However, I will not respond to the substance of his remarks here because I don’t want to abuse reharmonizer’s hospitality by having an off-topic dialogue. If it’s all right with Prof. Gustafson, I will send an email to him on the subject raised in our tete-a-tete about the American legal system.

I’ll leave it to Gus to take up the question of email. But you’re welcome to reply in this comment thread. There’s not a big on-topic discussion, as you can see.

I’d say the real problem with the culture wars is how the time and effort spent on them displaces discussion of other issues. The battles suck the oxygen out of the room lowering the over all IQ. I realize that telling people what to care about can be a fruitless exercise but when I think of issues like abortion, which have dragged on for generations, I can’t help but to think both sides have made their positions crystal clear.

When I think back to the last debate the only issue I thought either candidate had a clear win on was the free trade deal with Columbia. Unfortunately I’d guess that less than a third of the viewing audience knew what either candidate was talking about. But they knew who Joe the plumber is. When people use the culture wars as a frame of reference the effects are even worse than those that spring from ignorance. During the recent war in Georgia public opinion seemed to neatly divide up along political lines. The left screamed it was Bush’s fault (he told Georgia not to invade) and the right wanted to reignite the cold war. It was a situation that didn’t lend itself to either side scoring points, but both sure tried.

I’m pretty sure I’m with you on this. I think the thing about Georgia, as you describe it (I have to admit I tuned out on that one), is rabid partisanship that’s not cultural in the way that, say, abortion is, or gun control. But the reflexes seem to be pretty much the same, and complicated problems with a host of non-political components—practical, logistical, scientific, diplomatic, etc.—are simplified or set aside as folks grab whatever looks good as a club to beat the other side with. It does get old.

Because of the same reflexes, I think, the issues surrounding sexual assault, the justice system, and higher education were very poorly served by all the attention to the lacrosse case. The typical and routine aspects that ultimately have the most effect on the most people, usually involving imperfect tradeoffs and always depending on imperfect people, all that was of little use compared to the exceptional and outrageous things that could be reduced to black and white. It’s a pretty depressing record.

As for the assurance that abuses are not commonplace—what I said was that the Lacrosse Hoax “should be [a case] for deeply investigating the many, many flawed cases–most against people without the means to adequately defend themselves.” For example—these: http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

I made a perfect score on the test. The test is one that can be passed by most high school seniors. Recently a history professor (so he says) bragged to me that he got 90% of the 60 questions correct. I didn’t tell him my score but I recall thinking that I would judge his performance, rather than laudatory as he did, as grounds for denial of tenure.

Anyway, to my point: I’ve met two types of “stupid people”. The first are the “ignorant-stupid”. These are people who are ignorant of facts (such as are on the civics test). The second type are the “misinformed-stupid”. These are people who think they know a lot of facts, but much of what they “know” just isn’t true.

In my experience, the “ignorant-stupid” more often than not tend to be on the Right politically while the “misinformed-stupid” are on the Left. Think here of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

Finally, as an aside, I am sorry to see that Prof. Gustafson seems to have fallen prey to the “fallback metanarrative” of the Group of 88. That is, that the Lacrosse Case is emblematic of the American legal system — specifically, that such abuses as occurred in the Lacrosse Case are “commonplace”. Let me assure Prof. Gustafson: They are not.

As I said, I don’t find the word “stupid” very useful. For Mill it seems to have been an inability (or unwillingness) to think for oneself. The usual usage of the word refers more to poor reasoning skills than being uninformed or misinformed. Of course poor reasoning skills can lead to being mis/uninformed. So can lack of curiousity. Maybe stupidity and lack of curiosity are the same thing. Anyway, I think it’s practically automatic that one side of the political spectrum sees the other side as “misinformed-stupid.”

It’s ironic that Reade Seligmann is the point person for the “fallback narrative” of the so-called “Group of 88.” Is that just the inevitable result of a Duke (mis)education? And who in the 88 has fallen back on that narrative?

Your comments make it appear as though Mangum is deserving of something more than she received. You also disount the comments (and writings) of AG Roy Cooper.

This is only part of Mike’s comment—the rest took up a thread that I’d already called an end to. But on this one point, all I meant was that I see little of value in what’s been written about her, pro or con, especially in the blogosphere. That’s what struck me when she got her degree from NCCU . I’m sure there have been exceptions, including Cooper, who was writing in a professional capacity.

Things are different now that she’s published a book—I don’t know how different because I haven’t looked into it. I certainly won’t fault anyone for criticizing what’s in it—that’s the deal you make when you publish a book.

Talk about a leading question! I’ll pass on that one, thank you.

I should probably have said that the lacrosse scandal, not case, is a pretty good microcosm of American culture-war politics. Taking a stand on the case (on issues of law and law enforcement) is one thing, making the case into a cause and loading it down with rhetoric is another. The latter took no dedication to truth-telling or integrity.

Unless you have evidence (the real kind, not the manufactured kind such as illegal “lineups” and imagined “notes”) not seen by the Durham Police Department, the Durham District Attorney, and the North Carolina Attorney General, the term “victim” can only be applied to the three men whose lives were turned upside-down by a “tragedy of errors,” and really “tragedies of commission,” starting with a realization that making a false accusation would be preferable to spending a night in a drunk tank, continuing with a tale spun by a wanted-to-be-elected official and maintained and subordinates, and given true hyperbolic flourish by the “true believers” who saw this case as the “Holy Grail” of race and gender conflict, regardless of trifling issues such as “evidence” or “fact.”

To me, among the truly disturbing aspects of this case has been the hope—the HOPE—on the part of some that the rules of evidence would not apply, and that members of a different social class would be punished just for being who they are.

Me, personally? I’d like to get in line behind Reade Seligmann to get out the word—known for a long, long time now—that “[their] case, while certainly an outrageous instance of an injustice, is just one small link on an entire chain of injustices that take place in our country everyday.”

This case is not one where people should show support to Michael Nifong for throwing his electoral hopes behind a flawed case—instead, it should be one for deeply investigating the many, many flawed cases—most against people without the means to adequately defend themselves.

Again, quoting Mr. Seligmann—“Now is the time for you to put to use all of the same passion, thoughtfulness, and resolve you have demonstrated on our behalf and help others who are in much more helpless situations.”

It’s been a while since I’ve hit one of these nerves. Now I remember why I used to kick random, off-topic comments onto their own “extra” page. Luckily for me, a clever reader did step up to the plate with a fine response—unilateral but fair.

It’s just the note to end this discussion on, in fact—there’s nowhere to go with it that’s even remotely on-topic. Further comments picking up on the thread will almost surely be rejected.

I thought Squirrel’s comment pretty well critiqued itself. Or maybe a clever reader would step up to the plate. But no, I got Debrah [but see below—my luck changed]. So, let’s see…

What does this have to do with a bunch of drunk Duke athletes…?

Nothing.

In case you have not noticed, the victim has come public…

I noticed.

And your pal Johnson… Soviet tactics of slandering the victim as psychotic… “alternate reality”…. The so-called “potbangers” had it almost right the first time.

Maybe someday someone will write something decent, informative, honest and useful about Mangum. That would be nice. I certainly don’t expect it to come from over there, where they’re busy tut-tutting about Houston Baker for the 100th time. I don’t know how the bit about the potbangers relates to the rest—it seems like a non sequitur. In any case, it’s plain as day from what I wrote that I disagree about them getting it right.

Speaking of tut-tutting, though, here’s a question. The latest round of Baker-bashing on DIW was prompted by Baker’s appearance at a “Take Back the Night” rally at Vanderbilt. These rallies, according to Johnson, “are the sort of undertakings that can’t really be criticized.” And yet, what was he doing, right then, as he was writing that?

In case you have not noticed,
the victim has come public for
the first time- six months ago,
in fact, and reasserted the
gang attack in the 610 NB bathroom.

And your pal Johnson and all his
Lie-stopping cronies are back to
using the old Soviet tactics of
slandering the victim as psychotic-
living in an “alternate reality”.
I thought Wonderland was the
alternate reality. The so-called
“potbangers” had it almost right the first time.