| Blog and Media Roundup - Monday, June 29, 2009; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 29 2009, 04:22 AM (240 Views) | |
| abb | Jun 29 2009, 04:22 AM Post #1 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1176330.cfm Site clearing for new courthouse delayed By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun gronberg@heraldsun.com Jun 29, 2009 Bookmark and Share DURHAM -- County Commissioners have given the Scarborough & Hargett Funeral Home a two-month extension on the lease of its current home on South Roxboro Street and signaled that another could follow later this summer. The funeral home was supposed to be off the property by Tuesday so officials could begin demolishing the existing building to make way for a new county courthouse. But work on Scarborough & Hargett's new quarters along Martin Luther King Parkway in the UDI Industrial Park is stalled. The funeral home's owner, J.C. "Skeepie" Scarborough, recently asked the county for a lease extension that would run until March 2010. County administrators have said that's not possible, as it would undermine the construction schedule for the courthouse. They hope to take bids for the work in October and start building the facility in January, Deputy County Manager Wendell Davis said. Workers have already demolished the other business displaced by the courthouse project, a U-Haul rental center that fronted South Mangum Street. Davis and County Manager Mike Ruffin recommended extending the funeral home's lease to Aug. 31. The commissioners went along, but said they want to be kept up to date about how Scarborough & Hargett is doing in establishing new quarters. Ruffin said that if "satisfactory progress is made," his government would likely recommend offering the funeral home an additional two-month extension. That would give it until the end of October to move out. But it's not clear whether they'll be much further along by August. Work at the UDI site stopped in October and to date has not resumed. Contractors erected some of the building's framing and stacked pieces of its ceiling truss on site. But the site was deserted Friday afternoon, even as about a dozen laborers were busy across Industry Lane expanding a storage center. Scarborough in his letter told county officials that the contractors found bad soils on the property that would cause structural problems, and the remains of an old dump. The discoveries -- surprising because "appropriate testing had been done prior to any construction activity" -- have added about $412,000 to the cost of the project, Scarborough said in his letter. The delays are worrying UDI officials, who sold the property to the Scarboroughs in September 2007 for $303,000. "I know from UDI's standpoint that we have a concern because nothing's being done on the site," said Mayor Bill Bell, who's also the nonprofit's chief operating officer. "The concern is the appearance of the property and the effect it has on the park." Scarborough seems confident that the facility will be completed, eventually. "Normally, if the economy and the system had worked its way through, we should have been in that building last November," he said in an interview. "Right now, we're waiting for the air to clear." The funeral home owner is pursuing stopgaps. He met recently with city/county planners on Wednesday to gauge the chances of getting permission to use a family-owned mansion near N.C. Central University at 1406 Fayetteville St. as a temporary funeral home starting Sept. 1. The answer wasn't encouraging. According to a report sent afterward to Ruffin and City Manager Tom Bonfield, planners determined the site would need a rezoning and that the City Council would have to change Durham's land-use policies to accommodate one. Those plus the usual permits would take a minimum of six months and more likely 12 to 16 months to process, Assistant Planning Director Patrick Young said in the report. But officials nonetheless "offered to assist the Scarboroughs in any way allowed" by local and state law, particularly by helping them assess the legalities involved with other fallback possibilities, Young said. Young and Davis also said the Scarboroughs are looking into using the old Carolina Times building, which is close to downtown along the Fayetteville Street corridor. Scarborough sought a reduction in his $9,250 monthly lease payments in parallel to the extended deadline. County officials, however, didn't go along with that. |
 |
 
|
| abb | Jun 29 2009, 04:24 AM Post #2 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/opinion/hsedits/56-1176034.cfm Urging justice on death row Jun 29, 2009 Bookmark and Share We favor a bill currently making its way through the state Legislature that would allow death row defendants to challenge their convictions on the basis of race. And we're pleased that the primary sponsor of the Racial Justice Act is Durham State Sen. Floyd McKissick Jr. The bill has passed the Senate and could go before a House of Representatives committee on Tuesday. From there, it could move to the full House. We hope it receives a full hearing and is ultimately signed into law. Sen. McKissick is on the right track. There are no do-overs with the death penalty, so the justice system had better be doubly and triply sure that if it is imposed, the defendant is guilty of a heinous crime beyond a shadow of a doubt of fact, discrimination or prosecutorial misconduct. We have seen too many executions and near-executions in this state where those questions had not been adequately addressed. Certainly blacks are sentenced to death at a much higher percentage than whites in North Carolina. Currently serving on death row in North Carolina are 88 blacks, 65 whites, four Latinos, one Asian and nine Native Americans. That's 52 percent blacks on death row in a state that has a 74 percent white, 21 percent black population. According to the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, more than 1,000 men have been executed in 12 southern states since 1976. But 70 men have also been exonerated from death row, including five black men from North Carolina who collectively spent at least 60 years behind bars for murder convictions that were eventually reversed. As NAACP President William Barber told The Herald-Sun's John McCann, famous cases like the exoneration of Darryl Hunt of Winston Salem after spending 18 years behind bars don't prove the system works -- instead, they prove that the system is capable of failing in important ways. We're pleased questions in court about whether doctors can participate in executions have created a de facto freeze on capital punishment in North Carolina. But whatever the outcome of that controversy, death row defendants deserve to be sure their cases are being heard fully and fairly. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 29 2009, 04:26 AM Post #3 |
|
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ Monday, June 29, 2009 The Iqbal Briefs: The Unindicted Players Friday’s Wall Street Journal profiled the recent Supreme Court decision Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which is now at the heart of the lacrosse case. At the request of Duke’s attorneys, Judge Beaty allowed all parties to the case to file briefs regarding Iqbal; offerings from Duke, various Durham entities, and DNA Security have arrived. Attorneys for the lacrosse players will now have 20 days to respond. Even though the 5-4 decision dealt with national security affairs, two of its findings had much broader relevance. First, the Court held that former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller could not be held liable—in a “supervisory” capacity—for the allegedly discriminatory activities of their subordinates. Second, the Court made it easier for judges to dismiss civil suits before the discovery process begins, since, according to Justice Kennedy, “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” As Justice Souter implied in his dissent, Kennedy’s wording overruled the standard by which judges in civil cases were required to treat all allegations as true in evaluating motions to dismiss. The Journal quoted SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein predicting that the case—which he described as “an unexpected gift for the business community”—would be “cited more than any other [from the current term] by a factor of 100.” By making it harder for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss, Iqbal was a victory for any business (like Duke) or any municipality (like Durham) subjected to a civil suit. It is more than ironic that a decision supported by the four reliable conservatives on the Court could benefit a Duke administration that cowered before politically correct campus ideologues and a Durham Police Department whose conduct veered into race-based demagoguery. Somehow, I doubt that in any other circumstance would Richard Brodhead or the Group of 88 celebrate the work of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, or John Roberts. Before beginning, three general points: (1) Because of its findings regarding supervisory employees, Iqbal would most seem to benefit the upper-level figures in the DPD, about whose conduct we still know relatively little, and former SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy’s supervisors at Duke Hospital. In a perverse fashion, Iqbal appears to encourage a “see-no-evil/hear-no-evil” approach to supervising rogue employees. (2) The Ekstrand lawsuit made many more inferential claims—especially regarding a “consortium” of Duke and Durham employees—than did either the lawsuit filed by the three falsely accused players or the offering of the other unindicted players. While the conclusions in the Ekstrand lawsuit may well be true, its aggressiveness makes it more vulnerable to the Iqbal standard, a point that is hammered home in briefs filed by Durham and Duke. One unanswered question is whether Judge Beaty will allow the attacks on the Ekstrand lawsuit to affect his consideration of the more limited claims offered by the falsely accused players and the other unindicted players. (3) Iqbal hurts civil suit plaintiffs because documents and testimony necessary to sustain “factual allegations” often are not available until the discovery process is completed. In the lacrosse case, on the other hand, a lot of facts have become public—whether through Mike Nifong’s ethics trial; or his criminal contempt trial; or through the work of 60 Minutes, ABC’s Law & Justice Unit, and local media such as the N&O; or through the efforts of case blogs; or even through selected publications. In that respect, the lacrosse plaintiffs are much better equipped than the average plaintiffs to overcome the hurdles that Iqbal has imposed, since they have myriad facts upon which to base their allegations. ------------------------- Today’s post will analyze the defendants’ responses to the suits filed by the unindicted players; Thursday’s post will look at the responses in the suit filed by the three falsely accused players. 1.) “We Didn’t Know What Was Going On” In light of Iqbal’s findings regarding supervisory liability, Durham attorney Patricia Kerner proclaims, almost gleefully, “There are no factual, individual allegations describing conduct that would allow a court to infer that any individual’s actions constitute ‘deliberate indifference’ or why any individual would have had knowledge of a subordinate officer’s conduct.” In other words: in the highest-profile criminal case in the history of the Durham Police Department—one that attracted blanket local and national attention—Durham’s current position is that it’s not plausible to believe that the chain of command in the Durham Police Department “would have had knowledge of a subordinate officer’s conduct.” Durham, perhaps, should amend its city slogan to “Come to Durham: Our Police Leadership Is Clueless!” The DNA Security brief offers a similar line of argument. It concedes that company president Richard Clark attended the meeting at which Nifong and former lab director Dr. Brian Meehan agreed to produce an incomplete report that would exclude the exculpatory DNA evidence that would ultimately bring down the case. But, Clark suggests, he’s not legally liable. Why not? “In the absence of any specific allegation of wrongdoing (or, indeed, even of knowledge) on Clark’s part, Plaintiffs appear to premise their claims against him on his title alone.” Is DNA Security really suggesting that it’s not plausible that Clark had “knowledge” of what occurred at the Nifong-Meehan meetings, meetings at which he was present? Is the company’s line of defense actually going to be that its president ordinarily attends meetings but has no idea what occurs in them? Imagine the new advertising motto: “DNA Security: Our President Is Clueless!” In their brief, Duke attorneys Jamie Gorelick and Donald Cowan also cite Iqbal to excuse the liability of senior Duke administrators. In so doing, however, they choose not to deal with a critical difference between the Iqbal facts and those of the lacrosse case: Chairman Robert Steel’s April 11, 2007 e-mail. The Board chairman informed the world that “throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with the trustees and has had our continuing support. He made considered and thoughtful decisions in a volatile and uncertain situation. Each step of the way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions he took. As we look back and with the benefit of what we now know there is no question that there are some things that might have been done differently. However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.” [emphases added] Neither Ashcroft nor Mueller, of course, ever issued such a statement regarding the facts in the Iqbal case. For Duke, alas, the “we-didn’t-know-what’s-going-on” defense is undercut by Steel’s e-mail—which he surely now wishes he never had sent. 2.) Defending Unusual(!) Procedures Gorelick and Cowan also have the thankless task of defending the conduct of former SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy. As in the past, they do so in a way that makes a mockery of the “factual allegations” established by the Attorney General’s report. Here’s how Gorelick and Cowan describe Levicy’s role in the case: “The fact that Ms. Levicy met with police officers and prosecutors does not plausibly demonstrate a conspiracy, as Iqbal requires. Rather, it shows only the unremarkable fact [emphasis added] that the police investigating a possible crime gathered information from a health care provider who examined the alleged victim.” There are only two possible justifications for the Gorelick/Cowan description of Levicy’s performance as “unremarkable”: (1) The “information from a health care provider who examined the alleged victim” was accurate. But, of course, we know that Levicy’s information both wasn’t accurate and constantly shifted in manners that went along with Nifong’s ever-shifting rationalizations of the case. (2) It was “unremarkable” for a Duke employee to give such false information—in her capacity as “a health care provider”—to “police investigating a possible crime.” Could Duke really be claiming that either (1) or (2) are plausible explanations for former SANE nurse-in-training Levicy’s conduct? Gorelick and Cowan have the same problem regarding the performance of the Duke Police Department. “Plaintiffs’ assertions about meetings and communications between the Duke and Durham police,” they note, “show only that the two forces were occasionally, and entirely properly, [emphasis added] exchanging information about the case.” Yet among the “information” exchanged was the key-card records of Duke students—“information” that is protected under FERPA. Could Duke be plausibly claiming that the unauthorized release of FERPA-protected information—information that a Durham judge, citing FERPA, later denied to Mike Nifong—constituted the “entirely proper[] exchang[e of] information”? Durham attorney Kerner likewise meanders into the unusual. “Plaintiffs allege no facts,” she writes, “showing that [former City Manager Patrick] Baker, or anyone else, suggested at the [March 29, 2006] meeting that someone should be arrested for the rape, unless the investigation led to a proper identification [emphasis added] and probable cause for the arrest.” But, of course, no “proper identification” ever occurred in this case: Nifong and the DPD plowed ahead with a lineup that flagrantly violated their own procedures. So what, exactly, is Kerner’s rationalization for the DPD having proceeded with the investigation? And here’s how the attorney for DNA Security describes the meetings between Mike Nifong and former DNA Security lab director Brian Meehan: “A prosecutor’s consultation and coordination with his retained expert is not suggestive of conspiracy but simply describes the ordinary and expected interaction [emphasis added] between key participants in a criminal investigation.” The meetings between Nifong and Meehan resulted in the incomplete report that violated both North Carolina’s NTO law and the constitutional requirements of Brady. Is DNA Security really describing this tête-à-tête as an “ordinary and expected interaction”? Kerner, meanwhile, describes the public statements of David Addison in the following manner: “The only plausible conclusion [emphasis added] is that Addison was attempting to urge witnesses to come forward, in connection with discharging his duties for Durham Crimestoppers.” Is it really Durham’s official position that performing his official duties is the only plausible explanation for a police officer uttering false, inflammatory statements? Perhaps that explains why Addison was subsequently promoted? Could it be that the DPD actually expects its officers to utter false, inflammatory statements, at least when the targets are those without strong support in the Durham “community”? 3.) Extraordinary Assertions The Kerner brief contains two items so outrageous that they stand out even in the pantheon of bizarre assertions by Durham authorities throughout the case. Kerner concedes that one week before the captains’ party, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb was transferred away from a position in which he would have regular contact with Duke students. And she doesn’t deny that the transfer was related to Gottlieb’s troubling record regarding Duke students. Yet, she adds, this undenied fact of the transfer “has no plausible relation to Plaintiffs’ claims.” Why not? Kerner never says. Of course. Similarly, Kerner contends that Addison’s false and inflammatory statements didn’t cause any harm to the lacrosse players. Why not? “Although Plaintiffs have no doubt catalogued every article, blog, photograph, or comment about the investigation, they do not allege that they were ever individually mentioned at any time by Addison.” So: Addison should be shielded from the legal effects of his misconduct because he referred to the group as a group, never mentioning that perhaps his comments didn’t apply to all of the group? 4.) New Item Finally, the briefs contained one new, and potentially explosive, item. In attempting to defend DPD Capt. Jeff Lamb, Kerner concedes (in perhaps the strongest manner yet from any representative of the City of Durham) that on March 24, 2006, Lamb did, in fact, inform Sgt. Mark Gottlieb that Nifong would be directing the police investigation. We still don’t know why Lamb made that decision—and Kerner doesn’t say. But her brief suggests that prevention from future civil liability might have accounted for Lamb’s very strange action. As Kerner explains, The [Ekstrand] Complaint contains no factual allegations even implying that Lamb knew, or would have any reason to know, that his agreement to have Nifong direct the investigation could create a risk of constitutional injury . . . Nifong was the District Attorney appointed to serve by the Governor, and police officers are immune from liability for taking direction from a prosecutor [emphasis added]. In other words: in violation of DPD rules, Lamb transferred the case to Nifong’s jurisdiction, and because he and his underlings were thereafter “taking direction” from the rogue “prosecutor,” they should be deemed immune from liability. I suspect this is a line of inquiry the Durham attorneys will wish they hadn’t opened for exploration, since it certainly sounds like the DPD knew it was doing something very wrong, and was desperately scrambling for a bureaucratic solution that would absolve it of future civil liability. Posted by KC Johnson at 12:01 AM 0 comments Labels: civil suit |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 29 2009, 04:37 AM Post #4 |
|
http://themcj.com/?p=5265 UNDERCURRENTS Sunday, June 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized Quite apart from the horrific nature of the charges against him, there’s something about the Frank Lombard story that just isn’t sitting right. A Raleigh News & Observer reporter went to talk to some of Lombard’s neighbors and got this strange response: Neighbors of Lombard had nothing to say about him Saturday to a reporter who visited Eno Commons, a co-housing community in north Durham. Residents ordered the reporter to leave the neighborhood, which emphasizes communal life. A roadblock with a “no trespassing” sign and a Subaru greeted visitors Saturday to Indigo Creek Trail, a private street in the 22-home neighborhood. Then there’s Lombard’s church, the Episcopal Church of the Advocate in Carrboro, North Carolina. Greg Griffith has documented ECOTA’s frantic efforts to remove all traces of Lombard’s existence from their web site, efforts which seem to have begun almost the moment the story broke. (Never let it be said that bloggers don’t do journalism. Given Lombard’s homosexuality, this story will not receive the prominence that the Duke lacrosse team rape accusations did. But assuming anyone wants to, the religion angle couldn’t be followed up at all had it not been for Greg’s stellar work.) ECOTA’s reaction to all this is strange. Granted, the church seems to be a small one. And it should be noted that if the small church I attended woke up to the fact that one of its members was accused of Lombard’s crimes, my first response might not be all that rational. But it doesn’t seem to be all that difficult to say, “We are horrified and appalled by these charges. We certainly had no idea that Frank Lombard entertained such evil thoughts. “While we remind everyone that in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty, if Frank Lombard is convicted, he deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. “Regardless of what happens, we will continue to pray for Frank. Our God can redeem anyone. We will also pray for the healing of those little boys and we urge everyone to do the same.” Say something like that and you’ve said all you really need to say. Say nothing at all while frantically trying to hide the truth and people begin to think things. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 29 2009, 04:39 AM Post #5 |
|
http://elizabethashford.blogspot.com/2009/06/apologies.html Sunday, June 28, 2009 Apologies One thing I was always taught growing up was that I was responsible for what I said and for my actions. No amount of blaming my siblings, or having a bad day was going to nullify my words. I was taught integrity and saw it modeled daily in my parents lives. On most days, after reading or watching the news, or browsing my favorite gossip magazine, I see again and again that this is evidently considered an old-fashioned value to most of the public. Taking responsibility for what you’ve done seems to be a thing of the past…. Most probably remember the Duke Lacrosse scandal that happened several years ago. While I won’t go into the details of the case, one thing that amazed me was what politicians and news commentators said about the event. One loudmouth famous for standing up for African-American’s “rights” immediately jumped on the bandwagon that the players were racist rapists and went on several talk shows spouting his views of their guilt. Yet, after the facts were brought to light and it was proved that the “victim” was indeed a liar, he suddenly had other important matters to talk about, and never once apologized for acting as if the case was already tried and the players found guilty. Forced apologies don’t count either, such as a late night comedian who devoted his entire show to lambasting a recent Vice Presidential candidate, only to realize that what he said was going to cost him some serious advertising revenue. He then “apologized”, which in reality was more jokes aimed at his target. Only after serious fallout from his show and calls for his firing did he apologize, and then apologize again, but all the while saying that it was more of a technical error and not really his fault. Where did serious apologies go? What a breath of fresh air would it be to have someone apologize for something they did or said, BEFORE they are called out on it? Unfortunately, I haven’t held my life up to the standard to which I was raised. Of course I’ll apologize, but all the while I’m defending myself, attempting to prove that my actions were taken out of context or that I really, really didn’t know that what I was saying at the time was wrong. The two-year-old in me screams, “But I didn’t mean to…” when in reality I did mean to, but was just hoping I wouldn’t be called to task for my actions. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 29 2009, 04:45 AM Post #6 |
|
Some commentary. http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=9d158a43-8407-4bd5-ae93-0d294474e407 |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 29 2009, 06:54 AM Post #7 |
|
Which is why, again, IMHO, it was a mistake on Beaty's part not to allow early discovery; such a restriction (not allowing early discovery) unfairly restricted the Plaintiffs in this case and IMHO might prevent their claims getting a fair hearing. Edited by Quasimodo, Jun 29 2009, 07:06 AM.
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jun 29 2009, 07:29 AM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
Professor: Department to be 'world's greatest' By Neil Offen : The Herald-Sun noffen@heraldsun.com Jun 29, 2009 DURHAM -- A renowned Harvard scholar is coming to Duke University to chair its Department of African and African-American Studies and, he says, "make it the world's greatest department." And, adds professor J. Lorand Matory, he has been given the resources to do just that. "I had no reason to leave an institution with very, very strong anthropology and African studies department if I was not going to be given the resources to build the best department in the world," Matory said. "But Duke is a fantastic, nationally recognized university that also made me an offer I couldn't refuse." The scholar -- a Harvard graduate and a faculty member there since 1991 -- has been guaranteed 13 "full-time equivalent" professor positions for the department as single appointments in African and African-American studies. "But because those will be interdisciplinary positions, I hope that they will be hiring in economics or anthropology or other fields, which will give us the potential of 26 faculty members," Matory said. "We want to get the people who are the best in African and African-American studies but also the best in history, economics, sociology and other fields." African and African-American Studies, which only was elevated to departmental status at Duke in 2006 -- previously it had been a program -- has nine full-time faculty members. Duke's interdisciplinary traditions will be the greatest resource available to Matory at Duke, said George McLendon, the university's dean of the faculty. "He has already helped to recruit a leading historian from Harvard to Duke who will be joint between his department and history," McLendon said, "and will be working on recruiting leaders in the arts next year." Duke's interdisciplinary tradition was one of the major attractions that is bringing Matory to Durham, where he will assume his new post officially on Wednesday. "Duke is a capital of interdisciplinary education," he said. "All over the campus, there are reading groups from multiple departments, cross-departmental lectures, much cross-pollination. Harvard is more intra-disciplinary, and although there's been talk of creating more inter-disciplinary work, Duke has a much longer history of such conversations." Matory, who is a professor of anthropology and of African and African-American Studies at Harvard, is an expert on ethnic diversity in Black North America. He is writing a book on the history and experiences of Nigerians, Trinadadians, Ethiopians, black Indians, Louisiana Creoles and other ethnic groups that make up the black population of the United States. 1 comment(s) on this article. Submitted by Michael12 on 06/29/2009 @ 08:07 AM When will Duke establish a "World s greatest White Studies Program" after all Duke is a traditionally white university..Or is that not politically correct enough for everyone?.... Edit Post :: Delete Post :: Copyright 2009 :: :: Terms of Use :: Browse Local Coupons All Free StuffTravelFood & Drink - Italian restaurantsMattressesFurnitureVacuums Search Local Coupons View Sales Circulars Go to forums >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOW READ THE PRINT EDITION ONLINE!!! * * (7-day home subscription only) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Special Publications -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 29 2009, 07:48 AM Post #9 |
|
"I think it's the best thing that's happened to Harvard in a long time," he said in a phone interview yesterday. "Privately, there's a real sense of exhilaration and relief that this man is no longer a blot on our community."... --Alan Dershowitz on the departure of J. Lorand Matory from Harvard ----------------------------- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/motto-of-antiisrael-acad_b_74414.html Alan Dershowitz Alan Dershowitz| Motto of Anti-Israel Academics: "Free Speech For Me, But Not for Thee!" Posted November 27, 2007 Do anti-Israel professors "tremble in fear" when they criticize Israel at Harvard and other American universities? Not likely, if you have any sense of what's going on on college campuses today where Israel-bashing is rampant among hard left faculty and students. But a Harvard professor named J. Lorand Matory who teaches anthropology and Afro-American studies, whined to the Harvard faculty last week that he "tremble(s) in fear" whenever he criticizes Israel. [Just like Jeremiah Wright...?] Well, he must tremble an awful lot, since he spends so much of his time criticizing Israel, a country he has never even visited and a country that he recently told an interviewer he has never even read a book about. Matory submitted a motion stating that "this faculty commits itself to fostering civil dialogue in which people with a broad range of perspectives feel safe and are encouraged to express their reasoned and evidence-based ideas." Nothing wrong with encouraging free speech as long as speech is free to people representing different perspectives. But Matory's motion received support from other paragons of political correctness, who are well-known for their advocacy of censorship of the "offensive" speech of others, but who are now complaining that there's not enough free speech for them at Harvard. (snip) I also remember when it was Professor Matory who tried to prevent former University President Lawrence H. Summers from exercising his freedom of speech with regard to Israel when he was president. What I don't remember (because it didn't happen) are any complaints by these born-again freedom of speech phonies when Summers, as a mere professor, was prevented from making a speech to the University of California Board of Regents this September. Those political-correctniks who weren't actually demanding censorship of Summers were predictably silent because it wasn't one of theirs who was being censored. . . (snip) I challenge Matory and his hard left political cronies to show a history of supporting the free speech rights of those they disagree with. (snip) Don't expect the defense of those with whom they disagree from the Israel-bashers at Columbia, Harvard, and MIT. For them, it is "free speech for me, but not for thee!" |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 29 2009, 08:06 AM Post #10 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/opinion/columnists/guests/68-1176045.cfm B.J. Council: Feedback on police, yes, but don't rush to judgement Recently, Durham residents raised concerns on a community e-mail forum about the handcuffing of a 9- to 10-year-old described as being "obviously distraught" and "straining against the restraints" while in a local emergency room. Initial impressions were that a Durham Police officer unjustly and inhumanely handcuffed the youth and subjected him to public ridicule. Arguments were made that no circumstances could adequately justify the handcuffing of the youth and the actions of law enforcement. First, as has already been acknowledged on the e-mail forum, the incident involved a Duke Police officer and Durham Sheriff's deputy, not a Durham city officer. Still, the full extent of the circumstances surrounding the young man's plight/history and law enforcement's response cannot be adequately summarized or understood in a few minutes. While the Durham Police Department (DPD) appreciates the apology on the forum regarding the law enforcement agencies involved, the premature and incorrect assumptions about the handcuffing of the youth nonetheless cast DPD, and law enforcement in general, in a negative light. As a veteran police officer, it is very disheartening when officers are often unfairly berated in a public forum about incidents and circumstances by onlookers who often do not have the entire picture and did not take the time to gain insightful perspective. Secondly, for the past two years, DPD has provided Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) to its officers. The Sheriff's Department also participates in this program. A joint-initiative with The Durham Center, CIT provides 40 hours of specialized training to officers who volunteer for the program designed to help them respond more effectively, and with greater sensitivity to people of all ages, in crisis. Thirdly, children nationwide are exhibiting violent behavior at younger and younger ages. Increasingly there are 10-year-olds and younger children entering the criminal justice system. Often youth are restrained, as permitted by law, for their safety, as well as of others and of our officers. And, yes, there are laws that are intended to protect the history of juveniles -- not to hide law enforcement responses of behaviors as was implied during this forum. To address the statement on the forum that "Police officers are just as prone to poor judgment, over-reaction, and unwarranted physical aggression as anyone else" -- yes, officers are human beings. HOWEVER, officers spend a great deal of time training on the appropriate response, are subjected to a great deal of rules and are held to a higher standard far beyond the average individual. So it is quite possible that the appropriate, lawful action was taken by the deputy. This is not simply a police issue or an issue of police behavior. At its core it is a community issue. Before anyone assumes law enforcement is uncaring and insensitive, I admonish him or her to ask a few questions: "Where did the youth's problem start? How did his/her problems get to the point where police intervention was needed? Are the schools involved? Is mental health involved? What does the family need?" (Actually I'm wondering why there hasn't been public outcry regarding the recent shootings of three innocent youth.) That's the primary reason I was motivated to get involved beyond policing, and even rhetoric, to get a deeper understanding of the issues impacting our youth in Durham and their families and to make a positive difference. Over the past two years I have served as an involved, committed mentor to three Durham youth ranging in age from 9 to 16. And I know from experience that most times there is much more than meets the eye. Children, families and police officers are facing very complex and intertwined issues that cannot be remedied without the help and insightful support of an engaged community. Our agency's community policing philosophy is grounded in open communication, mutual respect and collaboration with the citizens we serve. Such unfounded accusations work against the positive relationships we seek to build with the community. Accountability is important and we encourage feedback. However, we would ask that before you rush to judgment, especially in a public way, get an understanding that is grounded in factual information. Thank you to the persons who acknowledged in this forum the difficult work officers do every day. Also, thanks to everyone who weighed in on this issue because it's a demonstration of your passion for Durham and our youth in particular. That's why we love this town. B. J. Council is a deputy chief, Durham Police Department. A version of this article originally was posted to neighborhood e-mail forums. At The Herald-Sun's request, she adapted it slightly for publication. |
|
|
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Jun 29 2009, 10:13 AM Post #11 |
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1588004.html As ministry cuts jobs, CEO builds $4 million home At a time when Inspiration Networks has been cutting jobs, freezing wages and even adjusting the office thermostat to save money, the chief executive of the Charlotte-area broadcaster has invested about $4 million in a lakefront home under construction in South Carolina. CEO David Cerullo's new house includes more than 9,000 heated square feet, along with a 2,000-square-foot screened porch, records show. It sits on the edge of the Blue Ridge Mountains west of Greenville in a gated community that overlooks Lake Keowee. And it's shaping up to be one of the priciest houses in western South Carolina. On Realtor.com, just two homes in the greater Greenville area are on the market for more than $4 million. Cerullo's fast-growing religious network, meanwhile, is drawing scrutiny for the money it collects from donors and the incentives it won from the state of South Carolina to move from Charlotte. The broadcaster has raised tens of millions, largely by telling viewers that God brings financial favor to those who donate. As the nonprofit network has grown – with revenues expected to approach $100 million this year – so has Cerullo's salary. With compensation exceeding $1.5 million a year, Cerullo is the best-paid leader of any religious charity tracked by watchdog groups, the Observer reported last month. A network spokesman did not respond last week to repeated calls and e-mails requesting comment about the new house. In a March interview, Cerullo defended his salary and said he's turned down recommendations that he be paid more. He said that appeals to donors are based on the Bible, and 80 cents of every dollar donated is spent to spread the Gospel. Much of the network's money has been invested in a multimillion-dollar campus in Indian Land, S.C., just south of the Charlotte outerbelt in Lancaster County. That's where Inspiration is fighting for an exemption from property taxes on the 92-acre site, despite an S.C. revenue department ruling that it must pay them. S.C. taxpayers are already helping to subsidize the project. In recent years, South Carolina offered the broadcaster incentives worth up to $26 million to land its City of Light campus. Taxpayer advocates question the deal, particularly in light of Cerullo's salary and real estate holdings. “If they've got these kinds of assets, does the state really need to offer… tax breaks?” asked Don Weaver, president of the S.C. Association of Taxpayers. In 2006, Cerullo and his wife, Barbara, paid $950,000 for the one-acre lot along Lake Keowee, real estate records show. Two years later, they took out a $3.15 million construction loan for the custom-built house. The couple now lives in a 12,000-square foot home in south Charlotte valued at $1.7 million. Gregg Hill, a Pennsylvania resident who donated about $5,000 to the network before growing disenchanted with its fundraising pitches last year, questions why the Cerullos can't live more modestly. “He doesn't need to be living in a $4 million house,” said Hill. “There are people who could be helped with that money.” U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is investigating the finances of six other televangelists, told the Observer that leaders of religious nonprofits should be careful not to use viewers' donations to adopt extravagant lifestyles. IRS rules prohibit nonprofits from paying “unreasonable compensation” to officials. Grassley wants reforms to ensure those rules are better enforced. “Some nonprofit organizations provide compensation usually available only to the top rung of the employee ladder in corporate America,” Grassley said in a written statement. “This suggests major flaws in the test for ensuring that executive compensation paid to officers and directors is fair and reasonable.…” Inspiration has grown rapidly. Since 2004, its budget has more than doubled, approaching $80 million last year. But starting in late 2008, the broadcaster began to trim its payroll. A number of employees were laid off, current and former workers said. Many of them worked for MediaComm, a for-profit video production subsidiary. They lost their jobs after the company's contract with the Speed Channel ended late last year. The organization also froze wages and stopped contributing to employees' 401(k) retirement accounts early this year, employees said. Over the winter, several workers said, the network tried to save money by turning the thermostat on its new headquarters building down to about 65 degrees. The Observer talked to more than 10 current and former employees, all of whom declined to be named for this story for fear of reprisals. “Couldn't he (Cerullo) give a little of his excess so we wouldn't have to freeze in his building?” said one employee. |
|
|
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Jun 29 2009, 10:15 AM Post #12 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/story/1588065.html Court rules for white firefighters over promotions The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities. The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 29 2009, 02:39 PM Post #13 |
|
http://www.wxyz.com/news/story/Monica-Conyers-Resigns-From-City-Council/xuKq2kYsUEmcJbzBIu2cLA.cspx Monica Conyers Resigns From City Council Last Update: 3:23 pm Conyers Resignation Letter (197.1KB) Monica Conyers Booking Photo (WXYZ) - Action News has learned that Monica Conyers has resigned from Detroit City Council. She submitted her resignation letter to Wayne County Clerk Janice Winfrey. Her resignation will take effect July 6. Conyers' staff will be on the payroll until December 31. They will reportedly be available to assist other Council members until then. Conyers' resignation comes on the heels of a call by Council President Ken Cockrel, Jr. for Conyers to step down. He said she had forfeited her office by pleading guilty to corruption charges on Friday. |
|
|
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Jun 29 2009, 03:37 PM Post #14 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
I bet we will see Gov.Sanford resigning soon. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 29 2009, 05:53 PM Post #15 |
|
Jun 29, 6:45 PM EDT LOS ANGELES -- A federal judge says he needs more time to decide whether the Los Angeles Police Department should remain under U.S. Justice Department oversight. (snip) A consent decree is a binding settlement overseen by a monitor and federal judge. (Yes, Virginia, there really are some cities where the PD is ordered to be overseen by a monitor and a federal judge...) (snip) Feess was originally due to rule on the decree two weeks ago but sought assurances from the LAPD that other reforms would be made, such as installing surveillance cameras in patrol cars. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
9:23 AM Nov 24
