Last evening I posted "Anderson’s Until Proven Innocent review". I mentioned that in his review Professor Bill Anderson, while giving the book very high marks, said he had some disagreements with it. I didn’t go into detail but linked to Bill's review and encouraged JinC readers to read it.
This morning on the post thread there’s a comment from a JinC Regular who uses the blog name Insufficiently Sensitive.
IS said in part: “[Anderson’s] disagreements with the authors contain the most important statement of [his] review - that is, the unresolvable enmity between PC and classic liberalism.”
IS is right. I should have said more about Bill's disagreements in my post. I actually tried to do that but didn’t for reasons I’ll explain in a post I’m planning for this weekend. It’ll have a title something like “Talking about blogging.” I plan to discuss some of the issues, opportunities and problems I’ve encountered blogging. I hope you look for it.
In the meantime, please consider reading Anderson’s review here.
Message to Insufficiently Sensitive: Thank you. You were spot on in your most recent comment, just as you’ve been in most of your other comments.
Friday, September 28, 2007
An Insufficiently Sensitive Comment
Posted by JWM at 12:31 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Today, Anderson is encouraging the LS bloggers to write Himan's College and lay out their view of his "sins." In America, folk are presumed innocent until proven quilty. Asking a mob to start a barrage of criticizm against someone for which their has been no arrest or trial, is mean and unseemly. I have no respect for this approach.
re:2:05
It is not unseemly to make a case against someone just because they have not been formerly charged. Himan's misconduct has been extensively detailed. That he stood silent knowing that the case was "fucked" is enough to suffer a "barrage of criticism." Please note that criticism is not the 30 year sentence the players would have received. He is being tried in the court of public opinion but the case consists of documented evidence of the role he played. You are free to defend him and dispute the evidence but that is the dialectic method from which truth is established. Presumption of innocence does not mean someone can't be accused. It simply means the burden of proof rests with the accuser. I accept the burden.
This is the court of public opinion. IMO, the case against Himan is convincing but I await your defense of his conduct.
Brant Jones
I am not defending his conduct. I am criticzing anyone inciting a mob.
With all respect...in my opinion...
Equating an email campaign to "inciting a mob" is disingenuous.
As Mark Twain wrote - Differences of opinion is why we have horseraces.
To Anon @2:05,
I read both of Anderson's comments posted as of 6:15 p.m. Eastern at Liestoppers.
What you say bears no relationship to what Anderson said.
If you're not a troll, please read Anderson's comments more carefully.
To Brant Jones @ 4:O4,
You comment here and on other threads add to this blog, and remind me to take care with what I say, becasue so many intelligent people visit this blog.
Anon @ 4:38,
Your latest comment confirms you're a troll.
No person of good will who could find h/her way to a keyboard would say Bill Anderson was "inciting a mob."
I'm leaving your two comments up because doing so is useful for a number of reasons.
To truthhurts001,
You're bang on. Thank you.
To Anon @ 6:00,
Look at what Bill Anderson said.
Fini for now.
John
Somehow, I doubt I was inciting a mob, unless people are going to want to drive all the way to Bradford and march on the Criminal Justice Department at the university.
My point was that Himan received his training there, and when it came to showing integrity and not lying in front of a grand jury, the man gave into the Devil himself. Was he told at Bradford that integrity matters? I don't know, but we do know that Himan lied to a grand jury in order to gain false indictments. Furthermore, he engaged in other misconduct.
But the idea that I was inciting a mob simply is silly. We already know what Himan did, given that it was done in the public domain.
I need to add one more thing. Himan helped cause mob scenes in which Reade Seligmann had to walk through a mob screaming death threats at him.
Had Himan had ONE OUNCE of integrity, this would not have happened because he would have spoken out and said what a fraud and pack of lies the case actually was. Furthermore, Reade Seligmann was subjected to death threats PRECISELY because Himan lied to a grand jury, which subsequently indicted Reade.
So, before anyone accuses me of fomenting "mob justice," let us put things into perspective. Ben Himan helped to create a mob scene because he chose to lie to a grand jury. Ben Himan committed a FELONY for which he will not face one second of prosecution or even have to pay a penny of legal fees.
However, Reade Seligmann committed the "crime" of being a Duke Lacrosse player. Furthermore, do not forget that Ben Himan was at the trial of Moez Elmostafa, taking part with Clayton in trying to intimidate ANOTHER INNOCENT MAN in order to bring about a false conviction not only on Elmostafa, but also on Seligmann.
Ben Himan is a criminal. I will repeat what I said: Ben Himan is a criminal. He will not face justice. He will not have to worry about his family being nearly financially ruined. He will not have to worry about his mother having health problems because of a false prosecution.
So, let us keep this thing in perspective. Please. A few emails sent to a department chair ARE NOT the moral equivalent to Reade Seligmann having to run a gauntlet through a mob that wanted to kill him, and was openly calling for his murder. We can thank Ben Himan for that scene.
Post a Comment