happen on college campuses EVERYDAY!!!! AND this group of young men are bright, polite, dedicated and respectful.
They are the only ones that have taken FULL responsibility for there actions and apologized, over and over.
As Duke Lacrosse parents we could NOT be prouder of our boys.

Duke Lax Mom AND SO VERY PROUD OF IT!!!
Duke Lax Parent | 03.11.07 - 6:56 pm |


Gravatar Duke Lax parent states "The FACTS are: NOTHING happened that night that does not happen on college campuses EVERYDAY!!!!"

What a depressing and cynical world view. Fortunately this is not true, at least for the college campus I am on every day.
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 7:06 pm |


Gravatar Your students do not drink? Never hired a stripper? Delusional!!!
We are all still waiting for you to address your "facts". 60+ comments and almost ALL are that you have NO clue what you are talking about!!!
Just admit it....you should have done some actual 'fact checking' BEFORE your comment was written...we are waiting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People make mistakes all the time...ok to admit it and apologize.
Duke Lax Parent | 03.11.07 - 7:18 pm |


Gravatar "Fortunately this is not true, at least for the college campus I am on every day."

it is interesting to speculate how professor Rud knows this; perhaps this is one of the "facts" he affects to so despise ?

So let's check. Purdue has system-wide enrollment of 69,098 students. In 2005, there were 376, and 2004, 456 liquor law violations; that's more than one liquor law violation per day. That's obviously not counting all the parties where there is underage drinking that go off perfectly peaceably.

"What a depressing and cynical world view."
prof, you still haven't managed to get the distinction between "facts", and your prejudices- or fantasies about culture of violence and privilege, as you prefer.

per
per | 03.11.07 - 7:51 pm |


Gravatar What a depressing and cynical world view. Fortunately this is not true, at least for the college campus I am on every day.

Do you have any way of substantiating this, or is this merely unfounded speculation on your part?

If this is just speculation that you can't corroborate, please be honest enough to say so. Thank you.
Kenny | 03.11.07 - 8:21 pm |


Gravatar C'mon, y'all.

The good professor has slipped a cog. There's no way someone with such limited intellect could acquire a professorship at Purdue.

Leave him his dignity, and lighten up. This isn't the real person here.
dw | 03.11.07 - 8:50 pm |


Gravatar Thanks DW, there ARE days when more than a cog has slipped. Today is one of them, and the cogs are so loaded with snot it is hard to keep them moving.

Kenny, I was reacting to the words that said such happened at Purdue "every day." A party where a minority stripper is hired for the benefit of an athletic team does not happen at Purdue every day. It really is a much more boring, and thus pleasant, place to work than that.

Per, what is with the skull and crossbones? Of course there are underage drinking violations at Purdue. I don't despise facts, but I don't believe that there are such things as uncontested "facts." Dewey believed in warranted assertions, and I think I would like to stick with that, knowing full well that they are ALWAYS up for contestation at a later time. It's the kind of world I prefer to live in. It seems others prefer facts that they can touch and feel. This strikes me as a kind of literalism, fundamentalism, or positivism. It's just not that interesting to live in such a world, IMHO. But I am willing to read and learn more about this Duke stuff. Just send me plenty of good English tea so I can at least enjoy that as I read about the unfolding legal drama, the group of 88 or whatever, the relation of Duke to Durham and NCCU and so on...
A. G. Rud | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 9:29 pm |


Gravatar Professor Rud wrote:

"Is attending a party with strippers "behaving badly"? YES.

Do you actually believe this is uncommon among college students...privileged AND non- privileged? YES, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT IS: UNCOMMON."

And then he wrote:

"Duke Lax parent states "The FACTS are: NOTHING happened that night that does not happen on college campuses EVERYDAY!!!!

What a depressing and cynical world view. Fortunately this is not true, at least for the college campus I am on every day."


Professor, what happened at the Duke Lacrosse party was a group of college students were drinking and they hired a couple of (what they thought to be) strippers. Since Rud now does not try to defend his earlier "simmering gang rape" nonsense, I will not address it here.

Let's first address the topic of college student drinking, specifically Purdue University student drinking. The following is from an overview of a recent Purdue University Student Wellness Office workshop on Purdue student alcohol abuse. Professor, if you bother to read far enough to actually fact gather you may learn some rather well known statistics with regard to overall student alcohol use and student binge drinking. The statistics certainly belie your second comment above.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/ html3...oew.survey.html

Now let's turn to the topic of stripper parties. The following is a recent article from Inside Higher Ed (yes Professor, the same Inside Higher Ed where you posted your unintelligent "simmering gang rape" nonsense). The article title is "Jocks Gone Wild?" and the first sentence begins: "Now sharing space on a Web site near you: Female athletes parading in their sports bras and underwear, a gyrating male stripper giving lap dances…." http://www.insidehighered.com/ne...06/05/19/ hazing

That article is about collegiate hazing activities that now regularly include hired strippers and simulated sex acts. The genesis of the article was a series of exposes by Badjocks.com.

http://www.badjocks.com/archive/...ccer- hazing.htm

Badjocks.com featured the Northwestern University Women's soccer and 12 additional photo albums that it called the "Dirty Dozen."
The athletic teams on the Web site were: Northwestern University Women's soccer, Catholic University women's lacrosse, Quinnipiac University men's baseball, University of California at Santa Barbara women's lacrosse, Wake Forest University women's volleyball, Fordham University women's softball, Elon University men's baseball, Fairleigh Dickinson University women's softball, James Madison University women's club soccer, Kenyon College men's baseball, Princeton University cheerleading, Union College women's soccer and University of Michigan men's lacrosse.
Professor, you will note that nine of the thirteen exposes covered female participants.

Want more data Professor? Go to Webshots.com and search for "stripper parties." A few minutes ago
ME | 03.11.07 - 9:39 pm |


Gravatar Continuation from above....

Want more data Professor? Go to Webshots.com and search for "stripper parties." A few minutes ago that search returned 15,799 results. You will note that most of the pictures indicate college aged participants.

http://www.webshots.com/search? q...ce=chromeheader

I won't even try to guess what is available on MySpace.com.

Professor Rud, in order for you to redeem yourself for the offensive and unintelligent posts and comments that you have made I would suggest that you immediately undertake a two step program:

Step 1: Remove you head from your patoot.
Step 2: Henceforth, do not post or comment about what you do not know.
ME | 03.11.07 - 9:42 pm |


Gravatar If no one hired minority strippers, how would these strippers make a living? And a good one at that? I bet even you, professor, do not make 400$ for four minutes of work? Despite your Ph.D and all?
Lara | 03.11.07 - 9:52 pm |


Gravatar Drew, it's unbelievable that you are still trotting out the nonsense about Thomas Jefferson being the ancestor of any of the Hemings. Your OWN resource (did you read it?) shows that there is a DNA link between ONE Hemings and Thomas Jefferson's paternal uncle, Field Jefferson. http://www.monticello.org/ planta...dnareport2.html

That's it. Nothing about Thomas Jefferson being the ancestor of ANY Hemings.

Your meta-narrative (which seems to be eerily similar to the Group of 88's) needs some serious review. Learn ACTUAL facts, not the lies trotted out by professors with agendas.
WhyteRain | 03.11.07 - 10:50 pm |


Gravatar [Kenny, I was reacting to the words that said such happened at Purdue "every day." A party where a minority stripper is hired for the benefit of an athletic team does not happen at Purdue every day. It really is a much more boring, and thus pleasant, place to work than that.]

The students requested white strippers.
Michael | 03.11.07 - 11:07 pm |


Gravatar They said you closed the draw bridge.Well, he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.
lynp | 03.12.07 - 3:28 am |


Gravatar Professor Rud,

My advice to you is start another blog using another name. I suggest Pinocchio. It is a name that now has more credibility than Rud.

QuadDog
Anonymous | 03.12.07 - 10:19 am |

zero hedge

Calculated Risk

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Paul Krugman - NY Times

The Big Picture - Barry Ritholtz

naked capitalism - Yves Smith

Pragmatic Capitalism

Washington's Blog

Safe Haven

The Daily Capitalist

Paper Economy

The Daily Reckoning - Australia

GLOOM AND DOOM REPORT

Financial Sector and Stocks Analysis from Seeking Alpha

Gold / Oil

Loading...